JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

The fat police won’t be happy about this…

Remember the experts who said we should drink skim milk? A new large study suggests that full fat milk is healthier. So much for that consensus about saturated fat. There have been signs things were amiss. A few studies recently have shown that milk, yogurt and cheese consumption were associated with a lower incidence of Diabetes Type 2. Dairy didn’t seem to make the heart attacks more likely either. Hmm. So this new study of 26,000 women looked at high fat versus low fat dairy products. Over 14 years the highest consumption (which is 8, crikey, portions of full fat dairy a day) is associated with … a 23% reduction in risk compared to the low fat dairy consumers. Time to eat more Brie? Maybe, maybe not.

I won’t be taking up 8 portions of full fat dairy myself –  the 23% figure is not seismic, is based on a modeled estimate (so is open to debate). I suspect it’s not the fat content that is the most important thing here, but something else entirely. The “displacement effect” confounds this sort of  study. It might not be that dairy fat is so helpful, just that it is less bad that other things it displaces. Hold onto your hat. Low fat dairy foods are much more likely to also have sugar or artificial sweeteners in them to make up for the flavour lost with lower fat. Coincidentally, also this week, an entirely different study showed that artificial sweeteners appear to have a bad effect, not directly on mammals, but through gut microbes.When mice were fed artificial sweeteners, they developed glucose intolerance. When bacteria in their intestines were transferred to other mice, those mice developed glucose intolerance too. In people, glucose intolerance is described as “the first step on the path to metabolic syndrome and adult-onset diabetes.”

For similar reasons it may also be that the fermented type of dairy matters. Cream was good, but fermented milk (like yoghurt and kefir) was better. Those gut microbes are popping up in study after study.

Confused? Fair enough. But this study, yet again, shows the diet consensus for the last three decades was wrong. Saturated fat, long painted as the enemy, is not necessarily, and artificial sweeteners, long painted as being useful to prevent diabetes, may be helping to create it.

Those studies:

Gut Bacteria, Artificial Sweeteners and Glucose Intolerance

Weizmann Institute of Science

Among other things, says Dr. Eran Elinav of the Weizmann Institute’s Immunology Department, who led this research together with Prof. Eran Segal of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Department, the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in drinks and food may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic that is sweeping much of the world.

“The scientists gave mice water laced with the three most commonly used artificial sweeteners – in the equivalent amounts to those permitted by the FDA. These mice developed glucose intolerance, as compared to mice that drank water, or even sugar water. Repeating the experiment with different types of mice and different doses of the sweeteners produced the same results – these substances were somehow inducing glucose intolerance.

“The researchers treated mice with antibiotics to eradicate many of their gut bacteria; this resulted in a full reversal of the artificial sweeteners’ effects on glucose metabolism. Next, they transferred the microbiota from mice that consumed artificial sweeteners to ‘germ-free’ mice – resulting in a complete transmission of the glucose intolerance into the recipient mice. This, in itself, was conclusive proof that changes to the gut bacteria are directly responsible for the harmful effects to their host’s metabolism.

The findings showed that many – but not all – of the volunteers had begun to develop glucose intolerance after just one week of artificial sweetener consumption. The composition of their gut microbiota explained the difference: The researchers discovered two different populations of human gut bacteria – one that induced glucose intolerance when exposed to the sweeteners, the second that had no effect either way. Elinav believes that certain bacteria in the guts of those who developed glucose intolerance reacted to the chemical sweeteners by secreting substances that then provoked an inflammatory response similar to sugar overdose, promoting changes in the body’s ability to utilize sugar.

Consumption of high-fat dairy products associated with lower risk of developing diabetes

[Eureka] New research presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Vienna, Austria, shows that people with the highest consumption of high-fat dairy products (8 or more portions per day) have a 23% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those with the lowest consumption (1 or less per day). The research is by Dr Ulrika Ericson, Lund University Diabetes Center, Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues.

Dietary fats could affect glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity and may therefore have a crucial role in the development of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Studies have indicated that replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats might be favourable in the prevention of T2D. In line with this, plant sources of fat have been suggested to be a better choice compared with animal sources. Indeed, high intakes of red meat and meat products have been shown to increase the risk of T2D. Nevertheless, several epidemiological studies have indicated that a high intake of dairy products may be protective. Subsequently, the importance of dietary fat content and food sources of fat remains to be clarified. In this new study, the authors aimed to examine intakes of main dietary fat sources, classified according to fat content, and their association with risk of developing T2D.

The study included 26 930 individuals (60% women), aged 45-74 years, from the population-based Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort. Dietary data was collected with a modified diet history method. During 14 years of follow up, 2860 incident T2D cases were identified. Modelling was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of diabetes incidence in quintiles of energy adjusted dietary intakes. The model included adjustments for age, sex, season, diet assessment method version, total energy intake, BMI, leisure time physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and education.

The researchers found that high intake of high-fat dairy products was associated with a 23% lower incidence of T2D for the highest consuming 20% of participants (or quintile) (median=8 portions/day) compared with the lowest consuming 20% (median=1 portion/day).

Concerning intakes of specific high-fat dairy foods, increasing intake of cream (30ml or more a day in the highest consuming 20% versus 0.3ml a day or less in the lowest consuming 20%) was associated with a 15% reduction in risk of developing type 2 diabetes. High-fat fermented milk* consumption also reduced the risk of developing diabetes by 20%, when comparing the highest consumers (180ml/day, the top 10% of consumers), with the non-consumers (60% of participants).

In contrast to these findings, there was no association found between intakes of low-fat dairy products and risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

High intakes of meat and meat products were, regardless of fat content, associated with increased risk, but the increased risk was higher for lower fat meats (increased risk of type 2 diabetes for high fat meats 9%, for low fat 24%), both referring to the risk in the highest-consuming versus lowest-consuming 20%). The highest consuming group for the high-fat meat had 90g or more per day, and for the low-fat meat 80g per day.

Dr Ericson says: “Our observations may contribute to clarifying previous findings regarding dietary fats and their food sources in relation to T2D. The decreased risk at high intakes of high- fat dairy products, but not of low-fat dairy products, indicate that dairy fat, at least partly, explains observed protective associations between dairy intake and T2D. Meat intake was associated with increased risk of developing diabetes regardless of fat content.”

She adds: “Our findings suggest, that in contrast to animal fats in general, fats specific to dairy products may have a role in prevention of type 2 diabetes.”

REFERENCES

Consumption of high-fat dairy products associated with lower risk of developing diabetes, Diabetologia (can someone find the actual study? None of the press releases links to it.)

Suez, et al, (2014) Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature13793

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (82 votes cast)
The fat police won't be happy about this..., 9.3 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lzsskgn

160 comments to The fat police won’t be happy about this…

  • #
    Pathway

    Maybe people have type II diabetes because they are genetically predisposed to have it. Increased body fat leads to insulin resistance and hence high blood sugar.

    32

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Settings for insulin processing are to a great extent made during the pregnancy.

      Any variation in the calorie intake ( ie more calories) of the offspring from somewhere near that of the mother during pregnancy leads to T2.

      The main solution is to reduce food intake to match the mothers intake during pregnancy.

      KK

      20

      • #
        michael hart

        Which also leads us to considerations of epigenetics. In terms of complexity, the world is almost always “worse than we thought”.

        50

  • #
    farmerbraun

    I just hope someone mentions that FULL-FAT milk is about 4% fat ; just shows the power of bullshit I suppose.
    In my book a food with 4% fat is a low0fat product.

    And then there’s Omega -3/Omega -6 story pertaining to grass-fed dairy cows. Yep, the margarine industry sure did a number on the population there.

    210

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”And then there’s Omega -3/Omega -6 story”

      Yes, tricky balance if you’re not aware of it but no reason to demonize whole milk. Changing to low fat milk from whole milk is one of many options for calorie counters however (see 8 below).

      In respect to nitric oxide (NO below), it’s the omega-3/omega-6, folic acid, and antioxidant story, among other things. See:

      ‘Survival of the firmest’

      UCLA doctors describe ten steps to better erections, a longer life,
      and reversing erectile dysfunction (ED)

      [ED is "the canary in the coalmine" apparently]

      http://www.sassm.in/pdf/survival_of_the_firmest.pdf

      Step 1: Get moving

      Step 2: Increase omega 3 fatty acids

      Step 3: Increase antioxidants

      Step 4: Increase folic acid

      Step 8: Lose abdominal fat

      Step 10: Decrease sugar and fat

      Sugar decreases NO production by blood vessels and the current American diet
      contains much too much sugar. Sugar is a moderately inexpensive way for the food industry to add flavor to foods and drinks. A high fat diet also suppresses NO, and both increase inflammatory factors involved in atherosclerosis and heart attacks. Many men ingest enough sugar and simple carbohydrates to be considered
      functionally diabetic and the typical high fat western diet regularly assaults a person’s blood vessels. Importantly, antioxidants and exercise prevent many of the bad effects of fat and sugar on blood vessels.

      # # #

      I came across this article when looking for information on anti-inflammatory foods after my Doctor decided a digestion problem accompanied by weight loss was inflammation of the digestive tract. The condition was brought on (I think, also maybe just a bit prone to inflammatory problems) by commencing rotating shifts three years ago, not just night shifts note. I’ve seen studies of nurses on rotating shifts where similar conditions e.g. IBS, were more prevalent among them than on other shifts. Similar anecdotes among fellow rotating shift workers.

      I’ve found a persimmon a day works wonders thanks to the anti-inflammatory properties. Unfortunately they are out of season here (NZ) now. Also unfortunate, persimmons are diuretics but the anti-inflammatory benefit far outweighs that inconvenience for me anyway. The other plus being the sheer eating pleasure. Not for nothing are persimmons known as “fruit of the gods”.

