Posted on 02/10/2015 4:54:43 AM PST by rickmichaels
Guidelines that told millions of people to avoid butter and full-fat milk should never have been introduced, say experts.
The startling assertion challenges advice that has been followed by the medical profession for 30 years.
The experts say the advice from 1983, aimed at reducing deaths from heart disease, lacked any solid trial evidence to back it up.
The guidelines – the first of their kind – were introduced when as much as one-fifth of the average British diet was saturated fat such as butter, cream and fattier cuts of meat.
Britons were advised by an official dietary committee to cut their fat intake to 30 per cent of total energy and saturated fat intake to 10 per cent, while increasing the amount of carbohydrate they ate.
This led food makers to create low-fat spreads, including cholesterol-lowering products, while consumers shunned cheese, milk and cream.
However, now some scientists even say the advice is responsible – in part – for the obesity crisis because it encouraged an increase in carbohydrate in our diets.
A new review says evidence from trials did not support the advice. It says it is ‘incomprehensible’ that such advice was introduced for 56million Britons in 1983 and 220million Americans six years earlier ‘given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men’.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If only I could get mine with Red Dye #2...
Butter, whole milk, eggs, salt. I eat them all and will continue to do so. They make a great, simple omelet.
Science’s refusal to acknowledge God and their attempts to recreate and regulate our food system and environment through artificial means has destroyed our planet.
When God says “It is good,” it is good.
Everything I like has been determined to be bad for me but, then they come out years later saying, “Oops! We were wrong!”
These ‘studies’ are paid for by grants, right? So, much like the global warming lies, these people’s income is tied to creating a firestorm so incredulous that no one dare question it, ruining farmers’ and other’s livelihoods and depriving Americans of simple joys in life.
And telling me olives are bad is fighting words.
OMG, that sounds a little bit like paradise, especially the last bit. There’s something about a smoke after bacon and eggs that is simply sublime. No, I’m not kidding, just reminiscing about how it was when I grew up.
The more paleo I go, the more my appetite is controlled. Fats and protein satiate, grains don't. Be discreet about the grains & sugar, but don't be a worrywart about the fats & protein.
“I ate four friend eggs...”
Nothing like friendly eggs at breakfast.
Lol. Stay well and have a great day!
Only time better is when having that early morning breakfast while camping, IMHO.
Butter at Costco is under $9.00 for 4 lbs; that less than $2.25/lb, and the quality is excellent.
Here’s the paper:
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
for those who haven’t already figured it out from recent books like:
“Death by Food Pyramid” (Minger)
and
“The Big Fat Surprise” (Teicholz)
not to mention any number of low-carb, paleo or primal approaches to diet over the last decade that have had profound results.
re: This happens again and again.
This is not yet-another flip-flop. The official dietary advice has been off the rails since Ike. Low-fat, low-cholesterol, which became high carb (esp. grain carb), and endorsed fake “vegetable” fat has been an unmitigated disaster. Ancel Keys started the mess, McGovern enshrined it in the USDA, and nobody bothered to check actual results.
re: I’ve gotten to the point where I ignore food studies.
S.A.D. context. Investigator bias. Funding source pressure. Hopelessly confounding factors. Ignorance of huge considerations like gut biome. Yep, most nut papers are intellectual junk food.
From what I've read, I tend to believe that high cholesterol is a symptom of a problem, inflammation in the body, rather than the problem itself.
As such, I suspect the body manufacturing cholesterol for its own uses, including healing, accounts for the high cholesterol numbers more than dietary choices do.
From this point of view, things that treat high cholesterol would instead be treating a symptom of a problem rather than the actual problem, while their side effects cause problems, some worse than what they claim to treat.
I gave up skim milk and margarine and buy whole milk and butter instead. I also like to grind mineral rich rock salt instead of using processed table salt. All good and tasty.
Science has improved our lives, no doubt about it, but God put lots of good stuff we need in whole foods and I trust Him more than I do our modern, agenda driven science. Ymmv.
You can tell what’s “good” for you - costs about 3X more than it’s substitute.
re: You can tell what’s “good” for you - costs about 3X more than it’s substitute.
That’s offset to some extent by the fact that when low carb, high fat, we tend to eat less. Also offsetting is a dramatic reduction in out-of-pocket healthcare costs, for needless potions that purport to manage symptoms caused by the USDA’s MyPlateOfMetabolicSyndrome diet.
The market is already responding, and toxin-free foods, and pasture-raised/finished critters will become more common and lower in price.
For an entertaining take on this mess, watch:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/12/17/speech-diet-health-and-the-wisdom-of-crowds/
Watch out for water. Every one who drinks will eventually die.
Seriously - I just try to stay with food that have as few added and ingredients and as little processing as possible. More work for me, but the food taste fresher and I can adjust the seasons to exactly what I want.
Or at least what Mr Kitty will eat. Me and the last kid at home love extra spicy, My Kitty doesn’t even like black pepper. And neither of them have the same fondness for curry that I have developed in the past few years. Seasoning can be a challenge. Thank goodness for got sauces.
New studies:
Butter isn’t so bad.
Lard isn’t so bad.
Salt isn’t so bad.
etc.
How many taxpayer $$$dollars were spent for the original studies that condemned those and many other items?
How many taxpayer $$$dollars were spent on the new studies?
Did the content of those products change or did the recipients of those $$$dollars-for-studies fudge the data to produce the desired results?
==
Are cyclamates still evil?
Saccharine?
Now, one of the new evisl is fructose. For how long?
Don’t forget the coffee! ...oops, coffee bad, good, bad, good...
You forgot the dinosaurs magically turning into birds.
But I understand. It is hard to keep track.
Yep..... especially at my age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.