Pasteurization: What It Does And Doesn’t Do

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Pasteurization’s Effect On Risks & Nutrients

In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions of raw (cow’s) milk, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

  • About 47% said “raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer”
  • About 31% said “raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy”
  • About 14% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally unhealthy”
  • About 9% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally healthy”

Quite polarizing! So, what does the science say?

“Raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer: True or False?”

True! Coincidentally, the 47% who voted for this are mirrored by the 47% of the general US population in a similar poll, deciding between the options of whether raw milk is less safe to drink (47%), just as safe to drink (15%), safer to drink (9%), or not sure (30%):

Public Fails to Appreciate Risk of Consuming Raw Milk, Survey Finds

As for what those risks are, by the way, unpasteurized dairy products are estimated to cause 840x more illness and 45x more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.

This is because unpasteurized milk can (and often does) contain E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, and other such unpleasantries, which pasteurization kills.

Source for both of the above claims:

Characteristics of U.S. Consumers Reporting Past Year Intake of Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk: Results from the 2016 Food Safety Survey and 2019 Food Safety and Nutrition Survey

(we know the title sounds vague, but all this information is easily visible in the abstract, specifically, the first two paragraphs)

Raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy: True or False?

False! Whether it’s a “good” source can be debated depending on other factors (e.g., if we considered milk’s inflammatory qualities against its positive nutritional content), but it’s undeniably a rich source. However, pasteurization doesn’t destroy or damage those nutrients.

Incidentally, in the same survey we linked up top, 16% of the general US public believed that pasteurization destroys nutrients, while 41% were not sure (and 43% knew that it doesn’t).

Note: for our confidence here, we are skipping over studies published by, for example, dairy farming lobbies and so forth. Those do agree, by the way, but nevertheless we like sources to be as unbiased as possible. The FDA, which is not completely unbiased, has produced a good list of references for this, about half of which we would consider biased, and half unbiased; the clue is generally in the journal names. For example, Food Chemistry and the Journal of Food Science and Journal of Nutrition are probably less biased than the International Dairy Association and the Journal of Dairy Science:

FDA | Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption

this page covers a lot of other myths too, more than we have room to “bust” here, but it’s very interesting reading and we recommend to check it out!

Notably, we also weren’t able to find any refutation by counterexample on PubMed, with the very slight exception that some studies sometimes found that in the case of milks that were of low quality, pasteurization can reduce the vitamin E content while increasing the vitamin A content. For most milks however, no significant change was found, and in all cases we looked at, B-vitamins were comparable and vitamin D, popularly touted as a benefit of cow’s milk, is actually added later in any case. And, importantly, because this is a common argument, no change in lipid profiles appears to be findable either.

In science, when something has been well-studied and there aren’t clear refutations by counterexample, and the weight of evidence is clearly very much tipped into one camp, that usually means that camp has it right.

Milk generally is good/bad for the health: True or False?

True or False, depending on what we want to look at. It’s definitely not good for inflammation, but the whole it seems to be cancer-neutral and only increases heart disease risk very slightly:

  • Keep Inflammation At Bay ← short version is milk is bad, fermented milk products are fine in moderation
  • Is Dairy Scary? ← short version is that milk is neither good nor terrible; fermented dairy products however are health-positive in numerous ways when consumed in moderation

You may be wondering…

…how this goes for the safety of dairy products when it comes to the bird flu currently affecting dairy cows, so:

Cows’ Milk, Bird Flu, & You

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Reflexology: What The Science Says
  • Overcoming Gravity – by Steven Low
    Delve into the ultimate calisthenics guide by a pro gymnast and scientist. Get expert knowledge, injury prevention tips, and dynamic routines from a nearly 600-page expert compendium.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The End of Food Allergy – by Dr. Kari Nadeau & Sloan Barnett

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We don’t usually mention author credentials beyond their occupation/title. However, in this case it bears acknowledging at least the first line of the author bio:

    ❝Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, is the director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University and is one of the world’s leading experts on food allergy❞

    We mention this, because there’s a lot of quack medicine out there [in general, but especially] when it comes to things such as food allergies. So let’s be clear up front that Dr. Nadeau is actually a world-class professional at the top of her field.

