Time Frame of an Epidemic

It occurred to me that the time frame for an epidemic to occur is absolutely critical in determining public response. If rates of a disease went from 1 in 10 people to 1 in 3 people in only 10 years, there would be public outcry for scientists to determine the cause and to find a cure quickly. If the disease caused debilitating metabolic effects such as very high blood pressure that resulted in heart attacks or strokes and people of all ages were getting this disease, with many dying – the outcry would be even more urgent.

But what if rates of the same disease went from 1 in 10 people to 1 in 3 people over a period of 40 or 50 years? The current generation would have no recollection of what it was like ‘before’ because things had always been this way since they were kids.  The older generation would remember what it was like ‘before’ and concluding that for whatever reason, that is the way it is now. Doctors and scientists of the older generation that might be able to apply their knowledge and skill to find the cause and a cure would be at the end of their working lives.

The disease is obesity.

Debilitating metabolic side effects of obesity include very high blood pressure that can lead to heart attacks and strokes and Type 2 Diabetes which can result in blindness, amputations and organ failure.

Once a rare disease, obesity has now reached epidemic proportions and the metabolic side effects are not just for the old, but are rampant among youth and young adults.

This disease epidemic has taken place over 50 years but few are noticing because it has fallen between the cracks of time.

Obesity Rates Then and Now

Photographs and videos of what people looked like fifty years ago are widely available, and a simple Google search will provide an abundance of them. Movies, documentaries and TV shows from the mid-1960s also provide a glimpse of what the average American and average Canadian looked like then.

In the 1960s only 10.7% of the US population and 10.2% of the Canadian population were obese; that’s approximately 1 in 10 people.

Below is a US sorority photo of a Sigma Iota Chi chapter from West Virginia from 1967. Look how slim most of the women are compared to today’s young adults.

SIX 1967.png
Sigma Iota Chi Sorority – West Virginia – 1967 (https://sororityhistories.wordpress.com/tag/sigma-iota-chi/)

West Virginia now has one of the highest adult obesity rate in the US.

Related image
1967 Kappa Alpha Fraternity Party Photograph – Cornell University

To the left is another photo from a 1967 Fraternity party at Cornell University. For the most part, the young men and their girlfriends are slim and lean – certainly much slimmer than university students today.

Below is what the average city-dwelling Canadian looked like in 1967, riding the subway in Toronto. Young adults, middle aged adults and older people were very slim compared to today’s standards – especially when compared to what the average public transit rider looks like today.

toronto subway rush hour

Most recent international data from 2015 found that 38.2% of the US population and 25.8% of the Canadian population are obese; that’s more than 1 in 3 people in the US and more than 1 in 4 people in Canada [1].

People in both countries are now some of the most obese in the world;

OECD Health Statistics 2017, June 2017

When one compares what university students looked above to what they look like now in a current photo of Fraternities and Sororities below, the difference in average body weight of the students from 50 years ago to today is quite apparent – despite the fact that university students come from families where the average family income is significantly higher than the national average.

Given this, their higher body weights cannot be dismissed due to low income, socioeconomic status or lack of education. So what is going on?

University of Nevada’s Fraternity and Sorority Community

What changed in the last 50 years that contributed to this obesity epidemic?

As written about in a previous article, in 1967 (fifty years ago) the sugar industry paid three Harvard researchers (Stare, Hegsted and McGandy) very handsomely to critique studies that vindicated sugar as contributing to abnormal fat metabolism and heart disease, and who instead laid the blame on dietary fat, and in particular  saturated fat and dietary cholesterol [2,3].

They concluded;

“Since diets low in fat and high in sugar are rarely taken, we conclude that the practical significance of differences in dietary carbohydrate is minimal in comparison to those related to dietary fat and cholesterol…the major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the levels of serum lipids [fats], especially serum cholesterol.” [4]

These researchers who were sponsored by the sugar industry concluded that there was “major evidence” which  suggested that there was only ONE avenue for diet to contribute to hardening of the arteries and the development of heart disease – and that was dietary fat and cholesterol…yet only a year later in 1968, the Diet-Heart Review Panel of the National Heart Institute recommended that a major study be conducted to determine whether changes in dietary fat intake prevented heart disease – because such a study had not yet been done [5].

No major study had yet been done to find out whether changing the types of fat we ate prevented heart disease, yet these researchers were SO certain that there was “only one avenue” for diet to contribute to hardening of the arteries and the development of heart disease. How much was their certainly impacted by their sponsors?

Their influence didn’t end there.

Only ten years later, one of the three Harvard researchers (Hegsted) was directly involved with developing and editing the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines [6] which recommended a decrease in saturated fat and cholesterol  consumption, and an increase in dietary carbohydrate. While Canadian Dietary Guidelines are distinct from the US ones, much of the research on which they are based is the same.

Comparing the US to Canadian dietary recommendations with respect to the consumption of fat in general, as well as the consumption of saturated fat in particular, one finds the recommendations mirror each other.

We are told to limit saturated fat ostensibly because of its negative impact on blood cholesterol and heart disease. We are told to increase consumption of vegetable oils, and to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fat in cooking and baking and to eat 45-65% of our daily calories as carbohydrate.

It is increasingly my conviction that the simultaneous (1) marketing of polyunsaturated vegetable oil – more accurately called industrially-created seed oils, such as soybean oil and canola oil, along with (2) changes in the Dietary Recommendations in both Canada and the US for people to (a) limit calories from fat and especially to (b) limit saturated fat, combined with the recommendations for people to (c) eat 45-65% of calories as carbohydrate created the “perfect storm” that when viewed together,  explains the obesity epidemic we now have and the associated increase in metabolic health problems that we now see 50 years later.

I will be writing more in the days ahead on what is thought to be the role of these industrially-created seed oils in the process of obesity and inflammation that underlies many metabolic conditions, including Type 2 Diabetes.

Why isn’t the public alarmed by this massive increase in obesity?

I believe it’s because it took place over such a long period of time that those old enough to remember what things were like before have either died or are approaching retirement age and have left its solution to the next generation, and those young enough to do something about it have never known it any other way.

I think that looking at the magnitude of the epidemic without the time frame is helpful.

What if only 10 years ago, only 1 in 10 people were obese and now 1 in 3 people were obese? Would there not be a public outcry for scientists to determine what caused this and to research to find a cure quickly?

Obesity underlies debilitating metabolic effects such as very high blood pressure that can lead to heart attacks and strokes and people of all ages are getting this disease – including children and teenagers. Obesity underlies the huge increase in Type 2 Diabetes and when poorly managed can result in blindness, limb amputation and organ failure. People of all ages are dying from these metabolic effects of these disease, which at present are mainly being managed through medication and advising people to “eat less and move more”.

Is that the best we can do to curb this epidemic?

As covered in previous articles, there are peer-reviewed published studies – some a year or two long, that demonstrate that these metabolic effects can be put into remission by eating a diet with less carbohydrates yet government-funded research into use of this is not a priority.

Why?

What role does the sugar industry and the corn-producers (that manufacturer high fructose corn syrup found in much of our packaged food) play?

What role do the grain boards (that market wheat and other grains for baked goods) play?

What about the soybean and canola growers – multi-billion dollar a year  industries in both countries that grows the soybeans and canola seed that are processed into fats sold to consumers for cooking and baking?

These industries and their respective lobby groups play an influential role in the economies of both Canada and the United States and in that way (and others) influence what types of research should be funded.

There is an epidemic going on and people are living with terrible metabolic consequences of them or dying from them.

Before the Dietary Guidelines are updated in both countries, the governments of Canada and the US must approve external, independent scientific review of the evidence-base for the existing dietary recommendation as well as examine the evidence-base for use of a well- designed low carbohydrate diet in reducing obesity and managing the debilitating metabolic effects.

The length of time since the obesity epidemic began does not make this any less urgent.

Do you have questions about how I can help you in tackling obesity and lowering or putting metabolic side effects into remission?

Please send me a note using the “Contact Me” form located on the tab above.

To our good health,

Joy

You can follow me at:

 https://twitter.com/lchfRD

  https://www.facebook.com/lchfRD/


References

  1. OECD Health Statistics 2017, June 2017, http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf
  2. Kearns C, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA, et al. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Nov 01; 176(11):1680-1685.
  3. Husten, L, How Sweet: Sugar Industry Made Fat the Villain, Cardio|Brief, 2016 Sept 13.
  4. McGandy, RB, Hegsted DM, Stare,FJ. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 1967 Aug 03;  277(5):242–47
  5. The National Diet-Heart Study Final Report.” Circulation, 1968; 37(3 suppl): I1-I26. Report of the Diet-Heart Review Panel of the National Heart Institute. Mass Field Trials and the Diet-Heart Question: Their Significance, Timeliness, Feasibility and Applicability. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 1969, AHA Monograph no. 28.
  6. Introduction to the Dietary Goals for the United States – by Dr D.M. Hegsted. Professor of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MASS., page 17 of 130, https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=1759572&content=PDF

Copyright ©2018 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.

