Posted on 11/07/2008 7:10:25 PM PST by neverdem
By stressing the importance of a carbohydrate-based, low-fat diet, current U.S. dietary guidelines may have unexpectedly contributed to the current obesity epidemic, according to researchers.
In accordance with national recommendations, Americans have slightly reduced their fat intake, wrote Dr. Paul Marantz of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and his coauthors. But their carbohydrate and total-calorie intakes have increased, along with the rate of national obesity (Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008;34:234–40).
The observation is not enough to establish a causal link, but enough data exist to make at least an inference. “The hypothesis that dietary fat admonitions actually caused the current U.S. obesity epidemic is consistent with the data, logically sound, and plausible on the basis of both behavioral and biological mechanisms,” they said.
The recommendation to reduce fat intake, first promulgated in 1980, focused on the association between cardiovascular disease and one risk factor: hypercholesterolemia. But although there was solid evidence that modifying fat intake could reduce cholesterol, there was—and still is—no evidence that governmental guidelines against fat could improve cardiovascular disease outcomes, the investigators said.
Instead, Dr. Marantz and his team argue, data now suggest that these guidelines negatively affected health by contributing to the obesity epidemic and its attendant increase in diabetes. They used statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support that view.
From 1971 to 2001, consistent with national recommendations of a low-fat, carbohydrate-based diet, fat intake decreased by 5% in men and 9% in women. But carbohydrate intake increased by 7% in men and 6% in women, and total daily caloric intake increased by 168 calories in men and 335 calories in women. In fact, even though women decreased their percentage of fat intake, their increase in daily calories translated into an increase in absolute fat intake, from 557 fat calories per day to 616 fat calories per day.
A corresponding increase in obesity ensued in both genders, the authors noted. In 1971, 55% of American men and 41% of women were overweight or obese; by 2001, those numbers had risen to 70% of men and 62% of women.
The relationship between the guidelines and changing dietary habits is probably multifactorial, they said. Fat may induce satiety—an important inhibitor of excess calorie intake—which would be a biologically plausible rationale for the idea that low-fat diets may lead to higher calorie consumption.
A societal force is probably also at work, they said. Total calorie intake “may have been influenced by the effective marketing of low-fat foods, as well as the food pyramid, which suggested that low-fat foods could be eaten without any concern,” giving such foods an official “seal of approval.”
The United States has enjoyed a decrease in the rates of cardiovascular mortality since the national low-fat recommendation was first made, the authors noted. “Of course this decline had begun in the 1960s prior to the dietary guidelines, and other clinical interventions (statins, bypass surgery, and angioplasty) also contributed. Moreover, this favorable trend in coronary heart disease was counterbalanced by an alarming increase in obesity and attendant diabetes that coincided with the promulgation of the 1980 dietary guidelines.”
The authors maintained that dietary guidelines should include explicit standards of evidence, such as those employed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. An accompanying editorial by Dr. Steven Woolf and Marion Nestle, Ph.D., strongly challenges these conclusions. Current guidelines are based on dozens of randomized controlled trials linking low-fat diets with decreased disease risk, said Dr. Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Dr. Nestle of New York University, New York. The insinuation that dietary guidelines contributed to increasing obesity also fails to account for other significant factors, like portion sizes, inactivity, and overall caloric intake, they said (Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008;34:263–5).
None of the authors of the article and the editorial reported any financial disclosures.
What Bs
Obesity it the result of eating too much of everything
“We are from the government, and we are here to help you.”
Dr. Atkins was right.
This article is responsible for a boredom epidemic...in my head.
Seriously, stop abusing the word “epidemic.” That word’s had it tough enough, growing up on the streets of Chicago with a single mother.
This article isn't very clear on what is exactly wrong with this type of diet... first of all, we all need healthy fats (unsaturated fats plus some a little saturated fats) in our diets... our bodies need it for many things...
The second part is carbs... it is probably one of the most misunderstood type of foods... you do need a lot of carbs but NOT refined carbs! Veggies and fruit are great carbs... but any grain based foods & refined sugars spikes your blood sugar and causes all excess calories to get shuttled off to your love handles...
In my opinion... the government and food industry deliberately refuses to explain why folks are getting fatter and fatter every year... this is why!
LACK of SELF Control is the problem for MANY things in America....including, often....OBESITY. And, welfare, and single moms, etc....
Blame the lobbyists that raised the price of sugar; so high fructose corn syrup gets developed. Fructose burns slowly, and if not used directly its converted into storage fat.
Nope! Obesity is eating too much refined sugars and anything made from grains.
In fact, I just got a report from one of the biggest fitness expert and he was running an experiment for a month or so using himself as the Guinea pig. He overate foods... of the healthy kinds of foods and he said he didn't gain a single ounce...
Oldie but goodie: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068228/posts
You didn’t need a degree in nutrition to know that the low fat, high carbohydrate diet was wrong. One of the reasons it contributes to obesity, I think, is that without a sufficient amount of fat, the body thinks it’s starving and keeps craving food. But if mainly carbs are ingested, that craving does not go away, making overeating almost inevitable. Whoever came up with this idiotic diet should be sued.
Refined corn syrup is in almost every product in the super market...
I would love to see a couple of graphs showing the increase in the use of HFCS and the increase in obesity. I’ll bet they would track almost identicaly.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! HFCS is in my opinion one of the most dangerous foods that you can eat. The most is... French fries! Not only it has bad fats... it is pure glucose. Goes straight to your love handles it does... yes sir!
I used to think that way. Fructose is metabolized differently from glucose. Fructose leads to trigliceride formation with fatty acids. I have the paper if you want me to link it.
Agreed.
No kiddin'! I don't eat much that comes in a bag, box or bottle...
You are not kidding. I was in the Air Force and close to my max weight (big guy, little chubby, but could outrun most everyone in my unit). They put me on the high carb, low-fat diet and aerobics class. Kept up with the class with no problem, but didn't lose an ounce of weight, in fact, I gained.
I told the nutritionist that maybe, just maybe, her plan didn't work for a guy like me.
Here's what it takes ~ alpha amylase, an enzyme found in white kidney beans that converts starch to sugar. Once that's done the sugar feed the yeast, they make gas, and the dough rises even if it's made out of grains once milled for use only as animal feed.
White flour is added to provide sufficient gluten to hold this mass of crushed grain together.
Once you hook people on multigrain bread you add wall board and portland cement and you have your ultimate in "healthy whole grain bread with calcium supplement" to peddle.
Clue, you were ahead with plain old white bread!
Now there are some of us who have a different sort of "gut". We can live on meat alone. In fact, if we consume too many carbs our more limited number of beta cells wear out faster and we show up diabetic. (It's more complex than that but not much).
Meat has fat. Meat has protein. You can eat nuts too because they have fat and protein and are low in carbohydrates.
About 98% of the population cannot live on meat alone though.
When I heard that Sarah Palin decided her family could do without the state supplied chef I knew her kids and her husband have a need for more natural meat based meals. Bet the chef went out of his nut when he heard that Todd liked his meat thick sliced, cold and probably rare.
I can sympathize completely. Nothing like cold porkchops in the morning, cold sausages for lunch, and ham on corn tortillas in the evening.
You betcha.
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.