Follow the science, at least on nutrition

Even if we hew to politicized science on Covid and climate, can’t we do real science on food?

Paul Driessen

If we’ve learned anything from the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s the importance of solid, up-to-date scientific information – and the regulatory flexibility necessary to respond quickly to new information. At least with some aspects of Covid prevention and treatment, “follow the science” became the guiding mantra, as sustained inquiry into the corona virus progressed at warp-speed, leading to scientific breakthroughs and three vaccines in only months, rather than the normal years or even decades.

However, related research also confirmed the truth that a healthy diet is key to preventing, managing and recovering from Covid-19 (and other diseases).

That’s why it’s surprising, and exasperating, that many suggestions in the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans – the official government recommendations for a healthy diet – are based on outdated data. Rather than following the science, they have too often lagged behind recent findings or been subjected to apparently politicized science. That needs to change.

Dietary Guidelines are more than advice on how to eat. They form the basis of federal food policies and programs, nutrition education, and various public and private disease prevention initiatives. Formulated in consultation with the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the Guidelines serve as a reference tool, influence what’s on food labels, and dictate what foods are allowed in school lunch programs.

Just as important, health-care professionals and policy makers determine nutritional recommendations for especially vulnerable groups – such as pregnant women, young children and adolescents. All these people depend on (and assume there is) sound science behind the Guidelines.

Given the link between nutrition and health, one would think the congressionally required dietary Guidelines would be of high scholarly quality, accurate and scientifically up-to-date, particularly since they are published just once every five years. Indeed, the statute that mandates publication specifically requires that they be based on “the preponderance of current scientific and medical knowledge.”

Unfortunately, updates that include Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) values for various nutrients receive less attention.

Part of the science behind the guidelines is Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) that tell us how much of any given nutrient a healthy person needs, from macronutrients (proteins, fats and carbohydrates) to vitamins and minerals. Surprisingly, except for sodium and potassium, none of the DRIs have been updated in the last ten years; others, like magnesium and vitamin C, have had no updates since the 1990s. (Potassium, for example, is vital for heart and other muscle health, but found only in a few foods.)

So, on closer look, the “new” 2020 dietary guidelines turn out to be the fifth consecutive congressionally-mandated iteration of old, often outdated science, just packaged in a new cover. Not surprisingly, the 2020 Advisory Committee recommended urgent extensive updates to existing DRIs, for most nutrients, for all age and sex groups and life stages, to better characterize potential risks of dietary inadequacy and excess.

If these official dietary recommendations are to mean anything, the underlying science must be current and the DRIs must be updated – right now, and more regularly in the future.

The 2020 Advisory Committee report on that point is clear: “The DRIs are essential resources for evaluating the nutritional quality of current dietary patterns for the American public, and the Committee has identified where updates are needed for the DRIs to be relevant in the Dietary Guidelines process.”

That’s why it should have been big news when former Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food Nutrition and Consumer Services Brandon Lipps’ team secured DRI research funding before leaving office. For some reason, though, there was hardly any media coverage.

Instead, ahead of the 2020 Guidelines’ publication, misguided news reports announced an expected reduction in RDAs for alcoholic drinks and added sugars – in the midst of the Covid lockdowns, when millions of Americans were increasing their intakes, as a way to cope with their isolation and boredom. But without new studies to justify them, USDA and HHS made no changes to the 2015 recommendations.

By contrast, a big change that was introduced in the 2020 Guidelines involved recommendations for young infants from birth to two years of age. For example, they suggested that babies and toddlers shouldn’t have any sweets in their first 24 months, even though there is no new science to support that new guideline. Making that change even more troubling, the very young are probably more vulnerable to the effects of using outdated DRIs than any other age group.

In another example, it’s been a long time since the last DRI update for choline, a nutrient that particularly affects infants. Certain animal source foods – such as eggs – provide sufficient amounts of choline, which appears to improve cognitive development that begins during infancy and lasts into school-age years.

Researchers at Cornell University recently discovered that women who consume twice the recommended intake of choline during their third trimester of pregnancy – a time of rapid brain development – deliver lasting neuro-protective benefits to their babies. Enhanced cognitive effects observed in the children (increased attention, memory and problem-solving skills) were still maintained at age seven.

Surprisingly though, since choline was first granted a DRI in 1998, the DRI for infants across all domestic food policy has not been based on even one actual clinical trial. It’s been based on the average level of choline in breast milk. That certainly appears to make the choline-intake recommendation entirely random and inadequate, and a special concern with regard to parents who follow vegan diets

DRIs have to be kept up-to-date, and ongoing, relevant research on any nutrition-health nexus must be incorporated into them.

In yet another example, the Guidelines also mention tooth cavities as a significant diet-related chronic disease.  And yet the Guidelines ignore the large body of evidence showing the role that chewing sugar-free gum can play in improving oral health by increasing saliva production and discouraging snacking.

In fact, the Guidelines almost entirely overlooked the importance of oral health to overall health, even though wider health benefits linked to a healthy oral biome include the prevention of heart disease, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia (a pregnancy complication characterized by high blood pressure), periodontitis (a serious gum infection that can destroy gums and even jawbones) and diabetes.

Chewing sugar-free gum has been associated with faster post-cesarean recovery. Researchers have even suggested a link between oral health and Covid: coronavirus may spread into the bloodstream through infected gums, causing a more severe disease in people with poor oral hygiene.

To restate the obvious, if the government is going to publish Dietary Guidelines for Americans every five years, agencies need to follow the science. Rather than regurgitating and reprinting old information, and expecting us to follow it on faith, these highly influential Guidelines need to be based on current scientific knowledge. Our health and the health of our children are too important for anything less.

Whether it’s nutrition, Covid or climate change, the last thing we need is more sloppy politicized science, and more policies, laws and regulations dictated by “woke” or “cancel culture” agendas that censor certain news and put our well-being way down on the list of government priorities.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, health and human rights issues.

4.3 21 votes
Article Rating
123 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Schroeder
June 6, 2021 6:44 pm

Covids were known in the early 60’s. That’s why research was so quick. That this specific variant was “new” & “unique” was thanks to the scumbag press that hounded Trump for 4 years and needed a scamdemic to stampede the sheeple.
Scientists can bought same as politicians.

n.n
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 6, 2021 8:34 pm

Yes, a large minority, perhaps a majority, have cross-reactive or preexisting immunity, which is apparently keyed off the protein encapsulation of the genetic code. The remainder of the population are eligible, and have been since day zero, for inexpensive, effective, low-risk therapeutic treatments to prevent infection and mitigate disease progression.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 6, 2021 9:26 pm

At least with some aspects of Covid prevention and treatment, “follow the science” became the guiding mantra, as sustained inquiry into the corona virus progressed at warp-speed, leading to scientific breakthroughs and three vaccines in only months, rather than the normal years or even decades.