 

Vilification of Saturated Fat – Bad Fat Enduring Beliefs Part 1

This is Part 1 in a new series titled Bad Fat Enduring Beliefs and this article looks at how and when saturated fat was vilified and why sugar was          vindicated as the cause of heart disease.

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis

The diet-heart hypothesis is the belief that eating foods high in saturated fat contributed to heart disease was first proposed in the 1950s by a scientist named Ancel Keys who believed that by replacing saturated fat from meat, butter and eggs with newly-created industrial polyunsaturated vegetable oil (such as soybean oil) that heart disease and the deaths allegedly associated with it would be reduced by lowering blood cholesterol levels.

In 1952, Keys suggested that Americans should reduce their fat consumption by 1/3 and in 1953, Keys published a study where he said that he had demonstrated that there was an association between dietary fat as a percentage of daily calories and death from degenerative heart disease [1].

Four years later, in 1957, Yerushalamy et al published a paper with data from 22 countries[2] which showed a weak relationship between dietary fat and death by coronary heart disease – a much weaker relationship than was suggested by Keys’s in 1953. Nevertheless, in 1989 Keys and colleagues published their Seven Countries Study[3] which maintained there was an associative relationship between increased dietary saturated fat and Coronary Heart Disease – basically ignoring the data presented in Yerushalamy’s 1957 study, and which failed to study countries where Yerushalamy found no relationship between dietary fat and heart disease, such as in France. The paper maintained that the average consumption of animal foods (with the exception of fish) was positively associated with 25-year Coronary Heart Disease death rates and the average intake of saturated fat was strongly related to 10 and 25-year Coronary Heart Disease death rates. Keys and colleagues knew of the Yerushalamy’s data from 1957 and seemingly dismissed it.

Keys et al – Epidemiological studies related to coronary heart disease: characteristics of men aged 40–59 in seven countries [1]


Yerushalmy J, Hilleboe HE. Fat in the diet and mortality from heart disease. A methodologic note [2]
The paper has been widely criticized for selecting data only from the 7 countries that best fit their Diet Heart Hypothesis.

The Sugar Industry Funding of Research Vilifying Fat

In August of 1967, Stare, Hegsted and McGandy – the 3 Harvard researchers paid by the sugar industry published their review in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease”[3] which vindicated sugar as a contributor of heart disease and laid the blame on dietary fat and in particular, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol (previous article on that topic here).

Stare, Hegsted and McGandy concluded that there was “only one avenue” by which diet contributed to the development and progression of “hardening of the arteries” (atherosclerosis) and resulting heart disease and that was due to how much dietary cholesterol people ate and its effect on blood lipids;

“Since diets low in fat and high in sugar are rarely taken, we conclude that the practical significance of differences in dietary carbohydrate is minimal in comparison to those related to dietary fat and cholesterol…the major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the levels of serum lipids [fats], especially serum cholesterol.” [4]

These researchers concluded that there was major evidence available at the time which suggested that there was only ONE avenue for diet to contribute to hardening of the arteries and the development of heart disease – yet a year later in 1968 the report of the Diet-Heart Review Panel of the National Heart Institute made the recommendation that a major study be conducted to determine whether changes in dietary fat intake prevented heart disease because such a study had not yet been done [5];

“the committee strongly recommended to the National Heart Institute that a major definitive study of the effect of diet on the primary prevention of myocardial infarction be planned and put into operation as soon as possible. ”

This is an important point; prior to a major study having ever been conducted to determine whether changes in dietary cholesterol impacts heart disease, 3 Harvard researchers paid by the sugar industry concluded that there was “only one avenue” by which diet contributed to the development and progression of atherosclerosis (i.e. “hardening of the arteries”) and heart disease and that was due to how much dietary cholesterol people ate and its effect on blood lipids.

Researcher Paid by the Sugar Industry Helps Develop the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines

Only ten years after the sugar industry paid Stare, Hegsted and McGandy to write their reviews, the same Dr. Hegsted was directly involved with  developing and editing the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines [6] which recommended an increase in dietary  carbohydrate and a decrease in saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet.

Historic changes in the Dietary Recommendation in Canada have largely been based on changes to the Dietary Recommendations in the US, and as a result both stemmed from a belief that eating saturated fat increases total cholesterol and therefore increases the risk of heart disease.

The problem is this belief is just that, a belief.

There have been many studies that have disproved this including a  randomized, controlled dietary intervention trial from 2008 which compared a low calorie, low in fat with a low carbohydrate, high fat diet of the same number of calories. This study found that overall heart health is significantly improved when carbohydrate is restricted, rather than fat [7,8].

Not all LDL cholesterol is “bad” cholesterol.

Small, dense LDL (“Pattern B”)  causes more “hardening of the arteries” than the large, fluffy LDL particles (“Pattern A”)[9].

It has been reported that when dietary fat is replaced by carbohydrate, the percentage of the small, dense LDL particles  (the ones that cause hardening of the arteries) is increased, increasing risk for heart disease.  Furthermore,  the low carb diet increased HDL (so-called “good” cholesterol), which are protective against heart disease and HDL and small, dense LDL were made worse on the low fat diet. Quite opposite to the “Diet-Heart Hypothesis, this study demonstrated improvements in the risk of heart disease for those eating a low carbohydrate, high fat diet compared to those eating a low fat, low calorie diet – which is not all that surprising given that it had been reported previously that a diet high in saturated fat actually lowers small, dense LDL (the type of LDL that causes hardening of the arteries) and raises the large fluffy LDL; actually improving risk factors for heart disease [15].

There are also other randomized controlled trials from 2004-2008 which demonstrate that a low carb diet improves blood cholesterol test results more than a low fat diet [10,11,12,13,14] – yet despite this, the belief that eating saturated fat increases blood cholesterol, persists.

Both the American and Canadian governments are in the process of revising their Dietary Guidelines and what is clear is that what is needed is an external, independent scientific review of the current evidence-base for the enduring false belief that dietary fat, especially saturated fat contributes to heart disease.

Have questions about how I can help you follow a low carb lifestyle?

Please send me a note using the “Contact Me” tab above and I will reply shortly.

To our good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

 https://twitter.com/lchfRD

  https://www.facebook.com/lchfRD/

References

  1. KEYS, A., Prediction and possible prevention of coronary disease. Am J Public Health Nations Health, 1953. 43(11): p. 1399-1407.
  2. Yerushalmy J, Hilleboe HE. Fat in the diet and mortality from heart disease. A methodologic note. NY State J Med 1957;57:2343–54
  3. Kromhout D, Keys A, Aravanis C, Buzina R et al, Food consumption patterns in the 1960s in seven countries. Am J Clin Nutr. 1989 May; 49(5):889-94.
  4. McGandy, RB, Hegsted DM, Stare,FJ. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 1967 Aug 03;  277(5):242–47
  5. The National Diet-Heart Study Final Report.” Circulation, 1968; 37(3 suppl): I1-I26. Report of the Diet-Heart Review Panel of the National Heart Institute. Mass Field Trials and the Diet-Heart Question: Their Significance, Timeliness, Feasibility and Applicability. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 1969, AHA Monograph no. 28.
  6. Introduction to the Dietary Goals for the United States – by Dr D.M. Hegsted. Professor of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MASS., page 17 of 130, https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=1759572&content=PDF
  7. Volek JS, Fernandez ML, Feinman RD, et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction induces a unique metabolic state positively affecting atherogenic dyslipidemia, fatty acid partitioning, and metabolic syndrome. Prog Lipid Res 2008;47:307–18
  8. Forsythe CE, Phinney SD, Fernandez ML, et al. Comparison of low fat and low carbohydrate diets on circulating fatty acid composition and markers of inflammation. Lipids 2008;43:65–77
  9. Tribble DL, Holl LG, Wood PD, et al. Variations in oxidative susceptibility among six low density lipoprotein subfractions of differing density and particle size. Atherosclerosis 1992;93:189–99
  10. Foster GD, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2082–90.
  11. Stern L, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, et al. The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:778–85
  12. Gardner C, Kiazand A, Alhassan S, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women. JAMA 2007;297:969–77
  13. Yancy WS Jr., Olsen MK, Guyton JR, et al. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:769–77
  14. Shai I, Schwarzfuchs D, Henkin Y, et al. Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT) Group. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359:229–41
  15. Dreon DM, Fernstrom HA, Campos H, et al. Change in dietary saturated fat intake is correlated with change in mass of large low-density-lipoprotein particles in men. Am J Clin Nutr 1998;67:828–36

Copyright ©2018 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.

