A dietary shift is definitely happening. Here’s how I know that for sure:
The big-money bankers are on board.
In case you didn’t see it in the comments section of my most recent post, Credit Suisse just published an 84-page report titled Fat: The New Health Paradigm. I skimmed it and was impressed, but my initial response was why is a bank publishing this?
The answer (echoed by a handful of readers) is that Credit Suisse is an investment bank, and their reports are intended to inform investors of economic trends. If there’s a big movement among consumers to embrace natural fats and cut back on grains and vegetable oils, that will of course have an economic impact. Probably not a good time to invest in General Mills.
Two of the bullet points from the document’s summary section make that clear:
- What is the outlook? Globally, we expect fat to grow from the current 26% of calorie intake to 31% by 2030, with saturated fat growing the fastest and going from 9.4% of total energy intake to 13%. This implies that fat consump¬tion per capita will grow 1.3% a year over the next fifteen years versus a rate of 0.9% over the last fifty years. We expect saturated fat to grow at 2% a year versus a historical rate of 0.6% a year; monounsaturated at 1.3% a year versus 1.0%; polyunsaturated omega-6 to decline 0.2% a year versus a 1.3% past growth rate and polyunsaturated omega-3 to grow at 0.7% a year versus 1.6% a year over the last 50 years.
- Among foods, the main winners are likely to be eggs, milk and dairy products (cheese, yogurt and butter) and nuts with annual rates of growth around 2.5-4%. The losers are likely to be wheat and maize and to a lesser extent solvent-extracted vegetable oils. Meat consumption per capita should grow at 1.4% a year and fish at 1.6% supported by a fast expanding aquacul¬ture industry.
But there’s waaaaay more to the report than predictions of what consumers will be buying or not buying in the near future. There are explanations of the various types of fats, a history of fat in the human diet, and a history of the anti-fat hysteria that took hold in the 1960s and became official policy in the 1980s. There’s a lovely, concise section that looks at the evidence (more like lack of evidence) that fat causes heart disease and obesity. There’s a similar section on the health effects of red meat. And of course, there are sections on the recent shift in consumer attitudes about fat.
I’m still reading the thing (since I have a full-time job and all that), but here’s a sample of other bullet points from the opening summary:
- Triangulating several topics such as anthropology, breast feeding, evolution of primates, height trends in the human population, or energy needs of our various vital organs, we have concluded that natural fat consumption is lower than “ideal” and if anything could increase safely well beyond current levels.
- The 1960s brought a major change in the perception of fat in the world and particularly in the U.S., where saturated fat was blamed for being the main cause behind an epidemic of heart attacks. We will see that it was not saturated fat that caused the epidemic as its consumption declined between 1930 and 1960. Smoking and alcohol were far more likely factors behind the heart attack epidemic.
- Saturated fat has not been a driver of obesity: fat does not make you fat. At current levels of consumption the most likely culprit behind growing obesity level of the world population is carbohydrates. A second potential factor is solvent-extracted vegetable oils (canola, corn oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, cottonseed oil). Globally consumption per capita of these oils increased by 214% between 1961 and 2011 and 169% in the U.S. Increased calories intake—if we use the U.S. as an example—played a role, but please note that carbohydrates and vegetable oils accounted for over 90% of the increase in calorie intake in this period.
- A proper review of the so called “fat paradoxes” (France, Israel and Japan) suggests that saturated fats are actually healthy and omega-6 fats, at current levels of consumption in the developed world, are not necessarily so.
- Doctors and patients’ focus on “bad” and “good” cholesterol is superficial at best and most likely misleading. The most mentioned factors that doctors use to assess the risk of CVDs—total blood cholesterol (TC) and LDL cholesterol (the “bad” cholesterol)—are poor indicators of CVD risk. In women in particular, TC has zero predictive value if we look at all causes of death. Low blood cholesterol in men could be as bad as very high cholesterol. The best indicators are the size of LDL particles (pattern A or B) and the ratio of TG (triglycerides) to HDL (the “good” cholesterol). A VAP test to check your pattern A/B costs less than $100 in the U.S., yet few know of its existence.