      31

      • #
        the Griss

        I spent some time living near a real dairy. YUM!!

        Wish I could buy real milk :-(

        Even the full cream stuff in the shops is so “ordinary”.

        So if anyone think I am going “lite” … sorry, it ain’t gunna happen !!

        90

      • #
        RoHa

        American food is full of corn-syrup. I think this is some sort of legal requirement.

        40

        • #
          James

          There is an import duty on raw cane sugar. This means that it is more cost effective to sweeten with corn syrup. Kind of like the ethanol thing, the corn producers are a strong lobby, and manage to get on the agricultural welfare very well.

          70

    • #
      Greg

      I have read ( do not know if it is accurate ) that homogenised milk products are worse for the body which has trouble separating the emulsion.

      This also then applies to all the “low fat” range of products which are a great game. “Light” cream, 6% fat, 4% fat .. 2% fat.

      They emulsify the little bit of cream/fat with water. This thick “creamy” emulsion gives the impression that it is creamy as in cream without being so.

      They are effectively selling water as cream. Even better they manage to sell these special weight watchers products dearer than the real thing.

      50

    • #
      Londo

      Do the math from which nutrients the energy is comming, then you’ll get it.

      11

    • #
      Londo

      Do the math from which nutrients the energy is comming, then you’ll get it.

      11

  • #
    CC Squid

    I recommend reading “Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It” by Gary Taubes. The “science” of nutrition is as bad as climate “science”. Nutrication “science” corruption started the 50 and took 50 years to start recovering.

    70

    • #
      Tim

      I remember a credentialed nutritionist interviewed on radio re our knowledge of nutrition and diet. The answer was something like: “Our current knowledge of human nutrition equates with our knowledge of surgery in the 17th century.

      So I take all advice with a ‘grain of salt’ these days. (But not too much of it.)

      30

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    It’s statistics. Everything wrong is statistics. Broken climate, diabetes, heart attacks, cigarettes and lung cancer. Ban statistics. Without statistics we’d have no known problems.

    141

    • #
      GM2

      And the real problems we couldn’t do anything about anyway.
      200 years ago life was hard and generally fairly short,they got on with it,now we have an answer to problems that don’t even exists,we live longer but there is a trend to not get on with life.
      We all die,if you don’t believe in life after death why worry,your life meant nothing,it was completely accidental that you were born,you could have been born an ant for all your life means to the planet.

      00

  • #

    Intake of fats results in the person feeling satiated earlier. That tends to reduce the overall amount of food eaten (not hungry any more) and for less sweet stuff to be sought out between meals.

    Things aren’t quite that simple however as those who eat “continously”, tend never to be satiated. They have to re-learn that, if they ever learnt it in the first place from structured meal times at which one eats only and usually until satisfied. Feeling “hungry” at the end of a meal promotes a bad habit of “grazing”, predominately on sweet stuff, before the next meal.

    It’s complicated because eating is motivated by more than simple biochemistry. There’s a “neurochemistry” that the individual needs to master.

    170

    • #

      Bernd makes a good point here: (may addition in Bold)

      They have to re-learn that, if they ever learned it in the first place from structured meal times…..

      I suppose in a way, we have the English to blame for that. They would have their 2 main meals, the morning meal, to break the all night fast (which became Break…..fast) and then Dinner, or Tea, the single main meal at or around Sunset, which became even later into the evening.

      John Montagu, the 4th Earl Of Sandwich has a famous, and probably exaggerated urban myth story of the invention of what became named after him, the Sandwich. The flowery version is that he ate them while at the gambling tables, not stopping for a full meal, but asking for some sliced meat between 2 slices of bread. When others saw this, the same idea arose, and when asked if they would also like something, the reply was ….. the same as Sandwich, as their rank was how they were known rather than by their specific name. The real truth is probably that as Lord of The Admiralty, (three times) he probably did this eating like that while actually at work on his duties.

      Montagu was a great supporter of James Cook, and as First Lord of the Admiralty, he approved the funding for a number of Cooks (later) expeditions. As a show of thanks, Cook named The Sandwich Islands after him, later to become Hawaii. Montagu Island in the South Sandwich Islands is also named after him, and some (incorrectly) also attribute Montague Island off Narooma as also named after him, but Cook actually named it as Cape Dromedary in 1770, and it was later discovered to be an Island (during the approach of The Second Fleet in 1790) and named Montague Island (note the added E at the end) after George Montagu-Dunk, the 2nd Earl of Halifax.

      Way off the main topic here, but I couldn’t resist, so apologies here.

      Tony.

      150

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Tony you brought on old memories of my Mum making Bacon Butty’s and claiming they were probably invented years before the 4th Earl of Sandwich by the working classes, Mum had no proof to back this up but sometimes it was best not to argue with someone about food with a Welsh/ Irish heritage. ;)

        I even found a webpage on the Bacon Butty complete with a scientific formula based on actual research!, the IPCC could take notes on how science is really done, enjoy. :)

        80

      • #
        Richard

        They were commonly known by their title, not their rank. The rank is Earl. Just me being pedantic. So John Montagu, the Earl of Sandwich, would be addressed as Sandwich by people in his social set. Close friends and family might have been permitted to call him John.

        One of the people I did supervisions with at uni was, at the time, Lord X. When his mother died (and isn’t it lovely to find an ancient title from the 1300s that is passed down through girls as well as boys?), he inherited the earldom and became “The Earl of Y”. Times have changed. Nobody at uni called him X as far as I know. I always used his first name, “Merlin”. That could have been an early indicator that I might prefer to live in Oz :-)

        10

    • #
      Jon

      I think the introduction of potato from South America, more carbs, also might be a factor? And the modern food is sooooo different from it was only 50 years ago?

      40

      • #
        shortie of greenbank

        There is some sketchy research about that since the 1960s there was a stark increase in certain dietary conditions, this also coincided with the release of Durham wheat which has recently been found to contain a gluten that is either not found in other wheats or excessively abundant in Durham but small in other wheats. Some gluten intolerant people can eat breads made with other flour that still contain gluten, some have even eaten sourdough made with durham wheat provided the dough was ‘proofed’ long enough as this allowed the gluten to be broken down to amino acids (apparently) which do not irritate the body like the gluten protiens do.

        50

    • #
      Jon

      In the morning I have 2 cups of coffee and my 2 pills. I guess ones age can be guessed by the pill diet they are on, the more the older? I usually make dinner, retired and my wife not. I am not a Chef, but can use up to 3-4 hours to make a meal, slow cooked beefs etc.. Also use a lot of energy on the sauce binding the food together. Also a lot of chicken and fish. And of course good wine :-)

      50

    • #
      James the Elder

      Eat a bit of real chocolate 20 minutes before dinner, and you will not eat as much. I am 67 and have eaten eggs, bacon, steaks when the price drops, and real butter all my life. And I’m 50 pounds overweight. But, my cholesterol is non-existent, triglycerides are well within limits and no sugar problems. Loving competitive sports even at this age, the weight has to go. Basically, it’s dropping the carbs to a low level; I’ve dropped the beer for fruit ales and stay away from bread as much as possible (buttered biscuits with breakfast will never leave), and cut potatoes by over half. My goal is one pound a week; more than that is a bonus. Two weeks have shed five pounds, and April, 2015 is my target date for 175. I am tired of being outrun by 75 year old men and 50 year old women.

      40

  • #

    Butter and pork fat are essentials around here, although olive oil and that wonderful buttery mustard oil from Yandilla get a good run. Sometimes I dress a soup with crusty salt and sesame instead of cheese and olive oil. But ghee and lard are the absolute tops for frying. Don’t bake much, but that’s when beef fat comes into its own. (Lamb and chicken fat are my fire-starters, not so good for eating, though a bit of a slick left on stew or soup is welcome.)

    I don’t boycott but I loosely follow a policy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against anything labelled “Lite”, “Lo”, “organic” “-free” etc. The Fair Trade bwanas also get a miss.

    They’re all in the pay of Big Neurosis.

    30

    • #
      farmerbraun

      Interesting policy Robert. I’d love to get some yoghurt to you; I’ve been making it commercially for over 25 years , using only milk and cultures. But it seems you wouldn’t touch it because it is certified organic.
      What’s the problem?

      30

      • #

        It’s okay, farmer. I do eat organic when there’s nothing else or if the product looks okay. I’m not really a finger-wagger or boycotter. I happen to grow uncertified organic (and edible) bamboo but that’s just because I don’t need chemicals any more. Of course, if I needed chemicals and was satisfied with their specs I’d use them.

        Now is shooting time (fingers-crossed) for moso bamboo, but I won’t be adding urea or nitrogen-rich organic fertilisers to my grove. I figure that a plant which knows how to grow from the ground to a hundred feet in seven weeks has a need for overall fertility, not a speed injection when it’s already speeding. But if I decide to slightly increase fertility (probably not needed) I’ll just use a balanced fertiliser and I won’t care if it’s from the backside of an animal or from Monsanto. It won’t be much in any case.

        Your yogurt sound nice. I do lacto-pickling of bamboo shoots and also limes for my good bugs. I must admit my fave yogurt is an extra-thick soup of full cream milk made from supermarket powder and wrapped in a blanket overnight.

        20

        • #
          farmerbraun

          ” that’s just because I don’t need chemicals any more. ”
          Same here; I just farm the way my grandfathers did when there were very few biocides available. Biological controls and a bit of diversity work fine for me.
          The certification is no more than an audited traceability system for quality assurance purposes. A lot of people want to know exactly what they are eating these days. I’m the same .

