Don't give up on Low Fat food choices...

[Gabriel Guzman]

...for overall health and protection from disease...

At least that's the headline of one of the press releases (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/media_8040_ENU_HTML.htm) from the American Dietetic Association that followed the publication of three major new studies published last month, finding that postmenopausal women who followed a low-fat eating pattern did not significantly reduce their risk of breast cancer, heart disease or stroke. Dr. Mike Eades wrote extensively about those studies in his blog.

There are several concerning statements and quotes on that press release:



"As a registered dietitian, I encourage everyone to follow the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommend keeping total fat intake between 20 percent to 35 percent of daily calories." The Dietary Guidelines recommend most fats come from sources like fish, nuts and vegetable oils.

This statement just increases my lack of trust in the so-called 'experts' that don't do but propagate the same unsustantiated misconceptions. Unfortunately, a lot of people listen to this misinformed professionals with their eyes closed.



"Obesity remains this country's number-one public health problem, especially given how closely it is related to many life-threatening conditions, including several forms of cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome," Gerbstadt said. "It has been shown that achieving and maintaining a healthy weight, plus increased physical activity, can help reduce your likelihood of these conditions."

Half the truth is no truth at all. True, obesity is a problem, there are a lot of other problems associated with it and achieving and maintaining a healthy weight reduces the likelihood of worsen the situation; this is the part that is half-true. But for some obscure reason, professionals like these choose to ignore or plainly dismiss all the evidence that shows in their faces that a low fat diet, while may result in weight loss, doesn't necessarily results in an improvement of risk factors of the conditions associated with obesity.

Probably more worrying is this (boldtype is mine):



The Chicago-based ADA serves the public by promoting optimal nutrition, health and well-being.

Yeah... right...

[banshee]

There was an interesting article in a recent issue of Newsweek. (I think it was the March 13th edition.) It purported to be an article about how the media tends to jump on and misinterpret scientific studies, particularly those related to nutrition. The article actually has some good information, specifically talking about how nutritional studies tend to build on one another and don't necessarily reach instantaneous conclusions, and the conclusions they do reach tend to be subtle and rely on a lot of different factors, but the media trumpets these studies as if they were the end-all and be-all of research.

But in my opinion, the article clearly shows the very bias it's warning its readers about. Why? Because the example they use about the "misinterpretation" of published studies are the ones you mention. In one sentence they'll say that as new research comes out, we have to carefully evaluate and change nutritional guidelines to incorporate the new results. In the next sentence, they say things like "we can't let new research like this study of postmenopausal women keep us from lowering our fat intake because even though the study showed that the higher fat didn't cause these problems in this group of women, we all know that high fat diets are bad." (That's not a direct quote, but it is the gist of what the article implied.)

So people who already believe low-fat is the best way to go will read this article and say "See! They're right. The media is misinterpreting these studies to say fat is good, but really it's bad!" instead of saying, "Well, these studies seem to show that fat doesn't have the bad effects we would think in this particular population of women. Let's do more studies to see if we see similar results in other populations, and let's consider revising the guidelines if the studies show that fat isn't the evil food we've always portrayed it as."

On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that they are at least willing to admit that the media tends to blow things up out of proportion.

[James L]

Probably more worrying is this (boldtype is mine):

The Chicago-based ADA serves the public by promoting optimal nutrition, health and well-being.
Yeah... right...
Gabriel,

Does the ADA provide a definition/description/explanation of what the term "optimal nutrition" means to its organization and its members?

[Viking Dan]

Gabriel,

Does the ADA provide a definition/description/explanation of what the term "optimal nutrition" means to its organization and its members?

They must be referring to Kwasniewski's 80% fat diet.

[Gabriel Guzman]

Their definition of optimal nutrition is basically the old story about getting 50-65% of your calories from carbohydrates (mainly complex), while keeping your fat intake at no more than 30% of your calories, plus exercise, eating more fruit and vegetables, etc.

[James L]

I checked the ADA "eatright.org" Web site and your "optimal nutrition" quote is from the second sentence on their home page. With such prominence, one would think that it was essentially part of their mission statement. And yet after exploring their Web site, I could not find any definition of "optimal nutrition"--which seems inconsistent with a good mission statement. I would think that such an essential definition would be clearly stated and highly visible to all Web site visitors.

I next tried their search function, which turned up over 400 results. I did not check all those results, but the titles of the top 10 did not suggest that I would find such a definition if I would just take the time to read the article.

Maybe this is a case of: We, the members of the ADA, know what "optimal nutrition" is, and most other people who are interested in nutrition also know what the term means, so we won't waste our time defining/explaining what we actually do mean by the term.

[mcsblues]

I think the ADA Mission statement can be found (admittedly somewhat buried) here;

http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp


The message today: Eat more whole grains! Whole grains and starches are good for you because they have very little fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate -- starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will raise your blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats, but they are the healthiest foods for you. Your doctor may need to adjust your medications when you eat more carbohydrates. You may need to increase your activity level or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day.
A more succinct version would be just this bit;

YOUR DOCTOR MAY NEED TO ADJUST YOUR MEDICATIONS

- the only debate is whether the word "upwards" should be added, and "may" replaced with "will", or whether given the insanity of the ADA approach, this is sufficiently implied.

Perhaps another consideration is whether at least some of the big time ADA sponsors should get more credit for the formulation of the mission statement - eg;

Abbott Laboratories
Aventis Pharmaceuticals
BD Consumer Healthcare
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Eli Lilly and Company
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co., Inc.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer Inc
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.

- or whether anyone reading the statement will automatically acknowledge their undoubted contribution.

[James L]

Thanks for the info, Malcolm. Although we're mixing up the ADA's here (which may or may not be a good thing. :) )

You're quoting from the Web site of the American Diabetes Assn., which is based in Alexandria, VA. The "optimal nutrition" quote is from the American Dietetic Assn., which is based in Chicago and is the professional assn. for the RDs (Registered Dietitians). http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/index.html

They are mostly singing from the same songbook, because the Diabetes Assn probably gets most, if not all, of its nutrition guidance from the Dietetic Assn.