    This book is, by the way, about true allergies—not intolerances or sensitivities. It does touch on those latter two, but it’s not the main meat of the book.

    In particular, most of the research cited is around peanut allergies, though the usual other common allergens are all discussed too.

    The authors’ writing style is that of a science educator (Dr. Nadeau’s co-author, Sloan Barnett, is lawyer and health journalist). We get a clear explanation of the science from real-world to clinic and back again, and are left with a strong understanding, not just a conclusion.

    The titular “End of Food Allergy” is a bold implicit claim; does the book deliver? Yes, actually.

    The book lays out guidelines for safely avoiding food allergies developing in infants, and yes, really, how to reverse them in adults. But…

    Big caveat:

    The solution for reversing severe food allergies (e.g. “someone nearby touched a peanut three hours ago and now I’m in anaphylactic shock”), drug-assisted oral immunotherapy, takes 6–24 months of weekly several-hour-long clinic visits, relies on having a nearby clinic offering the service, and absolutely 100% cannot be done at home (on pain of probable death).

    Bottom line: it’s by no means a magic bullet, but yes, it does deliver.

    Click here to check out The End of Food Allergy to learn more!

    Share This Post

  • Bamboo Shoots vs Asparagus – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing bamboo shoots to asparagus, we picked the asparagus.

    Why?

    Both are great! But asparagus does distinguish itself on nutritional density.

    In terms of macros, bamboo starts strong with more protein and fiber, but it’s not a huge amount more; the margins of difference are quite small.

    In the category of vitamins, asparagus wins easily with more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B9, C, E, K, and choline. In contrast, bamboo boasts only more vitamin B6. A clear win for asparagus.

    The minerals line-up is closer; asparagus has more calcium, iron, magnesium, and selenium, while bamboo shoots have more manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. That’s a 4:4 tie, but asparagus’s margins of difference are larger, and if we need a further tiebreaker, bamboo also contains more sodium, which most people in the industrialized world could do with less of rather than more. So, a small win for asparagus.

    In short, adding up the sections… Bamboo shoots, but asparagus scores, and wins the day. Enjoy both, of course, but if making a pick, then asparagus has more bang-for-buck.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Asparagus vs Eggplant – Which is Healthier?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Unlimited Memory – by Kevin Horsley

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Premise: there are easily learnable techniques to rapidly (and greatly) improve one’s memory. We’ve touched on some of these methods before at 10almonds, but being a newsletter rather than a book, we’ve not been able to go as deeply into it as Horsley!

    Your memory is far, far, far more powerful than you might realize, and this book will help unlock that. To illustrate…

    Some of the book is given over to what are for most purposes “party tricks”, such as remembering pi to 10,000 places. Those things are fun, even if not as practical in today’s world of rarely needing to even know the actual digits of a phone number. However, they do also serve as a good example of just how much of “super memory” isn’t a matter of hard work, so much as being better organized about it.

    Most of the book is focused on practical methods to improve the useful aspects of memory—including common mistakes!

    If the book has any flaw it’s that the first chapter or so is spent persuading the reader of things we presumably already believe, given that we bought the book. For example, that remembering things is a learnable skill and that memory is functionally limitless. However, we still advise to not skip those chapters as they do contain some useful reframes as well.

    Bottom line: if you read this book you will be astonished by how much you just learned—because you’ll be able to recall whole sections in detail! And then you can go apply that whatever areas of your life you wanted to when you bought the book.

    Get your copy of Unlimited Memory from Amazon today!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Reflexology: What The Science Says
  • Alpha, beta, theta: what are brain states and brain waves? And can we control them?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    There’s no shortage of apps and technology that claim to shift the brain into a “theta” state – said to help with relaxation, inward focus and sleep.

    But what exactly does it mean to change one’s “mental state”? And is that even possible? For now, the evidence remains murky. But our understanding of the brain is growing exponentially as our methods of investigation improve.

    Brain-measuring tech is evolving

    Currently, no single approach to imaging or measuring brain activity gives us the whole picture. What we “see” in the brain depends on which tool we use to “look”. There are myriad ways to do this, but each one comes with trade-offs.

    We learnt a lot about brain activity in the 1980s thanks to the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

    Eventually we invented “functional MRI”, which allows us to link brain activity with certain functions or behaviours in real time by measuring the brain’s use of oxygenated blood during a task.

