There is a lot of misinformation circling around in mainstream nutrition. I have listed the worst examples in this article, but unfortunately this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Here are the top 11 biggest lies, myths and misconceptions of mainstream nutrition. 1. Eggs Are Unhealthy There’s one thing that nutrition professionals have had remarkable success with… and that is demonizing incredibly healthy foods. The worst example of that is eggs, which happen to contain a large amount of cholesterol and were therefore considered to increase the risk of heart disease. But recently it has been proven that the cholesterol in the diet doesn’t really raise the cholesterol in blood. In fact, eggs primarily raise the “good” cholesterol and are NOT associated with increased risk of heart disease (1, 2). What we’re left with is one of the most nutritious foods on the planet. They’re high in all sorts of nutrients along with unique antioxidants that protect our eyes (3). To top it all of, despite being a “high fat” food, eating eggs for breakfast is proven to cause significant weight loss compared to bagels for breakfast (4, 5). Bottom Line: Eggs do not cause heart disease and are among the most nutritious foods on the planet. Eggs for breakfast can help you lose weight. 2. Saturated Fat is Bad For You A few decades ago it was decided that the epidemic of heart disease was caused by eating too much fat, in particular saturated fat. This was based on highly flawed studies and political decisions that have now been proven to be completely wrong. A massive review article published in 2010 looked at 21 prospective epidemiological studies with a total of 347,747 subjects. Their results: absolutely no association between saturated fat and heart disease (6). The idea that saturated fat raised the risk of heart disease was an unproven theory that somehow became conventional wisdom (7). Eating saturated fat raises the amount of HDL (the “good”) cholesterol in the blood and changes the LDL from small, dense LDL (very bad) to Large LDL, which is benign (8, 9). Meat, coconut oil, cheese, butter… there is absolutely no reason to fear these foods. Bottom Line: Newer studies have proven that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Natural foods that are high in saturated fat are good for you. 3. Everybody Should be Eating Grains The idea that humans should be basing their diets on grains has never made sense to me. The agricultural revolution happened fairly recently in human evolutionary history and our genes haven’t changed that much. Grains are fairly low in nutrients compared to other real foods like vegetables. They are also rich in a substance called phytic acid which binds essential minerals in the intestine and prevents them from being absorbed (10). The most common grain in the western diet, by far, is wheat… and wheat can cause a host of health problems, both minor and serious. Modern wheat contains a large amount of a protein called gluten, but there is evidence that a significant portion of the population may be sensitive to it (11, 12, 13). Eating gluten can damage the intestinal lining, cause pain, bloating, stool inconsistency and tiredness (14, 15). Gluten consumption has also been associated with schizophrenia and cerebellar ataxia, both serious disorders of the brain (16, 17). Bottom Line: Grains are relatively low in nutrients compared to other real foods like vegetables. The gluten grains in particular may lead to a variety of health problems. 4. Eating a Lot of Protein is Bad For Your Bones and Kidneys A high protein diet has been claimed to cause both osteoporosis and kidney disease. It is true that eating protein increases calcium excretion from the bones in the short term, but the long term studies actually show the opposite effect. In the long term, protein has a strong association with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture (18, 19). Additionally, studies don’t show any association of high protein with kidney disease in otherwise healthy people (20, 21). In fact, two of the main risk factors for kidney failure are diabetes and high blood pressure. Eating a high protein diet improves both (22, 23). If anything, a high protein diet should be protective against osteoporosis and kidney failure! Bottom Line: Eating a high protein diet is associated with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture. High protein also lowers blood pressure and improves diabetes symptoms, which should lower the risk of kidney failure. 