Category Archives: Culinary

The Nutrition Coalition

Nina Teichholz has started a new organization to restore sanity to government dietary guidelines.

Dr. Sarah Hallberg and I are reaching out to you to ask you to support a group called The Nutrition Coalition, a non-profit based in Washington, DC, which has the sole of aim of reforming the decades-old Dietary Guidelines for Americans so that they are evidence-based, i.e., based on rigorous clinical trial science.

That’s why we are asking for an Inaugural Gift, to help our fundraising launch: a tax-deductible gift of $5, $10, $50 or whatever you can afford. DONATE HERE.

We need your support to educate policy makers, influencers and the public about the problems with the guidelines, so that people suffering from obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, among other nutrition-related diseases, get the sound nutritional advice that they need to become healthy.

The current guidelines have long been based upon weak science that has since been contradicted in large, government-funded clinical trials. Some of that original bad advice has been overturned: e.g., the caps on cholesterol were finally dropped in 2015.

These recommendations do not just lack a foundation in rigorous evidence. In some cases, they have been demonstrated to cause actual harm, particularly for those with metabolic diseases.
Will you make a tax-deductible gift of just $5 to reform the Guidelines?

Although you may think that no one relies on the government for their dietary advice, the reality is that the Guidelines are taught to/by nearly all healthcare practitioners—dieticians, nutritionists, doctors—working on the front line with patients. The Guidelines reach you, your family and your colleagues.

That’s why we need the Nutrition Coalition, and why our accomplishments are so important:

  • In 2015, we proposed to the U.S. Congress that it mandate the first-ever outside peer-review of the Guidelines, by the National Academy of Medicine. Congress not only passed this mandate but also allocated $1 million for the study.
  • That National Academy study came out just recently, with very strong language about how the Guidelines “lack scientific rigor” and fail to use a state-of the art systematic review methodology.
  • Congressman Andy Harris wrote an op-ed on the Academy report, with the headline: “Mandate is clear: Flawed dietary guidelines process must be reformed.”

Americans follow the Guidelines, but their health has not improved. The process of drafting the Guidelines needs reform — but we need your help to support the sustained campaign this effort will require.

If you would like to DONATE to our worthy cause, so that ALL people have the chance to be healthy again, please CLICK HERE to make your tax-deductible donation!!!

Check out our website, along with our extremely strong Board of Directors and Scientific Council. We are launching with a serious team, and we aim for real reform. If you would like to make a significant contribution or have questions, please contact our Executive Director, Christina Hartman, at chartman@nutritioncoalition.us

Seems like a very worthy cause.

The Lancet

…has reviewed Nina Teichholz’s book:

Many readers will be incensed by this book. If you think saturated fats and cholesterol are bad for you, you’ll be incensed. If you think the fat story is exaggerated, you’ll be incensed. If you trust in the objectivity of science to inform health policy, you’ll be incensed. Stories of shocking scientific corruption and culpability by government agencies are all to be found in Nina Teicholz’s bestseller The Big Fat Surprise. This is a disquieting book about scientific incompetence, evangelical ambition, and ruthless silencing of dissent that has shaped our lives for decades.

Good for her.

Low Fat Versus Low Carb

A major new study. This is an important point that too few pay attention to; it’s not about weight loss per se:

The 18-mo moderate weight loss of 3.7 kg was similar in both groups, but the reduction in waist circumference was higher in the MED/LC group (−6.9 ± 6.6 cm) than in the LF diet group (−2.3 ± 6.5 cm; P = 0.01). After 18 mo, the IPF volume had reduced twice as much in the MED/LC group compared with the LF group [−37 ± 26.2 mL (−22% ± 15%) compared with −15.5 ± 26.2 mL (−8% ± 15%), respectively; P < 0.05, after adjustment for changes in weight or visceral adipose tissue]. [My emphasis]

This is one reason BMI is BS. Another is that it doesn’t take into account the difference between muscle mass and fat.

Vegan Diets

and the brain:

Removing refined carbohydrates, such as sugar, flours, fruit juice, and cereals, makes ANY diet healthier. This is the most likely reason why plant-based diets appear healthier than meat-based diets in some clinical studies. All of the studies I’m aware of claiming that plant-based diets are superior to omnivorous diets suffer from the same tragic flaw. Researchers conducting these studies NEVER simply ask people to remove animal foods from their diet. They always change more than just that single variable—such as lowering fat content or adding exercise—and they always instruct people in the plant-based group to eliminate refined carbohydrates and processed foods. In almost every case, these special “plant-based” diets are then compared to a junky omnivorous diet loaded with sweets, baked goods and manufactured foodstuffs.

This is not a fair fight. How do we know whether it was the removal of the meat, refined carbs, industrially-produced oils, or artificial additives that was responsible for the benefits? I’ve engaged in countless social media conversations with plant-based diet experts in which I politely ask for scientific evidence that simply removing animal foods from the diet—without making any other changes—results in health benefits. None of them have ever been able to cite a single article for me.

The amount of junk science in nutrition studies is just appalling.