An open letter
Dear Mr Average:
I know you don’t exist. The ‘average’ British citizen is only the sum total of what all Brits do divided by the total population. And yet I suspect that there are enough of you out there who fit the bell curve statistic, which indicates that 30-50% only vary in small ways from that average. So please forgive my impertinence and allow this small interruption in your eating life.
You see: The conventional dietary/nutrition establishment would have you believe that you eat too much, particularly those nasty animal fats, and that you probably don’t exercise enough. That’s why over the years, if you are indeed an ‘average’ Brit, you have steadily been putting on the pounds; and as you'll know, increased weight is associated with various chronic diseases, notably certain cancers, Alzheimer’s and type-2 diabetes.
To counter this, you may well have been prescribed fitness programmes and were probably also told to drink fat-free milk, eat less red meat but more chicken, use more vegetable oils and above all, avoid bacon and salt. This message started about 40 years ago and was officially formalized in the first UK food guidelines that were issued over 20 years ago.
Now, the British public is not usually seen as being a pushover, a nation peopled by those who unquestionably do just what they are told. But in this case, the funny thing is – well it’s not at all funny really; that is exactly what you’ve done. As obedient citizens, you have followed the dietary guidelines and as an unintended consequence, you are getting fatter and ‘iller’, if that word exists. Some bad joke!
The real and surprising facts are:
1/ You eat less food in total than you did 40 years ago – not more.
2/ You eat much less of that bad beef, lamb and pork.
3/ You eat much, much more ‘healthy’ white meat (chicken).
4/ You have cut right back on butter and cheese.
5/ You eat much less bacon and ham.
6/ You have almost stopped drinking regular milk because it’s full of saturated fat which clogs your arteries …and, and, and.
7/ You’ve even cut back on salt
Yet incidences of diabetes and cancers continue to be on the rise, as is dementia which an increasing number of doctors refer to as type-3 diabetes. And, incidentally, the mortality statistics for heart disease and strokes have barely changed in recent years.
“But aren’t we all just living longer so that disease is inevitably catching up with us?” I hear you say. Well, no. The highest prevalence of diabetes is with overweight 15-54 year olds, not among the oldest in our society. Something is making us ‘iller’, younger.
Less meat, less dairy, less fat but more chronic disease?
Since 1974, beef sales per person per week have almost halved to around 100 grams, and that’s down from 250 grams in post-war Britain (1950). Lamb and mutton sales are down by over two-thirds and as for milk, you’ve fundamentally changed your habits because of that fear of fat imposed by the so-called nutrition experts. The same change which has led you to believe that drinking semi-skimmed milk is quite normal, is also reflected in lower butter and cheese sales and your decision to switch from cooking with animal fats to using vegetable and seed oils.
So called ‘healthy’ white meat in the form of chicken has exploded onto the scene with intensively (mostly) produced birds providing your main source of meat at 300 grams per week in all its many forms from Sunday roasts to chicken nuggets. Compare that to 1950 when you (or your parents or grandparents) used to eat around 19 grams of chicken per week.
The real problem is staring you in the face
Highly processed foods in the form of ready meals and snacks have completely changed how you eat and together with take-away food, they now represent around half of what you eat. Along with the huge increase in vegetable seed oils such as sunflower, corn and soy, they represent what has changed most in your diet and… to be frank, it’s not doing you any good.
The decline in family meals certainly plays a role as does your desire to eat regular snacks which is now seen as normal. Long gone are the times when at about 3 pm in the afternoon, the office tea-lady would wheel round a cuppa and a piece of home-made fruit cake for that once daily snacking opportunity!
More recently of course, sugar has begun to get a bad rap and in larger doses, it certainly is not good for you. But only when sugar is combined with all those artificial sweeteners, stabilizers, emulsifiers and flavour-enhancers before being made into ready-made meals, soft drinks and snacks do you run into real problems. Grandma’s home-made jams, cakes and crumbles may have used some sugar but first, they represented occasional treats, and second, they brought out the best of nature’s natural bounty.
Where can I get sensible, fact-based advice?
There is help at hand. The Public Health Collaboration has been established by a group of doctors and well-informed nutritionists with their feet firmly placed on the ground, and their sensible advice on how to eat and what to eat is available at www.phcuk.org. They also provide links to where you can get the best advice if you are either over-weight or suffering from the early stages of type-2 diabetes.