          40

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        The problem is, it is certified organic.
        I impose the same boycotts.
        It is organic before it is certified.
        Virtually all foods are organic.
        Why put money into a useless label that tells us that those involved are susceptible to following pseudo-scientific nutritional cults?
        The modern world is full of cults scammers.
        Eat more vitamins!
        Put seaweed extract on your garden!
        Consume anti-oxidants!
        Avoid chemicals!
        Take tablets with 5 different types of magnesium!
        Eat pro-biotics!
        Detox your body!
        Avoid the colour red in foods!
        Etc.!
        Etc.!
        What a load of wank.

        122

        • #
          farmerbraun

          What a surprise to hear you on this topic Geoff! Thanks for the laugh! Boy someone has really got on your wick sometime.
          Never let the facts get in the way of a good prejudice , right?
          Got any more ignorant comments?

          54

        • #
          geronimo

          Geoff you’ve reminded me, for years I wouldn’t touch food contaminated with mono-sodium-glutimate. Eeyyr mono, sodium and glutimate – it has man made written in the name. MSH the apotheosis of artificial flavouring. AKA “seaweed extract” just goes to show.

          20

          • #
            the Griss

            I suspect the issue with MSG is from the “manufactured” variety.

            Maybe slight amount of contaminants of some sort . remnants of the process.

            Maybe some people are unable to process the mirror image of the MSG the body and nature naturally mproduces.

            As far as I recall there have been no definitive results from any studies.

            40

            • #
              Robert O

              I suffered from migraines from the age 35 to 55; it took a long time to find a trigger, but MSG was responsible many times. Seem to have outgrown them now,but very occasionally get a very mild one.

              20

        • #
          Dave

          Geoff
          Totally agree
          I’m in the trucking industry and I pay on capacity

          > Horsepower
          > Economy
          > Weight etc
          I am NOT going to buy a recycled sustainable organic truck to haul ROCKS
          I want VALUE, Performance & Reliability for my money

          If I order a 400 HP Diesel truck, that’s what I get (400HP)
          Not like these wind mills with 2MW Nacelles that only deliver 30% of this on average.

          Why do GREENS accept this discrepancy continually.
          Same with a 1.5KW solar panel system. It only bloooody works when the sun shines about 20% of 365 days (hours delivering electricity).

          Organic is the same, so the avocado farmer sprays the crop with organic sustainable locally crushed sunflower & garlic resin insecticide, but Mr. Farmer is doing this in his John Deer metal tractor and fossil fuel manufactured plastic holding tanks delivered via CHINA.

          The double standards are amazing. Beef cattle production (which I’m partly involved with) is the same. I can have beef cattle on an expensive ORGANIC farm in the last 3 months of their life before they become EYE FILLET steaks, and get an extra 50% more $ per kilo.

          ORGANIC is a $ con job on the public and perpetuated though the big 2 food chains and the ignorant media who love the feel good GREEN & Lovey feelings

          I don’t know what more to say Geoff, but I totally agree with you, what others have called a rant.

          I gave you a GREEN Thumb
          Cheers Dave

          51

        • #
          sophocles

          Put seaweed extract on your garden!

          Why? Putting the whole thing (seaweed) on is better. Just dig it in.
          Adds fibre to the soil at the same time as all the other good stuff.

          10

  • #
    sam

    It is s bit one sided not to mention a meta analysis of 15 studies from 2013 regarding 500 000 people that did not show high fat dairy was protective against developing type 2 diabetes. Dr Erickson’s study has been reported around the world and the reports misleadingly imply that Dr Erickson’s is the only research in to the field or the most significant study. This is an example of cherry picking which as scientifically thinking people we need to actively avoid. The meta analysis indicates that increased consumption of low fat dairy is protective against developing type 2 diabetes and high fat imparts no benefit. Cheese and yoghurt were also seen to be beneficial.

    PLoS One. 2013 Sep 27;8(9):e73965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073965. eCollection 2013.
    Dairy products consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.
    Gao D1, Ning N, Wang C, Wang Y, Li Q, Meng Z, Liu Y, Li Q.

    21

    • #

      Thanks Sam —
      Good point. Perhaps they discussed this in the paper? That study…
      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2.0073965

      30

      • #
        Dipole

        A cautious study,

        Some gems,

        Vitamin K2 and fat soluble vitamin D is present in yoghurt and cheese, the former due due to the bacterial starter fermentation used in these products.

        Even though,

        Cheese, which has far more fat than whole-fat milk, more than half of which is saturated.

        They say “they have been found to be inversely associated with T2DM”, so, they are not ascribing cause and effect, but it is nonetheless an interesting association.

        Won’t feel so guilty ripping into the full fat creamy blue vein cheese waiting for me.

        40

      • #
        sam

        They may have but no one could know because not even the abstract of the presentation is available at the EASD website. This whole thing is probably more of a good demonstration of how unreliable media reporting about science can be than anything else. Also a good example of how much luck and presumably other factors too result in one study being widely publicised while others (perhaps better and more important) remain in the wilderness.

        30

  • #
    Dipole

    Low fat dairy foods are much more likely to also have sugar or artificial sweeteners in them to make up for the flavour lost with lower fat.

    Also, salt is added to boost flavour in low fat milk.

    50

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    A little bit of what you fancy does you good.

    40

  • #
    bemused

    I’ve never worried about what I eat or drink, other than that I don’t like overly sweet things, and have maintained more or less the same relatively lean body weight for over 30 years. Retirement hasn’t made me any worse off. The sooner these dogooders, whose mission it is to control everyone’s lives, are starved of taxpayer funds the better. Climate experts on one side and health experts on the other, what next?

    70

    • #
      NielsZoo

      Me as well. I weigh the same now as when I was in high school over 4 decades ago. The last time I was as the doctor’s he noted my cholesterol had always been “normal.” He then said, while flipping through my file, “… but we’ve got you on something, don’t we?” I replied yes… I eat whatever I want and it is all plain, real food with all the fat, real sugar, real gluten and everything else as it came off the bush, vine, tree, butcher block or body of water… but no pills.

      I wish I could find it again but several years ago I read about one of the herding tribes in Africa whose diet was massively high in fats and cholesterol but no one in the tribe ever seemed to have the heart and circulatory problems blamed on those diets. When someone suggested it was genetic the researchers tracked down some of the tribesmen that had moved into the cities, with the associated diet changes, and they found those individuals experienced the same (higher) rate of heart related issues as the general population. Certainly not definitive, but makes one think.

      Also remember that 90% of these studies are done by or paid for by people who either profit from the results or use the results as a means of control or a reason to control us. Researchers know who butters the bread as well and, as we’ve seen far too many times, money and power win out over common sense and science sadly almost every single time.

      70

      • #
        Mike W

        This was the Masai whose adult males eat nothing but milk, meat, and blood. The scientist (Mann?) who originally published the studies was skeptical of the anti-fat dogma. This data was causing problems for the anti-fat movement so they sent a research team to Africa to do their own study which ended up confirming the original. Their conclusion: the Masai had developed a genetic ability to process fat — they ignored the data on Masai who moved to the cities and adopted higher carbohydrate diets.

        This same effect has been observed in all other high fat diet subgroups (e.g the Inuit) once they switch to a lower fat higher sugar diet.

        60

    • #
      scaper...

      I’m in the same camp. Haven’t been sick for almost twenty years and the only visit to the Doctor has been to satisfy my wife’s paranoia of skin cancer.

      Can’t put it down to genes as my siberlings range from podgy to obese. Another observation is I’m the only one that does not need glasses.

      I always wondered if the milkman in 1959 was lean and glassless.

      60

  • #
    hannuko

    Also saturated fat is needed to produce certain hormones. On “ultra healthy” diets (such as what is recommended to everyone and especially children in Finland) you run a high risk of develping hormone related problems. This includes – but is not limited to – depression. No wonder childhood depression has reached an epidemic levels here and almost 10% of Finns are on SSRI-drugs…

    And even on cholesterol there is an optimal level and that optimal level is higher than what officials currently recommend as the maximum cholesterol level. Considering mortality, the optimal total blood cholesterol level is 5.7 mmol/l.

    Any more than that, you propably have some hidden inflammation etc., that your body needs to produce extra cholesterol to repair the damage with. But some people have genetically higher cholesterol level, on which case high cholesterol level is completely harmless.

    Any less than 5.7 and your body has less than optimal amount of resources to fight off infections and cancer. People with low cholesterol are much more likely to die from infections, inflammation and cancers.

    The thing is that you can indeed lower your cholesterol level by eating “right”. By “right” I mean that if you lower the amount of resources that your body needs to produce the amount of cholesterol it thinks it needs, you will end up with lower cholesterol. But this is like fighting off an infection by lowering the amount of white blood cells. (The logic would be similar, since people with high blood cell count are much more likely to die than those with lower white cell counts).

    If you really want to live longer, you stop smoking, cut down on stress and limit the amount of foods that contain nitrites, sugar and non-fermented grains.

    And remember to eat organs (liver, kidneys, brains) couple of times a week!

    81

  • #
    Dipole

    hannuko….

    “If you really want to live longer, you stop smoking, cut down on stress and limit the amount of foods that contain nitrites, sugar and non-fermented grains.”

    And remember to eat organs (liver, kidneys, brains) couple of times a week!”

    Gosh, with that diet, would you want to live longer ? :)

    90

  • #
    Jason

    The best advice I was ever given was “If your great grandmother wouldn’t recognise it as food, don’t eat it”. That makes a lot of sense to me :)

    70

  • #

    I only know what I read, of course, but some TYGER reads (as in “Tyger Tyger burning bright, in the forests of the night…” – William Blake) gave rise to a blog post of mine which could be of interest in this discussion, to be found at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/brain-ology-101-whycarbs-are-destroying.html

    20

  • #
    Leo G

    A problem I can see with regarding full fat dairy products as health food is that as you age you are more likely develop a deficiency of a lipase-related protein (LRP2) that is required to digest the short-chain triglycerides found in butterfat. Improperly digested fats in the lower alimentary tract means nasty gut bacteria and a higher risk of vascular disease.

    30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    About 15 years ago I was shown the Framingham Heart Study that began in 1948 tracking the diets of over 6000 people and still going today.

    What caught my attention was after 40 years (1988) the director of the study said; “In Framingham, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the lower the persons serum cholesterol…we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighted the least and were the most physically active.”

    There is a lot more to a puzzle than one piece for instance the cholesterol mentioned would be HDL cholesterol ‘High Density Lipoprotein’

    I believe the greatest hindrance to human health is the malfunction of the parenchymal matter inside the cranium.

    90

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Following what was known as “the Dutch Winter hunger” during world war two, research in other countries eg Britain, found similar results wrt Type 2 Diabetes.

      On another tack there is an excellent book : “The Queen of fats” which spells out what Cholesterol is all about.

      HDL could be seen as a solvent which helps keep blood flow moving and avoids artery clogging: HDL is seen as “good” fat.

      KK

      30

  • #
    Mark

    After reading all these comments i take heed and avoid packaged foods and look at more natural options, Go back to 1940 ‘s diet. . When there was no propaganda , no tv adverts . So much money to be made by companies now ,who pulls the strings? Since diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 8 months ago, have lost over 3 1/2 stones. Assessed diet and cut out as much sugar as I possibly can. Eat more full fats yoghurt etc, as low fat has more sugar content in if you read the very small print!

    80

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Excellent comment!

    KK

    30

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    Sam says:

    star comment
    `It is s bit one sided not to mention a meta analysis of 15 studies from 2013 regarding 500 000 people that did not show high fat dairy was protective against developing type 2 diabetes. Dr Erickson’s study has been reported around the world and the reports misleadingly imply that Dr Erickson’s is the only research in to the field or the most significant study. This is an example of cherry picking which as scientifically thinking people we need to actively avoid. The meta analysis indicates that increased consumption of low fat dairy is protective against developing type 2 diabetes and high fat imparts no benefit. Cheese and yoghurt were also seen to be beneficial.`

    Apart from the fact that there are statistical problems with the validity of meta studies one also has to realize that there are different types of ruminant fat (dairy, beef, sheep etc)depending on how the animals are fed and meta studies do not always distinquish these. The important difference is in the content of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) that is known to have medicinal benefits, including anti-inflammatory activity in the gut (colon) that links with the study with mice also reperted in this article. Fat rich CLA comes from animals grazing grass whereas it is deficient in those fed high grain diets, such as that from most intensive livestock operations. So if the participants in the Malmo study that showed a postive response were eating dairy products from grass fed livestock one would expect the response that was found – for example comsuming dairy or meat products from Ireland, New Zealand, S America, Switzerland etc rather than those on high grain diets from the USA, Denmark, UK and elsewhere: that is not to say that there are not sources of meat and dairy products from these latter countries (or for than matter many other countries) that are high in CLA such as three year grass fed beef from Scotland that thankfully remainns a part of the UK.

    60

    • #
      sam

      Hi Peter of course there are many problems with meta analyses but in general despite their limitations they are the best information we have. They are certainly superior to unreferenced claims that an expensive nutrition supplement is beneficial…
      Your key claim (unreferenced) seems to be that CLA has an anti inflammatory property in the colon which we could extrapolate to it possibly being preventive or beneficial in inflammatory condition of the colon such as ulcerative colitis. The jump to diabetes is even more speculative. Jo- we seem to be getting less scientific by the minute. Have we given our star pick to someone trying to sell supplements?

      10

    • #
      sam

      Sorry Peter, the accusation of pill selling was probably a bit strong. Anyway I look forwards to well conducted studies in humans showing a significant clinical outcome improvement with regards to: 1. CLA and inflammatory conditions of the colon and 2. CLA and onset of type 2 diabetes. I don’t discount the possibility that this nutritional supplement is different to all the rest and really works but it strikes me as unlikely… I also don’t discount the possibility that the feed stock are fed has ramifications for the health of the people further down the chain but assuming a normal balanced diet for the consumer and the absence of anything actually poisonous in the feed pinning that down to one particular compound would involve a fair bit of hypothesising.

      00

  • #
    sophocles

    this new study of 26,000 women

    Ok, now we need a study of 26,000 men. Then we would have a balanced result.

    I grew up on a New Zealand dairy farm. Milk fresh from the cow (still warm!) is unbelievsbly tasty! But, on the farms, some of the milk was tanked to go to the dairy factory, some went through a cream separator with the cream, heavy with butter fat, into a smaller churn to also go to the dairy factory for making butter. The skim milk which was left went to the house for daily use and the rest was fed to the pigs.

    We were all really healthy and those pigs! Wow.
    I have a taste for skim milk, I like it.
    We males drank milk by the bucket, the females didn’t.

    I haven’t read the study but what were the levels of consumption of those studied?

    With milk, it’s the freshness which counts. Fresh is best, with all its vitamin load at its best. All processing after it’s out of the cow affects that load—dramatically. I don’t have figures to support this, unfortunately.
    Milk and milk-based product needs to be kept out of the light. Opaque packaging is best. The older it is, the poorer it is.

    However, I spent two years in Melbourne. I couldn’t eat Oz butter. Ptui, horrible, same for Oz cheese and Oz milk and Icecream ditto. Oz milk seemed like water with some white stuff floating around in it. It was even thinner and far more watery than the NZ skim milk. Ptui. Horrible stuff. I found and frequented the NZ Ice Cream shop. If I could find NZ butter, I used that. If I could find NZ milk, I used that. If you’ve never tried any NZ dairy product, you’re missing out! Try it: you’re in for a sensational surprise. NZ does it best!

    It is far superior to your local product in body, and flavour. You can tell NZ butter: it’s a rich bright yellow: captured sunlight. And that’s its natural colour. It’s illegal to add colouring of any sort to our butter.

    Unfortunately, I have diabetes II. My brothers don’t. I have a rather strong allergy to yellow food colourings (discovered in the last ten years) from an overdose of sulphur-drugs for an illness I suffered at 6 months old just before penicillin and the other antibiotics reached the public (1953). I have a damaged liver, gall-bladder and pancreas from that. I have had to avoid alcohol all my life as it is toxic to me, more so than most other people. So I am an odd or atypical case.

    There is a sex-based difference in the responses to pain killers (analgesics). I spent some ten days in hospital after a motorcycle accident many years ago. I had concussion. I was fed 4 panadol tablets (active ingredient paracetamol) per day as an analgesic. It didn’t work. On my third day there, I slipped into the hospital pharmacy and bought a packet of 130mg aspirin (salicilic acid). I took 2 tablets 12 hours apart. The relief was fast and immediate.
    aspirin
    A doctor (female) I consulted recently told me it could upset my stomach. Over the last 40 years, that has never happened. I take it with food, I don’t use huge doses, and it works very quickly and effectively for me. My stomach has never yet complained about it.

    I was reading the packet of a paracetamol packet recently. It said For relief of period pain. Ok, that’s probably why it doesn’t work for me. I’m male.

    I read somewhere recently and I can’t be bothered to find it, that this insensitivity to paracetamol holds for about 30% of men.

    If there are sex-based differences for common analgesics, there are probably sex-based differences in the potency or effectiveness of other drugs. There are sex-based differences for disease. Females don’t get prostate cancer. There may well be sex-based differences for other facets of life, such as diet. So we need to balance these studies. We might find (ahock horror) it may be the opposite way around for men, or it may be the same, or it could be anywhere in between. We need to know this before it’s accepted as gospel truth.

    80

    • #
      the Griss

      “Ok, now we need a study of 26,000 men. Then we would have a balanced result. “

      Hey.. what about all the other genders !? :-)

      51

      • #
        NielsZoo

        The problem is there almost as many “others” now as there are “causes for the pause.” The other problem… where are you going to find 26k of each group to test? Then what do you pick for a control? It’s tough to be a PC scientist today.

        40

      • #
        sophocles

        What about them? They can ask for their own surveys. They’re big … umm, thingymajig watchamacallits.

        00

    • #

      Sophocles, regarding salicylates – meaning aspirin — it’s quite different to paracetamol, and is a natural component of most plant foods we eat. The list for content is Annie Swains PhD thesis, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Some people eat a dose of salicylates with vegetables and fruit every day. For most people this is a good thing. For some it’s a problem.

      I am curious to hear of your allergy to yellow color. One of the main yellows is Tartrazine 102. But people who react badly to tartrazine may also be sensitive to aspirin (and all the other salicylates). The salicylate sensitivity is often not an allergy, but an intolerance – a problem with enzymatic breakdown of salicylates. If you can take aspirin well, but not 102, then I guess you aren’t sensitive to salicylates and it’s more likely an allergy.

      I don’t know why there is cross reactivity with tartrazine and salicylates. Their chemical structure seems quite different.

      40

      • #
        sophocles

        Jo:
        Thank you.

        I’m aware of the differences between salicylates and paracetamol. I was talking specifics as in analgesics for headache etc pain relief. As an analgesic, soluble aspirin works quickly and efficiently for me. I can take paracetamol and nothing (noticeable) happens, I continue to suffer. From this, I figured out paracetamol didn’t work for me. It was an article in the NZ Herald sometime in the last 3 or 4 years, I think, which brought the sex-based efficacy of aspirin and paracetamol to my attention. I was not alone! I’ll have to go hunting for it again.

        Aspirin 130mg is about twice the dosage generally recommended for daily cardiac preventive medication. It works quickly (10 minutes) for me and lasts for over 6 hours. I’m careful to not overuse it. I don’t get any symptoms of stomach complaint, even with dosages as high as 500mg. My philosophy is to use what works for me at the lowest levels at which it works well. I don’t take aspirin for anything other than occasional immediate pain relief. If it works so well for me, why stuff it up?

        The food coloring may have been tartrazine 102 or sunset yellow 110, but I can’t be sure. `Yellow #5′ or Yellow #6′, their other identifiers, both ring a very faint bell, but their INS numbers I don’t recognise. They both have benzene rings sporting sodium sulphite groups. Listed side effects for both are allergic reactions in people with aspirin intolerance.

        All I can remember is it was a yellow food coloring a friend added to some rice to `pretty up’ an otherwise delicious meal so there was no way of knowing exact quantity. She was adamant it was the only additive in the meal. I was the only one of the party to suffer. (Darn!) I saved the label after I broke out into a severe (and it was BAD!) itch, all over, about two hours after eating. There was no visible rash or hives such as in urticaria except some skin discoloration from my early scratching, which I resisted doing as soon as I realised my state. Now that really tested my Won’t Power. I presented the label to my doctor next morning when I sought relief. (biggest anti-histamine injection/dose I’ve ever received!) Anti-histamine brought substantial relief but not total—the itch was reduced to bearable and took 7 days to disappear.

        My doctor and I both think it’s an allergy.
        I’m not prepared to try 102 or 110 at all to find out.
        I seem to be an atypical case because I am not aspirin intolerant. Quite the reverse!

        It could be a senstitivity to sulphonated benzene compounds.
        Their chemical structures bear some vague similarities to the Sulphonamides used in sulphur drugs, which I am allergic to. Than again, there may be no connection but I’m not so sure.

        For food, I almost always eat fresh. I’ve no taste for manufactured foods—even more so now. So I’ve not been exposed much to food colorings, or flavorings. Sausages are okay but they use nitrates as a preservative. That’s probably why I didn’t know I had this … allergy … for so many years. Yet aspirin works so very well for me with no discomfort at all.

        NZ Butter is additive free, does not contain tartrazine or any other colouring even though it’s bright yellow :-)
        I don’t eat/use margarines or any other manufactured foods or drinks which contain colorings or flavorings. This is probably why I hadn’t known about this allergy for so long.

        10

        • #

          OK — You’ve convinced me it’s not salicylates (lucky you, they are a pain to avoid). A 7 days rash is a shocker. The only other thing I could think of is a Riborash – a reaction to Ribonucleotides #635 (a new flavour enhancer). A few people are getting horrible reactions to that and they also get long duration rashes. Hard to diagnose now – it can be a delayed reaction by 48 hours. Antihistamines also reduce it somewhat, at least one report says that high uric acid is a marker (though you probably didn’t get that tested at the time). If you eat anything with 635 and you don’t react, then it wasn’t riborash. I think it is becoming common in chip packets, flavoured rice crips.

          10

          • #
            sophocles

            It is the intensity and the length of my reaction which has made me loath to try and prove my allergy. It’s easier to avoid with extreme prejudice. `Any fool can be uncomfortable’ :-)
            So far, avoidance has worked.

            Rash? there was no visible indicator of the itch. All my skin itched! Where I scratched was reddened but that was gone next day. The itch wasn’t. Sleeping was … umm … hard for about 72 hrs.

            Ribonucleotides # 635: I don’t think so. I’ve seen that number on a lot of packaged foods—I examine all labels even when I’m not going to be eating it! But as I don’t eat packaged food habitually, I don’t know. I’m happy to eat the odd Chinese takeaway, especially the vegetable chop sueys, any time. I see it is often associated with MSG. I’ve never bothered asking for MSG-free and I’ve never shown or felt any noticeable symptoms of an adverse reaction.

            I have had a very minor response I thought might have been to herbicide exposure/use but it is unproven. A friend, who is an industrial chemist, thought it might be a reaction to the diesel used as a carrier. I dont think so. I handle all sorts of long chain paraffins all the time without worrying about skin exposure and diesel is one of them. I mix it in the traffic with diesel powered vehicles every day and, apart from disliking the smell, I haven’t noticed any reaction to diesel or diesel exhaust. When using a herbicide spray now, I cover all skin (overalls, gumboots and rubber gloves) and wash the clothing afterwards. That was a `oncer.’

            10

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    Mark says:

    ´…..Go back to 1940 ‘s diet. .`

    This is one of the problems in comparing health in the last century with that today. Pre the 1950´s animal agriculture was less intensive and supplementation of animal diets with grains was low with most ruminant consuming grass – even poultry and pigs were fed on dried grass! – and so such diets would have been high in CLA. It is the intensification of agriculture, that is a good thing in terms of overall food production, that is the problem if the food companies do not recognize the changes in nutritional value of the end products and add appropriate supplements – such as vitamin D that needs to be added in Scandinavian countries to combat the low supply due to dark winters. It is also a problem when surplus grains are converted to fructose syrups and these used widely in foods to replace sugar and as a means of increasing water content!

    Here is a reference to CLA and health:

    http://www.dairynutrition.ca/nutrients-in-milk-products/fat/the-effects-of-cla-on-health

    20

  • #
    RoHa

    No propaganda in 1940s diet? I remember seeing a 1940s poster which showed a glowing family, with the text “their healthy because they eat lard”.

    When I was a boy (shortly after the breakup of Gondwanaland) we used to be shown a picture of the Good Foods (hurray, yea) and the Bad Foods (boo, hiss). The Good Foods were meat (including liver, which no entity of any discernment would eat) dairy foods, grains, fruit, and veg.

    The Bad Foods were sweets, cakes, and all the stuff we really liked.

    But by the time I was a young man, the dairy foods and a lot of the meat had been relegated to the Bad Foods. (Not liver, though.) We were being urged to eat several tons of “fibre” a day. (Mostly in the form of müsli, which is a mixture of builder’s rubble and ground-up coconut matting.). But later this was suspected of damaging the innards through abrasion.

    Prof. Yudkin, who worked for the Milk Marketing Board, claimed that dairy products were harmless, and that white sugar was the cause of heart attacks.

    At this stage I decided to wait until all the Good Foods had benn moved over to the Bad Foods. I reasoned that then the sweets, cakes, etc., would have to moved across to the Good Food side, and I could claim that I had eaten a healthy diet all my life.

    Woody Allen had a similar idea in “Sleeper”.

    I don’t remember exactly when it happened, but suddenly nearly everything we drank turned out to be bad for us as well. We had to continuously drink expensive bottled water from non-biodegradable plastic bottles. If we didn’t have a slurp every five minutes, we would shrivel up and die. It is a mystery how the human race survived until this was discovered.

    (On which note I will add that my mother has eaten an old fashioned, vitamin-free, English diet all her life, and is likely to get her message from the Queen next year.)

    Now the shelves are full of stuff which is advertised as “lite, organic, lo-sugar, 97% fat free”. This means “tasteless, totally devoid of any nutritional value, and covered in bug poo”.

    In spite of that, when I came back to Australia after more than thirty years abroad, I found that the lean, bronzed, Anzacs of my youth had been replaced by fat blobs. I’m going to blame pizza.

    (Note to self – check Domino’s latest offers.)

    “Time to eat more Brie? Maybe, maybe not.”

    Definitely not. It’s just French wallpaper paste. English, Swedish, Danish cheese is the real thing. Red Leicester, double Gloucester, Svecia, Hushållsost, etc.

    170

    • #
      RoHa

      Horrors! Failure to edit plus software that thinks it knows what I am trying to write has led to “their” instead of “they’re”. I will lose my pedant’s licence for this.

      80

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    well , they have shown that anything you eat is bad…but it doesn’t help you much to decide what to eat…

    DON’EAT at all, i guarantee you will not developp long term illness like diabete cancer heart attack and so on…

    70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      They tell me death from starvation is a long and very unpleasant process though. Perhaps eat all the fat and die suddenly from a heat attack is the better choice.

      Oops, the fat isn’t shown to be so harmful either. What to do about it? ;-)

      20

    • #

      lemiere — everything we eat is “bad” in the sense that calories all have a cost. The answer may be to figure out how to get what your body needs with fewer cals. If eating a higher percentage of fat means a lower calorie tally overall for you, then “fat” is better than lower fat. I think it is about finding what works for you.

      Of course, like most things, there is a U shape mortality curve with calories, though the lowest mortality (as far as anyone can tell – and mostly in animal studies) appears to be 10 – 30% less cals than what we want to eat. :- (

      20

  • #
    Mike W

    Dietary Science is arguably in worse shape than Climate Science. The “Fat is bad” hypothesis was first posited in the 1950′s based on faulty studies by Ansell Adams (the Hansen of DS). The experts shot it down then but Adams just persisted with his cherry picking and ignoring counter observations (the Inuit, Masai, etc.). His “team” eventually took control of the scientific committees and organizations then buried the offending data, played statistical games, cut the oppositions funding, got (better) scientists fired, used ad hominum attacks against skeptics, etc. Their “science” became dogma and in the 70′s the US government jumped in with both feet and it became policy and eventually the law. The only reason studies like this are getting published and publicized now is the dogmatists are retiring and dying.

    What is really scary is that the science has never supported this hypothesis. As far as I know, no study backing it has ever stood up to scrutiny or the test of time. Even the gold standard Framington study which in the early days showed some support (when they were using serum cholesterol as a proxy) went against it once enough subjects died (the hard data points of DS). The problem with DS is any study is open to interpretation and adjustment since today you can’t ethically control/monitor your human subjects diet and lifestyle. So you end up with reference studies where they feed mice (herbivores) animal fats and their serum cholesterol rises (the mice never actually had heart attacks from it but that didn’t matter).

