Sugar the evidence

Just as this page documents recent academic articles questioning current dietary advice, so this page documents recent academic articles about sugar. All the papers are from 2015 onwards except the first two position papers, which are important to capture:

Position statement on Sugar & cardiovascular health: Johnson RK, Lustig RH, et al. “Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association”. Circulation. 2009

Position statement on Sweeteners & health: Gardner C, et al. “Nonnutritive sweeteners: current use and health perspectives: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association.” Circulation. 2012.

Articles from 2015:

Summary of evidence (Cochrane link). October 2015: Public Health England. “Sugar Reduction: The evidence for action.

Fructose & Cardiometabolic health. October 2015: Malik VS, Hu FB. “Fructose and Cardiometabolic Health: What the Evidence From Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tells Us”. J Am Coll Cardiol.

Sugar sweetened drinks & Hypertension. October 2015: Jayalath VH, et al.”Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and incident hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohorts”. Am J Clin Nutr.

Sugar & Tooth decay. October 2015: Meyer BD, Lee JY. “The Confluence of Sugar, Dental Caries, and Health Policy“. J Dent Res.

Sugar sweetened drinks & Global burden of disease. August 2015: Singh GM, et al; “Estimated Global, Regional, and National Disease Burdens Related to Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption in 2010.” Circulation.

Refined carbohydrates & Depression. August 2015: Gangwisch JE, el al. “High glycemic index diet as a risk factor for depression: analyses from the Women’s Health Initiative”. Am J Clin Nutr.

Sugar, Tooth decay & Obesity. July-Aug 2015: Yeung CA, Goodfellow A, Flanagan L.”The Truth about Sugar”. Dent Update.

Sugar sweetened drinks & Type 2 diabetes, independent of obesity. July 2015: Imamura F, et al. “Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction”. BMJ.

Sugar consumption & Addiction. June 2015: Tryon MS, et al. “Excessive Sugar Consumption May Be a Difficult Habit to Break: A View From the Brain and Body”. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.

Sugar sweetened drinks, Diabetes & Kidney disease. June 2015: Yracheta JM, et al. “Diabetes and Kidney Disease in American Indians: Potential Role of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages“. Mayo Clin Proc.

Sugar & Aging. March-April 2015: Ross SM. “Sugar-induced aging: the deleterious effects of excess dietary sugar intake”. Holist Nurs Pract.

Fructose & Type 2 diabetes. March 2015: DiNicolantonio JJ, O’Keefe JH, Lucan SC. “Added fructose: a principal driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its consequences”. Mayo Clin Proc.

Sugar sweetened drinks & early onset of menstruation. March 2015: Carwile JL, et al.Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and age at menarche in a prospective study of US girls”. Hum Reprod.

Sugar sweetened drinks & Snacking. March 2015: Bleich SN, Wolfson JA. “U.S. adults and child snacking patterns among sugar-sweetened beverage drinkers and non-drinkers”. Prev Med.

Sugar sweetened drinks, Hypertension & CVD. March 2015: Xi B, et al. “Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of hypertension and CVD: a dose-response meta-analysis”. Br J Nutr.

Conflicts of interest in the sugar industry & UK institutions & individuals. February 2015. Gornall J. “Sugar: spinning a web of influence”. BMJ.

Sugar & CVD. Jan-Feb 2015. Ross SM. “Cardiovascular disease mortality: the deleterious effects of excess dietary sugar intake”. Holist Nurs Pract.

Sugars, Metabolic Syndrome & Cancer. January 2015. Das UN. “Sucrose, fructose, glucose, and their link to metabolic syndrome and cancer”. Nutrition.

Sugar & FDA approval: Is it even safe? 2015: Card MM, Abela JF. “Just a Spoonful of Sugar Will Land You Six Feet Underground: Should the Food and Drug Administration Revoke Added Sugar’s GRAS Status?” Food Drug Law J.

(Please note, this is just a selection of articles on sucrose/sugar from 2015. On the date of this post, a pubmed search of (“sucrose”[tiab]) OR “sugar”[tiab])(tiab picks up the words sugar or sucrose in the title or abstract) in humans from 1 January 2015 to 19 January 2016 produced 677 articles. I picked review articles, which looked easier to digest than this one!)

For older articles, see the c.140 references at the end of this post.

Posted in Academic Research, Sugar
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015

Did you know that, until the final quarter of the twentieth century, public health dietary advice in the US and the UK focused on minimum intakes, to ensure that populations consumed adequate nutrients? The US 1950s-1970s “Basic Four Foundation Diet” recommended four or more bread and cereal portions daily, two cups or more of milk and two or more servings of meat (Ref 1). The UK favoured micro nutrient recommendations; until the first macro nutrient guideline was introduced in 1950 with British Medical Association advice that dietary fat intake should provide a minimum of 25% of daily calories (Ref 2).

The first public health dietary guidelines to set maximum intakes were those announced by the US Select Committee on Nutrition and Human needs in 1977 (Ref 3). These were followed by(Carter, 1977) UK public health dietary advice issued by the National Advisory Committee on Nutritional Education in 1983 (Ref 4). Dietary recommendations in both cases focused on one macro nutrient, fat, and a component part of that macro nutrient, saturated fat. The specific targets were to i) reduce overall fat consumption to 30% of total energy intake and ii) reduce saturated fat consumption to 10% of total energy intake.

As there are only three macro nutrients (carbohydrate, protein and fat), and since protein tends to stay fairly constant in either a plant or animal based diet at approximately 15%, if fat is restricted, carbohydrate increases (and also – if carbohydrate is restricted, fat increases). Fat and carbohydrate are the two most dependent variables in the diet. As human diets restricted fat to c. 30%, therefore, carbohydrate increased to 55-60% of our dietary intake. Since these guidelines were introduced, epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes have developed: coincidence or cause?

The 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The first issue of the famous American publication, issued every five years, came out in 1980. It presented the views of the 1977 Select Committee in a form intended to be digestible (excuse the pun), by all Americans. The 1980 publication, jointly written by the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, had seven dietary guidelines as follows:

1) Eat a variety of food;

2) Maintain ideal weight;

3) Avoid too much fat, saturated fat and cholesterol;

4) Eat foods with adequate starch and fiber;

5) Avoid too much sugar;

6) Avoid too much sodium;

7) If you drink, do so in moderation.

All pretty vague and unhelpful, to be honest – “maintain ideal weight” – by doing what exactly?! How much is “too much”?! What is meant by “adequate”?!

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Wind forward 35 years and the Dietary Guidelines are scrutinised like no other American health document. They were published on January 7th 2016, which amused me in itself. The committee know five years in advance that the guidelines are due in 2015 and they have 365 days to publish them and still they were late!

There are five guidelines in the latest edition:

“1)    Follow a healthy eating pattern across the lifespan. All food and beverage choices matter. Choose a healthy eating pattern at an appropriate calorie level to help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight, support nutrient adequacy, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

“2)    Focus on variety, nutrient density, and amount. To meet nutrient needs within calorie limits, choose a variety of nutrient-dense foods across and within all food groups in recommended amounts.

“3)    Limit calories from added sugars and saturated fats and reduce sodium intake. Consume an eating pattern low in added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium. Cut back on foods and beverages higher in these components to amounts that fit within healthy eating patterns.

“4)    Shift to healthier food and beverage choices. Choose nutrient-dense foods and beverages across and within all food groups in place of less healthy choices. Consider cultural and personal preferences to make these shifts easier to accomplish and maintain.

“5)    Support healthy eating patterns for all. Everyone has a role in helping to create and support healthy eating patterns in multiple settings nationwide, from home to school to work to communities.”