Although those well-meaning folks who designed the original food guidelines and current Eatwell Plates meant no harm, they did not fully check their facts or examine the research back to its origins. The PHCUK members have come to understand that you are not getting ‘iller’ because you don’t follow the guidelines. It is much more likely that you are less healthy precisely because you have been following the guidelines.
Next annual update due soon: Dec 2016
Dr David Ludwig seems to be the only one at Harvard who supports and actively encourages low-carb, high fat diets.
Those of us who have either personally experienced the benefits of a low-carb, high-fat lifestyle, or have seen its amazing effect on others continue to be baffled by the stream of ‘conventional wisdom’ which emanates from the Department of Nutrition at Harvard University.
One voice providing a notable exception to that is Dr David Ludwig, an eminent Professor within that same department. He clearly leans in the higher fat, lower carb direction and yet in its PR releases, the Harvard news-team still tries to project an image of harmony and agreement which collectively supports establishment thinking.
Although he is featured in the lead photo discussing a ‘common ground in nutrition’ on the Harvard website, he notably did not form part of the group which gave ‘strong, collective support’ to the Recommendations of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Committee. In fact, not only was he absent from the Scientific Consensus Committee co-chaired by his ‘boss’, Walter Willett and Yale University’s David Katz, but he also was not one of the 9 additional signatories.
Dr Ludwig believes that traditional advice such as “Eat less, move more” is doomed to failure and in a recent interview with Experience Life magazine, he expressed his opinions about low-carb diets which over time, seem to be hardening in their conviction.
Beginning with a definition, he says that to be truly classified as a low-carb diet, you need to get to around the 20% level, in terms of total calorific input or just below. This is in stark contrast with the current US (and UK) average of between 55 - 60%. Simply counting calories and cutting back on protein, carbohydrate and fat at the same time makes no sense to him. In fact, it’s epitomized by the yo-yo dieting so many people experience with Weight-Watcher style approaches, as a battle develops between your mind and your metabolism.
He suggests that your starting point should be to consider the hormonal and metabolic effects of food. When you take that approach, you don’t count calories and go about things differently.
Insulin is in many ways the master hormone and given the direct impact of carbohydrates on insulin levels, Dr Ludwig believes that is the best place to start lowering food intake. And because fats and protein stimulate the ‘satiety’ hormone ghrelin, that means you don’t go hungry. Interestingly, he refers to type-2 diabetes which is being increasingly seen as a disease of carbohydrate intolerance, as the ultimate metabolic breakdown!
In the latest issue of Time Magazine, Dr Ludwig is even more direct:
“Like a cattle rancher, insulin herds sugar and the other calories from your meal into storage, which usually means your fat cells. This not only promotes weight gain, but it also tricks your body into believing you need more energy to satisfy your body’s needs, which in turn causes your hunger to rebound rapidly. If you also happen to be on a low-fat diet high in processed foods, all of this is intensified” Ludwig says.
At this stage, I will note that research also supports the widely held opinion that semi-starvation diets (also known as calorie-controlled diets) lead in most cases to that famous yo-yo effect. Infamously, most participants in the US Reality TV series, The Biggest Loser, found that their metabolism worked more slowly after their intense dieting. As a result, they had to continue their lives while eating less (effectively having a permanent feeling of hunger) or put on weight… which they invariable did. It is very sad to note that a number of successful contestants even weigh more now than when they started on their ultra-aggressive, calorie controlled diets.
But back to Dr Ludwig; as many readers will know, the ultra-efficient weight loss approach if you are low-carbing is known as going ‘ketogenic’ where you get as close to zero carbs as possible and your body uses body fat as its prime source of energy. It works for many, but Dr Ludwig states that dropping to 20% carbs will also bring many health and weight-loss benefits. He reminds us that an important principle of modern biology is that going 50% of the way usually brings 90% of the benefits.
Dropping to 20% carb intake or below invariably means cutting out all junk food since carbohydrates are their major ingredient. From personal experience, I can add that bread in all its forms was the most difficult ‘junk-food’ for me to avoid; for many others it is sugar, often hidden and named in ways which make it difficult to spot.
For those wanting to lose weight, I highly recommend the informative and inspirational website dietdoctor.com which cites many positive examples. Dr Ludwig’s book ‘Always Hungry?’ also provides a great introduction to this subject matter and the Experience Life video interview is well worth watching.