    100

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    So the point is: if one makes policy before the science is done, the policy is likely to be in error….sometimes in the details, and sometimes the total opposite of what should have been done. Since the vast majority of policy nowadays seems to be self-appointed elite wizards trying to manage our lives to fit their own narrow and usually uninformed world-views, I would suggest the the best solution is to quit making policy and let us get on with our lives. Too many in government can’t grasp the difference between a rule determining which side of the road one will drive on when sober, and how many grams of fat a 3rd grader is allowed at lunch. Those people need to return to (or undertake for the first time) earning a living and living life like regular folks. Is there any reader here that doubts that removal of 50% of our rules and regulations would on net improve life?
    And I would give special consideration to removing rules that apply to us, the great unwashed, but not to the solons who make the rules.

    80

  • #
    Anthony

    Reminds me of the 1973 Woody Allen movie, Sleeper. Where Woody Allen asks for tigers milk and a few other “healthy choice” foods for brealfast and the scientist watching him make a remark how his choices where from a time before they knew things like donuts where a better choice for breakfast.

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      After coronary artery bypass surgery in 2003 my cardiologist gave me a list of diet changes to make. On it that I shouldn’t eat were eggs, red meat and salt — three things I ate regularly. There were also quite a few things I should eat that I plain old do not like and have never eaten. After a while I realized that by following the prescribed diet I was eating unpleasant meals and not enjoying myself. I don’t think the few extra months or a year that statistics have shown is all you can get from all those healthy living practices is really worth suffering through unpalatable meals for the rest of my life. I’ve eaten eggs, hamburgers and use salt ever since, avoid the stuff I really don’t like and I’m still symptom free 11 years later and was given a clean bill of health in December by that same cardiologist after 3 days of appointments for different tests.

      Will it someday catch up to me? I don’t know. But certainly something will catch up with me eventually. Does it really matter that much what it is? In the meantime I won’t have been driven by every new wind that blows out of the world of science, which is a great relief from fear. Beware those pushing fear. They may not have your interest in mind.

      The bottom line was that I was to avoid cholesterol. So I eventually pinned the doctor down about cholesterol. His first response was that if you take apart what’s clogging an artery it’s pure cholesterol. But I persisted a little and he then said they believe the real culprit is not cholesterol but inflammation, source as yet unknown and the cholesterol is just a handy material laying around for the inflammation to do its dirty work with.

      No one should run off and disregard their doctors advice just because I’ve done things a certain way. I had only one clogged artery at one small spot and the rest of my heart was clear. It was still clear a year later. So it appears that the one incident was localized and not general over the whole heart. I’m extremely grateful for that. And that I was still clear a year later is what pushed me into pinning the doctor down about cholesterol.

      If your situation is different you may endanger yourself by going outside the doctor’s recommendations. But push your doctors for all the information you can get. Ask for an explanation you can understand for every item on a blood test, x-ray, MRI or whatever it is. It’s your life not the doctor’s or the researcher’s and the decisions rightly belong to you to make.

      90

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Interesting! But what you’re saying, Jo, is that the situation is still as unclear as ever?

    As I’ve developed some problems over the years the only thing that has become more clear to me is that in spite of increasing understanding of the human body, its complexity has not yet been mastered by science. I wonder if it ever will be. Each new discovery uncovers more questions than answers.

    I’ve a natural skepticism of government funded research and Departments of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, etc., because it’s all too easily influenced by politics. And all of it suffers from the temptation to make sweeping pronouncements from sometimes very little actual knowledge, a la climate science.

    50

    • #

      The pattern or trend in new scientific research supports the idea that our gut flora has been neglected, and is turning out to be intricately connected with both our immune system and our metabolic system. If there is a take-away message for me here, it’s that fermented dairy is probably a winner, and artificial sweeteners need more study. There are a lot of different sweeteners, and I suspect all of them have different effects on our gut flora. Any food that we cant digest is food for gut flora, and will promote one species over another.

      Gut flora communicate somehow with each other and with our intestinal villi. They do influence our interleukin production. Good ones also apparently have their own weapons to use against bad ones (and presumably visa versa). We need the good ones to outnumber the baddies.

      The chlorine in our water and preservatives in almost all processed food will chip away at our gut flora, though presumably under the right conditions they will recover fast.

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Jo,

        You seem to have boundless energy with which to keep up with all this stuff. And I’ve no doubt that you’re not fooled by bad research or outrageous claims. You’re too sharp for that. So with that as preface…

        About the stuff that lives in the human gut:

        I keep asking myself, how did I live so long without knowing I should take all these probiotics or that this, that or the other thing is so bad for me? Would any of it be there if we didn’t pick it up from the environment around us and from what we eat? And then I remember that all these people have something to sell and my skepticism pops to the surface immediately. And in all that you’ve said I haven’t found one definitive statement that something is known for sure.

        I get junk email everyday with a subject line saying eating fruit will kill me, drinking my tap water will kill me, a salad for lunch will kill me or even more outrageous claims; sometimes several at once from different senders with the same subject line. And if it’s not that, it’s something my prostate can’t live without or my heart won’t pump another day without.

        Suspicious? You bet! And this kind of junk is driven by just such research as you’re talking about. A few statements that this MAY be true coming out of some researcher suddenly turns into fact — and a product to sell. And if I’ve had one such message I’ve had probably several thousand by now (well, a little exaggerated), not to mention suffering through the TV ads. I delete them without opening them and mute the TV.

        They sell my email address at the drop of a hat so the volume of it increases constantly. And this sort of stuff isn’t helping the cause of legitimate research one bit.

        I hope someday there’s a large enough body of actual knowledge that the advice we get about healthy living and healthy eating can be taken seriously. But by the time it happens I may well be gone. And in the meantime I much prefer to make my own mistakes instead of someone else’s.

        It’s all interesting but so far it’s not very convincing.

        Sorry to go one like this. I really do find such things fascinating for the most part. But it has been looking so much like climate science for so long…

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I was once advised to take a certain probiotic for a solid month because an antibiotic had caused me some trouble. The trouble was over by the time I got the advice and I didn’t notice anything different during the whole time I used the stuff.

          It had a price tag more worthy of Her Majesty’s Crown Jewels than an over the counter drug.

          20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    There is definitely a genetic predisposition to diabetes. But it’s an autoimmune disease according to so many doctors who cared for my first wife and now my son as well, that I have no doubt about it.

    The question is this, what triggers the onset of the disease? The evident answer is some form of trauma. For my first wife it happened at age 7 shortly after her father deserted the family, leaving her in a more precarious position financially and shattering the relationship she had with him. For our son it happened in his late 20s shortly after his mother died, shattering the close relationship he had with her. That’s 2 for 2. So it can clearly be emotional trauma. I don’t believe 2 in a row is a coincidence. But just as clearly it can be physical, as in the trauma to the body of being significantly overweight.

    Now the question is, what is the way to prevent that onset?

    There are many improvements in diabetic treatment but they all revolve around management, not prevention. And I doubt that simply preventing obesity will amount to something significant, especially if we try to enforce so-called better eating habits, since that just becomes a form of trauma instead of helping. We shall see in time as more and more intervention in citizens lives comes into play (and it will).

    20

    • #
      hannuko

      There are two kinds of diabetes:

      1) Type 1, where the body attacks those cells that produce insulin. This is definitely an autoimmune disease.

      2) Type 2, where the body stops responding properly to normal levels of insulin. This is something else.

      Something like 90% of diabetes cases are of type 2.

      There is propably several reasons why someone might develop T2D, but one of the reasons is definitely that the body is simply so used to having high insulin levels that it doesn’t bother to respond anymore. Similar resistance can be achieved towards alcohol and poisons by constantly practicing the body to deal with them.

      You eat fast carbs lots and often and your body keeps on producing insulin to counter the high blood sugar you get from the diet. If this continues for long, your body starts to get used to having high insulin levels and start responding less to it.

      A person with a difficult life situation often finds consolation on food. Especially one with fast carbs, like candy, cakes, white bread and chocolate. This kind of diet also causes obesity, but saying that obesity is the cause of T2D is like saying that puncture wounds on skin cause internal damage – internal damage is indeed often found where there is puncture wounds, but they merely have been caused by the same thing.

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I had no idea that such a high percentage of diabetes cases were type 2. That one is news to me so thank you for the info.

        I’ve been skeptical about the demonization of sugar and carbs in general that has come along in recent years. It seems like a much too simple answer. I have a sweet tooth of considerable proportions and if you leave candy around I’ll be eating it. But to this day my fasting blood glucose measures out at 92 plus or minus not enough to notice. But maybe I now have some additional questions I can ask my doctor when I see him next.

        10

  • #
  • #

    If dietary fat is so bad, how come the Ketogenic diet (High fat, low carbohydrate) is a recognized non-drug management strategy for various ailments including Epilepsy, Diabetes 2 and Alzheimers to name but a few?

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    One thing is for certain here. The food police are going to be all over this thread like ants at a picnic. Such noteworthy experts as the Mayor of New York City can be expected to wade in at any minute with a heavy hand.

    Bless them all. :-(

    30

  • #
    Kirby Schlaht

    Kirby, thanks for this, please add links in attribution when quoting text. The nearest I could find was this.
    Nina Teicholz on Saturated Fats & the Soft Science on Fat – Jo

    Science by Consensus, Publication Bias, Branding Skeptics as
    “Heretics”, Mainstream Media Buy-in, Climate Zombies, Things Outer Space, and The Hot Tub Time Machine

    Almost nothing that we commonly believe today about Global Warming
    generally and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in particular appears, upon
    close examination, to be accurate.Extreme weather events, sea level rise,
    drought, wildfires, polar ice melt, all seem to be portrayed by the media and
    many climate scientists as effects of man-made global warming. When, in fact
    an AGW signal has yet to emerge from the noise of natural climate variability.The
    mistakes of mainstream climate science and misrepresentations of the media cannot
    be pinned on the nefarious interests of Big Oil, Big Coal, or Big News. The source
    of our misguided advice and misinformation is in some ways more disturbing,
    since it seems to have been driven by experts at our most trusted institutions
    working toward what they believe to be the public good.