Blah, blah, blah… If anything, these are more vague and useless than the original 1980 guidelines. They are certainly more verbose. They are, however, supplemented with specific recommendations, supposedly setting out how to achieve these general guidelines:

“Consume a healthy eating pattern that accounts for all foods and beverages within an appropriate calorie level.

“A healthy eating pattern includes:

–      A variety of vegetables from all of the subgroups – dark green, red and orange, legumes (beans and peas), starchy, and other;

–      Fruits, especially whole fruits;

–      Grains, at least half of which are whole grains;

–      Fat-free or low-fat dairy, including milk, yogurt, cheese, and/or fortified soy beverages;

–      A variety of protein foods, including seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), and nuts, seeds, and soy products;

–      Oils.

“A healthy eating pattern limits:

–      Saturated fats and trans fats, added sugars, and sodium

“Quantitative recommendations:

–      Consume less than 10 percent of calories per day from added sugars;

–      Consume less than 10 percent of calories per day from saturated fats;

–      Consume less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) per day of sodium;

–      If alcohol is consumed, it should be consumed in moderation – up to one drink per day for women and up to two drinks per day for men – and only by adults of legal drinking age.”

The four interesting things about the latest guidelines:

1)     Dietary cholesterol:

The recommendation to limit dietary cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day has prevailed in the US since 1977 (Ref 3). This has been dropped from the 2015 guidelines. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) report from February 2015 declared that this recommendation would not be brought forward because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol (Ref 5). All of those years of demonising super-nutritious foods, like eggs and seafood, were all for nothing. There was no evidence.

2)     Total fat:

The DGAC demonstrated further movement away from the original dietary guidelines by containing no total fat recommendation and a change in position on dietary fat and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The advisory report documented the findings of the meta-analyses by Skeaff, Siri-Tarino, Hooper and Chowdhury (Refs 6-9) and concluded that reducing total fat does not lower CVD risk.

The paper from my PhD from the same month stated the same: there was no evidence whatsoever against total fat for heart deaths or deaths from any cause.

3)     Saturated fat:

Alas, the fact that there is also no evidence against saturated fat was a step too far for the 2015 dietary guidelines committee to acknowledge. Hence the saturated fat guideline has been reiterated, with the same recommendation to consume less than 10% of total calories from saturated fat per day.

The consequence of the total fat guideline being conspicuous in its absence, while maintaining the saturated fat guideline is that the consumption of unsaturated fat is free to increase. This is precisely what Unilever and fake food companies want to happen, as they have replaced butter, for example, with cheaper and poor quality vegetable oils. They have reformulated so many junk food products to be rich in cheap vegetable oils and poor in natural ingredients. They have invented the low fat dairy products, endorsed by the guidelines, and replaced the lost taste of fat with cheaper and nutritionally useless sugar. Which brings us to…

4)     Added sugar:

It is not widely known that one of the seven original 1980 dietary guidelines was “Avoid too much sugar”. This has largely been missed/ignored – whatever has happened – sugar concern and awareness has really only come to the fore in the past couple of years (albeit as a resurrection of the 1970s work of Professor John Yudkin).

The 2015 guidelines specify that people should have less than 10% of their calorie intake in the form of added sugar. For a typical female, consuming approximately 2,000 calories a day, that would be 200 calories from added sugar – 50 grams of sugar at c. 4 calories per gram. That’s a lot.

Far more importantly however, is the continuation of the nutritional ignorance that has got us in this dietary mess. While recommending less sugar, the Dietary Guidelines are concomitantly advising more fruit, more grains, more beans/pulses, more starch – all things that are, or break down into, sugar. The different forms of sugar are listed here, where fruit is used as an example to show that it is essentially sugar, with far fewer nutrients than people think.

Eat real food!

The only guideline that the US government needed to issue was “Eat real food”! The only debate is then – what should that real food be? If we choose food for the micro nutrients it provides (vitamins and minerals), the answer is obvious. We need to prioritise meat, fish, eggs, dairy, non-starchy vegetables and sunflower seeds. Fruit, grains and starchy vegetables really don’t get a look in.

I suggest that for three key reasons – lobbying by the fake food industry; ignorance on the part of the dietary guidelines panel; and a reluctance to change views, as this would be seen as an admission of previous wrong doing – the 2015 guidelines are what they are. Americans are stuck with bad advice for another 5 years, just as they have been for the 35 years previously. The smart people will ignore these guidelines and work out for themselves that real food is the only choice and some real food is substantially better than others.

As Sally Fallon Morell says “Evolution is no longer the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the wisest.”

Be wise!


Ref 1: Davis C, Saltos. E. Dietary Recommendations and How They Have Changed Over Time,. In: United States Department of Agriculture ERS, editor. Agriculture Information Bulletin No (AIB-750) 494 pp; 1999.

Ref 2: Foster R, Lunn J. 40th Anniversary Briefing Paper: Food availability and our changing diet. Nutrition Bulletin 2007; 32(3): 187-249.
British Medical Association. Summary of dietary allowances based on the recommendations of the British Medical Association. London: HMSO; 1950.

Ref 3: Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Dietary goals for the United States. First ed. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.; February 1977.

Ref 4: National Advisory Committee on Nutritional Education (NACNE). A discussion paper on proposals for nutritional guidelines for health education in Britain. 1983.

Ref 5: Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. In: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), editor.; 2015. p. 571.

Ref 6: Skeaff CM, Miller J. Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: summary of evidence from prospective cohort and randomised controlled trials. Ann Nutr Metab 2009; 55(1-3): 173-201.

Ref 7: Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2010; 91(3): 535-46.

Ref 8: Hooper L, Summerbell CD, Thompson R, et al. Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 2011; (7): CD002137.

Ref 9: Chowdhury R, Warnakula S, Kunutsor S, et al. Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160(6): 398-406.

Posted in Academic Research, Macronutrients, Public Health
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sugar in fruit

Five a day is not an evidence based nutrition message. In this post I ask the question – is it still a good message – even though it’s not evidence based? I give five reasons as to why it is not a good message: the lost opportunity of making “eat real food” as well known as “five a day”;  people having five a day ‘as well as’ not ‘instead of’; making bad choices to get five a day; the problem of fruit and starchy vegetables for carbohydrate sensitive/insulin resistant people; and the weight issue with fructose. As Gary Taubes says “If you’re overweight, fruit is not your friend.”

2015 has seen far greater awareness about sugar and there have been many newspaper articles showing how many teaspoons of sugar are in everything from pizza to prosecco. This post is about sugar in fruit.

Different forms of sugar

When we say sugar, we tend to mean sucrose – added white sugar – the stuff with no fat, no protein, no vitamins, no minerals – just empty carbohydrate calories. However, there are many other sugars in food:

  • The simple sugars (monosaccharides) are: glucose; fructose; and galactose.
  • The disaccharides (two sugars) are: sucrose (one molecule of glucose and one of fructose) – what we know as table sugar; lactose (one molecule of glucose and one of galactose) – what we tend to call milk sugar; and maltose (two molecules of glucose) – less familiarly known as malt sugar.
  • Polysaccharides (many sugars)  include digestible forms of carbohydrate…
    –    Glycogen – is the form in which animals (including humans) store energy – in the liver and muscles in the body;
    –    Starch – is the form in which plants store energy – as in grains, pulses, potatoes and root vegetables.
  • … and indigestible forms of carbohydrate – collectively called fibre:
    –    Insoluble fibre – which does not dissolve in water e.g. cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin;
    –    Soluble fibre – which dissolves, or swells, in water e.g. pectins, mucilages, and gums.