5. Low-Fat Foods Are Good For You Do you know what regular food tastes like when all the fat has been taken out of it? Well, it tastes like cardboard. No one would want to eat it. The food manufacturers know this and therefore they add other things to compensate for the lack of fat. Usually these are sweeteners… sugar, high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners like aspartame. We’ll get to the sugar in a moment, but I’d like to point out that even though artificial sweeteners don’t have calories, the evidence does NOT suggest that they are better for you than sugar. In fact, many observational studies show a consistent, highly significant association with various diseases like obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, premature delivery and depression (24, 25, 26). In these low-fat products, healthy natural fats are being replaced with substances that are extremely harmful. Bottom Line: Low-fat foods are usually highly processed products loaded with sugar, corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. They are extremely unhealthy. 6. You Should Eat Many Small Meals Throughout The Day The idea that you should eat many small meals throughout the day in order to “keep metabolism high” is a persistent myth that doesn’t make any sense. It is true that eating raises your metabolism slightly while you’re digesting the meal, but it’s the total amount of food that determines the energy used, NOT the number of meals. This has actually been put to the test and refuted multiple times. Controlled studies where one group eats many small meals and the other the same amount of food in fewer meals show that there is literally no difference between the two (27, 28). In fact, one study in obese men revealed that eating 6 meals per day led to less feelings of fullness compared to 3 meals (29). Not only is eating so often practically useless for most of the people out there, it may even be harmful. It is not natural for the human body to be constantly in the fed state. In nature, we used to fast from time to time and we didn’t eat nearly as often as we do today. When we don’t eat for a while, a cellular process called autophagy cleans waste products out of our cells (30). Fasting or not eating from time to time is good for you. Several observational studies show a drastically increased risk of colon cancer (4th most common cause of cancer death), numbers going as high as a 90% increase for those who eat 4 meals per day compared to 2 (31, 32, 33). Bottom Line: There is no evidence that eating many small meals throughout the day is better than fewer, bigger meals. Not eating from time to time is good for you. Increased meal frequency is associated with colon cancer. 7. Carbs Should Be Your Biggest Source of Calories The mainstream view is that everyone should eat a low-fat diet, with carbs being around 50-60% of total calories. This sort of diet contains a lot of grains and sugars, with very small amounts of fatty foods like meat and eggs. This type of diet may work well for some people, especially those who are naturally lean. But for those who are obese, have the metabolic syndrome or diabetes, this amount of carbohydrates is downright dangerous. This has actually been studied extensively. A low-fat, high-carb diet has been compared to a low-carb, high-fat diet in multiple randomized controlled trials. The results are consistently in favor of low-carb, high-fat diets (34, 35, 36). Bottom Line: The low-fat, high-carb diet is a miserable failure and has been proven repeatedly to be vastly inferior to lower-carb, higher-fat diets. 8. High Omega-6 Seed and Vegetable Oils Are Good For You Polyunsaturated fats are considered healthy because some studies show that they lower your risk of heart disease. But there are many types of polyunsaturated fats and they are not all the same. Most importantly, we have both Omega-3 fatty acids and Omega-6 fatty acids. Omega-3s are anti-inflammatory and lower your risk of many diseases related to inflammation (37). Humans actually need to get Omega-6s and Omega-3s in a certain ratio. If the ratio is too high in favor of Omega-6, it can cause problems (38). By far the biggest sources of Omega-6 in the modern diet are processed seed and vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower oils. Throughout evolution, humans never had access to such an abundance of Omega-6 fats. It is unnatural for the human body. Research that specifically looks at Omega-6 fatty acids instead of polyunsaturated fats in general shows that they actually increase the risk of heart disease (39, 40). Eat your Omega-3s and consider supplementing with cod fish liver oil, but avoid the industrial seed and vegetable oils. Bottom Line: Humans need to get Omega-6 and Omega-3 fats in a certain ratio. Eating excess Omega-6 from seed oils raises your risk of disease. 9. Low Carb Diets Are Dangerous I personally believe low-carb diets to be a potential cure for many of the most common health problems in western nations. The low-fat diet peddled all around the world is fairly useless against many of these diseases. It simply does not work. However, low-carb diets (demonized by nutritionists and the media) have repeatedly been shown to lead to much better outcomes. Every randomized controlled trial on low-carb diets shows that they:
