One size rarely fits all.. and other than the relationship between weight and health in people with bad genes (you don't have to be overweight to have diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, elevated blood pressure... Life ends in any case. I am so glad that expresso and butter are no longer considered unhealthy!!
1
Dear Dr Carroll
I enjoy reading your articles but I would ask you not give so much space to a crank who has invented a theory that meat butter and fat is good for you and wrote a book to that effect.
Imagine if I wrote a book complaining about the fact that my favorite pastime was say, smoking . I would argue that no RCT trial has been done showing it causes cancer. I would say the cancer link is seen in "wimpy" epidemiological studies and spin any fairy tale I like.
I have just attended a medical conference in Nashville where the esteemed Harvard research Dr Frank Hu presented findings. Dr Hu is one of the 15 national experts selected to review data and give 2015 guidelines, I came away impressed with the depth and breadth of his mastery of to literature. I wish you would have interviewed him instead. After all he has studied for decades and has been working the last 3 years to get the guidelines completed.
His message? We eat way too little vegetables, not enough whole real foods, too many processed sugars and yes we are still eating too much meat.
Not sexy. Not gonna sell many books but it is not rocket science.
People want to hear that their bad habits are healthy never mind the source.
Finally demonizing one macronutrient be it fat carbs protein misses the point. We need to eat much more beans legumes vegetables whole grains and no sweets. If done properly there hopefully won't be any room left for excess meats creamy sauces etc.
I enjoy reading your articles but I would ask you not give so much space to a crank who has invented a theory that meat butter and fat is good for you and wrote a book to that effect.
Imagine if I wrote a book complaining about the fact that my favorite pastime was say, smoking . I would argue that no RCT trial has been done showing it causes cancer. I would say the cancer link is seen in "wimpy" epidemiological studies and spin any fairy tale I like.
I have just attended a medical conference in Nashville where the esteemed Harvard research Dr Frank Hu presented findings. Dr Hu is one of the 15 national experts selected to review data and give 2015 guidelines, I came away impressed with the depth and breadth of his mastery of to literature. I wish you would have interviewed him instead. After all he has studied for decades and has been working the last 3 years to get the guidelines completed.
His message? We eat way too little vegetables, not enough whole real foods, too many processed sugars and yes we are still eating too much meat.
Not sexy. Not gonna sell many books but it is not rocket science.
People want to hear that their bad habits are healthy never mind the source.
Finally demonizing one macronutrient be it fat carbs protein misses the point. We need to eat much more beans legumes vegetables whole grains and no sweets. If done properly there hopefully won't be any room left for excess meats creamy sauces etc.
1
The idea that meat and fat are nourishing is as old as meat and fat. We have been omnivores since before we were even human. Dr. Hu has never found a correlation without assuming that it was the same as causation, and he ignores the numerous recent meta-analyses which have found no connection between sat fat or meat consumption and chronic diseases.
Smoking is a straw-man argument. Lung cancer was rare before smoking, and the increased risk from smoking is 15-20x not smoking, and we are able to clearly rule out other factors. The supposed increased risk of any diseases from red meat consumption is less than 2x, and there are literally dozens of confounding factors. Same for eating whole grains -- nutritionally inessential, the supposed benefits are small, and there are dozens of confounding factors.
Good quality meats, fish, eggs, and dairy _are_ whole real foods, nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite. Most people _improve_ health when they eat more naturally fatty foods, and this has been demonstrated with numerous controlled trials with human subjects.
Smoking is a straw-man argument. Lung cancer was rare before smoking, and the increased risk from smoking is 15-20x not smoking, and we are able to clearly rule out other factors. The supposed increased risk of any diseases from red meat consumption is less than 2x, and there are literally dozens of confounding factors. Same for eating whole grains -- nutritionally inessential, the supposed benefits are small, and there are dozens of confounding factors.
Good quality meats, fish, eggs, and dairy _are_ whole real foods, nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite. Most people _improve_ health when they eat more naturally fatty foods, and this has been demonstrated with numerous controlled trials with human subjects.
As long as we treat opinions of nutritional and dietary factors same as opinions on a painting or a concert we will be dancing forever in the sea of emotions. We will be elated by our righteousness and fired up. Dr. Caroll's opinions are just that: emotionally charged opinions.
When even the scientific studies are devoid of personal opinions we could use them to create meaningful dietary guidelines. And even then they will be statistical averages for the whole group and not meeting the individual needs.
When even the scientific studies are devoid of personal opinions we could use them to create meaningful dietary guidelines. And even then they will be statistical averages for the whole group and not meeting the individual needs.
Refined sugar has more of an impact on public health and obesity than any specific class of fat. Look at the kids in the picture: ketchup and bread adulterated with sugar. The hamburger meat itself is the healthiest part of that meal.
Ever wonder why you don't see a %DV next to "sugars" on food labels? Food lobbyists don't want you to know that they are literally poisoning you. One package of Twinkies contains about 33g of sugar, 132% of recommended daily intake.
Ever wonder why you don't see a %DV next to "sugars" on food labels? Food lobbyists don't want you to know that they are literally poisoning you. One package of Twinkies contains about 33g of sugar, 132% of recommended daily intake.
4
Yawn. Find me a food and I'll find a study that says it will kill you (or make you live forever.)
Our time is limited and our food is plentiful. Go for a walk instead of reading about what you should or shouldn't eat on the internet.
Our time is limited and our food is plentiful. Go for a walk instead of reading about what you should or shouldn't eat on the internet.
All the information anyone needs to deal with this is on the internet: Saturated fats in the diet do not have much, indeed maybe no, effect on the amount of cholesterol in the blood. And the amount of cholesterol in the blood has little effect on the health of the heart and other organs, or health in general. Although, in truth, people with higher levels of cholesterol in middle age tend to do better with all cause mortality.
The biggest factor in all this may not be what you eat, although carbs should not be the main food group, and poly-unsaturated fats should be even less consumed, BUT WHEN YOU EAT: Search for Dr. Fung and IDM in regard to insulin resistance. In this paradigm, many of these diseases of civilization are caused by insulin resistance, which is caused in part by a high-carb (read:sugar) diet AND by too-frequent (near constant) eating. The human body was not designed for this. Humans are hunters and opportunistic eaters, not grazing cows, or mice; people are adapted to eating on an irregular basis. Even three meals a day may be too much. Eating all the time is unhealthy, regardless of what you eat. Do the research. Think for yourself.
The biggest factor in all this may not be what you eat, although carbs should not be the main food group, and poly-unsaturated fats should be even less consumed, BUT WHEN YOU EAT: Search for Dr. Fung and IDM in regard to insulin resistance. In this paradigm, many of these diseases of civilization are caused by insulin resistance, which is caused in part by a high-carb (read:sugar) diet AND by too-frequent (near constant) eating. The human body was not designed for this. Humans are hunters and opportunistic eaters, not grazing cows, or mice; people are adapted to eating on an irregular basis. Even three meals a day may be too much. Eating all the time is unhealthy, regardless of what you eat. Do the research. Think for yourself.
