The dietary advice we were given caused us to swap fat for foods high in sugar. The result? Skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity. It’s now about time to realize that the low-fat diet just didn’t work, says Dr. David Ludwig at Harvard:
|All posts (747)||Drugs (26)||Lobbyism (17)|
|Bad Science (9)||Evolution (1)||Myths about LCHF (12)|
|Big Soda (82)||Failed low-fat diets (71)||New Study (30)|
|Calorie Counting (57)||Gary Taubes (35)||Nina Teicholz (18)|
|Climate Change (2)||Gut bacteria (6)||NuSI (3)|
|Confused thinking (13)||Health (6)||Potential LCHF problems (6)|
|Dr Oz (1)||Health Scares (4)||Professor Tim Noakes (26)|
|Dr. Aseem Malhotra (38)||History of low-carb diets (8)||Robert Lustig (36)|
|Dr. David Ludwig (11)||Intermittent fasting (85)||Sam Feltham (2)|
|Dr. Eric Westman (18)||Inuit (1)||Stephan Guyenet (3)|
|Dr. Jason Fung (81)||Ivor Cummins (1)||The Food Revolution (66)|
|Dr. Rangan Chatterjee (17)||Ketone Measuring (20)||The Swedish Revolution (48)|
|Dr. Sarah Hallberg (14)||Ketosis (30)||Tom Naughton (5)|
|Dr. Ted Naiman (14)||Living longer (11)|
Does it seem like the official low-fat dietary guidelines have been wrong about pretty much everything? So why do we keep trusting government agencies – ferociously lobbied by the food industry – to tell us what to eat?
IF YOU’VE TRIED to watch what you eat over the past few decades — and who hasn’t? — chances are you’ve come to loathe the federal government, at least when it comes to food advice. The New Yorker recently ran a satirical piece on this topic that was headlined, “Scientists Decide Thing Previously Thought Healthy, Then Unhealthy, Before Healthy Again, Does, in Fact, Cause Cancer,” which is exactly — yeah.
At least it’s worth having a laugh about it:
The low-fat diet has been a “massive public health failure” and it’s still causing significant harm. This according to a new article by Dr. David Ludwig at Harvard, published in the influential Journal of the American Medical Association:
Even though the 2015 USDA guidelines removed former advice to cut down on fat, decades of bad advice continues to have a negative effect on people’s health.
Why? Because the high-carb, low-fat way of thinking is still entrenched in many people’s minds. This results in an increased consumption of sugar and other carbs, increasing the risk of developing diseases such as diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease.
Furthermore, the continued fear of natural fats and an obsession with calories are slowing down research into more promising areas, like low-carbohydrate diets.
According to Dr. Ludwig, we now need “a frank accounting of past and current dietary recommendations and comprehensive measures to mitigate persisting harms from the low-fat diet era”.
In other words, the low-fat diet is dead. But it’s still harming people. It’s time to finally put it to rest.
How was it possible for Big Sugar to make people believe for decades, that fat was dangerous and sugar was fine? By paying researchers to manipulate data, as revealed this week.
For a while, in the middle of the last century, there was a scientific struggle. Was fat or sugar to blame for cardiovascular disease? Ancel Keys was the champion of the first theory, Professor John Yudkin of the other. Keys won, not least by using cherry-picked statistics.
The left graph above was famously used sixty years ago by Keys, to support his idea that fat intake was responsible for heart disease. But as the right graph shows, the same data could just as easily have implicated sugar. Countries eating higher amounts of fat were simultaneously eating more sugar. It was just a question of what you were looking for.
Since that time, we’ve spent half a century mistakenly fearing natural fat, and instead eating more carbs – with a resulting epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Now it’s time to see the truth:
Sugar was the link. Yudkin was right.
How bad can the dietary advice be that hospital patients get? This tweet from Dr. Ted Naiman shows an example that may be the worst ever. Continue Reading →
Is there enough scientific evidence supporting the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans? Not according to this article:
For example there’s no sound evidence for allowing about half of all grains to be refined (!) or for the truly old and moldy recommendation to eat low-fat dairy and to avoid natural saturated fats.
There’s even a great risk that these guidelines lead to higher risk of diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes etc.
This means that you’re likely better off going against the recommendations by consuming natural foods such as meat, fish, eggs, natural fats and vegetables, rather than foods low in saturated fats and sodium, but full of grains and industrial oils.
Is butter back? Surprise, surprise, a new study goes through all earlier science tracking people who eat butter, and the risk of disease.
The study reveals that there is no link between butter and heart disease, and that if anything, eating butter may even reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
- TIME: The Case for Eating Butter Just Got Stronger
- Express: Butter Has Been Wrongly ‘Demonised’ as Unhealthy, Say Experts
- The Sun: Now Butter Is NOT Bad for You – and Has Little or No Link to Heart Disease
- PLOS One: Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality
I’m certainly not surprised. This is completely in line with other modern studies. The question is when the nutritional guidelines will catch up to reality, and stop scaremongering about harmless old butter.
When do you think?
In March the latest version of the official UK Eatwell Guide was publicized, recommending people to base their meals on bread, rice, pasta and potatoes. Dietary expert Dr. Zoe Harcombe has this to say:
I would call this the “EatBadly” plate rather than the “EatWell” plate.
The Government’s most recent recommendations could lead to both weight gain and type 2 diabetes according to Dr. Harcombe. And she points out that there is no credible evidence supporting the Eatwell Guide.
On a side note almost half of the reference group that assisted in designing the graphic for the Eatwell plate were representatives of the food industry.
There are many adherents to the Calories In/ Calories Out (CICO) theory that constantly bleat about “It all comes down to the First Law of Thermodynamics”. The First Law of Thermodynamics refers to a law of physics where energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system and is ALWAYS true.
However, in the complex world of human physiology, it is true but completely irrelevant. What the CICO people think it means is that if you reduce calories in, you will lose weight. Of course, it means nothing of the sort.
So, let’s see why. Continue Reading →