I think the guiding mantra was “follow the money”. With billions in profits to be made, it is no surprise that research was sped up.

n.n
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 7, 2021 12:12 pm

That, and a compelling cause: social faith in anything labeled “vaccine”, progressive liability that was wrecking the economy, and, of course, the collateral damage that was not and could not be unseen. In a race to depose Trump, to secure capital and control, they threw grandma under the bus, off the cliff. However, these were not unprecedented Choices, and wicked solutions have been normalized for the sake of social progress, political profit, and redistributive change.

Last edited 14 days ago by n.n
ResourceGuy
June 6, 2021 6:55 pm

This is the same system that provided health insurance coverage and related personal tax deductions for the opioid crisis while my evolving and successful science-based vitamin supplement regime has no such benefits. At least I have results with reversal of metabolic age and improved mobility without knee replacement.

n.n
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2021 8:36 pm

The sordid underbelly of shared responsibility and secular incentives including progressive profits (with prices).

Derg
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 7, 2021 4:39 am

What is your regimen?

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Derg
June 7, 2021 5:41 am

My evolving regimen from the combo sources of Life Extension.com and ScienceDaily, also Dr. Berg videos on Tube for how things fit together.
1) Polyphenols to successfully lower inflammation at the cellular level (done and measured)
2) Reducing cell senescence also with polyphenols etc. (time will tell)
3) Address macro issue of misplaced calcium in the body using vitamin D3, K2, and a bioavailable Mg.(done and partly measured to date)
4) Address age specific deficiencies in vitamins and minerals (if you can determine all of them in a health system that only hits the high points and billable problems)
5) Reverse methylation age in the genome with supplements and diet (follow the studies)

Conclusion: When Hillary’s “it takes a village does not work” you have to strike out on your own with the evolving good science that still exists to make critical connections that come from critical thinking and compilation.

You’re welcome.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 8, 2021 10:40 pm

Polyphenols is essentially a buzzword created by vegans to make anti-nutrients sound good. Anti-nutrients bind to essential minerals like zinc and iron as part of a plants defense against being eaten by making the animal that eats them sicker in the process of eating them. They can also inhibit digestive enzyme activity. So while some belief that polyphenols are anti-oxidant in nature their overall true nature is anything but the sort.

If you don’t have gout issues and avoid consumption or large volumes of booze and fruit then uric acid is a far more potent anti-oxidant than the polyphenols hope to be.

D3 and K2 are certainly essential to the more helpful movement of calcium around the body. The issue comes about that most supplements of D3 are packaged in poor fillers like vegetable oils etc which will hurt more than help really. K2 on the other hand is a more tricky issue, a large % of people cannot utilize K2 MK7 (fermented vegetable dishes such as kimchi and heavily fermented soy like tempeh are high in this) for example and thus most K2 supplements are completely useless to them while K2 MK4 is the animal food common one that the body uses in so many functions that once you take it you can barely find it in the blood it is used so quickly but still shows great benefit to everyone who takes it. People have been shown to reverse calcification of arteries by lowering inflammation and increasing levels of D3 and K2 MK4 (some will supplement further with K2 MK7 but this is not shown in all cases of reversal of calcification or they have the genetic snips that can convert either K1 and/or K2 MK7 to K2 MK4). Even in the ‘vegan’ studies claiming to reverse this their vegan arms did not but the octo-lacto vegetarians who ate high amounts of this did (octo = egg and lacto = dairy… fermented cheeses like munster, camebert and aged gouda being the best sources of K2 MK4).

Dr Berg is a bit of a shill. He pushed 7-10 cups of green veggies for years and his green powder supplements for those who couldn’t eat enough cups of greens. Many in the keto-carnivore community for years were pointing out that this is terribly wrong and just a money making scam. He has produced some videos in the recent couple of years actually agreeing with this. But off again on some track of this berry will help to prevent cancer etc (cancer is a metabolic disease it is better to treat the metabolism as a whole, the inuit had no words for cancer for example…. berries were not a staple with them but fatty meat was). As more general info Dr Berg is a chiropractor who has a youtube channel with over 5m subs. He deals in the area of Keto and he has many links to other Keto influencers like Thomas Delauer (2.6m subs). Many times they have studies to support what they say but have not either read the results or data pages of said studies but quickly flash them up on a page. They might be good to get you interested in a topic but their product based businesses do exist in such a way as it might damage their ability to be open about the information they are supplying.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  shortie of greenbank
June 9, 2021 9:41 am

That is commentary. I have the decadal compilation of science pubs from the labs at MIT, Harvard, UCLA, Hopkins, Ore. State, Buck Inst., and several dozen more. The critical thinking aspect also involves selectivity and qualitative judgements from all sources.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 9, 2021 2:27 pm

so not arguing against what I said just pointing to some hand waved ‘authority’… got it.

Ed Hanley
June 6, 2021 7:03 pm

The 2020 report itself is 835 pages of boring reading that never gets to the point. It’s frustrating. As someone who eats for a living, I’d like to know what to eat, how often, and how much. That’s not the sort of thing you’ll easily find in this report, if it’s even there. That aside, the “science” is something a real scientist could never get away with.

Example: Sugar. “Exercise 3, Estimating Excess Energy from Added Sugars with Typical vs Nutrient-Dense Choices”

They blather on for a while and then throw in this little tidbit: “It is important to note that the analysis of typical choices does not account for beverages, including alcohol, soft drinks, or coffee and tea, which are not constituents of food groups or subgroups. Therefore, the contribution of these beverages to energy intake and added sugars is not addressed or captured in the Exercise 3.”

Obviously none of the “scientists” involved in Exercise 3 have ever lived with, or been, teenagers. Nor have they ever heard of that very large corporation based in Atlanta that keeps a secret formula in its safe. For their benefit I’d like to point out that soft drinks are indeed not “ constituents of food groups or subgroups” – they are a food group in and of themselves.

The entire report appears to be filled with sloppy, bureaucratic thinking. But I repeat myself.


Michael
June 6, 2021 7:05 pm

Are these the same people who used to tell us that fat is bad and so the shelves were lined with fat-free and reduced fat foods that were far worse?

Van Doren
Reply to  Michael
June 7, 2021 5:20 am

Fat IS bad, if something is clear in nutrition, then this.

Van Doren
Reply to  Van Doren
June 7, 2021 9:14 am

The very new research on why fat is bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yduu8wBUtW0

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Van Doren
June 9, 2021 12:02 am

wtf Greger is your source? This guy makes many of the climate scientists look good. He misrepresents nearly every topic he talks about.

Professor Thomas Seyfried actually knows about cancers not that clown. Palmitc acid in many of these cases are manufactured in the body as part of the FFA (free fatty acids) that also include a mono-unsaturated oil that doesn’t exist in ANY foods we eat. This palmitic acid can exist in low saturated fat intake but exist essentially in those who are metabolically unhealthy.

Listening to that video of yours shows how terrible your sources must be overall. Essentially ketones produced in a low carb diet have only been shown to produce results of cancer growth in a lab not even in a specimen though even Prof Seyfried does admit that high fat diets are not as successful to in fact not much different to standard in blood cancers. Most of the other cancers his research is especially strong, especially brain cancers and tumours.