2
I read this stuff if I want a good laugh. These people are flailing around trying to figure out what we all should eat, and they are being paid quite well for it -- even for the many big mistakes that end up negatively impacting innocent people's health. Oh well, it's all in the name of research. Caveat lector.
4
I'm curious as to how people who avoid carbs manage to get enough dietary fiber. My current impression is that they probably don't.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating...
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating...
@Jon B:
It's no big mystery. Vegetables. Lots of non-starchy vegetables.
It's no big mystery. Vegetables. Lots of non-starchy vegetables.
3
@ Jon B - There are these things called vegetables - very high in fiber, very low in carbs. I'm sure the mayo clinic has references to them. People who avoid carbs generally eat more leafy greens, and generally are much healthier than the average American.
4
Vegetables (and whole grains) are complex carbohydrates. Complex carbs are still carbs. It's simple carbs that you are avoiding, then, not carbs altogether.
2
Atherosclerosis is an inflammation, like a chronic bacterial infection. The main culprits are the immune macrophages that react with the tissues. Saturated fats have a chemical configuration that attracts these cells, like bacteria do. They then start the disease process. Its not the fats that build up, its that they start the inflammation and saturated fats are known to do this.
For a complete discussion see letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com-Athrerocsclerosis and stroke.
For a complete discussion see letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com-Athrerocsclerosis and stroke.
@Richard Head:
Inflammation leads to atherosclerosis, not the other way around. There are lots of populations who have eaten diets high in saturated fat and enjoyed excellent cardiovascular health, including very low rates of atherosclerosis. Most people reduce inflammation and improve health when they cut refined carbs and eat more naturally fatty foods.
Inflammation leads to atherosclerosis, not the other way around. There are lots of populations who have eaten diets high in saturated fat and enjoyed excellent cardiovascular health, including very low rates of atherosclerosis. Most people reduce inflammation and improve health when they cut refined carbs and eat more naturally fatty foods.
2
I greatly reduced my blood pressure by ditching carbs and sugars. Yo make up, I eat a lot of peanuts and cashews (love them). I don't eat much meat or fish, but my fat intake is very large. I don't know what that is doing to my cardiovascular system, but I have not gained weight. I don't think all fats are equal.
2
"Controlling diabetes, while important, isn’t the subject of the dietary guidelines."
This statement by the author of this article stuns me. Diabetes is a public health disaster in this country, and reducing its incidence and effects must be a top priority in improving the health of the US population. Does the author really believe that diet has no effect on diabetes?
NYT editor -- No, that's not what the author is claiming. He says it's important. The guidelines don't deal specifically with diabetes.
This statement by the author of this article stuns me. Diabetes is a public health disaster in this country, and reducing its incidence and effects must be a top priority in improving the health of the US population. Does the author really believe that diet has no effect on diabetes?
NYT editor -- No, that's not what the author is claiming. He says it's important. The guidelines don't deal specifically with diabetes.
1
Thank you for your comment. May I follow up on this?
Yes, I believe that the guidelines don't "deal with" any specific disease or condition. But, what are the guidelines for, if not to promote the health of our population? If diet does have an effect on both the incidence and effects of diabetes, and it certainly does, then shouldn't the guidelines reflect the best science on this issue? If they don't, then the guideline writers either don't consider diabetes an important problem, or they don't believe that diet plays a role in its etiology.
Yes, I believe that the guidelines don't "deal with" any specific disease or condition. But, what are the guidelines for, if not to promote the health of our population? If diet does have an effect on both the incidence and effects of diabetes, and it certainly does, then shouldn't the guidelines reflect the best science on this issue? If they don't, then the guideline writers either don't consider diabetes an important problem, or they don't believe that diet plays a role in its etiology.
1
TImes, please, please cut it out with animations accompanying articles, like the op-art one in this article. It makes the article impossible to read without getting a headache. You can't read static text when something is moving and distracting you. The front page is sometimes guilty of this too. Insult to injury, it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. The Times is a newspaper, it isn't a TV channel.
37
I strongly agree. This is not MTV !
8
Yes. It also makes the page slow to load for those of us with older machines.
4
As a visually sensitive artist I find the animations so distracting I tried to block it with my hand and magnify the screen to force it out of view so I could concentration the article. I wondered if NYT is trying to coerce me into buying the print version.
2
Sometimes you have to try a diet to see if it works. I reduced saturated fat in my diet (butter, ice cream, beef, etc), and increased unsaturated fat. In five weeks my cholesterol dropped 100 points. My doctor called me on the phone at 7:30am to give me the news. I don't care about the nutrition studies at this point. I just know what works for me, that's all.
7
@lorigrenci:
Cholesterol is a homeostasis, too low is just as dangerous as too high. If you dropped by 100 from 300 to 200 mg/dL -- then perfect! If you dropped from 200 to 100 mg/dL -- look out! Risks for some cancers and depression increase at the very low range of cholesterol.
Cholesterol is a homeostasis, too low is just as dangerous as too high. If you dropped by 100 from 300 to 200 mg/dL -- then perfect! If you dropped from 200 to 100 mg/dL -- look out! Risks for some cancers and depression increase at the very low range of cholesterol.
3
And were you also put on any medication at that time. Adequate cholesterol is a precursor of many of the hormones that our bodies require to maintain healthy function. Also many studies have shown that most of the cholesterol in our bodies are manufactured in our own liver and not from cholesterol intake.
1
There are of course two kinds of cholesterol and while high HDL is great high LDL (low density lipds) ain'st so great -- and the ratio also matters!!
A new medication can get the LDL way way down.. we don't know long long term effects. Aunt S is now 99 and has never watched her diet!! (and always has something sweet with her coffee -- always an average weight!!) PS brain function intact. Doing some translation for me.
A new medication can get the LDL way way down.. we don't know long long term effects. Aunt S is now 99 and has never watched her diet!! (and always has something sweet with her coffee -- always an average weight!!) PS brain function intact. Doing some translation for me.
The more the government tells us what is healthy to eat the more sickly we become. Cuba (along with 35 other countries) is healthier than the United States. The problem is not what to eat. the problem is that we are being poisoned.
Consider wheat, a basic staple, that is doused with roundup before it is even harvested to increase yields. Then it is ground and separated, all the nourishment is taken out leaving the starch. Then preservatives and synthetic vitamins are added. The end result is a damn poor food.
Now compare that to the traditional flour made simply by grinding organic grain and making bread with it. Bread with all the fiber, all of it's wheat germ and all natural. This is a food that has served mankind for thousands of years.
