Download the full text article here
Ancient foods causing new diseases
Recently an analysis of the only six dietary trials that have been published before the dietary recommendations were introduced in 1977 US and UK 1983 in 2500 sick men was performed. It was revealed that there was no evidence in support of their introduction.
You can read the full text article published in OpenHeart BMJ that trigerred the headlines in the news last week here. It has also been commented in Daily Mail, Express, Time, The Telegraph and The Guardian and in many more.
The first dietary guidelines introduced in 1977 in the US advocated a high sugar diet (made of 50-60% sugar).
The policy proposed primarily that grains and toxic industrial oils - margarines and other seed oils - should replace ancient real foods - animal fats, eggs, dairy and meat.
Thus ancient foods, eaten for millines, were blamed to cause new diseases, in particular heart disease. At the time by pure coincidence it happened that smoking prevalence in these countries was at its peak. The same nutritional policy was institutionalised by governments around the world in the following years. UK followed suit in 1983. Above the newest and most hideous graphical representation of UK recommendations, full of grains and processed food, to which most brits abide to.
These guidelines were based solely on engrained beliefs and are without scientific foundation. They represent essentially a set of lies supporting the corporate US commercial interests.
There was no valid and reliable (experimental) scientific evidence to support such dietary policy at the time when it was proposed, nor has this evidence been produced since. That is simply because the hypothesis that was first proposed - that dietary fat was the culprit for heart disease - was false. However the results of this big experiment which enrolled the whole US and UK population are rather remarkable as the figure above highlights (data from CDC here).
Anyone in possession of a human brain needs cholesterol
After 40 years of reinforcing the a completely erroneous policy, the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee reported last week that cholesterol is no longer “considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption” confirming thus accumulating research findings since the 1950's that contradicted the diet-heart hypothesis. In practical dietary terms, westerners were vigorously advised to avoid eggs, cheese, animal fats and meats in favour of the fake plastic "foods" developed by a benevole industrial machinery ready to save everybody from clogging artery saturated fats.
How can such blunders pass silently trough a ignorant public opinion when they affect millions of lives around the world and cause more disease and sufferance than any other plague?
Which organisations stand to benefit and what strategies they employ?
Why are the dietary authorities continue with their dangerous recommendations? They are dangerous because the advice to exchange saturated fat and cholesterol with carbohydrates has been followed by worldwide epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. The people that institutionalised this wicked policy are clearly responsible and need to be held accountable.
In the mean time the chief advisors for the government and NHS are on the pay roll of the chemical conglomerates (so called processed food) that are using the tobacco model to spread misinformation and corrupt scientists. You can read more in an investigation performed by British Medical Journal: How Sweet It Is to Be Funded by Big Sugar.
Official dietary guidelines have also spawned the lucrative statin industry – blockbuster cholesterol - lowering drugs that have become the most prescribed drug on the planet bringing in more than 25 billion $ per year.
Looking like you're living in the gansta's paradise?
The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest defrauder of the US federal government under the False Claims Act. Roche led a cartel that, according to the US Justice Department’s antitrust division, was the most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy ever uncovered. Multibillion dollar fines have been levied on all of the big companies (almost all in the USA), though the company’s profits are so huge they are regarded as marketing expenses.
The power to change is really in your hand
How long will it take you to start researching about this issue and stop relying on corrupt and commercially driven guidelines?
It took me 3 months of research to realise that 50% of what I've been taught on my degree was utter BS.
You may be able to do better. Start by reading/listening/following these people if you have a doubt that the experts that write the official guidelines are corrupt and biased.
>>> Next time
To connect the dots, follow me as I will analyse the evidence from RCTs supporting a diet based on grains. In particular, I will summarise whether a diet based on whole grains - which is being tutted consistently as the mantra for metabolic health - is better than one based on refined grains - arguably the worst that you can consume.
Brief answer: depends what commercial interests you have or protect.
From a health perspective you have to be wise and look at the whole picture. Let's have a brief look at what organic entails and who's barking against it.
