Dig your own hole!
How did we get it so wrong?
- Thread starter epicuric
- Start date
epicuric
Legendary Member
I've just finished reading one of the source books for this article - "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz, voted Book of the Year by The Times, Wall Street Journal and BBC Food Programme. Over 300 odd pages Teicholz details the history of food research into the fat vs. low fat argument, examines the data behind the often flawed conclusions and the resulting dietary advice given by expert bodies over the past few decades. It really does make fascinating reading, and goes a long way to explain current health problems in the Western world. These are some of the things she uncovers, not necessarily in order of importance:
1. The main driving force behind the movement to demonize saturated/animal fat was the American scientist Ancil Keys, who published a report in 1961 that was to become the foundation of official dietary advise to this day. His report was based on epidemiological studies - which at best can only suggest associations, not causes. The source data was both suspect (for instance, he surveyed the diet of the inhabitants of Crete, known for low incidence of heart disease, and concluded that this was as a result of their low fat diet. The only problem was, he conducted the survey during Lent - the rest of the year round their diet was actually high in saturated fats) and in many cases mis-interpreted (later examination of his data found a more direct correlation between heart disease and sugar consumption as opposed to fat consumption). Nonetheless, the US authorities adopted his findings and proceeded to build their dietary advise upon this foundation. The US Senate got behind it, and the low fat/high carb movement gathered momentum, becoming virtually unstoppable over the coming decade as the manufacture of low fat alternative foods became a multi billion dollar business. Such was the power of the low-fat movement that any scientist or nutritional expert that dared question its validity was ostracized and deprived of funding. Current US guidelines (AHA & USDA) still support this position despite mounting evidence that it is fundamentally flawed.
2. There have been no clinical trials that have concluded that eating saturated animal fats are bad for you. If fact, the evidence points to the opposite. Incidence of coronary heart disease, obesity and diabetes have all rocketed in societies that have adopted the US low fat/high carb model. In indigenous races that exist on high fat, animal based diets these diseases are virtually non-existant. The Masai diet exist almost soley on full fat milk, animal blood and meat. Native Innuits exist on high fat meats and fish, often raw, but in groups that have adopted Western diets there is a commensurate increase in these disease.
3. The Mediterranean diet is not all it's cracked up to be. The biggest study of this was done in Israel, where several thousand people were split in to three groups (Mediterranean diet, US low fat high carb diet and high saturated fat diet) and fed under strict conditions over a period of two years. The study produced the desired result - that the Mediterranean diet is indeed healthier than the standard US low fat diet. However, the other result that was not widely publicized was that the healthiest of all the three groups turned out to be the one on the high fat diet. However, supported by serious funding from olive oil producers the Mediterranean diet movement gathered pace. Olive oil, being a mono-unsaturated oil is not bad for you (unlike poly-unsaturated vegetable oils), but it is not quite the elixir it is often made out to be.
4. Vegetable oils are really bad news. They are OK when cold, so in a dressing for instance they are pretty harmless. It is when you start to heat them up that things start to go wrong. As poly-unsaturated oils their molecular structure if far more prone to oxidisation than mono-unsaturated oils (olive, palm, coconut oils etc.) and saturated fats, both of which are pretty benign when heated. Even at temperatures much lower than normal frying temperatures vegetable oils produce compounds called aldehydes (yes, similar to formaldehyde) including some pretty toxic ones called HNE's that are linked amongst other things to Alzheimers disease. These compounds manifest themselves in a coagulated 'gunk' that collects in the bottom of fryers, but is also shown to be airborne. This has been known about since the ban on hydrogenated fats in 2006, when commercial fast food outlets switched to using vegetable oils. This immediately caused problems with cleaning equipment as the coagulated gunk was extremely difficult to get rid of, being almost shellac like in consistency. These compounds were so prone to oxidisation that as airborne particles they posed a major fire risk - even setting alight clothing of kitchen staff. This problem has been eradicated to some extent by the likes of MacDonalds and KFC who have strict regimes for changing cooking oils on a regular basis, and using nitrogen clouds to suppress the airborne particles. Draw your own conclusions on whether you local independant takeaway is quite so diligent, or whether it would be practical and cost effective to employ a nitrogen cloud system over your deep fat fryer at home.