It is a travesty that we grow hundreds of thousands of acres of wheat and none of it ever gets to the people without being totally destroyed.
Consider wheat, a basic staple, that is doused with roundup before it is even harvested to increase yields. Then it is ground and separated, all the nourishment is taken out leaving the starch. Then preservatives and synthetic vitamins are added. The end result is a damn poor food.
Now compare that to the traditional flour made simply by grinding organic grain and making bread with it. Bread with all the fiber, all of it's wheat germ and all natural. This is a food that has served mankind for thousands of years.
It is a travesty that we grow hundreds of thousands of acres of wheat and none of it ever gets to the people without being totally destroyed.
13
I think it's mainly because Cuba is such a poor country.
They eat less, and consume less sugar and carbs.
They eat less, and consume less sugar and carbs.
1
There is research NOW for a wheat that is much more nutritious than what now masquerades as wheat. I agree about the round-up disaster.. and someone wants to put insecticide on my grass-- and poison ants, grasshoppers (I like them), crickets, glow worms -- DISASTER.
We do not need research. The hard red wheat that comprises 80% of our crop is fine. All we need to do is to grind it into flour and make real bread without destroying it.
What I found most important in the Guidelines was the conclusion that, compared to the average US diet, a plant based diet is both more healthful and more sustainable e.g. uses less energy, land, water and emits less GHG.
What I found most dismaying is that the US Secretaries of Agriculture and of HHS said the environnmental impacts of food production will be deleted from the Guidelines. The Wall Street Journal (10/7/15) said this decision was a win for the meat industry.
For shame, Secretaries. You've been bought.
What I found most dismaying is that the US Secretaries of Agriculture and of HHS said the environnmental impacts of food production will be deleted from the Guidelines. The Wall Street Journal (10/7/15) said this decision was a win for the meat industry.
For shame, Secretaries. You've been bought.
6
Well, there's all this science... and then, there's statistics. Which it's widely agreed can be made to show almost anything you'd like to show.
How many times do we see studies limited only to people of normal (these days, well-below average) weight and overall good health? How many of the statistics presented, especially re: fats, salts, carbs, eggs, and all the other ordinary foods we've been taught to regard as the next things to poison, are actually studies weighted (ha-ha) to an obese population, or those who are sick, or both?
For example, where are the quotes from studies of people of normal or less weight who consume only a modest amount of fat or less... and still show up with high cholesterol? And the follow-ons of those in that category who do or do not go on to have heart disease, stroke, et al?
It seems to me we can't discount the very unhealthy condition of being too heavy on overall health... just as much as we can't see the forest for the trees if we're trying to figure out how certain food affect health if we include in the universe a big segment of those already unhealthy due to weight.
You may claim it's the lunch that causes high cholesterol but I believe it might just as well be the liver. And not the one you just ate.
How many times do we see studies limited only to people of normal (these days, well-below average) weight and overall good health? How many of the statistics presented, especially re: fats, salts, carbs, eggs, and all the other ordinary foods we've been taught to regard as the next things to poison, are actually studies weighted (ha-ha) to an obese population, or those who are sick, or both?
For example, where are the quotes from studies of people of normal or less weight who consume only a modest amount of fat or less... and still show up with high cholesterol? And the follow-ons of those in that category who do or do not go on to have heart disease, stroke, et al?
It seems to me we can't discount the very unhealthy condition of being too heavy on overall health... just as much as we can't see the forest for the trees if we're trying to figure out how certain food affect health if we include in the universe a big segment of those already unhealthy due to weight.
You may claim it's the lunch that causes high cholesterol but I believe it might just as well be the liver. And not the one you just ate.
1
The author states, "Controlling diabetes, while important, isn’t the subject of the dietary guidelines." Wow! So what is the subject?
3
The subject is dietary guidelines for the 90% of the population who are not diabetic, perhaps?
5
HT: The problem is that most people in the US will have diabetes on the usual diet. So you are wrong with your 90% assumption and missing the point.
1
But, the science is settled, isn't it?
It's amazing how many of the most authoritative scientific statements of the past have been proven false. Remember when a scientist was ridiculed when he theorized that bacteria, not stress and spicy foods, caused ulcers. Oops, turns out he was right.
The science is never settled. Every theory should be subject to continual testing.
It's amazing how many of the most authoritative scientific statements of the past have been proven false. Remember when a scientist was ridiculed when he theorized that bacteria, not stress and spicy foods, caused ulcers. Oops, turns out he was right.
The science is never settled. Every theory should be subject to continual testing.
5
Every theory IS subject to continual testing. That's the way science works.
How can the committee say that studies are too short on low carbs- Atkins has been around since the 60's- that's 55 years- instead they use studies that load up a year of fats into a months intake. That's how cyclamates got banned in the 60's. Are the same food industry creeps on the committee?
3
"We know much less for sure than we think….."
Such an important point that constantly needs to be reinforced in any discussions about nutrition and the goings on of our food supply.
Such an important point that constantly needs to be reinforced in any discussions about nutrition and the goings on of our food supply.
4
It's really very simple.
Eat real food, that you prepare, from scratch.
Don't eat anything out of a container.
Don't eat fast food.
Don't eat when you're full, or bored.
Exercise.
Eat real food, that you prepare, from scratch.
Don't eat anything out of a container.
Don't eat fast food.
Don't eat when you're full, or bored.
Exercise.
16
except that there is very little data to support your dogma, you are probably correct. And of course that for many people some of these things are not an option. Is real food made from scratch mean that you should slaughter your own animals? are you allowed to cook using packaged spices, or premade sauces? Sky in arizona has t right, There truly isn't enough science in the nutrition field to justify sweeping statements. When I was a kid, meat and milk were healthy. when I was a young adult, they were the enemy, and now, perhaps, they are back to being healthy. I believe that everything in moderation for the most part includes everything. But again, that's my belief, not fact.
2
And remember: no matter what you do or what you don't do, we will all wind up dead. So, until then, you might as well live a nice life and not subject yourself to unnecessary privations. That's a lot like marching in a self-flagellation parade.
3
Yes - eat in moderation, and move more.
How long have you been sitting reading the NYT today?
How long have you been sitting reading the NYT today?
1
The writers of the dietary guidelines have always subscribed to the fact that the whole is more important than the sum of its parts. Focus on a balanced diet and the nutrients will follow! Eat your 5 fruits and vegetables a day, make 1/2 your grains whole grains, make water (preferably tap) your beverage of choice, move regularly, sleep deeply and enjoy your one life.
3
Healthy diet? Balanced diet. Eat all, but less of it. Vegetables, fruits, proteins, dairy, fats in reasonable quantities, grains, and no snacking. Snap your fingers, and voilà. Done.
3
No snacking? Never? Why not?