When you consume fat it enters the lymphatic system and exits near the lungs on the way to the heart in chylomicrons, they don’t float freely around the body as blood is water based and fats don’t mix. Fats do not and cannot normally directly enter the blood stream so ‘greasing the wheels’ is virtually impossible unless there is a dysregulation happening somewhere else along the line… but sure follow ol’ bobble head who looks 60 when he is what mid 40s.

TonyG
Reply to  shortie of greenbank
June 9, 2021 7:43 am

Shortie, you’re responding to someone who called Keys a “genius”. Although the way he managed to finagle his lousy study into being the nutritional guide for a generation, maybe he was…

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  TonyG
June 9, 2021 2:28 pm

Fraudsters aren’t dumb they just lack morals, as Keys most certainly seemed to have that lack of.

Ron
Reply to  Van Doren
June 7, 2021 12:47 pm

Fat PLUS sugar is very bad.

Fat plus protein and fibers is completely fine.

Cholesterol levels are mainly regulated by your liver and not what you eat.

Van Doren
Reply to  Ron
June 7, 2021 2:13 pm

Cholesterol is very much regulated by saturated fatty acids, and, to a smaller extent, by dietary cholesterol. Then also by dietary fibers. Carnivores are much better in converting cholesterol to bile, that why they can eat all the meat they want. We can’t.
Too much protein is btw bad too – it stimulates IGF-1 and mTOR, which makes you age faster.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Van Doren
June 8, 2021 10:52 pm

Are you a vegan? This is essentially what they put out there in their emaciated states having not read the studies they throw out there at all. Two sources of macros that trigger the pathway that leads to IGF-1 and mTor, protein and CARBs. One surprisingly does this for longer than the other…. and it isn’t protein.

Now we do need to trigger IGF-1 and mTor for periods of time but frequency and length on the higher carb diets is what the issue with cell aging comes in not the consumption of proteins if of themselves though especially when coupled with carbs proteins do have a insulin signal.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Van Doren
June 8, 2021 11:20 pm

not a single high standard study has ever showed this partly because to meet that standard would in all probability be unethical.

We know swapping saturated animal fats with plant polyunsaturated fats were a bad idea as shown by Sydney Heart Health Study and the Minnesota heart diet study completed in the 70s but hidden from the world for about 40 years. Further studies on large numbers of women found reducing saturated fat and introducing polyunsaturated oils was the only statistically significant finding from its US$750m pricetag and it too was hidden from the public, again this was a negative outcome.

Both LCHF and HCLF have initial similar success, this could in part be that practically any diet is better than the ones suggested by the USDA groups and the westernised diet in general. The longer term outcomes do not support continued usage of the HCLF from the studies I have seen conducted over 2 years or more with the main issue being carb creep in those following a low carb diet.

Even if you wrongly believed LDL caused heart disease many of the studies did not indicate that LDL was specifically raised on these diets and even if they were particle size was increased, which if any of the lipid markers are to be followed would be the more indicative of any health issues or lack thereof. Meanwhile when run against low fat diets particle sizes in the low fat diets either remain the same or shrink.

Sara
Reply to  Michael
June 7, 2021 7:17 am

Fat is only bad if you spend the bulk of your time as an essentially sedentary, nearly non-mobile individual, whose episodes of moving about include trips to the bathroom, getting to the train or bus on time to get home and then driving (sitting, again) home, and possibly phone an order for groceries to be delivered instead of pushing the cart around the store yourself and loading/unloading the back end of the car. Exercising in a gym is not the same thing as hunting a buffalo.

Fat is a good thing if you live in a cold, harsh environment which forces you to go out and physically hunt for meat and plant matter and bring home the bacon from the wild hog, or those potatoes you spotted on the way out to follow the deer herds. You need the extra energy you’ll get from animal fat to stay warm, maintain a high energy level and bring down the wild hogs and buffalos you’re hunting. You also have to compete with other predators like coyotes, wolves and mountain lions (or other lions), as well as prep the meat you will be hauling home.

Dismal? Nah, but it’s at least as tasty as roasting wienies on sticks at a campfire.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
June 7, 2021 7:19 am

Forgot to add that bone marrow, which is high in fat, is a valid part of a hunter-gatherer diet. The extra calories it provides are an essential part of that diet.

Scissor
June 6, 2021 7:21 pm

Meth: safe and effective.

June 6, 2021 7:36 pm

I’ll wait for the commenter rebuke. (while losing 30 lbs eating nothing but eggs, ribeyes, and pork chops)

Bob Johnston
Reply to  billtoo
June 6, 2021 8:43 pm

Carnivore diet is the healthiest diet out there. Everything gets better once you eliminate plant foods.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 6, 2021 8:56 pm

I picked up a plant based chilli con carne prepared meal by mistake a few months ago. I didn’t take it back for a refund as it was my mistake. I did eat it and felt rough for two days. Won’t be doing that again. My local food store is filled with plant based meat substitutes and meals sadly.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 6, 2021 9:29 pm

I always prefer it when animals turn plants into meat products

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 7, 2021 1:30 am

Best part is we can’t eat their food. So the animals turn a readily available food for them that humans can’t digest into a highly concentrated very tasty human food. 😊

KevinM
Reply to  Matthew Bergin
June 7, 2021 12:38 pm

They mostly eat corn.

chemman
Reply to  KevinM
June 8, 2021 12:25 am

Depends on where you buy your meat from.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  KevinM
June 9, 2021 12:06 am

I don’t think our grains are subsidised in OZ. Kinda easy to get at least mostly grass fed beef for example ;).

Had the diet doctor meatloaf today, man that is good. I just didn’t add any of the plant stuff except some coconut aminos in the sauce at the end. still best meatloaf I ever eat ;).

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 7, 2021 4:17 am

Why it isn’t it called “chilli sin carne” ?
Con carne is a lie if based on plants.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 7, 2021 5:28 pm

Totally agree. The text on the packaging that says “Chilli Con Carne” is a size I can just about read without my glasses. The text that says “plant based” I only discovered when I read the cooking instructions for which I needed my glasses. Totally my fault, I hate shopping, so I do rush and grab stuff a bit.

Talador
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 8, 2021 3:59 pm

I am with you my Carnivore brothers. I have been a fairly strict carnivore for two years now and it has fixed all of my health issues and I feel twenty years younger.

A large number of my family and friends are now carnivore and everyone has the same story of improved health and fitness.

Also I recommend breathing through the nose using the belly, intermittent fasting and interval training.

Walter Sobchak
June 6, 2021 8:08 pm

I am even less interested in your opions on food. Nutrition has been close to pseudoscience or even non-science for a long time. I really don’t care what those cranks think. I will eat what I want and the rest of you can go #@$%& yourselves.