A new study finds that organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants:
- phenolic acids 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %,
- flavanones 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %,
- stilbenes 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %,
- flavones 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %,
- flavonols 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and
- anthocyanins 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher,
respectively and lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.
Sounds pretty common sense to me that if you use less chemicals on the plants that you grow there will be less toxic residues in your foods. And they taste better compared with the bland vegetables that are grown in an industrial way.
You can switch to organic farming if you
- Maintain the fertility and biological activity of the soil.
- Increase soil quality by multi-annual crop rotation including legumes and other green manure crops.
- Feed your organic livestock only 100 per cent organic feed that meets their needs at that stage of their development - either from your own or a neighbouring farm. Certain exceptions may apply - eg if 100 per cent organic feed is unavailable in your area, you can provide feed from an in-conversion holding. If you cannot get certain organic ingredients, you may be able to include non-organic ingredients approved for use in organic feeds.
- Feed suckling animals only with natural milk, preferably maternal.
- Use livestock manure or organic material - preferably composted from organic production - either from your own or a neighbouring farm.
- Stop the use of growth promoters, synthetic amino acids, herbicides and pesticides in your system.
- You are only permitted to use substances from an authorised list
- You must display labels showing where your organic products were farmed
- You must ensure that at least 95 per cent of the produce ingredients are organic to label a produce as ‘organic’
- You must not use genetically modified (GM) organisms or products produced from or by these in organic production
Follow the money
Yes they are more expensive because there are more costs involved by farming this way and this way of farming is not supported by subsidies. Our food system is designed to drive overproduction of commodity crops—supplying the cheap wheat, corn, soy and rapeseed that drive factory farms and corporate profits. These cheap crops are essential for manufacturing processed foods that drive chronic diseases.
Who's barking against it and why?
Prof Tom Sanders, head of the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division at King's College London's School of Medicine, said: "This article is misleading because it refers to antioxidants in plants as if they were a class of essential nutrients, which they are not."
Does sugar play an essential role here?
One of the UK government’s most trusted scientists on diet, sugar and heart disease, Professor Tom Sanders, has been given £4.5 million towards his research by sugar giant Tate & Lyle.
The human requirement for added sugar is ZERO grams/day. There is no established essential requirement for carbohydrates in the scientific literature despite the fact that we are being fed 60% of our diet.
What can you do?
By purchasing sustainable foods from your local farmer or grocery store, you support the farmers who are raising food responsibly and actively encourage the growth of a more sustainable food system.
I personally go to Harringay Market and buy my raw unpasteurised milk, chicken livers and other real foods.
Or in any other addictive & toxic industrial product that the corporations idiotised you to believe that is food. With the lessons from tobacco, they get you addicted to combinations of sugar, salt, fat and multiple chemicals (1) and recruiting the adversing machinery to educate you.
The term calorie is a French-derived term denoting “unit of heat”. It appears that Nicholas Clément introduced calories in lectures on heat engines that were given in Paris around 1820′s.
In 1863, the word entered the English language through translation of Ganot’s popular French physics text, which defined a Calorie as the heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water from 0 to 1°C!!! - that’s what a calorie still is.
When used in nutrition calories measure the heat value of a food. As you may be aware, real food has many other values. One of them is nutrient density! So maybe not just because these words look pretty similar (nutrition/nutrients) it would be more useful to assess foods regarding this value.
The original method used to determine the number of calories in a given food directly measured the energy it produced. The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water (the bomb calorimeter).
Because at that time scientists were lacking the tools to measure how feeding humans certain foods would raise the temperature of surrounding water they build the closest equivalent to the human machinery – an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter – pictured bellow.
The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured (2). From there the scientists concluded that calories measured in this state of the art sealed container represent the amount of energy that these foods will produce in the human body. That is because they reasoned that the sealed container surrounded by water is practically a human. Great job, isn’t it?
One little problem with this device is that it cannot tell the difference between four organic eggs and a freshly made (medium size) dog shit -Coco POOPS – even though they both yield 220 calories.
To this day our knowledge about how the body expends that energy once consumed is pretty scarce. We can be certain however that it’s in our recent history that the population started being fed toxic crap Coco POOPS. This might be a clue as to why our generation is the sickest in history.
How did we get here?
Obviously through poor science and clever marketing but mostly thorough our ignorance. The processed food industry uses the calorie obsession to push on au-pair status their toxic industrial crap with real foods. That allows them to paddle the idea that “all calories count, no matter where they come from”- Coke speak. They create armies of stupid dieticians (read more here) and roll out thousands of graduates brainwashed to carry on their message: all that matters is maintaining the calories in equal to calories out. You can read more about how
What to do?
Eat just real food! Real food is produced on a sustainable farm, not in a factory. Real food does not need a label and you shouldn’t care how much heat you can produce with it if you burn it.
Be wiser than the scientists: if you want to heat some water turn on your kettle instead!
Next, Step 3: What’s Real Food? Learn to distinguish real food from industrial crap!
Step 1. Fire your nutritionist, dietician, personal trainer
Or anyone else who's literally advising you on how to get fat, although you are paying them to support you in your quest to get leaner.
Most dieticians sell industrial crap with a stupid smile on their faces. Their pervert advice has a very low professional standard. Tragically they have an important contribution to the mass misinformation and (in my view) are accomplice responsible for diet related conditions such as femaleathletetriad, diabetes , heart disease, cancer and other diet related diseases that millions suffer from today.
You cannot simply believe that even a top athlete is not exercising enough and eating too much! Rooney is not in his best shape (both aesthetically and as a football player) but to he must be doing intense and extensive exercise sessions at his home club or with England's team. I assume he is working out 4 to 6 hours daily at top level.
If you are relying on professionals that are ignorant towards the modern science of nutrition (be it scant and rather poorly done) and they do advise you to be in fat storage mode, it's time to get a new one! If they believe and preach the "eat less, exercise more" dogma you are in trouble.
That is equal to your plumber telling you that it's your fault for the leaks that drip from his recently completed plumbing work! You should keep the water mains switched off permanently to avoid them, they may argue.
It may sound bizarre but I cannot think of any other profession where the effectiveness is so low that we'd be better without it. After all we did just fine for 2.5 million years without no one telling us what to eat.
How did we get here?
In 1977 millions of Americans were unwillingly enrolled in the biggest dietary "experiment" (BIGEx) of all times (1). This was done in utter ignorance of scientific method (not even one intervention trial to support it) and based solely on a terribly poor associational study (2) with cherry picked data. The Americans, and the world afterwards, was brainwashed into believing that somehow ancients foods were causing new diseases: in this case heart disease.
The lad pictured is Senator McGovern, who led the committee that wrote the report. They also tried to persuade sheep that eating grass will cause them to become sick and therefore should switch to eating Monsanto GMO soy instead.
At the time more than half of the Americans were smoking (duh). This had maybe to do with he fact that their doctors were advertising Camel cigarettes. We will come back to this parallel because it's really important. BIG Food and BiGger than ever Tobacco are literally the same industry.
If you are in the nutrition field or you want to get to the bottom of this you should read Gary Taubes' book (3). You can briefly read a history of the how their dietary guidelines enfolded (4) or watch what happened since (Obesity boom video). It may have occurred to you whilst walking on our streets.
What to do?
If you are getting free advice/marketing that sounds like the above guidelines (i.e. eat less saturated fat, count calories, eat "healthy" whole grains, everything in moderation etc.) ignore it, unless you want to get the diseases that are obvious primary outcomes of the BIGEx: obesity, diabetes and even cancer.
If you are paying for a plumber or a nutritionist/dietician that gives you such crappy advice, fire them straight away!
Next time I'll blog about Calories! You'll find out what how many calories in a medium size dog shit (sugar coated) and how a measure of heat from thermodynamics was set up as a biology law.