"Nutrition Advice" and "Good Will": commonly separated things. (Difficulty Level: Intermediate)
----------------
The title of this essay makes a claim (to which I provide a key example) - a claim that something other than good will is behind much of the nutrition advice that people on the whole are receiving from various "experts" and "institutions" (whether from government or the private sector). How is this possible? How could a recurrent underlying theme of unchecked bias run through the publications of scientific experts? Answer: money.
Now I am not a Marxist. In fact, I think that Marxists, when taken on the whole, are self-perpetuated ignorant fools (they persistently ignore some key facts). Instead, I am for a free market economy (as Church and State are separated for good reasons; so - ie. for the same reasons - should Economy and State be separated). How then can I criticize money for corrupting nutrition advice if I'm such a free market advocate? Answer: power.
Where is power found in the world today? Answer: institutions. How do institutions acquire the power they have? Answer: statist collectivism (the Big Brother effect of Orwell's 1984).
In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the citizens are given information by the media, which is controlled by the state-industrial complex of his novel. They are persistently told contradictory things to keep their minds numb to facts, and this allows them to be manipulated by a central power. But how can nutritional advice today compare to Big Brother indoctrinations? Here is an example (regarding advice on the growing epidemic of obesity):
People are told that "a-calorie-is-a-calorie." And they are told that, if you want to lose weight, then you must exercise more often and eat less - as dictated by the Energy Balance Equation (a mathematical equation which states that ENERGY IN (CALORIES EATEN) minus the ENERGY OUT (CALORIES EXPENDED) equals the ENERGY BALANCE (CALORIES STORED AS FAT).
Notice that if the calories expended in a day are more than the calories eaten (in that day), then the "calories stored as fat" will be a negative number; which really just means that you will lose fat that day.
On the surface, this seems quite reasonable as a means to advise the public on weight control. However, upon a close, comprehensive inspection, this equation becomes identified as something that is overly-simplisitic and, therefore, it has less utility, or usefulness, than is commonly recognized by the experts touting it (ie. it's not as "good for you to blindly follow" as the experts would have you believe).
Well, what am I really saying here? Answer: That all calories are not "created" equal - that there are unique effects from unique ways of taking in calories; and unique ways of burning them off.
Well, if what I'm really saying here is true, then where is my evidence? Note: Reasonable persons should always request evidence for any advice which they receive; especially advice on WHAT TO SPEND MONEY ON DAILY - such as advice on what to eat.
Here's a great question for experts (who wish to retain that title) to be forced to answer and explain: Have there been any controlled studies where a group of people ingested more calories (in relation to their body weight and activity level) than another group did - but were still found (in spite of ingesting more relative calories!) to lose more fat? Answer: Yes! (1)
A scientific review (1) which looks at the question of how there can EVER be LESS weight loss with MORE calorie deprivation (as predicted by the simple Energy Balance Equation), fails to find an adequate EXPLANATION of this unexpected finding. But the fact the Energy Balance Equation failed MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN GIVING NUTRITION ADVICE.
Notice how this discovery blows the Energy Balance Equation out of the water as far as a means or method of advice for us to blindly follow. If people can EVER lose more fat following the OPPOSITE of what the Energy Balance Equation simplistically predicts, then this equation should NOT be uncritically advocated.
In this review, a very important point is made evident. This point is where my "key example" of ill-willed experts offering us unjustifiable advice stems from. It is "important" if you have good will and care about empowering people with a greater means for weight control. So what's this point that many experts don't account for?
The point is that, whenever calories from fat or carbohydrates are replaced with calories from protein (as in high-protein diets), people lose more weight relative to the total amount of calories they've eaten. In other words, excess carbohydrates and fat are what make you fat, and protein - when eaten as a greater percentage of total calories - helps you lose fat.
If there is one thing you can tell someone in order to make them more fat, then tell them to eat less protein and more carbohydrates and fat (they will be able to gain some fat - even if they don't increase their total calories!).
But who wouldn't want us to know about the scientifically measured, fat-reducing effect of high-protein/low-carb/medium-fat diets? Answer: AgriBusiness (the largest food companies).
The largest food companies won't make as much profit (as they do now) from selling "high-protein" foods - in fact, they are sitting on a grain-based gold mine. Add to this the fact that they have millions (perhaps billions!) invested in the process of "lower-protein" grain production (white flours, which are cheapest to mass produce, are lowest in protein - among other nutrients). Telling folks how to best lose fat would hurt their profit-margins.
My reply to them is that "those are the breaks" in a free market: EITHER produce something actually valued (so that you can sell it to folks) OR take a profit loss.
But, instead of producing something of more value to folks (such as higher protein food that helps them control weight), they ignore the promising results of controlled studies that point to higher protein (but less profitable for them) foods helping people control their body weight.
Protein is consistently down-played (without good evidential support) by experts, while carbohydrates (higher-profit items) are consistently esteemed (again, without good evidential support that they are better sources of calories for us). You will even hear proclamations that we already eat too much protein (that we should eat even less) and that eating more is "unhealthy."
