Big Food flack likely to add intellectual equivalent of mashed potatoes to food policy discussion
Nina Teicholz replaced
by potato lobbyist
In what was not a big fat surprise, science journalist Nina Teicholz -- a fierce advocate for basing nutrition policy on rigorous research -- was "disinvited" from a consumer group's Food Policy Panel after two of the panelist refused to appear with her.
The cowed Consumer Federation of America replaced her with Maureen L. Storey, Ph.D., whose curriculum vitae suggests a pattern of auctioning off her academic credentials to the highest bidder. Storey's research findings consistently validate whatever group is currently paying her bills, whether it's the potato industry or Big Beverage.
Ironically, Margo Wootan, one of the panelists behind booting Teicholz from the panel had the nerve to accuse the ninja journalist of engaging in shoddy science:
Wootan based her charges on a letter signed by 180 conventional dietitian types (seven of whom later withdrew their names) demanding retraction of Teicholz's September 2015 BMJ article on the shaky science behind the US Dietary Guidelines -- a letter that Wootan had engineered and which Teicholz credibly rebutted. The signers were largely people whose research had been discredited by Teicholz in her New York Times best selling book.
Excerpt from "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter,
Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet"
What is ironic is that Wootan is director of nutrition policy for the facetiously named Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a rabid anti-animal fat advocacy group that is largely responsible for the proliferation of trans fats in America's food supply -- a big fat mistake for which they have never apologized and now pretend never happened.
Teicholz is not going down without a fight. Her supporters have started a petition to have her reinstated, which has been shared on social media by a Who's Who of leading edge health advocates, including Gary Taubes, Prof. Tim Noakes, Dr. Sarah Hallberg and Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt.
Meanwhile, in an email sent to colleagues, Teicholz wrote:
“I hope you will consider signing and maybe spread the
word. What made me realize that it wasn't me--and that they really
didn't want any alternative viewpoints--was the fact that the conference
organizers also nixed the Harvard MD whom I suggested to replace me.
Instead, they appointed an industry flack from the potato industry (and
formerly the American Beverage Association).
“This nonsense must stop! They need to allow real conversation and debate. The insider game in D.C. that drives our country's nutrition policy(and hence, School Lunches, WIC, and everything taught by every MD,
nutritionist and dietician in the country) only survives because
dissenting views have been excluded. The views of honest science-based
experts have not been heard and need to be!”
For those who follow dietary health news, this latest effort to silence dissenting views is eerily reminiscent of the Health Care Professions of South Africa (HCPSA) hearing against Prof. Tim Noakes. The effort by the conventional dietary establishment to discredit the A-rated scientific researcher backfired when Noakes used the hearing as a platform to disseminate accurate information about the benefits of carb restriction and consumption of saturated fat to a global audience.
Jamie Oliver may be right about the dangers of sugar, but he's wrong about carbohydrates and saturated fat.
Dead wrong... as in people are literally dying from diabetes and cardiovascular disease from avoiding saturated fat as if it were their creepy uncle at Christmas and then consuming way too many vegetable oils and starchy carbohydrates, whole grain or otherwise.
After researching Oliver's background and discovering he is dyslexic and has read maybe a handful of books in his whole entire life, his lack of knowledge about nutrition makes sense. Like most people, he gets his information from the mainstream media and registered dietitians, many of whom are food company shills.
"If we don’t get enough carbohydrates and
our bodies don’t get the energy they need, they have to get it from
elsewhere and break down fat and protein instead."
Oliver is right that if our body does not get "enough" carbohydrates, it will burn fat instead, but most people are quite happy to burn body fat. As for protein, research suggests carbohydrate restrictors actually burn less protein (muscle) than starchaholics.
And from the same blog post....
"Starchy carbohydrates are a wonderful thing – they make us feel happy, satisfied and energetic ... plus, we all crave and enjoy them."
If I were to substitute cocaine or sugar for starchy carbohydrates, that statement would still be true. Craving something does not make it good for you, and that burst of energy is soon followed by a crash unless you keep consuming more.