As for Harvard and Walter Willett, he is still adamantly against red meat although in recent years, he has moved on from being the leading spokesperson for the olive oil industry to embracing the possible benefits of regular milk as opposed to the tasteless low or no-fat versions. That being said, he’s hedging his bets and in the New Scientist earlier this year, is quoted as saying: “The picture of dairy foods and health is complicated and deserves further study”, which I guess nicely sums up much of what we genuinely know about nutrition today.
The Oldways Common Ground Consensus: http://oldwayspt.org/programs/oldways-common-ground/oldways-common-ground-consensus
Dr Ludwig’s interview with Experience Life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFHtNe0jEg4
Israel has an enormous diabetes problem, being ranked second only to Mexico among all OECD countries with its mortality rate for type-2 diabetes, for both men and women. And more than 50% of Israelis are overweight or obese. So much for the famous Mediterranean diet… at least in that South-Eastern corner!
In a search for solutions, the country's health minister has recently targeted McDonald’s as the country’s leading purveyor of junk-food. Yet McDonalds has arguably been doing everything right to improve their fast-food offer and the company takes great exception to being addressed as a seller of ‘junk-food’.
Recent advertisements from McDonald’s in the Israeli press declare that the fast-food chain has made changes to its menu worldwide in recent years. Specifically in Israel, they have:
But McDonald’s is particularly incensed about the ‘junk-food’ label and that’s why it has now challenged the Israeli Health Minister to develop a precise junk-food definition that uses nutritional criteria such as: calories, fats, carbohydrates, sugars, sodium, cholesterol, protein, fiber, fruits and vegetables per 100 grams - all with the intention of showing that it's food offering does not count as junk-food.
Whatever you may think of McDonald’s, the chain has set high standards of food hygiene and adapts regularly to the published nutrition rules and guidelines. In the early 1990’s, they famously stopped using beef tallow for their French fries, adopting trans-fat heavy vegetable oils to be consistent with the new (now thankfully amended) US government guidelines.
In national ads, McDonald's accuses the authorities of using slogans and not facts.
So what precisely is "junk-food"? It generally refers to foods that contribute lots of calories but little nutritional value and is often associated with high levels of saturated fat, sugar and salt… precisely those ingredients which McDonald’s has cut back on in Israel. For general purposes though, I am reminded of the expression used by the late US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who, when defining pornography replied: "I know it when I see it".
Although there is no official definition, most of us would agree on what junk-food is and what it looks like. Or would we?
Depending on where you live, the nutritional information on your food labels usually lists calories per serving together with grams of fat, salt, cholesterol and sugar content, sometimes including a macro-nutrient list and a percentage of fibre. But does that provide enough scope to help define junk food accurately?
I doubt it; because in reality, junk-food should also be defined by the use of preservatives, emulsifiers and stabilizers to add consistency, taste and shelf life to pre-prepared and packaged products. To my mind, fry-ups that use industrially manufactured vegetable seed oils should be added to the list of criteria… and I’m sure there are many other plausible junk-food ‘ingredients’.
But getting nutritionists to agree on a definition might be difficult; particularly with wildly opposing views on the alleged benefits of low-fat dairy and/or the digestive dangers of cereal-based breads. In fact that’s why McDonald's can effectively call the bluff of the Israeli Health Minister. No one can define junk-food.
Using available definitions today; the global hamburger chain is quite possibly not a purveyor of junk-food at all. The words from their recent national newspaper ad read: "When unhealthy food is defined scientifically and not according to slogans, you will be able to prove that McDonald's Israel is the exact opposite of junk food."
The Israeli health ministry's spokeswoman, Einav Shimron Greenbaum, is reported as saying: " ...that no country's nutritional board has issued a scientific definition of junk food". But Israel does have a position paper against eating fast-food, described as: "food that is eaten in 7-10 minutes without fork and knife, needs little chewing, and makes the eater feel satiated only after 20 minutes, pushing the eater to consume more".
Yet if you are beginning to sympathise with the views expressed by McDonald's, please bear in mind that McDonald’s burger buns are listed as containing:
“Enriched Bleached Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Yeast, Soybean Oil, Contains 2% or Less: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Leavening (Calcium Sulfate, Ammonium Sulfate), May Contain One or More Dough Conditioners (Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, DATEM, Ascorbic Acid, Azodicarbonamide, Mono and Diglycerides, Monocalcium Phosphate, Enzymes, Calcium Peroxide), Calcium Propionate (Preservative).”
And let’s also remember that only about 50% of a McDonald’s chicken nugget is actually made of chicken, the balance being made up of:
“Water, Food Starch-Modified, Salt, Seasoning (Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Salt, Wheat Starch, Natural Flavoring, Safflower Oil, Dextrose, Citric Acid), Sodium Phosphates, Natural Flavor. Battered and Breaded with: Water, Enriched Flour (Bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Yellow Corn Flour, Bleached Wheat Flour, Food Starch-Modified, Salt, Leavening (Baking Soda, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate, Monocalcium Phosphate, Calcium Lactate), Spices, Wheat Starch, Dextrose, Corn Starch.” Then fried in: “Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil) with TBHQ and Citric Acid to preserve freshness of the oil and Dimethylpolysiloxane to reduce oil splatter when cooking”.
But do these lists of ingredients push such items into the junk-food category? Maybe they don't. And probably they won't …at least, not until we have a better universal definition of what junk-food really is, taking us away from the usual culprits - salt, sugar and saturated fat. That overly simplistic focus only helps the industrial food machine adapt and gear up for more business.
The Daily Mail is always good for a ‘healthy’ headline and today, it’s the turn of research scientist Seungyoun Jung who suggests that:
“Consuming high amounts of saturated fat or low amounts of mono and polyunsaturated fats (vegetable and vegetable seed oils) as an adolescent is associated with higher breast density in young adulthood”
I don’t personally know Seungyoun Jung, but I do know that he got his Masters degree at the Harvard School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology in 2008 and went on to get his Doctorate in 2012 in the famous Department of Nutrition. And – here is my mental jump - we all know that Harvard has a history of promoting research which advocates the benefits of vegetable oil.
Well, Dr Seungyoun Jung’s latest research is no exception, albeit, it now comes from his current location, the University of Maryland… a bit further South.
Statistically, his results are not very significant. Even he admits that “The 5 to 6 percentage point difference is relatively modest” but he goes on to say that this is enough to “increase breast cancer risk as well as promoting obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease." Now where have we heard these kind of sweeping associative comments before?
… from Dr Willett who heads up the Nutrition department at Harvard, and has been a long-term promoter of the benefits of mono and polyunsaturated industrial seed oils such as those made from corn, sunflower and Canola. His own particular favorite olive oil which he sees as the elixir which brings long-life to the so-called Mediterranean Diet.
Now, I like olive oil too, but as you can read in my book ‘Fat is our Friend’, the hardy inhabitants of Southern Italy, Greece, France and Spain do not have a long history of cooking with olive oil. Until the early part of the 20th century, it was used mostly as a source of relatively smoke-free lamp light and it even fired up olive-oil fuelled furnaces during the cold winters. Besides; when it comes to longevity; the Paris region of France in the North brings you roughly the same life expectancy as you will get in the South, although their diet cannot be really described as Mediterranean. Nor can that of the Northern Germans who get similar results when it comes to lifespan… but putting that to one side.
Here’s the thing: Dr Jung’s comments only report on the ‘fatty’ Harvard agenda, but the rest of the world is moving on. The large proportion of starches and sugars combined with stabilizers, colorants and emulsifiers found in junk food are seen elsewhere as major areas of concern. Indeed, according to Jung, “one of the main limitations of the study is that the researchers were unable to rule out whether the significant associations observed for fat consumption during adolescence were attributable to other components in foods that are good sources of different types of fat”.
Fat? Why does he only talk about fat? What about those other major components of junk food? The reality is that Dr Jung’s research results do not specifically address the subject of fat, since sugar and the overall content of highly processed carbs were also a major part (probably the biggest) of that so-called fat-rich diet.
So can we ascertain anything from his results? Almost certainly, they mean that those who eat a lot of highly processed junk food when they are young have a higher propensity to have denser breast tissue as they age… which may be associated with a higher risk of cancer. Or not.
Even that association is in question. According to a study published on August 20 2012 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the risk of dying from breast cancer is not even related to high mammographic breast density in breast cancer patients. The researchers wrote that; "It is reassuring that elevated breast density, a prevalent and strong breast cancer risk factor, was not associated with risk of breast cancer death or death from any cause in this large, prospective study.”
Harvard's long arm
But the Harvard nutrition establishment has long arms and attempts to push through its agenda of condemning saturated fat whatever the real facts. Getting Daily Mail type headlines that frighten people off consuming butter and cream is part of that agenda.
Harvard already has egg on its face after backtracking on the cholesterol/ diet link. As recently as May 2013, the Harvard guidance was: “No matter what your health condition, talk to your doctor before adding eggs back into your daily diet.”
How long before those at the Harvard Nutrition Department also must accept that however hard they try to prove otherwise, natural saturated fats such as lard, butter and coconut oil are indeed the healthier option. And much, much healthier than the industrially prepared poly-unsaturated oils which they advocate.
In 1999, a study authored by Prof Nicholas Wald was released entitled: Why heart disease mortality is low in France: the time lag explanation. The study has been widely cited – 23 times alone via PMC in the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine – and at the time, it received a lot of press coverage.
To put it gently, their grounded hypothesis that deaths from heart disease were about to increase rapidly in France did not pan out.
He and Dr Malcolm Law explained how mortality from ischaemic heart disease in France was just one quarter of that in Britain by discounting the much-touted rumour that this was because of greater red wine consumption. They postulated instead that for the French, it was simply a matter of time before they caught up with the British, putting the difference down to the following:
“It is due to the time lag between increases in consumption of animal fat and serum cholesterol concentrations and the resulting increase in mortality from heart disease.”
“Evidence”, they wrote “supports this explanation. Mortality from heart disease across countries, including France, correlates strongly with levels of animal fat consumption and serum cholesterol in the past (30 years ago) but only weakly to recent levels. Based on past levels, mortality data for France are not discrepant”.
So convinced were they of the animal fat/cholesterol linkage that they continued with the 'good news' that: “while the consumption of animal fat leads to a slow increase in the risk of mortality from heart disease, these risks decrease rapidly upon switching to a healthier diet and lifestyle."
And yet… the trouble is, it’s now 2016 and the most recent charts show further decline everywhere, with France (together with Japan) being right down at the bottom of the list… still! Why has France not climbed to American levels as they predicted?
Professor Wald is clearly a distinguished scholar, having gone on to become a member of the Royal Society and been knighted, but I cannot find any retraction of this research, which is typical of many studies that have influenced the low fat era in which we still live.
On such important topics, should we not have a system whereby original authors comment on what they wrote many years ago, particularly when things have not quite worked out quite as they predicted? And when it comes to France, isn’t it time for some official bodies to admit they have been wrong and that the French paradox is in many ways, a French advantage? Then we could officially begin to debate what that advantage is… Hint: It’s not the Mediterranean Diet.
Research quoted: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115846/
Arthur Schopenhauer famously said that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed, and third; it is accepted as being self-evident.
Back in 2009 as the above article from the New York Daily News shows, eating butter was still being ridiculed and a mix of poor research and industry lobbying was keen to keep things that way.
I suspect that now, when it comes to eating butter, we have left that phase but are still somewhere in the second phase of acceptance – for butter will, over time, surely be found to have been heart and cancer healthy all along. Yet the leading luminaries of the nutrition world oppose butter and still prefer ‘marge’, as long as the trans-fats have been removed.
Walter Willett, Chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health admits that as a physician back in the 1980's, he was telling people that they should replace butter with margarine because it was cholesterol free. Today he’s shifted his position a little: he imagines a spectrum ranging from super healthy foods such as blueberries to toxic ones (like a 20-oz Coke, he says) and would put butter “close to the middle, but maybe a little closer to the Coke”.
Dr. David Katz, Director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center still “avoids butter, opting instead for olive oil.”
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, Dean of the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University says there is “No evidence it’s good for you, yet little evidence for major harm.” A not very subtle put-down.
Dr David Ludwig also of Harvard is a little more positive with: “The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, consider that butter is actually the more healthful component.”
Butter is after all about 50% saturated fat and there the Harvard scholars feel even more sure of their findings. Frank Hu professor of nutrition and epidemiology says “In terms of heart disease risk, saturated fat and refined carbohydrates appear to be similarly unhealthful.” Pretty damning; And a fellow Harvard researcher, Yanping Li points out: “Dietary recommendations to reduce saturated fats should specify their replacement with unsaturated fats (such as vegetable oils) or with healthy carbohydrates, such as whole grains.”
For now, butter sales are slowly rising so consumers are voting with their taste buds. But it may be some time before the Harvard team in particular, staunch supporters incidentally of eating whole grain carbohydrates, remind us that they always knew butter was really good for you. Yet, watch this space: in the world of nutrition, stranger things have taken place.
It's official; the new British eating guidelines are out and they are... very similar to the way they've been for the last 20 years or so. In the words of the Chief Nutritionist at Public Health England:
"The evidence shows that we should continue to base our meals on starchy carbohydrates."
If you're reading this website, then you'll probably know that based on the current evidence, this 'high-carb' statement is just plain wrong.
And when it comes to dairy, she says:
"Try to go for lower-fat and lower-sugar products where possible, like 1% fat milk, reduced-fat cheese or plain low-fat yoghurt."
The sugar reduction message is of course an important one but lower fat products usually have to resort to artificial sweeteners and emulsifiers to add taste and to thicken otherwise bland, low-fat cream cheeses and yogurts. It's a case of 'choose your poison' I suppose, unless you go for the full-fat regular (and usually less processed) original foods which satiate you and enable your body to absorb essential vitamins.
For more on The new guide.
This main message is wrong
Source: The new guide
The epidemic of obesity and type-2 diabetes (known as 'diabesity') is increasingly linked to high-carb diets, the use of vegetable seed oils and today's low-fat foods. No-one as yet can prove this but to deny its plausibility is to continue misleading millions of increasingly unhealthy people.
Today, Europe's definitive chronic disease is type-2 diabetes. In the UK alone, more than 3 1/2 million people now have the disease with 700 people per day entering the fold. Type-2 diabetes is the leading cause of blindness in people of working age and leads to more than 100 amputations a week. It is strongly associated with obesity and in some UK towns, 3 out of 4 people are obese. Children are also in the firing line. In 1957, fewer than one in ten 11-year-olds were fat; by 2012, more than a quarter of a typical class are overweight or obese.
With so many people suffering the effects of today's junk-food driven lifestyles (be they obesity, type-2 diabetes or others), solid nutritional guidance is in short supply. Websites such as www.dietdoctor.com do an excellent job but we urgently need the mainstream to catch up. Sadly, traditionally taught nutritionists are still plying their trade based on a poorly informed curriculum, steeped in largely unproven epidemiological evidence from the past. That's why the low-carb advice of Professor Noakes has kicked up such a storm with his 'baby-food trial' in South Africa.
Jamie Oliver is closely followed by thousands, particularly in the UK. He has done so much to prove his credentials when it comes to talking sense about school meals and recommending that we ditch junk food, but the nutritional advice he receives is incorrect and misleading.
Nowhere on his website does Jamie or his team of advisers make reference to a low-carb, high-fat approach to eating, even though it is now becoming accepted as the best anti-type-2 diabetes approach to eating. Dr Ludwig of Harvard's T.H Chan School of Public Health says: "The fastest way to stabilize blood glucose and lower insulin levels is to reduce carbohydrate." Nutritionists and chefs take note.
The closest you get on the subject from Jamie's nutritional advisers is to be found in this low-carb, high-protein advice (see below) which is slanted and at best, misleading. The author takes a commonly used approach to writing such an article, using cheap rhetorical techniques to try and appeal to her audience. It goes something like this:
1/ Make things sound complicated.
2/Add confusion (but don’t try and remove it).
3/ Add a sweeping statement (straw dog) which is not relevant.
4/ Bring in the much-propagated whole grain argument.
5/ Add a sweeping (incorrect) statement that eating carbs is important and adds nutritional value.
6/ Then imply that saturated fat is bad and associate it with salt.
8/ Add further generalisations.
9/ Bring in total misinformation about the effects of eating low-carb. (We’re talking 'low-carb' not 'no-carb' and even if we were 'no-carb', the statement is almost certainly incorrect).
10/ Associate high-protein with eating red meat, sat fat and salt again.
11/ State the obvious: Lowering carbs means eating more fat or protein – well, Yes, of course.
12/ Emphasise the supposed dangers of a high protein diet.
13/ Cherry-pick your research quote, implying that low-carb has no long-term benefits. (Making no reference to type-2 diabetes)
14/ Imply that most of us want a ‘quick detox or cleanse’ – creating a doubtful strawman again.
15/ Shoot down the self-made strawman, singing the virtues of wholegrains while grouping ‘salt, sugar & saturated fat’ again together as the baddies.
16/ Sing the praises of balance and variety vs ‘overly simplistic diets’, even though the author’s hypothesis of a simplistic diet is of her own making.
The lay-reader can be left with only two messages:
How about a change in curriculum? It's already crowded, I know, but if we are to truly embrace Hippocrates; “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”, then nutrition training which is pretty much non-existent currently, needs to be stepped up.
Why not take a further step forward and make the essentials of cooking fundamental to medical training? Then maybe we'd begin to move away from 'nutritionism' (what Ben Goldacre calls the 'Bollocks du jour') to putting real food back in the spotlight.
Blog July 2015
“WHY IT'S HEALTHIER TO COOK WITH LARD THAN SUNFLOWER OIL"
The best selling American seed oil is made from corn; in Europe, it's sunflower oil. Both of them are rich in inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids.
After misleading us last week with his message that we still need to be reducing our cholesterol levels, Michael Mosley attempts to redeem himself this week with the ‘discovery’ that sunflower oil might not be as good for us as we thought.
This topic is important because today, the use of sunflower oil is pretty ubiquitous. You have only to read the label on potato crisps (or chips depending upon where you live) to see that about 30% of every mouthful is fat, and in Western Europe, that frying fat is invariably sunflower oil. In the US, it’s more likely to be corn or soy oil but it matters little, because all represent concentrated forms of Omega-6 (of which we eat too much) and being polyunsaturated fats, they all go quickly rancid as well as being inherently unstable when heated.
In today's Daily Mail, Dr Mosley says that, “Most people thought frying with vegetable oils is healthier”… which is unfortunately the distorted way that these things get written up. The truth is that doctors and nutritionists have been telling us for years that sunflower oil is healthy and that lard is bad for you. So it's hardly surprising that ‘most people’, also influenced by lobby groups working in the pay of the processed vegetable seed industry, have been moved to think the same.
Fat and cholesterol
There is an interesting link between the two topics of fat and cholesterol because so many recent clinical trials have shown that LDL cholesterol levels, except in the most extreme cases, are actually very poor predictors of heart attack risk. And eating more saturated fats is the only sure way of increasing your 'good' HDL cholesterol'… but, of course, there’s no money for big-pharma in that message so you won’t hear it too often!
As for Dr Mosley, he seems to be on a true voyage of discovery but I just wonder why he’s come to all this so late. For reference, here’s a piece from Dr. Mercola’s informative website posted 12 years ago on October 15, 2003:
“When you cook with polyunsaturated vegetable oils (such as canola, corn, and soy oils), oxidized cholesterol is introduced into your system. As the oil is heated and mixed with oxygen, it goes rancid. Rancid oil is oxidized oil and should NOT be consumed—it leads directly to vascular disease.”
But let’s get back to Michael Mosley. Writing just one year ago on July 16 2014 in the Daily Mail, he said:
“Milk, cheese, butter, cream - in fact all saturated fats - are bad for you. Or so I believed ever since my days as a medical student nearly 30 years ago. During that time I assured friends and family that saturated fat would clog their arteries as surely as lard down a drain. So, too, would it make them pile on the pounds. Recently, however, I have been forced to do a U-turn. It is time to apologise for all that useless advice I've been dishing out about fat.”
But he seems to have forgotten that when writing in today’s Daily Mail and pre-selling tonight’s show: “Trust me, I’m a doctor” on BBC2 at 8 pm. His message:
“I am considering giving lard a try - and I never thought I would hear myself say that.”
The article has a serious side to it though because these vegetable seed oil, when heated can be particularly bad for you. He continues: “To understand why, we must look closely at what happens to fats and oils when heated to a high temperature. They undergo what is called oxidation: they react with oxygen in the air to form substances such as aldehydes and lipid peroxides.” And then quoting a Professor Grootveld: “We found that oils which were polyunsaturated-rich - corn oil and sunflower oil - generated very high levels of aldehydes”.
His angle is that this is revolutionary news but it’s not. It is simply not usually espoused by mainstream doctors and in that sense, I must admit that it’s great to see Michael Mosley bringing sensible eating advice in line with the available research findings.
"FAT IS OUR FRIEND" ADVOCATES A DIET RICH IN VEGETABLES, LOW IN STARCH & SUGAR, MODEST IN PROTEIN & HIGH IN FAT.
Sammy Pepys is not a doctor or a nutritionist but over the years, he has become increasingly suspicious of today's conventional wisdom about diet and health. When it comes to what we eat, he has helped many learn to eat more healthily