Sugar in fruit

Sucrose, table sugar, is one part fructose and one part glucose. Fruit sugar is commonly assumed to be fructose, but this is incorrect. Fruit sugar is also part fructose/part glucose. Bananas and dates, as examples on this infographic, are almost equal balances of fructose and glucose – sucrose in effect. Apples have more than twice as much fructose as glucose, but don’t think of this as healthy. Read the work of Dr Robert Lustig and Dr Richard Johnson to see how fructose is not the halo sugar that fruit pushers would like to claim. It is particularly implicated in the obesity epidemic and Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD).

In the following infographic, don’t be fooled by bananas seeming to be lower in sugar than apples and grapes. The medium banana with 14 grams (3.5 teaspoons) of sugar has 27 grams of carbohydrate in total. Even if we generously ignore the 3 grams of fibre, that leaves 10 grams of carbohydrate, which also breaks down into sugar.

The sugar in fruit is thus barely different to the sucrose in pizza or prosecco. The body does not know if glucose and fructose came from a banana or a chocolate bar. The body just registers the sugar – sucrose in effect – and has to deal with it.

The infographic

The sources of information (US Department of Agriculture database) and the micro nutrients for the fruits and chocolate are in the table below. 100 grams of each product have been analysed to compare like with like. The highest provider of each vitamin and mineral has been highlighted in red and bold. Nutritionally, ‘junk’ milk chocolate provides more micro nutrients than any fruit comparator. (The chocolate should ‘win’ for vitamin A too, as it will contain some retinol – the form in which the body needs vitamin A). If you want to compare fruit with genuinely nutritious foods, check this.

 Per 100 grams Large apple Medium banana Grapes Medjool dates Orange juice Milk chocolate
A (IU) 54.0 64.0 66.0 149.0 200.0 195.0
B1 (Thiamin) (mg) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
B2 (Riboflavin) (mg) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2
B3 (Niacin) (mg) 0.1 0.7 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.5
B5 (Pantothenic Acid) (mg) 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.5
B6 (mg) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Folate (mcg) 3.0 20.0 2.0 15.0 30.0 12.0
B12 (μg/mcg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
C (mg) 4.6 8.7 10.8 0.0 50.0 0.0
D (IU) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
E (mg) 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5
K (μg/mcg) 2.2 0.5 14.6 2.7 0.1 5.7
Minerals (Macro)
Calcium (mg) 6 5 10 64 11 189
Magnesium (mg) 5 27 7 54 11 63
Phosphorus (mg) 11 22 20 62 17 208
Potassium (mg) 107 358 191 696 200 373
Sodium (mg) 0 1 2 1 1 79
Minerals (Trace)
Copper (mg) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.5
Iron (mg) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.2 2.3
Manganese (mg) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.5
Selenium (mcg) 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.5
Zinc (mg) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 2.3

Some people don’t like it when I say that “fruit is sugar, with a few nutrients, and not as many as you’d think.” The truth hurts, no matter how softly spoken.

Posted in Fruit, Sugar
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Vitamin D Deficiency

US Guidelines

In 2010, at the time of writing my obesity book, the US did not have a “Dietary Reference Intake” for vitamin D. Instead, the US had an “Adequate Intake” suggestion – they thought that 400IU (10mcg) would be adequate.

This was revised in 2011 when the US decided that the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for everyone from the age of 1 to 69 should be 600IU (15mcg) and 800IU (20mcg) for those aged 70 and over. (This post doesn’t discuss the different forms and sources of vitamin D, but this is an added complication.)

UK Guidelines

The Dietary Reference Values 1991 book is still the UK ‘bible’ for recommended nutrient intakes. This has no vitamin D targets for anyone aged 4 to 64, unless pregnant or breastfeeding – then it’s 10mcg per day. Over 65’s are also advised to have 10mcg daily.

The official European position still seems to be that of the early 1990s. This leads to this 1993 document (page 143), which confirms the lack of targets for those aged 4 to 64, as set out in the UK Dietary reference values book (1991).

On the same “European Food Information Council” site, a “mini guide” from June 2006 suggests that “European Union Recommended Daily Amounts for Nutritional Labelling of Food Products” for vitamin D should be 5 µg (that’s 5mcg).

I have no idea why the US originally only saw fit to suggest an adequate intake until 2011, or why the RDA is now 15mcg. I have no idea why the UK still doesn’t consider vitamin D to be a vital nutrient with a daily requirement. I have no idea why the recommendations for vitamin D differ from 0mcg to 15mcg for UK to US populations. This is clearly not robust, or scientific.

What I do know is:

1) Vitamin D is utterly vital for human health

Vitamin D is critical for the absorption of calcium and phosphorus. Deficiency in vitamin D can lead to tooth decay, muscular weakness and a softening of the bones (rickets), which can cause bone fractures or poor healing of fractures. Enter “vitamin D” into pubmed and over 65,000 academic articles will be listed. Vitamin D is increasingly being studied as a critical factor in the most serious human health conditions, not least heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Vitamin D is found naturally in oily fish (for example herring, halibut, catfish, salmon, mackerel and sardines), eggs and dairy products and unnaturally in fortified breakfast cereals. (You never need junk cereals to get vitamin D – take a supplement if you don’t want to consume vitamin D naturally for some reason).

2) The average person is not getting enough vitamin D

a) US data is quite old. This November 2014 factsheet references a journal article from April 2010, which reviews data from 2005-2006.

Average male intake from diet alone for adult males in the US ranged from 5.1mcg for 19-30 year old males to 5.6mcg for males ≥ 70 years old. Average female intake from diet alone for adult females in the US ranged from 3.6mcg for 19-30 year old females to 4.5mcg for females ≥ 70 years old.

The article reported that 37% of the US population take vitamin D supplements, and this increased the intake to 6.9mcg for 19-30 year old males and 8.8mcg for males ≥ 70 years old and to 5.0mcg for 19-30 year old females and 10mcg for females ≥ 70 years old.

The lowest intake, diet alone for 19-30 year old females was less than a quarter of the US RDA; even the highest intake – women over 70 years old taking supplements – was two thirds of the intake recommended.

b) The UK data is provided annually by the UK Family Food Survey. The most recent report at the time of writing this blog is the 2013 Family Food Survey. This reported that the UK average intake of vitamin D from all food and drink was approximately 3mcg for each of the five years from 2009-2013 (Table 3.7 UK average energy and nutrient intakes from all food and drink 2009-2013). This is one fifth of the US recommended daily intake.

What the data tells us

Public health officials in the US and UK should be issuing emergency notices that vitamin D deficiency is a serious health risk to citizens. Populations should be advised to consume more foods naturally rich in vitamin D – oily fish, eggs and dairy products. Oh, but those just happen to be the fat rich foods that fat phobic public health advisors tell people to avoid! Even when oily fish is recommended, it is rarely more than twice a week. Yet we need approximately 220g of sardines (with bones) every day to meet the RDA of 15mcg of vitamin D. Vegetarians would need to eat 39 medium eggs each day (2,455 calories) to get 15mcg of vitamin D.

The other urgent piece of health advice needed is – sunbathe! We need to be exposed to the sun – without sunBLOCK – for a safe number of minutes (depends on skin type, location, time of the year etc) as regularly as possible to build up our vitamin D reserves. Being a fat soluble vitamin (along with A, E and K), vitamin D can be stored by the body. A good build up during summer months will help for annual health, but we should be rolling up our sleeves and trousers to expose limbs even on sunny winter days and/or consuming sufficient dietary vitamin D during the winter period.

What do our dear governments do instead? Scare us away from sun exposure, tell us to cover up and/or use sunBLOCK every time the sun shines and advise us to keep avoiding fat in food.