1
@Olivier:
Eating less can come as a downstream effect of eating better. Nutrient dense foods with adequate protein and fat are satiating, nutrient poor foods with refined carbs stimulate more appetite.
Eating less can come as a downstream effect of eating better. Nutrient dense foods with adequate protein and fat are satiating, nutrient poor foods with refined carbs stimulate more appetite.
8
Correct. That is what a balanced diet means.
Dr. Carroll -
I commented yesterday a.m., but learned yesterday p.m. that my comments had been cyber-lost. Thank you for allowing me a 2nd chance to "Weigh In."
The Theory Of Bellytivity touches on your question, as it dares to ask, then attempts to answer, that profoundest of profound questions: Why Weight?
The Six Necessary Ingredients for a Healthy Diet:
Proteins, Fats, Carbohydrates, Vitamins, Common Sense, Sense Of Humor.
The Three Food Groups to remember:
Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner (The Three Squares).
Please let me close with an observation from the past:
"One swears by wholemeal bread alone, one by sour milk; vegetarianism is the only road to salvation for some, others insist not only on vegetables alone, but on eating them raw. At one time, the only thing that matters is calories; at another time, they are crazy about vitamins or about roughage.
"The scientific truth may be put quite briefly: eat moderately, having an ordinary mixed diet, and don't worry."
Sir Robert Hutchison (1871 - 1960). Newcastle Medical Journal, Vol. 12, 1932.
Not bad!
Thanks, again, for the second chance.
(from: The Theory Of Bellytivity, 2015.)
I commented yesterday a.m., but learned yesterday p.m. that my comments had been cyber-lost. Thank you for allowing me a 2nd chance to "Weigh In."
The Theory Of Bellytivity touches on your question, as it dares to ask, then attempts to answer, that profoundest of profound questions: Why Weight?
The Six Necessary Ingredients for a Healthy Diet:
Proteins, Fats, Carbohydrates, Vitamins, Common Sense, Sense Of Humor.
The Three Food Groups to remember:
Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner (The Three Squares).
Please let me close with an observation from the past:
"One swears by wholemeal bread alone, one by sour milk; vegetarianism is the only road to salvation for some, others insist not only on vegetables alone, but on eating them raw. At one time, the only thing that matters is calories; at another time, they are crazy about vitamins or about roughage.
"The scientific truth may be put quite briefly: eat moderately, having an ordinary mixed diet, and don't worry."
Sir Robert Hutchison (1871 - 1960). Newcastle Medical Journal, Vol. 12, 1932.
Not bad!
Thanks, again, for the second chance.
(from: The Theory Of Bellytivity, 2015.)
3
Let me get this straight: Although we have an unprecedented epidemic of diabetes and although the low carbohydrate diet (high in healthy fats) successfully addresses diabetes (as well as obesity), the author says this "isn't the subject of the dietary guidelines." What a fraud.
19
Yes, regardless of one's opinion the Atkins' diet, by minimizing your carb intake you'll lower your risk of diabetes.
3
You are pretty cavalier in your dismissal of the argument that low-carb diets are superior for diabetes control, writing that diabetes control "isn't the subject of the dietary guidelines." Well, given the alarming increase in incidence of type 2 diabetes, it soon will be, and we need to start paying attention to that ASAP.
16
There is a certain madness in trying to follow all the guidlines for a "healthy" diet. There was a time when margerine was king, eggs were verbotten, coffee could kill you. Suddenly all the guidelines are reversed. I am waiting for the day when 5 lbs. of any chocolate per day is a must, and I'll never question that research again.
5
More and more people give up and become vegetarians, in hopes they can find middle ground. The Medical profession is a major major industry, and follow the one size fits all guidelines. B/P has been a recent good example. One study came out, okay for higher number for elderly, next study, B/P numbers need be driven down as low as possible, if you dont fall over when getting up from a sitting or lying position. Then don't eat butter, now it is okay. Like the weather, wait a day things will change.
3
I love the illustration by Erik Söderberg accompanying this!
1
Nowhere do I see "balanced diet" defined although the phrase is used. Obviously a high fat, low carb diet and an entirely plant-based unprocessed carb diet are not at all balanced, yet the two have the best data at the moment for health. Should we throw out the idea of "balance" vis a vis our food intake?
4
Faux science leads to faux conclusions. It has already been demonstrated that diets arising in natural habitats filled with an abundance of seafood and vegetables natively grown without the pernicious influence of agribusiness leads to healthy lives lived more abundantly minus the risks of diseases that ensue when these natural processes are abandoned.
6
And don't forget the role of leisure and rest! Everybody seems to think that diet is everything. Overwork and stress seem to me the main scourge of modern life and the main causes of ill health.
What I learned from this article:
1. Nothing new
2. Big Ag, their cohorts in the food industry are paying for the studies and influencing government guidelines.
3. Genetic factors were not given sufficient study.
What I will continue to do:
1. Make and eat my own bread.
2. Eat when I am hungry
3. Eat small amounts of food, well prepared food, slowly and enjoy it.
4. Glass of red wine with dinner
5. Avoid most processed food, additives and preservatives
6. Go for a long walk and do yoga everyday.
7. Stop reading these articles.
1. Nothing new
2. Big Ag, their cohorts in the food industry are paying for the studies and influencing government guidelines.
3. Genetic factors were not given sufficient study.
What I will continue to do:
1. Make and eat my own bread.
2. Eat when I am hungry
3. Eat small amounts of food, well prepared food, slowly and enjoy it.
4. Glass of red wine with dinner
5. Avoid most processed food, additives and preservatives
6. Go for a long walk and do yoga everyday.
7. Stop reading these articles.
30
I have to agree with the Bread angel on most of her(his?) conclusions, especially that in learning that genetic factors were not given sufficient study. This is a huge hole in the research, because, as we are finding in just about every area, one size does NOT fit all. People with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds have been molded by their environments and naturally available food sources over millennia - what they tolerate and how they respond to dietary changes is different for everyone. Also, gender matters: male and female metabolisms have different needs at different stages in life, and it is high time for those differences to be acknowledged when dietary advice is given, and not just in reference to general averages of body mass.
4
Reasonably articulated and fair piece, but it highlights an intractable problem. This stuff is complicated, yet people want and need simple answers.
Take the distinction between saturated fat and PUFAs (polyunsaturated fats) discussed herein. PUFAs include BOTH (mostly health harming) omega-6 oils like safflower and sunflower oil AND (mostly health promoting) omega-3s from fatty fish or plant sources like flax seeds. Saturated fats similarly encompass BOTH benign or health promoting types if one bothers to actually dig into the details. The saturated fat found in coconut oil (lauric acid) and dark chocolate (stearic acid) is much different from that found in processed foods (palmitic and myristic acid), and there is mounting evidence the latter harms whereas the former is benign or slightly salubrious.
