2010 Dietary Guidlines: Carbohydrates Are Wonderful

It was a brutal weekend.  I spent nearly all of it, including last night, extracting extremely inconsistent data from Excel spreadsheets into a database for a customer.  Yuck. 

After that headache, I thought I’d go ahead and give myself a migraine by reading another major section of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines.  This one was titled Carbohydrates.  It was pretty much a love letter … if anyone dared write a love letter in Engfish.  (Dear One – it has been determined by moderately strong evidence that I typically experience an increase in levels of mood-elevating hormonal secretions when you are in close proximity, as measured by the vertical distance between subject one (you) and subject two (me), thus indicating …)

Before we get into the details, here’s the summary:

  • Carbohydrates don’t make us fat
  • Carbohydrates don’t cause heart disease
  • Carbohydrates don’t cause type 2 diabetes
  • Carbohydrates don’t cause anything bad, except maybe cavities
  • Carbohydrates from whole grains will cure all your ailments
  • Shut up and eat your carbohydrates

Stunning revelations from a committee empanelled by a government that’s heavily into the grain business.  Here’s some of the opening Engfish:

The role of carbohydrates in the diet has been the source of much public and scientific interest. These include the relationship of carbohydrates with health outcomes, including coronary heart disease (CHD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), body weight, and dental caries. The 2010 DGAC conducted NEL evidence reviews on these and other carbohydrate-related topics. The Committee also relied on evidence contained in the 2002 Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) report and conducted a non-NEL review of recent literature to specifically examine the relationship of carbohydrates with CHD, T2D, behavior, and cognitive performance. No detrimental effects of carbohydrates as a source of calories on these or other health outcomes were reported.

Well, that’s it, then.  The committee promised they’d review all the relevant scientific literature, and now they’re telling us carbohydrates have no detrimental effects.  I can quit reading the report and spend the rest of tonight watching re-runs of Seinfeld.

Dangit, no I can’t.  Thanks in part to my high-fat diet, I have an excellent memory.  And I seem to recall some important studies (many of which I read, even if the committee didn’t) found a link between high-glycemic carbohydrates and disease.  There was even an editorial about the subject in a recent edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  Here are some excerpts (IHD means ischemic heart disease, in case you didn’t know):

Numerous epidemiologic studies have found that higher intake of refined carbohydrates (reflected by increased dietary GL) is associated with greater risk of type 2 diabetes and IHD, whereas higher consumption of whole grains protects against these conditions.

In this issue of the Journal, Jakobsen et al compared the association between saturated fats and carbohydrates with IHD risk among 53,644 men and women in a Danish cohort of the Diet, Cancer, and Health Study. During 12 y of follow-up, 1943 incident cases of myocardial infarction (MI) were diagnosed. Multivariate analyses showed that saturated fat intake was not associated with risk of MI compared with carbohydrate consumption- a finding consistent with the results from a recent pooled analysis and a meta-analysis. However, replacement of saturated fat with high-GI-value carbohydrates significantly increased the risk of MI (relative risk per 5% increment of energy from carbohydrates).

This study is notable for its large size, long duration of followup, and detailed assessment of dietary and lifestyle factors. It is the first epidemiologic study to specifically examine the effects of replacing saturated fats with either high- or low-quality carbohydrates, and it provides direct evidence that substituting high-GIvalue carbohydrates for saturated fat actually increases IHD risk.

Replace saturated fat with high-glycemic carbohydrates, and the risk of heart disease goes up.  Perhaps the committee will at least acknowledge that we should be avoiding high-glycemic, refined carbohydrates.  Let’s see what they have to say on the matter:

When selecting carbohydrate foods, there is no need for concern with their glycemic index or glycemic load. What is important to heed is their calories, caloric density, and fiber content.

Got that?  High glycemic, low glycemic …  nothing to worry about.  Here’s the committee’s fuller conclusion:

Strong and consistent evidence shows that glycemic index and/or glycemic load are not associated with body weight and do not lead to greater weight loss or better weight maintenance. Abundant, strong epidemiological evidence demonstrates that there is no association between glycemic index or load and cancer. A moderate body of inconsistent evidence supports a relationship between high glycemic index and type 2 diabetes. Strong, convincing evidence shows little association between glycemic load and type 2 diabetes. Due to limited evidence, no conclusion can be drawn to assess the relationship between either glycemic index or load and cardiovascular disease.

So the only link negative link to high-glycemic foods is with type 2 diabetes, and by gosh, the evidence is inconsistent on that one.  After several pages of research summaries and citations (which I suspect were cherry-picked), the committee declares the evidence “mixed”  and tells us the glycemic index or load doesn’t make a difference. 

I found that fascinating because of their runaway enthusiasm for whole grains and fiber.  Whole grains, you see, will cure you of almost everything:

A moderate body of evidence from large prospective cohort studies shows that whole grain intake, which includes cereal fiber, protects against cardiovascular disease. Limited evidence shows that consumption of whole grains is associated with a reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes in large prospective cohort studies. Moderate evidence shows that intake of whole grains and grain fiber is associated with lower body weight.

Wowzers.  Eat those whole grains, and you’ll avoid heart disease, diabetes and obestiy.  To provide evidence for that paragraph, the committee cites a slew of observational studies showing an association between eating more whole grains and better health, and even tosses in a few clinical studies as well.  If you didn’t know better, the evidence that whole grains are a cure-all would be convincing.

But I do know better.  Several times, after seeing yet another news story about the wonders of whole grains, I’ve looked up the study that inspired the article.  I’ve always found paragraphs like this one, from a study cited by the committee:

Behall (2006) compared the effects of feeding three whole-grain diets on blood pressure with weight as an ancillary outcome. Participants (n=25) consumed a controlled Step I diet for 2 weeks after which approximately 20 percent of energy was replaced with whole wheat/brown rice, barley, or half wheat-rice/half barley, for 5 weeks each.

The researchers apparently didn’t have the courtesy to tell us what kind of food was “replaced” with whole grains.  I’ll bet you dollars to donuts (and you can keep the donuts) we’re talking about white-flour foods.  That’s been the case in every other study I looked up — except when the researchers didn’t feel like being specific.

Now, let’s think about this … what happens when you remove white-flour foods and replace them with whole-grain foods in a clinical study?  You lower the glycemic index and glycemic load of the meals.  And unless the people in observational studies who report eating a lot of whole grains are sprinkling bran flakes on top of their donuts and white-bread sandwiches, they’re also consuming less white flour.  Even goofball vegan doctors like Neal Bernard tell people to switch to whole grains specifically to reduce their glycemic load.

In other words, the many health benefits the committee ascribes to whole grains are probably the result of consuming less white flour — and thus reducing the blood-sugar blast from eating processed grains.  If the committee is going to cite those studies as solid proof that whole grains are good, then they’re citing studies in which a reduced glycemic load was associated with better health.

Like I’ve said before, if I compare people who smoke filtered and unfiltered cigarettes, the people smoking filtered cigarettes will probably have lower rates of lung cancer.  But that doesn’t mean filtered cigarettes prevent cancer.  It means filtered cigarettes are less likely to cause cancer.  Huge difference.  If we really want to determine the benefits of whole grains, let’s compare people who eat them to people who don’t eat any grains at all.

Even if whole grains contain some beneficial nutrients, it’s crazy to recommend that all Americans should base their diets on them.  Grains can cause all kinds of health problems.  Loren Cordain has written extensively about how grains can cause leaky gut syndrome and lead to autoimmune disorders. 

When I ate grains, I had arthritis.  I had gastric reflux.  I reached for the bottle of Pepto-Bismal at least once per week.  When I was a traveling comedian, I always had Pepto-Bismal chewable tablets in my overnight bag.  Now I literally can’t remember the last time I took Pepto-Bismal or an antacid.  At the premiere party for Fat Head, the sound engineer told me that after the film convinced him to give up grains, he no longer needed his daily dose of Prilosec.  He thanked me for changing his life.  But according to the committee, he’s now at risk for heart disease and diabetes because he’s not eating his whole grains.

While the committee recommends that Americans cut back on sugar, they concluded that sugar doesn’t play any particular role in causing weight gain. 

Added sugars, as found in sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), are not different than other extra calories in the diet for energy intake and body weight. Thus, reducing intake of all added sugars, including sucrose, corn sweetener, fructose, high fructose corn syrup, and other forms of added sugars, is a recommended strategy to reduce calorie intake in Americans.

It’s all about the calories, you see.  And yet elsewhere in the report, they state that people who eat a lot of sugar tend to consume more calories overall.  Gee, do you think maybe there’s a connection there?  Gaining weight may ultimately be caused by over-consuming calories, but then we have to ask ourselves what causes people to over-consume. Recent studies have shown that fructose depletes your body’s supply of ATP, the usable form of energy.  When you’re low on energy, you’re going to eat more.  Sugar is half fructose, while HFCS is 55% fructose.  Put two and two together, and I’d say sugar and HFCS cause people to consume more calories.

Much of the report is dedicated to praising the benefits of fruits and vegetables.  I don’t have anything against fruits and vegetables.  I eat a lot of them, especially vegetables.  I’m not convinced they’re the key to radiant health — there have been plenty of cultures where people were lean and healthy but rarely consumed plants foods —  but if the committee wants to tell people to eat more vegetables, I don’t see any harm in it. 

But I see plenty of harm in the committee continuing to recommend that we get most of our calories from carbohydrates, and of course that’s what they do. 

Healthy diets are high in carbohydrates. Accepted Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) for carbohydrates are 45 to 65 percent from carbohydrates. A maximal intake level of 25 percent or less of total energy from added sugars is suggested, based on trends indicating that people with diets at or above this level of added sugars are more likely to have poorer intakes of important essential nutrients. Active Americans should consume diets at the high end of the AMDR range (65%) while Americans on low calorie diets will need to consume diets at the low end of the range (45%).

That statement didn’t surprise me.  It’s exactly what I expected.  The surprise was that in a document full of praise for the Almighty Carbohydrate, the committee included this sentence:

The amount of dietary carbohydrate that confers optimal health in humans is unknown.

So there you have it:  we don’t actually know how many carbohydrates people should eat to be healthy, but trust us … you should eat a LOT of carbohydrates.

And now, to pluck up everyone’s spirits a bit, I’m happy to report that a doctor who actually gets it was on TV:

Share

84 thoughts on “2010 Dietary Guidlines: Carbohydrates Are Wonderful

  1. Dana

    We may not need the government to tell us how to eat but plainly there are a lot of people who do not know how to eat or why. It would be a good thing if LC/WAPF folks would pool resources and start getting the info out there–and not at $25 or more a pop, either, but free, the way vegan organizations hand out information for free.

    They’re way ahead of us and causing much damage. Time we caught up.

    I actually have some ideas about this but I need to flesh them out some more.

    If the government would just stop handing out bad advice, it would be a huge first step. We didn’t become a nation of carbohydrate addicts until they told us to avoid fat and eat more carbs. But now that they’ve done the damage, I agree; we need organizations like WAPF to ramp it up as much as possible.

    Reply
  2. Dave, RN

    My son has a friend who is a vegetarian. Well, sugar-holic is more like it. It’s all she eats.

    Her dad is a long time vegetarian too. One of the “good” ones, eating lots of fresh vegetables.

    He just had his first heart attack.

    Looking back on my vegetarian days, I was just another carbohydrate addict. I didn’t eat sugar, but pretty much everything I ate was a glucose blast. Sorry to hear about the friend’s dad.

    Reply
  3. Be

    Love your take and give you TONS of credit for dealing with the Engfish. But the bottom line remains – why in the world do we need a government to establish dietary guidelines? Or any “guideline” for that matter! If they came out against carbs, grains, sugars, et al and hoisted the benefits of pastured animal fat combined with local vegetables, I would still say, Why is my government involved in this discussion? Are we the voters really that stupid?

    You’ve hit it on the head. We don’t need them telling us how to eat in the first place.

    Reply
  4. Shelley

    When I read posts of this type by you, I always imagine head-shaped dents in the wall next to your computer!

    It’s only my sense of self-preservation that prevents constant head-banging.

    Reply
  5. Marilyn

    For Jim Purdy. The definition of an expert:

    An “ex-” is a has been. . .
    and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

    Hope that helps. 🙂

    Reply
  6. Dana

    We may not need the government to tell us how to eat but plainly there are a lot of people who do not know how to eat or why. It would be a good thing if LC/WAPF folks would pool resources and start getting the info out there–and not at $25 or more a pop, either, but free, the way vegan organizations hand out information for free.

    They’re way ahead of us and causing much damage. Time we caught up.

    I actually have some ideas about this but I need to flesh them out some more.

    If the government would just stop handing out bad advice, it would be a huge first step. We didn’t become a nation of carbohydrate addicts until they told us to avoid fat and eat more carbs. But now that they’ve done the damage, I agree; we need organizations like WAPF to ramp it up as much as possible.

    Reply
  7. Bushrat

    @ Amber: Do any of these grainless and vege-less people (which would make them carnivores I guess) have any blogs up around the net?

    @ Tom: Denise has a data set available over in the comment section to her response to Campbell. If you feel like playing with statistics then have at it. I did every comparison I could think of and found the same results she did.

    Reply
  8. Dave, RN

    My son has a friend who is a vegetarian. Well, sugar-holic is more like it. It’s all she eats.

    Her dad is a long time vegetarian too. One of the “good” ones, eating lots of fresh vegetables.

    He just had his first heart attack.

    Looking back on my vegetarian days, I was just another carbohydrate addict. I didn’t eat sugar, but pretty much everything I ate was a glucose blast. Sorry to hear about the friend’s dad.

    Reply
  9. Shelley

    When I read posts of this type by you, I always imagine head-shaped dents in the wall next to your computer!

    It’s only my sense of self-preservation that prevents constant head-banging.

    Reply
  10. ugh

    600+ grams of carbs? Now just wait a minute.

    I would gulp down something like a pound of pasta or rice a day (with cheese and oil of course – yay). Or a kilo of pommes.
    But, it came in half-kilo bags (we refuse to use the weaklings’ pound here). And pasta, rice have about 80% carbs.

    Hence I doubt I seriously exceeded 500 g/day, and even that was murder. Even more with the g-g-grains. And I am large. About 300 weaklings’ pounds.

    More madness: DM2 sufferers are “limited” to 300 g/day, 50 g of them sugar. Or were limited. The recommendations are from the 80s, and I hear they “relaxed” the diet quite a bit. We can always put you on insulin or a near-lethal exercise regimen.

    Eating 250 g of (non-grain) pasta is a treat I allow myself once a month or so now (it’s also 250% more expensive)

    Once a month won’t hurt you. About once a month, I indulge in a treat meal … Mexican, Italian, patty melt with fries, something like that.

    Reply
  11. Bushrat

    @ Amber: Do any of these grainless and vege-less people (which would make them carnivores I guess) have any blogs up around the net?

    @ Tom: Denise has a data set available over in the comment section to her response to Campbell. If you feel like playing with statistics then have at it. I did every comparison I could think of and found the same results she did.

    Reply
  12. Dan

    All I could say was “HUH?????” All those “healthy complex carbs” I used to eat did the opposite of what the “committee” said they’d do. I guess I’m just another “paradox,” which is their Engfish way of blowing it off. 🙂

    I think Ronald Reagan said it best, “Government is not the solution to your problems, government IS the problem.”

    True then, true now.

    Reply
  13. ugh

    600+ grams of carbs? Now just wait a minute.

    I would gulp down something like a pound of pasta or rice a day (with cheese and oil of course – yay). Or a kilo of pommes.
    But, it came in half-kilo bags (we refuse to use the weaklings’ pound here). And pasta, rice have about 80% carbs.

    Hence I doubt I seriously exceeded 500 g/day, and even that was murder. Even more with the g-g-grains. And I am large. About 300 weaklings’ pounds.

    More madness: DM2 sufferers are “limited” to 300 g/day, 50 g of them sugar. Or were limited. The recommendations are from the 80s, and I hear they “relaxed” the diet quite a bit. We can always put you on insulin or a near-lethal exercise regimen.

    Eating 250 g of (non-grain) pasta is a treat I allow myself once a month or so now (it’s also 250% more expensive)

    Once a month won’t hurt you. About once a month, I indulge in a treat meal … Mexican, Italian, patty melt with fries, something like that.

    Reply
  14. Dan

    All I could say was “HUH?????” All those “healthy complex carbs” I used to eat did the opposite of what the “committee” said they’d do. I guess I’m just another “paradox,” which is their Engfish way of blowing it off. 🙂

    I think Ronald Reagan said it best, “Government is not the solution to your problems, government IS the problem.”

    True then, true now.

    Reply
  15. Your older brother

    (Cross-posted this on tomnaughton.com because it fits so well in either spot!)

    O! M! G! Opened up the local paper today and Walter William’s column (“Making America Sick”) takes on Big SugarAND HHS AND Big Fructose (ADM) AND Congress.

    Must. Control. Joy.

    Cheers!

    Off to find it. Thanks for the heads-up.

    Reply
  16. Chareva

    @Dana,

    I’m with you on the activism front. We should have a march on Washington.

    The ‘Fat Head’ bus can drive to DC. We can decorate it with the words “Cut the Carbs! High Fructose Corn Syrup and Wheat are killing the American people!” or something like that. Images of grass fed cows sing barbershop “Mooove over Food Pyramid”. Three USDA figures sit on a pile of money labeled “Health Care Bill” each covering eyes, ears and mouth. Perhaps skeleton bottles of Statins and Insulin are dancing on graves.

    We can wear steak, chicken, egg, fish and butter costumes…or hats, for the less adventurous. Give speeches (or stand-up Tom), do funny skits, have a free showing of “Fat Head”, hand out literature. Hand out buttons that say “Eat FAT Be Healthy” or “Carbs Kill”. Am I getting too far out there?

    Media loves sound bites and colorful visuals. Any creative thinkers have other ideas? Anyone have a big bus, costumes and funds at their disposal?

    Reply
  17. Your older brother

    (Cross-posted this on tomnaughton.com because it fits so well in either spot!)

    O! M! G! Opened up the local paper today and Walter William’s column (”Making America Sick”) takes on Big SugarAND HHS AND Big Fructose (ADM) AND Congress.

    Must. Control. Joy.

    Cheers!

    Off to find it. Thanks for the heads-up.

    Reply
  18. Chareva

    @Dana,

    I’m with you on the activism front. We should have a march on Washington.

    The ‘Fat Head’ bus can drive to DC. We can decorate it with the words “Cut the Carbs! High Fructose Corn Syrup and Wheat are killing the American people!” or something like that. Images of grass fed cows sing barbershop “Mooove over Food Pyramid”. Three USDA figures sit on a pile of money labeled “Health Care Bill” each covering eyes, ears and mouth. Perhaps skeleton bottles of Statins and Insulin are dancing on graves.

    We can wear steak, chicken, egg, fish and butter costumes…or hats, for the less adventurous. Give speeches (or stand-up Tom), do funny skits, have a free showing of “Fat Head”, hand out literature. Hand out buttons that say “Eat FAT Be Healthy” or “Carbs Kill”. Am I getting too far out there?

    Media loves sound bites and colorful visuals. Any creative thinkers have other ideas? Anyone have a big bus, costumes and funds at their disposal?

    Reply
  19. Jonathan

    My father recently had a heart attack (47 years old) and while he was in hospital we got a visit from the cardiac nurse who gave us advice on healthy eating (conventional healthy eating; trim fat from your meat, use margarine instead of butter, and use canola oils “because they have the heart foundation tick”) and exercise. The talk lasted atleast 30 minutes and I had to grit my teeth and bite my tongue through the lot of it.

    I managed, but one thing stuck out for me the whole time she was talking; this lady was BIG. And im not talking just a little over weight and if she ate a bit better and exercised a bit more (if she currently did at all) she would lose the weight quickly. Im talking BIG as in this would take a complete lifestyle overhaul and a concerted effort on her part to lose the excess fat she was carry on ALL parts of her body.

    Now if I was’nt convinced before that the conventional wisdom of healthy eating was wrong, then a grossly overweight CARDIAC NURSE!!! giving healthy eating advice pretty much sealed it for me.

    During her talk my Dad said to her, “Im lucky cause my son is quite into healthy eating and exercise so ive got good help”, the nurse turned to me and said “Oh so your quite into diet and exercise are you?”, I felt like saying “Yeah, would you like some advice?” but I just said “Yeah” because really, in that situation, what can you say?

    Your dad is lucky he’s got you to tell him what’s what. I hope he recovers soon.

    Reply
  20. Jonathan

    My father recently had a heart attack (47 years old) and while he was in hospital we got a visit from the cardiac nurse who gave us advice on healthy eating (conventional healthy eating; trim fat from your meat, use margarine instead of butter, and use canola oils “because they have the heart foundation tick”) and exercise. The talk lasted atleast 30 minutes and I had to grit my teeth and bite my tongue through the lot of it.

    I managed, but one thing stuck out for me the whole time she was talking; this lady was BIG. And im not talking just a little over weight and if she ate a bit better and exercised a bit more (if she currently did at all) she would lose the weight quickly. Im talking BIG as in this would take a complete lifestyle overhaul and a concerted effort on her part to lose the excess fat she was carry on ALL parts of her body.

    Now if I was’nt convinced before that the conventional wisdom of healthy eating was wrong, then a grossly overweight CARDIAC NURSE!!! giving healthy eating advice pretty much sealed it for me.

    During her talk my Dad said to her, “Im lucky cause my son is quite into healthy eating and exercise so ive got good help”, the nurse turned to me and said “Oh so your quite into diet and exercise are you?”, I felt like saying “Yeah, would you like some advice?” but I just said “Yeah” because really, in that situation, what can you say?

    Your dad is lucky he’s got you to tell him what’s what. I hope he recovers soon.

    Reply
  21. Pete B

    Every single day, the US government feeds 53 MILLION people. If they were TRYING to make them sick, they couldn’t be doing a better job! Access to Federal Funds is often conditional upon adherence to, or promotion of, the official dietary guidelines.

    The system is broken. Fixing it won’t be a minor exercise …

    You have to admit, it’s a brilliant strategy: first they confiscate more than a quarter of the nation’s income each year, then they tell us, “Now if you want some of your own money back, we have rules to follow …”

    And most people, upon receiving the money, actually think it’s a gift!

    Reply
  22. Pete B

    Every single day, the US government feeds 53 MILLION people. If they were TRYING to make them sick, they couldn’t be doing a better job! Access to Federal Funds is often conditional upon adherence to, or promotion of, the official dietary guidelines.

    The system is broken. Fixing it won’t be a minor exercise …

    You have to admit, it’s a brilliant strategy: first they confiscate more than a quarter of the nation’s income each year, then they tell us, “Now if you want some of your own money back, we have rules to follow …”

    And most people, upon receiving the money, actually think it’s a gift!

    Reply
  23. Mark. Gooley

    Rather sad that Walter Williams confuses sucrose with glucose. Sucrose is of course hardly any better than HFCS. The points about sugar tariffs are valid: HFCS and the domestic US cane and beet sugar industry would both be dead without them… which would let in a lot more cheap sucrose. I’m not sure that this would make much difference regarding the American diet. i suspect that we’re maxed out on sugar anyway.

    Even sadder that the government shows no signs of questioning dietary dogma, and continues to promote this agenda. I do wonder what the people who write the Dietary Guidelines look like, and whether they adhere personally to the practices they promote.

    I emailed him about the difference yesterday.

    Reply
  24. Nick

    @ Bushrat.

    If you are interested in the “carnivores,” they have their own website. It is fairly decent size forum, actually, but is is very tight-knit. There is a lot of good information there, but I would not suggest posting there unless you are very serious about their WOE. They don’t take well outside opinions (I used to post there some).

    The website is Zeroinginonhealth.com

    These guys are zero carb, and many of them have been at it for a great deal of time. The majority of them eat almost nothing but beef and water. It is definitely worth checking out.

    Reply
  25. Mark. Gooley

    Rather sad that Walter Williams confuses sucrose with glucose. Sucrose is of course hardly any better than HFCS. The points about sugar tariffs are valid: HFCS and the domestic US cane and beet sugar industry would both be dead without them… which would let in a lot more cheap sucrose. I’m not sure that this would make much difference regarding the American diet. i suspect that we’re maxed out on sugar anyway.

    Even sadder that the government shows no signs of questioning dietary dogma, and continues to promote this agenda. I do wonder what the people who write the Dietary Guidelines look like, and whether they adhere personally to the practices they promote.

    I emailed him about the difference yesterday.

    Reply
  26. Nick

    @ Bushrat.

    If you are interested in the “carnivores,” they have their own website. It is fairly decent size forum, actually, but is is very tight-knit. There is a lot of good information there, but I would not suggest posting there unless you are very serious about their WOE. They don’t take well outside opinions (I used to post there some).

    The website is Zeroinginonhealth.com

    These guys are zero carb, and many of them have been at it for a great deal of time. The majority of them eat almost nothing but beef and water. It is definitely worth checking out.

    Reply
  27. robin fox

    Firstly, I have a toddler and find it incredibly difficult to find low carb snacks for him. Does anyone have any websites or ideas for under 3’s low carb snacks?
    Also, any tips on a good protein shake and not just ground up soy? I live in rural New Zealand, so that does limit selection.
    Thirdly, I found the following article this morning about fructose and pancreatic cancer. Nice to see some anti-sugar evidence. Now if only the people in charge would start opening their eyes and seeing the clear link we would be getting somewhere!!!

    love your blog, thanks

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

    I don’t know what’s available in New Zealand, but I make whey protein shakes. The brand is Body Fortress. For snacks, we gave our toddlers cheese sticks, olives, berries and nuts. They still like all of the above.

    Reply
  28. robin fox

    Firstly, I have a toddler and find it incredibly difficult to find low carb snacks for him. Does anyone have any websites or ideas for under 3’s low carb snacks?
    Also, any tips on a good protein shake and not just ground up soy? I live in rural New Zealand, so that does limit selection.
    Thirdly, I found the following article this morning about fructose and pancreatic cancer. Nice to see some anti-sugar evidence. Now if only the people in charge would start opening their eyes and seeing the clear link we would be getting somewhere!!!

    love your blog, thanks

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

    I don’t know what’s available in New Zealand, but I make whey protein shakes. The brand is Body Fortress. For snacks, we gave our toddlers cheese sticks, olives, berries and nuts. They still like all of the above.

    Reply
  29. tro

    “A maximal intake level of 25 percent or less of total energy from added sugars is suggested”.

    This reminded me of Lessig speeches which reveals where this 25% comes from, are you familiar with those? Highly recommended. This appears in several of his speeches, for example here: http://blip.tv/file/3485670 starting from around 31:20.

    I bookmarked it and will watch it later.

    Reply
  30. tro

    “A maximal intake level of 25 percent or less of total energy from added sugars is suggested”.

    This reminded me of Lessig speeches which reveals where this 25% comes from, are you familiar with those? Highly recommended. This appears in several of his speeches, for example here: http://blip.tv/file/3485670 starting from around 31:20.

    I bookmarked it and will watch it later.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.