Bottom Line: Low-carb diets are the healthiest, easiest and most effective way to lose weight and reverse metabolic disease. It is a scientific fact. 10. Sugar is Unhealthy Because it Contains “Empty” Calories It is commonly believed that sugar is bad for you because it contains empty calories. It’s true, sugar has a lot of calories with no essential nutrients. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sugar, primarily because of its high fructose content, affects metabolism in a way that sets us up for rapid fat gain and metabolic disease. Fructose gets metabolized by the liver and turned into fat which is secreted into the blood as VLDL particles. This leads to elevated triglycerides and cholesterol (57, 58). It also causes resistance to the hormones insulin and leptin, which is a stepping stone towards obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes (59, 60). This is just to name a few. Sugar causes a relentless biochemical drive for humans to eat more and get fat. It is probably the single worst ingredient in the standard western diet. Bottom Line: The harmful effects of sugar go way beyond empty calories. Sugar wreaks havoc on our metabolism and sets us up for weight gain and many serious diseases. 11. High Fat Foods Will Make You Fat It seems kind of intuitive that eating fat would make you get fat.The stuff that is gathering under our skin and making us look soft and puffy is fat. So… eating fat should give our bodies even more of it. But it isn’t that simple. Despite fat having more calories per gram than carbohydrate or protein, high-fat diets do not make people fat. As with anything, this depends on the context. A diet that is high in fat AND high in carbs will make you fat, but it’s NOT because of the fat. In fact, diets that are high in fat (and low in carbs) cause much greater fat loss than diets that are low in fat (61, 62, 63). Source: https://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-nutrition/
0 Comments
Here’s a sobering thought: advice doctors and dietitians give diabetics worldwide makes the condition life-threatening. University of Cape Town emeritus professor Dr Tim Noakes has set up The Noakes Foundation to do independent research into issues that include diabetes. Here, looks at why conventional medical and dietetic advice on diabetes is likely to be wrong. For starters, he shows why it has little if any science to back it up. Along the way, he shows why diabetes may turn out to be the most egregious example yet of iatrogenic (doctor-caused) disease. – Marika Sboros By Tim Noakes* My interest in the dietary management of diabetes stems from watching my father’s rapid downward physical decent in the years after he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); the diagnosis of T2DM in myself; and my reading of the “alternative” literature which convinces me that T2DM does not have to be an inevitably progressive disease: My conclusion is that unlike my father, it is not my pre-ordained fate to die from the final common pathway in fatal T2DM – disseminated obstructive arterial disease. But to achieve that I will have to ignore what I was taught and which, in turn, I have conveyed to two generations of students: So to prevent the development of the disseminated obstructive arterial disease of T2DM, I will have to follow dietary practices that are the polar opposite of those my father was advised to adopt and which hastened his death; advice that I personally practised for 33 years and which ultimately caused me also to develop T2DM. How could I have been so wrong? An article in the July 2016 issue of the magazine, Longevity, identifies the intellectual source of my errors. The article written by a “nutrition expert” seeks to explain why “foods that are minimally processed, such as starch that needs cooking, should provide most of the diabetic’s fuel for energy” (p. 44). The evidence is that “nutrients that increase the risk of diabetes are excess calories, high-GI/GL diets, animal fat and heme-iron (from meat). Nutrients that decrease the risk of developing diabetes are total fibre, cereal fibre, low GI/GL diets, plant-based foods, magnesium and vitamin D”. As a result food that are “out” for diabetics are “high protein intakes (more than 120-150g protein per day), red meat (unprocessed meat increases risk by 19% and processed meat by 51%), eggs (five to six eggs per day), white rice and sugar-sweetened beverages. Individual foods that decrease the diabetes risk are dairy, green leafy vegetables, whole grains (three portions per day), moderate alcohol and moderate coffee” (p 45). The problem with this advice is that it has no basis in hard science; it is a best guess based on studies that are too flawed to allow any firm conclusions. And certainly none good enough to tackle the one disease that poses the single greatest threat to the future of medicine as we currently understand it. To prove that each of these nutrients either causes or prevents T2DM would require at least 20 different 40-year studies in which we compared two groups of identical humans, all the members of the one group who eat the nutrient of interest in the correct amounts whilst all members of the other group do not. No other difference in any behaviour would be allowed between the 2 groups in our 20 separate studies. At the end of 40 years we would be able to determine which of those 20 nutrients, if any, either caused T2DM to be more or less prevalent in our tested groups. So to prove that, for example, 5 or 6 eggs a day causes T2DM whereas fewer than 5 does not (the inference from this statement), would require a 40 year study in which we compared two groups of identical humans, all the members of the one group ate “5 or 6” eggs a day, the other group’s members fewer than 5 eggs a day. Key is that the only allowed difference between the two groups must be the number of eggs eaten per day; nothing else may differ. We call this a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Ideally our RCT would require us to admit the two groups to jail to ensure that we can control everything in their lives (including how many eggs they each eat each day; how much exercise they do each day; whether or not they marry; how much they sleep each night etc etc etc). Unfortunately there is no other way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a single particular foodstuff is the direct and sole cause of a specific medical condition. Realizing that such studies are essentially impossible, influential US scientists directing research funding in the 1970s decided on a convenient scientific short cut. They agreed that, to save costs and allow the nutrition sciences to progress, they would in future accept findings from less rigorous research designs as valid “proof” of causation. So instead for the past 40 years, the nutrition sciences have been swamped by the cheaper alternative – observational (associational) studies (not experiments) that require only that specific populations be observed for decades as they go about their normal lives (without any experimental intervention). During their lives, the foods that each research subject eats is recorded on the assumption that this is an accurate measure of what each ate for the full duration of the study. Then the diseases that each participant develops during life are recorded with particular interest on when and why they died. The nutritional data are then analyzed to discover exactly which nutrients were eaten in excess by those who died from specific diseases. This method is based on one overriding assumption – that common diseases are caused by an excess intake of a single nutrient (with no other factor playing any role). As a result “proof” in this method is based on the circular argument shown below: But if this core assumption is untrue, the method will likely cause us to draw false conclusions. With potentially devastating consequences. But the real limitation of this experimental method is that, because it cannot exclude what we term “selection bias”, it can never prove that a single nutrient causes a specific disease. Selection bias means simply that the single nutrient that one wishes to study – for example eating less than 5 eggs a day – can never be isolated from other behaviours and choices that co-exist in persons who choose to eat less (or more) than 5 eggs a day. Simply put a person eating 6 eggs a day is likely to be unusual in many ways other than just her devotion to eating eggs. And as a result of her egg addiction, what foods does she choose to avoid and how might that choice of avoidance also influence her long-term health? For the evidence clearly establishes that healthy people make a range of healthy choices – they tend to eat the diet that they are told is healthy; they exercise regularly and they avoid smoking and excessive weight gain. How is one ever to know if their health is the result of their exercising and avoidance of weight gain and smoking, rather than their choice to avoid eating a particular nutrient in excess? Indeed it is not impossible that their “healthy” diet might actually be unhealthy, if this harmful effect is obscured by the overriding benefits of exercise, leanness and not smoking. The point is that we cannot continue to justify giving dietary advice based solely on the findings only from longitudinal associational studies that cannot prove causation. Especially when the more vigorously we have championed that advice, the more rapidly has the obesity/T2DM epidemic grown into a global pandemic. Indeed I argue that the very reason we are facing an uncontrollable global diabetes/obesity pandemic at the moment, is because we have promoted dietary guidelines that are based solely on “evidence” from associational studies without acknowledging that RCTs have either not supported those conclusions or might have actively disproved them. The solution in my mind is that we need to give dietary advice to persons with diabetes, T2DM especially, based on our understanding of the underlying patho-physiology of the condition, not on false information provided by associational epidemiological studies that are unable to prove causation. I suggest that we know a number of features of the abnormal biology of T2DM with absolutely certainty. And these are: 1. Persons with T2DM are intolerant of carbohydrate. Thus it makes sense to restrict their dietary carbohydrate intakes as much as possible. 2. Persons with T2DM are intolerant of carbohydrates because they have insulin resistance. Which requires that they continually over-secrete insulin in response to carbohydrate (and to a lesser extent protein ingestion). Thus T2DM is a disease of insulin excess (hyperinsulinaemia). The multitude of complications that develop in this condition, most especially the obstructive arterial disease, are a result of this hyperinsulinaemia (and associated non-alcoholic fatty liver disease – NAFLD). 3. Persons with T2DM treated with insulin have a poorer long-term outcome than those who use little or no insulin. This is because more insulin (either secreted internally from the pancreas or injected) worsens the underlying insulin resistance setting up a vicious cycle: More insulin resistance requires more insulin that in turn produces more insulin resistance, worsening the T2DM. 4. Thus the goal of treatment in T2DM (as in Type I diabetes mellitus (T1DM)) must be to minimize the use of insulin, either secreted internally or injected. Dietary intervention in the form of a very restricted carbohydrate intake with a moderate protein intake and a high intake of healthy fats will minimize insulin secretion and reduce hyperinsulinaemia. This is the type of diet that was used in all children with T1DM before the discovery of insulin in the early 1920s. 5. Of the three dietary macronutrients, only dietary carbohydrates are non-essential. Thus it is established that the minimal daily dietary requirement for carbohydrate is zero grams per day. 6. Even in persons with T2DM eating 25-50g carbohydrate/day, the liver produces an excess of glucose (from protein and fat). As a result blood glucose concentrations are elevated in T2DM – one of the diagnostic hallmark features of the disease. 7. The statement that glucose is the sole fuel for human brain activity is false – the brain has a great capacity to use alternate fuels, both ketones and lactate for its energy needs. The corollary that persons with T2DM must eat carbohydrates to insure adequate brain function is also false. In fact brain glucose uptake is already maximal at a blood glucose concentration of 1.5mmol/L whereas blood glucose concentrations even in T2DM patients eating 25-50g carbohydrate/day is seldom less than 5mmol/L. 8. Both in healthy normals and in persons with T2DM, the single most important determinant of the blood glucose concentration and especially the rise after meals, including the rise in blood insulin concentrations, is the amount of glucose delivered from the gut. Which in turn is a direct function of the amount of carbohydrate that is ingested. 9. Thus it makes absolute sense that the crucial intervention to regulate blood glucose (and insulin) concentrations in persons with T2DM, is to limit the amount of carbohydrate they are advised/allowed to eat. Intermittent fasting is another technique to insure that blood insulin concentrations remain low. 10. My father did not die (nor will I) because his brain was not receiving enough glucose. He died because he developed disseminated obstructive arterial disease. Thus the prevention of the fatal complications in T2DM requires that we understand what causes arterial disease in T2DM. 11. The arterial damage that occurs in T2DM is due to a continual state of hyperinsulinaemia associated with abnormalities in blood glucose and lipid concentrations, the latter caused by NAFLD. The key blood markers of this atherogenic dyslipidaemia are the following:
Thus it seems clear to me what diets we who have T2DM should be following. It surely is not rocket-science! On the basis of this hard scientific evidence, I have made my choice. But I am always open to modification, should new information, based on credible scientific evidence from appropriately robust scientific methods, show there is an even better way. Reference: Freemantle S. Diabetes: A Global Epidemic. Longevity. July 2016, pp 37-48.
Source: http://foodmed.net/2016/07/06/noakes-do-doctors-dietitians-make-diabetes-a-threat-to-life/
Eating healthily all the time can be a big challenge. With 57 per cent of women and 67 per cent of men in the UK now overweight, it’s clear that conventional dietary advice isn’t working. Our obesity epidemic is out of control — and although we try our best to ‘eat less and exercise more’, we are only getting sicker and fatter. All that received wisdom has succeeded in doing is to fuel a billion-pound diet industry, while turning us into a nation of sugar-guzzling, disillusioned yo-yo dieters. But pioneering academics and medics in the U.S. and South Africa have compiled a mountain of research to show that the endlessly promoted low-fat, carbohydrate-based diet recommended by dietitians and nutritionists around the world is not only ineffectual, but may in fact be to blame for making us fat and unhealthy. They now believe that, regardless of our weight, we should all be eating MORE fat, not less, and cutting back severely on carbohydrates — particularly sugar. In Saturday’s paper, leading British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra set out the case for a radical change of thinking to embrace a low-carbohydrate diet high in healthy fats as the key to ending our obesity epidemic and slowing the escalation of diabetes and heart disease. All this week, the Daily Mail is serializing a new book by Karen Thomson, the great-granddaughter of pioneering South African heart surgeon Dr Christiaan Barnard. You could lose as much as a stone in a month without cravings or hunger, and set yourself up for a lifetime of healthy eating — without ever having to worry about dieting againKaren, like Dr Malhotra, believes a low-carb, healthy fat diet (LCHF) is the most beneficial way to eat. She is convinced this is the only safe route out of the sugar addiction that hinders so much of our healthy eating resolve — and that it’s the key to losing weight, staying slim and feeling fabulous forever. In today’s paper, we outline the fundamentals and get you started on your weight-loss journey with a five-day meal plan and delicious recipes to entice you into a new LCHF way of life. Over the coming days, we’ll give you tips and tricks to stay at it — and delicious daily recipes so you’ll never feel hungry. You could lose as much as a stone in a month without cravings or hunger, and set yourself up for a lifetime of healthy eating — without ever having to worry about dieting again The Effortless Way To Beat Cravings The new approach is all about re-thinking what you eat and it starts with the simplest of steps: cutting down sugar-rich foods in your diet. Even if we don’t realize it, most of us eat 22 teaspoons of sugar a day — that’s 350 empty calories our bodies don’t need. Remove it and we’d all be on course for effortless slenderness. Simple? Well, not quite. Sugar has a sting in its tail. It is highly addictive. The sugar-rich, carbohydrate-heavy diet on which so many of us have depended for decades plus the proliferation of sugary snacks available and the power of advertising by big food manufacturers have left many of us hooked on sugar and starchy foods. With these so much a part of our lives, quitting completely can seem impossible — but that’s the sugar talking. Over the coming days, we will show you how to do it. Even if carbohydrates have been the staple of your diet since you were a child, and if sweets are your reward, chocolate your treat and puddings your joy, you CAN do this. Diet That Makes You Slim And Healthy The healthiest and easiest way to quit sugar and lose weight is to adopt a diet low in carbohydrates and high in healthy fats. Although this is diametrically opposed to much conventional dietary advice, it is a medically accepted regimen, which is gaining interest and gathering expert backing across the world. It has a massive social media following, with highly respected medics arguing that it is the ONLY healthy way to lose weight and protect against diabetes and heart disease. To take one example, respected American dietary expert Dr Gary Taubes recently argued that tackling obesity isn’t about changing how much you eat, but what you eat. He and many other experts all now believe that LCHF is the answer. THE GOLDEN RULES TO MAKE THE LOW-CARB HEALTHY-FAT DIET SO SIMPLE The Low-Carb Healthy-Fat diet (LCHF) is designed to keep carbohydrate intake low, depending on how active you are and how quickly you want to lose weight. If getting slimmer, rather than general health, is your first concern, use weight loss mode (below) as your model, switching to health mode when your aim has been achieved.
In its modern incarnation, it was designed not as a short-term ‘miracle weight loss’ program, but as a long-term healthy way to eat. Yet the bonus people have found is that they can lose up to a stone in a month, without counting calories and without feeling hungry. This is because our bodies process the foods we eat in different ways. With a typical carbohydrate-based diet, carbs are converted into blood sugar, which your body burns for energy. Any excess sugar is converted to fat (under instruction from the hormone insulin) and stored away. But if you restrict carbohydrates to 30-50g a day or less, your body can no longer get the energy it needs from sugars, so it has to bring in other mechanisms and fuels. This is where fat comes in. You can get all the energy you need from fat stored around your body and from the fat in your food — there is very little physiological need for carbohydrates, and no place for sugar at all. It's a good idea to practice portion control for proteins and fats, and lower your intake of ‘dense’ or starchy vegetables. The key to harnessing LCHF for weight loss is keeping your total carbohydrates below 30-50g a day. This liberates the body from the tyranny of sugar addiction and helps you lose excess weight naturally. But cutting right down on carbohydrates isn’t easy, unless you stock up on healthy fats to silence cravings and keep you feeling full. If you’re active — that is, you exercise regularly or your job keeps you on your feet — or you’re happy about your weight, you should be able to tick along on a higher carbohydrate intake — up to 80 g a day — and still reap the banting benefits. But the plan only works if your carbohydrates come not from pasta, rice, bread and doughnuts, but from whole foods such as vegetables, pulses and fruits, which are packed with nutrients and which your body metabolizes slowly. The good news is, you won’t need to count calories. The new balance of nutrients and healthy fats in your diet should mean you’re not plagued by cravings. But if you’re a sugar addict, your body could be well-practiced at overriding natural satiety (fullness) signals. If you suspect you might have addiction issues, you will need to re-teach yourself to listen and monitor matters until your dietary intake is back under your body’s natural control. To succeed, you need to reappraise old ideas about nutrition. Fabulous Fats To adapt to having no sugar and far fewer carbs in your life, you have to put something back — and this is likely to mean eating more healthy fats than you were used to. It might seem counter-intuitive if you want to lose weight but fats slow digestion, keeping you feeling full. They are your secret weapon against sugar cravings. And plenty of respected studies now show that most fats — even saturated fats — are very, very good for your health. This dietary change is what many people find hardest to get their heads around — but don’t go crazy and ignore the portion size suggestions above. If you graze on nuts or tuck into tubs of yoghurt all day, you will consume too many calories for the diet’s weight-loss effects to work. Yet if you follow the advice on these pages, you can start slimming — and feeling fabulous — in no time. If you have diabetes or high blood pressure or are on any form of medication, check with your GP before making any dietary changes. There’s lots of research to show an LCHF diet brings blood pressure down if it’s high and can help to normalize blood sugar levels if you have diabetes (type 1 or 2). So keep a close eye on your blood pressure and blood sugar levels and be prepared to adjust your medication accordingly. Don’t do this without consulting your GP. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-3672595/Cut-carbs-quit-sugar-feel-fabulous-s-food-revolution-ll-make-slimmer-happier-s-blissfully- Is there enough scientific evidence supporting the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans? Not according to this article:
ResearchGate: Problems with the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans For example there’s no sound evidence for allowing about half of all grains to be refined (!) or for the truly old and moldy recommendation to eat low-fat dairy and to avoid natural saturated fats. There’s even is a great risk that these guidelines lead to higher risk of diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes etc. This means that you’re likely better off going against the recommendations by consuming natural foods such as meat, fish, eggs, natural fats and vegetables, rather than foods low in saturated fats and sodium, but full of grains and industrial oils. Source: http://www.dietdoctor.com/problems-american-dietary-guidelines |