    Now you say that this phenomenon must be unique to our present circumstances with
    massive government funding dominating and overtly influencing the climate
    science process. Lucrative federal grants, consensus based conclusions, and
    publication bias provide tenured professorships, full university coffers, and a
    seemingly endless stream of alarmist media prognostications. Well, you would be
    wrong.
    Let us slip into our hot tub time machine and go back to 1950. There began the
    disturbing story of nutrition science gone wild. Scientists at the time were
    responding to the skyrocketing number of heart disease cases, which had gone
    from a mere handful in 1900 to being the leading cause of death by 1950. It was
    hypothesized that dietary fat was to blame (diet-heart hypothesis). In her new
    book, The Big Fat Surprise , Nina Teicholz says in her introduction:

    This hypothesis became accepted as truth before it was properly tested.
    The hypothesis became immortalized in the mammoth institutions of public health.
    And the normally self-correcting mechanism of science, which involves constantly challenging
    one’s own beliefs, was disabled. While good science should be ruled by
    skepticism and self-doubt, the field of nutrition has instead been shaped by
    passions verging on zealotry. And the whole system by which ideas are canonized
    as fact seems to have failed us.

    Does this sound familiar to those AGW climate skeptics out there?

    Deja vu all over again; Nina Teicholz goes on:
    Once ideas about fat and cholesterol became adopted by official institutions,
    even prominent experts in the field found it nearly impossible to challenge them.
    One of the twentieth century’s most revered nutrition scientists, the organic chemist
    David Kritchevsky, discovered this thirty years ago when, on a panel for the National
    Academy of Science, he suggested loosening the restrictions on dietary fat.”We were jumped
    on!”; he told me. “People would spit on us! It’s hard to imagine
    now, the heat of the passion. It was just like we had desecrated the American
    flag. They were so angry that we were going against the suggestions of the
    American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health.”


    This kind of reaction met all experts who criticized the prevailing view on dietary
    fat, effectively silencing any opposition. Researchers who persisted in there
    challenges found themselves cut off from grants, unable to rise in their professional
    societies, without invitations to serve on expert panels, and at a loss to find scientific
    journals that would publish their papers. Their influence was extinguished
    and their viewpoints lost. As a result, for many years the public has been
    presented with the appearance of a uniform scientific consensus on the subject
    of fat, especially saturated fat, but this outward unanimity was only made
    possible because opposing views were pushed aside.

    …In this period, the health of America has become strikingly worse.


    …Now, in 2014, a growing number of experts have begun to acknowledge the reality
    that making the low-fat diet the centerpiece of nutritional advice for six decades
    has very likely been a bad idea.

    We can only hope that mainstream climate science along with the media sounding the
    alarm that human caused catastrophic global warming will be the end for us all
    will not take six decades to rectify itself. The process of big science is broken.
    A few brave scientists are now implementing “The Tenth Man Strategy”
    (from the 2013 movie World War Z) which essentially says that if nine people
    agree on a particular course, the tenth person must, in the context of this strategy,
    take a contrary approach so that all alternatives can be considered. The climate zombies
    are here among us lurching at us hoping to infect the world with the AGW virus blindly and
    mindlessly creating more and more zombies. We must be ever vigilant of zealous abuses
    of consensus science and the potential for hijacking public policy. From the movie
    The Thing from Another World
    (1951), we might all heed the following:

    “Watch the skies, everywhere! Keep looking. Keep watching the skies!

    80

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Maybe people have type II diabetes because they are genetically predisposed to have it. Increased body fat leads to insulin resistance and hence high blood sugar.

    Maybe a tiny % do..but the rest..nope.
    And the reason, pre “low fat/vegetable oils/processed carbs etc ” madness that the majority of fat bastards were not getting type 2 and then dying is…..

    10

  • #
    PeterK

    My mother was a farm girl and a great cook, every meal produced was made from scratch (how I miss her cooking). Her philosophy was make everything from scratch, food should be enjoyable to eat and should be enjoyed when being consumed, eat until you are satiated, listen to your body (it will tell you when you are craving something) and don’t listen to all the nonsense we hear about this food or that food is bad for you.

    Back in the sixty’s and early seventies, here in Canada, the newspapers were printing at least on a weekly basis that this food caused cancer, then next week another food caused cancer until finally one day they printed that water caused cancer (and had a cartoon of a man sitting in a grave hole in a rocking chair with the caption – Everything Causes Cancer).

    Thankfully, I inherited my mother’s love of food and have basically followed her philosophy all of my life and at 64 years of age would consider myself basically healthy with a few minor issues. Both of my children (now in their 30′s) have also subscribed to eating healthy and I must say I am very impressed with their food eating and food preparation habits (more natural than I ever was). If you want to eat well, you must make the time to not only shop for good food but you also must make the time to prepare good food.

    My mother passed a couple of years ago reaching the rip old age of 87-1/2 years exactly (she was born on the 20th and died on the 20th). Her love of dairy (milk, cheeses, cream, yogurts, etc) and her daily eating of an egg or two in my mind definitely contributed to her long life.

    50

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Uffe Ravnskov, one of the worlds leading experts on Cholesterol, exposed most of the garbage that “consensus” claimed years ago.
    His now free book is here
    Channel 7 “health” expert at the end of the news claimed that the “paleolithic diet” was a a fad diet.
    150K years of eating is now a “fad diet” in post modernist pea brains it seems.:)

    50

    • #
      RoHa

      I think food that is 150k years old would be past its sell-by date.

      She Who Must Be Obeyed is very keen on the dates on food. She is convinced that on the stroke of midnight, perfectly good food is instantly transformed into a pullulating, festering, mass of toxins and corruption. I have tried telling her that only happens to people who are elected to Parliament, and that there is some leeway in the dates on food, but she, of course, knows best.

      50

  • #
    Aussieute

    I have diabetes and I drink non homogenized full cream milk
    Since doing so my cholesterol has decreased from 6 – 1.5

    5 of my friends have done the same and achieved similar outcomes

    60

    • #

      My cholesterol has always been under 3, no matter what I eat. I eat eggs sometimes in the hope it might increase…

      Are we in Australia allowed to drink non-homogenized milk? ;-)
      (The non-pasteurized sort is only allowed for baths of course)_.

      20

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        In the USA, cholesterol is usually measured as mg/dL and a current guideline of less than 200 (for total) is classed as “desirable.” There are sub-categories but the metric is the same. Thus, the 3 you mention is perplexing.

        20

        • #
          JohnRMcD

          The measurement used here is mmol/litre; that is milli-moles/litre. In blood sugar measurements, the factor is, I think, between 14 and 15: mmol/l X (that factor) = mg/decilitre.
          Anyone who can correct me, feel free to jump in.

          00

        • #
          Annie

          It’s measured in mmol/lt in the UK and Australia.

          Mine dropped since we were able to obtain organic full cream non-homogenised milk.

          00

      • #
        JLC

        There are a few brands of pasteurised but non-homogenised milk that are sold in supermarkets in Australia. Margaret River brand is available in WA and there are others.

        I learned this when I went to a cheese-making class at a kitchenware shop. It was fun and we made some delicious cheese but it resulted in a huge pile of dirty dishes and a lot of washing-up.

        The teacher said the proteins in unhomogenised milk stick together better than homogenised milk, so you get larger curds and a bigger piece of cheese from unhomogenised milk.

        30

  • #
    Marc

    This thread is getting pretty stupid.

    A bunch of anecdotes of “my mother did this” and “I did that” and lived forever or died young or got fat or skinny. What a bunch of wasted word, thoughts and stupidity.

    1). Genetics are huge.
    2). Genetics are highly variable from person to person.
    3). There is no one size fits all dietary regime — what different people should do is HIGHLY variable.
    4). Epidemiology is practically worthless in this arena, for many reasons, mostly confounded by genetic variability, but other things as well.
    5). We don’t know near enough to make meaningful policy recommendations.
    6). Sugar and very simple carbs seem generally unhelpful, but even some genetics are immune to high levels of sugar.
    7). Not much else is known.

    13

    • #
      Yonniestone

      ‘This thread is getting pretty stupid’ Hey that’s getting a bit rude there mate, settle down and think for a second.

      You claim in not so many words these comments are worthless pieces of information that shouldn’t be considered then rattle off 7 sweeping claims with no substance behind them, so now does everyone just accept what you claim as gospel because of your in depth bullet points?

      After looking up the word ‘skeptic’ go find ‘hypocritical’ and think twice before lipping off and insulting peoples opinions and memories unnecessarily.

      41

      • #
        Marc

        II agree my comment is abrupt. However, think it is pretty rude for people to pollute a thread about how science research gets misguided and corrupted with long drawn-out anecdotes that amount to the same ignorance as the nutritionists. None of these comments contains any useful or useable information for others, because one person’s experience has nothing to do with what might be applicable to another. They are pretty self-indulgent and amount to attempting to dispense advice with zero substantiation.

        Regarding my comment, these are just basic facts about the state of our knowledge deficiency. I don’t intend to substantiate them as they arise from years of investigation into the state of knowledge and lack thereof. If you want to start reading about the genetic differences, Chris Gardener, Endocrinology at Stanford Medicine is a good place.

        It is somewhat distressing to watch a bunch people showing such basic scientific illiteracy in believing their personal anecdotes or pet theories are worth relating.

        I don’t come here to be liked, I come here to learn, so I can’t help it when I am annoyed by a bunch of long self-indulgent, anti-scientific comments. Sorry if my perspective offends you, when can agree yo disagree.