 

Sugar Industry Paid Researchers that Blamed Saturated Fat as Cause of Heart Disease

A year ago, I found out from a fellow Dietitian that a recently published article in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that the sugar industry had secretly funded a group of renowned Harvard researchers to write an influential series of articles which downplayed, discredited or outright ignored research known at the time, and which demonstrated that sugar was a contributor to heart disease.

I read the article and was stunned at its significance.

As I am in the midst of a new series of articles on the role of saturated fat and polyunsaturated fat in health and disease, I felt it’s important that people understand the sugar’s industry involvement in potentially skewing of the scientific evidence at the very time that the original 1977 low-fat high carb Dietary Guidelines were being formulated and so I researched further and wrote this article.

Two of the prominent Harvard researchers that were paid by the sugar industry and who wrote articles dismissing that sugar was a significant contributor to heart disease and implicating saturated fat as the cause were the late Dr. Fredrick Stare, chair of Harvard’s School of Public Health Nutrition Department and the late Dr. D. Mark Hegsted, a professor in the same department [2].

POST PUBLICATION NOTE (March 12 2018): Dr. Hegsted, one of the 3 Harvard researchers paid by the sugar industry to write these review articles was directly involved in developing and editing the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines [6].

A commentary in the Journal of Accountability in Research [4] summarized the significance of those articles as follows;

“Researchers were paid handsomely to critique studies that found sucrose [sugar] makes an inordinate contribution to fat metabolism and heart disease leaving only the theory that  dietary fat and cholesterol was the primary contributor.”

In the mid-1960’s, the Sugar Research Foundation (which is the predecessor to the Sugar Association) wanted to counter research that had been published at the time which suggested that sugar was a more important cause of atherosclerosis than dietary fat. The Sugar Research Foundation invited Dr. Stare of Harvard’s School of Public Health Nutrition Department to join its scientific advisory board and then approved $6,500 in funds ($50,000 in 2016 dollars) to support a review article that would respond to the research showing the danger of sucrose[2].  Letters exchanged between the parties were brought to light in the November 2016 article published by Kearns et al [1] maintained that the Sugar Research Foundation tasked the researchers with preparing “a review article of the several papers which find some special metabolic peril in sucrose [sugar] and, in particular, fructose [3].”

This would seem akin to the tobacco industry having secretly funded articles demonstrating that something other than smoking was responsible for lung cancer.

In August 1967 the New England Journal of Medicine published the first review article written by Drs. Stare, Hegsted and McGandy titled “Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease”[3] which stated;

“Since diets low in fat and high in sugar are rarely taken, we conclude that the practical significance of differences in dietary carbohydrate is minimal in comparison to those related to dietary fat and cholesterol”

The report concluded;

“the major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the levels of serum lipids [fats], especially serum cholesterol.”

The Harvard researchers went on to say;

“there can be no doubt that levels of serum cholesterol can be substantially modified by manipulation of the fat and cholesterol of the diet.”

The Harvard researchers concluded;

“on the basis of epidemiological, experimental and clinical evidence, that a lowering of the proportion of dietary saturated fatty acids, increasing the proportion of polyunsaturated acids and reducing the level of dietary cholesterol are the dietary changes most likely to be of benefit.”

Stare, Hegsted and McGandy did not disclose that they were paid by the Sugar Research Foundation for the two-part review [4].

In response to Kearns et al article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November 2016 [1], the Sugar Association responded [5] by stating that it;

“should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today.” [5]

Some final thoughts…

The reviews written by these influential Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department researchers and paid for by the sugar industry have the appearance of being a deliberate manipulation of the perception of the scientific evidence known at the time. 

Whether deliberate or inadvertent, the fact that such sponsorship occurred at the very period in time when the Dietary Guidelines were under revision to emphasize that saturated fat intake must be reduced and carbohydrate consumption must be increased cannot be understated — a move which certainly benefited the sugar industry.

POST PUBLICATION NOTE (March 12 2018): Discovered after publication of this article, one of the three Harvard researchers funded by the sugar industry, Dr. D.M Hegsted was one of the scientists that worked on the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines[6].

How has this turned out for us?

For the last 40 years, Americans and Canadians have diligently eaten more carbohydrate (including foods containing sucrose and fructose) and more polyunsaturated fats (especially soybean and canola oil) just as the Harvard researchers paid for by the sugar industry recommended — and to what end?

Obesity rates have gone from ~10% in the 1950’s and 60’s in both countries to 26.7% in Canada (2015) and ~34% in the US (2017) and Diabetes and high blood pressure (hypertension) rates have risen exponentially.

What’s going on?

Could it be that the shift to a diet abundant in omega-6 polyunsaturated fat (such as soyabean oil) and which supplies 45-65% of daily calories as carbohydrate created the ‘perfect storm‘ which inadvertently fueled the obesity and health epidemic we now see?

This will be the subject of future articles.

Have questions?

I provide both in-person and Distance Consultation services (via telephone or Skype) can help you learn a better and easier way to eat, while you achieve and maintain a healthy body weight long term.

Please send me a note using the “Contact Me” tab above and I will reply shortly.

To our good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

 https://twitter.com/lchfRD

  https://www.facebook.com/lchfRD/


Copyright ©2018 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.

References

  1. Kearns C, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA, et al. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Nov 01; 176(11):1680-1685.
  2. Husten, L, How Sweet: Sugar Industry Made Fat the Villain, Cardio|Brief, 2016 Sept 13.
  3. McGandy, RB, Hegsted DM, Stare,FJ. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 1967 Aug 03;  277(5):242–47
  4. Krimsky, S. Sugar Industry Science and Heart Disease, Accountability in Research. 2017 Oct 07; 24:2, 124-125.
  5. Sugar Association, The Sugar Association Statement on Kearns JAMA Study, 2016 Sep 12
  6. Introduction to the Dietary Goals for the United States – by Dr D.M. Hegsted. Professor of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MASS., page 17 of 130, https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=1759572&content=PDF

PART 2: The Role of Protein in the Diet – Evolutionary Exposure to Macronutrients

This article is Part II in a series titled The Role of Protein in the Diet and looks at macronutrients in our diet from an evolutionary perspective.

Over the course of man’s existence, there have been a number of major shifts in the human diet and with that change, came the necessity of the body to adapt by producing enzymes capable of digesting and absorbing nutrients from these novel foods. This required the human genome (our genes) to adapt, evolve and change [1].  This takes time.

In the ~4.4 million span of mankind’s existence, solid evidence for use of human-controlled fires, which would have given us the ability to cook our meat is only about 800,000 years old [2] with less certain sites dating back 1,500,000 years [3,4].

The origin of domestication of animals is considered to be ~10,000 – 12,000 years and represent another relatively recent shift in the human diet [1], moving mankind from a hunting and gathering species, to an agricultural one. With this shift came the need to domesticate crops, which dramatically changed the human diet. The innovation of human agriculture greatly reduced diversity in the human diet. Instead of ‘food’ being what hunter-gatherers were able to find, ‘food’ was what each group grew and raised.

Of even more  significance, it is estimated that 50%–70% of calories in the agricultural diet are from starch (carbohydrates) alone [5]. The advent of animal domestication and an agricultural diet may also resulted in an over-abundance of starch-based calories, which exceeded growth and energetic requirements [1].

The remainder of this article is based largely on a lecture given by Dr. Donald Layman, PhD – Professor Emeritus from the University of Illinois (Nutrition Forum, June 23, 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada).

Looking at it from the perspective of man’s evolutionary history, the appearance of cereal grains is very recent. Cereal grains as food were non-existent in the evolutionary diet. Same with legumes, such as chickpeas and lentils.  These too were non-existent in the evolutionary diet. Refined sugar (made up of sucrose) was also non-existent in the evolutionary diet. Humans would eat wild fruit (fructose) and on the rare occasion when available they would eat honey (half glucose, half fructose), but this idea of a diet centering around sucrose and fructose was simply non-existent.

