Aussie dieticians are wrong about fat

By Leith van Onselen

In the wake of a report issued by the UK National Obesity Forum and Public Health Collaboration calling on patients to eat more fat (including saturated fat) and eat less carbs to tackle obesity and type 2 diabetes, Australia’s dieticians have once again defended the existing failed dietary guidelines. From The Australian:

Eat Fat, Cut the Carbs and Avoid Snacking, by the National Obesity Forum and Public Health Collaboration, calls for an urgent overhaul of current dietary guidelines.

The authors cite a number of studies, before concluding that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet of real foods is an “acceptable, effective and safe approach” to weight loss and health

They say eating fat does not make you fat, saturated fat doesn’t cause heart disease and that full fat dairy is likely protective, and processed foods labelled low-fat, lite, low cholesterol or proven to lower cholesterol should be avoided.

“Eat fat to get slim, don’t fear fat, fat is your friend,” says consultant cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, advisor to the forum.

The Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA), which has 5900 members, defended the Australian Dietary Guidelines – similar to those in other countries – saying they were evidence-based and provide a framework for healthy eating.

“A diet high in saturated fat is a risk factor for heart disease, one of our nation’s biggest killers,” the DAA said in a statement.

“Saturated fats tend to increase LDL (unhealthy) cholesterol in the blood and current evidence suggests these should be eaten sparingly to minimise the risk of heart disease.

Seriously, what planet are Australia’s dieticians on? They are about two decades behind the latest science.

Since the Australian food pyramid was first introduced in 1982, it has told Australians to consume large quantities of high glycemic foods, such as breads and cereals and minimise fat:

ScreenHunter_218 Apr. 07 08.58

This food pyramid remained largely unchanged for 33 years until the pyramid was improved in 2015 to promote the importance of unrefined carbohydrates like vegetables and lessen the importance of refined carbohydrates like breads and cereals:

ScreenHunter_216 Apr. 07 08.42

Common amongst both pyramids, however, is the recommendation to consume large quantities of carbohydrates and minimise the consumption of fats.

The problem with this recommendation is that consuming carbohydrates generally elicits a strong glycemic response (i.e. raises blood sugars quickly) whereas consuming fats elicits almost no glycemic response (i.e. keeps blood sugars stable):

ScreenHunter_9793 Oct. 16 11.24

Given Type-2 diabetes is a disease of insulin resistance, why on earth would dieticians recommend eating foods that elicit the greatest blood sugar response? It makes absolutely no sense.

The dieticians are also way behind on the issue of saturated fat. The latest science shows that LDL – the so-called “bad cholesterol” – is a useless measure on its own. Rather, what is most important is the composition of LDL particles (i.e. small dense LDL particles are dangerous whereas large fluffy ones are benign), the level of triglycerides in the blood (the lower the better), and the level of HDL – the so-called “good cholesterol” (the higher the better). Dr Peter Brukner has a good explanation of what to look out for here.

The latest evidence shows that consuming saturated fats, in the absence of high carbohydrates, improves the cholesterol profile, namely by:

  • Lowering blood triglycerides (good);
  • Raising HDL (good);
  • Raising LDL, but changing the profile from small dense to large and fluffy (good); and
  • Raising total cholesterol (indifferent).

In fact, 25 separate randomised control trials comparing a low-carb, high fat (LCHF) diets against high-carb, low fat diets shows the LCHF dieters having 3.5 times better health outcomes than low fat dieters with more improved cholesterol profiles, better blood sugar control and lower blood pressure. Download the comparison spreadsheet for yourself here.

The fact is that the link between saturated fat, cholesterol and heart disease was only ever a hypothesis and was never proven, and more and more scientists are coming-out against the standard dietary guidelines, as revealed last year by ABC’s Catalyst:

It’s time for the Dietitians Association of Australia to get with the program and update its thinking on diabetes, saturated fat, and heart disease.

[email protected]

Comments

  1. All it takes is a look at the main sponsors of the Australian Dietitians Association.

    Kellogg’s and Arnotts are but a few.

    They have been captured long ago.

    Everything said and written by a dietitian should carry a disclosure statement: “sponsored by companies who want you to be fat. “

    • Same could be said for the main sponsors of the NOF, GSK being one of them.

      Anyway this peaked my interest, as the wife wanted to be a Dietitian many years ago. No doubt the ADD have a vested interest to protect their society, but to brand all Dietitians in Australia as behind the times is pretty harsh, a lot of them are quite smart with backgrounds in other sciences (ie Molecular bilogy), to brand all of them as quacks smacks of some sort of personnel loathing against them.
      I love reading the macro business but this response article is a bit harsh. Reading more about the NOF opinion piece, I can find more about how much it cherry picked research results. Claiming that one study weight loss on those that drank full cream milk, then later on says to cut all sugars to zero. You know lactose found in milk is a sugar right?
      I can find more against this opinion piece then for it, those for it are other blogs.
      Here’s another response the NOF article
      http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-report-on-diet-as-published-by-the-national-obesity-forum/

      • All you say is true, and further, many know better and will try to guide you – but – at least in hospital setting – are prevented by protocol to engage in what the feel is best care. And this can be the director of the department with many awards to her name. It’s one of the things I really dislike about healthcare – the board

  2. It was disgusting the way the dogs mauled Ms. Demasi over that Catalyst episode. The info she presented was correct.

    • Agreed. It was pretty telling that she had hit a nerve. In that particular case, the pockets of big Agriculture and Big Pharma.

      • Bingo! And big Ag is big Pharma they way big Ag is done with mountains of soil destroying petrochemicals! Bom dia Joao

      • Tassie TomMEMBER

        Big ag probably doesn’t have quite so much to lose – if people didn’t eat grains they’d eat more meat, and farmers could use the grains in feedlots rather than for milling.

        You get a price premium for high-grade milling wheat vs feed wheat, but the spreads are often not that great.

        Big pharma on the other hand – they’ve got billions to lose in Australia alone.

      • @TT and after seeing what Big Pharma did to my older family members with the toxins known as statins, they deserve to lose every damn cent!

      • It was pretty telling that she had hit a nerve

        She hits my nerve too! Phwoar! 😈 That Ms Demasi is something!

      • @TT
        But they do have plenty to loose. If people start questioning their diets they will quickly realise that a return to small scale Permaculture and associated livestock production can feed the entire Australian population with high quality food. with the added bonus of no diabetes, no high cholesterol no hypertension.

        Hence big Ag and Big Pharma being the strange bedfellows they are.

      • interested partyMEMBER

        Top of the class dude.
        Permaculture is our only chance…. and big ag/chem/pharma/finance/medic/food-chain can all go get rooted.

    • I would believe anything she told me too, smart and hot, is she really strayan

  3. Josh MoorreesMEMBER

    Anecdotal and without precedent for myself but I recently had bloods done after being on a LCHF diet for the last few months and while my ‘cholesterol’ was high the GP was happy to say that my cholesterol profile was exactly as outline above, ie:

    Lowering blood triglycerides (good);
    Raising HDL (good);
    Raising LDL, but changing the profile from small dense (bad) to large and fluffy (good); and
    Raising total cholesterol (indifferent).

    And that I shouldn’t care about the raw ‘high’ number. So clearly the message is making it down to primary care providers to some level.

    • PolarBearMEMBER

      I didn’t think there was a test widely available yet for measuring the size of LDL particles. You just got a single reading.

    • Tassie TomMEMBER

      Labs can do a more in-depth cholesterol test called a “lipid sub fraction analysis”. It is not covered by Medicare so it will cost $80 – $100 out of pocket. This divides the LDLs into 7 bands, and it is only bands 5, 6, and 7 that do you any harm (the small dense LDLs). No need to know the numbers yourself – it will be interpreted for you.

      If your triglyerice level is below 1.0, and certainly if it is 0.8 or below, it’s probably not worth doing a lipid sub fraction analysis because your small dense LDL levels will be at harmless levels.

      • Josh MoorreesMEMBER

        ahh well mine was completely covered by medicare so i guess I didn’t get the full investigation.

  4. In the same spirit can i also express my enthusiasm for the wrong message sent regarding sunlight exposure and vitamin d supplementation.
    In short i believe everyone should be getting regular outdoor UVB sunlight exposure combined with supplementing with Vitamin D and Magnesium and Vitamin K2 and B1 and B2.
    http://www.vitamindwiki.com/VitaminDWiki
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

    In short the fear of sun exposure message being propagated is leading to increased incidences of lifestyle diseases.

    • Almost everyone i know (including myself) have lowish vitamin d levels. Even my doctor admitted they got the messaging wrong. Although to be fair articulating a more complex message about sun exposure may have confused a lot of people.

    • You’d be amazed how miserable low Vit D makes you.

      It’s horrid. Even mild exercise like pushups caused week long aching of ligaments.

      Do not recommend. 0/10

      However, it’s easy to fix. Took 3 months to go from ~25% recommended value to 120%+

    • Absolutely right. Slip, slop, slap was so successful that it ended up creating an entirely new problem! We need sunlight exposure to be healthy.

      Here’s a good one from last year: http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120

      …children need to spend around three hours per day under light levels of at least 10,000 lux to be protected against myopia.

      • School drop off this morning – before 9am, Melbourne, cloudy, less than one month until winter solstice- and half the kids in the playground are wearing sun hats.

        Turning around the ‘Sun Smart’ attitude is going to be like turning a Valemax.

      • skin cancer in Australia kills less people in total and less than one tenth among age 14-45 compared to suicide
        car accidents in Australia kill far less (less than a quarter) people compared to suicide

        despite that ‘Sun Smart’ and road safety ideology receives hundreds and thousands times more attention and funding than Mental Health

        suicide is the most likely cause of death for young Australians (14-44) – 2.5 times more likely than car accident and more than 20 times more likely than skin cancer among 14 to 34 age group

  5. PolarBearMEMBER

    Thanks for this article UE. It is hard to find much information re the saturated fat causes heart disease myth. I think the American Heart Foundation still lists it as a major risk factor. It is also scary to think how many people have developed diabetes as a result of this myth being perpetuated for several decades. That is almost criminal in terms of the scientific integrity of the medical profession.

  6. This is in line with other research around ketosis. Google “fourhourworkweek Dominic Dágostino””
    3hr long interview, but worth every second.

  7. I’m with you Leith, I cut out the processed carbs and sugars 18 months ago, and have watched too many Gary Taubes talks on YouTube. I’ve seen enough to change my ways, but you’re going out on a bit of a limb here with this campaign. The jury is still out on saturated fats. I don’t fear fat like I used to, but I’m not tucking into a tub of lard every night either. And Maryanne Demasi does have a bit of a reputation for jumping on every fad science bandwagon. Eggs and cholesterol however, have been completely exonerated…
    http://time.com/3705734/cholesterol-dietary-guidelines/

    • Tassie TomMEMBER

      I don’t go out of my way to increase my fat intake, but I use saturated fat when I would otherwise use vegetable oils. So I cook with butter or dripping instead of vegetable/ canola/ olive oil. Instead of spraying some sort of vegetable oil onto my baked vegetables I lightly fry them in dripping first. I’ve never cut the fat off my meat – it’s the nicest bit.

      Whether it’s saturated, mono-unsaturated or poly-unsaturated, fat is still fat and it all makes you fat if you eat too much of it. The thing with low-carb and saturated fat though is you are less likely to eat too much of it because 1) saturated fat makes you feel full, and 2) you don’t get the insulin surge from the carb load to pack the fat all away in your fat stores, so it’s much longer before you get hungry again.

      I probably eat a bit more fat than before I scrapped carbs, but not a heap more. If you get no calories from carbs you’ve got to get them from somewhere after all.

      • You clearly know your stuff Tom. Your experience mirrors mine. I avoid vegetable oils like the plague because they are too high in omega 6 (pro-inflamatory) oils and prone to oxidisation when heated (due to their high unsaturated fat contact and double bonds). Hence, I only cook in saturated fats – way more stable.

      • The only vegetable oil I consume now is olive oil. Vegetable oils high in omega 6 are clearly in the bad column these days.

      • @caeos
        Coconut oil has a strong coconut flavour. It doesn’t go well with many dishes.

      • Coconut oil is really stable at high heat and is good to cook with, otherwise macadamia oil

    • All I did was cut down on the bread at breakfast (I was eating a lot of toast). I replaced it with a couple of poached eggs. No other change to my diet, no added exercise. Slowly, but surely, the weight is coming down.

      Next target: pasta.

      • Get rid of wheat entirely. Then get rid of grains. In my experience both made me feel better and lost weight.

        What passes as bread and pasta in Oz is horrific.

      • What did you replace them with? Or just didn’t replace with anything?

        Quite right on the bread. I lived in Europe long enough to understand just how appallingly bad and limited our “choices” are here in Oz when it comes to bread, pasta and cheese.

        Oh god, the cheese. Want some cheddar mate?

  8. Tassie TomMEMBER

    There is a study going on at the moment with 1000 children from around the world who suffer Type 1 diabetes being managed on a very low carbohydrate diet.

    80% of them have HbA1c levels below 5.7 and a fasting glucose below 7, ie, they don’t even meet the definition of diabetes despite having a disease that is fatal without insulin.

    They still need some insulin for 2 main reasons:
    1) Insulin inhibits ketogenesis (and ketones stimulate insulin release, but these children don’t make any insulin). This is an important negative feedback mechanism which prevents normal fat metabolism (ketogenesis) progressing to ketoacidosis.
    2) Insulin also promotes protein storage as muscle (and, as graphed above, protein stimulates some insulin release). Without insulin these children get muscle wasting.

    However, they only need small amounts of long-acting insulin – no rapid-acting boluses at meals. The only way you can get hyperglycaemia is to eat carbohydrates.

    Great article UE. I have seen your scientific knowledge and understanding grow over the last 12 months or so, and you have a knack of presenting it in a concise and readable form. It’s great to see you started getting stuck into the DAA too – they are causing a lot of harm to every fatty and diabetic in Australia, and they are responsible for many deaths.

    • Hmmmm …bits of missing information here. HbA1c levels are averages only over 3 months and need to be considered as a rule of thumb for BG level management for type 2 diabetics only – type 1 patients are very different. The only reliable test for diabetes 2 is a fasting glucose tolerance test and management is assessed by reference to these markers. Type 1 is entirely different, usually identified symptomatically or incidentally, as an autoimmune disease where the pancreatic cells are destroyed by the immune system. You either have type1 or you don’t, it just depends when the immune system kicks into detruct mode. Type 2 on the other hand is a progressive condition in which the body becomes resistant to the normal effects of insulin and/or gradually loses the capacity to produce enough insulin in the pancreas. Type1 can only be treated by insulin injections. Type 2 may often be controlled by diet, but will eventually need medication and even insulin injections. Both types require dietary management. If a type 1 did not eat correctly in conjunction with insulin injections there is risk of toxicity and shock. Type 2 risks hypo or hyper affects of erratic BG levels. There is no rule of thumb for high or low GI levels for either type as it depends on their own body responses to the various foods, Essentially it’s trial an error months in conjunction with Diabetes Australia to determine the mix of carbs, fats and proteins. There is no one size fits all and type 1 and 2 must test themselves regularly and maintain their own specific diet to manage their respective diseases. The foot note is that when a person has a either forms of diabetes, then ignore the general dietary advice for the healthy population and work with DA to dtermine your own management strategy. I’m 2 months in and still learning.

      PS: WordPress is playing up so this is my second go at corrections – now I’m giving up!

      • Tassie TomMEMBER

        “A bit of missing information here” – true, as the study is ongoing and not published yet. Outcomes are more important than glucose control per se and they are looking at outcomes, but so far this is absolutely crapping on any other management technique.

        Re. hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia – the only thing which causes hyperglycaemia is carbohydrate intake, and the only thing which causes hypoglycaemia (in the absence of fulminant liver failure) is medication (including insulin).

        Unbelievably, it really is that simple.

  9. Just remember you need 30% carbs in you diet to fuel your brain. Ketosis is actually very unhealthy. Breaking down protein for energy releases toxic ketones that damage your kidneys. Fat is a much better souce of non carb energy as long as were not talking the deep fried no vege diet. Obviously we need to minimize processed sugar but we also benefit from eating fruit. The body also benefits from occasional fasting as it encourages cellular turnover. Balanced diet avoiding shite and snacking is the way to go.

    • Tassie TomMEMBER

      Incorrect. You don’t need any dietary carbohydrate at all. The brain can use mostly ketones – it only needs a little bit of glucose. Red blood cells and the renal medulla also need glucose as they don’t have mitochondria. The foetal brain also uses primarily ketones – you don’t even need any dietary carbohydrate if you’re pregnant. There is nothing unsafe about it.

      Your liver produce your daily metabolic glucose requirements from amino acids, ie, a low-carb and low-protein diet could lead to a protein deficit. No-one really knows exactly what your daily metabolic glucose requirements are, but it’s around 50 grams (ie 600 kilojoules/ 110 calories).