The $64,000-question: Is there any good evidence for this claim that more protein is "unhealthy"?
Here's a great string of questions for experts to be forced to answer and explain: Have there been any controlled studies where a group of people ingested more protein (than the RDA) and were more healthy for it? Have there been any controlled studies where a group of people ingested less protein (down to the RDA from a previous level that was above it) and were less healthy because of it? Are there healthy human societies (Greenland Eskimo, Australian Aborigine, African Masai, etc) that eat more than twice the protein that we do?
While it is true that there is always a dose that is "more than was needed" or that is "more than is healthy" (which are really just restatements of the maxim that "the dose makes the poison"); you will search in vain - as I have - for dozens and dozens of hours (at your local university biomedical library) for any good evidence of harm from "accidentally" eating too much protein.
So what risk DOES have evidential support in controlled studies? Answer: Only folks with pre-existing liver or kidney conditions have been harmed by "being too liberal" with the amount of protein they eat. And if you have a medical condition, then it is ALWAYS advisable to seek the advice of your professional health care specialist (rather than blindly following a statement made by me - or one made by anyone else).
To recap, NO CONTROLLED STUDIES show otherwise healthy folks DEVELOPING DISEASE from eating more protein.
A special note should be added here: people should be eating at least 7 servings of fruits and veggies per day (to capitalize on health benefits that have shown to be evident, measureable, and reproducible; over and over - in several studies)! If you are doing this "eating your 7," then you will be setting the stage for problem-free increases in protein intake.
IF YOU DON'T EAT fruits and veggies often or at all (note: don't count French Fries and ketchup as veggies!), then you may be at an unknown risk if you begin to eat lots of protein. In other words, by starting from such an unbalanced diet in the first place, you may be able to hurt yourself by unbalancing it even further. "Steak and salad" go together, and each one makes the other (by balancing nutrients) more healthy for us.
Extra note: It's also good to eat fish a couple times a week, as this balances out special nutrients called Essential Fatty Acids, which are not quite found in the proper balance in the meats that we commonly consume. Again, notice how the COMBINATION makes each individual food more healthy (individual foods should not be viewed in isolation).
Suggestions that you are invited to personally consider - based on my competence and good will (and not someone's profit margins):
-eating at least 49 servings of fruits & veggies a week (7 a day)
-eating fish twice a week
-for weight loss or control: eating a higher protein diet (25-35% of calories)
----------------
Reference:
1. Buchholz AC and Schoeller DA. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79(suppl):899S-906S
The title of this essay makes a claim (to which I provide a key example) - a claim that something other than good will is behind much of the nutrition advice that people on the whole are receiving from various "experts" and "institutions" (whether from government or the private sector). How is this possible? How could a recurrent underlying theme of unchecked bias run through the publications of scientific experts? Answer: money.
Now I am not a Marxist. In fact, I think that Marxists, when taken on the whole, are self-perpetuated ignorant fools (they persistently ignore some key facts). Instead, I am for a free market economy (as Church and State are separated for good reasons; so - ie. for the same reasons - should Economy and State be separated). How then can I criticize money for corrupting nutrition advice if I'm such a free market advocate? Answer: power.
Where is power found in the world today? Answer: institutions. How do institutions acquire the power they have? Answer: statist collectivism (the Big Brother effect of Orwell's 1984).
In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the citizens are given information by the media, which is controlled by the state-industrial complex of his novel. They are persistently told contradictory things to keep their minds numb to facts, and this allows them to be manipulated by a central power. But how can nutritional advice today compare to Big Brother indoctrinations? Here is an example (regarding advice on the growing epidemic of obesity):
People are told that "a-calorie-is-a-calorie." And they are told that, if you want to lose weight, then you must exercise more often and eat less - as dictated by the Energy Balance Equation (a mathematical equation which states that ENERGY IN (CALORIES EATEN) minus the ENERGY OUT (CALORIES EXPENDED) equals the ENERGY BALANCE (CALORIES STORED AS FAT).
Notice that if the calories expended in a day are more than the calories eaten (in that day), then the "calories stored as fat" will be a negative number; which really just means that you will lose fat that day.
On the surface, this seems quite reasonable as a means to advise the public on weight control. However, upon a close, comprehensive inspection, this equation becomes identified as something that is overly-simplisitic and, therefore, it has less utility, or usefulness, than is commonly recognized by the experts touting it (ie. it's not as "good for you to blindly follow" as the experts would have you believe).
Well, what am I really saying here? Answer: That all calories are not "created" equal - that there are unique effects from unique ways of taking in calories; and unique ways of burning them off.
Well, if what I'm really saying here is true, then where is my evidence? Note: Reasonable persons should always request evidence for any advice which they receive; especially advice on WHAT TO SPEND MONEY ON DAILY - such as advice on what to eat.
Here's a great question for experts (who wish to retain that title) to be forced to answer and explain: Have there been any controlled studies where a group of people ingested more calories (in relation to their body weight and activity level) than another group did - but were still found (in spite of ingesting more relative calories!) to lose more fat? Answer: Yes! (1)
A scientific review (1) which looks at the question of how there can EVER be LESS weight loss with MORE calorie deprivation (as predicted by the simple Energy Balance Equation), fails to find an adequate EXPLANATION of this unexpected finding. But the fact the Energy Balance Equation failed MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN GIVING NUTRITION ADVICE.
Notice how this discovery blows the Energy Balance Equation out of the water as far as a means or method of advice for us to blindly follow. If people can EVER lose more fat following the OPPOSITE of what the Energy Balance Equation simplistically predicts, then this equation should NOT be uncritically advocated.
In this review, a very important point is made evident. This point is where my "key example" of ill-willed experts offering us unjustifiable advice stems from. It is "important" if you have good will and care about empowering people with a greater means for weight control. So what's this point that many experts don't account for?
The point is that, whenever calories from fat or carbohydrates are replaced with calories from protein (as in high-protein diets), people lose more weight relative to the total amount of calories they've eaten. In other words, excess carbohydrates and fat are what make you fat, and protein - when eaten as a greater percentage of total calories - helps you lose fat.
If there is one thing you can tell someone in order to make them more fat, then tell them to eat less protein and more carbohydrates and fat (they will be able to gain some fat - even if they don't increase their total calories!).
But who wouldn't want us to know about the scientifically measured, fat-reducing effect of high-protein/low-carb/medium-fat diets? Answer: AgriBusiness (the largest food companies).
The largest food companies won't make as much profit (as they do now) from selling "high-protein" foods - in fact, they are sitting on a grain-based gold mine. Add to this the fact that they have millions (perhaps billions!) invested in the process of "lower-protein" grain production (white flours, which are cheapest to mass produce, are lowest in protein - among other nutrients). Telling folks how to best lose fat would hurt their profit-margins.
My reply to them is that "those are the breaks" in a free market: EITHER produce something actually valued (so that you can sell it to folks) OR take a profit loss.
But, instead of producing something of more value to folks (such as higher protein food that helps them control weight), they ignore the promising results of controlled studies that point to higher protein (but less profitable for them) foods helping people control their body weight.
Protein is consistently down-played (without good evidential support) by experts, while carbohydrates (higher-profit items) are consistently esteemed (again, without good evidential support that they are better sources of calories for us). You will even hear proclamations that we already eat too much protein (that we should eat even less) and that eating more is "unhealthy."
The $64,000-question: Is there any good evidence for this claim that more protein is "unhealthy"?
Here's a great string of questions for experts to be forced to answer and explain: Have there been any controlled studies where a group of people ingested more protein (than the RDA) and were more healthy for it? Have there been any controlled studies where a group of people ingested less protein (down to the RDA from a previous level that was above it) and were less healthy because of it? Are there healthy human societies (Greenland Eskimo, Australian Aborigine, African Masai, etc) that eat more than twice the protein that we do?
While it is true that there is always a dose that is "more than was needed" or that is "more than is healthy" (which are really just restatements of the maxim that "the dose makes the poison"); you will search in vain - as I have - for dozens and dozens of hours (at your local university biomedical library) for any good evidence of harm from "accidentally" eating too much protein.
So what risk DOES have evidential support in controlled studies? Answer: Only folks with pre-existing liver or kidney conditions have been harmed by "being too liberal" with the amount of protein they eat. And if you have a medical condition, then it is ALWAYS advisable to seek the advice of your professional health care specialist (rather than blindly following a statement made by me - or one made by anyone else).
To recap, NO CONTROLLED STUDIES show otherwise healthy folks DEVELOPING DISEASE from eating more protein.
A special note should be added here: people should be eating at least 7 servings of fruits and veggies per day (to capitalize on health benefits that have shown to be evident, measureable, and reproducible; over and over - in several studies)! If you are doing this "eating your 7," then you will be setting the stage for problem-free increases in protein intake.
IF YOU DON'T EAT fruits and veggies often or at all (note: don't count French Fries and ketchup as veggies!), then you may be at an unknown risk if you begin to eat lots of protein. In other words, by starting from such an unbalanced diet in the first place, you may be able to hurt yourself by unbalancing it even further. "Steak and salad" go together, and each one makes the other (by balancing nutrients) more healthy for us.
Extra note: It's also good to eat fish a couple times a week, as this balances out special nutrients called Essential Fatty Acids, which are not quite found in the proper balance in the meats that we commonly consume. Again, notice how the COMBINATION makes each individual food more healthy (individual foods should not be viewed in isolation).
Suggestions that you are invited to personally consider - based on my competence and good will (and not someone's profit margins):
-eating at least 49 servings of fruits & veggies a week (7 a day)
-eating fish twice a week
-for weight loss or control: eating a higher protein diet (25-35% of calories)
----------------
Reference:
1. Buchholz AC and Schoeller DA. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79(suppl):899S-906S
posted by Ed | 1:24 PM
1 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home