Consumption of dairy products and alcohol are also very recent in terms of human history. We didn’t milk wild animals, we ate them. Fermentation of fruit for wine is also very recent in terms of the evolutionary diet.

Our body did not evolve to see cereal grain, legumes, refined sugar, plant oils, dairy  foods and alcohol and with the exception of plant oils, all of these are very rich in carbohydrate.

We are exposed to carbohydrate in a way that were never evolved to see.

Our bodies developed metabolism patterns around our dietary intake of protein and fat.

We have very extensive and elaborate pattern for handling protein; for digesting and metabolizing it. We also have developed a very high ‘satiety’ (feeling full) to protein, such that we simply won’t over eat it.  It is the only macronutrient that provides sufficiently strong feedback such that we can’t over eat it.

Fat, contrary to common belief is a very passive nutrient. It has very little direct effect on our body. We store it effectively and this ability to store excess intake as fat is what enabled us to survive as hunter-gatherers.

The macronutrient that is at odds in this picture is carbohydrate.

We have very little evolutionary exposure to carbs; in fact the body responds to it has if it were highly toxic. Carbs have to be rapidly cleared after we eat it because our body must maintain our blood sugar within a very narrow range between 3.3-5.5 mmol/L (60-100 mg/dl). When we eat carbohydrate,  the body breaks it down to simple sugar (glucose) and insulin takes the extra sugar out of the blood and moves it into cells. Our only mechanism to protect us from carbohydrate is insulin. The problem is, when we eat carbohydrates every few hours, the ability for insulin to respond becomes overwhelmed.

We have a biological system for handling carbohydrate and the traditional teaching is that carbs are handled in the muscle, which is true if one exercises 2-3 hours per day.  When were were hunter-gatherers and we came across a bee hive, for instance or a fruit tree in season, our muscle was able to process the short spike in glucose load because we were very active. The average North American or European is not typically exercising that much, with ~75%  considered sedentary (inactive).

So where are those carbs going?

They’re going to body fat.

Carbohydrate regulation is very important to think about. Carbs are among some of the most regulated substances in the body. Blood sugar is controlled and kept within an extremely tight range between 3.3-5.5 mmol/L (60-100 mg/dl).

If we don’t burn off the 30 gm of carbs (equivalent to ~ 6 tsp of sugar) we ate for breakfast by the time we have a fruit mid-morning (another 15 gm of carbs / equivalent to 3 tsp of sugar), we have to store the carbs somewhere.  Comes lunch, most people eat another 30 – 45 gm of carbs (~6 – 9 tsp of sugar) if they’re eating a lunch brought from home and even more than that if eating out at the food court. Maybe another fruit is eaten mid-afternoon, and without realizing it, people have consumed the equivalent of 24 tsp of more of sugar, eating what they’ve believed is a healthy diet. As explained in a previous post, the blood can only have at most the equivalent of ~ 1 tsp of sugar in it at any one time, so where does all the sugar go?

It goes to fat stores.

Fatty Acid Processing [slide from Dr. Donald Layman, PhD – Nutrition Forum, June 23, 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.]
To synthesize the excess sugar into fat, the glucose (sugar) comes into the liver and is synthesized into free fatty acids.

Our body is constantly pulling out free fatty acids from our fat stores (adipose tissue) when we are sleeping or exercising, for example to use as a fuel source, so the free fatty acids that are coming in from adipose tissue (fat stores) and those that are being synthesized from glucose (the excess carbs we took in our diet) mix in the liver, and are then packaged into very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL).

Think of these VLDL as “taxis” that move cholesterol, triglycerides and other fats around the body. Once these VLDL “taxis” deliver their payload, the triglyceride is stripped out and absorbed into fat cells. The VLDLs shrink and becomes a new, smaller, lipoprotein, which is called Low Density Lipoprotein, or LDL — the so-called ‘bad cholesterol’.

[Calling LDL ‘bad cholesterol’ is a misnomer, because not all LDL is harmful.  LDL which is normally large and fluffy in texture is  a good cholesterol (pattern A) that can become bad cholesterol (pattern B) when it becomes small and dense. In a healthy person, LDL is not a problem because they find their way back to the liver after having done their job of delivering the TG to cells needing energy. In a person with insulin resistance however ,the LDL linger a little longer than normal, and get smaller and denser, becoming what is known as “small, dense LDL” and these are the ones that put us at a risk for cardiovascular disease.]

The origins of high triglycerides is the beginning of Metabolic Syndrome (also called Syndrome X). This is the point at which the body is getting too many carbs and the system is breaking down. The result is high than normal blood sugar after meals (called post prandial glucose), an increase in free fatty acids, and the increase in triglycerides and these together contribute to fatty liver. These are all symptoms Metabolic Syndrome.

If one is eating more than 30 gm of carbohydrates per day then they either need to have very high exercise to account for it, or they’re going to be making fat from it.

With an average carb intake of 300 gm per day and 75% of North Americans sedentary, it is easy to see where the problem of excess fat stores comes from.

Since our only mechanism for dealing with carbohydrate is insulin, by continually overwhelming the body with a steady supply of glucose – way above the small amount of carbohydrate that our genome has adapted to see, the system fails. This is where the origins of the overweight and obesity statistics elaborated on in the first part in this series (located here).

To address this carbohydrate excess, we can lower carbohydrate intake and either raise fat intake or raise protein intake. In Part III of this series, we will shift the focus to the benefits of increasing protein in the diet.

You can follow me at:

 https://twitter.com/lchfRD

  https://www.facebook.com/lchfRD/


Copyright ©2018 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.


References

  1. Luca F, Perry GH, Di Rienzo A. Evolutionary Adaptations to Dietary Changes. Annual review of nutrition. 2010;30:291-314. doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-080508-141048.
  2. Goren-Inbar N, Alperson N, Kislev ME, Simchoni O, Melamed Y, et al. Evidence of hominin control of fire at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Science. 2004;304:725–727
  3. Brain CK, Sillent A. Evidence from the Swartkrans cave for the earliest use of fire. Nature. 1988;336:464–466.
  4. Evidence for the use of fire at zhoukoudian, china
    Weiner S, Xu Q, Goldberg P, Liu J, Bar-Yosef O
    Science. 1998 Jul 10; 281(5374):251-3.
  5. Copeland L, Blazek J, Salman H, Chiming Tang M. Form and functionality of starch. Food Hydrocolloids. 2009;23:1527–1534.

 

 

1977 Dietary Recommendations — forty years on

Since 1977, the dietary recommendations in Canada and the US has been for people to consume a diet with limited fat and where “complex carbohydrates” (starches) comprise the main source of calories.

From 1949 until 1977, the dietary recommendations of Canada’s Food Guide were for people to consume

~20-30% of their daily calories as carbohydrate

~40-50% of daily calories as fat

~20-30% of daily calories as protein

From 1977 onward, Canada’s Food Guide recommended that people consume:

55-60% of daily calories as carbohydrate

<30% of daily calories as fat, with no more than 1/3 from saturated fat

15-20% of daily calories as protein

The US recommendations since 1977 have been similar to those in Canada, with the Dietary Goals for the United States recommending that carbohydrates are 55-60% of daily calories and that calories from fat be no more than 30% of daily calories (of which no more than 1/3 comes from saturated fat).

Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide which came out in 2015, recommends that people eat even more of their daily calories as carbohydrate;

45-65% of daily calories as carbohydrate

20-35% of daily calories as fat, with no more than 1/3 from saturated fat

10-35% of daily calories as protein

[Reference: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/reference/table/ref_macronutr_tbl-eng.php]

Health Canada recommends limiting fat to only 20-35% of calories  while eating 45-65% of daily calories as carbohydrates and currently advise adults to eat only 30-45 mL (2 – 3 Tbsp) of unsaturated fat per day  (including that used in cooking, salad dressing and spreads such as margarine and mayonnaise).

This is what people have come to call a “balanced diet“.

But is it?

For the past 40 years, the public has come to believe that ‘eating fat made you fat’ and that eating saturated fat caused heart disease. Evidence-based research does not seem to support that having a diet rich in healthy fats – especially monounsaturated fats like from olive and its oil, and avocados, nut and seeds and omega 3 fats from fish causes heart disease.

Our society has become “fat phobic”. People guzzle skim or 1% milk with little regard to the fact that just 1 cup (250 ml) has almost the same amount of carbs as a slice of bread.  And who drinks only one cup of milk at a time?  Most people’s “juice glasses” are 8 oz and the glasses they drink milk from are 16 oz, which is 2 cups. Who ever stops to think of their glass of milk as having the same amount of carbs as almost 2 slices of bread?