These distinctions are NOT trivial. They are critical!
Statements like "replacing polyunsaturated fats with saturated fats", or vice versa, mean virtually nothing absent specifics.
Dr. Carroll should know better, and surely does, which makes another ultimately empty nutrition article so disappointing coming from a "data-driven" individual.
You've mostly offered more sound, Dr. Carroll. More signal next time, or remain silent, if you don't mind. Otherwise you're just amplifying confusion.
And out of respect and courtesy, fellow readers, I will NOT link to my blog.
Take the distinction between saturated fat and PUFAs (polyunsaturated fats) discussed herein. PUFAs include BOTH (mostly health harming) omega-6 oils like safflower and sunflower oil AND (mostly health promoting) omega-3s from fatty fish or plant sources like flax seeds. Saturated fats similarly encompass BOTH benign or health promoting types if one bothers to actually dig into the details. The saturated fat found in coconut oil (lauric acid) and dark chocolate (stearic acid) is much different from that found in processed foods (palmitic and myristic acid), and there is mounting evidence the latter harms whereas the former is benign or slightly salubrious.
These distinctions are NOT trivial. They are critical!
Statements like "replacing polyunsaturated fats with saturated fats", or vice versa, mean virtually nothing absent specifics.
Dr. Carroll should know better, and surely does, which makes another ultimately empty nutrition article so disappointing coming from a "data-driven" individual.
You've mostly offered more sound, Dr. Carroll. More signal next time, or remain silent, if you don't mind. Otherwise you're just amplifying confusion.
And out of respect and courtesy, fellow readers, I will NOT link to my blog.
20
"Controlling diabetes . . . isn't the subject of the dietary guidelines."???
The following is quoted from from http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/purpose.asp
"The Dietary Guidelines provides evidence-based food and beverage recommendations for Americans ages 2 and older. These recommendations aim to:
Promote health
Prevent chronic disease
Help people reach and maintain a healthy weight"
Seems like nutritional guidance to control diabetes would respond to each of these criteria.
11
Indeed. as these guidelines are mandatory for hospital patients and in general institutionalized people of all types where the institutions get federal funds, and school lunch programs that are federally supported, their needs to be allowances made for special needs.
Other examples are people with APOE4 games, who have trouble with high fat diets and people with genetics for high and low amalyse in saliva.
We are in fact all special snowflakes in regards to nutritional needs for optimal health. Of course, no one needs artificial transfats like from Crystalized Cotton Seed Oil and such abominations.
Other examples are people with APOE4 games, who have trouble with high fat diets and people with genetics for high and low amalyse in saliva.
We are in fact all special snowflakes in regards to nutritional needs for optimal health. Of course, no one needs artificial transfats like from Crystalized Cotton Seed Oil and such abominations.
2
Hi. Would someone please tell me why my comments earlier today were not acceptable?
This way I can try to do better next time.
Thanks.
This way I can try to do better next time.
Thanks.
Apparently you did better next time ;->
I'm curious. Where are all the long term, peer reviewed studies showing a diet rich in red meat and saturated animal fats contribute to good heart health? On the other hand, Dr. Dean Ornish and others have strong evidence that a plant based diet contributes to a reduction in heart disease. Interesting also that the past president (a cardiologist) of the American College of Cardiologist encourages his patients to follow a plant based diet, after seeing dramatic results in a patient who participated in Dr. Ornish's program, and his own improved heart health after adopting that lifestyle. And on a final note, a recent article in this paper stated that elephants, although live long, don't appear to get cancer. They forgot to mention that elephants only eat plants.
12
I think it is a mischaracterization of the data to conveniently omit the increasing number of well executed studies and meta-analysis of existing studies that have found saturated fats to not be that much of a concern. Although, saturated fats found in processed foods are likely quite unhealthy.
Dr. Ornish has many followers and it is easier for people to adopt his ideas because they more closely, not entirely, align with the decades of lies sold by the food industry regarding senseless things like the 'food pyramid'. Is a plant based diet healthy? Probably. But, that does not mean everything else is unhealthy.
Dr. Ornish has many followers and it is easier for people to adopt his ideas because they more closely, not entirely, align with the decades of lies sold by the food industry regarding senseless things like the 'food pyramid'. Is a plant based diet healthy? Probably. But, that does not mean everything else is unhealthy.
9
@Marry Drake Bell:
There are numerous populations who have eaten diets high in saturated fat and enjoyed excellent cardiovascular health.
Do you think elephants might have some adaptations that are different from human adaptations?
Dr. Ornish's plan involves treatments to stop smoking, group counseling, exercise, and stress-reduction techniques, in addition to eating less animal foods, more vegetables, and less refined carbs. The control group did none of those things. So which intervention did the trick? All of them? Two out of six? Impossible to know.
There are numerous populations who have eaten diets high in saturated fat and enjoyed excellent cardiovascular health.
Do you think elephants might have some adaptations that are different from human adaptations?
Dr. Ornish's plan involves treatments to stop smoking, group counseling, exercise, and stress-reduction techniques, in addition to eating less animal foods, more vegetables, and less refined carbs. The control group did none of those things. So which intervention did the trick? All of them? Two out of six? Impossible to know.
16
Are fats unhealthy?
1- Fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins are _essential nutrients_.
2- Naturally fatty foods are both nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite. Humans have been eating these foods since before we were even human.
3- There are numerous populations who have eaten diets high in fat and saturated fat while enjoying excellent cardiovascular health.
4- Several recent large meta-analyses of observational studies have found _no connection_ between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
5- We now have multiple randomized controlled trials, with human subjects, which all demonstrate improved health and more weight loss on high(er) fat, low(er) carb diets, compared to low-fat or standard dietary advice.
1- Fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins are _essential nutrients_.
2- Naturally fatty foods are both nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite. Humans have been eating these foods since before we were even human.
3- There are numerous populations who have eaten diets high in fat and saturated fat while enjoying excellent cardiovascular health.
4- Several recent large meta-analyses of observational studies have found _no connection_ between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
5- We now have multiple randomized controlled trials, with human subjects, which all demonstrate improved health and more weight loss on high(er) fat, low(er) carb diets, compared to low-fat or standard dietary advice.
20
I know nothing, but it's hard not to wonder if fats contain things we need and therefore that low-fat diets lead people to eat more stuff therefore more carbs which make them fat. My cardiologist told me fats make me feel full and eat more fats and less carbs.
9
Nice to know that Butter/Cheese and Meat are not as bad as they are said to be
think what the artificial substitutes may do to your liver...
think what the artificial substitutes may do to your liver...