Next research project is another book cited in the original article - "Always Hungry" by Dr. David Ludwig. A modern day examination of the Atkins diet. Will keep you informed. Or let me know if you'd rather I didn't
1. The main driving force behind the movement to demonize saturated/animal fat was the American scientist Ancil Keys, who published a report in 1961 that was to become the foundation of official dietary advise to this day. His report was based on epidemiological studies - which at best can only suggest associations, not causes. The source data was both suspect (for instance, he surveyed the diet of the inhabitants of Crete, known for low incidence of heart disease, and concluded that this was as a result of their low fat diet. The only problem was, he conducted the survey during Lent - the rest of the year round their diet was actually high in saturated fats) and in many cases mis-interpreted (later examination of his data found a more direct correlation between heart disease and sugar consumption as opposed to fat consumption). Nonetheless, the US authorities adopted his findings and proceeded to build their dietary advise upon this foundation. The US Senate got behind it, and the low fat/high carb movement gathered momentum, becoming virtually unstoppable over the coming decade as the manufacture of low fat alternative foods became a multi billion dollar business. Such was the power of the low-fat movement that any scientist or nutritional expert that dared question its validity was ostracized and deprived of funding. Current US guidelines (AHA & USDA) still support this position despite mounting evidence that it is fundamentally flawed.
2. There have been no clinical trials that have concluded that eating saturated animal fats are bad for you. If fact, the evidence points to the opposite. Incidence of coronary heart disease, obesity and diabetes have all rocketed in societies that have adopted the US low fat/high carb model. In indigenous races that exist on high fat, animal based diets these diseases are virtually non-existant. The Masai diet exist almost soley on full fat milk, animal blood and meat. Native Innuits exist on high fat meats and fish, often raw, but in groups that have adopted Western diets there is a commensurate increase in these disease.
3. The Mediterranean diet is not all it's cracked up to be. The biggest study of this was done in Israel, where several thousand people were split in to three groups (Mediterranean diet, US low fat high carb diet and high saturated fat diet) and fed under strict conditions over a period of two years. The study produced the desired result - that the Mediterranean diet is indeed healthier than the standard US low fat diet. However, the other result that was not widely publicized was that the healthiest of all the three groups turned out to be the one on the high fat diet. However, supported by serious funding from olive oil producers the Mediterranean diet movement gathered pace. Olive oil, being a mono-unsaturated oil is not bad for you (unlike poly-unsaturated vegetable oils), but it is not quite the elixir it is often made out to be.
4. Vegetable oils are really bad news. They are OK when cold, so in a dressing for instance they are pretty harmless. It is when you start to heat them up that things start to go wrong. As poly-unsaturated oils their molecular structure if far more prone to oxidisation than mono-unsaturated oils (olive, palm, coconut oils etc.) and saturated fats, both of which are pretty benign when heated. Even at temperatures much lower than normal frying temperatures vegetable oils produce compounds called aldehydes (yes, similar to formaldehyde) including some pretty toxic ones called HNE's that are linked amongst other things to Alzheimers disease. These compounds manifest themselves in a coagulated 'gunk' that collects in the bottom of fryers, but is also shown to be airborne. This has been known about since the ban on hydrogenated fats in 2006, when commercial fast food outlets switched to using vegetable oils. This immediately caused problems with cleaning equipment as the coagulated gunk was extremely difficult to get rid of, being almost shellac like in consistency. These compounds were so prone to oxidisation that as airborne particles they posed a major fire risk - even setting alight clothing of kitchen staff. This problem has been eradicated to some extent by the likes of MacDonalds and KFC who have strict regimes for changing cooking oils on a regular basis, and using nitrogen clouds to suppress the airborne particles. Draw your own conclusions on whether you local independant takeaway is quite so diligent, or whether it would be practical and cost effective to employ a nitrogen cloud system over your deep fat fryer at home.