In addition, carbs are hidden in the 7-10 servings of Vegetables and Fruit they are recommended to eat  – with no distinction made between starchy- and non-starchy vegetables.  Many people eat most of their vegetable servings as carbohydrate-laden starchy vegetables such as peas, corn, potatoes and sweet potatoes and then have a token serving of non-starchy vegetables (like salad greens, asparagus or broccoli) on the “side” at dinner. Who stops to think that just a 1/2 cup serving of peas or corn has as many carbs as a slice of bread – and often those vegetables are eaten with a cup of potatoes, adding the equivalent number of carbs as another 2 slices of bread?

People drink fruit juice and “smoothies” with no regard for all of the extra carbs they are consuming (not to mention the effect that all of that fructose has).  A “small juice glass” is 8 oz, so just a glass of orange juice has the equivalent number of carbs as another 2 slices of bread! Many grab a smoothie at lunch or for coffee break without even thinking that the average smoothie has the same number of carbs as 5 slices of bread!

Then there is the toast, bagels and cereal or bars that people eat for breakfast, the sandwiches or wraps they eat for lunch and the pasta or rice they have for supper.  These are carbs people know as carbs — which are added to all the carbs they consumed as vegetables, fruit and milk.

What has been the outcome of people following these dietary recommendations to eat a high carb diet since 1977 ?

Obesity Rates

In 1977, obesity rates* were 7.6% for men and 11.7% for women, with the combined rate of < 10 % for both genders.

* Obesity is defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥30 kg/(m)2

In 1970-72 the obesity rate in Canadian adults was 10% and by 2009-2011, it increased two and a half times, to 26%.

In 1970-72, only 7.6% of men were obese but by 2013, 20.1% of men were categorized as obese. In 1970-72, only 11.7% of women were obese but by 2013, 17.4% of women were obese.

In 1978 in Canada, only 15% of children and adolescents were overweight or obese, yet by 2007 that prevalence almost DOUBLED to 29% of children and adolescents being overweight or obese. By 2011obesity prevalence alone (excluding overweight prevalence) for boys aged 5- to 17 years was 15.1% and for girls was 8.0%.

The emphasis since 1977 on consuming diets high in carbohydrates and low in fat has taken its toll.

Effect on Health

Non-alcoholic liver disease is rampant and not surprisingly, considering 37% of adults and 13% of youth are abdominally (or truncally) obese – that is, they are carrying their excess body fat around and in the internal organs, including the liver.

Since the 1970’s, Diabetes rates have almost doubled.

  • In the 1970s, the rate of Type 2 Diabetes in women was 2.6% and in men was 3.4 %. In the 1980s that number rose in women to 3.8% and in men to 4.5%. In the 1990s the rate was almost double what it was in 1970; in women it was 4.7% and  in men, 7.5%.

If people eating a high carb, low fat diet has corresponded to an increase in obesity, overweight and Diabetes, then what’s the alternative?

That is where a low carb high healthy fat diet comes in , which supplies adequate, but not excess protein. It enables us to use our own fat stores for energy, and to make our own glucose (for our blood and brain) with ketones (that are naturally produced by our bodies when we sleep, for example) to fuel our cells and organs. Since humans are designed to run on carbs (in times of plenty) and in our fat stores (when food is less plentiful), being in mild ketosis is a normal physiological state. By eating a low carb high fat diet when we’re hungry and delaying eating for short periods, we can mimic the conditions that were common to our ancestors. By eating this way over an extended period of time, we can bring down insulin levels and as a result, decrease the insulin resistance of our cells. We can improve our blood sugar, lower our blood pressure and see our LDL cholesterol and triglycerides come down to normal, healthy levels.

Want to know more? Why not send me a note using the Contact Us form located above?

To your health!

Joy

you can follow me at:

 https://twitter.com/lchfRD

  https://www.facebook.com/lchfRD/

Note: Everyone’s results following a LCHF lifestyle will differ as there is no one-size-fits-all approach and everybody’s nutritional needs and health status is different. If you want to adopt this kind of lifestyle, please discuss it with your doctor, first.

Copyright ©2017 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.

 

 

From Paleo to Present – a brief history of the human diet

Prior to the domestication of animals and the development of agriculture, the human diet centered around the ‘hunt’. They ate when they caught something, and didn’t eat until again until they either caught something else, or were successful in finding edible vegetation, berries or nuts. “Feasting” and “fasting” were normal events in the rhythm of life, and our bodies were designed to function using our fat stores for energy, as evidenced by our continued existence.

From hunter-gatherers to farmers

After the Ice Age, those that survived were left with an increasingly unpredictable climate, decreases in big-game species that were hunters’ first-choice prey, and increasing human population in the available habitats for hunting and gathering. To decrease the risk of unpredictable variation in food supply, people broadened their diets to second- and third-choice foods, which included more small game, plus plant foods which required much preparation, such as grinding, leaching and soaking. As I will demonstrate below, these plant foods, including grains were very different in carbohydrate and protein composition than they are today.

The domestication of animals and plant cultivation of ~ 13,000 years ago, forms a significant turning point in the human diet.

Humans began to transport some wild plants, including grains from their natural habitat to more productive selected habitats, and so began intentional cultivation, or farming. With the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals – the plants and animals themselves began to change.

This is important.

The fruit of today bear little resemblance to their ancient predecessors. The grains of today don’t either. For example, wild wheat and wild barley bear their seeds on top of a stalk, and sheds its seed spontaneously – enabling it to germinate where it falls.

Once people began bringing some wild wheat or barley seeds back with them in order to intentionally plant them, some seeds would accidentally spill along the way, germinating in new places. Over time, some seed would cross-pollinate with wild grain, while others would undergo spontaneous mutations, leading to wheat and barley varieties with non-self-shattering heads. Eventually, these non-shattering grains were selected for by humans for cultivating, leading to a very different type of grain than the wild species – and one with very different nutritional content than their wild predecessors.

Similarly, domesticated animals were selected based on traits that were considered desirable to people – chickens were selected to be larger, wild cattle to be smaller, and sheep to lose their bristly outer hairs and not to shed their soft inner wool. Eventually, the land where hunter-gatherers lived was overrun and replaced by people who had become agricultural – and who were ever-expanding the amount of land they required for raising animals, as well as for growing crops.

At Tell Abu Hureyra, in the Euphrates valley of modern Syria are the remains of a civilization that lived between 13,000 and 9,000 years ago, spanning the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic periods. This site is significant because the inhabitants of Abu Hureyra started out as hunter-gatherers, but gradually moved to agriculture, making them the earliest known farmers in the world. Meals consisting of the meat of gazelle, wild goat and game birds were supplemented with wild-growing Einkorn wheat-porridge, as well as berries, nuts or fruit, if in season.  Tools such as sickles and mortars for harvesting and grinding grain, as well as pits for storing it have been found at Tell Abu Hureya and remains of harvested Einkorn wheat (which was ground by hand and eaten as porridge) have been found at Tell Aswad, Jericho, Nahal Hemar, Navali Cori and other archeological sites.

The diet of man forever changed at that point.

As previously mentioned, plants underwent change as a result of both natural cross-pollination as both underwent change as a result of intentional manipulation by man.  This occurred everywhere that man settled – from the lush valleys of the Middle East*, to Africa and Asia.

[*yes, the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East was lush and green, then.]

The grain we know today as “wheat” and “rice” is nothing like their wild ancient predecessors. Likewise with fruit. The fruit of today has been bred to be sweet – not so with the wild cultivar. A brief history of wheat will help illustrate this type of change.

Evolution of Wheat – but one example

The first wild grass that was cultivated was Einkorn wheat. As cultivation techniques improved, Einkorn eventually became an essential component of the dietreducing the need for hunting and gathering. Einkorn wheat contained only 14 chromosomes.

Shortly after the cultivation of the first Einkorn, the Emmer variety of wheat (Triticum turgidum) appeared in the Middle East; a natural offspring of Einkorn and an unrelated wild grass, calledgoatgrass(Aegilops speltoids.

Emmer wheat is what is referred to in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 9, Exodus 32, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 25) as Kes-emmet (כֻּסֶּמֶת) and both Eikorn wheat (חִטָּה) and “Emmet” (ֻּסֶּמֶת), translated in English as ‘spelt’, are referred to together as distinct species (e.g. Exodus 9:32).  It was the ancient Egyptians that are credited with the addition of wild strains of yeast in order to make bread rise – which gives an added dimension to the story of Passover, where the Jews left slavery in Egypt in “great haste”, “not having time to let their bread rise”.

Since plants do not combine genes but add (or sum) them which provides evidence of what cross-bred with what. Goatgrass added its genetic code to that of Einkorn , so Emmer wheat had 28 chromosomes.

Emmer wheat then naturally cross-bred with another wild grass called Triticum taushii, giving rise to the original cultivar of Triticum aestivum, the predecessor of modern wheat, which has 42 chromosomes. This was a higher yielding wheat variety which had many desirable baking properties that Eikorn and Emmer lacked.  This new strain remained largely unchanged until the mid-eighteenth century when Carolus Linneaus, who invented the Linnean system of categorizing species, counted only 5 species.

Today, Eikorn, Emmer and the original cultivated strains of Triticum aestivum have been replaced by almost 25,000 strains of modern human-bred wheat strains that are hundreds, if not thousands of genes apart from the original Eikorn and Emmer wheat species.

Our food is not the food of our ancestors.

Modern Triticum aestivum is on average 70% carbohydrate by weight and only 10% protein. Emmer wheat, on the other hand was 57% carbohydrate and 28% protein – and was suitable to supplement the protein of a meal.

Paleo Diet compared with the Low Carb High Healthy Fat diet

The premise of Paleo eating to eat like our Paleolithic ancestors did is understandable, however the foods that exist now are nothing like the foods our ancient ancestors ate. Fruit, for example is considered “paleo” -but the carb content of paleo fruit was substantially less than that of today.

In a low carb high healthy fat way of eating, carbs are not avoided. It is the foods that are high in carbs that are easily broken down to glucose and have little nutrient-density that are limited.

[It is hard to justify eating grain products made from varieties of wheat that were bred for no other reason than they could be grown in nutrient- poor soils in novel parts of the world.]

No justification is needed to eat carbs that come as part of fibre- and nutrient-rich non-starchy vegetables and to eat carbs found in nuts that are a good source of protein and monounsaturated fat.

A diet where 45 – 65% of calories are as carbohydrate is has us eating “carbs for carb’s sake”, but a low carb high healthy fat diet should not be about “fat for fat’s sake”.

Some people think they should eat large amounts of saturated fat “just because they can”, and I suppose that’s true. One can certainly eat a pound of bacon, but when compared  with a fat marbled grain-fed steak or a Brome Lake- or wild duck, one is more nutrient-dense than the other. The yolks of free-range egg comes as part of a nutrient-dense package, which includes good quality protein, as well as other nutrients. A pound of bacon, does not. That doesn’t mean that eating bacon is “bad”, but in comparison to grilled salmon with a large serving of non-starchy vegetables bathed in cold-pressed olive- or avocado oil, it doesn’t quite measure up. It is not just about not being hungry, but about being healthy.

A Low-Carb-High-Healthy-Fat Diet is about “nutrient density” – not just “fat density”.

Final Thoughts

In a Low-Carb-High-Healthy-Fat Diet, carbs are not “bad” and fat is not “good”. Carbs and fat that come in nutrient-dense food and in particular ratios are what we are striving for.

As well, protein quantity is based on physiological need and not unlimited (as excess in a low carb diet will be converted and stored as fat). The source of that protein ought to be considered, as well. For example, it is well documented that fatty fish such as salmon, mackerel and tuna are high in omega-3 fatty acids and are good for our brains and our hearts so for those that enjoy fish, eating it often is ideal.

The good thing about the Low-Carb-High-Healthy-Fat Diet is that it can be adapted to  culture- or religious restrictions. Don’t eat pork? No problem. Don’t eat beef? Not an issue. Take fast days? That is easily worked-in.

Want to know more?

Feel free to send me a note using the form on the “Contact Us” tab, above. Remember, Nutrition is BetterByDesign.

To your health!

Joy

Note: Everyone’s results following a LCHF lifestyle will differ as there is no one-size-fits-all approach and everybody’s nutritional needs and health status is different. If you want to adopt this kind of lifestyle, please discuss it with your doctor, first.

Copyright ©2017 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.


follow me at:

 https://twitter.com/joykiddieRD

  https://www.facebook.com/lchfRD/


 

References

Binford LF. New Perspectives in Archaeology, 1968; 313–341

David, W. Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight and Find Your Path Back to Health Rodale Books, 2011; 15-32

Diamond J. Evolution, Consequences and Future of Plant and Animal Domestication. Nature, 2002; 418:700-7

Flannery KV. The Domestication of Plants and Animals, 1969;73–100

Hillman GC, Davies, MS. Measured Domestication Rates in Wild Wheats and Barley under Primitive Cultivation, and their Archaeological Implications. J. World Prehistory; 1990; 4:157–222

Raeker RO, Gaines CS, Finney PL, Donelson T. Granule size distribution and chemical composition of starches from 12 soft wheat cultivars. Cereal Chem 1998;75(5):721-8

Shewry PR. Wheat. J Exp Botany 2009;60(6):1537-53

Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA. The Tortoise and the Hare: small-game use, the broad-spectrum revolution, and Paleolithic demography. Curr. Anthropol. 41, 39–73 (2000).

Zohary D, Hopf M. Domestication of Plants in the Old World 3rd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

Obesity Rates in Canada and Changes to Canada’s Food Guide

Introduction: Many people look to Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) as the “measuring stick” as to whether they are eating a healthy diet, but did you know that over the years, CFG has changed dramatically? Canada’s first food guide, the Official Food Rules, was introduced to the public in July 1942. This guide acknowledged wartime food rationing, while endeavoring to prevent nutritional deficiencies and to improve the health of Canadians. Over the years the names of the food groups, the serving sizes and numbers of servings has changed.  Serving sizes are now given in ranges; and one has to wonder if these changes have resulted in “over-nutrition”.

Changes in Canada’s obesity rates seems to parallel the changes in Canada’s Food Guide which is the topic of this blog.


Canada’s Food Rules – 1949

The post-WWII “Canada’s Food Rules” of 1949 emphasized people taking in sufficient nutrients to prevent nutritional deficiency as well as to avoid excess, by stressing that “more is not necessarily better”.

Adult guidelines promoted;

canadas_food_rules_19492 cups or more of full fat milk

1 serving of citrus or tomatoes daily & 1 other fruit

2 serving potatoes plus 2 servings other vegetables (preferably yellow or green and frequently raw)

4 slices of bread with butter and 1 serving whole grain cereal

one serving meat, fish or poultry or dried beans, eggs (3x / week), cheese (3x / week)

use liver frequently


Canada’s Food Guide – 1961

In the 1961 version the language softened; with “Guide” replacing “Rules” in the title. Canada’s Food Guide now sought to emphasize its flexibility and wide-ranging application for healthy eating, recognizing that many different dietary patterns could satisfy nutrient needs.

Adult guidelines promoted;

1961-eng1 1/2 cups or more of full fat milk (decreased by ½ cup)

1 serving of citrus or tomatoes daily & 1 other fruit

2 serving potatoes plus 2 servings other vegetables (preferably yellow or green and frequently raw)

4 slices of bread with butter and 1 serving whole grain cereal

one serving meat, fish or poultry, eggs (3x / week), cheese (3x / week) or dried beans

use liver frequently

Reference: Nutrition Division, National Department of Health and Welfare (1961). Rules out – guide in. Canadian Nutrition Notes, 17(7):49-50 (cited in Health and Welfare Canada. Action towards healthy eating: technical report. 1990).


Canada’s Food Guide – 1977

In 1977 Canada’s Food Guide underwent a dramatic revision. There were now four food groups, instead of five, as fruits and vegetables were combined since their nutrient content overlapped and the name of those groups changed, too.

The Milk group became Milk and Milk Products, to highlight the inclusion of other dairy foods, Meat and Alternates replaced Meat and Fish allowing for vegetarian choices — but also resulting in the inclusion of things like peanut butter in this category, rather than categorized in the ‘fat’ category as occurs in other systems, such as the Food Exchanges.

Most significantly, serving ranges were added.

The big focus was on more carbs and less fats (regardless of what the sources of those fats were) — there was no differentiation between lard and olive oil. There was a shift to using low fat dairy products and the beginning of generations of “fat phobic” Canadians began.  “Low Fat” products became all the rage.

cfg_history_1977_two_small2 servings (skim, 2%, whole) milk, buttermilk or yogourt (1 serving = 1 cup milk, ¾ cup yogourt, 1 ½ oz cheese)

4-5 servings fruit & vegetables (at least 2 vegetables) – cooked, raw or fruit juices, include yellow or green or green leafy vegetables

3-5 servings of Bread and Cereal

2 servings  Meat and Alternates – (1 serving = 2-3 oz lean cooked meat, fish or poultry or 2 eggs or 1 cup dried cooked legumes or ½ – 1 cup* nuts or seeds).