        25

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I think I can agree with the main point; anecdotal stuff may be a little skewed to suit the individual’s perception of what they want the answer to be.

          From the neuropsychology and psychobiology I have done it is for example true that two different people can eat exactly the same food with different outcomes.

          wrt Diabetes Type 2 consider two mothers who during pregnancy experienced different levels of calorie intake.

          One almost starving and the other very well fed.

          The offspring of these two women will have insulin processing settings that reflect the need of the offspring “as determined by the mother’s situation during pregnancy.

          ie The well fed mother will have a child able to eat large amounts of calories and come out OK.

          The child of the underfed mother will be OK as long as he duplicates the mothers calorie intake level.

          If he exceeds that the child will experience Diabetes Type 2.

          Reducing calorie intake has been shown to help.

          KK

          00

          • #
            Marc

            Interesting theory, would like to see the research.

            It certainly isn’t the whole story. As someone pointed out, it is a complicated interaction of individual genes, individual environmental milieus and a dose of randomness (illness, etc.)

            10

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Mark

              Your points:

              1. “Interesting theory, would like to see the research. ”

              Don’t be lazy; it’s out there ; go find it and don’t be pendantic.

              2. “It certainly isn’t the whole story.”

              I understand it isn’t the whole story – you don’t seem to be able to explain it, other than to use other peoples words:
              “As someone pointed out,”

              If you had read my comment above http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the-fat-police-wont-be-happy-about-this/#comment-1569683

              and done some follow up on that you would have discovered that the “research” was indeed very old and a very special case :

              people are not well fed during war and the research was to compare undernourished mothers with starving mothers; not a typical

              situation today. Still the research showed that environmental effects can be felt in the offspring rather than only genetic

              material assumed to be unchanging.

              So to summarize and list all of your own useful contribution here it is:

              Marks comment with all the rubbish taken out: (illness, etc.)

              KK

              11

        • #

          Wish I’d written that Marc. Great comment.

          20

  • #
    food scientist

    To claim that the current dietary ‘consensus’ is wrong shows a profound misunderstanding of current nutritional science. Anyone can find a poor quality paper that supposedly overturns the consensus. Virtually all the ‘debate’ in nutrition science is due to misinformation campaigns conducted by the meat, dairy and food processing industries. The science itself is crystal clear eat a lot of fruit and vegetables and avoid meat, dairy and processed foods. [Virtually all the leading nutrition researchers are vegetarians/vegans - they are literally betting their lives on the science being correct.]

    eg Kaiser Permanente the largest health care provider in the USA now recommends plant-based vegan diets for all patients:

    Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods.

    https://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

    The so-called ‘fat police’ are actually dedicated health professionals with the best interests of patients in mind. They are not suggesting dietary changes for the sake of being killjoys.

    Dairy foods are probably the unhealthiest product we regularly consume. The main problem is that casein protein is highly inflammatory. The milk guzzling Swedes (subjects of the dairy study) have some of the highest rates of autoimmune diseases in the world. Full fat dairy contains some beneficial fats (conjugated fatty acids) which may make full fat milk less harmful. Less harmful is not the same as healthy.

    The healthiest and longest lived societies on Earth (‘Blue Zones’) all consume plant-based diets with minimal meat and dairy consumption. This is logical because humans are essentially just another sub-species of chimpanzees.

    27

  • #

    I believe as many have also commented that the low fat “science” was just never true. I myself have always ended up following diets written by body builders. They have to get results, so it goes to reason whatever they do will most likely will work for others. This has been borne out in practice for myself, whether I am bulking up, or trimming down. Incidentally, their diets are usually around 50/30/20 carbs/protein/fat, and definitely no simple sugars like corn syrup etc.

    Fat in our diet is actually critical for some of our functions controlling our blood sugar levels. So, go and enjoy that full fat cream on your apple pie. Hmm, think I’ll do just that.

    30

    • #
      Londo

      If you are into that type of a exercise regimen then you should absolutely increase the carbs, but most people are not. I’m not sure what the dietary recommendations are nowadays (and I wouldn’t care), but only 20 from fat sounds too little for most people. One thing to notice is that body builders are pushing the healthy limit on skin fat and body fat overall for cosmetic reasons and normal healthy persons should go for about 2 or maybe even 2.5 times the amount of body fat that body builders are aiming for, which might be around 5 or 6 percent. Perhaps even lower. There is even a dangerous limit to this number which is not all that much below 4%. Elite distance runners, which are probably one of the more weight concious, range between 7 and 10% I think.

      10

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    Kirby Schlaht says ……

    Research in human nutrition and its interface with medicine has more in common with climate science than most persons are aware of – the distortions of both areas are a result of the corruption of science by what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex but which was and is the politico- industrialist corruption of the political process whereby instead of representing the public interest and those of their constituents they represent, and benefit financially, from the narrower interests of their industrialist and rich patrons. The result, laws that favour one industry over another (in the USA currently renewables and gas over coal), tax breaks for special interests, and especially the ability of favoured companies and persons to put their hands deep into the public purse, as we see with renewable energy projects.

    In fact the corruption of nutritional and medical science predates that of climate science: with that in the nutrition area ironically resulting from the tremedous leap in agricultural production at the beginning of the last century from the use of fossil fuels to power tractors and other agricultural machinery as well as the raw materials for agro chemicals and fertilisers. The result was a large surplus of grains that depressed farm prices in the 1930´s and lead to many small farmers becoming bankrupt. The response was to find new markets and alternative crops and this lead to the boom in the oilseed industry with the protein fraction fed to livestock and the oil being used for the manufacture of margarine and in other food processes. To develop this market the oil seed industry demonized animal fats, especially butter and developed the false claim, just like CO2 and climate change, that it contained saturated fat that was responsible for heart disease, ignoring the fact that during the previous centuries when butter and lard were the major fat sources heart disease was near non existent. Lack of evidence was then as now, no deterent when money could be made to talk and it was not long before Congress was `pursuaded`to favour oilseed over animal fats and support was given by the FDA and American Heart Association. As now, there were those scientists that supported this false view for reasons of fame and money and those who stuck with the science in the name of truth. Ancel Keys belongs in the first group as it was his cherry picked Seven Countries Study of heart disease and saturated fat consumption that gave the major support (it was the basis of the Frammlingham Project)- never mind that two of the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products, Finland and France had the highest and lowest incdidence of this disorder. One of the heroines was Mary Enig who did research in the 1970´s to show that the trans fats in margarine were a major cause of heart problems by disrupting the cell wall, but then as now as a sceptic she was silenced by removal of grants etc. Those interested can read the full history in “The Oiling of America” :

    https://www.google.fi/search?q=The+Oiling+of+America&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=0YoeVN66J4er8wfqw4DABQ

    It took until very recently for the American Heart Association to change its stance on animal fats and cholesterol but not before the pharmaceutical industry made billions of dollars from unecessary medicines where the research, as with climate science, used suspect trial protocols and statistics as shown by Dr John Ionnnidis see:

    Lies Damned Lies and Medical Science
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

    As with climate science much of the early research in human nutrition by persons such as Philipson and Yudkin is still valid but has been drowned out by the desire of book publishers for profits by publishing dubiuos dietary guides and food companies to enhance the finacial value, if not the nutritional value, of their products. As with climate science, nutritional research is one of immense complexity involving an interplay between genes and biochemical reactions at a cellular level all controlled by hormones, many of which are influenced by diet or environment. It is also difficult to do controlled trials with humans whom often lie about the food they have consumed – that is why much of what we know about the biochemistry of human nutrition comes from research with pigs which, judging from the present spate of obesity, offer an apt model.

    80

  • #
    Bob

    Hi Jo,
    “Consumption of high-fat dairy products associated with lower risk of developing diabetes, Diabetologia (can someone find the actual study? None of the press releases links to it.)”,
    is available here, or at the link “Download” just under the “In the News” bar at the Diabetologia home page.
    Hope this helps.

    Thanks – It’s a bit slack doing a press release without a link. Cheers – Jo

    00

  • #
    Peter Aslak

    Sam says: “Your key claim (unreferenced) seems to be that CLA has anti-inflammatory properties”

    No it is not my chief claim, it is the result of substantial research over many years -see the reference in my later post. I have direct experience of this having been involved in ths area since the 1960s when science followed the process outlined by Popper. If you go on the Internet, or better still into the appropriate research journals you will find much supporting data for the wider claims given in this reference to the point where the feed industry has developed fat supplements to by-pass the rumen in cows and so enhance the synthesis of CLA in the mammary gland.

    On the subject of meta data I agree it is useful but only where the trials involved have similar protocols and involve similar groups of subjects. Unlike research in animal nutrition where this is possible the only possibility in research in human nutrition is the use of identical twins of the same sex and body composition. An example is the controversy over the Atkins low carbohydrate diet versus a high fat diet. Several studies at different research centers claimed benefits for the low carbohydrate diet but most studies were flawed through the mix of participants, the inability to record what they actually ate and the drop out rate that unbalanced the groups, that is assuming they were ever balanced for genetics, body mass and composition etc. The only possibility of resolution is to use participants of identical genetics, sex, body mass and composition etc. This is possible in animal trials but for humans one needs identical twins. A trial of the Atkins Diet using such twins was carried out but Professor Donelley at the University of Kansas involving them in full body calorimeters to measure energy balance on controlled inputs of low carbohydrate Atkins type diet or a low fat diet. the result showed a negligible difference of one kcal in favor of the Atkins Diet. A further study with groups of people showed that there was no real difference between consuming high carbohydrate or low carbohydrate diets provided the sources of fats and carbohydrates are chosen correctly, the diet is balanced for other nutrients and factors such as muscle mass, metabolic rate, age etc are taken into account, but that is a much longer story.

    bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtmt

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pic/articles/PMC2228297/

    00