Just to complete the trilogy of bad advice – vitamin D is made when sunlight synthesises cholesterol in skin membranes. Avoiding vitamin D rich foods AND blocking sunlight from the skin AND cholesterol lowering medications and dietary supplements (e.g. plant sterols) ALL conspire together to lower vitamin D.

Dr. Robert Scragg, Associate Professor in Epidemiology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, proposed back in December 1981 that vitamin D deficiency plays a key role in cardiovascular disease. If he was right, our diet/sun/cholesterol advice is not only wrong – it’s doing the exact opposite of what it hoped to do – raising, not lowering, heart disease.

Posted in Cholesterol, Micronutrients, Public Health
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Diet advice for diabetics

Nina Teicholz shared an interesting anecdote with me recently. She had watched a public meeting where a senior figure involved in the US dietary guidelines said she wished people “would stop believing the ‘old wives tale’ of the low-fat diet”. The powers that be clearly want us to believe that they never issued that low-fat advice. Silly us – we must have dreamed it!

This is not just an anecdote; it’s a strategy. To come out and announce that they got things wrong could be very costly for governments and organisations, which have issued low fat/high carb dietary advice for decades. There could (and should) be law suits. People will have suffered obesity and type 2 diabetes, to say nothing of cancer, heart disease and mental illness, as a result of advice that has been so alien to what human beings have evolved to eat.

The strategy of such advising organisations seems to be to change advice, ideally with repeated subtle changes that are barely noticed over time, until the advice becomes half reasonable and advisors can deny ever having issued the bad advice in the first place. This avoids ever having to come out with the statement “we were wrong”, which could invite the legal action.

One of these subtle, yet seismic, shifts occurred in the draft dietary guidelines for Americans 2015. Check out p90 “Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for over consumption.” Crikey O’Riley! All those years of demonising eggs and seafood and telling us to avoid animal foods because of their dietary cholesterol content. All wrong. But we won’t say we were wrong – we’ll just say that this is no longer “a nutrient of concern.” Check out the full 571 pages for total fat if you like. You’ll find the 30% limit on total fat, issued in 1977, conspicuous in its absence. More accurately – it’s gone. Disparu. As if it never existed. You can just hear the US advisor saying how silly we were to believe that low-fat diet “old wives tale.”

The same is happening in the world of diabetes, so sod this subtle/unnoticed change malarkey – here is the shift in diabetes UK diet advice:

Thanks to the wonder that is the web archive site, here is the Diabetes UK advice on March 18th 2015.

Here is the same page on April 8th 2015.

Diabetes UK advice is based on the UK eatbadly plate, so you’ll see the five, so-called, food groups. (They are not food groups – try these).

Here are the key differences (vetbatim extracts are in italics). I’ve noted the issue with glucose under the category:

Daily recommended amounts Daily recommended amounts
Starchy foods


5-14 portions

One-third of your diet should be made up of these foods, so try to include them in every meal.”

[A slice of bread is given as an example portion – a diabetic was thus advised to eat the starch equivalent of up to 14 slices of bread every single day.]


Try to have some starchy food, especially the wholegrain options, everyday. Carbohydrates breakdown to glucose in the blood so keep an eye on how much you eat. Depending on your diabetes treatment, and nutritional goals, you may be advised to:

• estimate the amounts of carbs you are eating

• reduce the amount of carbs you eat

• choose healthier sources

• spread your intake through the day.

Fruit & veg

(glucose & fructose)

Aim for at least five portions” (5-a-day of course!) No change
Dairy products

(glucose & galactose)

Aim for three portions …

…choose lower fat alternatives (but look out for added sugar in its place)”

No change
Pulses beans & nuts (also provide glucose) Aim for 2-3 portions”


Include some food from this group everyday and aim for two portions of oily fish a week
Foods high in fat & sugar “Technically, your body doesn’t need any foods in this group, but eating them in moderation can be part a healthy, balanced diet” No change

You can see the unannounced, seismic, change in the Diabetes UK advice. “5-14 portions of starchy foods a day/one third of your diet” has become ‘have some every day, but you may well need to reduce your carb intake.’

This is good. Don’t get me wrong. But it’s still not enough. The whole eatbadly plate should be dropped. The key piece of advice should be “eat real food” and choose food for the nutrients that it provides and then you will naturally choose meat, fish, eggs, dairy, non-starchy vegetables and a few seeds. Five-a-day should be ditched 1) for being non-evidence based and 2) because fruit is essentially sugar (with far fewer nutrients than people think) and sugar is not going to help diabetics. The junk segment is not even worthy of comment. However – it’s a start – a move in the right direction.

What annoys me though is that Diabetes UK have not had the decency to come out and say “we were wrong; the low carb people were right and we’re sorry.”

Luckily for me, all I have is annoyance. Those who have followed the 5-14 portions of starch advice will likely have far more serious issues to face.

Posted in Diabetes, Public Health
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

World Health Organisation, meat & cancer

Today, 26th October 2015, the World Health Organisation declared the consumption of red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans, based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans” and declared processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans, based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.” The red meat association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer.

The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.”

From the headline “carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat”, we’re already down to colorectal (bowel) cancer and “probably”.

The press release is here. The Lancet article is here or here (it may not be on open view for long).

So do we need to stop eating red meat and/or processed meat? Let’s dissect the headline more accurately:

1) Where this data comes from

The gold standard of evidence is a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials – pooling together studies where an intervention was matched against a control group to see what impact A had on B. As far as I am aware, no intervention studies have ever been done testing the impact of 50 grams of processed meat per day as an isolated intervention, or any amount of processed or red meat as a sole intervention for that matter.

We are thus looking at observational studies. This is where a large group of people (e.g. the Nurses’ Health Study or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study) are asked loads of questions and given health tests (blood pressure, weight, height, cholesterol ho ho etc) at the start of the study. This is called the baseline. These people are then followed for years to see what conditions they go on to develop.

Researchers then look at the data to try to see patterns. No pattern = no journal article, so look hard! They may observe a pattern between people who consume processed meat and people who go on to develop bowel cancer. This is then reported in a journal article and it is all such articles that have been reviewed by the World Health Organisation.

The first point to make, therefore, is that all of this is based on notoriously unreliable dietary questionnaires. Many ask what you ate yesterday or over the past 7 days. Here’s the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer questionnaire, one of the best possible questionnaires, as it asks for food intake over the past year. How accurate do you think yours would be?

2) One’s diet vs. one food

By singling out red meat/processed meat in this way, the whole diet and lifestyle of a person is not taken into account. There is a world of difference between the health of a burger/hot-dog/ketchup/white bun/fizzy drink guzzling couch potato and a grass-fed-steak eating/CrossFit/six-pack Paleo specimen.

As I showed in this blog, the baseline for the processed meat eaters showed that they were far less active, had a higher BMI, were THREE TIMES more likely to smoke and almost TWICE as likely to have diabetes. This makes processed meat a MARKER of an unhealthy person, not a MAKER of an unhealthy person.

Even if all the smoking/exercise/other conditions baseline factors are adjusted for, there is no possibility of adjusting for all the dietary factors that make up the couch potato vs. the Paleo buff. The whole diet is not adjusted for when the one line (meat) is targeted.

3) Real food vs. processed food

I’m a real foodie. I pretty much spend my life writing and talking about real food and the nutrition it contains. I am the first to say “Do eat real food; don’t eat processed food” and I include processed meat as processed food – something to avoid. However, this WHO report describes processed meat as “meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.”