In 1977, there was introduction of a concept of “energy balance”; balancing energy intake with energy output (“calories in / calories out” model) which makes the assumption that basal metabolic rates stays the same.

With the goal of reducing diet-related chronic diseases (such as heart disease and high blood pressure), Canada’s Food Guide encouraged Canadians to reduce salt and fat, without distinguishing between sources of fats. In the process, the quantity of all kinds of fat, including healthy monounsaturated fats such as olive oil and nut and seed oil were all reduced.  Canada’s Food Guide encouraged Canadians to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables without distinguishing between high fiber, non-starchy vegetables and high carbohydrate starchy vegetables. More on that below.

Before 1977, the obesity rate [measured as Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg / m2] of Canadian adults was <10%.  Keep that number in mind. It changes considerably over the years as Canada’s Food Guide recommendations changed.


A report submitted to Health Canada in 1977 by the Committee on Diet and Cardiovascular Disease advised the government to take action to prevent diet-related chronic diseases such as heart disease and high blood pressure, so the emphasis in the revised 1982 Canada’s Food Guide was towards even lower fat products.

Lower fat in products often meant more sugar (as fructose or high fructose corn syrup) being added to products such as yogourt, to help make up for the missing taste. Portions of nuts and seeds which contain heart-healthy monounsaturated fats were reduced in the ongoing push to lower all fat in the diet.

There was a continued shift towards carbs as the main source of calories; not only from Breads & Cereals, but from Fruit & Vegetables too — and in this category, there was no distinction between starchy vegetables (such as potatoes, peas, corn, squash and yams) and non-starchy vegetables, such as salad greens or asparagus.  As a result, a serving of sweet potato was categorized no differently than a serving of salad greens.

Furthermore, a serving of fruit juice was considered equivalent to a serving of fruit; with no concern for the fact that there was no fiber in the juice and significantly more carbohydrates per serving.  Carbs were perceived as “good” and fat was promoted as “bad”.  As a result of these changes, under this new Canada’s Food Guide, one could have 3 glasses of juiceone serving of potato and a tiny salad and “meet” the guidelines.

Canada’s Food Guide – 1982

Adult guidelines promoted;

cfg_history_1982_two_small2 servings (skim, 2%, whole) milk, buttermilk or yogourt (1 serving = 1 cup milk, ¾ cup yogourt, 1 ½ oz cheese)

4-5 servings fruit & vegetables (at least 2 vegetables) – cooked, raw or fruit juices, include yellow or green or green leafy vegetables

3-5 servings of Bread and Cereal

2 servings  Meat and Alternates – (1 serving = 2-3 oz lean cooked meat, fish or poultry or 2 eggs or 1 cup dried cooked legumes or ½ cup* nuts or seeds).

Reference: Ballantyne, R.M., Bush, M.B. (1980). An evaluation of Canada’s food guide and handbook. Nutrition Quarterly, 4(1):1-4.


Canada’s Food Guide – 1992

In 1992, Canada’s Food Guide became Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating.

A new “total diet approach” aimed to meet both energy (calories) and nutrient requirements, resulted in large ranges in the number of servings in the four food groups.

To meet higher energy needs, the Guide encouraged selection of more servings from the Grain Products and Vegetables and Fruit groups – resulting in an even higher percentage of carbohydrates in the diet.

Adult guidelines servings changed as follows:

cfg_history_1992_two_small3-5   5-12 servings of Bread and Cereal

4-5   5-10 servings fruit & vegetables (at least 2 vegetables) – cooked, raw or fruit juices, include yellow or green or green leafy vegetables

2   2-4 servings (skim, 2%, whole) milk, buttermilk or yogourt (serving = 1 cup milk, ¾ cup yogourt, 1 ½ oz cheese)

2   2-3 servings Meat and Alternates – (1 serving = 2-3 oz lean cooked meat, fish or poultry or 2 eggs or ½ – 1 cup cooked legumes or 2 Tbsp. peanut butter)

Grain Products were now 1st on list (5-12 servings!); reflecting the shift that most of calories (45-65% of calories) were to come from carbs.

Vegetables and Fruit were put 2nd on the list (5-10 servings) and could still be chosen as all carbs (potato, yams, other starchy vegetables, fruit, fruit juice) and along with this, there was a continued decrease in calories from fat (e.g. nut butters went from ½ cup – 1 cup in 1977 to ½ cup 1982 to 2 Tbsp. in 1992)

Also in this Guide, cheese was categorized with milk and yogourt – even though other ways of accounting for food such as the Diabetic Exchanges, classify cheese with Meat and Alternates (and nut butters with fat).


In 2005, there were even more changes to Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating.  This is the Guide currently in use in Canada.

The numbers of servings were broken down based on stage of life and gender, but continuing the emphasis on high carbohydrate, low fat.  There were different number of servings per day for children aged 2-3, aged 4-8, aged 9-13, adolescent girls (aged 14-18), adolescent boys (aged 14-18), men (until aged 50), women (until aged 50) and then men over 50 and women over 50.

While Vegetables and Fruit were now put 1st instead of Grain Products, these could still be chosen as mostly carbs (potato, yams, other starchy vegetables, fruit, fruit juice), so with Grain Products put 2nd, carbs still formed the bulk of daily calories.


Canada’s Food Guide – 2005

Adult guidelines promoted (adults aged 19-50 years):

CFG 20055-10   7-8 (women) 8-10 (men) servings fruit & vegetables (at least 2 vegetables) – cooked, raw or fruit juices, include yellow or green or green leafy vegetables

5-12   6-7 (women) 8 (men) servings of Grain Products

2-4   2 (women and men) servings (skim, 2%, whole) milk, buttermilk or yogourt (serving = 1 cup milk, ¾ cup yogourt, 1 ½ oz cheese)

2-3 servings Meat and Alternates – (1 serving = 2-3 oz lean cooked meat, fish or poultry or 2 eggs or ½ – 1 cup cooked legumes or 2 Tbsp. peanut butter)

Recommendations include:

Vegetables and Fruit

go for orange vegetables such as carrots, sweet potatoes* and winter squash*

*Note: starchy vegetables such as sweet potato and winter squash contain the SAME number of carbohydrates per serving as a serving of Breads and Cereals i.e. 15 g carbohydrate per ½ cup serving compared with non-starchy vegetables such as asparagus, broccoli and salad greens.

Under this Guide, Vegetables and Fruit can contribute 105 g – 150 g carbs per day (400 – 600 calories per day) if chosen as starchy vegetables and fruit / fruit juice.

Milk and Alternates

The Guide recommends: “Drink skim, 1% or 2% milk each day” which overlooks the satiety (feeling fuller) effect of higher fat dairy.

“select lower fat milk alternates” – fails to look a the fact that loads of sugar as flavouring replaces the fat, contributing the equivalent of 2 – 4 servings of carbs per 3/4 cup serving (where a serving of carbs as per the Food Exchanges is considered 15 g carbohydrate per serving)

Oils and Fats

The Guide recommends: “include a small amount (2-3 Tbsp.) of unsaturated fat each day.  This includes oil for cooking, salad dressing, margarine and mayonnaise. Use vegetable oils such as canola and soybean” resulting in the decrease of healthy-monounsaturated fats such as olive oil, nuts and seeds.

Children

The Guide recommends to “serve small nutritious meals and snacks daily

Three meals AND a few snacks?

What effect have these dietary recommendations had on obesity statistics?

Let’s look at children;

  • In 1978, only 15% of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.
  • By 2007, that rate doubled to 29% of children and adolescents being overweight or obese.
  • By 2011, obesity prevalence alone for boys was 15.1% and for girls was at 8.0% in 5 to 17 year olds.

What about adults?

  • The prevalence of obesity [body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2] in Canadian adults increased from 10% in 1970-72 to 26% in 2009-11
  • Based on waist circumference 37% of adults and 13% of youth are abdominally obese.
  • Looking at these numbers slightly differently, as of 2013, there were approximately 7 million obese adults and 600 000 obese school-aged children in Canada

One has to wonder whether this dramatic increase in obesity and overweight after 1977 is correlated to Canada’s Food Guide shift to lower fat, higher carbohydrate diets.