Next research project is another book cited in the original article - "Always Hungry" by Dr. David Ludwig. A modern day examination of the Atkins diet. Will keep you informed. Or let me know if you'd rather I didn't
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2012
- Local time
- 8:16 AM
- Messages
- 18,440
- Location
- SE Australia
- Website
- www.satnavsaysstraighton.com
Please keep us informed. It is interesting to read. I knew that full fat milk was far better for you than skimmed and when I could eat dairy, I adopted the approach of less of what I liked (full fat stuff) rather than more of what I didn't like (low fat/high sugar). I just ate what I wanted in moderation and I think that is the key. But that said, I have never eaten junk food. I have always had an interesting in cooking and taught by my grandmother, I would adopt her policies of moderation, and full fat. I do always half the amount of oil recipes say though.
The more I read and research this topic the more confusing it becomes. The main flaw/limitation in all the research seems to be methodological. This article interrogates the Lion Study:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/13/1823
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/13/1823
epicuric
Legendary Member
Yes, very confusing. The report makes a lot of very unscientific statements before admitting that it's conclusions can't actually be relied upon! It reads too much like AHA spin trying to cover their retreat from an uncomfortable position.
epicuric
Legendary Member
The more I look into this the more fascinating it gets.
If you accept the argument that fat isn't actually bad for you (and the facts do seem very plausible) then it turns the whole healthy eating movement upside down. It would appear that food manufacturers have been taking fat out of food to sell it to us as "healthy", whilst substituting sugar instead. Looking at food labels, there often seems more added sugar in supposed healthy wholemeal breads than in plain white loaves. Skimmed milk (a totally worthless product nutritionally) has more than three times the sugar content of double cream! Apparently, it is the fat in the milk that actually contains most of the vitamins and minerals, so taking it out reduces the nutritional value, so given that there is slightly less sugar in full fat milk than in skimmed milk that makes full fat milk the healthier of the two.
Just checked my fridge and found the following sugar content per 100g: low fat creme fraiche 3.7g, low fat yoghurt 6.5g, double cream 1.6g! Even more scary, I added up the sugar content of what I thought was yesterday's healthy breakfast - a bowl of Special K with semi-skimmed milk and a 150ml glass of freshly squeezed 100% natural apple juice - it came to over 9 teaspoons worth of sugar!! Boy did I tuck into today's breakfast with relish - three rashes of Gloucester Old Spot streaky bacon and 4 Legbar eggs scrambled with a knob of butter. That is the real healthy option breakfast it would seem.
It all starts to make sense when you consider a few basic facts: man has evolved a digestive system over millions of years designed to take what the body needs from whatever food he has hunted/caught/foraged naturally. This would have included a lot of saturated animal fat. Refined sugar has only been around for a few hundred years and the body hasn't yet (and I suspect it won't for a while) evolved a method of processing it in the same way. There doesn't appear to be much evidence to support the common theory that eating saturated fat has any bearing on the actual amount of cholesterol in the blood. The body takes what it needs and disposes of the rest. Until sugar comes along. Not only does sugar accumulate in body fat in its own right, but in increasing insulin levels in the body it would appear to inhibit the ability of the body to dispose of unwanted saturated fat - a double whammy.
Until the 1970's we were happily tucking into saturated fats without a care in the world, and only 6% of the population was deemed overweight. Then along came the healthy eating lobby and started replacing "fatty" foods with carb laden "healthy" alternatives. Forty years on and two thirds of the population is obese or overweight, and Type 2 diabetes has risen by a similar amount. The same is true for the USA. And it's not down to exercise levels either.
It will be very interesting to watch how this plays out in the world of professional nutritionists, not to mention Government eating guidelines. I can't imagine that either will be in a hurry to admit that they have been getting it wrong for the past forty years, let alone take responsibility for causing an obesity epidemic throughout the first world. And what about the multi-billion dollar global food industry, built on false premises of healthy eating? I don't think the tobacco companies have yet admitted that smoking might be bad for you so I wouldn't expect to see the end of "low fat healthy alternatives" any time soon.
