Does a Healthy LCHF Diet Protect Against Sunburns?

As I’ve written about lately, there is something unique about a low-carb, high-fat diet. People feel better and have more energy. Diverse symptoms disappear, including from serious conditions that for some people are reversed, from autoimmune disorders to mood disorders. That is particularly true in the context of exercise, calorie restriction, fasting, OMAD, ketosis, autophagy, etc and when combined with traditional foods, paleo, carnivore, etc. Many have experimented with this area of dietary changes and have observed major improvements, but it isn’t always clear exactly what is causing any given improvement.

We do understand certain things well. I’ve already discussed in detail ketosis and related factors. And there has been more info coming out about autophagy, an even more fascinating topic. There is the signaling in relation to mTOR, IGF1, and AMPK. And there are the hormones that deal with hunger, satiety, and fullness. Everything is context-dependent. For example, the carnitine in red meat can be turned into carcinogenic TMOA by the Prevotella gut bacteria, but that is a non-issue as long as you aren’t eating the grains that feed Prevotella in the first place. Or consider how vitamin C deficiency that leads to scurvy is rare on carnivore diets, even though vitamin C is found in such small amounts in animal foods, since on a low-carb diet the body needs less vitamin C. Issues with gut health, inflammation, and neurocognition are also more clear in explanation as they’ve received much scientific attention.

Other results are more anecdotal, though. This is largely because the research on low-carb, high-fat diets has been limited and in many cases, such as with zero-carb, scientific evidence is even more sparse. But what thousands of people have observed remains interesting, if yet not entirely explained. Many LCHF dieters have noted that their thoughts are less obsessive and compulsive, something I’ve argued has to do with eliminating addictive foods from the diet, especially added sugar and grains. An example of this is decrease of intrusive sexual thoughts reported by some (and less distraction in general), although at the same time some also state decrease in erectile dysfunction (the latter being unsurprising as the LCHF diet are causally linked to hormonal functioning and cardiovascular health). Sexuality definitely is changed in various ways, as demonstrated in how early puberty becomes common when populations switch to agriculture with high amounts of carbohydrates, in particular grains, and maybe dairy has something to do with it as well since dairy triggers growth hormone — maybe why agricultural societies were able to outbreed hunter-gatherers, overwhelming them with a continually growing supply of cheap labor and cheap lives to send off to war.

There are some confounding factors, of course. Along with more nutrient-dense foods with an emphasis on fat-soluble vitamins, people going on various kinds of low-carb diets also tend to increase cholesterol, saturated fat, and omega-3s while decreasing omega-6s. Cholesterol is one of the most important substances for brain health and it helps your body to process vitamin D from sunlight. Saturated fat is a complicated issue and no one fully knows the significance, beyond our knowing the fear-mongering about it appears to be no longer valid. As for omega-3s, they are essential to so much. The main problem is that omega-6s are at such a high level in the modern diet that they are inflammatory. In using healthier oils and fats, most low-carbers eliminate vegetable oils in junk food and in cooking with vegetable oils being the main source of omega-6s.

This could explain why some think sunburns are less common on a low-carb diet (read down through the Twitter comments). It may or may not have anything specifically to do with carbohydrates themselves and, instead, be more about the general eating pattern common among low-carb dieters. This might have to do with oxidation and free-radicals in relation to omega-6s. Or it could have something to do with fat-soluble vitamins or dietary cholesterol that is typically greater in low-carb, high-fat diets. There are similar patterns in multiple areas of dietary changes and health, and they indicate something that can’t be explained by mainstream health ideology. Consider how Americans have experienced worsening health as they have followed expert opinion in eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and vegetable oils while decreasing red meat and saturated fat. Americans have been following expert advice from mainstream institutions and from their doctors. The same kind of thing has happened with people protecting themselves against sun damage. Americans have increased their use of sunscreen while spending less time in the sun, as they were told to do. What has been the results? The skin cancer rate is going up and those avoiding the sun are less healthy. Is it a mere coincidence that the intake of omega-6s was also increasing during the same period? Maybe not.

When the actual causes are determined, we can isolate them and re-create the appropriate conditions or mimic them. This is biohacking — Siim Land is great in explaining how to get particular results based on the scientific evidence. If omega-6s or whatever is the problem behind sunburns, then it’s far from being knowledge of value limited to the low-carb community. Omega-6s haven’t been as clearly on the radar of many other diets, but health issues with omega-6s are already well known in the scientific literature. So, the advantages in this case might be attained without restricting carbs, although we don’t know that as of yet, assuming the anecdotal observations are proven valid. The interaction between omega-6s and carbohydrates might be a total package, in terms of pushing the body more fully into an inflammatory state where sunlight sensitivity becomes an issue. All we can do at the moment is offer hypotheses to be tested in personal experience and hopefully soon in scientific studies.

The body is a complex system. Change even a single factor and it can have cascading effects. But change multiple factors and the entire functioning can shift into a different state, altering numerous areas of health. Many of the results will be unpredictable based on present science because most research up to this point has had a narrow focus in the population being studied, almost entirely those on the Standard American diet and variations of it. What is true for most people following the past half century of health advice won’t always apply to those following entirely different diets and lifestyles. It’s not that LCHF is going to heal all that ails you, but we find ourselves at a rather fascinating point in the views on diet, lifestyle, and health. We are coming to realize how profoundly affected is the body and mind by even some minor changes. We have more hypotheses at present than knowledge, and that isn’t a new situation. So much of what we thought we knew in the past, the basis of mainstream ideology of health experts, were largely untested hypotheses when first advocated and much of it remains unproven.

Now it’s time to get serious about exploring these other glimpses of entirely different possibilities of understanding. That is the point of hypotheses that often begin as observations and anecdotal evidence.

* * *

Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?
by Rowan Jacobsen

Don’t Drink (oil) and Fry (in the sun) – the link between polyunsaturated vegetable oil and skin cancer
by George Henderson

N=Many on Omega-6 and Sunburn: Can Sunburn be Reduced?
by Tucker Goodrich

Don’t Blame it on the Sun!
by Dawn Waldron

American Diabetes Association Changes Its Tune

Over the past decade, ever more mainstream health organizations and government agencies have been slowly reversing their official positions on the dietary intake of carbohydrates, sugar, fat, cholesterol, and salt. This was seen in how the American Heart Association, without acknowledgment, backed off its once strong position about fats that it defended since I think 1961, with the federal government adopting the same position as official policy in 1980. Here we are in 2019, more than a half century later.

Now we see the American Diabetes Association finally coming around as well. And its been a long time coming. When my grandmother was in an assisted living home, the doctors and nurses at the time were following the official ADA position of what were called “consistent carbs”. Basically, this meant diabetics were given a high-carb diet and that was considered perfectly fine, as long as it was consistent so as to manage diabetes with consistent high levels of insulin use. It was freaking insanity in defying common sense.

While my grandmother was still living with my parents, my mother kept her blood sugar under control through diet, until she went to this healthcare facility. After that, her blood sugar was all over the place. The nurses had no comprehension that not all carbohydrates are equal since the glycemic index might be equivalent between a cookie and a carrot, irrespective of glycemic load and ignoring that maybe diabetics should simply be cutting out carbs in general. Instead, they argued that old people should be allowed to enjoy carbs, even if it meant that these nurses were slowly killing their patients and profiting the insulin companies at the same time. My mother was not happy about this callous attitude by these medical ‘professionals’.

Yet here we are. The ADA now says low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diets aren’t a fad and aren’t dangerous. They go so far as to say they are beneficial for type 2 diabetes. Those not completely ignorant have been saying this for generations. And the research has been accumulating for just as long. The shift in official recommendations that happened in the decades following the 1960s never made sense even according to the research at the time. Many academics and researchers pointed out the lack of evidence in blaming saturated fat and cholesterol. But they were ignored and dismissed, then later attacked, discredited, and silenced by influential and, in some cases, downright charismatic figures (e.g., Ancel Keys) in powerful organizations that became aligned with leading politicians and bureaucrats in key positions. Many careers were destroyed and debate was shut down.

Now those victims of dietary authoritarianism are vindicated, not that this helps all the average folk harmed. There was many decades of bad dietary advice was force onto the American public. This determined official policies and practices of government healthcare programs, school lunch programs, and healthcare providers. Because of the central position of the United States as a geopolitical power during the Cold War, countries all over the world adopted this unhealthy dietary ideology as part of their own official policies.

This also influenced the food system with the government subsidizing high yields of corn and grains to meet the recommendations of these nutritional guidelines. Big ag and big food changed their business models accordingly and put out products that were high in carbs and sugar while low in saturated fat, replacing the latter with unhealthy hydrogenated oils. At least hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, worldwide over multiple generations have suffered a horrible diet, increased sickness, bad medical care, and premature mortality as a result.