    We can also measure electrical activity using EEG (electroencephalography). This can accurately measure the timing of brain waves as they occur, but isn’t very accurate at identifying which specific areas of the brain they occur in.

    Alternatively, we can measure the brain’s response to magnetic stimulation. This is very accurate in terms of area and timing, but only as long as it’s close to the surface.

    What are brain states?

    All of our simple and complex behaviours, as well as our cognition (thoughts) have a foundation in brain activity, or “neural activity”. Neurons – the brain’s nerve cells – communicate by a sequence of electrical impulses and chemical signals called “neurotransmitters”.

    Neurons are very greedy for fuel from the blood and require a lot of support from companion cells. Hence, a lot of measurement of the site, amount and timing of brain activity is done via measuring electrical activity, neurotransmitter levels or blood flow.

    We can consider this activity at three levels. The first is a single-cell level, wherein individual neurons communicate. But measurement at this level is difficult (laboratory-based) and provides a limited picture.

    As such, we rely more on measurements done on a network level, where a series of neurons or networks are activated. Or, we measure whole-of-brain activity patterns which can incorporate one or more so-called “brain states”.

    According to a recent definition, brain states are “recurring activity patterns distributed across the brain that emerge from physiological or cognitive processes”. These states are functionally relevant, which means they are related to behaviour.

    Brain states involve the synchronisation of different brain regions, something that’s been most readily observed in animal models, usually rodents. Only now are we starting to see some evidence in human studies.

    Various kinds of states

    The most commonly-studied brain states in both rodents and humans are states of “arousal” and “resting”. You can picture these as various levels of alertness.

    Studies show environmental factors and activity influence our brain states. Activities or environments with high cognitive demands drive “attentional” brain states (so-called task-induced brain states) with increased connectivity. Examples of task-induced brain states include complex behaviours such as reward anticipation, mood, hunger and so on.

    In contrast, a brain state such as “mind-wandering” seems to be divorced from one’s environment and tasks. Dropping into daydreaming is, by definition, without connection to the real world.

    We can’t currently disentangle multiple “states” that exist in the brain at any given time and place. As mentioned earlier, this is because of the trade-offs that come with recording spatial (brain region) versus temporal (timing) brain activity.

    Brain states vs brain waves

    Brain state work can be couched in terms such as alpha, delta and so forth. However, this is actually referring to brain waves which specifically come from measuring brain activity using EEG.

    EEG picks up on changing electrical activity in the brain, which can be sorted into different frequencies (based on wavelength). Classically, these frequencies have had specific associations:

    • gamma is linked with states or tasks that require more focused concentration
    • beta is linked with higher anxiety and more active states, with attention often directed externally
    • alpha is linked with being very relaxed, and passive attention (such as listening quietly but not engaging)
    • theta is linked with deep relaxation and inward focus
    • and delta is linked with deep sleep.

    Brain wave patterns are used a lot to monitor sleep stages. When we fall asleep we go from drowsy, light attention that’s easily roused (alpha), to being relaxed and no longer alert (theta), to being deeply asleep (delta).

    Can we control our brain states?

    The question on many people’s minds is: can we judiciously and intentionally influence our brain states?

    For now, it’s likely too simplistic to suggest we can do this, as the actual mechanisms that influence brain states remain hard to detangle. Nonetheless, researchers are investigating everything from the use of drugs, to environmental cues, to practising mindfulness, meditation and sensory manipulation.

    Controversially, brain wave patterns are used in something called “neurofeedback” therapy. In these treatments, people are given feedback (such as visual or auditory) based on their brain wave activity and are then tasked with trying to maintain or change it. To stay in a required state they may be encouraged to control their thoughts, relax, or breathe in certain ways.

    The applications of this work are predominantly around mental health, including for individuals who have experienced trauma, or who have difficulty self-regulating – which may manifest as poor attention or emotional turbulence.

    However, although these techniques have intuitive appeal, they don’t account for the issue of multiple brain states being present at any given time. Overall, clinical studies have been largely inconclusive, and proponents of neurofeedback therapy remain frustrated by a lack of orthodox support.