Or, as Homer Simpson would say, "Doh!"
Since helping to get the sugar tax passed in Britain, Oliver has moved on to encouraging new moms to breastfeed and being called a boob by many for "mansplaining" to women what to do with their bodies.
My advice to Oliver is to lay off women's breasts and pay someone to read him some of the following evidence based books:
The functional medicine doctor and New York Times best selling author of Eat Fat, Get Thin has a HuffPo video clip going viral that could help dispel the saturated-fat-is bad-for-you myth spread by dietitians and margarine companies.
If you're one of those people still spraying butter flavored vegetable oil on your food and cookware, STOP IT ALREADY.
Hyman says in the absence of sugar and refined carbs -- and presence of enough Omega 3s -- saturated fat was not linked to heart disease in 72 different studies involving 19 countries and 600,000 people.
(No pre-diabetic Australian mice were involved in these studies as far as we know.)
"Think of butter and a bagel," says Hyman. "That's a problem, because it starts to create inflammation and insulin resistance in the body.
"If I had to choose between butter and a bagel, I'd choose the butter."
See Hyman's video here with a bonus segment on why high LDL cholesterol is not a problem if it's the large, fluffy kind.
An article tease on my Facebook feed this morning was tasty link bait for this fish since I pretty much click on any piece related to sugar and dietary guidelines, especially if it has a catchy title.
Your body can't tell the difference
between "natural" and added sugar.
The challenge writer E.S. Huffman undertook was thus:
"In the interest of all things health, wellness, and unwieldy future medical bills, I decided to test out the WHO conservative sugar recommendation for a week. I wanted to see if it was doable, or if I would turn into a label-reading nutter with a constant sugar-withdrawal headache. So last Saturday, with a full night of sleep acting like the wind at my back, I began my experiment."
I can save you the trouble of reading the full article by sharing the author's wisdom gained after her n=1 science experiment here:
"Will I do it again? Well, that’s a complicated question. My body, unfortunately enough, loved this little experiment. I felt great all week long. In theory, I would do this again in a heartbeat. But in practice? Well, there are the leftover brownies, and two types of ice cream in the freezer now, and I also managed to maul a Girl Scout troop on my Friday grocery shopping trip.
"What it will really come down to is self-control. The day I had to measure myself out a half a portion of Ben and Jerry’s was pretty freaking depressing. But afterwards, I felt good about myself. I had had my ice cream, and it was fine. The real question now is, will I be able to do it without the pressure of succeeding for an article?
"I’m not sure. Today, I’ve already had a slice of cake and a scoop of gelato. But there’s always tomorrow. "
Here's my no-sugar-added beef with this piece. The author assumes that added sugar is the most important thing to avoid to prevent diabetes -- not total consumption of sugar. The latter would include the 14 grams of sugar in her "healthy" banana versus the few grams of sugar added to bread and spaghetti sauce.
Given that even conventional dietitians seem confused on this issue, it's not surprising the writer fails to consider total carbohydrates consumed since even bread with no added sugar turns to glucose in the blood.
In other words, E.S. Huffman: if you're going to eat bread and pasta, you may as well eat doughnuts.
One of my biggest disagreements with the article is the author's view that if food companies included added sugar on their product labels, consumers would have the data required to make healthier choices:
"Here comes a rant, though: will the FDA Gods and/or higher-ups please, please, please keep pushing the added sugar labeling requirement? Because gosh darn it, it’s difficult to know when a food’s sugar content is because of added versus natural sugars. Do I really think that my slices of toast had an entire teaspoon of sugar in each one of them? No, not really. Maybe it was lactose from milk or something else—the point is, there was no way of knowing. I know the sugar lobby has argued all sorts of things anti added sugar labeling (“It will confuse the consumer! Oh no! Oh no!”) but in the end, a nutrition label is just a nutrition label, and if people want to eat healthy, they will."
The problem is our bodies don't know if a food's sugar content is from added versus natural sugars. Not only do we metabolize all sugars the same, many "natural" foods have been bred to be sweeter than their ancestral versions. In that context, are modern apples and melons really "natural"?
Further, the word "natural" does not mean a substance is healthy. Try consuming organic arsenic for a week.
While there was so much about the article to dislike, this may have been the most disturbing passage:
"This morning it’s more Darjeeling, more bagel, more cream cheese, more butter. I may not die of diabetes, but heart disease—weeeeell, that’s an issue to tackle later. The only thing that contains sugar in my breakfast is my everything bagel from Panera, at 4 grams."
Yes, the author seriously thinks not eating breakfast cereal or danish containing added sugar means she will "not die of diabetes." She is more concerned the butter and cream cheese she consumed-- not her carby bagel -- puts her at greater risk for heart disease.
I can't really fault E.S. Huffman for perpetuating misinformation about health and nutrition. Unless one commits to reading complex medical studies or scientifically based books like The Big Fat Surprise, The Real Meal Revolution, or The World Turned Upside Down, it's easy to believe the daily diet of nonsense designed to distract the public from the true causes of diabetes and other metabolic diseases.
While it's a noble ideal for people to avoid consuming foods containing added sugar, the health benefit is negligible compared to restricting total carbohydrates.
After missing its fourth quarter earnings estimates, Weight Watchers (WTW) stock took a 29 percent tumble Friday, costing bread loving investor and board member Oprah Winfrey a lot of dough. While the multi-million dollar loss is pocket change for the yo-yo dieting billionairess, her bigger loss is her personal cred for promoting a failed commercial diet scheme based on shaky science.
Weight Watchers stock price has gone on a Mr. Toad's Wild Ride since October 2015 when the former chat queen bought a 10 percent stake in the company and declared she was on the company's diet program. The company's share price doubled in one day.
But like a souffle built on hot air, the gain could not stand the test of time because the company's stock price is based on the Jelloish premise that most people can out-exercise a bad diet and lose weight consuming low-fat high-carb foods.
Regardless of how many online services and coaching programs Weight Watchers adds to its program menu, its celebration of mainstream nutrition's moderation theory of dieting virtually guarantees people will not be able to maintain their weight loss even if they manage to lose a few pounds. Carbohydrates are so addicting that once a person reaches their goal weight the will power to refrain from eating too many carbs is almost impossible to muster.
Weight Watchers has all but given up on marketing its program to millennials who are too savvy to buy into its old school premise. In recent years, the company has targeted older pre-diabetic adults.
In a cynical move, Weight Watchers sponsored an Indiana University School of Medicine study published in the American Journal of Public Health. And...
Surprise!
“The findings suggest that Weight Watchers, a widely
available, empirically validated weight management program, could
significantly expand access to effective diabetes prevention programs,”
said the study's lead investigator, Dr. David Marrero.
Not surprised was Harvard Medical School professor and director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, David Ludwig, who told the New York Post, “We found that if a food company sponsored a research study, the
outcomes were four to eight times more likely to be more favorable to
that company’s interests than if the study was independently funded.”
“If you just look at the funding, you can
make a very good guess as to what the study will show without reading
anything else,” he added.
In other words, Weight Watchers paid for research that "proved" its diet works.
#WhatACoincidence!!!
Since most media reports did not include Weight Watchers' role in sponsoring the study, the news spiked the stock price more than 18 percent, not to mention dieters' insulin levels from metabolizing all the excess carbohydrates they consumed.
Meanwhile, Oprah released a TV commercial in January in which she passionately declared she had lost 26 pounds on Weight Watchers while eating bread every day.
And -- in case you're wondering -- Weight Watchers' stock price went up on this breaking news, too. There's a lot of bread to be made telling people they can follow a diet that allows you to munch on bread every day. A page on Weight Watchers' website "cleverly" titled The Skinny on Bread (you can't make this stuff up!) strategically echoes Oprah's perspective:
"Who hasn’t heard that bread is fattening? Some people would have you
believe that eating a slice is akin to downing an entire birthday cake,
frosting and all. But in reality, if you stick to whole grains, bread
can be downright healthy. Here’s a guide to navigating the bread aisle.
"Whole grains — for example, wheat flour milled using the entire grain,
which preserves all the fiber, vitamins and minerals — have multiple
health benefits. According to the USDA, people who consume at least
three servings of whole grains each day are at lower risk for diabetes
and heart disease. And several studies have shown that diets high in
whole grains are associated with lower body weight."
This view, however, contradicts the preponderance of research that for people with insulin resistance, bread is fattening because it spikes insulin, thus facilitating fat storage.
The bottom line is we all know Oprah can lose weight. Like the old joke about smokers, she's done it a million times.
The real question is can she maintain her weight loss months and years later when she has to depend on will power to control her carb addiction? And how is her insulin spiking, inflammation producing diet that favors vegetable oils over butter and bacon affecting her heart, liver and overall health, regardless of whether or not she temporarily sheds a few pounds.
Now that she's putting her money where her mouth is, Oprah needs to read up on low-carb high-fat diets and have another epiphany. Like a bad boyfriend, it's time for Oprah and bread to break up.
If the Dietary Guidelines for Americans is one of the most embarrassing US publications foisted upon the English speaking global community, Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance" may be one of its finest.
One of Emerson's most famous quote from this essay, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," makes uttering the phrase, "I was wrong" an act of intellectual integrity instead of a shameful admission of fault.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
In the case of Professor Tim Noakes of South Africa, a medical doctor, scientist and marathoner, the heroic turnabout concerned his long-standing recommendation to consume a high-carb low-fat diet to enhance athletic performance.
Noakes was following the conventional dietary "wisdom" of his day, entrusting registered dietitians and nutrition researchers to make scientifically based dietary recommendations. Despite his "healthy" regimen, Noakes found himself overweight and pre-diabetic.
Serendipitously, the A-1 rated researcher read a book by medical doctors Eric Westman, Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek and another by Gary Taubes that for the first time made him suspect that for carb resistant (CR) people -- possibly half of all adults -- consuming recommended amounts of carbohydrates could cause more harm than good. More shocking, the evidence to support nutritional advice given by most registered dietitians, medical doctors and government guidelines was very shaky.
Noakes' father and uncle suffered from Type 2 Diabetes and the scientist saw himself going down that pot-hole riddled road himself -- despite following his government's high carb low fat dietary guidelines and being an elite athlete.
Professor Tim Noakes, MD
The author of Lore of Running, first published in 1985, recommends tearing the chapter on nutrition out of his original book. His more recent books written after his dietary epiphany -- The Real Meal Revolution (for adults) and Raising Superheroes (for children) -- recommend a modified Banting diet (high fat, moderate protein and low carb).
Back in the 90s, I read the work of Dr. John McDougall, who convinced me the "rich Western diet" was the root cause of obesity and chronic disease. For several years I subsisted on a low-fat vegan
diet but never realized the myriad health benefits promised by this way of eating; so I returned to a conventional (albeit, also wrong-headed) diet. Yet even as a totally obscure person with no
followers other than my husband and children, it was still very difficult
for me to acknowledge the extreme dietary regimen my family had been following for two years was not the most healthy way to eat.
So I can onlyimagine how hard it must have been for Dr. Tim Noakes to tell the world he had made a mistake by recommending a high-carb low-fat diet and that for many, if not most, people the optimal way to eat was virtually the complete opposite. Like Superman's Bizarro world, fat was good; carbs, bad.
Since following with keen interest the "Banting for Babies Trial" -- the Health Care Professions of South Africa (HCPSA) extended hearing on charges that Noakes acted unethically by providing unconventional dietary advice on Twitter to a nursing mother in response to her innocent suspicious query -- I have been struck by how courageous Noakes was to stray from the medical herd and admit he had given bad dietary advice for many years. (For details on this fascinating saga, read these BizNews.com articles.)