KevinM
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 7, 2021 12:40 pm

+500

Bob
June 6, 2021 8:22 pm

I have great respect for Paul Driessen if for no other reason than he is associated with CFACT. However I long ago stopped listening or paying attention to any government recommendation concerning daily allowance or daily recommendations. I have no faith in them. The whole mess is politicized and bastardized beyond belief. I only listen to my personal physician and she understands that I don’t give a damn what the government thinks or says. All health decisions are between her and me. I use the old basic four food group for a guide. Yes I know it was recommended from the government. Eat a balanced diet, eat and drink in moderation, get lots of sleep, exercise moderately, don’t abuse tobacco, alcohol or drugs, keep yourself clean, get plenty of fresh air, make most of what you drink water and if you feel out of sorts see your physician. That people put any stock in government guidance makes me want to vomit.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Bob
June 9, 2021 12:12 am

‘balanced diet’ is a way of saying that all the food industries paid us money. It is one of the biggest lies out there. The Randle Cycle is essentially triggered by increased calories and a mix of fat and carbs…. easy to do when you try to ‘balance’ your fat and carb intake yet both high fat and high carb diets can lose people weight (just you can completely remove carbs from the high fat diet and thrive, not so much the removal of fats).

Bob
Reply to  shortie of greenbank
June 9, 2021 8:22 pm

I don’t want to be on any kind of diet. There are a few of us who need to be on a certain kind of diet, diabetics for instance. For the rest of us we should eat a balanced diet or if you prefer daily servings from each of the four basic food groups. Do everything in moderation, if that doesn’t work see your physician you might be one of the few who need special guidance.

markl
June 6, 2021 8:25 pm

So if you identify as the opposite sex you were born with what DRI should you follow? So many life choices, so little time.

n.n
Reply to  markl
June 6, 2021 8:39 pm

You can’t change your sex, but your gender (i.e. physical and behavioral attributes, phenotypic expression) can be corrupted through medical, surgical, and psychiatric intervention.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  n.n
June 6, 2021 11:24 pm

Even then you can’t change that either. Whichever way you turn, you’ll never escape from you.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 1:32 am

Exactly. Well said.👍

yirgach
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 6:46 am

Wherever you go, there you are.

Bob Johnston
June 6, 2021 8:42 pm

Nutrition as it impacts health and chronic disease has been something I’ve been following for a good 15 years now, longer than I’ve been following CAGW. I’ve developed a rule of thumb over those 15 years… it’s pretty basic and it boils down to this – listen to the authorities and experts and do the exact opposite.

Seriously, “expert” advice on nutrition is as bad as manmade global warming and if you think that experts in one camp can be completely wrong but experts in another camp totally have their shit together then you haven’t been paying attention. Science in both disciplines is dominated by special interests and government money… science is used as a weapon against truth.

Red meat is actually the healthiest thing you can eat… it’s the crap that people generally eat with red meat (fires, soda, etc.) that are the real problems. There’s actually no such thing as LDL cholesterol that’s too high, there’s only cholesterol that’s too low. Every chronic disease you care to mention has a strong association with metabolic syndrome and an easy marker for metabolic syndrome is the triglycerides to HDL ratio. Under 2 and you’re doing okay… under 1 and you’ll probably live a long life with high quality up until the day you die. Do doctors ever talk about the trig/HDL ratio? Nope… not a chance. Instead they focus myopically on LDL which actually has no association to heart disease.

If you want to live a long, healthy life just follow these simple rules:

  • Avoid vegetable oils, grains and sugar.
  • Adopt an intermittent fasting program (6 small meals a day is terrible advice).
  • Get decent sleep.
  • Lift some weights
  • Get sunshine to optimize vitamin D.

That’s it, do that and you’ll be in the top 1% when it comes to health.

Poems of our Climate
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 6, 2021 9:46 pm

Superb advice, yet you forgot one bullet point. Carb grams need to be from 0 to 50/day, depending on metabolism.

Van Doren
Reply to  Poems of our Climate
June 7, 2021 5:24 am

Wrong. Carbs should be 70-80% of your calories.

TonyG
Reply to  Van Doren
June 7, 2021 11:45 am

“Carbs should be 70-80% of your calories.”

Isn’t it funny how since adopting that advice, the US population has become increasingly unhealthy?

Van Doren
Reply to  TonyG
June 7, 2021 2:17 pm

US population eats mostly processed foods and lots of fat. Ca. 100g daily. Safe amount is 30-40g, but 20g is even better. Remember, it’s all about lipotoxicity. Accumulation of fatty acids in cells other than adipocytes causes diabetes, high cholesterol levels and much more.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Van Doren
June 9, 2021 12:15 am

sat fat intake has either gone down or stayed the same the entire time. poly unsaturated oils though from plants has gone up lock and step with diseases.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 6, 2021 11:26 pm

My preference is to have good genes.

Bob Johnston
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 5:58 am

You can be successful with pretty much any genetic background but if one or both alleles are of the apoE4 type then you should definitely keep the carbs, sugar and seed oils consumption low (or non-existent).

People with “good” genes can last longer on a crap diet but just because you can does it mean you should? Look at how many pro athletes end up fat and unhealthy. Their superior genetics didn’t save them in the long run.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 7, 2021 11:09 am

I guess I’m pretty lucky. No one in my family is fat. At nearly 80, I can still wear the same clothes I did at 30. I’ve never “watched” my diet and eat whatever suits my fancy. My only rules are moderation and wide variety. I got the “good genes” quip from an older woman on the BBC, many years ago. She was a Nobel laureate in science, Dorothy Hodgkins, 65 and still looking after her mum.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 9, 2021 12:21 am

good advice on APoE4. This is the most efficient fat transporter of those types but unfortunately very prone to oxidation from high glucose/fructose and AGEs (advanced glycation products) common to vegetable oils. APoE3 and APoE2 are the other types that are slightly worse (but still seem to do a good job) of transporting fats and more robust against oxidisation.

michel
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 7, 2021 12:18 am

Avoiding grains and all vegetable oils isn’t scientifically justifiable, the advice needs to be more specific. What you need to do is look at long lived healthy populations who have been following a given diet for a few generations.

It should be: avoid grain-based foods that are heavily processed. For instance, eat plain oats you cook yourself, without sugar. Do not eat any packaged breakfast cereals. Eat proper bread you make yourself or get from a real bakery from flour, yeast and water. Or sourdough or semi-sourdough. No factory made packaged bread.

Don’t avoid all vegetable oils. There is no evidence for that. But do avoid any that are high in polyunsaturates, like corn or sunflower, or ones with no history of long term successful use, or which are heavily processed, like rape-seed or hydrogenated corn oil. But olive oil and peanut oil (for frying) in moderation seem to be fine and healthy. Never use plant based suet, always use proper beef suet for baking.

And you leave out pulses – and greens, which should be eaten in quantity. Also you leave out fermented foods, for which there is positive evidence. Again, in moderation. Sauerkraut is very easy to make, as is yoghurt.

A reasonable diet given the current scientific evidence is a base of relatively unprocessed grain – buckwheat, wheat, rye, corn, rice – with liberal amounts of vegetables and moderate amounts of pulses and animal based foods, meat, fish, eggs and dairy.. The wheat does not have to be wholegrain, on the contrary, wheat bran is not very good for us. But if its low extraction rate white flour, you should add back the germ they have removed.

Exercise should be both resistance and aerobic, with the aerobic component having an HIT component.

Bob Johnston
Reply to  michel
June 7, 2021 5:53 am

Sorry, as someone who’s tried your advice I can tell you that for me it’s not correct. It’s also not correct for countless others whose accounts I’ve read about.

I should have been more specific on vegetable oils… it’s the seed oils (PUFA) that are crap and are probably the most damaging thing a person can eat. These oils are rancid right off the shelf and are even worse when heated. They cause mitochondrial damage and result in severe metabolic issues over time. Olive oil is probably okay if you can find a brand that isn’t actually olive-flavored seed oils.

I used to eat the way you describe and I was in bad shape. When I went low carb I lost 20 lbs, the hand tremors went away, my vision improved and my asthma disappeared. It wasn’t until I removed all plant foods from my diet and strictly ate meat, cheese and butter (I thought it was crazy when I gave it a try) that I lost even more weight, I was able to throw away my glasses and my life-long hayfever resolved. No BS – my eyesight is back to 20/200 in one eye with the other much improved. How many people can say they improved their eyesight as they got older?

Depending upon a person’s level of metabolic dysfunction they can get away with eating some plant foods. It’s easy to know by checking your triglyceride to HDL ratio. If this ratio is under 2.0 you’re doing okay. If it’s under 1.0 you’re doing great. If it’s over 2.0 you’ve got metabolic syndrome and are now high risk of developing any of the chronic diseases that are currently plaguing us… the best way to reverse this is to stop eating any of the foods that cause it.

To your body there’s no difference between “whole grains” and processed grains. If your body can digest it then your body turns it all into the same thing – glucose. Unless you burn it right away this glucose is turned into fat and stored and it will remain stored when insulin levels are high – which is what happens when a person is constantly eating foods that raise blood sugar (carbs). Grains are also full of proteins we have not evolved to deal with (i.e. gluten, gliadin, etc.) that cause autoimmune issues and have compounds like phytic acid and lectins which will either bind with essential minerals like zinc rendering them bio-unavailable and cause “leaky gut”, a condition where the bond between adjoining cells in the intestinal tract separate allowing things that should stay in the GI tract to get into the bloodstream.

As for the exercise component I think you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing… so as many burpees as you want.

rbabcock
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 7, 2021 6:15 am

My trig/HDL ratio is .48 and am 70 yrs old. I have exceptionally high HDL and low trig numbers. I’m not exactly sure why but I’m not complaining. Maybe that I’ve been physically active all my life and thin. In later life I started riding a bike and do 15 miles every day I can riding the greenways.

Reading all the nutrition studies, etc. I totally agree with Bob Johnston. It pretty much is what you eat (or don’t eat) that counts. I do avoid junk foods although a good chocolate chip cookie now and then is too good to refuse. One thing though is you need to make the decision early in life to stay healthy.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 9, 2021 12:32 am

essentially vegetable oils is the name given to seed oils to cover up their ‘heritage’. Olive oil is a ‘fruit oil’. It is better but definitely not suitable to cook with over butter, lard or tallow. Peanut oil is again pretty terrible much in the same area as the other see oils.

Now the reason why I say this is that plant ‘oils’ oxidise much quicker with heat than do animal oils and even without heat over time the relatively high polyunsaturated contents of olive oil with oxidise even outside of the presence of a heat source. How long has that bottle or extra virgin, organic blessed from virgin soil oil been on the shelf (only to find out as a recent study did that the company substituted about 80% of the olive oil for seed oils). The same happened to advocado oils, up to 85% of the content of even 100% organic 100% advocado oil was found to be cut with vegetable oils.

It is pretty much to the point of getting your own caws etc to make your own butter really.

Van Doren
Reply to  Bob Johnston
June 7, 2021 5:24 am
  • Avoid animal products besides fish.
  • Avoid all added fats and high-fat products
  • Eat lots of veggies, nuts, legumes, mushrooms and fruits
TonyG
Reply to  Van Doren
June 7, 2021 11:48 am
  • Avoid facts
Van Doren
Reply to  TonyG
June 7, 2021 2:18 pm

I’m astounded how many are totally uneducated here.

John Endicott
Reply to  Van Doren
June 10, 2021 8:30 am

I’m astounded that every time you look in the mirror you think you are looking at other people.

DonM
Reply to  Van Doren
June 8, 2021 3:20 pm

V.D.,

Are you suggesting that I should not eat rabbit as a protein because it is not healthy? Why?

I’m on board with broccoli, brazil nuts, some mushrooms, and enough blueberries that I poop green, but why would I limit myself to inefficient protein sources.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  DonM
June 9, 2021 12:34 am

vegans are like zombies they keep trying to convert people into corpses

n.n
June 6, 2021 8:43 pm

Number one problem: disparity between consumption and production. Number two problem: conflation of dietary and body fat. Also, the advocacy to normalize “fat is beautiful” and “healthy at any weight” is a first-order forcing of comorbidity past, present, and progressive, and accounts for around 80% of Covid-19 cases.

rwisrael
June 6, 2021 9:17 pm

Recall the old “food pyramid” that encouraged eating a carb heavy diet and played a big part in the current obesity problem. That was the USDA at its finest.

Poems of our Climate
Reply to  rwisrael
June 6, 2021 9:49 pm

Unfortunately, that killer pyramid is still being promoted.

John Hultquist
June 6, 2021 9:48 pm

I’m old enough to remember when playing involved moving more than thumbs and index fingers.
Do you remember clamp-on roller skates, vacant lot baseball, snow sleds, kick-the-can, hide-n-seek, climbing trees, and many more? Do young children do such things now on spontaneous occasions?
Health tip: move and keep moving.

KevinM
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 7, 2021 12:55 pm

Clamp-on roller skates were trash

Admin
June 6, 2021 9:54 pm

No one commented on my choice of image 🙁

Last edited 15 days ago by Charles Rotter
Martin C
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 6, 2021 10:16 pm

Charles, I love the image – a nice seasoned steak – though i like mine a bit closer to medium; that looks a little too rare for me 🙂

In general i agree with the ‘common sense’ on nutrition – more vegies and some fruits, with plenty of meat protein, a bit of other carbohydrates, some tasty deserts on occasion, as well as the occasional ‘frosty beverage’ :-). Everything in moderation.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Martin C
June 6, 2021 11:30 pm

though i like mine a bit closer to medium; that looks a little too rare for me

That all depends on the cut and how it was aged. Other than that I agree on the rest.

Archer
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 6, 2021 10:17 pm

Too busy drooling.

H.R.
Reply to  Archer
June 7, 2021 5:25 am

I was too busy trying to figure out what cut it was, Archer.

@ctm – I have actually looked at that picture 5 or 6 times and still can’t quite make out the cut.

Also, for someone choosing ‘rare’ as pictured, it looked like they needed a couple of hundred degrees (F) more to really sear the outside. At least that’s how I do it; 1200 (F) to sear.

Van Doren
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 7, 2021 5:25 am

Avoid animal products.

Van Doren
Reply to  Van Doren
June 7, 2021 9:25 am

Care to explain all the uneducated dislikes? Animal products:

  • are high in saturated fats
  • contain cholesterol
  • contain Neu5gc
  • are pro-inflammatory
  • lipopolysaccharides on animal products cause inflammation
  • omnivores are fatter
  • animal products increase IGF-1
  • animal products worsen gut microbiome composition
  • omnivore microbiome produce TMAO

Advantages? Hardly any.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Van Doren
June 9, 2021 12:49 am

I went to start and found that this website is probably not big enough to list how you are wrong it is that bad.

Lets take a simple one. Cholesterol, plants contain cholesterol… a really trashy version that is terrible for us while we CAN absorb cholesterol our body knows when it has enough and stops this absorption, it cannot do this with trashy plant imitators which causes issues.

What HAS been found is regardless of cholesterol intake (i.e. a man lived for decades on just eggs the boss of high cholesterol foods. He had 25 eggs or more a day for over 30 years and when checked up on in his 80s he had already outlived both his parents for a long time and his physical came back great) is that the body will not use any more than 20% of the body’s total cholesterol production from outside sources. The rest is discarded regardless of the amount of intake. Foods we are not used to handling are ones we don’t have systems setup to stop over saturation a much easier example of this is calcium. In foods such as meat (yes normal meat contains calcium) the calcium is easily accessible and in an already to use form. In a plant or a supplement the calcium is not in a recognised form for the body. Now if the body has enough calcium you will just piss out the extra bioavailable calcium but if you have the unfamiliar one it is absorbed and deposited in various locations around the body, generally anywhere but the bones such as joints, spine and …… arteries.

Sara
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 7, 2021 7:31 am

Just hand it over and please step away from the plate. 🙂

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 7, 2021 9:17 am

Perhaps no one commented on your choice of image because it was so right on. That’s how I eat my steaks – especially my venison steaks.

I love animals – they’re delicious.

gringojay
June 6, 2021 9:54 pm

I feel pretty good getting my recommended servings of fruits and vegetables.

E734F471-CCDD-4148-94BD-F7E571FE38A0.jpeg
Van Doren
Reply to  gringojay
June 7, 2021 5:26 am

Stupid.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Van Doren
June 9, 2021 12:50 am

why yes they are.

John Endicott
Reply to  Van Doren
June 10, 2021 8:34 am

A self descriptive post. How apt.

Rory Forbes
June 6, 2021 11:22 pm

My only recommendation to be assured of a long, healthy life is … make sure you have good genes. Everything else is a matter of personal taste and limiting over indulgence.

KevinM
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 12:59 pm

Duplicate comments add nothing.

Pat Frank
June 6, 2021 11:34 pm

Paul, “ leading to … three vaccines in only months, rather than the normal years or even decades.”

A bitterly amusing overstatement. You should not have been so facile, Paul.

None of the mRNA treatments are vaccines in any common or medical meaning of that word. None of them finished stage III testing and only arrived on the back of an emergency authorization.

The emergency authorization was justified by deliberately stoked panic and the active suppression of empirical drug treatments, vastly inflating the rates of illness and death.

Unlike actual vaccines, the mRNA treatment provides only a narrow immunity.

The mRNA adverse reaction rate is probably 100 times the normal rate for vaccines.

The whole covid-19 episode is much more malignant than the wilful incompetence of climate modelers.

June 7, 2021 1:08 am

At least with some aspects of Covid prevention and treatment, “follow the science” became the guiding mantra, as sustained inquiry into the corona virus progressed at warp-speed, leading to scientific breakthroughs and three vaccines in only months, rather than the normal years or even decades.

I forced myself to scan the rest, hoping to find some sense, common or not, but there was non…
I really thought that by now, everyone that can read, will have given up on that “narrative”.

…scientific breakthroughs and three vaccines in only months…

Is Driesen trying to be funny, or is he really an idiot?
Paulie, my boy, they had those things ready for years already, just waiting for a chance to release the idiot propagandists upon us. How much do they pay you to disseminate this nonsense?
Never thought I’ll see the day WUWT actively promotes “consensus sciencery”.
Also, I note there is not one single nutritional fact or ready data anywhere in this drivel.
Drivel!!!

Last edited 15 days ago by paranoid goy
Tom
June 7, 2021 1:22 am

It’s been my experience that nutrition is the last place people are going to following the science.

Miha
June 7, 2021 1:57 am

Paul Driessen says ‘ none of the DRIs have been updated in the last ten years’. This is true but hardly surprising given the immense difficulty of determining such a set of recommendations which are so dependent on age, gender and status if female. Preparing this set of data is a massive task not to be underestimated.

Worth noting in passing that the EU have published their own (different) set of broad recommendations.
You can find it at https://efsa.gitlab.io/multimedia/drvs/index.htm. They state that this is intended for professionals (dietiticians etc.,) only not for individual use.

Peta of Newark
June 7, 2021 2:17 am

We are not ‘Carnivores’ – ‘Carne’ is only the carrier for what we evolved to eat.
i.e. By calories= 75 to 80% saturated fat with the remainder being animal derived protein## and NOT any great amount flesh (meat)
## = blood, balls, livers, kidneys, brains, bone marrow.
Certainly chew the meat over to get the blood and fat out of it, then spit it out. Hence why we became friends with cats but esp dogs. Protein gets toxic pretty quickly in large amounts.

The only flavouring you and anybody needs in their kitchens is salt – you WILL discover that on a proper keto diet.
We do need Vitamin C from somewhere and classically, hunters got it from the water they found in roots and tubers as they pursued their prey across vast and unknown territory. Hence why water divining is A Real Skill for (typically male) hunters, also ‘map reading’
The girls have ‘other skills’ that they use to get their supplies.
Normally called ‘Romance’
Some may use the term ‘Cheating Cows’ but as another term says, ‘Hunger is a hard driver’
Hello hello, The Oldest Profession?????

There is only one reason for eating carbohydrate (i.e. Sugar – that is ALL carbohydrate is) and it is self fulfilling – viz = Positive Feedback
It is rather cryptic but once you see it, it is more obvious than the nose on someone’s face.

All recovered alcoholics have an extremely ‘Sweet Tooth’

Your clue is in why folks take on addictive behaviour and that is ‘To alleviate stress and or loneliness’
All others ‘bring me data’ as the saying goes.
OK.
If you’re male and your waist measurement is more than 37 inches – You Are An Addict = someone engaging in self destructive behaviour induced by the actions of others.
It is THAT simple,

Thank you Ancel Keys – thank you sooooooo much.
not

Van Doren
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 7, 2021 9:28 am

Ancel Keys was a genius, and he did nothing wrong.

TonyG
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 7, 2021 11:52 am

IMO, Ancel Keyes is one of the biggest mass m#rderers in history

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 9, 2021 1:31 am

vit c, of which we actually need stuff all, can be found in meat and in quite high amounts in liver. chewing and spitting out sounds pretty dumb as does the idea that protein is bad.

On Vit C the only high standard study on this would be classified as unethical by todays standards and this is where they took conscientious objectors and saw how much vit c was needed to fix scurvy. 0mg a day obviously didn’t work but 10mg a day was found to be way more than enough to remove the symptoms of this condition. the RDI is set somewhere between 60-90mg per day, completely unnecessary as determined by that which is the highest level of science on the topic. Now what makes this even more interesting is that Vit C competes with glucose for the GLUT-4 transporter and vit c loses out so even though these poor objectors were eating a very high carb diet 10mg was still way more than enough to remove the scourge of scurvy. If the carbs are lower in the diet there should be more efficient usage of vit c and many of the roles of vit c in the body is also done by uric acid. As an aside if the body has excess vit c it turns this excess into oxalate crystals to get rid of it. For some reason the body does not want excess of this compound at all that it would turn it into some as deleterious as an oxalate crystal which are normally a means of plant defense.

On protein, while our ability to live off high protein is poor, especially compared to dogs and cats we can still get energy via gluconeogenesis from protein (a rather inefficient method). A very high protein diet does lead to rabbit starvation but provided you have enough fat or if fat is not in high supply carbs (unfortunately) then protein will not be used as fuel until those are used first. As a matter of research the N15 (nitrogen) levels in historical humans are higher than most of the carnivores, animals that ate mostly plants would have low N15 and high N14 while those who ate those animals would have high N15 and those who ate both would have higher again….. its just that we ate more fat (mammoths had a 10cm layer of fat around their bodies….which is insane when you think about it, mammoth bacon).

guidoLaMoto
June 7, 2021 3:19 am

–gotta agree with the basic premise that regs should be based on the science, but ever since those inconvenient ethics rules were implemented a few decades ago, there is no more science when it comes to nutrition. “Nutrition studies” aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

Secondly, there’s no such thing as :”good nutrition”– only adequate or inadequate nutrition.

Stargrazzer
June 7, 2021 3:21 am

WUWT friends please look at at this!
All airports gradually close & shipping to close by 2029 to 2050
No Fossil Fuel usage!!
https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/
Absolute F’ing madness by the ClimateCultists!
How do we alert the world to this?

Richard Page
Reply to  Stargrazzer
June 7, 2021 7:00 am

Let them try it. It’ll be interesting to see the screaming and the swearing as the great unwashed realise they can’t have the holiday in Marbs or Benidorm that they wanted. As soon as climate activism hits the population where it hurts, there will be a collossal backlash.

ozspeaksup
June 7, 2021 3:40 am

agree no kid needs sweets when dried fruit and fresh fruit is more than enough and contain minerals and nutrients
as for sugar free gum?
offs! yeah we all need fake sugar crap im sure../s just in case
ask the obese diabetics how much weight they loose using diet colas and other muck
body expects sugar so releases insulin and hmm? there is none to process so the insulin load has to be handled
stored fats
cooking from scratch with real fruit veg meats
if its in a pack its NOT going to be worth much nutritionally but costs a lot health/financially

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 9, 2021 1:44 am

the body can release insulin on the taste of ‘sweet’, this is in preparation but if no accompanying spike then insulin production follows suit and stops so it is a temporary response. The issue is probably more the dopamine response which sets the person up for a bigger fail.

One thing to be said is that fructose is seven to ten times more glycating (damaging) to the system and when the liver processes it part of the process is fermentation into alcohol which produces further toxins in the process. If the process is swamped or interrupted then the resulting energy is stored as fat in the liver which later leads to NFLD or non-fatty liver disease.

Yes we historically ate fruits, bitter small things that we gorged on in autumn to put fat on for the winter… not an all year smorgasboard of rich colours and flavours.This small period of extreme inflammation was necessary for our survival during the cold of the ice ages, fasting and eating fatty animals was our coverage for the rest of the time. For those thinking we ate ‘greens’ at any time realise that these were made from bitter mustards that we couldn’t eat much of and by the….. romans only a couple of thousand years ago.

June 7, 2021 5:07 am

The so called scientific nutrition guidelines advise in case of minerals and vitamins only to maintain the lowest level, the just to survive level but not the optimim.

Thomas Gasloli
June 7, 2021 6:40 am

Is it really the job of the government to issue “dietary guidelines”? Isn’t that the beginning of the problem? Is it really the job of the government to provide free food? Shouldn’t that be left to local charities?

COVID19 response has certainly not been a demonstration of the triumph of science. Almost everything the Federal and state governments did was wrong.

The less the government does, the less the government does wrong.

Ken
June 7, 2021 6:47 am

Let me see here: We have a government report from a little known agency full of boring recommendations for dietary health versus the huge private sector advertising campaigns that promote their questionable products. Which one is going to win?

On the outer Barcoo
June 7, 2021 8:05 am

Physicians in the USA, Australia, UK and many ‘developed’ countries receive little training in nutrition, but not so pharmacology. Follow the money.

TonyG
June 7, 2021 8:33 am

Seven Countries

Bad science has informed government dietary recommendations for decades now – at what cost?

Michael E McHenry
June 7, 2021 8:34 am

The erroneous distinction between added sugar and carbohydrates continues to be made. Carbohydrates are made of sugars. Predominately glucose and to lesser extent fructose. Your body quickly breaks down starches found in potatoes, bread, rice, pasta, etc into the constituents sugars. The sugar glucose is readily used by your cells and thought to be the primary metabolic fuel. Table sugar is half glucose and half fructose. So you can see how silly the added sugar guideline is

Michael E McHenry
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
June 7, 2021 10:35 am

For the non believers google glycemic index. I’m a chemist and this is the science not my opinion

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
June 9, 2021 1:53 am

GI is bunk. The range of reactions from the GI studies are so varied as to be meaningless. secondly fructose does not feature on the GI but in studies done on glucose v fructose in these studies the initial insulin response might be lower but as these studies go on the background insulin or fasting insulin continues to go up in the fructose group. Just looking at something like GI is going to lead to failure. It is a buzzword for companies to sell products that are full of waste material or fibre as it is called.

Michael E McHenry
Reply to  shortie of greenbank
June 9, 2021 7:22 am

I only pointed to glycemic index to show that carbs breakdown to sugars in the body. Yes there is quite a bit variation in the index numbers

Nick Schroeder
June 7, 2021 9:36 am

Putting data where my mouth is.

