Times Are Changing & So Is What We Can Eat
It is no wonder that the majority of the population in the West have become cynical about suggestions from government-backed nutritionists and the media on the subject of “good” nutrition. There have been so many changes of policy over the years, that many just go their own way and use this as an excuse for eating whatever they want to – good or bad.
For several decades, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers and the mainstream media told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health.
Meanwhile, those who followed health advice from the alternative press continued to eat plenty of fruit and vegetables, meat and dairy from grass fed animals while cutting down on the carbs and the sugar. They also changed from processed salts to a more natural form.
A change of heart
Now suddenly, there has been a change of heart from those same government policy makers and mainstream media. They have lifted the cap on dietary cholesterol saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol.
Many have been very conscientious in cutting out the fat and the cholesterol and now they are being told that, in so doing, they may have made their health worse. Not only that, they have eaten more grains, pasta and other carbohydrates in their place.
Obesity and disease
The past few decades have seen people cutting their fat intake by 25% while increasing carbs by 30% but has it helped with fighting disease and especially obesity? With a soaring increase in the figures for both, obviously not.
A high carb, low fat diet can mean more sugar and refined grains – proven to raise the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
A nutrition advisory panel that helps shape the country’s official dietary guidelines has, in addition to easing some of its previous restrictions on fat and cholesterol, also recommended sharp new limits on the amount of sugar that Americans should consume.
Why has it taken so long?
It has taken all this time for the realization to dawn that our best interests were not being served in the past by being told by nutritionists and government agencies (ably assisted by manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon) to ditch the eggs and the butter, change to low fat milk and other dairy products while downing can after can of diet sodas.
According to Nina Teicholz in her article “The Government’s Bad Diet Advice”, she says the U.S. nutrition policy “has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or “observational,” studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.
Instead of accepting that this evidence was inadequate to give sound advice, strong-willed scientists overstated the significance of their studies.
Much of the epidemiological data underpinning the government’s dietary advice comes from studies run by Harvard’s school of public health. In 2011, directors of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences analyzed many of Harvard’s most important findings and found that they could not be reproduced in clinical trials.
It’s no surprise that longstanding nutritional guidelines are now being challenged.”
What is the alternative?
She suggests that we would all be wise to return to what worked better for previous generations – namely, a diet that included fewer grains, less sugar and more animal foods like meat, full-fat dairy and eggs.
Not surprisingly, that is what many alternative health sites have been saying for ten years or even longer. Finally, the “experts” are admitting that they were wrong.
When so many mainstream media shouting out the same message at the same time, you have to know that the game is up.