Just prior to the landmark Old Mutual Health Convention he hosted with Karen Thomson in South Africa in February of 2015, Noakes released this official statement:
"... “The mainstream dietary advice that we are currently giving to the world has simply not worked. Instead, it is the opinion of the speakers at this summit that this incorrect nutritional advice is the immediate cause of the global obesity and diabetes epidemics. This advice has failed because it completely ignores the history of why and how human nutrition has developed over the past 3 million years.
“More importantly, it refuses to acknowledge the presence of insulin resistance (carbohydrate intolerance) as the single most prevalent biological state in modern humans. Persons with insulin resistance are at increased risk for developing a wide range of chronic medical conditions if they ingest a high carbohydrate diet for any length of time (decades).
"Armed with this knowledge we have two choices. Either we can continue to ignore the evidence presented at this summit, and go on blaming the obese and diabetic for their sloth and gluttony (that is supposedly the sole cause of their obesity and diabetes). Or, if we are ever to reverse this epidemic that has become the greatest modern threat to human health, we need to admit that we have been wrong for the past 40 years, and must now change."
Sadly, too few famous people have the courage of Tim Noakes to change their mind in public and risk being ridiculed by their peers for flip-flopping or flouting convention. Noakes understands that cognitive dissonance makes it uncomfortable for most people to accept conflicting information and have a psychological need to ignore or impugn any data that does not fit their scheme.
Instead, they will continue dispensing the same bad dietary advice that has led to an epidemic of T2D and other metabolic diseases, most of it based on shaky science and funded by Big Food companies who control the message most registered dietitians dish out to a trusting public.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
I was reading an old blog post in Tuit Nutrition yesterday, and was struck by a quote Amy Berger shared from Mark Sisson:
“You should follow the most restrictive diet you can enjoy, not the most restrictive one you can tolerate.”
As a 50-something, I learned a long time ago the perfect is the enemy of the good. For many years, I didn't want anyone in my house unless it was immaculate. Then I figured out it takes a lot less time to apologize for a messy house than to clean it; so now, as long as my guests have chairs to sit on that are not covered with cat hair, I'm good.
When it comes to diet, I could get equally obsessed with perfection, eating only the cleanest grassiest fed organically raised food from racially mixed family farms within a five mile radius of my house.
I could become so restrictive that one day my inner James Dean would finally rebel and my husband would find me in a carb induced coma outside a pizza joint or doughnut shop.
Fortunately, I am far from perfect.
Since losing 35 pounds two years ago, I have maintained my optimal weight eating foods that have zero or relatively few carbs, such as meat, whole-fat dairy, nuts, avocados and non-starchy vegetables.
Admittedly, I do not always eat foods in their most whole -- or least processed -- form.
When I want my lemon water to be less tart, I use a packaged product called Lakanto, which is a combination of erythritol and luo han guo (monk fruit). For me, this is an acceptable alternative to sugar, Splenda or the myriad other natural and artificial sweeteners that either spike my blood glucose or mess with my microbiome.
I also eat one low-carb Mama Lupe's tortilla every morning as a vehicle for the cheesy and buttery quesadilla I eat for breakfast. Though its macronutrient profile is good, this processed food contains some undesirable ingredients. But I really love starting my day with a quesadilla and think it's better to eat a sub-optimal low-carb tortilla than an inferior grocery store tortilla.
Another confession:
Most days I eat a GNC chocolate chip cookie dough protein bar, which also contains some sketchy ingredients. But eating this bar helps me not crave cookies, brownies, cake, doughnuts, ice cream and the like; so it's a trade off I am willing to make.
And when I eat at restaurants, I can pretty much bet the chicken or cow
was not raised in a grassy meadow surrounded by butterflies and
rainbows, and my salad greens may have taken a pesticide bath in Mexico.
But as a semi-social person, I sometimes dine out with friends and am
willing to make some trade offs to partake in this enjoyable ritual.
The bottom line is that most of my diet consists of relatively whole, relatively healthy low-carb high-fat foods. The few imperfect food-like items I allow myself to consume allow me to maintain a healthy diet (by my definition) most of the time.
In other words, I have found the most restrictive diet I can enjoy, not just tolerate; and if I can maintain it for the next few decades, that's pretty good.