3
We do not see the forest for the trees. The human is the ultimate omnivore. We can exist just fine on grubs and bamboo. Just be sure that what you put into your body originated from our earth and not the human hand and burn most of it off through physical exertion. You don't need much onsite storage with a reliable food supply. I would not pay much attention to what these 'experts' are saying. They tend to change their tune every few decades.
5
Professor Carroll explains how saturated fats have never been proved innocent. Dr Ede points out (in these comments) that saturated fats were never proved guilty in the first place. Every diet that improves people's health reduces BOTH saturated fats and refined carbs & sugars. Meanwhile, the nutritional guidelines that apparently ushered in the obesity epidemic told people BOTH to eat less meat AND eat more bread and pasta (base of the pyramid!). So there is no way to know whether the guilty party is saturated fats or refined carbs & sugar or both. More studies are needed.
Another wrinkle in this question is whether it makes a (health) difference if the saturated fats we eat are from factory farmed livestock or from animals raised outside, grazing on grass, with no hormones or antibiotics.
A final important consideration is whether we, in designing our nation's eating guidelines, should take into account ethical issues like animal cruelty and/or our nation's contribution to global warming (since animal agriculture is a much bigger factor in global warming than car emissions).
Another wrinkle in this question is whether it makes a (health) difference if the saturated fats we eat are from factory farmed livestock or from animals raised outside, grazing on grass, with no hormones or antibiotics.
A final important consideration is whether we, in designing our nation's eating guidelines, should take into account ethical issues like animal cruelty and/or our nation's contribution to global warming (since animal agriculture is a much bigger factor in global warming than car emissions).
7
Recently Justice Department has changed the litigation approach to the Wall Street from corporation basis to individual basis after so many complaints were raised from the general public that no top bankers went to jail from the 2008 financial crisis.
I hope Justice Department would pay attention to the conflict of interests on dietary guidelines by the Department of Agriculture and also approval process of new drugs at FDA. Without proper approach by the Justice Department, conflicts of interests in this area would not disappear. We, the people, suffer from the corruption.
I hope Justice Department would pay attention to the conflict of interests on dietary guidelines by the Department of Agriculture and also approval process of new drugs at FDA. Without proper approach by the Justice Department, conflicts of interests in this area would not disappear. We, the people, suffer from the corruption.
5
What troubles me about this summary is complete lack of consideration of genetic differences. Some people can eat whatever they like without promoting cardiovascular disease. Others need to be much more careful. 14 years ago, when I had my first angioplasty, it was thought that some people have triglyceride levels greatly increase with carb consumption. Others have a poor ratio between HDL and LDL if they eat much fat at all, especially saturated and hydrogenated fat. I was told I belong in the latter group. I improved my diet per those guidelines somewhat. In 2003 and had a second angioplasty and cut my fat consumption way back and substituted olive oil and canola oil for butter, etc. I've not had another cardiovascular incident since then.
6
As a Chef for 40 + years I have lectured widely to ACF (American Culinary Fed.) and other Chef groups for years that 'saturated fat is not the enemy....polyunsaturated fats are.
In the mid -seventies the Soybean Council started a vile and systematic propaganda campaign (Us government assissted) against tropical oils. Even though coconut oil, a saturated veg. oil, is one of the best things one can consume. With the backing of the FDA they convinced the public and manufacturers to switch from coconut and palm oils to soybean, canola and various seed oils. So even in baby formula the healthy saturated veg oils were replaced with this poison. Prior to this these polyunsaturated oils were used as industrial lubricants. Thus began a decades long descent into one of the worst global health crisis of all time.
Soy in general should not be eaten by anyone....soy milk, svp's etc. contain inhibitors that work against good health and canola, without genetic modification, is poison. Birds won't even fly over the fields in which it is grown. They are also full of omega 6 and the ratio between omega 6 and 3 in this country is the worst in the world. The only form soy that is healthy is when it's fermented. The Chinese knew this 10,000 years ago.
When people can no longer tolerate the health problems that are a result of ingesting these poly un sats they will revert to the fats that have sustained civilizations for centuries.
28
For a chef you should update your scientific knowledge a bit. Canola oil is a) not the product of genetic modification that was done in a lab and stuff was injected into rape plants nor is it b) poisonous. I have no desire to look into any of our other claims...
2
You are right in so many ways. One of the banes of eating out is that most kitchens have allowed themselves to be bullied into cooking with polyunsaturated oils rather than the more heat-stable saturated fats. This is not good for metabolic health. This was known as long ago as 1978 when the Sydney Heart Study showed that substituting omega-6 for saturated fat led to high cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Because this went against the conventional wisdom of the day that saturated fat was evil, these results were ignored. This is typical when you look at the history of nutritional science. Whenever a cherished hypothesis is falsified by new evidence, a "paradox" is declared and everyone marches onward as if nothing important had happened. This is why we are in such trouble today and why this DGAC report needs to be seriously overhauled. We have the evidence now. It just needs to be given a fair hearing. BTW, where is your kitchen? I would love to eat there.
6
Canola oil is most certainly a gentically altered product. A rapeseed plant, part of the mustard seed family, in its natural state can contain as much as 9 % erucic acid. It was first sold as LEAR for low erucic acid after modification. Do some research and learn some manners Ace.
3
When the low-fat high carb diet was first recommended several decades ago, everyone I knew who followed it faithfully bought 700 calorie whole grain muffins and switched to low-fat yogurt and cookies. And pretty much everyone also gained weight. Some are still struggling to get / keep it off.
48
given the way junk food industries jumped on the single doctor who raised the idea of low fat to avoid the obvious problem of high sugar - I'm sure we can trust the food corporations to have our best health outcomes in mind - right ?
bwahahaaah !
bwahahaaah !
6
It's really simple. Here ya go: 1) Don't drink soda. 2) Don't eat processed "not food". 3) Grow your own fruits and vegetables (yes, even in urban areas, you can do it, I've done it for years and years). 4) Fats are fine in moderation. 5) Get off of your tushie at least once per day and move it around vigorously. 6) Moderate the salt; fresh spices taste amazing. 7) Cook more (make it a family affair). 8) Don't listen to one bloody thing the government tells you about nutrition. (Monsanto owns the world). 9) Count your calories. In v. Out still holds true.
47
That is not simple.
12
"Grow your own fruits and vegetables" does not belong on a list of "simple" solutions.
21
In vs Out is highly challenged by nutritionists. But not by the Coca-Cola corporation.
11
Does anyone remember the "French Paradox"? It went like this: the French eat a lot of fat, yet they are the healthiest nation on earth. Must be the red wine.
We have become so brainwashed by the various nutrition ideologies that we cannot see the truth when it hits us in the mouth. A quick look at those healthy nations - France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Japan, and many others, reveals that people there eat an extremely varied diet, in contrast to the sandwich / pizza / burger / fries / large sodas diet which has taken over North America. They also drink much less sweet juices and sodas, preferring tea, coffee, water, and yes, wine. Additionally, they devote more time and more money to their meals, and they rarely snack. Why do they not snack? Because slowly-eaten, diversified meals do not produce the glycemic spikes which trigger hunger, and which lead to metabolic syndrome.
Of course, things are changing. French schoolchildren have abandoned their late-afternoon almond croissants (all that butter!!) in favour of chocolate brownies (mmmm... all that sugar).
The best health advice that I have ever heard was from a famous skier who, on his 100th birthday, said: eat only when you are hungry, and exercise every day. He skied until he was 112, and dies at 115. And I would bet he never worried about fat and salt.
We have become so brainwashed by the various nutrition ideologies that we cannot see the truth when it hits us in the mouth. A quick look at those healthy nations - France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Japan, and many others, reveals that people there eat an extremely varied diet, in contrast to the sandwich / pizza / burger / fries / large sodas diet which has taken over North America. They also drink much less sweet juices and sodas, preferring tea, coffee, water, and yes, wine. Additionally, they devote more time and more money to their meals, and they rarely snack. Why do they not snack? Because slowly-eaten, diversified meals do not produce the glycemic spikes which trigger hunger, and which lead to metabolic syndrome.
Of course, things are changing. French schoolchildren have abandoned their late-afternoon almond croissants (all that butter!!) in favour of chocolate brownies (mmmm... all that sugar).
The best health advice that I have ever heard was from a famous skier who, on his 100th birthday, said: eat only when you are hungry, and exercise every day. He skied until he was 112, and dies at 115. And I would bet he never worried about fat and salt.
38
Well said.
1
Why would you think they are healthy? They are thin, and being thin and healthy is not the same thing.
1
On the basis of number of years without a major ailment, these nations consistently score in the top 10.
2
“Your Final Diet,” published in 2003, quoted USDA guidelines for a sedentary, middle-aged woman, as being 1600 calories per day. However, when guidelines were revised, in light of the “obesity crisis”, caloric limits were INCREASED by 200 calories per day, to 1800!
Did they think we were eating too little, so our body stubbornly clung to every calorie by turning it into fat? Or did they make a back deal with food lobbyists to sell more food, at the public’s expense? I believe USDA guidelines are not only affected by personal biases, but patronize Big Food.
As a psychologist specializing in food related issues, I could have issued guidelines boiled down to a single line. “Eat a variety of natural foods, listen to hunger and satiety, move your body, and cope effectively.” I believe this will produce the healthiest body possible, given individual genetic makeup, be it small, medium or large.
Thank you.
Abby Aronowitz, Ph.D.
Author, “Your Final Diet”
“This is fabulous!” Hillary Clinton
Did they think we were eating too little, so our body stubbornly clung to every calorie by turning it into fat? Or did they make a back deal with food lobbyists to sell more food, at the public’s expense? I believe USDA guidelines are not only affected by personal biases, but patronize Big Food.
As a psychologist specializing in food related issues, I could have issued guidelines boiled down to a single line. “Eat a variety of natural foods, listen to hunger and satiety, move your body, and cope effectively.” I believe this will produce the healthiest body possible, given individual genetic makeup, be it small, medium or large.
Thank you.
Abby Aronowitz, Ph.D.
Author, “Your Final Diet”
“This is fabulous!” Hillary Clinton
4
Interesting that it is always authors without scientific credentials, trying to sell books by telling people what they want to hear, who recommend the atrocious cruelty-based foods.
Boycott cruelty because it is the decent way to live.
Boycott cruelty because it is the decent way to live.
6
I found this article almost totally unintelligible, sorry to say.
Are fats unhealthy? I haven't got a clue.
Are fats unhealthy? I haven't got a clue.
50
It says maybe eat real food not "products", more real fat, less carbs.
3
We are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. The packaged food industry has an unbeatable defense: show me the bodies. Know what? There are none. Eat what you want. You will live forever till you're like a hundred or so, man.
1
I'm in the high fat low carb (HFLC) camp and I've never looked or felt better.
32
I live a plant based lifestyle and eat no animal products at all. I also avoid any added oils, but love things like avocados, olives, other fatty vegetables. I follow the recommendations of Dr. Esselstyn at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Ornish and Professor Colin Campbell.
The fruits and vegetables are delicious and I feel great. The impact on our environment seems to be positive as well. I agree with the other commenters who said that people are creatures of habit and taste. Switching to a plant based diet is hard for some folks but once you do it, it's amazing. It's also hard to be obese when you eat plant-based only.
I don't know what the scientific studies say, but I am guessing that folks would have a lot fewer medical issues if they switched to this lifestyle.
http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/
Bon appetit!
The fruits and vegetables are delicious and I feel great. The impact on our environment seems to be positive as well. I agree with the other commenters who said that people are creatures of habit and taste. Switching to a plant based diet is hard for some folks but once you do it, it's amazing. It's also hard to be obese when you eat plant-based only.
I don't know what the scientific studies say, but I am guessing that folks would have a lot fewer medical issues if they switched to this lifestyle.
http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/
Bon appetit!
30
@Lbj12:
Bread, pasta, and cereal are all plant-based. It's quite easy to become obese by eating these foods.
Bread, pasta, and cereal are all plant-based. It's quite easy to become obese by eating these foods.
17
Bread, pasta, and cereal are highly processed.
10
If you have the genetic variant of lacking the enzymes to turn beta carotene into vitamin A an entirely plant based diet will result in vitamin A deficiency and ill health. A plant based diet is not for everyone. Those of us who cannot get vitamin A from plants NEED animal sources. If it is overtaxing the planet to raise farm animals humanely then we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet for human beings.
2
Low fat/low carb has always helped me maintain or lose weight. High fat and /or high carb and I gain weight. That's how my body works so I will stick with this approach because I feel lousy when I am overweight.
4
No none knows. Credibility is zero. I go by portion size and taste. One has to individualize. That being said, people are creatures of habit. They will be getting more obese. And so it goes.
2
Marvelous!
Terrific bottom line statement:
"But now, we have gotten to a point where food has become ideological, and where motives are questioned based on results and not methods.
We know much less for sure than we think, and recommendations that forcefully tell people exactly what and precisely how much they should or should not eat can be counterproductive.
I still maintain that it might be more helpful to focus on food and not nutrients, on health and not process measures."
Refreshing to see someone speak out with this degree of clarity.
Terrific bottom line statement:
"But now, we have gotten to a point where food has become ideological, and where motives are questioned based on results and not methods.
We know much less for sure than we think, and recommendations that forcefully tell people exactly what and precisely how much they should or should not eat can be counterproductive.
I still maintain that it might be more helpful to focus on food and not nutrients, on health and not process measures."
Refreshing to see someone speak out with this degree of clarity.
16
I believe the most important thing is a detailed declaration/disclosure of all our possible interests. Unfortunately, it's all too easy to be fooled, especially when we read or hear what we want to read or hear. For example, I believed foolishly that after many years of researching the literature I had developed a good nose for farmyard manure and a healthy, mature level of scepticism. I was dismayed, therefore, to discover recently that one of the 'good guys', Dr Steven Blair, who had done so much to convince me and others that it was possible to be fat and fit, had received substantial and undisclosed funding from Coca Cola.
Most of us have vested interests in different ways. If we work in the industry or have shares then we have a vested interest. If we get industry funding then we have a vested interest. If we write a book promoting a certain diet, or even promote our blog, then we have a vested interest. If we are a researcher who has made his or her name in a given field, climbing the greasy pole, gaining awards and recognition from our peers, winning high acclaim etc, then we may have a vested interest in sticking to our dogma until we get our elusive Nobel Prize or whatever we think we deserve.
Last, few of us like to be seen or thought to be in error, let alone proven wrong. It's human nature to try to prove that one is right - even when one is not! Increasingly, therefore, I take consolation from the fact that the more I think I know, the less I know I do.
Most of us have vested interests in different ways. If we work in the industry or have shares then we have a vested interest. If we get industry funding then we have a vested interest. If we write a book promoting a certain diet, or even promote our blog, then we have a vested interest. If we are a researcher who has made his or her name in a given field, climbing the greasy pole, gaining awards and recognition from our peers, winning high acclaim etc, then we may have a vested interest in sticking to our dogma until we get our elusive Nobel Prize or whatever we think we deserve.
Last, few of us like to be seen or thought to be in error, let alone proven wrong. It's human nature to try to prove that one is right - even when one is not! Increasingly, therefore, I take consolation from the fact that the more I think I know, the less I know I do.
10
If anyone wants to see for themselves how biased and anti-scientific the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report is, I wrote a brief summary of the section of its report pertaining to red meat and depression, which clearly shows that the committee not only cherry picked studies to support their anti-meat beliefs, but then concluded red meat is associated with an increased risk for depression, despite the fact that the majority of the studies, including the only two randomized controlled trials they looked at, found no connection or even a positive benefit. My analysis is in the comments section of the BMJ article if you're curious: http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rapid-responses
There is no scientific proof that saturated fat, red meat, or cholesterol are damaging to our health: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/. There is not a single (non-epidemiological) study that shows a plausible connection between these foods and human health problems. On the other hand, there are thousands of high quality clinical studies showing a clear connection between sugars and refined carbohydrates and insulin resistance, which lies at the heart of most common chronic health problems, including type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, cancer, and even Alzheimer's Disease: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/is-fructose-bad-for-you-a-summary-of-the-re...
There is no scientific proof that saturated fat, red meat, or cholesterol are damaging to our health: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/. There is not a single (non-epidemiological) study that shows a plausible connection between these foods and human health problems. On the other hand, there are thousands of high quality clinical studies showing a clear connection between sugars and refined carbohydrates and insulin resistance, which lies at the heart of most common chronic health problems, including type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, cancer, and even Alzheimer's Disease: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/is-fructose-bad-for-you-a-summary-of-the-re...
81
Excuse me Doctor, but if you're looking for scientific studies confirming the link between red and cured meats with increased health risks please check with Dr. David Katz, founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale, or Dr Walter Willett who chairs the Department of Nutrition at Harvard. There's also Dr. Dean Ornish among many others. It seems you're comparing a high sat fat diet to a high refined carb (sugar) diet. They're both poor choices that lead to higher mortality. But the carbs, plus proteins and fats found in whole grains, beans, legumes, fruits, and vegetables leads to better health.
22
"the link between red and cured meats with increased health risks"
Many of these studies lump red meat and cured meats together, so it's impossible to know the effect of red meats alone.
Many of these studies lump red meat and cured meats together, so it's impossible to know the effect of red meats alone.
18
Hi Doctor -
How about doing what cardiologist Dr. Esselstyn does for his patients at the Cleveland Clinic and switch your patients to a plant based only diet?
How about doing what cardiologist Dr. Esselstyn does for his patients at the Cleveland Clinic and switch your patients to a plant based only diet?
5
I guess the Author never read "The China Study" by DR T Collin Campbell. 30 year research with hundred thousands.
23
I only know "The China Study" second-hand and perhaps I have been misinformed, but my understanding is that it is based on reasoning across cultures, and the number of variables involved make cross-cultural evidence suggestive at best. Usually.
8
The China study is not 100% reliable because of scientific errors and 'cherry picked" observational data, sadly. It was a great achievement in scale and ideals, but poorly executed.
http://www.healthyeating.org/Blog/Article/519/Dietitians-Review-the-Chin...
http://www.healthyeating.org/Blog/Article/519/Dietitians-Review-the-Chin...
14
However, thousands of people (including former President Clinton) have reversed heart disease, and diabetes following the recommendations of Campbell and his cohorts, Dr. Esselston and Dr. McDougall. Others have dramatically decreased blood pressure, and lowered cholesterol, and weight (including myself). People can review it all they want, but it works, it's healthy, and it's sustainable for humans, the animals, and the planet. It might not be the best thing for the pharmaceutical industry, or the meat and dairy industries, who typically fund the research behind the US Dietary Guidelines (the same industries that tried to silence Campbell's work), but that's surely okay with me.
1
Nutritional labeling is helpful to me in several ways. Total calories, grams of sugar, fiber, transfats, sodium and protein are all important ways to compare food and beverages. Also ingredient lists are important to people with specific sensitivities, allergies and concerns, like peanuts, MSG, nitrites, gluten, etc.
Transfat labeling in particular led to a rapid and steep decline in its use.
Eventually, we will learn what it takes to maintain a healthy gut microbiome and a lot of the current "mystery" in nutrition research will be resolved, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and auto-immune disease.
Transfat labeling in particular led to a rapid and steep decline in its use.
Eventually, we will learn what it takes to maintain a healthy gut microbiome and a lot of the current "mystery" in nutrition research will be resolved, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and auto-immune disease.
12
Maybe the government should just not produce dietary guidelines. It's abundantl clear that these guidelines are driven by industry and Big Agriculture and moving product and have nothing to do with actual health. They've tidily created an obese and sickly nation that is now fueling the enormous health care industry.
64
The US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) has a provision that requires the US Congress to provide for the general welfare of the human population, among other things.
4
Common defense and general welfare with a list of specifics that don't say a darned thing about telling us all to eat corn syrup because we pay farmers to grow too much. I just read it. Lists of specifics include only the same type . So if we talk about militias and taxation, it doesn't necessarily include promotion of specific private pursuits.
3
But in the area of nutrition, it is totally unclear what the 'general welfare of the human population' might be.
2