      • Metabolising protein and lipid leaves nitrogen residue in the blood which is acidic and must be excreted by the kidneys. If you base your whole diet around high protein/lipid/no carbs, the kidneys will not excrete the nitrogen quick enough which can alter your bloods pH and send you in a state of metabolic acidosis which is also unhealthy. Its better to cut out complex carbs like grains, and include legumes and heaps of fruit and vegetables, plant fats like avocado/coconut and only small portions of meat/chicken/fish/animal saturated fat. I don’t agree with ketogenic or high protein low carb diets, but I do believe in cutting out grains and sugar almost entirely and replacing them with legumes and vegetables/fruit.

    • Why is Ketosis unhealthy, Robert? Please explain. I’ve been on a ketogenic diet for more than a year and my brain is as sharp as ever. I have also lost 11kgs of weight, have 6% body fat, 1% visceral fat, low blood pressure, etc.

      Don’t get ketosis confused with ketoacidosis, which impacts Type-1 diabetics only.

    • Firstly It needs to be stated that ketosis relates to both to the Protein and Fat pathways. It is the breakdown of protein which is the problem as it produce ammonia > urea which are toxic and must be excreted from the kidneys. The problem with a very low carb diet is that your brain uses more energy than your body can provide from fat metabolism alone, therefor your body sources energy via protein metabolism. Over long term this leads to kidney problems, Of course if you have very low fat levels it is even worse as your body may be forced to break down muscle which leads to ketoacidosis seen in anorexics.
      Additionally:-
      -Your immune system (white cells) are fuelled by glucose.
      -Ketones are also a (mildly) reactive chemical that would be expected to slightly increase oxidative stress. Water soluble Antioxidants of course are found mostly in sugar contain vegetable matter, so by cutting out fruit you cop a double whammy in regards to ageing cancer, ect.
      -Missing out on the benefits of honey consumption which we are discovering are massive.
      The real cause of insulin resistance is not spikes in blood sugar but constant blood sugar that reprograms your cells to stop responding to insulin. Regular cellular fasting induced by diet and exercise is what is required (and why snacking on sugary junk is the worst thing ever)
      Short term a Ketosis diet does appear to be beneficial because of the benefits of fasting and weight loss. Long term it is bad news.

      • I’d go with all of that, just avoid grains as the source carbohydrates. Besides who doesn’t like potato 🙂

  10. I’m also with you Leith, I’m not over weight by any measure but about 10 years back I was already diabetic and the outlook was not good. I changed my diet (high fat /high protein) did a bit more exercise and made a point of standing at least half the time I’m in the office and always taking the stairs. Little changes HUGE improvement back to normal blood sugar measurements AND much better Cardio / fitness.
    BTW for the road warriors / FIFO’ers out there the added stress of jetlag has a serious compounding effect on Diabetes. Everyone I know that flys over 250K miles per year has had very high blood sugar readings at one time or another. Melatonin helps as does taking daytime flights but avoid benzos especially on the flight.

  11. Original John

    LOL this is definitely the wrong the article to read while you are watching Fight Club on the iPad. All I can think of is Big Pharma offering discount lipo-suction for use in creating new luxury soap export market. Nature’s Own Brand premium Australian soap, scented with Australian wild flowers and hand-crafted from the best Australians. Huge online market for the discerning Prince and Princess who has to have the best of everything. I know ole Fat Cat has a few kg’s to spare for such an enterprise as does Clive and many other sitting pollies.

  12. JunkyardMEMBER

    This subject is far more complex than you realise and you should avoid it on this blog. There is good reasons that dietary recommendations have a long history of conflicting advice, because it’s very complicated.

    Epidemiological studies are fraught with confounding factors and these are the only studies you can do on humans (it’s illegal to lock people in cages and control every aspect of their life/diet for an experiment).

    Once again, avoid this subject and stick to what you guys understand.

    • Pashaw the only complexity are the vested interests. Humans aren’t ruminants, we shouldn’t be eating grains

      • The silica from grains strengthens your bones, plus whiskey makes you live longer! Not to mention vitamin E. Oh and those pesky french people with exceptionally low rates of cardiovascular disease eat quite a lot of (not horribly processed) bread with most meals!

      • Fair point Robert, with my red wine allowance I can balance some of the grains 😉

      • Sound like a proper french thing to do.
        Of course the joy of french bread is that you consume more calories chewing it than eating it! 🙂

    • If the advice is conflicting, then they shouldn’t be giving it. They should be saying “I don’t know” because that would be both true and properly professional.

    • I agree with Junkyard on this. The complexities are vast. An economist has as much chance of understanding this and getting it right as the LNP has of getting their act together, viz. zero. Still, it’s fun to read and see Leith change his views over time.

      For my own diet, I find myself feeling best when completely avoiding sugar (except for a little fruit) and eating mainly pulses, poultry and rice. High fat makes me ill because I have BAD (bile acid diarrhea), which gives me painful cramps and the runs if I eat too much oil and fat.

    • Once again, avoid this subject and stick to what you guys understand.

      LOL
      none understand anything about current economic system, especially not economists

    • “This subject is far more complex than you realise and you should avoid it on this blog”…

      I’ve got bad news for you, Junkyard, because I am gonna keep writing.

      “Epidemiological studies are fraught with confounding factors…”

      That’s why I quoted randomised controlled trials.

      “Once again, avoid this subject and stick to what you guys understand”.

      I understand this topic perfectly well – that’s what happens when you spend 2 years (and counting) reading as many books as you can and listening to swags of experts discuss this issue.

      Get used to it or stop reading. It’s your choice.

      • I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read the abstract as my computer would now suffering from a fluid malfunction.

      • interested partyMEMBER

        @robert,
        “The silica from grains strengthens your bones, plus whiskey makes you live longer! Not to mention vitamin E” from thread above and your comment. You ‘appear’ to be somewhat versed in the diet subject and have made a few logical comments on this thread, yet you scoff at the link. Ever dug a bit deeper and wondered why silica strengthens bones? and what deficiency would cause a body to shed silica or block its availability? and what could step in and take silicas place if there is a deficiency? and what could go wrong with the body’s systems if an alternative is used to perform a certain process?

        It’s all in the book and it doesn’t need defending. You may want to adjust your bias is all.

      • The book is a clear fraud dude. Essential elements interact with proteins and cofactors in complex folding arrangements. Codons are just letters in the alphabet, three DNA base pairs make a code for a single amino acid. Dozens to hundreds of amino acids make up a protein, then the protein can be modified by other proteins. Most Elements bind to particular highly conserved proteins. That dude is talking nonsense about sub atomic particles WTF! BTW I majored in Molecular Biology.

      • JunkyardMEMBER

        Something tells me you are too emotionally invested in this subject and I suspect a lot of confirmation bias in your selection of reading material, judging by the sources you link.

      • interested partyMEMBER

        Appologies UE for the traffic….

        @ Robert..“The book is a clear fraud dude.”
        Feeling threatened?

        “Essential elements” interact with “proteins”
        And what would these ‘essential elements” be? minerals… perhaps?

        “a single amino acid”. what is the material that is used to build this amino acid?… mineral?

        “Dozens to hundreds of amino acids make up a protein, then the protein can be modified by other proteins. Most Elements bind to particular highly conserved proteins.” you do you recognise that each natural element has electrical charge and either attracts or repels…..yes?

        That dude is talking nonsense about sub atomic particles WTF! BTW I majored in Molecular Biology.

        Robert…… I have no doubt you are intelligent and well educated in biology at a molecular level. Just because you have studied does not mean you have each and every answer to each and every question. The gist of the book is that we require minerals to build DNA that is replicated in a natural healthy way, and mineral deficiencies can and do disturb/alter this process via the substitution of certain minerals with others of the same electrical charge… but do not help with healthy DNA replication. Cellular apoptosis is hijacked/cancelled in some instances so we get “lifestyle” diseases…. diseases that didn’t exist two generations ago…. pre chem ag….hmmmm… I wonder why.
        Mutant DNA is the cause of many diseases and as the western diet is based on big ag and depleted soils that require chemical ferts…. there is a mineral deficiency in much of the food/produce that westerners consume. This book goes some way to describing that process.

        The co-author is a geneticist… and chiropodist…. just sayin.

        Read the book….step outside the box.

        @junkyard…
        Granted, I do link a bit of this stuff, and only to help others. If it is unwelcome, I’m happy to cease and desist if it is unwelcome. If you can dis-prove the info I share then please re-educate me.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      The original conclusion that ‘fat causes heart disease’ was a epidemiological studies done by Ancel Key, who excluded data that didn’t fit his theory. It also happen to be very favorable to process food industry, like replacing butter with margarine. We need articles like this because of the 50 year plus of propaganda is creating a diabetes epidemic all over the world.
      It is a bit more complicated than not eating carb though. In Japan, a study in 2010 has found that while eating rice increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes in woman, while for man there is no clear link.

      http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/6/1468.full

  13. Lets give this debate a true Macrobusiness perspective. To wit: “In the long run we are all dead.” (J M Keynes, no less)

  14. Agreed, I don’t understand why nearly all doctors keep singing the same tunes even when things are proven to be incorrect.
    Non-coeliac Gluten is another cracker.

      • Not even! It takes 30 years, ie a new generation running things, for medical practice to catch up to medical science…

  15. About 4 years ago I went on a low carb ‘Primal’ diet and dropped about 15kgs over 12-18 months, so it definitely worked. But I found it fairly hard to adhere to, bread and sweet starchy things are sooo tempting and convenient, and fell off the wagon when on holidays a couple of years back. Have put it all back on again since. My exercise levels have remained constant throughout, so as far as I’m concerned it’s diet that makes the real difference to your bodyfat.

    In terms of adherence, whilst I never felt hungry, I really craved things like bread & cake, not to mention food prep was considerably more hassle when you have to avoid all the convenient pre-prepared starchy foods. I’m finding this something of a barrier to going back on it again.

      • I more or less already have a high protein + carbs breakfast – couple of eggs on toast, so I’m not sure if that’s going to help me. Although maybe an even bigger breakfast might work, as I have noticed when on holidays, if I take full advantage of a buffet breakfast, I only need quite a light lunch.

  16. Thanassis Veggos

    I think it’s the 3rd time I’ve said it on this blog: no point arguing about it, just try for yourself. it’s not going to kill you.

    Anyway, I tried LCHF and I totally shrunk.
    I have read the scientific explanations for it, I don’t know if they hold any water, and to be honest I don’t really care.

    All I know is that:
    A) I lost a lot of weight
    B) My doctor is happy, and
    C) I love bacon, scrambled eggs, parmezan, lamp chops, olives and I can stomach a ton of veggies if I am allowed to drench them in aioli.

    Thats all I need to know.

    • I was late spotting this thread. Fascinating that Leith has picked up on this off-topic issue.

      Me too, Thanassis. I finally tried Atkins / Ketogenic / LCHF when my weight went into seriously obese territory after a lifetime of failure to control weight and more serious health issues, under conventional advice. 35 kgs came off in 12 months, and my cholesterol dropped from high to “middle of normal”. Furthermore, I lost a lot of chronic musculo-skeletal pain and dysfunction, and this was not necessarily weight related – I lost the ability to squat 20 years ago when my weight was still normal – and have now regained the ability to do all sorts of things way beyond just squatting. I do some pretty serious Yoga positions now that I have gained the ability to tackle such things. And I am doing regular bike rides with competitive cyclists doing training.

      I live on red meat, poultry, eggs, cream, soft full-fat cheeses, butter, avocado, almonds, some other nuts, healthy oils, fish as I can afford it, flax seed recipes and Konjac noodles for low-GI fibre; diet jelly, low-starch greens, roasted pumpkin seeds, etc

  17. Well I Just spent half an hour making and laminating fresh pasta. That amount of exertion has to make it healthy!

  18. When you cut out the fat you cut out the taste, so you have to add salt or sugar or flavour enhancers to make it palatable. Fat also makes you feel full so you eat less. I think a good rule of thumb is if your grandparents ate it (or great-great-grandparents for the youngins) then its ok ie butter, coconut oil, olive oil and animal fats although there were probably more free range animals back in the day which tends to increase the quality of the fat (more omega-3).

  19. also sleeping in an oxygen tent helps a lot. Not sure if anyone else is that committed yet.

    Brain Grain a good read.

    Interesting to see whistleblowers coming out from fields such as neuroscience who are seeing a spike in brain related issues and relating it to the high carb/sugar diet as well.

    • You don’t have to be that committed an ozone generator will do, but you’re getting off track into health and disease profilaxics not nutrition/diet

      • not sure it is off track at all – ie the impacts of different oxygens on blood has a profound impact when combined with diet

      • Yeah, fine, sure, ok.. Young… But strictly speaking it’s not something that you have as option for lunch, right? Otherwise we’d be off into meditation, standing not sitting, using natural plant oil soaps, periodic fasting, walking barefoot more often etc

  20. Ever since I read your first post on this I enacted the dietary reforms suggested and lost weight despite doing either less or the same amount of exercise as I always do.

    Ironically, pays for the Macrobusiness sub even off topic.

    Awesome stuff.