- Based on medical and our own research we can conclude that the intake of saturated fat (butter, palm and coconut oil and lard) poses no risk to our health and particularly to the heart. In the words of probably the most important epidemiological study published on the subject by Siri-Tarino et al: “There is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.” Saturated fat is actually a healthy source of energy and it has a positive effect on the pat¬tern A/B.
- The main factor behind a high level of saturated fats in our blood is actually carbohydrates, not the amount of saturated fat we eat.
Wow. Great stuff … from a bank.
In case you had any doubts that most doctors don’t keep up with the latest diet and health research, the report includes this finding:
We conducted two proprietary surveys of doctors, nutritionist and consumers to understand better their perception of the issues we mentioned previously. All three groups showed superficial knowledge on the potential benefits or risks of increased fat consumption. Their views are influenced significantly more by public health bodies or by WHO and AHA rather than by medical research. Even on the “easy” topic of cholesterol, 40% of nutritionists and 70% of the general practitioners we surveyed still believe that eating cholesterol-rich foods is bad for your heart.
Go figure. The nutritionists are more likely than doctors to know that cholesterol has been found not guilty of causing heart disease.
In term of macronutrients, 45% of the doctors surveyed said that their perception of protein has improved, versus only 5% saying it has worsened; 29% of the doctors said that their perception of fat has improved versus only 7% saying it has worsened; and 15% only said that their perception of carbohydrates has improved versus 26% saying it has worsened.
Answering what makes you fat if eaten in large quantities, the doctors correctly pointed to sugar and carbohydrates (32% and 26%); fat and saturated fats are not as bad (23% and 16%) and protein collected only 2% of the responses.
However, the doctors believed that the best diet for weight loss is a low calorie one (65%), followed by low carbohydrate (36%) and low fat (7%). Among nutritionists, 42% prefer the low carbohydrate diet, against 30% for the general practice group.
Let’s focus on the positive. Yes, nearly two-thirds of doctors surveyed believe low-calorie diets are best for weight loss, but only 7% recommended a low-fat diet, versus 36% who recommended a low-carb diet. I’d wager a large sum that 15 or 20 years ago, more doctors would have been recommending a low-fat diet than a low-carb diet. It’s progress. And I was pleasantly surprised to see that 42% of the nutritionists recommend a low-carb diet.
I plan to read the entire report when I can. If anything jumps out at me as particularly interesting, I’ll post about it.
In the meantime, I see this report as another sign that the arterycloggingsaturatedfat! paradigm is dying out. The American Heart Association doesn’t want it to happen, The Guy From CSPI doesn’t want it to happen, the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee doesn’t want it to happen, and countless makers of low-fat and low-cholesterol food-like products don’t want it to happen. But it’s happening.
And you can take that to the bank.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Three cheers for capitalism!
re: … the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee doesn’t want it to happen …
And their masters are upset with the tentative little steps DGA’15 did propose:
http://agriculture.house.gov/press-release/agriculture-committee-announces-hearing-usda-secretary-vilsack-and-hhs-secretary
Woooo Hoooooo! Sooner or later, the USDA and the AHA and possibly even the Guy from CSPI are going to HAVE to admit “We wuz wrong.” Unless, of course, they can figure out a way to make it appear that they were promoting natural saturated fats all along, and we just misunderstood them. What do you want to bet they try?
Three cheers for capitalism!
I second that emotion.
re: … the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee doesn’t want it to happen …
And their masters are upset with the tentative little steps DGA’15 did propose:
http://agriculture.house.gov/press-release/agriculture-committee-announces-hearing-usda-secretary-vilsack-and-hhs-secretary
Yup. That’s why they’re trying to do this in baby steps.
I have not slogged through the entire DGAC 2015 report, but I thought the Agriculture Committee’s concern was with recommendations to eat even fewer animal products because (as everyone knows) animals are bad for the environment:
“The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet.” (Executive Summary)
The report may not be totally fat-phobic, but it certainly is not friendly to saturated fat:
“The DGAC encourages the consumption of healthy dietary patterns that are low in saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium.” (Executive Summary)
Interesting to see the pattern repeated. The McGovern committee’s original mission was to find ways to solve hunger. Without being asked, they expanded the mission to include dietary recommendations for everyone. Now the DGAC has apparently decided it’s up to them to save the environment instead of just reviewing which foods are good for health.