    Other forms of neurofeedback are delivered by MRI-generated data. Participants engaging in mental tasks are given signals based on their neural activity, which they use to try and “up-regulate” (activate) regions of the brain involved in positive emotions. This could, for instance, be useful for helping people with depression.

    Another potential method claimed to purportedly change brain states involves different sensory inputs. Binaural beats are perhaps the most popular example, wherein two different wavelengths of sound are played in each ear. But the evidence for such techniques is similarly mixed.

    Treatments such as neurofeedback therapy are often very costly, and their success likely relies as much on the therapeutic relationship than the actual therapy.

    On the bright side, there’s no evidence these treatment do any harm – other than potentially delaying treatments which have been proven to be beneficial.The Conversation

    Susan Hillier, Professor: Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, University of South Australia

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Bamboo Shoots vs Asparagus – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing bamboo shoots to asparagus, we picked the asparagus.

    Why?

    Both are great! But asparagus does distinguish itself on nutritional density.

    In terms of macros, bamboo starts strong with more protein and fiber, but it’s not a huge amount more; the margins of difference are quite small.

    In the category of vitamins, asparagus wins easily with more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B9, C, E, K, and choline. In contrast, bamboo boasts only more vitamin B6. A clear win for asparagus.

    The minerals line-up is closer; asparagus has more calcium, iron, magnesium, and selenium, while bamboo shoots have more manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. That’s a 4:4 tie, but asparagus’s margins of difference are larger, and if we need a further tiebreaker, bamboo also contains more sodium, which most people in the industrialized world could do with less of rather than more. So, a small win for asparagus.

    In short, adding up the sections… Bamboo shoots, but asparagus scores, and wins the day. Enjoy both, of course, but if making a pick, then asparagus has more bang-for-buck.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Asparagus vs Eggplant – Which is Healthier?

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Retinoids: Retinol vs Retinal vs Retinoic Acid vs..?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small 😎

    ❝I’m confused about retinol, retinal, retinoin, retinoids, etc, and of course every product claims to be the best, what’s the actual science on it?❞

    Before we get into these skincare products, let’s first note that for most people, what’s best for the skin is good sleep and hydration, a plants-centric whole foods diet, and good stress management:

    See for example: Of Brains And Breakouts: The Brain Skin Doctor

    However, the world of potions and lotions can be an alluring one, and there is some merit there too. So, in a nutshell:

    • Retinoids are the overall class of chemicals, and not a specific type
      • Retinoic acid is the strongest form of this chemical and is prescription-controlled in most places
        • Retinoin” is probably tretinoin (all-trans retinoic acid) with the “t” having falling off; we can only find it being used as a product name, not an actual substance
      • Retinal, when it’s not an adjective referring to the retina (the part of the eye that receives refocussed light) and is instead a noun, is a less potent retinoid than the prescription-only kinds, but still stronger than retinol
      • Retinol is a much less potent form, and is the most widely found in skincare products

    All of them work the same way; it is only how serious they are about it that differs.

    The mechanism of action is that they speed up the turnover (shedding cycle) of skin, so that cells are replaced sooner. As with any non-cancerous human tissue, this means that the tissue itself (in this case, your skin) will be biologically younger than if it had been replaced later.

    The downside, of course, of this is that—while trying to make your skin healthier and more beautiful—the first thing that will happen is skin shedding. Depending on the retinoid type, dose, and the health of your skin to start with, this may mean anything from needing to exfoliate in the morning, to having to go to hospital with what looks like the world’s worst sunburn. For this reason, it is recommended to start with weaker products and lower doses, and work up carefully.

    A note on doses: the recommended doses for these products are always truly tiny, like “use a pea-sized amount of this 0.05% serum on your face”. Take them seriously until you’re absolutely sure from experience that your skin can handle more.

    Also, a tip: wear gloves when you apply any of the above products. This is because your fingers are also covered in skin, and if you don’t use gloves, then half the product that you intended for your face will be absorbed into your fingers instead.

    You can learn more about the science of retinoids here, in our article about tretinoin, the usually prescription-only form of retinoic acid:

    Tretinoin: Undo The Sun’s Damage To Your Skin

    Want to try some?

    We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product of retinal (stronger than retinol) on Amazon 😎

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: