2010 Dietary Guidlines: Cut The Fat! (Even More Than Last Time)

After finishing a big programming project this weekend, I spent a good chunk of today reading the last big section of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, a 65-page document titled Fatty Acids and Cholesterol.  The final 30 pages or so were dedicated to reviewing evidence that nuts, omega-3 fats from fish, and chocolate might be good for your heart.  The committee’s conclusion:  Maybe, but we can’t really say.

But in the first 30-plus pages, the committee makes it clear they’re pretty darned positive saturated fat and cholesterol will kill you.  Saturated fat, as it turns out, will not only clog your arteries and stop your heart, it will give you type 2 diabetes as well. 

For more than 30 years now, we’ve been told to limit saturated fat to no more than 10% of our calories.  We’ve actually come pretty close:  according to the committee’s data tables, saturated fat makes up 11.4% of the average American’s intake.  Since we’ve also become fatter and more diabetic in the past decades, the committee put their academic heads together and came up with the obvious answer:  we’re still consuming too much saturated fat.  So in the 2010 guidelines, they tell us to reduce saturated fat to just 7% of our calories. The committee even suggests putting kids on fat-restricted diets to protect them from diabetes:

The growing data to support a risk of T2D from SFA consumption indicates the need for fat-modified diets in persons with pre-diabetes, including those with metabolic syndrome, and with established diabetes. Since the ages of onset of T2D now include childhood, studies from adolescence through middle age would be useful to define when SFA-reduced diets would be most effective.

I found the whole document so biased and contradictory, I managed to get the entire Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) on the phone so I could ask them to explain themselves.  Here is a transcript of the conversation:

Fat Head:  Thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions.

DGAC:  No problem.  We’re glad to help.

Fat Head:  Wow … I’ve never heard a roomful of people say the exact same words at the exact time before.

DGAC:  So you don’t attend Sunday mass anymore?

Fat Head:  I, uh … I mean I’ve never heard people do that without knowing the words ahead of time.  It’s pretty amazing.

DGAC:  Well, as we made clear in our document, it’s important for policymakers to speak with one voice on nutrition.  We’ve been practicing.

Fat Head:  You’re very good at it.

DGAC:  Thank you.

Fat Head:  To get started, I want to just clarify your overall position on dietary fat.  You stated that the federal government should continue recommending we limit our fat intake to 30% of total calories.  But in your document, you also made these statements:

Currently, several lines of evidence indicate that the type of fat is more important in decreasing metabolic and CVD risk than the total amount of fat in the diet.

The effects of dietary fat, as well as the other macronutrients, and intermediate risk factors, are diverse and highly dependent on other factors such as physical activity and life style habits, and, importantly, individual genetic predisposition that is based on underlying genetic polymorphisms.

However, in the 2002 IOM report on macronutrient requirements there was the adoption of an AMDR of fat intake of 20-35 percent of calories because there were no clear differences in health outcomes in populations consuming dietary fat within this range.

DGAC:  Sounds like you’re speaking Italic.

Fat Head:  I am, but only when I’m quoting you directly.  It’s for the benefit of my readers.

DGAC:  Fair enough.

Fat Head:  The point is, you gave a pretty specific limit for fat intake, then stated elsewhere that it’s the type of fat that really matters, and that there are wide variations in fat intake within healthy populations.  So why give us a limit, then more or less say the amount of fat isn’t all that important?

DGAC:  Because we wanted to work the term underlying genetic polymorphisms into the text.

Fat Head:  But that doesn’t seem–

DGAC:  We’re highly educated and like using a fancy term like that, but just try dropping it into a casual conversation.  It’s nearly impossible.

Fat Head:  Let me try this another way:  Why recommend a 30% limit at all?  What would happen if a large population consumed, say, a diet that was 40% fat?

DGAC:  AAAAAARGGGHHHH!!!

Fat Head:  Geez!  I’ve never heard people scream in unison like that.

DGAC:  What about the first Halloween movie?

Fat Head:  Yeah, but not as a reaction to a simple question.

DGAC:  Well, the very idea!  Don’t you know eating fat causes diabetes?!  A population that eats that much fat would have so many amputees, they’d look like a reunion of Civil War veterans.

Fat Head:  Or like a bunch of Americans when I was in grade school.

DGAC:  Don’t be silly.  The last Civil War veteran died in 1956.

Fat Head:  I’m merely pointing out that according to your own data tables, the average American diet was more than 40% fat in the 1970s.  So where was all the type 2 diabetes?

DGAC:  Well … obviously it was sitting there, like a bomb waiting to explode.  Look what’s happened since then.

Fat Head:  You mean since we started eating less fat and more carbohydrates?

DGAC:  Clearly a case of too little, too late.

Fat Head:  Diabetes in America has doubled in the past 10 to 15 years.  You stated that according to the evidence, saturated fat makes us more likely to develop heart disease and diabetes, while monosaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats appear to prevent both.  Here’s how you put it:

In contrast to CVD, T2D is clearly increasing in prevalence and incidence. T2D is a strong risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, but also carries a high burden of disability and healthcare costs, with diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy as major sequelae. Because of this, T2D and T2D risk were included as disease outcomes related to fatty acid and cholesterol consumption.

Strong evidence indicates that intake of dietary SFA is positively associated with intermediate markers and end point health outcomes for two distinct metabolic pathways: 1) increased serum total and LDL cholesterol and increased risk of CVD and 2) increased markers of insulin resistance and increased risk of T2D. Conversely, decreased SFA intake improves measures of both CVD and T2D risk. The evidence shows that 5 percent energy decrease in SFA, replaced by MUFA or PUFA, decreases risk of CVD and T2D in healthy adults and improves insulin responsiveness in insulin resistant and T2D individuals.

DGAC:  Yes, according to the studies that met our criteria, that’s true.

Fat Head:  But I’m looking at the report here, and you also said this:

 The consumption of harmful types and amounts of fatty acids and cholesterol has not changed appreciably since 1990.

Fat Head:  Meanwhile, according to your data tables, the only fats we increased in our diets during the span when diabetes went through the roof were monosaturated and polyunsaturated.  Since you’re big fans of observational evidence, what do you make of that observation?

DGAC:  Nothing.

Fat Head:  Why not?

DCAG:  Because we didn’t make that observation.

Fat Head:  I see. Well, here’s another one for you:  Compared to Americans, the French consume far more saturated fat, but far less polyunsaturated fat.  They also have a lower rate of heart disease, and according to what I can find online, their rate of diabetes is less than half of ours.  How do you explain that?

DGAC:  It’s got to be the wine.

Fat Head:  I knew you’d say that, but as it turns out, there are other countries where people drink just as much wine, but have a lot more heart disease than the French.

DGAC:  Do the people in those other countries drink French wine?

Fat Head:  Well … I don’t think so.

DGAC:  There you go.

Fat Head:  All throughout your document, you write about saturated fatty acids and trans fatty acids as if they’re the same.  Here are a few examples:

The potential negative effects of dietary cholesterol are relatively small compared to those of SFA and trans fatty acids.

The relationship between dietary saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol and deleterious health outcomes at the population level has long been recognized, with recommendations for modification of total fat, SFA, and cholesterol dating back to the 1980 Guidelines.

Strong and consistent evidence indicates that dietary PUFA are associated with improved blood lipids related to CVD, in particular when PUFA is a replacement for dietary SFA or trans fatty acids.

DGAC:  What’s your point?

Fat Head:  You are aware, aren’t you, that saturated fat and trans fat are two completely different substances?  In your search for all the relevant data, did you notice that heart disease didn’t become an epidemic until we started replacing lard and tallow with Crisco and corn-oil margarine and other trans fats?

DGAC:  Look, saturated fat and trans fat are both solid at room temperature.  And if they’re solid at room temperature, they’re solid inside your body, so they clog your arteries.

Fat Head:  How do you know that?

DGAC:  Dr. Oz explained it on Oprah.

Fat Head:  But–

DGAC:  And saturated fat intake is clearly associated with heart disease.

Fat Head:  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study recently concluding that there’s no association whatsoever between saturated fat and heart disease.

DGAC:  That one didn’t meet our selection criteria.

Fat Head:  Yeah, I noticed you didn’t mention it.  So what exactly were your selection criteria?

DGAC:  Well, if you read the report carefully, you’ll see a lot of sentences that begin something like “A systematic review identified 12 studies that met the selection criteria …”

Fat Head:  Which means?

DGAC:  It means we selected the studies we identified, okay?  Including several that showed an association between saturated fat and heart disease.

Fat Head:  I wanted to ask you about those.  Elsewhere in the document, you listed the top sources of saturated fat in the American diet.  That list included pizza, grain-based desserts, dairy desserts, Mexican dishes, pasta dishes, corn chips, potato chips, candy and fried potatoes.  So isn’t it fair to say that in the observational studies that met your criteria, people who ate more saturated fat also ate more pizza, grain-based desserts, dairy desserts, Mexican dishes, pasta dishes, corn chips, potato chips, candy and fried potatoes?

DGAC:  Uh … yeah, but … all that fat, you see … it’s …

Fat Head:  I’ve never heard people stammer in unison before.  That’s freaky.

DGAC:  The takeaway here is that people who eat a lot of saturated fat have more heart disease. 

Fat Head:  Perhaps because they also eat a lot of junk that’s full of refined carbohydrates?

DGAC:  Carbohydrates have nothing to do with it!

Fat Head:  That’s strange.  Let me quote your document:

In all cases of isocaloric SFA or trans fatty acid substitution, there is a decrease in CHD risk. However, it should be noted that when MUFA or PUFA are substituted by any kind of carbohydrates, CHD risk increased.

Fat Head:  So replacing two different types of fats with any kind of carbohydrate increased the risk of heart disease.  It’s right there in your report.  And so is this:

High MUFA intake, when replacing a high carbohydrate intake, results in improved biomarkers of glucose tolerance and diabetic control.

DGAC:  Those monosaturated fats are truly wonderful.

Fat Head:  Don’t you think maybe reducing carbohydrates figured into it?

DGAC:  Of course not.  Carbohydrates are good for you.  It’s the fat intake you need to watch.

Fat Head:  But you stated in your report that carbohydrate is the only macronutrient that makes up a bigger portion of our diets now than it did 30 years ago.  Then you wrote about the dramatic rise in metabolic syndrome, and how it’s characterized by high blood pressure, high triglycerides, high blood glucose, obesity and low HDL. You quoted research that fat raises HDL. And a ton of other research shows that carbohydrates raise blood pressure, blood sugar and triglycerides. 

DGAC:  So?

Fat Head:  So I’m trying to figure out why you’re still recommending we limit our fats and eat a lot of carbohydrates.  That was your big conclusion in another section of the report:   Healthy diets are high in carbohydrates.

DGAC:  That’s right.

Fat Head:  What?!

DGAC:  Correct.  You got it, Mister. 

Fat Head:  So you’re still saying–

DGAC:  Cut th fat.  Eat your carbohydrates.  Live long and prosper.

Fat Head:  And you don’t see any contradictions there?

DGAC:  No.  That’s why we’re speaking with one voice.

Fat Head:  Thank you for clearing things up.

Share

80 thoughts on “2010 Dietary Guidlines: Cut The Fat! (Even More Than Last Time)

  1. Laurie

    Dust Bowl- there was a drought of course, but the additional dust from all that continued plowing for planting wheat actually affected weather patterns over the plains and appears to have extended the drought.

    Reply
  2. Dave, Rn

    About that dustbowl…
    I believe it was totally the plowing. All that plowing previous to the dust bowl conditions was tearing up the original prairie grasses. Even with the drought, with the grasses roots in place, the dustbowl would never have happened. It was the destruction of that original ecosystem that caused the problem.

    Plowing was definitely a huge factor. Too much loose soil. When the big winds hit, dust clouds reached New York City.

    Reply
  3. Laurie

    This is a little off-topic but is part of the comments thread. Ken Burns, documentarian, is making a ‘Dust Bowl’ film. It’s coming out in 2012. His co., based in NH, is called Florentine films. Did you know that the growing of wheat might have created the dust bowl or at least made it worse? I hadn’t been aware of that earlier than about three weeks ago. Check out
    “Years of Dust” by Albert Marrin. And “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Keith, which I read last year and it opened my eyes to the just maybe possibility that we are doing the wheat plants’ bidding……strange maybe, but fact may just be weirder than fiction.

    Plowing up all that land couldn’t have helped much, but I believe there was also an extended drought to blame. Bad combination.

    Reply
  4. Laurie

    I apologize for belaboring this point. The naturally resistant-to-drought native grasses were plowed up in order to plant non-native-drought-IN-tolerant wheat and other water guzzling crops. The great plains had coped with very little rainfall for a very long time before the 20th century and prairie grasses had populated and adapted to the plains. When the native, ground retaining plants were removed and the normally periodically occurring droughts happened, the dust was swept up into the sky which impacted the atmosphere —affecting and lengthening the drought. I just couldn’t invent this scenario.

    Reply
  5. Rabbi Hirsch Meisels

    @vin
    While it is true that protein also requires insulin, it is far less then what carbs need. Take for example a type 1 diabetic, who has to supply the insulin exogenously. Carb grams are covered in full, while only a third of the protein grams need insulin coverage. In practical terms, take a 3 oz roll, you will need insulin for 45 grams of carb, while if you would instead eat 3 oz of meat, you would only cover 7 grams. Big difference, from 45 to 7!
    In addition, protein will also get you to release glucagon, which sort of regulates/balances the effects of insulin.

    Reply
  6. Charise

    Hey my sister sent me this link to an article that grudgingly accepts that low-carb MIGHT help prevent heart disease, but that low fat is just as good. “We just don’t know.” Nice to see that they haven’t linked to any studies. We might just be able to figure it out for ourselves if they did.

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/08/03/weight-loss-low-carb-cholesterol.html

    It sounds like they found out they were proven wrong, but still won’t say “I’m sorry.”

    That story got a lot of play, which is encouraging. But I bet we don’t see any change in the Dietary Guidelines.

    Reply
  7. Laurie

    Dust Bowl- there was a drought of course, but the additional dust from all that continued plowing for planting wheat actually affected weather patterns over the plains and appears to have extended the drought.

    Reply
  8. Dave, Rn

    About that dustbowl…
    I believe it was totally the plowing. All that plowing previous to the dust bowl conditions was tearing up the original prairie grasses. Even with the drought, with the grasses roots in place, the dustbowl would never have happened. It was the destruction of that original ecosystem that caused the problem.

    Plowing was definitely a huge factor. Too much loose soil. When the big winds hit, dust clouds reached New York City.

    Reply
  9. Laurie

    I apologize for belaboring this point. The naturally resistant-to-drought native grasses were plowed up in order to plant non-native-drought-IN-tolerant wheat and other water guzzling crops. The great plains had coped with very little rainfall for a very long time before the 20th century and prairie grasses had populated and adapted to the plains. When the native, ground retaining plants were removed and the normally periodically occurring droughts happened, the dust was swept up into the sky which impacted the atmosphere —affecting and lengthening the drought. I just couldn’t invent this scenario.

    Reply
  10. Michelle

    Thank-you for all your dedicated work! I waited 5 weeks to get the Fat head movie via Amazon in Canada but worth the wait.I loved it! My husband was gobsmacked!
    I’m a registered nurse and very much suppport saturated fat -low carb however my fellow nurses think I’m nuts!! We cannot depend on healthcare to lead the way in our health… everyone I know in healthcare have drank the kool-aid. Just the other day a dietitian commented on my appearance.I told her my secret was high fat diet..she nearly fainted!!Everday I pass her in the hallway and she can barely hide her disgust.
    I too have gotten my mother off statins..she is still alittle freaked out but 80% of her pain is gone!!! Yesterday I could not get her on the phone,only to discover she spent the day doing yard work..said she has so much “new” energy!!! Thanks again..you are a leader.

    I appreciate the comments very much, I’m glad to hear your mother is improving.

    Reply
  11. Michelle

    Thank-you for all your dedicated work! I waited 5 weeks to get the Fat head movie via Amazon in Canada but worth the wait.I loved it! My husband was gobsmacked!
    I’m a registered nurse and very much suppport saturated fat -low carb however my fellow nurses think I’m nuts!! We cannot depend on healthcare to lead the way in our health… everyone I know in healthcare have drank the kool-aid. Just the other day a dietitian commented on my appearance.I told her my secret was high fat diet..she nearly fainted!!Everday I pass her in the hallway and she can barely hide her disgust.
    I too have gotten my mother off statins..she is still alittle freaked out but 80% of her pain is gone!!! Yesterday I could not get her on the phone,only to discover she spent the day doing yard work..said she has so much “new” energy!!! Thanks again..you are a leader.

    I appreciate the comments very much, I’m glad to hear your mother is improving.

    Reply
  12. Chris

    For your tireless pursuit of the truth, thank you.

    When I was a political science major, the term “cognitive dissonance” was tossed around a lot. It can be defined as the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new info. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919 89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.” (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia).

    Since watching Fat Head and reading “Good Calories, Bad Caloires” four times, oh yeah, and losing 40 pounds, I have been able to accept that fat doesn’t make you fat or clog your arteries. At 60 years old, that required unlearning. That the committee refuses to to unlearn anything is not surprising. To admit that they are wrong would literally mean their whole careers have been wasted. That’s what we’re up against.

    By the way, if you want to see an elephant tap dance, go to http://www.livepositively.com and read Coke’s response to the HFCS “myth.”Learn the important role Coke plays in the community and as part of a “balanced” diet. The PR folks are running scared and it shows.

    That’s what makes the whole exercise pointless. The people chosen for the committee built their careers on the fat-and-cholesterol-kill-you theory. And now we’re supposed to believe they gave the science an objective look?

    Reply
  13. Chris

    For your tireless pursuit of the truth, thank you.

    When I was a political science major, the term “cognitive dissonance” was tossed around a lot. It can be defined as the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new info. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919 89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.” (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia).

    Since watching Fat Head and reading “Good Calories, Bad Caloires” four times, oh yeah, and losing 40 pounds, I have been able to accept that fat doesn’t make you fat or clog your arteries. At 60 years old, that required unlearning. That the committee refuses to to unlearn anything is not surprising. To admit that they are wrong would literally mean their whole careers have been wasted. That’s what we’re up against.

    By the way, if you want to see an elephant tap dance, go to http://www.livepositively.com and read Coke’s response to the HFCS “myth.”Learn the important role Coke plays in the community and as part of a “balanced” diet. The PR folks are running scared and it shows.

    That’s what makes the whole exercise pointless. The people chosen for the committee built their careers on the fat-and-cholesterol-kill-you theory. And now we’re supposed to believe they gave the science an objective look?

    Reply
  14. Lisa Sargese

    Saw this quote and thought of you…. ”
    Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable.” – Bobby Bragan

    That’s hilarious.

    Reply
  15. Lisa Sargese

    Saw this quote and thought of you…. ”
    Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable.” – Bobby Bragan

    That’s hilarious.

    Reply
  16. pjnoir

    You answered my question by not posting my comment/question/concern.

    I’m not sure what you mean. I’ll check the spam folder to see if you had a commet wind up there. It happens sometimes.

    I looked. All I can find is the one I answered yesterday.

    Reply
  17. pjnoir

    You answered my question by not posting my comment/question/concern.

    I’m not sure what you mean. I’ll check the spam folder to see if you had a commet wind up there. It happens sometimes.

    I looked. All I can find is the one I answered yesterday.

    Reply
  18. Dan M.

    “In all cases of isocaloric SFA or trans fatty acid substitution, there is a decrease in CHD risk. However, it should be noted that when MUFA or PUFA are substituted by any kind of carbohydrates, CHD risk increased.”

    Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but I don’t see the inconsistency here. You seemed to have read this as saying that any time fat is replaced by carbohydrates, CHD risk goes up. I’m reading this as their saying that replacing SFA or TFA with anything decreases risk, but replacing MUFA or PUFA with carbs increases risk. So it seems to me at least that their statement is at least consistent within itself and with their recommendations, even if not consistent with actual research.

    The inconsistency is that they recommend we limit all fats to 30% of the diet and consume 60% carbs. But according to their own data, we’d be better off limiting carbs and replacing them — at the very least — with PUFA or MUFA. And since other recently published research shows that zero association between saturated fat and heart disease but significant associations between high carb intake and heart disease, it makes no sense to put a 30% limit on fats of any kind other than trans fats while telling us healthy diets are high-carb diets.

    Reply
  19. Dan M.

    “In all cases of isocaloric SFA or trans fatty acid substitution, there is a decrease in CHD risk. However, it should be noted that when MUFA or PUFA are substituted by any kind of carbohydrates, CHD risk increased.”

    Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but I don’t see the inconsistency here. You seemed to have read this as saying that any time fat is replaced by carbohydrates, CHD risk goes up. I’m reading this as their saying that replacing SFA or TFA with anything decreases risk, but replacing MUFA or PUFA with carbs increases risk. So it seems to me at least that their statement is at least consistent within itself and with their recommendations, even if not consistent with actual research.

    The inconsistency is that they recommend we limit all fats to 30% of the diet and consume 60% carbs. But according to their own data, we’d be better off limiting carbs and replacing them — at the very least — with PUFA or MUFA. And since other recently published research shows that zero association between saturated fat and heart disease but significant associations between high carb intake and heart disease, it makes no sense to put a 30% limit on fats of any kind other than trans fats while telling us healthy diets are high-carb diets.

    Reply
  20. Piltson

    Here in Europe we´re worried. You saved us from our stupidities twice in the past century, but what if we derail again?

    Surely, we can´t depend on the fatheads you´re going to send next time. Is there anything we can do for you, in our own interest.

    Yes — ask the French to keep that French Paradox alive and well. We need their counter-example.

    Reply
  21. Piltson

    Here in Europe we´re worried. You saved us from our stupidities twice in the past century, but what if we derail again?

    Surely, we can´t depend on the fatheads you´re going to send next time. Is there anything we can do for you, in our own interest.

    Yes — ask the French to keep that French Paradox alive and well. We need their counter-example.

    Reply
  22. Ola S (Sweden)

    I’m truly amazed and saddened by the fact that US citizens are literally exploding in weight year after year, while at the same time being told and lobbied to consume less fat and lots of carbs.

    Any school book in biology tells that carbs spike the insulin hormone, and insulin shuts down the glucagon hormone. Well, glucagon is the hormone driving the fat burning in the body.

    This means that if you’re eating carbs every meal and for your snacks, you’re shutting down you fat burning process all the time (exept for a few hours just before you wake up in the morning).

    Skip carbs (in ANY form!) as much as possible and the weight will be reduced, as the body will be using fat as the energy source all day long. And you don’t even have to starve and be hungry on some caloric reduced diet as you go for low carb high fat food.

    In essence: Carbs are the culprits behind this staggering obesity epidemic in USA.

    /Ola S

    And the sad thing is, a lot of those fat people keep trying low-fat/high-carb diets because they’ve been told they should.

    Reply
  23. Ola S (Sweden)

    I’m truly amazed and saddened by the fact that US citizens are literally exploding in weight year after year, while at the same time being told and lobbied to consume less fat and lots of carbs.

    Any school book in biology tells that carbs spike the insulin hormone, and insulin shuts down the glucagon hormone. Well, glucagon is the hormone driving the fat burning in the body.

    This means that if you’re eating carbs every meal and for your snacks, you’re shutting down you fat burning process all the time (exept for a few hours just before you wake up in the morning).

    Skip carbs (in ANY form!) as much as possible and the weight will be reduced, as the body will be using fat as the energy source all day long. And you don’t even have to starve and be hungry on some caloric reduced diet as you go for low carb high fat food.

    In essence: Carbs are the culprits behind this staggering obesity epidemic in USA.

    /Ola S

    And the sad thing is, a lot of those fat people keep trying low-fat/high-carb diets because they’ve been told they should.

    Reply
  24. alex

    Hi

    I was wondering what is your position on protein bars. The Musashi protein bars I have been eating appear low in carbs 8.7% but they do contain polydextrose(they classify this as fibre), maltitol and soy protein. The bars leave me very thirsty and my skin seems puffy after eating them and the worst part is they are delicous and I cant stop eating them by the box!

    I wouldn’t eat anything by the box. I have a protein bar on rare occasionals, but for the most part I stick with real, unprocessed foods.

    Reply
  25. alex

    Hi

    I was wondering what is your position on protein bars. The Musashi protein bars I have been eating appear low in carbs 8.7% but they do contain polydextrose(they classify this as fibre), maltitol and soy protein. The bars leave me very thirsty and my skin seems puffy after eating them and the worst part is they are delicous and I cant stop eating them by the box!

    I wouldn’t eat anything by the box. I have a protein bar on rare occasionals, but for the most part I stick with real, unprocessed foods.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.