As Peter Cleave, Surgeon Captain, (1906-1983) said: “For a modern disease to be related to an old fashioned food is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard in my life.” To think that real meat, or meat preserved in natural ways, is bad for us is ludicrous. 1) You’d have to explain how we survived the past 3.5 million years, since Australopithecus Lucy first walked upright; especially how we survived the ice age(s). 2) You’d have to explain why all the nutrients we need to live (essential fats, complete protein, vitamins and minerals) are found in meat if it were trying to kill us at the same time.

Meat needed to be naturally preserved with salting, curing, drying, smoking etc or we would have needed to binge on the kill and risk dying of starvation before the next kill. The WHO report should have separated traditional ways of preserving meat from modern manufactured processing (where sugars and chemicals are added – just read the label). Similarly – if there is any harm in red meat, it will be because manufacturers have got involved and fed the poor animals grains, which they cannot digest and then pumped them with drugs to medicate the resulting illness. (Chris Kresser presents the view on nitrates here, if you’re interested).

This should be a call to action to get back to your butcher, know him/her by name, know where your meat comes from, know how s/he prepares bacon & hand-made sausages and enjoy the health benefits of real food while supporting the grafters who provide it.

4) Association vs. causation

Even allowing for the weakness of observational studies, and the unreliability of dietary questionnaires, and the notion that food consumption can be a marker not a maker of health, and the whole dietary intake that has not been taken into account and the ignorance of the chasm between real and processed food, this is still association, not causation.

I always wish that these huge and expensive studies would ask what colour socks the participant is wearing. I bet I could find an association between red sock wearing and one type of cancer if I looked hard enough. Would the headline be red socks cause cancer?!

5) Relative vs. absolute risk

The press release headlines with “each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.” Crikey. 18%! Put that bacon sarnie down now (see – don’t blame the bacon for what the white bread & ketchup did!) This, however, is the game that all of these observational study research press releases play and it’s disgraceful scare-mongering.

Shall we look at the absolute risk?

Cancer Research UK has terrific statistics on all types of cancer. I’ve just looked at the UK. They do have data for other countries if you want to do your own rummage. The incident rate for all people in the UK, age-standardised (you pretty much won’t see bowel cancer before the age of 50 – look at the age data), in 2011 was 47 per 100,000 people.

47 per 100,000 people.

You would need to know 2,128 people, including enough older people, to know 1 person who developed bowel cancer in the UK in 2011.

Now – let’s do that relative vs. absolute risk thing.

Assuming that everything the WHO did had been perfect and that there really was an 18% relative difference between those having 50g of processed meat a day and those not (and assuming that nothing else was impacting this), the absolute risk would be 51 people per 100,000 vs. 43 people per 100,000.

Now where’s the bacon and egg before my CrossFit session?!

The likely harm of this report:

The Lancet article does at least have the decency to mention the nutritional value of red meat: “Red meat contains high biological value proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc.” That’s still a bit of an understatement. Try both essential fats; complete protein; and the vitamins and minerals needed for life and health.

What will be the consequences of this report scaring people away from real meat? It takes approximately 250g of sirloin steak to get the daily 10mg of zinc; over a kilo of the same steak to get the recommended daily iron requirement – and in the right form for the body. How about over 20 eggs to get the same iron intake? Still in a useful form to the body. Or 4.5 kilos of brown rice to get iron in the wrong form for the body?

What do I take from this report? There is a heck of a lot of bad science coming out the World Health Organisation, an organisation that should know better, but then there have previous cases of not knowing better.

Nothing has changed from my fundamental belief that human beings should eat real food (especially grass-fed, naturally reared meat and naturally preserved meat). Avoid processed food, including meat processed by fake food companies. And take every observational study that doesn’t know these five points above with a hefty pinch of salt.

Posted in Academic Research, Cancer, Public Health, Red Meat
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jennifer Elliott vs Dietitians Association of Australia

This is my first guest blog post. It is written by Jennifer Elliott, an Australian dietitian who has become well known this year, in the diet and health on line community, for having been de-registered by her professional body: the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA). Her case has led to her employer taking the extraordinary position that “Nutritional advice to clients must not include a low carbohydrate diet…” Even more extraordinary when you discover that Jennifer’s advice was being given in the context of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes and she was merely suggesting that people with an inability to handle glucose/carbohydrate (i.e. diabetics) may benefit from consuming less of it. Here Jennifer shares her story, with links to her blogs, for those who would like to know more.

In Jennifer’s own words…

“I have been a dietitian for 35 years and for over 10 years have recommended carbohydrate restriction to clients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance (IR).

This was not my practice in the early days. When I graduated in 1979, the Australian Dietary Guidelines had just been released. We were taught that these guidelines were the basis of a healthy diet for everyone and for many years I believed this.

I converted my parents to a low-fat, almost vegetarian diet, with plenty of wholegrain carbs, fruits and vegetables. I was part of the new generation of dietitians who were spreading the word about healthy “complex carbohydrates”, as they were then known.

When I started a family, I took it a step further by moving to the country for the best lifestyle possible for my children; home grown/ home cooked vegetarian meals, little processed foods, plenty of outside play and TV time limited to what my now adult children refer to as deprivation levels.

Two of my children thrived in this environment – healthy, energetic and lean – but my middle daughter, Jeanne, was different. She gained weight around the tummy at an early age, seemed to have less energy than her siblings, was a mouth-breather, suffered with reflux and could be moody at times. All signs I now recognise as relating to insulin resistance (IR).

At around 12 years of age she gained a lot of weight quite quickly and by age 14 was borderline obese. And I was at loss to explain why.

I am forever grateful for what happened next. I was in the right place at the right time to meet a GP whose family situation was remarkably similar to mine: three slim, high energy, eat-what-they-like children and one with a weight problem. After hearing about the presence of IR in young, seemingly healthy children (and not just in people with diabetes as she had been taught), this GP had her daughter tested and suggested the same for Jeanne. A two-hour Glucose Tolerance Test (GTT), with the addition of five insulin measures, showed normal blood glucose levels (BGLs) but a high insulin response, fitting the diagnostic criteria for IR.

Fifteen years ago, my knowledge about IR was limited to its connection with type 2 diabetes. The significance for a 14 year old with normal BGLs was a mystery to me.

The research begins

I started with a Google search of IR, which brought up 1.3 million entries and the accompanying question of why hadn’t I been taught any of this?

I narrowed my search down a little and started reading. It wasn’t like researching for a school assignment that I had no interest in. This was finding out what was happening biochemically to my daughter, as well as five million other people in Australia with this condition. It was fascinating. Answers to all the pieces of the puzzle were in the literature and I found explanations for Jeanne’s mouth breathing and snoring; why the weight went on predominantly around her tummy; why she seemed not to have an off-switch when it came to eating at times; her mood swings, reflux and lack of energy.

Carbs and insulin

It was clear that higher than normal insulin levels were to blame and that a diet designed to reduce these levels is what was needed. It was also clear that a reduced carbohydrate diet was the way to go. We started experimenting with different diet approaches, and, with instant feedback available from what I jokingly called my live-in guinea pig, I learnt more than would ever be possible from just the literature or in a clinical setting. This experience was invaluable.

The diet we settled on was very low carb during the day, but allowing some carbs in the evening meal. For Jeanne, the eating plan was generally eggs, bacon, tomato, avocado for breakfast; protein and salad at lunch; protein and veggies for the evening meal with some carbohydrate in the form of fruit, yoghurt or dark chocolate, etc.

This worked well: no excessive hunger, good energy levels, even moods, no reflux and easily maintained healthy weight. Jeanne has now been eating this way for many years and has maintained all those positive changes. She doesn’t think of herself as being “on a diet”, because as she says, “This is just the way I eat”.