On a personal level I don't thing this will much affect the way I eat. I have long felt that if food come in a packet with a long list of ingredients then it probably isn't good for you, so there is seldom much processed food in the house. Fortunately, I don't have a sweet tooth and wouldn't care if I never ate another cake, biscuit or bar of confectionery. As long as my food comes fresh from a butcher/fishmonger/greengrocer, and has not been fiddled with by men in white coats then I shall eat what I like. One thing that will change is that I will no longer feel guilty tucking into a chunk of cheese, or making cream laden sauces (forget the low fat creme fraiche from now on) or feel compelled to cut the delicious outer layer of fat off a lamb chop or piece of steak. And as for that strange thread about giving up drinking wine... what an utterly bizarre notion
It's now been 9 months since I made this post. In that time I have happily tucked into whatever fatty food I fancied, and assiduously avoided any refined carbs and sugars. "Healthy" breakfast cereal and fruit juice have been replaced by bacon & egg, omelettes, avocado & scrambled eggs. Unlimited cheese, butter, all saturated fat animal products. Hugely cut back on bread - only carbs are wholemeal. Still plenty of veg and salad, and increased fish consumption, particularly oily fish - kippers, smoked mackerel, tuna , salmon at least three times a week.
The day before coming away I went to my doctor for results of annual MOT. My overall cholesterol level has not changed (high end of normal, but that's apparently because I exercise a lot) but the proportion of HDL cholesterol(the good stuff) has gone up by 25%. And my belt now tightens by 2 extra holes. All after kicking into touch the low fat rubbish, eating as much as I want but avoiding processed carbs and sugars. Result!
Last edited:
Congratulations.
Now on the food industry, it seems producer of X hires a "scientist" to prove X is good but Y is bad. Of course Y hires a different scientist to prove X is bad.
Note: there is not one meat industry but 3 main ones. Beef, pork and chicken. In years past all three have come out with studies showing their product is best.
Now on the food industry, it seems producer of X hires a "scientist" to prove X is good but Y is bad. Of course Y hires a different scientist to prove X is bad.
Note: there is not one meat industry but 3 main ones. Beef, pork and chicken. In years past all three have come out with studies showing their product is best.
That is very interesting. I don't think this would work for me at all, though. I love carbs for a start and I really can't deal with too much fat. I love fish - but not oily fish. Do you drink much wine?
epicuric
Legendary Member
Yes, thank you. Make mine a large one. Red wine is a well known antioxidant. A plan I try to follow assiduously.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2017
- Local time
- 6:16 PM
- Messages
- 5,575
- Location
- Detroit, USA
- Website
- absolute0cooking.com
Brilliant analogy, and I'm sure 100% correct.
This reminds me of the petroleum industry (example: Global warming is a myth!) They keep looking for scientists to support their ridiculous claims until they find ones who are willing to risk their reputations in exchange for being very well compensated. In that instance, the industry knew full well about greenhouse gasses as long ago as the 1960s. They found out because they wanted to be ahead of whatever trends were coming up, and they found that our planet was on a terrible course if we didn't change. Then, at some point, the execs at companies like Exxon and Shell realized that these revelations would hurt the gazillions they were making on conventional energy if people started to go away from them. So, the narrative changed. Unlike with food, however, the facts are very much black-and-white. Fortunately for the oil industry, politicians (in the States at least) have found that there are plenty of stupid people willing to believe a lie long enough to cast a vote.
Yes and how many people know that The British Nutrition Foundation takes funds from British Sugar (a sugar beet company) and Tate & Lyle?
How do you avoid the natural ones though, and if you go for artificial sweeteners, they're actually worse than sugar. The brain doesn't get the fix it thought was going to get, so demands more.
Elawin
Guru
A lot of the so-called experts who do the research behind all the theories about which foods are good for you are actually in the pay of the companies who wish to promote these foods. In one of the nutrition courses I went on, we were asked to find links to truly independent reports on fat/sugar/salt/whatever, and we found it very difficult.