Unfortunately the foods best for health are the wurst for the planet. In any event the masses are not going vegan or even vegetarian, just not.
The NYT has an article from a couple of days ago about vegans trying glamour to sell veganism. Yes, there are hip young people going to the top vegan restaurants, but they are young and have therefore at least temporary grace and besides they probably eat SAD or worse otherwise. There is no commitment in eating in a Vegan restaurant after all.
Anyway does anyone know the ratio of ex-vegans to vegans?
Anyone have good data? I hear about 3/4s go back to eating meat and there are probably a lot of quiet dropouts. I for one didn’t tell anyone when taking up veganism or when leaving.
The dropout rate is high among vegetarians. Not sure if it’s the same among vegans.
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/06/30/most-vegetarians-become-ex-vegetarians/
I have to assume the dropout rate among vegans is much higher. It’s quite possible for almost all people to remain healthy on a vegetarian diet. One has to have a superb metabolism to remain healthy on a vegan diet any one of the myriad metabolic pathways being broken which are normally of no importance on a diet having substantial animal products can be a killer.
For example, vitamin A from vegetarian sources may not convert to efficiently or at all.
And we all know about B12, but many vegans think they can get it from algae, which block the absorption of true B12.
I would suspect as much, since being a vegan is even more restrictive. On the other hand, it’s more like a religion to those who adopt it.
I’ve been seeing a lot of signs of this as well. The Meijer nearest my house is currently remodeling, and one of the aisles they just re-did was the one with all the oil and vinegar in it. Within the past couple years they’ve gone from having ONE brand of coconut oil and MAYBE one brand of sesame oil to an entire section filled with just about every type of oil I’ve ever heard of and some I haven’t. Heck, I just bought a chunk o’ local butter there. (It is a CHUNK, too, it’s not in sticks, the thing that cracks me up is that it’s 2 lbs. for 9 bucks whereas the sticks are 1 pound for 6 bucks or thereabouts. So it’s not just better quality and local and all that jazz, it’s CHEAPER.)
I mean, they still have all the vegan this and vegetarian that, but the other options are EXPLODING.
As dr Malcolm Kendrick stated, they will still find a way to descrited this research. You know since they are bankers not doctors.
Woooo Hoooooo! Sooner or later, the USDA and the AHA and possibly even the Guy from CSPI are going to HAVE to admit “We wuz wrong.” Unless, of course, they can figure out a way to make it appear that they were promoting natural saturated fats all along, and we just misunderstood them. What do you want to bet they try?
Well, CSPI became the big anti-trans-fat organization without ever admitting they once promoted them. So yeah, I wouldn’t put it past them to get in front of the parade and declare themselves the leader.
Unfortunately, those organizations only ever gave “advice” and offered “guidelines”. They’ll just say you don’t “have” to follow advice (despite schools being forced to adhere to them).
The head of CSPI is a vegan and their mission is actually to promote the vegan way of life, so I’m guessing they will never admit that”arterycloggingsaturatedfa”t does not, in fact, clog your arteries any more than they will admit that eating red meat will not ultimately kill you.
Of course. They want us afraid of animal fat so we don’t eat animals.
IMHO that’s exactly what will happen. Once a trickster, always a trickster.
I’d love to see that happen. Sadly here in the UK the newspapers got hold of a study which proclaimed that sugar and not fat is behind obesity and its related health problems. It was big news. NHS bosses did no more than stammer ‘we stand behind our dietary advice’. While of course giving no reason to stand behind that old paradigm. It still reigns supreme here. My partner hates me eating lchf. When I said fat keeps you full he said ‘fat keeps you fat’. His brother insists that low carb eating only results in losing water weight. I told him I didn’t lose 3st 4lb (46lb) of water. Pretty much everyone I know refers to low carb diets as ‘crazy’ and tell me I need to eat carbs sometime. So much ignorance and a lack of critical thought.
I’ve posted before and after pictures who’ve lost 100 pounds. That would be a lot of water.
I’ve been seeing a lot of signs of this as well. The Meijer nearest my house is currently remodeling, and one of the aisles they just re-did was the one with all the oil and vinegar in it. Within the past couple years they’ve gone from having ONE brand of coconut oil and MAYBE one brand of sesame oil to an entire section filled with just about every type of oil I’ve ever heard of and some I haven’t. Heck, I just bought a chunk o’ local butter there. (It is a CHUNK, too, it’s not in sticks, the thing that cracks me up is that it’s 2 lbs. for 9 bucks whereas the sticks are 1 pound for 6 bucks or thereabouts. So it’s not just better quality and local and all that jazz, it’s CHEAPER.)
I mean, they still have all the vegan this and vegetarian that, but the other options are EXPLODING.
I’m seeing the same thing at our local Kroger.
I hate, however, Kroger’s markup on heavy cream — it’s nearly $6 for a quart.
I remember seeing a report from Kroger on their health initiatives where they praised themselves for marking up high-fat products like butter and cream resulting in decreased sales of those products.
Their assumption was that they were helping their shoppers make better choices. The reality, though, may be that shoppers now get their cream from Walmart. (I know I do.)
I suspect competition will force them to re-think that assumption.
Wow, I always wondered why their heavy cream was so stupid expensive!
And of course, they lose a lot of other sales from people who don’t want to shop in two stores. Or people who decide that they just don’t want to do business with them.
Taking ideological positions on price or who you will serve is usually bad business, unless strongly enforced by local mores.
As dr Malcolm Kendrick stated, they will still find a way to descrited this research. You know since they are bankers not doctors.
They’ll try and fail. They can discredit a source here and there, but it’s getting to where they’ll have eto discredit a tidal wave of information.
Excellent news..there are still the dying gasps of the ‘fat is bad’ all over the place, but they are being shouted over. Amusing to see ‘protein porridge’ and ‘protein muesli’ in the cereal aisle. A start, but missing the point lol
‘Dying gasps’ is the operative term.
If only they would fatten interest rates on our savings, checking and money market accounts.
Not while central banks are holding interest rates near zero.
Awesome! I believe that as soon as folks start feeling better and becoming healthier, the growth in saturated fat consumption will be faster than predicted by Credit Suisse.
I predict that recalcitrant doctors and dietitians, big pharma, big food and big agriculture will suffer well deserved losses.
My only concern is that increased health and longevity could bankrupt social security and retirement plans.
Social Security will go bankrupt anyway. Let’s at least be healthy when it happens.
Investment bankers are not interested in anyone’s health or well being. These reports are put out mainly to help sell institutional investors on moving from one investment to the next one. When big pharma comes out with the next miracle fake fat, etc. watch for Credit Suisse and others to issue a blockbuster report moving to that instead of real fat.
ps – spent a small portion of my working life in the IB industry. .
Excellent news..there are still the dying gasps of the ‘fat is bad’ all over the place, but they are being shouted over. Amusing to see ‘protein porridge’ and ‘protein muesli’ in the cereal aisle. A start, but missing the point lol
‘Dying gasps’ is the operative term.
If only they would fatten interest rates on our savings, checking and money market accounts.
Not while central banks are holding interest rates near zero.
Better contact my broker and get in early on the Pork Belly futures 🙂
Awesome! I believe that as soon as folks start feeling better and becoming healthier, the growth in saturated fat consumption will be faster than predicted by Credit Suisse.
I predict that recalcitrant doctors and dietitians, big pharma, big food and big agriculture will suffer well deserved losses.
My only concern is that increased health and longevity could bankrupt social security and retirement plans.
Social Security will go bankrupt anyway. Let’s at least be healthy when it happens.
That makes your decision to move to your farm an even wiser choice.
Think of the billions and billions of dollars saved in reducing the total cost of treating diabetes and CVD.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=168325
$245B in 2012, how much could that number be reduced?? Considering a lot of that is likely came out of tax dollars, (medicare|medicade), how much of that could go towards social security.
$245B, if that could be cut by over half, that could be a savings of $500 per/person in the US. If we were to guess that only 10% of the population was retired and we could completely (I know, I am dreaming here) redirect the savings, that would be an addition $5000 per retiree. Add in all of the other hidden costs with diabetes, and I sure the number would be even higher.
Additional savings could be made by getting rid of Statins and their side effects, and so on.
Now, we would have huge numbers of medical workers looking for jobs, but I am willing to deal with that problem 🙂 I know, think of all of medical school loans that would be going in default, oh wait …….
I don’t know if the reports covers it, but I would not be investing in medical right now!
I agree completely with your “faster than predicted” belief. Paradigm shifts, by definition, don’t occur on a trend line. They’re explosive.
As to those well-deserved comeupances to the Bigs, well, sorry Joe, but that’s not the way the world works any more, to the extent that it ever did.
A few high profile docs who bet big the wrong way may lose some cred, but the Bigs aren’t the Bigs because they pay for their mistakes. They’re the Bigs because they own the system and they get other people to pay for their mistakes.
Merck and Pfizer and Monsanto and ADM and Cargill an etc, etc, etc will adjust their business models to maximize their market (regulatory) advantages and profits and continue on their merry way. It’s what they do. If you really want change, you’d have to eliminate the regulatory agencies that “oversee” the Bigs and let the market work, but that’s not going to happen.
Social Security will indeed go broke anyway, but Medicare/Medicaid are going bust pretty much right now. To the extent that a major shift in the US diet would manifest itself, the health improvements could greatly reduce costs in those programs, probably with a net gain that would easily offset the longevity costs of a couple of more years of Social Security checks.
With nearly 90% of Americans over 65 regularly taking prescription drugs, at an average of 4 different prescriptions (think statins, diabetes meds, painkillers, antidepressants, blood pressure meds, etc), the savings could be huge. That’s without even considering the improvements in both quality of life and end of life outcomes.
Cheers!
I took way too long before visiting this site and reading this comment but hopefully other people will read this later on and my inner Grammar NAZI will be indulged.
I predict that recalcitrant doctors and dietitians, big pharma, big food and big agriculture will suffer well deserved losses.
re·cal·ci·trant
1. having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline.
Oh well, at least no one’s loosed some weight or feels like a looser for not loosing weight yet…
Investment bankers are not interested in anyone’s health or well being. These reports are put out mainly to help sell institutional investors on moving from one investment to the next one. When big pharma comes out with the next miracle fake fat, etc. watch for Credit Suisse and others to issue a blockbuster report moving to that instead of real fat.
ps – spent a small portion of my working life in the IB industry. .
I’m a bit hazy, but I think I read an extract of this article in………… Time Magazine. Bit ironic (and infuriating) when you think back to the issue with the bacon and eggs on the cover.
Tom, the report is an excellent summary and is damning about our health care systems.
The following is from page 51:
Here is our final hypothesis on why health authorities have remained so certain of their position and unwilling to change their view on saturated fats, omega-6 or carbohydrates:
Health authorities advance very slowly and are afraid to change the market’s status quo (not a wise medical posture).
We have known since the 1960-70s that dietary cholesterol has no influence on blood cholesterol. Yet it took more than fifty years for the USDA/USDHHS to lift recommended upper limits of fat consumption. It took close to 20 years in the U.S.—that was quick—to ban transfats. So we should not look at public health authorities as leading indicators of potential health hazards, but rather as lagging behind.
Bureaucracy tends to move slowly, but when the health risks tied to “incorrect” information are so high, one would hope for swift action and the courage to reverse past mistakes. There was no fundamental reason to move from butter to solvent extracted vegetable oils. If we assume that research was the main reason—as it was claimed at that time—the health authorities now have enough information to change their recommendations, or if still in doubt issue no recommendations.
Great post, Tom! I’m so glad you’re reading through this report. Now, I’m slogging through some of their back reports and it’s amazing what their research division has done. The sugar article is worth reading, although I didn’t totally agree with everything in it- the politics side of it. Don’t stop- those of us who consider you required reading are willing to wait when your job interferes!
I appreciate that. I could have worse problems than a job that keeps me busy.
Let us know if they explain the folks in their survey. I will guess that if they had surveyed dietitians as opposed to nutritionists, the results would have been closer to the status quo.
Probably, but we’ll take these little signs of progress.
Thanks, Tom. Very encouraging info.
Better contact my broker and get in early on the Pork Belly futures 🙂
It’s quite fascinating seeing the good ship Low Fat turn around–slowly, slowly, but it is perceptibly turning now. By the time the USDA catches on the ship will be well out of the harbor.
We’ve already seen the ADA say that they didn’t have “an ADA diet” and that they have always been open to a low carb approach. Now Diabetes UK is starting to say the same. They are trying to position themselves to deflect the blame “because it’s what we have said all along”. Yeah, right . . .
With the proliferation of first gluten-free and now paleo “products” (is that an oxymoron or what???) portends what is going to happen with the “fat is good” market. It’s still going to be buyer beware. But at least we can look forward to a day that we won’t be vilified for eating real, whole unprocessed fats.
Yup, “we knew it all along” seems to be the last line of defense for organizations who’ve promoted bad advice for years.
I’ll be grateful when they admit defeat and stop hurting people.
I’m a bit hazy, but I think I read an extract of this article in………… Time Magazine. Bit ironic (and infuriating) when you think back to the issue with the bacon and eggs on the cover.
Tom, the report is an excellent summary and is damning about our health care systems.
The following is from page 51:
Here is our final hypothesis on why health authorities have remained so certain of their position and unwilling to change their view on saturated fats, omega-6 or carbohydrates:
Health authorities advance very slowly and are afraid to change the market’s status quo (not a wise medical posture).
We have known since the 1960-70s that dietary cholesterol has no influence on blood cholesterol. Yet it took more than fifty years for the USDA/USDHHS to lift recommended upper limits of fat consumption. It took close to 20 years in the U.S.—that was quick—to ban transfats. So we should not look at public health authorities as leading indicators of potential health hazards, but rather as lagging behind.
Bureaucracy tends to move slowly, but when the health risks tied to “incorrect” information are so high, one would hope for swift action and the courage to reverse past mistakes. There was no fundamental reason to move from butter to solvent extracted vegetable oils. If we assume that research was the main reason—as it was claimed at that time—the health authorities now have enough information to change their recommendations, or if still in doubt issue no recommendations.
Great post, Tom! I’m so glad you’re reading through this report. Now, I’m slogging through some of their back reports and it’s amazing what their research division has done. The sugar article is worth reading, although I didn’t totally agree with everything in it- the politics side of it. Don’t stop- those of us who consider you required reading are willing to wait when your job interferes!
I appreciate that. I could have worse problems than a job that keeps me busy.
Let us know if they explain the folks in their survey. I will guess that if they had surveyed dietitians as opposed to nutritionists, the results would have been closer to the status quo.
Probably, but we’ll take these little signs of progress.
Thanks, Tom. Very encouraging info.
It’s quite fascinating seeing the good ship Low Fat turn around–slowly, slowly, but it is perceptibly turning now. By the time the USDA catches on the ship will be well out of the harbor.
We’ve already seen the ADA say that they didn’t have “an ADA diet” and that they have always been open to a low carb approach. Now Diabetes UK is starting to say the same. They are trying to position themselves to deflect the blame “because it’s what we have said all along”. Yeah, right . . .
With the proliferation of first gluten-free and now paleo “products” (is that an oxymoron or what???) portends what is going to happen with the “fat is good” market. It’s still going to be buyer beware. But at least we can look forward to a day that we won’t be vilified for eating real, whole unprocessed fats.
Yup, “we knew it all along” seems to be the last line of defense for organizations who’ve promoted bad advice for years.
I’ll be grateful when they admit defeat and stop hurting people.
The economic hit to the health care industry is going to be huge. As more people return to a “normal carb” way of eating, natural fat sources, no hfcs and very little sugar, the wave of metabolic diseases will drop fast.
It’s a huge industry that can be reduced to nothing by simple dietary changes.
Now go eat some red meat!!
Let’s hope.
Not germane to this post, except that Janet Ruhl does an EXCELLENT job — as you do! — disentangling the lies and mis-directions in medical studies…. since many of your readers might need to know this stuff to ‘fight their doctors,’ it might be useful…
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2015/09/cutting-through-jardiance-study-hype-be.html
The wisdom of crowds is spearheading change. Who would have ever guessed that the director of my division at work would “volunteer” me, the oddball who eats bacon, eggs and cheese for breakfast every morning as our representative in my employer’s wellness committee?? Turns out she lost weight on a low carb, high fat, whole foods diet. She said she wants someone who is actually healthy on the committee. Hmm…
Perhaps, since Credit Suisse also provides life insurance, their own data shows that the advice to eat hclf and beat your cholesterol into submission isn’t such a great idea after all. I wonder if they have revised the conventional stance on cholesterol levels now when determining rates?
Thank you for all you do. I’ve been reading your blog for about a year now. It’s fantastic! Keep up the great work!
All the best,
Carrie
That would be great. I’ve heard of people temporarily beating down their cholesterol with a strict low-fat diet just to get a cheaper life-insurance rate.
It is not uncommon when people are discussing the food industry to portray them as an evil empire, bent on the destruction of humanity. Truth is, they are just out to make a buck. They sold low-fat foods full of sugar because we were all told that fat was bad and sugar was good so that’s what we wanted to buy. If we want to buy full-fat products, they will be more than happy to sell us those. We are the ones in control here. Let us also hope that if, indeed, organizations like the American Diabetes Association are in close company with the food manufactures that at some point the food executives will send out a memo saying “We are going to be putting out these full-fat dairy products. It would be really nice if your group could recommend them.”
Exactly. As I’ve pointed out in many posts, we don’t buy what they sell. They sell what we’re willing to buy.
The official health advice has a lot of influence or otherwise the shelves wouldn’t be full of low fat, sugar-laden products. The food industry didn’t cause this but simply exploited it. They won’t welcome change.
The economic hit to the health care industry is going to be huge. As more people return to a “normal carb” way of eating, natural fat sources, no hfcs and very little sugar, the wave of metabolic diseases will drop fast.
It’s a huge industry that can be reduced to nothing by simple dietary changes.
Now go eat some red meat!!
Let’s hope.
Not germane to this post, except that Janet Ruhl does an EXCELLENT job — as you do! — disentangling the lies and mis-directions in medical studies…. since many of your readers might need to know this stuff to ‘fight their doctors,’ it might be useful…
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2015/09/cutting-through-jardiance-study-hype-be.html
Unfortunately the price of our butter is likely to rise … once BANKERS are in on it.
🙁
Right now I can buy butter at about.90p per pound, and really good butter at £1.60 per pound.
(In dollars that’s $1.40 to $2.40 )
Already rising in US. Butter sales up…margarine sales down..
http://qz.com/168276/the-war-against-butter-is-over-butter-won/
A pound of butter here is $4…or £2.64
The wisdom of crowds is spearheading change. Who would have ever guessed that the director of my division at work would “volunteer” me, the oddball who eats bacon, eggs and cheese for breakfast every morning as our representative in my employer’s wellness committee?? Turns out she lost weight on a low carb, high fat, whole foods diet. She said she wants someone who is actually healthy on the committee. Hmm…
Perhaps, since Credit Suisse also provides life insurance, their own data shows that the advice to eat hclf and beat your cholesterol into submission isn’t such a great idea after all. I wonder if they have revised the conventional stance on cholesterol levels now when determining rates?
Thank you for all you do. I’ve been reading your blog for about a year now. It’s fantastic! Keep up the great work!
All the best,
Carrie
That would be great. I’ve heard of people temporarily beating down their cholesterol with a strict low-fat diet just to get a cheaper life-insurance rate.
It is not uncommon when people are discussing the food industry to portray them as an evil empire, bent on the destruction of humanity. Truth is, they are just out to make a buck. They sold low-fat foods full of sugar because we were all told that fat was bad and sugar was good so that’s what we wanted to buy. If we want to buy full-fat products, they will be more than happy to sell us those. We are the ones in control here. Let us also hope that if, indeed, organizations like the American Diabetes Association are in close company with the food manufactures that at some point the food executives will send out a memo saying “We are going to be putting out these full-fat dairy products. It would be really nice if your group could recommend them.”
Exactly. As I’ve pointed out in many posts, we don’t buy what they sell. They sell what we’re willing to buy.
The official health advice has a lot of influence or otherwise the shelves wouldn’t be full of low fat, sugar-laden products. The food industry didn’t cause this but simply exploited it. They won’t welcome change.
As Nina Teicholz explained in “The Big Fat Surprise,” the food industry spent billions to reformulate their products when low-fat fat became official policy. I can’t imagine they’re anxious to spend billions again.
Reformulating for high saturated fat is easy. It’s what they were trying to emulate since the boom came down.
Unfortunately the price of our butter is likely to rise … once BANKERS are in on it.
🙁
Right now I can buy butter at about.90p per pound, and really good butter at £1.60 per pound.
(In dollars that’s $1.40 to $2.40 )
Already rising in US. Butter sales up…margarine sales down..
http://qz.com/168276/the-war-against-butter-is-over-butter-won/
A pound of butter here is $4…or £2.64
And thats for a generic brand btw..
I think that the Credit Suisse report will educate a lot of doctors. The money from their $200/hour plus medical practice needs to invested wisely.
Hadn’t thought of that.
Just finished reading the whole report twice. Remarkable.
I selling my corn, bean rotation acres and buying more pasture land. Going into cattle big time next year. Does anyone know if avocados can be grown in Iowa?
Memo to self: print off copy for Doctor.
I think that the Credit Suisse report will educate a lot of doctors. The money from their $200/hour plus medical practice needs to invested wisely.
Hadn’t thought of that.
This is really great news and from a curious source. My only problem is I hear from camps on our side a different story now. I hear cut thevfat and add more starch or other carbs, but mostly just decrease the amount of fat with an emphasis on a more plant based diet. I feel we’ve won the war and now folks are joining the other side. I understand the need for balance, but it seems some want us back in low fat land. I’m not advocating eaying sticks of butter, but i sometimes feel confused.
It’s a matter of finding the right balance. A strict ketogenic diet induces problems for any people, and piling on fat for the sake of eating more fat isn’t necessary.
Just finished reading the whole report twice. Remarkable.
I selling my corn, bean rotation acres and buying more pasture land. Going into cattle big time next year. Does anyone know if avocados can be grown in Iowa?
Memo to self: print off copy for Doctor.
This is really great news and from a curious source. My only problem is I hear from camps on our side a different story now. I hear cut thevfat and add more starch or other carbs, but mostly just decrease the amount of fat with an emphasis on a more plant based diet. I feel we’ve won the war and now folks are joining the other side. I understand the need for balance, but it seems some want us back in low fat land. I’m not advocating eaying sticks of butter, but i sometimes feel confused.
It’s a matter of finding the right balance. A strict ketogenic diet induces problems for any people, and piling on fat for the sake of eating more fat isn’t necessary.
My doc informed me that the VAP test was ‘voodoo’ when I requested it in March. I haven’t been back to him, although he is technically still my doctor. When I was ill in June, I saw his Physician’s Assistant. I’ll be going to her from now on.
Don’t doctors understand that people do their own research these days? That Google is used a lot? Sheesh! I hate being treated like I’m a moron.
VAP is voodoo, but a cholesterol panel is meaningful?
The whole medical profession as it’s practiced today is voodoo.
PS- I, too am seeing a move away from the anti-fat hysteria of old. A couple of days ago, I was dozing in front of a cooking show, when I came wide awake. I’m very used to every TV chef advocating using low fat this and low fat that, but all of a sudden I heard Jeffrey Zakarian say “don’t bother using low fat yogurt- get the full fat stuff. The low fat version is just loaded with sugar.” It took a few minutes for my heart to stop skipping beats! Now, if they’d just produce a couple of low carb shows, it would be nice!
Those are probably coming.
There was a low carb show with a Philadelphia area chef named Blaine Jelus. There was a health and fitness network that went under a few years back. The premise was excellent. Not only did he teach the audience how to make low carb alternative meals, but the audience follows him through his own fat loss transformation as he was actually doing the diet himself.
There were some things he was doing that I disagree with, like using soy pastas, etc. but the show was pretty good.
Here is a clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9G0KUF3DzE
Ironically, he came on after another Philadelphia area chef and her show on cooking low fat. I laughed at her spinach salad with fat free vinaigrette. All that unabsorbed vitamin E just pissed away.