DEAR DR. BLONZ: I have a question about dried berries. I was spending a pretty penny for dried blueberries to put on my cereal every morning until a friend told me that desiccated berries have no antioxidant value. Can you comment on this? -- R.L., El Cerrito, California

DEAR R.L.: Dried berries and berrylike fruits, including blueberries, cranberries, currants and cherries, are all great and healthful foods. They have considerable nutritive and antioxidant value; I don't know where your friend got his or her information. I add either fresh or dried fruit to my cereal every morning. It's a great way to start the day.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: This is a bit embarrassing, but I am uncertain who else to ask. I have heard that drinking one's own urine several times a day will produce beautiful skin. As weird as this sounds, there are books claiming it's a legitimate treatment. But my understanding is that urine is a waste product and should be eliminated by the kidneys. I have a relative who is planning to do this, and I am concerned for her health. -- P.R., Los Angeles

DEAR P.R.: You are correct that urine is a waste product, containing substances that the body is purposefully eliminating in its attempts to maintain balance. Urine is mostly water, but it will also contain breakdown products from hormones, metabolic waste, drugs, toxins and other foreign substances. Drinking urine would also pose a risk of additional bacterial contamination for anyone suffering from an infection, as urine can be one route by which the byproducts of the infection are shown the way out.

I found mention of the idea of cosmetic benefits from drinking or even washing with urine, but this doesn't make it true. Aside from being totally gross to Western sensibilities, there is no objective evidence in support of the idea. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that there is some unidentified beneficial element in urine. If you consume it to get this "good," it would only come along with the bad and the ugly. You would also be creating an additional burden on your system, as it all has to pass through and find its way out again, taking more of the body's water as it heads out the door.

If you are in good health, well hydrated and not on any medications, the consumption of urine might not cause a problem. But getting away with something is not evidence of its benefit. So while there may be circumstances in which it might not make you sick, on the whole this is a circumstance where the flush is the winning move. You will find a more in-depth treatment of this topic at tinyurl.com/5r6dev.

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Please tell me if doing the following can cut down the horrific quantity of fat grams in pork shoulder. One database says it has 29 grams of fat in a 1/3-pound serving! I roasted it slowly and then took it out of the pan immediately to drain, removed all visible fat, then sliced and refrigerated portions. The next day, I removed more fat made visible from chilling, and also removed connective tissue around the fat. I then warmed the meat in a dry pan and pressed the warmed pieces between paper towels to soak up more fat. I repeated until the roast was gone. Can you assure me that I did reduce the fat grams per serving? Or is this just wishful thinking? -- J.T., Richmond, California

DEAR J.T.: Please don't consider the fat content of pork shoulder to be "horrific." This cut can be quite flavorful, but it involves longer cooking times that reduce the level of fat. There is fat in and around the muscle fibers in the shoulder cut, but once visible fat is trimmed and you go through an appropriate preparation like roasting, braising or grilling, the levels drop significantly. Your diligent steps all worked toward that end.

There are a number of databases out there that can provide a nutritional breakdown of foods, but you have to be sure to select the correct listing, or the information can be misleading. I have provided these links to better explain. According to the USDA database (ndb.nal.usda.gov), a 4.8-ounce serving of pork shoulder that has been roasted, including both the lean and the fat -- see full info at tinyurl.com/oqeysm7 -- contains 29 grams of fat, an amount that had rightfully given you pause. That, however, is not what you served. Now look at the amount of fat in a 4.8-ounce "lean only" serving, that is, one in which the fat drippings are not included in the calculation. This -- tinyurl.com/nktjlll -- lists the amount of fat at 18 grams per serving.

I recently had some delicious, not-too-fatty pork shoulder in Memphis, Tennessee, while there for the annual meeting of the Association of Food Journalists. During my days in that marvelous city, I had the chance to enjoy excellent barbecue using pork shoulder and just about every other cut of meat imaginable. There was also a memorable meal at Gus's Fried Chicken; it had been a long time since I'd had fried chicken.

There should be no problem enjoying fat-rich foods as long as the serving size is reasonable and you have a plant-based diet as a foundation. A healthful diet gives you that flexibility to make room for all the wonderful foods that please your palate. If you want to have an occasional meal that uses pork shoulder, or another fat-marbled cut, be sure to cook it properly -- you have that down -- and don't overdo it with the serving size. Surround it on your plate with healthy greens and grains. For example, at Gus's, I had fried chicken with servings of collard greens and coleslaw. With all rich meals, my goal is to eat slowly -- savoring each bite, enjoying the serving -- then filling up on the greens and grains. Great stuff: a real win-win!

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: I continue to hear that high-fructose corn syrup is a dangerous food additive that is much worse than regular sugar. Is this true? -- J.B., Walnut Creek, California

DEAR J.B.: Let's take a look at high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and compare it to "regular" sugar, also known as sucrose. Both are composed of the same two simple sugars (monosaccharides): glucose and fructose. In the case of sucrose, the two simple sugars are bound together, but in HFCS, they are not.

This is an important characteristic, because fructose on its own is about 1.4 times as sweet as glucose. When bound to fructose as part of a sucrose molecule, the sweetness is less potent. Honey is also a 1:1 blend of glucose and fructose, but with honey, as with HFCS, the two are not bound; this explains why honey tastes sweeter than sucrose.

The creation of HFCS begins with cornstarch, which is not noticeably sweet. Cornstarch is made up of long chains of glucose molecules all bound together. Cornstarch gets converted to corn syrup by breaking apart the individual glucose molecules. This gets done using a starch-digesting enzyme, similar to what goes on in our body when we eat starches.

Corn syrup then gets converted to HFCS through the use of a specialized enzyme that converts glucose into fructose. Not all the glucose is typically converted, and the percentage in the final product depends on its intended use. A typical HFCS is about 55 percent fructose, 45 percent glucose. It is called a "high"-fructose corn syrup because standard corn syrup is primarily glucose.

How does HFCS compare to sucrose? A study in the July 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at whether HFCS might not satisfy like other sweeteners, which could then lead to excess consumption (and an increased risk of obesity), but it found no differences between HFCS and sucrose. In the same journal in May 2008, they looked at the effects of beverages sweetened with HFCS, sucrose, fructose and glucose. The study reported no differences in a number of physiological measures, including 24-hour blood glucose, insulin and triglyceride levels. Another study in the December 2013 issue of Nutrition Research reported no significant difference in the metabolic effects of HFCS versus sucrose at low, medium or high levels of consumption.

With HFCS, you get more sweetness per unit weight. It is also less expensive than cane or beet sugar, which explains why it's found in so many processed foods. Using a sweeter sweetener could translate to fewer calories for an equivalent level of sweetness.

I consider HFCS to be just another sweetener; there is no evidence that it is worse than regular sugar. The issue with any caloric sweetener relates to the level of consumption.

My bottom line is that HFCS is not a dangerous food additive -- just don't overdo it, as should be the case with any caloric sweetener. This is especially true where soft drinks are concerned.

The idea of balance may not be sexy, but its powers hold considerable sway over our life and well-being. Our biochemistry is a continuous, complex system of chemical interactions. When there is a lack of whole foods and variety, and an excess (or deficiency) of one substance, it can influence how the body reacts, and ultimately how it performs. Toss in medications, stressors or ongoing health conditions, and things become even more complicated. This is true whether we are speaking about sweeteners or any other components in our diet.

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.