I have more or less returned to good old-fashioned home cooking (the sort of things my mother used to make/cook in the 1950s), and I feel a lot better for it. Some of my health problems have more or less disappeared and others have definitely improved over the last few years. I have had stomach/digestion problems since the early 1970s which have miraculously disappeared since I stopped using homogenised milk and went back to good old-fashioned whole milk (silver top), and I'm sure this cannot be mere coincidence. I also use butter and dripping in cooking, and butter or "proper" Stork margarine in baking - most modern spreads and margarines would have needed a carton twice the size to list all the additives and artificial ingredients in them (although some of these, notably trans fats and certain colourings, have now been banned or are being phased out). I very rarely eat shop-bought bread, yoghurt, and ready-meals, preferring to make my own, and avoid most soft drinks, caffeinated tea and coffee, and cocoas/other milky drinks as some of the ingredients are, to my mind, quite frightening. I have become an avid label-reader!
I don't use any artificial sweeteners either, and use a minimum amount of proper sugar - some foods I do not sweeten at all. For example, when I had rhubarb and apples with semolina the other night, the natural sweetness in the apples was enough for me, and when I had plain semolina pudding I only put 1/2 teaspoon of sugar in it.
And don't get me started on salt! As a so-called supertaster, I can taste it for ages, even the natural salt in food, even in those foods and drinks we do not normally associate salt with. Besides, some of my medications have salt (or sugar/natural sweeteners) in them and the amount in some cases just in one medication taking the prescribed dosage is more than the recommended daily amount, let alone in all five of them. I don't use salt normally in either preparing, cooking or serving food, preferring to add a little black pepper for flavouring instead.
My annual review at the docs revealed my blood results were a lot better too than they used to be (except for sodium - I have high natural sodium levels), and I am at least no longer considered pre-diabetic.
P.S. I can still eat burgers or a 15" pizza - I just make my own
and I adore dairy, and chocolate (although these days that is dark chocolate - 100% or as close as I can get).
I have more or less returned to good old-fashioned home cooking (the sort of things my mother used to make/cook in the 1950s), and I feel a lot better for it. Some of my health problems have more or less disappeared and others have definitely improved over the last few years. I have had stomach/digestion problems since the early 1970s which have miraculously disappeared since I stopped using homogenised milk and went back to good old-fashioned whole milk (silver top), and I'm sure this cannot be mere coincidence. I also use butter and dripping in cooking, and butter or "proper" Stork margarine in baking - most modern spreads and margarines would have needed a carton twice the size to list all the additives and artificial ingredients in them (although some of these, notably trans fats and certain colourings, have now been banned or are being phased out). I very rarely eat shop-bought bread, yoghurt, and ready-meals, preferring to make my own, and avoid most soft drinks, caffeinated tea and coffee, and cocoas/other milky drinks as some of the ingredients are, to my mind, quite frightening. I have become an avid label-reader!
I don't use any artificial sweeteners either, and use a minimum amount of proper sugar - some foods I do not sweeten at all. For example, when I had rhubarb and apples with semolina the other night, the natural sweetness in the apples was enough for me, and when I had plain semolina pudding I only put 1/2 teaspoon of sugar in it.
And don't get me started on salt! As a so-called supertaster, I can taste it for ages, even the natural salt in food, even in those foods and drinks we do not normally associate salt with. Besides, some of my medications have salt (or sugar/natural sweeteners) in them and the amount in some cases just in one medication taking the prescribed dosage is more than the recommended daily amount, let alone in all five of them. I don't use salt normally in either preparing, cooking or serving food, preferring to add a little black pepper for flavouring instead.
My annual review at the docs revealed my blood results were a lot better too than they used to be (except for sodium - I have high natural sodium levels), and I am at least no longer considered pre-diabetic.
P.S. I can still eat burgers or a 15" pizza - I just make my own
and I adore dairy, and chocolate (although these days that is dark chocolate - 100% or as close as I can get).No. Because they still sell both here.