Advising clients on low carb (LC) diets

Before I started advising clients on a lower carb approach for IR and T2D, I anticipated the FAT problem. One of the main arguments against LC is that such diets are higher in fat, particularly saturated fat, and the belief that this will increase the risk for heart disease. Although this is not bourne out in clinical trials, where an improvement in lipid profiles is generally observed, I realised that I didn’t know enough to argue a case for a higher fat diet if I was taken to court (my benchmark).

To be fully confident in recommending my new LC diet approach to clients, I started researching what I, and I believe all dietitians who have qualified since, have never been taught: the basis for the diet/heart hypothesis.

The end result was the publication of my paper: Flaws, Fallacies and Facts: Reviewing the Early History of the Lipid and Diet/Heart Hypotheses and confidence that the diet/heart hypothesis is so flawed that it should not be used as the basis of diet recommendations.

I cautiously introduced the idea of my new approach to GPs in my area. I explained that I would be trialling restricted carbs to people who fit the diagnostic criteria of Metabolic Syndrome and were therefore likely to be IR (high triglycerides, elevated BGLs, central weight, low High Density Lipoprotein and high Blood Pressure). I asked that recent biochemistry be provided and rechecked after three months to assess effects of the diet and that medications, especially BP and blood glucose lowering meds, be monitored and reduced if required.

The results were as expected; weight loss, improved BGLs and reduction in medications.

One example of the benefits of carb reduction was seen in a man with T2D, who after 7 weeks on a LC diet stopped taking insulin, lost 13 kg and reduced his HbA1c from 10.7 to 7.7 mmol/l.

Charged with using a “non-evidence-based” dietary approach

For the last 10 years, GPs have been referring patients to me because of the diet approach I use and the results they have seen in their clients. That all changed recently when a dietitian initiated an inquiry into my use of LC diets, alleging that they are not evidence based.

My work places and the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) conducted investigations into the allegation. I was confident that the verdict would be in my favour, not only because of the positive results clients were achieving, but also because I was following the latest guidelines from the American Diabetes Association, as is recommended practice for dietitians in Australia.

How naïve!

I was deregistered by the DAA in May 2015, for reasons that are not entirely clear. It appears that they didn’t like the way I kept notes on one client.

It is also apparent that the DAA endorses a regular intake of carbohydrate foods for management of various conditions including diabetes and obesity.

Based entirely on my deregistration from the DAA, the Southern New South Wales Local Health District (LHD) dismissed me and have instructed that dietitians in the LHD must follow DAA’s recommendations for diabetic diets, and are prohibited from advising clients on low carb approaches. And if any of the GPs, who used to refer to me, ask for LC advice for their patients, they will be advised “a low carbohydrate intake diet is not currently supported by the DAA”.

International Support

Richard Feinman, Professor of Metabolism and Cell Biology at the State University of New York, made an innocent offer of help last year, which morphed into another full-time job for him. He has read all the correspondence and decisions, offered to discuss the science behind LC with the DAA (was refused) and has been as incredulous as myself with the final decisions.

I have written about this fiasco on my blog and have received incredible support from people all over the world. Letters in support of LC diets as well as calls for my reinstatement have been sent to the DAA and Health Ministers. Whereas I was once quite hopeful that these voices would be listened to, it looks like I was a little optimistic.

What now?

Loss of employment and being forced out of my comfort zone has led to some unexpected developments. I’m looking at extending the content of my book into a 12-week online program for people with T2D, and there’s a chance a local GP surgery will join with a NSW university in a clinical trial comparing the LC approach I recommend with standard higher carb advice.

When we could see the way it was headed, Professor Feinman asked how I would feel if I didn’t get my job back but my case became a catalyst for change. Increased awareness of the benefits of LC would be a start and perhaps many more people would hear that T2D and IR can be managed and often reversed with carb restriction. I’d definitely be happy with that.”

Jennifer Elliott

My close

I first came across Jennifer when I read her paper, referenced above. I highly recommend reading it. Jennifer was working from the other side of the world in a similar area to me – examining the evidence base for our global dietary guidelines. Jennifer found that there was no evidence. I have found the same. We have both challenged our respective governments to show us the evidence. Both have failed.

This was bad enough. What happened next beggared belief. The Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA), declared war on one of their own members; deregistered a highly experienced, research-driven practitioner and took away the job, income and livelihood of a committed professional, whose only crime was to try to improve the health of her clients. And Jennifer didn’t just try; she succeeded. Against all measures that matter: weight; reliance upon medications; blood glucose levels; blood lipid levels; health; energy and so many more.

If the DAA position were evidence based, other approaches that work should still be embraced. Nothing that can help patients should be dismissed. The fact that the DAA position is not evidence based, just makes their stance worse. I think that Jennifer sealed her fate when she wrote that brilliant paper, challenging everything that she had been taught. Credit to her, you would think, but no. The paper was published in October 2014 and the DAA executed their revenge soon afterwards.

I sincerely hope that Richard Feinman is right and that this case will be a catalyst for change. It needs to be. Something good needs to come from this because, as it stands, this has been a lose, lose, lose for everyone: a personal loss for Jennifer; a huge loss of credibility and reputation for the DAA; and an immense loss for patients who are being denied the opportunity to benefit from anything other than conventional advice.

Just as a final thought, here are the sponsors of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Jennifer didn’t stand a chance.

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Other Diets & Books
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

National cholesterol month

I was at a dinner party recently when the subject of cholesterol came up. Every (lay) person around the table turned out to be an expert: “Cholesterol is bad”, said one. “Well actually there’s good and bad cholesterol”, clarified another. “Our cholesterol shouldn’t be higher than five”, volunteered one sage. Five what? They had no idea. Why is cholesterol bad? Not a clue. If ever there were a substance vilified with the utmost ignorance – cholesterol is it.

This month, October, is national cholesterol month in the UK. September was national cholesterol month in the US. Call me cynical, but staggering the months gives one sixth of the year when the increasingly global on-line world is being manipulated to have cholesterol front of mind. Leading the charge in the UK appears to be Heart UK – an organisation masquerading as a charity, which more accurately should be seen as a voice piece of the cholesterol lowering industry. Here are Heart UK’s backers.

This is what we should be told in national cholesterol month and these are the things that my fellow diners should have been saying about cholesterol:

1) Cholesterol is utterly life vital

Every human being would die instantly without cholesterol. Every single cell in the human body depends upon it. We would have no digestion or hormone function without cholesterol. Cholesterol is critical for brain and memory functions – even though the brain is only 2% of the body’s weight, it contains approximately 25% of the body’s cholesterol (Ref 1). Cholesterol is essential for bones and all the roles performed by vitamin D. We could not reproduce without this life vital substance. Hence, not only would humans die without cholesterol, the human race would die out.

2) Cholesterol is so vital that our body makes it

It cannot be left to chance that we would need to get cholesterol from an external source, such as food. One of the key reasons that we need to spend approximately one third of our lives sleeping is to give the body time to produce cholesterol, repair cells and perform other essential maintenance.

3) There is no such thing as good and bad cholesterol

The formula for cholesterol is C27H46O. There is no good or bad version. Ignorant people call HDL ‘good’ cholesterol and LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol. Neither HDL nor LDL are even cholesterol – they are lipoproteins. HDL is High Density Lipoprotein and LDL is Low Density Lipoprotein. HDL is smaller than LDL and is therefore higher in density. Lipoproteins carry cholesterol, protein, phospholipids and triglyceride around the blood stream to undertake vital roles.

4) The cholesterol blood test is a guess

The standard blood test can only measure total cholesterol & HDL. So we have one equation, four unknowns, only two of which can be measured:

Total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + Triglycerides (VLDL)/5

Any GCSE maths student will tell you that this is insolvable.

Your best option is not to get your cholesterol ever tested and then you can never be a victim of the cholesterol lowering machinery that will kick in if your guestimate fails the following test…

5) There is no science behind the number “5”

Even after years of artificial intervention, the average cholesterol level in the UK is somewhere between 5.6 – 6.3 mmol/l (Ref 2) (216-244 mg/dl). The powers-that-be have decided that this should be 5mmol/l (193 mg/dl). This is like saying that the average height for a woman is 5’4” and we have decreed that it should be 5’1”. We could then stop the body from performing a natural function (growth) by administering drugs to stop growth hormones from doing their job. I trust that this analogy disturbs you. It is, however, frighteningly similar to what we are doing with attempts to lower average cholesterol levels.

6) “There’s no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in blood. And we’ve known that all along.” Ancel Keys

Dietary cholesterol is only found in animal foods – meat, fish, eggs and dairy. Ancel Keys spent the 1950s feeding humans high levels of animal foods to see if dietary cholesterol had any impact on blood cholesterol levels. He concluded unequivocally that it did not. He never deviated from this view. While exonerating cholesterol, Keys also exonerated animal foods at the same time – and any substance contained therein. If large intakes of animal foods have no impact on cholesterol levels, then neither animal foods per se or any component of these foods (water, protein, cholesterol, saturated or unsaturated fat) have any impact on cholesterol levels!

Unaware of this irrefutable logic, diet ‘experts’ will tell you that saturated fat raises LDL and unsaturated fat raises HDL. They won’t tell you how. I have yet to find a biochemist who can explain how this can happen – let alone that it does. As every food that contains fat contains all three fats (saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) you cannot consume any food that has saturated and not unsaturated fat, or vice versa.

Even if the very small 3 grams per 100 grams of unsaturated fat in sirloin steak (Ref 3) could raise HDL and even if the even smaller 2 grams per 100 grams of saturated fat in sirloin steak could raise LDL – where would this leave our insolvable equation?!

The US dietary guidelines are due to be re-issued this year. The draft report announced in February 2015 that “cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern” (Ref 4). It never was you Muppets!

7) Low cholesterol is associated with higher mortality. High cholesterol is associated with lower mortality

I have analysed cholesterol levels and death rates for all 192 countries for which the World Health Organisation has data. You may need to read this carefully. The lower the cholesterol levels, the higher the death rate; the higher the cholesterol levels, the lower the death rate. This holds for men and women and for heart disease deaths and total deaths from any cause – for all the countries in the world. Knowing how utterly vital cholesterol is to human life, this makes complete sense (Ref 5).

8) Follow the money

Why would humans put so much effort into stopping the body from doing something that it is designed to do – make cholesterol?

Statins are drugs that impair the body’s production of cholesterol. One statin alone, Lipitor, has been worth $125 billion to Pfizer since 1997 (Ref 6). This statin is the most lucrative drug in the world. It is not the only statin.

Thankfully statins don’t work perfectly. If they stopped the body producing cholesterol altogether they would have a 100% death rate.

An entire low-fat spread industry, worth billions, has emerged simply by adding plant sterols to margarines because the brainwashed public will buy anything with “cholesterol lowering” properties. These plant sterols compete in the human body with human cholesterol and the overall impact on heart health is serious (Ref 7). I trust my body to make the cholesterol it needs. I’m not going to replace this with a foreign compound.

Back to the dinner party: While my healthy heart sank at the nonsense being asserted by intelligent acquaintances, there was an upside to their naive acceptance of propaganda: When the cheese course arrived, there was plenty to be enjoyed by the enlightened!


Ref 1:

Ref 2:

Ref 3:

Ref 4:

Ref 5:

Ref 6:

Ref 7:

Posted in Cholesterol, Conflicts of Interest, Public Health
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Butter or margarine?

Another paper has been produced by the Harvard team, which likes to analyse data for associations between food and health. This one is entitled “Saturated Fats Compared With Unsaturated Fats and Sources of Carbohydrates in Relation to Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study”.

The researchers have looked at data already collected for two large studies: the Nurses’ Health Study (84,628 women) and the Health Professionals Follow-up study (42,908 men). The nurses were followed from 1980 to 2010 and the men from 1986 to 2010. All were free from diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed by a food frequency questionnaire every four years i.e. not very accurately.

The study results were that there were 7,667 incidents of coronary heart disease (CHD) in 24 – 30 years of follow-up. The results reported that:

Higher intakes of polyunsaturated fat (PUFAs) were significantly associated with a lower risk of CHD. Comparing the highest with the lowest quintile (fifth) gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.80 (0.73 – 0.88).

Higher intakes of carbohydrates from whole grains were significantly associated with a lower risk of CHD. Comparing the highest with the lowest quintile gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.90 (0.83 – 0.98).

Higher intakes of carbohydrates from refined starches/sugars were associated with a higher risk of CHD. HR was 1.10 (1.00 – 1.21).

The team then went on to claim that replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats with equivalent energy intake from PUFAs, monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 25%, 15% and 9% lower risk of CHD respectively.

The overall conclusion of the study was “Our findings indicate that unsaturated fats, especially PUFAs, and/or high-quality carbohydrates can be used to replace saturated fats to reduce CHD risk.”

Issue 1

The first point to always remember is that this is association, not causation. Could it be the case that people who eat more fish (PUFAs) and/or eat more cous cous (whole grains) are generally healthier than those who eat fries and burger buns? This would make PUFA and whole grain consumption a MARKER of health, not a MAKER of health.

Issue 2

The numbers are always presented as relative risk, which is misleading and should not be done. Responsible researchers present absolute risk, full stop.

There were a total of 127,536 people studied. There were 7,667 incidents of CHD over a 24-30 year period (use 27 as an average). The chance of any person having an incident in any one year was 0.22% (about 1 in 450 people). Given that the nurses were 34-59 in 1980 (and therefore 64-89 in 2010) and the men were 40-74 in 1986 (and therefore 64 – 98 in 2010), I’m surprised that the incident rate wasn’t way higher than this. And I bet it was massively correlated with age, as heart disease always is.

The data

Table 1, baseline information, was quite interesting. It presented basic data about the participants in the five quintiles of saturated fat (SFA) intake, from lowest to highest. This informed us that those in the highest SFA group consumed almost double the total fat of the lowest SFA group and almost double the monounsaturated fat (MUFA) of the lowest SFA group. The highest SFA group also consumed almost double the trans fat intake of the lowest SFA group. I expect this adversely affected the health of the highest SFA intake group. This also tells me that the highest intake SFA group were eating processed food – another confounding issue.

Table 1 also told us that total carbohydrate intake ranged from 34.2% of energy intake (for the highest fat intake women) to 55.1% of total energy intake (for the lowest fat intake men). The carb intake from whole grains was as low as 0.72% – 1.2% of daily calories for the women and slightly higher at 2-5.2% for men. The whole grain results have been calculated on a tiny base, therefore.

The three key results presented above (on PUFAs, whole grains and refined carbs) came from Tables 2 and 3 in the paper. Table 2 also found the following, but this wasn’t included in the findings:

Higher intakes of total fat were significantly associated with a lower risk of CHD. Comparing the highest quintile (fifth) with the lowest quintile gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (0.80 – 0.96).

Higher intakes of trans fat were significantly associated with a higher risk of CHD. Comparing the highest quintile (fifth) with the lowest quintile gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (1.09 – 1.32). This was the single most significant result of the paper, but not mentioned in the press release or the abstract.

Higher intakes of saturated fat were (not statistically significantly) associated with a lower risk of CHD. Comparing the highest quintile (fifth) with the lowest quintile gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.93 (0.82 – 1.05).

The swapping sat fat for something else bit

The researchers estimated that the effect of replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats with equivalent energy intake from PUFAs, monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 25%, 15% and 9% lower risk of CHD respectively.

First of all – that relative risk applies again. Remember that the incident rate for any person in any one year was 0.22%. Even if we take these relative risk estimates at face value, the incident rate would be 0.17%; 0.19% or 0.20% vs. 0.22%. Not exactly hold the front page now eh?

Second – replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats may not sound like much, but it’s huge (it’s not 5% of 9.6% – it’s taking 5% away from 9.6%). The intake of saturated fat (Table 2) ranges from 9.6% to 16.9% of total energy intake. The lowest quintile would need to more than halve saturated fat intake (from 9.6 to 4.6%) and the highest quintile would need to reduce it by approximately one third (to 11.9%).

Third – what would people actually be cutting back on if they cut saturated fat significantly? Figure 3.4, page 26, of the 2010 US dietary guidelines shows that the main sources of saturated fat are processed food: pizza; grain-based desserts; dairy desserts (ice cream); KFC; hot dogs; burgers; tortillas; candy; potato chips etc. Butter accounts for 2.9% of saturated fat sources and milk 7.3%.

Do you think health would improve if people halved their intake of saturated fat by halving their intake of this kind of junk? Of course it would. Would health improve by removing eggs, meat and dairy products from grass living animals from the diet? Quite the opposite.

The press release “Butter is not back” is therefore an inaccurate, misleading, cheap shot from a university that should know better. Doing this gave the ‘Harvard kings of association nonsense’ the headline they were looking for “Butter isn’t better than marg”.

Remember the most significant, not-reported, result in the whole paper? The one about transfats? Check out how liquid vegetable oils are processed into an unnaturally solidified butter-like substance and you’ll realise how dangerous this press release was.

What do we take away from this?

Sensible dietary advice remains unchanged – eat real food; don’t eat processed food. Butter, churned from natural food sources, is far better for you than hydrogenated (or some other solidifying process), bleached, deodorised, emulsified, coloured, gunge (a.k.a. margarine). Additionally: association studies, which selectively report relative risk, especially those that emanate from the Harvard ‘got it in for butter’ team are potentially bad for your health.

Posted in Dairy, Macronutrients, Research
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Coca-cola, exercise & conflicts

The last couple of weeks have seen Coca-Cola in the news quite a bit. Coca-Cola has been having a tough time recently. This summer’s business news reported that revenues for the past year (2014) were down $2 billion from 2012 figures (although what’s a couple of billion when you’re still getting $46 billion?!)

The exposé

It looks like the NY Times was the first newspaper to break the latest story. Anahad O’Connor was the journalist who reported that Coca-Cola was funding ‘scientists’ to reiterate the message to focus on exercise, and not calorie intake, in the war on obesity.

One of the tools in this collaboration is a new organisation called the Global Energy Balance Network, which has the mission “healthier living through the science of energy balance.” Their vision is a world in health energy balance. For this, read ‘a world in which Coca-Cola sales stop falling, but human beings get off their lazy backsides to burn off the calories in those cans of Coca-Cola’. How they explain the fact that calorie-free, diet drinks are associated with long term weight gain/waist increase, I know not.

When asked why the web site was registered to Coca-Cola, the President of the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) replied that the group’s members didn’t know how to register a web site. That is probably the scientific equivalent of a child being caught with their hand in the cookie jar saying “it wasn’t me”! Even the GEBN site admits: “GEBN has received support from… blah, blah, blah… and an unrestricted gift from The Coca-Cola Company”. How kind of Coca-Cola to help these ‘scientists’ with their web site and to give them unrestricted funds at the same time.

The four key names listed on the GEBN website are James Hill; Steven Blair; Gregory Hand and John Peters. Shame on all of them for being industry whores (no – that’s not too strong a word), while trying to masquerade as scientists. The NY Times discovered that Coca-Cola donated $1.5 million in 2014 to launch the GEBN organisation. It can’t cost much to run a web site that Coke set up, so I wonder how much of the unrestricted funding is personally enjoyed by these four puppets? Anahad O’Connor further discovered that Coca-Cola provided approximately $4 million in funding to two of the GEBN founding members: Steven Blair and Gregory Hand. Coca-Cola clearly chooses its targets well, as Steven Blair’s work has formed much of the basis of US federal guidelines on physical activity.

Blair also got a ‘money-can’t-buy’ reward from Coca-Cola. He was invited to carry the Olympic torch at London 2012. (Am I the only one wondering if Blair is just too darn lazy, or has he been having too much of his sponsor’s produce?!)

Coca-Cola’s relationships

Coca-Cola’s relationships with obesity and health organisations are widespread. They are a premier sponsor of the American Dietetic Association. This is additionally worrying in America as dietitians have a legislated monopoly on giving dietary advice – check out their other sponsors in case you ever wondered where American official dietary advice comes from.

Coca-Cola is a sustaining member of the British Nutrition Foundation. The National Obesity Forum “was secretly paid £50,000 by Coca-Cola to promote low-calorie sweeteners”. The Association for the Study of Obesity has received Coca-Cola funding in the past.

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) describes itself as “a nonprofit, worldwide organization whose mission is to provide science that improves human health and well-being and safeguards the environment”. ILSI receives its funding from its industry members, governments, and foundations. The president of the ILSI is Rhona Applebaum representing The Coca-Cola company USA.

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recently published a report on carbohydrates and health. As this blog pointed out at the time, the chair of this working group is Professor Ian MacDonald, and his research interests include nutritional and metabolic aspects of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. An excellent candidate for chair you would think, except that the SACN 2008 annual report lists Professor MacDonald’s declared interests as Mars Europe and Coca-Cola Europe.

The Olympics have long been a wonderful platform for Coca-Cola to promote their products to a global audience, as one of the official sponsors of the games. Coca-Cola’s association with sport and slim, athletic looking people, reinforces their desired message – drink Coca-Cola, exercise and you won’t get fat. As Coca-Cola says on its website, they are “proud to be the longest continuous corporate partner of the Olympic Games” – an involvement that dates back to the Amsterdam games of 1928.

Even the World Health Organisation is not immune. They were ‘outed’ in 2012 as a recipient of Coca-Cola’s profit.

And finally, the UK government promotes Coca-Cola as role model healthy eating. A red can of cola is prominently featured on the Eatbadly plate.

The defence

James Hill, President of the Global Energy Balance Network hit back by saying: “Funding from the Coca-Cola Company will help build the infrastructure for an international consortium of scientists and representatives from a variety of sectors dedicated to battling obesity. The food, physical fitness, healthcare and other industries all must play a role in the solution.”

I disagree. We will never solve the obesity epidemic by thinking that fake food can help. Fake food is the problem, not the solution. We finally made progress in the tobacco war, not by working with the cigarette companies, but by doing everything we could to legislate against them.

I found the Coca-Cola response far more honest (although ‘feet’ and ‘shooting in them’ came to mind). Dr. Ed Hays, Chief Technical Officer of The Coca-Cola Company wrote a statement to set the record straight. The key words of interest in this statement are these ones: “Our business strategy is for more people to enjoy our products more often…”

At last, something with which I agree. Coca-Cola is in business to make money; to maximize returns to shareholders. It is not Coca-Cola’s job to resolve the obesity epidemic. Never has been; never will be. In the fight against the obesity epidemic, Coca-Cola is the enemy, not a private army. We know this. Coca-Cola knows this. Their response to this unfortunate truth is to try to keep their enemies closer still. We need to keep ours as far away from our citizens as possible.

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Exercise, Food Companies, Sugar
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,