John Tierney has the latest:
What we have to keep in mind here is that nutrition is a science (or at least should be) and science is about generating hypotheses, making predictions from our hypotheses, and then seeing if they hold true. The relevant hypothesis here -- i.e., what we've believed for the past 30-odd years -- is that saturated fat causes heart disease by elevating either total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol, specifically. So our prediction is that the diet with the higher saturated fat content will have a relatively deleterious effect on cholesterol. We do the test; we repeat it a half dozen times in different populations. Each time it fails to confirm our prediction. So maybe the hypothesis is wrong. That seems like a reasonable conclusion. No one is proving anything here -- as some of your respondents like to decry -- we're just looking at the evidence and trying to decide which hypotheses it supports and which it tends to refute.
...These latest trials just happen to be the best data we have on the long-term effects of saturated fat in the diet, and the best data we have says that more saturated fat is better than less. It may be true that if we lowered saturated fat further -- say to 7 % of all calories as the American Heart Association is now recommending -- or total fat down to 10 percent, as Dean Ornish argues, or raised saturated fat to 20 percent of calories, as Keys did, that we'd see a different result, but that's just another hypothesis. The trials haven't been done to test it. It's also hard to imagine why a small decrease in saturated fat would be deleterious, but a larger decrease would be beneficial.
I think that what the nutrition industry and the FDA have done over the past decades with their pseudoscience war on dietary fat borders on the criminal. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that the biggest culprit in both our health and weight is starch and refined sugars, and that the FDA "food pyramid" has been, and remains (despite recent improvements) quackery, not science.
Hear hear! I have one observation, however; it might well be that the deleterious effects of starches would be much less if they were slow-release starches, closer to the original source, such as wholemeal bread and brown rice. This is not only because they cause less of a rise in blood sugar, but because grains with the "skin on" are higher (sometimes much higher) in nutrients; particularly chromium and selenium.
There is also considerable evidence that organic foods are higher in nutrients, particularly minerals and even more particularly trace minerals.
This fits in well with my longstanding habit of not changing my dietary habits in the slightest to conform with anything I hear in the news, or even from a medical association without actual test data.
Given that every health-fad I can think of has either turned out to be actively deleterious or barely better than nothing, I think I've come out far ahead of the game in terms of effort:benefit ratio.
> There is also considerable evidence that organic foods are higher in nutrients, particularly minerals and even more particularly trace minerals.
An cite would be nice, together with a definition of "organic" that made sense. For example, it's unclear why genetic engineering reduces nutrients but mutation by irradition or selective breeding wouldn't.
"I'm pretty much convinced at this point that the biggest culprit in both our health and weight is starch and refined sugars"
Particularly including high fructose corn syrup.
I'm betting that if someone were willing to do the research they'd find that the "epidemic" of weight gain, diabetes, etc., correlates pretty well to the almost complete replacement of sugar in American processed foods with high fructose corn syrup. It's in bread, fercryingoutloud! I've even seen it on the ingredients in frozen dinners (which I read occasionally to remind myself why they're not really that convenient).
I'd also edit that to "too much over-refined starch," Rand.
Hmmmmm.
Makes sense to me.
That food pyramid always seemed to be more of a reflection of feel-good granola-eaters than reality.
Besides agriculture is still relatively recent compared to the caveman hunter-gatherer diet we're designed for. And in a hunter-gatherer type environment starches are only available seasonally, and a short time at that since harvest is usually early fall. The only food source that's reliable year-round would be animals.
memomachine:
Actually, I disagree. I suspect that the fact of grains remaining at the base of the food pyramid despite the evidence is more to do with the relative lobbying power of the grain industry (high) and the fruit, vegetables and fish industries (low); given that several US states derive a heck of a lot of their income from grain production.
It also may be relevant that a large proportion of the output of various agrichemical producers goes to sterilising the enormous monoculture grain fields in the American Midwest and then pouring chemical fertilisers all over them. (And then sowing square miles of GM grain, none of which can be saved for next year's seeds because it won't grow, of course.) So the agrichemical producers' money goes to lobbying as well.
To rely to the anonymous poster; well, GM in itself probably doesn't reduce nutrients. However, the fact that GM foods are grown on pesticide-saturated, nutrient-depleted soil does. (The most common reason for GM is to allow huge quantities of herbicides to be used. Of course, this means that some of it ends up in the grain; but Roundup is safe to eat, right?)
Chromium and selenium, for example, are not required by most plants; so the fertiliser doesn't contain either. Except in Finland, where selenium deficiency was such an acute problem that the Finnish government was forced to do something about it - which is that fertilisers sold in Finland have to contain selenium by law.
I would definitely agree that lobbying has had a huge impact on the the way nutrition is defined in this country. Although, if the milk and meat industry had enough clout (which they did until another line of reasoning prevailed in the early to mid nineties) we all would still be following the 4 basic food groups.
Instead of studying the science of nutrition, our scientists have been studying nutritionism. What's the difference? In nutritionism, scientists study the effect that one nutrient has when isolated on the human body. That's why our food is fortified with omega 3, soy, and vitamin B-12. Sounds great. The problem with nutritionism is that we don't just eat one nutrient alone. We eat a diet full of starches, fats, proteins and vitamins that all interact with each other in unexpected ways which have really been thoroughly studied.
Add the problem of nutritionism to the fact that the food lobbying groups of this country have too much say in how and what is studied. In addition, the fact that it's cheaper to serve and sell processed foods that have additional sweeteners (like corn syrup) and have been so manipulated that the original nutrients found in the raw ingredients have been diluted considerably doesn't help either.
In short, we're creating food as a country that is cheaper, less dense in nutrients, and we don't even know what a balanced diet should be anymore because there is very little scientific work that comprehensively studies the effects of all types of foods eaten together. No wonder why we're all so confused!
Fine then. I will have a multi-vitamin and a glass of metamucil for breakfast and eat chololate chip ice cream the rest of the day.
> (And then sowing square miles of GM grain, none of which can be saved for next year's seeds because it won't grow, of course.)
Not so fast. While the "death gene" requires GM, GM does not require the "death gene" and most GM does not have the "death gene".
> To rely to the anonymous poster; well, GM in itself probably doesn't reduce nutrients. However, the fact that GM foods are grown on pesticide-saturated, nutrient-depleted soil does.
In other words, GM is irrelevant to the problem.
Since the core of FC's argument is wrong, how likely is it that his suspicions about the lobbying power of different farm groups has is true? After all, it's not like he's demosntrated any useful knowledge of the US.
It's far more likely that the nutritionists' stance comes from within, from a community belief in what's good. It's always a short walk from "it would be good if" to "it's true". In fact, that's how almost all such errors are made.
Money is NOT the most effective means of corruption, self-image is. People who are bought aren't all that loyal or diligent - true believers are.
AFAIK it is not the total amount of fat intake which causes a problem, but things like omega-6/omega-3 and LDL/HDL cholesterol fat ratios. Even Atkins said as much and preferred to consume fish rather than meat.
It is sort of like if you do not have the right fatty acid mix the pipes clog up and you start suffering multiple artery failure. Unfortunately, unclogging with caustic soda is not a solution.