Category Archives: Culinary

The Lancet

It’s catching up on the nutrition science:

High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.

It’s a epidemiological study, but it matches most recent research.

The Fight Against Dietary Misinformation

continues:

In a recent study of 43 Latino and African American children with metabolic syndrome, for example, keeping total and calories from carbohydrate identical, a reduction from a mean of 28 per cent of calories from added sugar to 10 per cent, significantly reduced triglycerides, LDL-Cholesterol, blood pressure and fasting insulin within just ten days.

It’s been this very reliance on eminence trumping independent evidence that often stops policymakers, doctors and journalists asking the right questions while simultaneously misinforming the public.

As Albert Einstein once said, “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.”

The public must also realise that the overwhelming majority of dietitians have no qualification or understanding of the basics of medicine and although most doctors equally have little or no training in nutrition, it’s not rocket science to advise people to avoid eating processed food, more than 70 per cent of which now includes added sugar.

As with the tobacco industry, there’s a lot of money at stake.

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.