In my  Dietetic practice, I give clients a choice of meal plan patterns because I don’t believe three meals and three snacks per day with 45-65% of calories as carbohydrate is the best way for people to address the matter of their excess weight.

For clients that come to me insulin resistant and/or overweight, I explain based on the literature why I recommend a meal plan pattern based on full meals without snacks with most of the calories coming from heart healthy satiety-offering monounsaturated fats. When clients are able to eat until they are satisfied without feeling hungry between meals and without feeling deprived, they are able to lose weight naturally and relatively easily.

Of course if clients want a meal plan based on the traditional 3 meals and 3 snack meal pattern I provide that for them using current recommendations.  There is no question that both ways, people can lose weight and lower their blood sugars, but my interest as a Dietitian is not only to see people’s weight and blood sugar and cholesterol come down, but to also see them feeling good and being happy with the process.

If you would like more information on the services I offer, please click on the Contact Us tab, above to send me a note.

Note: Everyone’s results following a LCHF lifestyle will differ as there is no one-size-fits-all approach and everybody’s nutritional needs and health status is different. If you want to adopt this kind of lifestyle, please discuss it with your doctor, first.

Copyright ©2015 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.

Canada’s Food Guide – an Epidemiological Experiment Gone Terribly Wrong?

Health Canada released a statement this past Tuesday (May 19, 2015) implying they may change Canada’s Food Guide recommendations. Their statement came just a week after a Canadian Medical Association Journal released a report a week earlier (May 11, 2015) summarizing some of the criticisms of the Guide made by healthcare professionals who presented at the Canadian Obesity Summit in Toronto at the beginning of May.  One of the criticism included Health Canada’s current endorsement of 100% juice as equivalent to a serving of fruit.

Canada’s Food Guide (officially called Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide) recommends that Canadian adults consume up to 10 servings of fruit and vegetables a day (depending on age and gender) and with a half-cup of juice counting as a single serving, it’s easy to see how a person might drink a few cups of fruit juice a day in order to try and meet that requirement.  The problem arises that even a single glass of orange juice can put you over the daily sugar limit recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

In March, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report entitled Guideline: Sugars intake for adult and children where it concluded that the world was consuming too much sugar and recommended that people cut their intake of sugar to the equivalent of just six to 12 teaspoons per day.

Many popular brands of 100% orange and apple juice sold in Canada contain as much as five teaspoons of sugar per serving so it’s easy to see that if the public is trying to meet their 7-10 servings of fruit and vegetables by drinking juice, they will be way over the WHO’s daily sugar limit.

A study from the UK that was just published 2 weeks ago in the European journal Diabetologia linked daily consumption of sweetened drinks including so-called “healthy” beverages like sweetened milk and fruit juice with increased diabetes risk. The study found that for each 5% increase of a person’s total energy intake provided by sweet drinks (even so-called “healthy ones” like chocolate milk and 100% juice) that the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes could rise by 18 %. The study also found that by replacing one sweetened drink with water or unsweetened tea or coffee per day could help cut the risk of developing diabetes by as much as 25%.

This most recent statement from the director of the Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion Hasan Hutchinson said the department is currently “reviewing the evidence base for its current guidance” to Canadians and that “depending on the conclusions of the scientific review, guidance for consumption (quantity and frequency) of various foods, including juice, could be updated in the future”. In my opinion, consumption of 100% fruit juice as equivalent to a serving of Vegetables and Fruit is not the only aspect of Canada’s Food Guide that Health Canada needs to re-evaluate.

Shift to a Carbohydrate-based Diet; how has that worked out?

Prior to 1977, Canada’s Food Guide recommended no more than 5 servings of bread or cereal per day for adults and now recommends 6-7 servings per day of Grain Products for women and up to 8 servings of Grain Products per day for men. In 1961, Canada’s Food Guide recommended only 1 serving of citrus fruit (as fruit) or a serving of tomatoes daily & only one other fruit.  Now adults can have any of the recommended 7-10 servings of Vegetables and Fruit per day as fruit (or juice). Even as actual servings of fruit, current recommendations can be chosen as 4-5 times the amount of fruit as in in 1961.

Since 1977 and in ever increasing amounts, Health Canada has shifted their recommendations away from healthy fats and low carbohydrate diets, towards diets where carbohydrates form the main source of calories.  Current recommendations are for 45-65% of calories to come from carbohydrate and only 20- 30% of calories from fat.  Our society has become “fat phobic” thinking all sources of fat are “bad”. People drink skim or 1% milk and eat 0% yogourt and low fat cheese; all the while making sure to have “enough’ carbohydrates; 6-8 servings of Grains Products (including bread, pasta and rice). Hidden as Vegetables are even more carbohydrates as the 7-10 servings of Vegetables and Fruit which are recommended for an adult to eat makes no distinction between starchy vegetables (like potatoes, yams, peas and corn) and non-starchy vegetables (like salad greens and asparagus or broccoli). People can literally eat all their Vegetable and Fruit servings as carbohydrate laden starchy vegetables and fruit and “meet” Canada’s Food Guide!

Canadians are encouraged to fill themselves up on toast or cereal for breakfast, sandwiches or rice for lunch and pasta or pizza (with “healthy toppings”) for supper; all in an effort to “meet” Canada’s Food Guide.

At the same time, people have been conditioned to avoid fats because they believe that fat is “bad”; while making no distinction between healthy fats from avocado, nuts, seeds and fatty fish and fats from chemically cured bacon and nitrite- laden sausage.

What Has Happened to Canada’s Obesity Rates since 1977?

In ever increasing amounts, Health Canada has recommended that we avoid fat and get 1/2 to 2/3 of our calories from carbohydrates? How has Canada’s obesity rate changed since then?

In 1978, only 15% of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.

By 2007, 29% of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.

By 2011, just the obesity prevalence for boys was 15.1% and for girls was 8.0% in 5- to 17 year olds.

What about adults?

The prevalence of obesity [body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2] in Canadian adults increased two and a half times; from 10% in 1970-72 to 26% in 2009-11.

In 1970-72 7.6% of men and 11.7% of women were considered obese.

In 2013, 20.1% of men and 17.4% of women were considered obese.

And looking at waist circumference rather than BMI, 37% of adults and 13% of youth are currently considered abdominally obese.

So how has Health Canada’s recommendations of a high carbohydrate low fat diet been working out?

Certainly there must be a better way?

There is.

More in my next blog.

In the meantime, if you would like to learn a better way to think about food why not contact me?

I can help you begin to tackle overweight or obesity in a way that encourages eating healthy fat and which are supported by current research literature.

I can also help you learn which sources of carbohydrate provide the best nutrition to meet your daily recommended nutrient intake for vitamins and minerals as well as how to eat in a way that can begin to tackle one of the main issues associated with being overweight; that of insulin resistance.

Click on the “Contact Us” tab above, to send me a note.


References

Canadian Medical Association Journal, Early Releases (May 11, 2015), Food Guide Under Fire at Obesity Summit, www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/11may15_food-guide-under-fire-at-obesity-summit.xhtml

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-food-guide-s-listing-of-juice-as-a-fruit-serving-called-bananas-1.3080658

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/will-fruit-juice-be-cut-from-canada-s-food-guide-1.2380960

Janssen I, The Public Health Burden of Obesity in Canada, Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 37 (2013), pg. 90-96

Nutrition Division, National Department of Health and Welfare (1961). Rules out – guide in. Canadian Nutrition Notes, 17(7):49-50 (cited in Health and Welfare Canada. Action towards healthy eating: technical report. 1990).

O’Connor, L, Imamura F, Lentjes M et al, Prospective associations and population impact of sweet beverage intake and type 2 diabetes, and effects of substitutions with alternative beverages, Diabetologia May 6, 2015 [Epub ahead of print]

Statistics Canada, Overweight and obese adults (self-reported) 2009, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2010002/article/11255-eng.htm

World Health Organization, Guideline: Sugars intake for adult and children, March 2015, http://who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugars_intake/en/

Note: Everyone's results following a LCHF lifestyle will differ as there is no one-size-fits-all approach and everybody's nutritional needs and health status is different. If you want to adopt this kind of lifestyle, please discuss it with your doctor, first.

Copyright ©2015 The LCHF-Dietitian (a division of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd.) 

LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this blog, including text, images and cited statistics as well as all other material contained here (the “content”) are for information purposes only.  The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, medical diagnosis and/or treatment and is not suitable for self-administration without the knowledge of your physician and regular monitoring by your physician. Do not disregard medical advice and always consult your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before implementing anything  you have read or heard in our content.