Global
The US, Brazil, India, Mexico and Peru accounted for almost half of the global C-19 deaths.
The UK, Italy, Russia, France and Columbia rounded out the top ten leaders in C-19 deaths.
These top ten accounted for almost two-thirds! Of the global C-19 deaths.
Deaths per million were also calculated.
Japan and China were listed for information.
I would not call Covid-19 a widespread, contagious, lethal pandemic, but a few countries with obvious healthcare shortcomings.
What does densely populated Japan know and do the rest of the world does not?
If China is lying by undercounting are the US and Fauci lying by overcounting, conflating comorbidities?
Government = lying.

US
80% of C-19 deaths occurred to those 65+.
Almost 30% of C-19 deaths occurred in residence, hospice or nursing/eldercare facilities.
86.4% of CASES were among those UNDER 65.
30% of C-19 DEATHS were among those OVER 85 with only 2% of the population.

Mother Nature and her good buddy Grim Reaper were just doing their thang, culling the herd of the too many, too old, too sick, too crammed together in badly run (BLUE) elder care.
The world did not get to 7.9 billion with too many birthings, but from too few deathings.

 

Covid 19.jpg
donald penman
June 7, 2021 10:12 am

I have lost a stone on a low carbohydrate diet I have no more than two meals a day and sometimes only one meal a day. I am on medication for type two diabetes and I am hoping to reverse my insulin resistance which has built up as I have got older. Cutting bread and grains from my diet has solved the problem I had with heartburn because I have not had acid reflux since then. I eat bacon chicken fish potatoes beans eggs and cheese. Anything that is high fibre and protein with carbohydrate does not spike you glucose level in your blood so much because it is released more slowly. We do not need carbohydrates in our diet we can live without them because our body can still produce glucose without eating them.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  donald penman
June 9, 2021 2:11 am

while the spike is a problem you haven’t resolved the issue of the area under the curve so glucose in the blood remains slight less higher for slightly longer. Protein without the carbs barely spikes if I am reading the work of Ben Bikman correctly.

donald penman
Reply to  donald penman
June 9, 2021 5:05 am

To add to my comment I do not expect a quick fix on reducing my blood sugar levels because my cells are insulin resistant and tell my body to produce more glucose so even proteins that are not needed will be converted to glucose. I find bread very difficult to swallow because it forms a thick paste rather than breaking up and I wonder if this is the cause of my heartburn.

donald penman
Reply to  donald penman
June 9, 2021 8:18 am

Another thing is that many burgers contain more starch grain and dextrose than meat these days. I buy 100% beef burgers because when I want to eat meat Then I eat meat which has no fibre .I have to eat vegetables, fruit etc. to get fibre

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  donald penman
June 9, 2021 3:03 pm

GERD, often related to heartburn has been alleviated in studies of removing fibre from the diet. GERD, IBS, constipation etc was the subject of one study where a small group of people followed differing amounts of fibre consumption and their symptoms of these conditions were tracked including ‘bleeding’ and ‘discomfort’. The end result of this study found that in direct dose response the lower the fibre the more resolution of these conditions followed. When the groups followed a 0 fibre diet all conditions went into remission. 6 months follow up after the study finished found about 2/3rds of those involved still not eating fibre and still no evidence of any discomfort meanwhile much of the remaining third returned to a high fibre diet due to ideological reasons and still have the same or worse symptoms.

Now this doesn’t prove fibre is an issue of itself (though it does lend some evidence that it can), but it is a good indicator of how badly the ‘science’ of nutrition is if we get these results completely contrary to the advice given…. and the advice is based off highly suspect epidemiology.

June 7, 2021 10:23 am

Good article. Improving RDI recommendations could improve the lives of a lot of people are relatively low cost.

Kit P
Reply to  starman
June 7, 2021 11:46 am

Now that is funny!

Bruce Cobb
June 7, 2021 10:53 am

Whatever you do, you should never eat snu.
What’s snu, you ask?
Not much, what’s snu with you?

lbeyeler
June 7, 2021 12:10 pm

Recently I bought a bottle of a soft drink. It was an odd size, 0.9 liter. The nutritional ‘facts’ were just crazy: “One ‘portion’ contains 14% of the recommended daily dose …”
A ‘portion’ was said to be 0.125 liters.

WTF?

I don’t want to calculate when I enjoy something. Eff off with your ‘portion’ and your percents. Recommended for whom? An adult weighing 120 kgs or 60 kgs? A pregnant women?

KevinM
June 7, 2021 12:32 pm

What if science says more red meat and eggs, less wheat and corn?
Farmers, packaged food companies, environmentalists, vegans, … would not be fans.

Kit P
June 7, 2021 1:26 pm

Some observations from an old guy:

Everything is better cooked in animal fat, especially green veggies.

If the subject of diets come up, find something else to do. You are in the company of self absorbed people.

About 30 years ago I was at Lake Tahoe at a house my girlfriend and I had previously rented with other single parents for the purpose of taking kids skiing. This time she had arranged it for her high school friends from la la land.

Skiing is one of those things that I had the opportunity to enjoy because I enlisted in the navy. The topic of conversation was ski fashion. This was followed by diets and how disgusting fat people in public were.

When I came back a few hours later, I was in big trouble. Where have you been? Went to a bar for a beer. Stayed for cheeseburger.

A few weeks ago, the subject of diet came up again. I belong to a drinking club with a boating problem. I also learned to sail in the navy but never had time for many years. So I am talking with two of the other racers from the weekend before when a visitor came in. What the other three had in common was their first experience sailing was on a big sailboat at some vacation resort.

As it turns out, the second time the visitor had been sailing was when I took him and his wife out. It took a while but his wife finally let him get a sailboat.

So there we are at boondocks USA yacht club. Four guys who have been all over the world and have a common love of sailing. The three guys start talking about how they lost 10 pounds.

Time for a cheese burger.

Enjoy life! Steak smothered in mushrooms and onions for dinner. Shared with friends with a common love of red wine. Leftovers will make cheesesteak hoagies. Sausage and eggs to start the day. Tomorrow, pork chops in Spanish Rice, lima beans and cornbread. Friends came by with polish sausage and hot dogs. I provided the grill and the beer. Pizza and cheese burgers round things out. Like swordfish, chicken and turkey too.

Michael S. Kelly
June 7, 2021 2:09 pm

What concerns me more than the government issuing nutritional guidelines not based on science is the government issuing nutritional guidelines at all. I’ve read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution a number of times. They are clear on the fact that the government has only those powers delegated to it by the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is the enumerated power to even express an opinion on the diet of the people.

The pushback against this shouldn’t be on the quality of the nutritional science used by the government, but on the government involving itself in our eating habits at all.

Ruleo
June 12, 2021 12:54 am

Humans require L-threonine found only in mammalian meat, carbs should be switched out for fats (such found in meat and nuts), and most importantly 2000 calories a day is WAY TOO HIGH- the amount of physical activity the average person does should be 1k for the pencil pushers, 12-1300 for those that at least exercise. I work in a very physically demanding job. I’ve never needed more than 16-1700.

%d bloggers like this: