Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Government’s “Dietary fat guidelines have no evidence base”

    Government’s “Dietary fat guidelines have no evidence base”

    Incidents of obesity and diabetes explode after low-fat guidelines were implemented.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkbnnErHWc

    The theory of “consensus science reliability” seems to have taken another hit, as a new report has been released that asserts government-based dietary fat guidelines “have no evidence base”.

    Publishing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Dr Zoë Harcombe of the Institute of Clinical Exercise and Health Science of the University of the West of Scotland researched both the origins and the results of following the dietary fat guidelines that have prevailed in the US and the United Kingdom for almost 40 years. The evidence provides no support for the assertion that low-fat diets are healthier, especially as the incidences of obesity and diabetes have escalated dramatically during the same four decades of the guidelines’ implementation.

    Until the introduction of dietary guidelines in 1977, the view of Tanner, from the Practice of Medicine, prevailed “Farinaceous and vegetable foods are fattening, and saccharine matters are especially so” …. In 1960, 13.3% of US adults were obese; 44.8% were overweight. By 2007, 34.7% of US adults were obese; 67.7% were overweight.68 In the UK, in 1972, 2.7% of men and 2.7% of women were obese and 23.0% of men and 13.9% of women were overweight. By 1999, obesity rates had risen to 22.6% of men and 25.8% of women, while 49.2% of men and 36.3% of women were overweight.69 (Health was devolved in the UK in 1999 to the regions of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and thus UK statistics terminated).

    The diabetes rate was 2.4% in 1976 in the USA. The introduction to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reported that 24 million Americans, almost 11% of the adult population, were diabetic and 78 million Americans, 35% of the adults, were pre-diabetic.71 This has recently been updated to 29 million diabetics and 86 million pre-diabetics. A recent review in the Lancet estimated that the lifetime risk for developing diabetes was 40.2% for American men and 39.6% for women. There were 800 000 people with diabetes in the UK in 1980, from a population of 56 million—an incident rate of 1.42%. The diabetes rate in the UK in 2015 was 6.1%.75 The incident rate of diabetes, both in the USA and the UK, has increased more than fourfold since the dietary fat guidelines were introduced.

    Harcombe, who is a noted obesity researcher, takes a look at the obesity epidenic and its relationship to dietary guidelines in the following video:

    Her research assessed the “science” used as the basis for the guidelines, and found it questionable. For example, the actual look at the control trials tying coronary heart disease to saturated fat consumption was not statistically significant for most studies; those promoting this guideline merely focused on one report. Additionally, she highlights a 2015 report that analyzed data collected between 1974 to 2000 and concludes dietary carbohydrate restriction should be the first approach in diabetes management.

    What suggestion does Harcombe offer based on her assessment? In a nutshell: Ignore the consensus science.

    It seems simple and obvious to suggest that populations should return to eating the natural, unprocessed food that was consumed before obesity and diabetes reached epidemic proportions; yet this is considered heresy by public health advisors. Clarification of the distinction between processed food and saturated fat could provide opportunity for agreement that processed food is unhealthy, while saturated fat is a natural part of most natural foods. It is worth noting that every food that contains fat contains all three fats: saturated; monounsaturated and polyunsaturated.65 The notion that saturated fat is harmful and unsaturated fat is healthful is illogical given their coexistence in foods required for human survival.

    It appears many healthcare professionals are already offering new recommendations:

    Diet experts say there’s a good reason to put some fat back in our diets.

    “Higher fat intake gives us a greater sense of fullness and you can cut down on consumption of starches and sweets,” Dr. Louis Aronne, Weill Cornell Medicine said.

    …In fact, there are large studies that show people who ate diets very, very high in good fats — olive oil and nuts — actually lost weight, and reduced their risk for heart attack and stroke.

    The critical factor is what you combine those good fats with.

    “The lethal combo is fat plus carbs. So you can have protein and carbs, you can have protein and fat, but you can’t have fat and carbs,” Dr. Aronne said.

    The more processed those carbs are — white flour, white pasta, sugar, etc. — the worse the combination for your heart and waist.

    First, the case against eggs was cracked. Recently, salt has been shown to lower blood pressure. Based on the new report, I am having steak and eggs for breakfast tomorrow!

    The next time the government offers a guideline to follow, it may be prudent to do the opposite.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:
    ,

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    nordic_prince | May 24, 2017 at 11:43 am

    The dirty little secret about “low fat” foodstuffs (emphasis on “stuffs” and not so much on “food”) is that reducing fat has the natural effect of reducing flavor. (This is no doubt the reason why so many “diet foods” taste like cardboard.) Consequently, “low fat” foodstuffs contain inordinate amounts of sugar to compensate for the bland taste.

    The average American merely equates “low fat” with “healthy,” and think they can snack on this stuff and do their heart some good…then several years later, they get a checkup and the doctor informs them that they’re (pre-)diabetic. Gee, I wonder why? You don’t suppose it could have anything to do with diet-induced insulin resistance, could it….?

      Yep. And the fat helps you feel fuller after eating, so you tend to eat less as a consequence. Sugar, while it adds flavor, also adds a LOT of empty calories.

      Plus, sugar in all its forms is cheap, so the food processing companies would rather use it to add flavor than, say, using real butter. Ditto for salt; it’s cheap, too.

      So you get all these cheaply-processed foods packed full of sugar (and its proxies, e.g. corn syrup, fructose, etc.) and salt, which have a lot of calories but don’t make you feel full, so you eat (and buy) more of it. And the cycle continues.

      Follow the money; it makes more sense when you understand who stands to gain and how. (See my comment below.)

    Here’s the story I heard.

    40 years ago, the studies on diet as it relates to health and well-being first came out, and the FDA saw a need to release its set of dietary guidelines. However, the studies themselves were inconclusive (at best), suggesting several possible dietary restrictions, but lacking the definitive evidence to endorse any of them. But the FDA decided to roll forward and advocate for either a diet low in fat or a diet low in sugar and processed foods.

    But which one?

    Naturally, the representatives of the food processing companies, seeing the threat to their bottom lines, came out and lobbied — HARD — against the low-sugar and low-processed-food options.

    OTOH, representatives of the “fatty-food lobby” were … noticeably absent, because there is no such industry.

    And so the dietary guidelines as originally released by the FDA four decades ago were more a product of special-interest politics than sound science.

    Call me cynical if you like, but this makes more sense to me than any other explanation of why the FDA would write regulations based on inconclusive science. “Follow the money”, as it were.


       
       0 
       
       1
      jafa in reply to Archer. | May 24, 2017 at 12:27 pm

      This becomes more noteworthy when you consider that ingredients to that junk food receive federal subsidies.

      We might as well have gov’t messing with healthcare, since they are helping us get sick.


         
         0 
         
         2
        Archer in reply to jafa. | May 24, 2017 at 1:20 pm

        Yep. Those subsidies make sugar and its proxies (especially corn syrup) cheap compared to traditional fatty ingredients, like butter or lard. Of course the food processing industry would rather use sugar to add flavor!


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend