Who’s afraid of Vitamin E?

· Uncategorized
Authors
I feel that there is a problem some people have fully understanding the ingredients listing on their food products.  Recent regulation requiring nutrition information to be displayed prominently and ingredients lists to be accurate combined with truth-in-advertising laws have gone a long way in mitigating fear of foods; yet, a comprehensive ingredients list is a double-edged sword.  Like fire in the hands of a child who does not know how to use it safely can be mean agonizing death; in the hands of a master chef, it can bring a scrumptious zest to lif . For one thing, yes, there are some additives that are designed to extend the shelf-life–last time you made bread with only flour, water, and yeast, how long did it last (incidentally, check the ingredients in your “enriched flour”; it should list many of what people identify as “chemicals” but really are only the chemical names for common vitamins; such is the case with the pyridoxine and calcium pantothenate highlighted in red in the original post). Some other “chemicals” are actually chemical names for common baking ingredients. Calcium carbonate, a component of mollusc shells and a common antacid, is simply chalk. All the -glycerides are simply different forms of fatty acid esters. Many times people will see something like “ammonium bicarbonate” and associate it with “ammonia,” which is not technically false because the ammonium ion really is the same functional group, but acting as an ionic compound with bicarbonate, it simply acts, as sodium bicarbonate does, as baking soda. I do not disagree that unnecessary additives are often included, but without many stabilizers and antioxidants (many of which sound scarier than they really are–for example, our common vitamin E, is more commonly known by its chemical name of tocopherol, and so d-alpha-tocopheryl acetate is simply vitamin E bonded to an acetate (the same ion that makes vinegar acetic aid) moiety. In fact, the IUPAC systematic name for vitamin E would become 2,7,8-trimethyl-2-(4,8,12-trimethyltridecyl)-3,4-dihydrochromen-6-ol. It might look scary, but how many of us are scared of vitamin E? People should not substitute ignorance of chemistry or biology for fear.

17 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. Robin L. M. Cheung

    Here are a few answers I've contributed to LinkedIn Answers. The first two were voted Best Answer and Good Answer, respectively, whilst the third is just another sample. I'm curious to know how you would find them, since these were designed to answer a question, generally knowing the background of the person asking:http://www.linkedin.com/answers/hiring-human-resources/staffing-recruiting/HRH_SFF/695914-798473http://www.linkedin.com/answers/career-education/certification-licenses/CAR_CRT/698149-7652894http://www.linkedin.com/answers/professional-development/ethics/PRO_PET/695563-7604647

  2. Jeff Goebel

    I get that 100%. I never read my own work. When I do, it becomes something new, much like a conversation changes.

  3. Robin L. M. Cheung

    You're not the first to suggest proof-reading q:) But the reason why the vast majority of my writing goes un-proofread is because it is virtually useless when I try to do it, myself. And I am reticent to ask someone to spare time and effort to do it. What happens when I proofread it is that I miss the vast majority of non-technical errors simply because 1. I already know what I am trying to say, and when I read incomplete thoughts, my mind subconsciously fills in the blanks; and 2. I only see what I meant to say, in the first place. (I do use a different approach when I write scholarly papers now, though. Even though my proof-reading is still largely ineffective–I do generally recruit a colleague to proof-read those for me, though–I tend to force myself to write out the point-form outline first, so that all the thoughts, exemplars, and pieces of evidence (and I like to operate strictly in the most compelling 3's for each, mostly so that the content feels balanced, not emphasizing one point then virtually ignoring another). The problem is I'm much more fastidious about other people applying it than myself :p

  4. Jeff Goebel

    Can you say what you mean in 4 paragraphs instead of 45? That might make your blogs more readable to the masses.

  5. Jeff Goebel

    I was afraid you'd start looking for my old blogs, many of which are written under various influence. I write like I talk, and people have told me my writing often reads more like a script to be spoken on a stage, more like a monologue. I do tend to use short sentences, and paragraph breaks. I read like I talk too. When I read, the words form in my head like reading out loud, complete with rhythm. I can't read a long sentence without an extra breath.Of course, I have A.D.D and have trouble with long sentences and even word count per line in everyday life. Topics need to keep me interested in every sentence, so shorter ones do better for minds like mine. Add more death and sex and viloence to youir blogs and I'll start reading more. (giggle)Seriously, my only real comment is one: Proof read. I can tell you write and post. Re-reading is hard, because if you're like me, you want to change everything and then essentially you're doing a second draft and not re-reading again. I can proof other people's work, but not my own.I have the luxury of being an un-educated slob… so if I write poorly, it's ok.

  6. Robin L. M. Cheung

    Oh, I read like I think, too–hopping hither and thither. I just saw your "You write like you talk," observation. If you read my old blog, which is designed to convey not only ideas but emotion as well (which is why I recorded all of them in voice as well), you see that the style is vastly different too. I guess it's subject matter, in this case, that flips me into that mode.

  7. Robin L. M. Cheung

    Personally, I am familiar with the "enriched flour" ingredients–which you'll also find on cereal-boxes (since the cliché is to read cereal boxes as you eat it; my guess is that fewer people read the flour bag whilst eating their scones). What I do try to do–and this would be a great post if I haven't written it already–is to go one step beyond the marketing buzz and give people who are interested, a bit more intuitive understanding about concepts like "trans fats," or how insulin and adrenaline are oppositely-directed metabolic regulators.

  8. Robin L. M. Cheung

    Actually, that's great feedback. I tend to write what comes naturally, because I found that trying to write in a style that doesn't come out naturally makes my writing less precise and more painful to do. For some reason–maybe because of how many years I've spent online in disparate online settings–there are certain personas that I adopt, subconsciously, in different online settings. In IRC, for example, people often believe I have "horrible spelling and grammar," because dues to particular reason, i have adopting engrish-esque person within the IRC.But ultimately, the more actually-thoughtful feedback I receive from the people I hope actually do read what I spend time and effort writing, the more effective the whole undertaking should become. The reason I said I valued your feedback is because I didn't want it to go unnoticed that you took the time–and actual thought–to articulate your preferences, what prevents you from reading more (although my subject matter is a conscious decision–at first, I intended to write Finance topics; but everybody and their hamster writes about everyday finance. So I decided that there was a paucity of blogs that actually deal with my nascent passion of academia and research. Still, I would love to be able to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners by helping one side understand more about the functions and methods of the other. I often feel that practitioners are quick to dismiss theory, claiming that "it doesn't work in the real world." But theory–particularly in finance and many business disciplines–was developed not only for, but based on real-world case studies. Theory should provide a more reliable and defensible decision; I feel that practitioners often dismiss theory not so much because they aren't smart enough to figure out how to tailor it to apply in specific settings, but simply because they often don't really know it.

  9. Jeff Goebel

    I don't usually read your blogs because the topics and writing style are over my head. The topics don't interest me, and the writing style is "too smart" for my taste… but this day I did look at the article, and your writing and grammar seem to not be too smart… It seems more ramble. Run on long sentences are poor. Wordy like a student trying to fill the 300 word quota the teacher asked for. You write like you talk… which isn't the way articles are usually written.ie: For one thing, yes, there are some additives that are designed to extend the shelf-life–last time you made bread with only flour, water, and yeast, how long did it last (incidentally, check the ingredients in your “enriched flour”; it should list many of what people identify as “chemicals” but really are only the chemical names for common vitamins; such is the case with the pyridoxine and calcium pantothenate highlighted in red in the original post).</vent>

  10. Jeff Goebel

    You had 4 or 5 or maybe more Facebook status updates in my news feed, and they linked to the actual blog.

  11. Robin L. M. Cheung

    Richard or Jeff: I was trying out a new FB Application and didn't know that this blog post had been added to my Farcebook profile somewhere (I know the last three I wrote were); can you tell me where you saw this post?

  12. Robin L. M. Cheung

    Richard: when you say "cure," do you mean that it addresses the underlying condition that causes people to have elevated cholesterol permanently? And are you referring to elevated total cholesterol or poor HDL:LDL ratio? Are you holding out because you want us to stay tuned through the commercial break? (Or as a hook so we'll order something?)(Not to mention that the effect size of elevated cholesterol or HDL:LDL ratio seems to have been overestimated previously, which is one of my beefs with the hypothetico-deductive theory-then-research paradigm that modern medical research seems to take; it results in overconfidence in a solution (recall Cox-2 inhibitors like Vioxx, and how they were taken off the market a decade after they were touted as safer and more specific NSAIDs because of cardiovascular complications that medicine's understanding of the cyclooxygenase enzyme system could not predict?)

  13. Robin L. M. Cheung

    hmm, I skimmed it again, and I realize some of the sentences are a bit longer than most people are used to, but I didn't feel they had a "run-on" feel. Were there specific ones that didn't scan well to you?

Leave a Comment

5 visitors online now
0 guests, 5 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 16 at 11:17 am UTC
This month: 16 at 05-18-2012 11:55 am UTC
This year: 67 at 01-12-2012 03:57 pm UTC
All time: 102 at 12-12-2010 06:50 am UTC
Improve Your Life, Go The myEASY Way™
Partly powered by CleverPlugins.com