Without admitting they were wrong all this time, without apologizing for all the harm they caused, these leading experts and officials are changing their opinion. Better late than never. Mark this date for it is a historic moment.

* * *

Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report
by Alison B. Evert et al, American Diabetes Association
(also see here)

EATING PATTERNS: Consensus recommendations

  • A variety of eating patterns (combinations of different foods or food groups) are acceptable for the management of diabetes.
  • Until the evidence surrounding comparative benefits of different eating patterns in specific individuals strengthens, health care providers should focus on the key
    factors that are common among the patterns:
    ○ Emphasize nonstarchy vegetables.
    ○ Minimize added sugars and refined grains.
    ○ Choose whole foods over highly processed foods to the extent possible.
  • Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and preferences.
  • For select adults with type 2 diabetes not meeting glycemic targets or where reducing antiglycemic medications is a priority, reducing overall carbohydrate intake with low- or very lowcarbohydrate eating plans is a viable approach

New Consensus Report Recommends Individualized Eating Plan to Meet Each Person’s Goals, Life Circumstances and Health Status
news release from American Diabetes Association

“‘What can I eat?’ is the number one question asked by people with diabetes and prediabetes when diagnosed. This new Consensus Report reflects the ADA’s continued commitment to evidence-based guidelines that are achievable and meet people where they are and recommends an individualized nutrition plan for every person with diabetes or prediabetes,” said the ADA’s Chief Scientific, Medical and Mission Officer William T. Cefalu, MD. “The importance of this consensus also lies in the fact it was authored by a group of experts who are extremely knowledgeable about numerous eating patterns, including vegan, vegetarian and low carb.”

Nina Teicholz:

Just out: @AmDiabetesAssn guidelines–most comprehensive review to date of Dietary Patterns + diabetes prevention/treatment. What’s new: low-carb recommendations are prominent. (Says low-carb “are among the most studied eating patterns for T2 diabetes.”) […]

This is the key advancement of new @AmDiabetesAssn guidelines. Low carb is no longer “dangerous”‘or “fad”‘but a “viable”‘diet supported by “substantial”‘research and considered best for a number of T2 diabetes outcomes.

Dr. John Owens:

This is an historic day! My case managers and dietitian have been supporting my low-carb recommendations for years, going against ADA guidelines. Now they don’t have to!

Dr. Eric Sodicoff:

Still….They seem a little backward here. Bust out the low carb diet when meds not working?? Really? IMHO-Carb restriction is JOB #1 in diabetes management for use early and always. It is NOT second to medication my treatment protocol.

Starofthesea:

If you go back to the beginning, like back in the 1930’s, the doctors were telling diabetics to stop eating carbohydrates. Then somebody fabricated the cholesterol theory of heart disease and invented a drug called statins. Then suddenly carbs were okay for diabetics.

Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report — American Diabetes Association
from r/ketoscience

lutzlover:

“Eating patterns that replace certain carbohydrate foods with those higher in total fat, however, have demonstrated greater improvements in glycemia and certain CVD risk factors (serum HDL cholesterol [HDL-C] and triglycerides) compared with lower fat diets.”

Yay! Ack that higher fat isn’t deadly.

“The body makes enough cholesterol for physiological and structural functions such that people do not need to obtain cholesterol through foods. Although the DGA concluded that available evidence does not support the recommendation to limit dietary cholesterol for the general population, exact recommendations for dietary cholesterol for other populations, such as people with diabetes, are not as clear (8). Whereas cholesterol intake has correlated with serum cholesterol levels, it has not correlated well with CVD events (65,66). More research is needed regarding the relationship among dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, and CVD events in people with diabetes.

Or, in layman’s language: While the data doesn’t support vilifying cholesterol as causing heart attacks, we’re going to keep on searching in hopes we find the answer we want.

dem0n0cracy:

Are protein needs different for people with diabetes and kidney disease?

“Historically, low-protein eating plans were advised to reduce albuminuria and progression of chronic kidney disease in people with DKD, typically with improvements in albuminuria but no clear effect on estimated glomerular filtration rate. In addition, there is some indication that a low-protein eating plan may lead to malnutrition in individuals with DKD (317–321). The average daily level of protein intake for people with diabetes without kidney disease is typically 1–1.5 g/kg body weight/day or 15–20% of total calories (45,146). Evidence does not suggest that people with DKD need to restrict protein intake to less than the average protein intake.

dem0n0cracy:

“The amount of carbohydrate intake required for optimal health in humans is unknown. Although the recommended dietary allowance for carbohydrate for adults without diabetes (19 years and older) is 130 g/day and is determined in part by the brain’s requirement for glucose, this energy requirement can be fulfilled by the body’s metabolic processes, which include glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis (via metabolism of the glycerol component of fat or gluconeogenic amino acids in protein), and/or ketogenesis in the setting of very low dietary carbohydrate intake (49).”

dem0n0cracy:

Low-carbohydrate (110–112) Emphasizes vegetables low in carbohydrate (such as salad greens, broccoli, cauliflower, cucumber, cabbage, and others); fat from animal foods, oils, butter, and avocado; and protein in the form of meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs, cheese, nuts, and seeds. Some plans include fruit (e.g., berries) and a greater array of nonstarchy vegetables. Avoids starchy and sugary foods such as pasta, rice, potatoes, bread, and sweets. There is no consistent definition of “low” carbohydrate. In this review, a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is defined as reducing carbohydrates to 26–45% of total calories. c A1C reduction c Weight loss c Lowered blood pressure c Increased HDL-C and lowered triglycerides

Very low-carbohydrate (VLC) (110–112) Similar to low-carbohydrate pattern but further limits carbohydrate-containing foods, and meals typically derive more than half of calories from fat. Often has a goal of 20–50 g of nonfiber carbohydrate per day to induce nutritional ketosis. In this review a VLC eating pattern is defined as reducing carbohydrate to ,26% of total calories. c A1C reduction c Weight loss c Lowered blood pressure c Increased HDL-C and lowered triglycerides”

dem0n0cracy:

Low-Carbohydrate or Very Low Carbohydrate Eating Patterns

“Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very low-carbohydrate (VLC) eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications. These eating patterns are among the most studied eating patterns for type 2 diabetes. One metaanalysis of RCTs that compared lowcarbohydrate eating patterns (defined as #45% of calories from carbohydrate) to high-carbohydrate eating patterns (defined as .45% of calories from carbohydrate) found that A1C benefits were more pronounced in the VLC interventions (where ,26% of calories came from carbohydrate) at 3 and 6 months but not at 12 and 24 months (110).

“Another meta-analysis of RCTs compared a low-carbohydrate eating pattern (defined as ,40% of calories from carbohydrate) to a low-fat eating pattern (defined as ,30% of calories from fat). In trials up to 6 months long, the low-carbohydrate eating pattern improved A1C more, and in trials of varying lengths, lowered triglycerides, raised HDL-C, lowered blood pressure, and resulted in greater reductions in diabetes medication (111). Finally, in another meta-analysis comparing lowcarbohydrate to high-carbohydrate eating patterns, the larger the carbohydrate restriction, the greater the reduction in A1C, though A1C was similar at durations of 1 year and longer for both eating patterns (112). Table 4 provides a quick reference conversion of percentage of calories from carbohydrate to grams of carbohydrate based on number of calories consumed per day.

“Because of theoretical concerns regarding use of VLC eating plans in people with chronic kidney disease, disordered eating patterns, and women who are pregnant, further research is needed before recommendations can be made for these subgroups. Adopting a VLC eating plan can cause diuresis and swiftly reduce blood glucose; therefore, consultation with a knowledgeable practitioner at the onset is necessary to prevent dehydration and reduce insulin and hypoglycemic medications to prevent hypoglycemia.

“No randomized trials were found in people with type 2 diabetes that varied the saturated fat content of the low- or very low-carbohydrate eating patterns to examine effects on glycemia, CVD risk factors, or clinical events. Most of the trials using a carbohydrate-restricted eating pattern did not restrict saturated fat; from the current evidence, this eating pattern does not appear to increase overall cardiovascular risk, but longterm studies with clinical event outcomes are needed (113–117).”

dem0n0cracy:

What is the evidence to support specific eating patterns in the management of type 1 diabetes?

“For adults with type 1 diabetes, no trials met the inclusion criteria for this Consensus Report related to Mediterraneanstyle, vegetarian or vegan, low-fat, low-carbohydrate, DASH, paleo, Ornish, or Pritikin eating patterns. We found limited evidence about the safety and/or effects of fasting on type 1 diabetes (129). A few studies have examined the impact of a VLC eating pattern for adults with type 1 diabetes. One randomized crossover trial with 10 participants examined a VLC eating pattern aiming for 47 g carbohydrate per day without a focus on calorie restriction compared with a higher carbohydrate eating pattern aiming for 225 g carbohydrate per day for 1 week each. Participants following the VLC eating pattern had less glycemic variability, spent more time in euglycemia and less time in hypoglycemia, and required less insulin (130). A single-arm 48-person trial of a VLC eating pattern aimed at a goal of 75 g of carbohydrate or less per day found that weight, A1C, and triglycerides were reduced and HDL-C increased after 3 months, and after 4 years A1C was still lower and HDL-C was still higher than at baseline (131). This evidence suggests that a VLC eating pattern may have potential benefits for adults with type 1 diabetes, but clinical trials of sufficient size and duration are needed to confirm prior findings.”

Sweeteners Can Mess You Up!

Sugar, in large doses, is a harmful substance. Many people have warned against sugar going back to the 1800s. The strongest case was made against it by the physiologist, nutritionist, and professor John Yudkin back in 1972 with his book Pure, White and Deadly. For speaking the truth, his reputation was destroyed by Ancel Keys. But more recently, the science journalist Gary Taubes brought the topic back to public attention, in his own book The Case Against Sugar.

Yudkin has been vindicated, as Keys original research that blamed saturated fat for heart disease has since been re-analyzed and shown that sugar is the stronger correlation. We also now understand the science of why that is the true. But it isn’t only about sugar. The sweet taste, whether from sugar or non-nutritive sweeteners, still causes many of the same problems. All sweeteners affect insulin, gut microbiome, cell functioning, neurocognition, mood, and much else. For example, consumption of both sugar and aspartame is associated with depression, at least in one study that was a randomized controlled trial (G. N. Lindseth, Neurobehavioral Effects of Aspartame Consumption).

They do alter serotonin levels, if not dopamine in all cases — some sweeteners affect dopamine and some don’t. This is observable in how people addicted to sugar so easily shift to non-sugar sweeteners and then act in the same addicted way, finding it hard to imagine giving them up. One way or another, addictive pathways seem to be elicited. The brain isn’t fooled and so the body still will hunger for the sugar it thinks it is getting from the sweet taste.

Exchanging one addictive substance, sugar, for another, non-sugar sweetener, is not a benefit. The problem is the addiction itself. A diet high in carbs and sugars is addictive. Throwing in some other kinds of sweeteners doesn’t change this. The best option is to break the addictive cycle entirely by going low-carb or, better yet, ketogenic. And there is no evidence that artificial sweeteners can be used with a ketogenic diet, since they might knock the body out of ketosis in the way sugar does. To be certain, just eliminate all sweeteners and so kill the problem at its root.

On the other hand, that can be easier said than done. I know sugar addiction, as in I was a sugar fiend from childhood to my thirties. And I did for years increase my use of other sweeteners, in an attempt to break free from the hold sugar had over my brain and mood. This wasn’t a particularly successful strategy. And my health was not improved, as the non-sugar sweeteners maintained my high-carb cravings.

I simply had to cut them out strictly. This simple truth is reinforced every time I slowly increase sweeteners in my diet and the cravings creep back in. I just don’t feel good with them. The lesson has been fully learned at this point.

It was amazing what a difference it made once my sweet tooth went away. Only then did my physical health improve and my psychological health soon followed. I can’t emphasize this enough. Carbs, sugars, and other sweeteners will seriously mess you up over time. You might not notice it for decades, but it all catches up with you. The damage is being done, even if you don’t notice it slowly accumulating. And realize the consequences won’t be limited to sickliness of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, as neurocognitive and mental health can also decline (e.g., Alzheimer’s is now called type 3 diabetes by some).

An occasional sweet at a birthday party or holiday gathering is one thing. Maybe you can have that and immediately go back on a healthy low-carb diet. Maybe or maybe not. If you were ever a sugar addict, as most Americans are, you are tempting fate. It’s like a recovering alcoholic taking that first sip of whiskey, vodka, or beer; like the recovering druggie getting that first shot of heroin or puff of the crack pipe.

Sugar is a drug, as research shows, that elicits the same reward pathway in the brain as other drugs and all sweeteners can elicit the same or similar pathways. You’ll hunger for more. And even if other sweeteners don’t have all of the problems of sugar, they still have plenty of potential problems that could do serious harm to your health over time.

* * *

Sucralose Promotes Food Intake through NPY and a Neuronal Fasting Response
by Qiao-Ping Wang et al

The truth about artificial sweeteners – Are they good for diabetics?
by Vikas Purohit and Sundeep Mishra

Consuming low-calorie sweeteners may predispose overweight individuals to diabetes
by Jenni Glenn Gingery and Colleen Williams

Not So Sweet: Metabolic Problems Caused by Artificial Sweeteners
by Serena Cho

Artificial Sweeteners Impact Metabolic Health Even on Cellular Level
by Kristen Monaco

Artificial Sweeteners Could be Sabotaging Your Microbiome, Says Study
by Amel Ahmed

Sugar Substitutes or Sugar: What’s Better for Diabetes?
by Kathleen Doheny

Artificial sweeteners linked to diabetes and obesity
by James Brown and Alex Conner

Artificial Sweeteners: Agents of Insulin Resistance, Obesity and Disease
by Loren Cordain

The Unbiased Truth About Artificial Sweeteners
by Chris Kresser

How Artificial Sweeteners Wreak Havoc on Your Gut
by Chris Kresser

Artificial Sweeteners Can Lead to Diabetes In Overweight People
by Gundry MD Team

Artificial Sweeteners Could Be Ruining Your Gut Health
by Gundry MD Team

Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe for the Brain and Gut
by Siim Land

Artificial Sweeteners Don’t Fool Your Brain
by Joseph Mercola

Tricking Taste Buds but Not the Brain: Artificial Sweeteners Change Brain’s Pleasure Response to Sweet
by Caitlin Kirkwood

Artificial Sweeteners: Why You Should Completely Avoid Them to Stay Healthy
by Elizabeth Lyden

Aspartame: 11 Dangers of This All-Too-Common Food Additive
by Rebekah Edwards

Aspartame Side Effects: Recent Research Confirms Reasons for Concern
by University Health News Staff

The Effects of Aspartame on Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
by Adrienne Dellwo

Are Artificial Sweeteners Damaging Your Blood Vessels?
by Michelle Schoffro Cook

Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain
by P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, and H. Naudé

Effects of repeated doses of aspartame on serotonin and its metabolite in various regions of the mouse brain.
by R. P. Sharma and R. A. Coulombe Jr.

Neurophysiological symptoms and aspartame: What is the connection?
by Arbind Kumar Choudhary and Yeong Yeh Lee

The debate over neurotransmitter interaction in aspartame usage
by Arbind Kumar Choudhary and Yeong Yeh Lee

The Connection between Aspartame (Artificial Sweetener) and Panic Attacks, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Memory Problems, and Other Mental Symptoms
by Betty Martini

Side-Effects of Aspartame on the Brain
by Michael Greger

Migraine Triggers: Artificial Sweeteners
by Jeremy Orozco

Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward
by Magalie Lenoir , Fuschia Serre , Lauriane Cantin, and Serge H. Ahmed

Diet Soft Drinks Linked to Depression
by Naveed Saleh

Why is Diet Soda Addictive?
by Edward Group

Neurobiology of Addiction
by George F. Koob, Michel Le Moal
pp. 448

Accumulating evidence also suggests that dopamine is not required for nondrug reward. In a study in which dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens core and shell was measured with precise voltammetric techniques during self-stimulation, it was shown that if dopamine activation is a necessary condition for brain stimulation reward, evoked dopamine release is actually not observed during brain stimulation reward and is even diminished (Garris et al, 1999). Also, mice completely lacking tyrosine hydroxylase, such that they cannot make dopamine, demonstrated the ability to learn to consume sweet solutions and showed a preference for sucrose and saccharin. Dopamine was not required for animals to find sweet tastes of sucrose or saccharin rewarding (Cannon and Palmiter, 2003; Cannon and Bseikri, 2004).

* * *

I wrote this post as a response to a video, Keto & Beverages, by the LCHF advocate Dr. Westman.

Below is an amusing and irritating (and, sadly, all too common) dialogue or miscommunication I had with Dr. Eric Westman or someone writing on his behalf at his Youtube channel, Adapt Your Life. The most frustrating part is that I’m mostly in agreement with Dr. Westman, as I too adhere to LCHF. For that reason, I don’t want to be harshly critical nor do I want to be polarized into a stronger position than I actually support, but I must admit that my emotional response was a bit negative.

To stand back from the disagreement, I don’t even have a strong opinion on what others do in terms of sweeteners. I don’t recommend sweeteners, sugar or otherwise, based on personal experience. But if artificial sweeteners help some people to transition to a healthier diet (or if they believe this to be true, and I won’t dismiss the placebo effect), then more power to them. Anyway, here is the interaction that rubbed me the wrong way:

Me: “Wasn’t there a recent study that showed even artificial sweeteners can lead to diabetes? The body still responds to the sweet taste as if it were sugar and over time messes with insulin sensitivity.”

Other person: “Hi Ben Steele, I’m not sure we have seen this study.”

Me: “I decided to write a post about it. I found the info I was looking for. At the end of the post, I share links to it and other info about the problems with non-sugar sweeteners.

“As a recovering sugar addict who followed that up with addiction to other sweeteners, I personally would recommend against such substances. But each individual has to decide for themselves.”

[I then linked to this post.]

Other person: “Hi Ben Steele, we opened a couple and didn’t find an actual “study”. Just peoples opinion and thoughts. We would be interested to read a study, preferably a RCT as this is the gold standard of studies. Thanks for this 😊”

Me: “Multiple links were to “studies”. The first two links are papers on studies, the third is the press release of a study, the fourth is a Yale report about a Yale study, five more links further down are papers on studies, and the last is a quote from an academic book from a university press. So, about a third of them linked to studies and academic material. As for all the rest, they directly reference and discuss numerous other studies.

“If you are interested to read a study, then do so. But if not, then don’t. I can’t force you to read anything.”

To further respond, I’m not sure how much of the research is randomized controlled trial. But after doing a casual research that as easily could’ve done by Dr. Westman or his staff, I found info on RCT research. I noticed it briefly mentioned in a few links above, but I didn’t check all the links. I did find RCTs on the topic elsewhere in doing a web search.

I still find it irritating, though. It feels hypocritical. Dr. Westman or his representative was acting with condescension, intentional or not.

Why is this person demanding RCTs of me when they don’t hold themselves to this same standard? Dr. Westman offered no RCTs to back up his recommendations. And these artificial sweeteners were approved by the FDA without any RCTs proving their safety. So, why is it that critics have to prove they are unsafe? Why would we allow invented chemicals to be put on the market and then have doctors recommend them to patients without knowing their long-term safety or side effects?

Just to prove my point, I will share some RCT evidence (see below). And to be fair, I will admit that the results are mixed and, one might argue, inconclusive — consider aspartame that has been researched more fully (see: Travis Saunders, Aspartame: Cause of or Solution to Obesity?; and Michael Joseph, Is Aspartame Safe Or Is It Bad For You?). But based on a familiarity with the available research, without more and better research, no sane and reasonable person would give artificial sweeteners a clean bill of health and proclaim them safe for general mass consumption, especially on a regular basis as a preferred flavoring. Whether or not artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, those might be the least of our worries, in terms of potential side effects seen in some of the studies. Some precautionary principle is in order.

Still, yes, it is hard to state a strong opinion about present evidence, beyond a note of caution. But every individual is free to dismiss such caution and use artificial sweeteners anyway. They might or might not be helpful in losing weight, even if used long enough might lead to detrimental outcomes in other areas of health. Maybe that risk seems worthwhile, assuming short-term weight loss is all that concerns you, and assuming that short-term use won’t lead to long-term use and won’t sabotage a long-term healthy diet. Individuals should make a decision with eyes wide open with the knowledge of potential risks that could be quite serious.

I understand. There are also potential benefits. For those addicted to sugar, they are dealing with a highly destructive substance. Artificial sweeteners may seem like the only choice. And who am I to judge. That is what I did. While transitioning off sugar, I spent a number of years consuming my fair share of laboratory-invented sweeteners. It did get me off sugar, but then all that happened was I was addicted to these other sweeteners. It maintained my sweet tooth and so encouraged me to continue eating a diet high in carbs and sugar. There was no obvious benefit. It did eventually lead me to give up all sweeteners. I just don’t know that the artificial sweeteners were more of a help or a hindrance in that process.

Whatever your decision, know that these substances aren’t without risks. It is dietary Russian roulette. Maybe there will be no serious harm and maybe there will. We shall all find out decades from now when the children and young adults raised on these chemicals reach older age. Here is my perspective. Why take any risk at all when it is completely unnecessary? We already know how to stop sugar cravings in their tracks. With a ketogenic diet, you won’t need to exchange addiction to sugar with an addiction to artificial sweeteners. It’s the simplest solution and, for such people, the only solution with a guaranteed net positive health outcome.

As a quick note, I’d point out a few things about the research. First, all sweeteners affect the body and so aren’t neutral substances, but it is unknown if the effects are a net benefit or net loss. Also, different sweeteners have different effects and the reason for this is not entirely understood. There are still other concerns.

The worst effects in animal studies were seen with high doses, which makes one wonder what is the effect of artificial sweeteners combined with the effect numerous other chemicals, additives, toxins, and pollutants, along with other physiological and environmental stressors that most people are exposed to, as the interaction of multiple factors is an area that mostly remains unexplored and, more importantly, rarely controlled for. And as far as I know, no study has ever been done with various sweeteners in relation to low-carb, zero-carb, and ketogenic diets; whereas most of the studies that have been done are using subjects on the severely unhealthy standard American diet, and so maybe for those people an artificial sweetener is better than the alternative of a high-sugar diet.

Basically, we are in a state of far greater ignorance than knowledge. It’s anyone’s guess. As always, you are taking your life into your own hands. Whatever a journalist, doctor, or health expert may say, it is in the end your life that is at stake, not theirs.

* * *

Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings
by Qing Yang

[C]onsensus from interventional studies suggests that artificial sweeteners do not help reduce weight when used alone [2,25]. BMI did not decrease after 25 weeks of substituting diet beverages for sugar-sweetened beverages in 103 adolescents in a randomized controlled trial, except among the heaviest participants [26]. Adouble blind study subjected 55 overweight youth to 13 weeks of a 1,000 Kcal diet accompanied by daily capsules of aspartame or lactose placebo. Both groups lost weight, and the difference was not significant. Weight loss was attributed to caloric restriction [27]. Similar results were reported for a 12-week, 1,500 Kcal program using either regular or diet soda [28]. Interestingly, when sugar was covertly switched to aspartame in a metabolic ward, a 25 percent immediate reduction in energy intake was achieved [29]. Conversely, knowingly ingesting aspartame was associated with increased overall energy intake, suggesting overcompensation for the expected caloric reduction [30]. Vigilant
monitoring, caloric restriction, and exercise were likely involved in the weight loss seen in multidisciplinary programs that included artificial sweeteners [31,32].

Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies
by Meghan B. Azad, Ahmed M. Abou-Setta, Bhupendrasinh F. Chauhan, Rasheda Rabbani, Justin Lys, Leslie Copstein, Amrinder Mann, Maya M. Jeyaraman, Ashleigh E. Reid, Michelle Fiander, Dylan S. MacKay, Jon McGavock, Brandy Wicklow, and Ryan Zarychanski

Evidence from small RCTs with short follow-up (median 6 mo) suggests that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners is not consistently associated with decreases in body weight, BMI or waist circumference. However, in larger prospective cohort studies with longer follow-up periods (median 10 yr), intake of nonnutritive sweeteners is significantly associated with modest long-term increases in each of these measures. Cohort studies further suggest that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners is associated with higher risks of obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, stroke and cardiovascular disease events; however, publication bias was indicated for type 2 diabetes, and there are no data available from RCTs to confirm these observations.

Previous reviews12,65 concluded that, although data from RCTs support weight-loss effects from sustained nonnutritive sweetener interventions, observational studies provide inconsistent results. Building on these findings, we included new studies14–24 and found that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was not generally associated with weight loss among participants in RCTs, except in long-term (≥ 12 mo) trials with industry sponsorship. In addition, we found that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was associated with modest long-term weight gain in observational studies. Our results also extend previous meta-analyses that showed higher risks of type 2 diabetes32,33 and hypertension66 with regular consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners.

Sucralose decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial
by Alonso Romo-Romo, Carlos A. Aguilar-Salinas, Griselda X. Brito-Córdova, Rita A. Gómez-Díaz, and Paloma Almeda-Valdes

Design
We performed a randomized controlled trial involving healthy subjects without comorbidities and with a low habitual consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners (n = 33/group). […]

Results
Individuals assigned to sucralose consumption showed a significant decrease in insulin sensitivity with a median (IQR) percentage change of −17.7% (−29.3% to −1.0%) in comparison to −2.8% (−30.7% to 40.6%) in the control group (P= 0.04). An increased acute insulin response to glucose from 577 mU · L-1· min (350–1040 mU · L-1· min) to 671 mU · L-1· min (376–1010 mU · L-1· min) (P = 0.04) was observed in the sucralose group for participants with adequate adherence.

Conclusions
Sucralose may have effects on glucose metabolism, and our study complements findings previously reported in other trials. Further studies are needed to confirm the decrease in insulin sensitivity and to explore the mechanisms for these metabolic alterations.

Neurobehavioral Effects of Aspartame Consumption
by Glenda N. Lindseth, Sonya E. Coolahan, Thomas V. Petros, and Paul D. Lindseth

Despite its widespread use, the artificial sweetener aspartame remains one of the most controversial food additives, due to mixed evidence on its neurobehavioral effects. Healthy adults who consumed a study-prepared high-aspartame diet (25 mg/kg body weight/day) for 8 days and a low-aspartame diet (10 mg/kg body weight/day) for 8 days, with a 2-week washout between the diets, were examined for within-subject differences in cognition, depression, mood, and headache. Measures included weight of foods consumed containing aspartame, mood and depression scales, and cognitive tests for working memory and spatial orientation. When consuming high-aspartame diets, participants had more irritable mood, exhibited more depression, and performed worse on spatial orientation tests. Aspartame consumption did not influence working memory. Given that the higher intake level tested here was well below the maximum acceptable daily intake level of 40–50 mg/kg body weight/day, careful consideration is warranted when consuming food products that may affect neurobehavioral health.

Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review and Primer for Gastroenterologists
by Marisa Spencer, Amit Gupta, Lauren Van Dam, Carol Shannon, Stacy Menees, and William D Chey

Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and whether they play a role in the development of GI symptoms, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Utilizing the PubMed and Embase databases, we conducted a search for articles on individual AS and each of these terms: fermentation, absorption, and GI tract. Standard protocols for a systematic review were followed. At the end of our search, we found a total of 617 eligible papers, 26 of which were included. Overall, there is limited medical literature available on this topic. The 2 main areas on which there is data to suggest that AS affect the GI tract include motility and the gut microbiome, though human data is lacking, and most of the currently available data is derived from in vivo studies. The effect on motility is mainly indirect via increased incretin secretion, though the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown as the downstream effect on motility was not studied. The specific effects of AS on the microbiome have been conflicting and the available studies have been heterogeneous in terms of the population studied and both the AS and doses evaluated. Further research is needed to assess whether AS could be a potential cause of GI symptoms. This is especially pertinent in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a population in whom dietary interventions are routinely utilized as a management strategy.

Association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners and health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies
by Ingrid Toews, Szimonetta Lohner, Daniela Küllenberg de Gaudry, Harriet Sommer, Joerg J Meerpohl

In one randomised controlled trial,85 total cholesterol concentration decreased strongly in sucrose groups but increased in the aspartame group (mean difference 0.44 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.56; n=45). […]

In one crossover non-randomised controlled trial,83 researchers found a significantly higher increase in blood glucose in children of preschool age receiving aspartame compared with sucrose (mean difference 0.24 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.39; n=25), a significantly higher increase in blood glucose in children of school age receiving saccharin compared with sucrose (0.65 mmol/L, 0.44 to 0.86; n=23), and a significantly lower increase in blood glucose in children of preschool age receiving aspartame compared with saccharin (−0.75 mmol/L, −0.95 to −0.64; n=23, very low certainty of evidence). In overweight children involved in active weight loss, blood glucose decreased less strongly in those receiving NSSs compared with those not receiving NSSs (0.3 mmol/L, 0.2 to 0.4; n=49, very low certainty of evidence).

Systematic review of the relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and cancer in humans: analysis of 599,741 participants
by A. Mishra, K. Ahmed, S. Froghi, and P. Dasgupta

The statistical value of this review is limited by the heterogeneity and observational designs of the included studies. Although there is limited evidence to
suggest that heavy consumption may increase the risk of certain cancers, overall
the data presented are inconclusive as to any relationship between artificial sweeteners and cancer.

Evidence suggesting artificial sweeteners may be harmful should give us pause
by Leslie Beck

The study, a randomized controlled trial, investigated the effect of daily sucralose consumption on insulin sensitivity in 66 healthy, normal-weight adults who didn’t regularly use artificial sweeteners. […]

This finding is provocative because it suggests that regular consumption of sucralose can lead to insulin resistance in healthy, normal-weight people.

Sucralose may affect blood sugar control by activating sweet taste receptors in the gut, triggering the release of insulin. Artificial sweeteners are also thought to disrupt the balance of good gut bacteria in a direction that can lead to insulin resistance and weight gain.

Did America Get Fat by Drinking Diet Soda?
by Daniel Engber

Perhaps more to the point, researchers have tested the effects of diet soda on people trying to lose weight, and gotten positive results. A randomized, controlled trial published in May compared the efficacy of artificially sweetened beverages and water in a 12-week weight-loss program. Both treatment groups ended up with smaller waists, and the people taking diet drinks appeared to lose more weight. That study’s lead authors are consultants for Coca-Cola, so perhaps we shouldn’t take this as the final word. But another randomized trial from 2012, this one funded by a bottled-water company, came to a similar conclusion. When overweight and obese adults switched to diet beverages or water for a six-month stretch, both groups shed 1 inch of girth, on average, and 5 pounds.

Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape
Szimonetta Lohner, Ingrid Toews, and Joerg J. Meerpoh

Finally, we included 372 studies in our scoping review, comprising 15 systematic reviews, 155 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 23 non-randomized controlled trials, 57 cohort studies, 52 case-control studies, 28 cross sectional studies and 42 case series/case reports.

In healthy subjects, appetite and short term food intake, risk of cancer, risk of diabetes, risk of dental caries, weight gain and risk of obesity are the most investigated health outcomes. Overall there is no conclusive evidence for beneficial and harmful effects on those outcomes. Numerous health outcomes including headaches, depression, behavioral and cognitive effects, neurological effects, risk of preterm delivery, cardiovascular effects or risk of chronic kidney disease were investigated in fewer studies and further research is needed. In subjects with diabetes and hypertension, the evidence regarding health outcomes of NNS use is also inconsistent.

Early-Life Exposure to Non-Nutritive Sweeteners and the Developmental Origins of Childhood Obesity: Global Evidence from Human and Rodent Studies
by Alyssa J. Archibald, Vernon W. Dolinsky, and Meghan B. Azad

Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are increasingly consumed by children and pregnant women around the world, yet their long-term health impact is unclear. Here, we review an emerging body of evidence suggesting that early-life exposure to NNS may adversely affect body composition and cardio-metabolic health. Some observational studies suggest that children consuming NNS are at increased risk for obesity-related outcomes; however, others find no association or provide evidence of confounding. Fewer studies have examined prenatal NNS exposure, with mixed results from different analytical approaches. There is a paucity of RCTs evaluating NNS in children, yielding inconsistent results that can be difficult to interpret due to study design limitations (e.g., choice of comparator, multifaceted interventions). The majority of this research has been conducted in high-income countries. Some rodent studies demonstrate adverse metabolic effects from NNS, but most have used extreme doses that are not relevant to humans, and few have distinguished prenatal from postnatal exposure. Most studies focus on synthetic NNS in beverages, with few examining plant-derived NNS or NNS in foods. Overall, there is limited and inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of early-life NNS exposure on the developmental programming of obesity and cardio-metabolic health. Further research and mechanistic studies are needed to elucidate these effects and inform dietary recommendations for expectant mothers and children worldwide.

Noncaloric Sweeteners in Children: A Controversial Theme
by Samuel Durán Agüero, Lissé Angarita Dávila, Ma. Cristina Escobar Contreras, Diana Rojas Gómez, and Jorge de Assis Costa

On the other hand, three transversal studies, including 385 and 3311 children, showed positive association between the intakes of NCS and BMI [53]. Similar results were obtained with pregnant woman who ingested NCS, showing more probability of having babies with increased risk for later obesity or overweight. However, the limitation of the studies is that these were of observational type, and the findings do not necessarily imply a significant correlation between the intake of artificial sweeteners and weight gain [54, 55]. In a meta-analysis of intake of NCS that included 11.774 citations, 7 trials, 1003 participants, and 30 cohort studies (adults and adolescents) it was concluded that there is not enough evidence from randomized controlled trials to demonstrate the positive effect of NCS on controlling body weight. Findings of observational studies suggest that the continuous ingestion of NCS could be associated with BMI and cardiometabolic risk increase [56].

Diet Soda May Alter Our Gut Microbes And Raise The Risk Of Diabetes
by Allison Aubrey

While the findings are preliminary, the paper could begin to explain why studies of diet soda point in opposite directions.

“All of us have a microbiome” made up of trillions of organisms. “[It’s] extremely complex. Everybody’s microbiome is a little different,” Blaser says.

And the ways our microbiomes respond to what we eat can vary, too.

In the study, the Israeli researchers find that as mice and people started consuming artificial sweeteners, some types of bacteria got pushed out, and other types of bacteria began to proliferate.

It could be that for some people who responded negatively to the artificial sweetener, the bacteria that got crowded out were helping to keep glucose in check.

How it’s happening isn’t clear, and Blaser says a lot more research is needed.

“So that’s the next step,” Blaser says. “Firstly, for [researchers] to confirm this, to see if it’s really true.” And the next challenge is to understand the mechanism. “How does the change in the microbial composition — how is it causing this?”

Lots of researchers agree they’d like to see a large-scale study.

“It’s much too early, on the basis of this one study, [to conclude that] artificial sweeteners have negative impacts on humans’ [risk for diabetes],” says James Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado.

He points to a randomized controlled trial published in 2011 that found artificial sweeteners helped to limit the rise in blood sugar in a group of slightly overweight people, compared with sugar.

Hill also points to a study of people on the National Weight Control Registry that found successful long-term dieters tend to consume artificially sweetened foods and beverages at a higher rate compared with the general population.

So expect the debate over diet sodas to continue — and also anticipate hearing more about the role of our microbiomes.

Study links artificial sweeteners and weight gain
by CTVNews.ca Staff

Azad said what her team was most struck by was the lack of good, rigorous studies on artificial sweeteners.

“Surprisingly, given how common these products are, not many studies have looked at the long-term impact of their consumption,” Azad told CTV News Channel from Lisbon, Portugal.

She noted that only seven of the 37 studies they reviewed were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and all were relatively short, following participants for a median period of only six months.

The other 30 studies were longer and followed the participants for an average of 10 years, but they were observational studies – a form of research that is not as precise as a controlled trial.

“A lot of the studies we found were observational, meaning they could show a link but they can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship,” she said.

Among the seven RCT’s, regular consumption of sweeteners had no significant effect on weight loss. From the other studies, the team found that regular use of sweeteners was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, and modest increases in weight and waist circumferences.

“What we found was that at the end of the day, from all of this research, there really wasn’t firm evidence of a long-term benefit of artificial sweeteners. And there was some evidence of long-term harm from long-term consumption,” Azad said.

As for why artificial sweeteners seem to be linked to weight gain, not weight loss, Azad says no one knows for sure but there are lots of theories.

One theory is that the sweeteners somehow disrupt healthy gut bacteria. Another theory is that the sweeteners confuse our metabolisms, causing them to overreact to sugary tastes.

It could be that those who regularly use artificial sweeteners over-compensate for the missed calories from sugar, or they could have otherwise unhealthy diets in conjunction with sweetener use.

Azad would like to see a lot more research on the long-term use of sweeteners, in particular studies that could compare the different sweeteners, to see if one is any better than another.

In the meantime, for those trying to cut down on their sugar consumption, Azad says it’s important not to switch from one harmful food item to another.

“I think the takeaway for Canadians at this point is to maybe think twice about whether you really want to be consuming these artificial sweeteners, particularly on an everyday basis,” Azad said, “because really we don’t have evidence to say for sure whether these are truly harmless alternatives to sugar.”

Like water fasts, meat fasts are good for health.

I was on a low-carb paleo diet for about a year with a focus on intermittent fasting and ketosis. Influenced by Dr. Terry Wahls and Dr. Will Cole, both former vegetarians converted to paleo, this included large helpings of vegetables but without the starchy carbs. It was a game-changer for me, as my health improved on all fronts, from weight to mood. But every time my carbs and sugar intake would creep up, I could feel the addictive cravings coming back and I decided to limit my diet to a greater extent. Zero-carb had already been on my radar, but I then looked more into it. It seemed worth a try.

So, I went carnivore for the past couple of months, mostly as an experiment and not as an idea of it being permanent. It is the best elimination diet ever and it definitely takes low-carb to another level, but I wanted to be able to compare how I felt with plants in my diet. So, a couple weeks ago with spring in the air and wild berries on their way, I ended my zero-carb carnivory with a three-day fast and reintroduced some light soup and fermented vegetables. I felt fine. Even after the extended period of low-carb diet, this zero-carb experiment made me realize how much better I feel with severely restricting carbs and sugar. Now back on a paleo-keto diet, I’m going to keep my focus on animal foods and be more cautious about which plant foods I include and how often.

Dr. Anthony Gustin offers an approach similar to Siim Land, as discussed in the first four videos below. A low-carb diet, especially strict carnivore (no dairy, just meat), is an extremely effective way of healing digestive issues and reducing bodily inflammation. The carnivore diet is a low residue diet because meat and fat gets fully digested much earlier in the digestive tract, whereas lots of fiber can clog you up in causing constipation. A similar kind of benefit is seen with the ketogenic diet, as microbiome imbalance and overgrowth is improved by initially starving and decreasing the number of microbes, but after some months the microbiome recovers to its original numbers and with a healthier balance.

Still, as Gustin and Land argue, it’s good to maintain some variety in the diet for metabolic flexibility. But we must understand plants stress the system (Steven Gundry, The Plant Paradox), as they are inflammatory, unlike most animal foods (though dairy can be problematic for some), and plants contain anti-nutrients that can cause deficiencies. There are other problems as well, such as damage from oxalates that are explained by the oxalate expert Sally K. Norton in the fifth and sixth videos; she argues that plants traditionally were only eaten seasonally and not daily as she talks about in the seventh video (also, written up as an academic paper: Lost Seasonality and Overconsumption of Plants: Risking Oxalate Toxicity).

Even so, one might argue that small amounts of stress are good for what is called hormesis — in the way that working out stresses the body in order to build muscle, whereas constant exertion would harm the body; or in the way that being exposed to germs as a child helps the development of a stronger immune system — with a quick explanation by Siim Land in the second video below. Otherwise, by too strictly excluding foods for too long you might develop sensitivities, which the fourth video is about. As cookie monster said about cookies on the Colbert Show, vegetables are a sometimes food. Think of plant foods more as medicine in that dose is important.

Plant foods are beneficial in small portions on occasion, whereas constantly overloading your body with them never gives your system a rest. Fruits and veggies are good, in moderation. It turns out a “balanced diet” doesn’t mean massive piles of greens for every meal and snacks in between. Grains aren’t the only problematic plant food. Sure, on a healthy diet, you can have periods of time when you eat more plant foods and maybe be entirely vegan on certain days, but also make sure to fast from plant foods entirely every now and then or even for extended periods.

That said, I understand that we’ve been told our entire lives to eat more fruits and veggies. And I’m not interested in trying to prove zero-carbs is the best. If you’re afraid that you’ll be unhealthy without a massive load of plant nutritients, then make sure to take care of potential problems with gut health and inflammation. In the eighth video below, a former vegan explains how she unknowingly had been managing her plant-induced inflammation with CBD oil, something she didn’t realize until after stopping its use. She later turned to an animal-based diet and the inflammation was no longer an issue.

But for those who don’t want to go strictly low-carb, much less carnivore, there are many ways to manage one’s health, besides anti-inflammatory CBD oil. Be sure to include other anti-inflammatories such as turmeric (curcumin) combined with, for absorption, black pepper (bioperine). Also, intermittent and extended fasting will be all the more important to offset the plant intake, although everyone should do fasting as it is what the human body is designed for. A simple method is limited eating periods, even going so far as one meal a day (OMAD), but any restriction is better than none. Remember that even sleeping at night is a fast and so, skipping breakfast or eating later, will extend that fast with its benefits; or else skipping dinner will start the fasting period earlier.

Even on a vegan or vegetarian diet, one can also do a ketogenic diet, which is another way of reducing inflammation and healing the gut. For this approach, I’d suggest reading Dr. Will Cole’s book Ketotarian; also helpful might be some other books such as Dena Harris’ The Paleo Vegetarian Diet and Mark Hyman’s Food: What the Heck Should I Eat?. Anytime carbs are low enough, including during fasts, will put the body into ketosis and eventually autophagy, the latter being how the body heals itself. Carbs, more than anything else, will knock you out of this healthy state, not that you want to be permanently in this state.

Still, I wouldn’t recommend extreme plant-based diets, in particular not the typically high-carb veganism. Even with the advantages of low-carb, I would still avoid it as this will force you to eat more unhealthy foods like soy and over-consume omega-6 fatty acids from nuts and seeds, one of the problems discussed in the fourth video. Some vegetarians and vegans will oddly make an exception for seafood; but if you don’t eat seafood at all, be sure to add an algal-source supplement of EPA and DHA, necessary omega-3 fatty acids that are also beneficial for inflammation and general health. If meat, including seafood, is entirely unacceptable, consider at least adding certain kinds animal foods in such as pasture-raised eggs and ghee.

If you still have health problems, consider the possibility of going zero-carb. Even a short meat fast might do wonders. As always, self-experimentation is the key. Put your health before dietary ideology. That is to say, don’t take my word for it nor the word of others. Try it for yourself. If you want to do a comparison, try strict veganism for a period and then follow it with carnivore. And if you really want to emphasize the difference, make the vegan part of the experiment high-carb and I don’t necessarily mean what are considered ‘unhealthy’ carbs — so, eat plenty of whole wheat bread, rice, corn, and beans, — that way you’ll also feel the difference that carbohydrates make. But if you don’t want to do carnivore for the other part of the experiment, at least try a ketogenic diet which can be done with more plant-based foods but consider reducing the most problematic plant foods, as Gundry explains.

Of course, you can simply jump right into carnivory and see what happens. Give it a few months or even a year, as it can take a while for your body to heal, not only in elimination of toxins. What do you have to lose?

* * *

I’ll add a personal note. I’ve long had an experimental attitude about life. But the last year, I’ve been quite intentional in my self-experimenting. Mainly, I try something and then observe the results, not that I’m always that systematic about it. Many of the changes I’ve experienced would be hard to miss, even when I’m not paying close attention.

That playing around with dietary parameters is what I’m still doing. My dietary experiments likely will go on for quite a while longer. After a few days of fermented vegetables, I felt fine and there were no symptoms. I decided to try a salad which is raw vegetables (lettuce, green onions, and radishes) and included fermented vegetables. Now I notice that the inflammation in my wrist has flared up. I’ll take that as my body giving me feedback.

One of the best benefits to zero-carb was how inflammation had gone away. My wrists weren’t bothering me at all and that is a big deal, as they’re has been irritation for years now with my job as a cashier and all the time I spend on the computer. Inflammation had gone down with low-carb, but it was still noticeable. There was further decrease with zero-carb and I’d hate to lose those gains.

As I said, I’m being cautious. The benefits I’ve seen are not slight and far from being limited to joint issues, with what is going on with my wrists probably being related to the crackling in my knees I experience earlier last decade before reducing sugar. A much bigger deal is the neurocognitive angle, since mental health has been such a struggle for decades. Possible inflammation in my brain is greater concern than inflammation in my wrists, not that the two can be separated as an inflammatory state can affect any and all parts of the body. I take depression extremely seriously and I’m hyper-aware to shifts in mood and related aspects.

I’ll limit myself to fermented vegetables for the time being and see how that goes.

Having written that, I remembered one other possible offending food. The day before the salad I had a slice of oat bread. I had asked someone to make me some almond bread, as I explained to them, because of the paleo diet and they misunderstood. They apparently thought the paleo diet was only about wheat and so they got it in their head that oats would be fine. Because they made it for me, I decided to have a slice as I’m not a dietary Puritan.

So maybe it wasn’t the salad, after all. Still, I think I’ll keep to the fermented veggies for a while. And I’ll keep away from those grains. That was the first time I had any oats in a long time. I’ll have to try oats again sometime in the future to see if I have a similar response. But for now, I’m keeping my diet simple by keeping animal foods at the center of of what I eat.

* * *

My own experience with diets makes me understand the attraction of carnivore diet. It isn’t only the most effective diet for healing from inflammation and gut problems. Also, it is so simple to do, it is highly satisfying with lots of fat and sat, and the results are dramatic and quick. You just eat until you’re no longer hungry.

Few other diets compare. The one exception being the ketogenic diet, which is unsurprising since zero-carb will obviously promote ketosis. Both of these diets have the advantage of simplicity. One quickly learns that all the struggle and suffering is unnecessary and undesirable. You eat until satiety and then stop. Overeating is almost impossible on carnivore, as the body returns to normal balance without all those carbs and sugar fucking up your metabolism and hormonal signaling for hunger.

We live in a dominator society that is drenched in moralistic religion and this impacts everyone, even atheists and new agers. This shapes the stories we tell, including dieting narratives of gluttony and sin (read Gary Taubes). We are told dieting must be hard, that it is something enforced, not something we do naturally as part of a lifestyle. We are taught to mistrust our bodies and, as if we are disembodied ego-minds, that we must control the body and resist temptation… and when we inevitably fail, one might argue by design, we must punish ourselves and double down on self-denial. If it feels good, it must be bad. What bullshit!

The addictive mentality of diets high in carbs and sugar are part of a particular social order built on oppressive social control. Rather than an internal sense of satisfaction, control must come from outside, such that we become disconnected even from our own bodies. It is a sense of scarcity where one is always hungry, always worried about where the next meal will come from. And in order to control this addictive state, we are told we have to fight against our own bodies, as if we are at war with ourselves. We lose an intuitive sense of what is healthy, as everything around us promotes imbalance and disease.

But what if there could be another way? What if you could feel even better with carnivory or in ketogenic fasting than you ever felt before?

* * *

I’ve written before about low-carb, fasting, ketosis, and related dietary topics such as paleo and nutrient-density:

Ketogenic Diet and Neurocognitive Health; Fasting, Calorie Restriction, and Ketosis; Fasting and Feasting; The Agricultural Mind; Spartan Diet; Sailors’ Rations, a High-Carb DietObese Military?; Low-Carb Diets On The Rise; Obesity Mindset; Malnourished Americans; Ancient Atherosclerosis?; Carcinogenic Grains; The Creed of Ancel Keys; Dietary Dictocrats of EAT-Lancet; Clearing Away the Rubbish; Damning Dietary Data; Paleo Diet, Traditional Foods, & General Health; and The Secret of Health.

This is the first post about the carnivore diet. Some of the other posts come close to it, though. In a couple of them, I discuss diets that were largely centered on animal foods, from the Mongols to the Spartans. It was specifically my reading about and experimenting with fasting and ketosis that opened my mind to considering the carnivore diet.

I bring this up because of another interesting historical example I just came across. Brad Lemley, a science journalist, is a LCHF practitioner and advocate. He writes that, “I’ve always been fascinated by Lewis and Clark’s expedition. What gave the 33 men and one dog the strength to traverse the wild nation? Nine pounds of meat per day per man”.

From the journal of Raymond Darwin Burroughs, there was a tally of the meat consumed on the expedition: “Deer (all species combined” 1,001; Elk 375; Bison 227; Antelope 62; Bighorn sheep 35; Bears, grizzly 43; Bears, black 23; Beaver (shot or trapped) 113; Otter 16; Geese and Brant 104; Grouse (all species) 46; Turkeys 9; Plovers 48; Wolves (only one eaten) 18; Indian dogs (purchased and consumed) 190; Horses 12″ (The Natural History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition).

“This list does not include the countless smaller or more exotic animals that were captured and eaten by the Corps, such as hawk, coyote, fox, crow, eagle, gopher, muskrat, seal, whale blubber, turtle, mussels, crab, salmon, and trout” (Hunting on the Lewis and Clark Trail). “Additionally, 193 pounds of “portable soup” were ordered as an emergency ration when stores ran out and game was scarce or unavailable. The soup was produced by boiling a broth down to a gelatinous consistency, then further drying it until it was rendered quite hard and desiccated. Not exactly a favorite with the men of the Corps, it nonetheless saved them from near starvation on a number of occasions.”

That would be a damn healthy diet. Almost entirely hunted and wild-caught meat. They would have been eating head-to-tail with nothing going to waste: brains, intestines, organ meats, etc. They also would’ve been getting the bone marrow and bone broth. This would have provided every nutrient needed for not just surviving but thriving at high levels of health and vitality. Yet they also would have gone through periods of privation and hunger.

“Despite the apparent bounty of the ever-changing landscape and the generosity of local tribes, many were the nights when the crew of the Corps went to sleep hungry. Many were the days when shots went awry and missed their mark, or game remained hidden from sight. Relentless rain ruined drying meat, punishing heat spoiled perishable provisions, and clothing rotted right off the backs of the men.”

That means they also spent good portions of time fasting. So, there was plenty of ketosis and autophagy involved, further factors that promote health and energy. Taken together, this dietary lifestyle follows the traditional hunter-gatherer pattern of feasting and fasting. Some ancient agricultural societies such as the Spartans intentionally mimicked this intermittent fasting through the practice of one-meal-a-day, at least for young boys training for the life of a soldier.

Nina Teicholz has pointed out that a meat-heavy diet was common to early Americans, not only to those on expeditions into the Western wilderness, and because of seasonal changes fasting and its results would also have been common. The modern industrial style of the standard American diet (SAD) doesn’t only diverge from traditional hunter-gatherer diets but also from the traditional American diet.

* * *

Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

Video 4

Video 5

Video 6

Video 7

Video 8

* * *

Bonus Video!

This one particularly fits my own experience with mental health. The guy interviewed offers a compelling conversion story, in going from the standard American diet (SAD) to carnivore after decades of everything getting worse. His example shows how, as long as you’re still alive, it is never too late to regain some of your health and sometimes with a complete reversal.

* * *

Other videos:

On Salt: Sodium, Trace Minerals, and Electrolytes

There has been a lot of debate about salt lately. The mainstream view originated from little actual scientific evidence. It wasn’t well-supported. But research since then has been mixed.

The isn’t limited to disagreement between mainstream and alternative thinkers. Paleo advocates such as Dr. Loren Cordain (considered to be the founder of the paleo diet) continue to recommend lower salt intake. Still, there have been an increasing number of scientists and physicians coming out in favor of the benefits of salt: Dr Barbara Hendel, Dr. F. Batmanghelidj, Dr. Esteban Genoa, Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Jeff S Volek, Dr. Stephen D. Phinney, and Dr. James DiNicolantonio. Many of these experts argue that increased amounts of salt is particularly important for a low-carb diet and that is even more true with high-protein. This relates to issues transitioning into ketosis, what is referred to as keto flu. Basically, the electrolytes temporarily get out of balance while one is adapting to ketosis. Yet Sally Fallon Morell states that it is a plant-based diet that requires more salt to increase HCL in the stomach for digestion.

All of this was brought to my attention because of Dr. DiNcolantonio’s book The Salt Fix that came out recently. His simplest advice is to salt to taste since your body (presumably under normal conditions) should know how much salt it needs. He argues that salt isn’t addictive like sugar. So, according to this view, salt cravings can be safely treated as a genuine need for salt. I haven’t read The Salt Fix, but I have skimmed a bit of one of his other books, Superfuel. In that book, he states that salt, besides maintaining healthy blood pressure, helps maintain insulin sensitivity. Also, salt goes back to the fat issue — more from the book:

“Diets very low in sodium (salt) increase adrenaline and aldosterone, and these hormones reduce activity of D6D and D5D. For this reason, low-salt diets increase the need for EPA and DHA due to the reduced desaturase enzyme activities. Another extremely common hormonal issue these days, one that interferes with conversion of the parent omega-6 and omega-3 fats into their derivatives, is hypothyroidism. Thyroid hormone is required for proper activity of D6D and D5D, so individuals with suboptimal thyroid hormone levels may benefit from consuming more EPA and DHA or taking good-quality supplements.”

There is a number of issues with sodium, potassium, and magnesium in relation to insulin, adrenaline, and aldosterone. Shifting the diet can affect any or all of these. The problem is most research has been limited to people on the standard American diet. We know very little, if anything at all, about salt intake or electrolyte supplementation with other diets. That forces people into experimentation. Anything true of high-carb diets may or may not apply to low-carb diets. Nor do we know that the same will be true between moderately low-carb diets, extremely low-carb diets, zero-carb diets, etc. Then there are other factors such as fasting, ketosis, autophagy, etc that alters the body’s functioning. It’s possible that, on low enough carb restriction, the need for electrolytes and trace minerals decreases, as is the case with vitamin C. Sounds like a great hypothesis to be tested.

Then there is the issue of what actually helps vs what might harm you. What are the potential risks and benefits of getting too few electrolytes and trace minerals vs higher levels? I’m not sure self-experimentation can exactly figure this out, although maybe some have strong enough responses to salt or its lack that they can figure out what works for them. My own experimentation hasn’t indicated anything particular, either positive or negative.

Like anyone else, I enjoy the taste of salt. But unlike sugar, I’ve never craved salt in the addictive sense (and I know what addiction feels like). According to some of what I read, the danger seems to be specifically with refined salt, as is the case with so much else that is refined. Refined salt doesn’t give your body what it needs and so throws off the balance, disallowing healthy processsing of glucose, and so according to this explanation this is why refined salt disposes you to sugar cravings. I remember reading about this sugar and salt craving cycle back in the 1990s, but apparently it only applies to refined salt, if I’m understanding the research correctly. It just so happens that processed food manufacturers love to combine refined carbs and sugar with refined salt, where taste has become disconnected from actual nutrient content because almost all nutrients have been stripped away. They also throw in addictive wheat and dairy for good measure.

I noticed that Dr. James DiNicolantonio says to worry less about sodium and instead focus on potassium. But he emphasizes natural sources of potassium. His point is that salt simply makes high-potassium foods more palatable, foods that otherwise would be more bitter. He points out that there are both animal and plant foods that have greater amounts of potassium: fish, shellfish, greens, beans, potatoes, and tomatoes. The significance of the salt is that once potassium hits a threshold the sodium supposedly will balance it out. Seafood is particularly high in these particular micronutrients, along with much else that is healthy (e.g., EPA and DHA). Many healthy populations have lived near the ocean, as observed by Weston A. Price and others. Some argue that seafood shaped human evolution, the aqauatic ape theory.

“Most animals with a sodium deficiency display an active craving for salt which, when satisfied, disappears. In humans, salt intake has little or no relation to the body’s needs. Some Inuit tribes avoid salt almost completely, while people in the Western world consume 1520 times the amount needed for health. In other works, a single African species (assuming humans have an African origin) possesses a wildly different scheme of salt management. Humans are also the only primates to regulate body temperature by sweat-cooling, a system profligate in the use of sodium. Proponents of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis believe that sweat-cooling could not have developed anywhere except near the sea where diets contain considerable salt, in fact much more salt than the body requires.” (William R. Corliss, Our aquatic phase!)

An interesting theory to explain the unusual aspects of salt in the human species and why there is so many differences even across traditional societies. Whether or not the aquatic ape theory is correct, it’s for certain that the foods in the standard American diet are far different in numerous ways, likely including nutrient content of magnesium and potassium. It would be useful to measure the levels of micronutrients in a healthy hunter-gatherer diet, not only from salt but food sources as well. Besides seafood and certain plants, especially seaweed (Birgitte Svennevig, Did seaweed make us who we are today?), many have noted that it is a common practice among hunter-gatherers to consume blood along with organ meats and interstitial fluid, all of which are high in salt.

I wonder if this is something we overthink because dietary experts came to obsess over it, as a convenient scapegoat (as they scapegoated saturated fat). The whole debate has become polarized, those arguing for low-salt vs those for high-salt. But other factors might be more important. Besides the problems of a high-carb diet, maybe salt levels aren’t that big of an issue. Assuming there aren’t specific health conditions, most people might be perfectly safe to salt to taste or largely ignore salt if they prefer. Potassium and magnesium seem a bit different, though. Those mostly come from foods, not salt. I don’t know of research that compares people who eat foods high in these micronutrients and those who don’t. It’s another one of those confounders with the standard American diet. And even a zero-carb dieter can eat foods that are either high or low in these micronutrients. For those not using salt, it would be useful info to know which foods they eat and their micronutrient profile.

My conclusion is simply that salt tastes good and, until better science comes along to tell me otherwise, I’ll salt to taste. I’m definitely a fan of the philosophy of listening to one’s body. I self-experiment and find out what works. In my experience, there is a big difference between craving sugar and enjoying salt. One is clearly an addiction and the other not, at least in my case. I was reminded of this just moments ago. I got a glass of water. Since it was on my mind, I sprinkled some sea salt in it and a few drops of electrolytes, along with a capful of apple cider vinegar as I’m wont to do. I quickly downed it and realized how refreshing it was. Earlier this morning I had a glass of water without anything in it and it wasn’t nearly as thirst-quenching. I’m not sure why that is. Something about water with salt and trace minerals in it is so satisfying. I suppose that is why many people love Gatorade and similar drinks. They go down so easily, even though the other ingredients are horrible for your health.

My advice is this. Enjoy salt. It tastes good and makes food more satisfying. Certain trace minerals are necessary for life and health, although only small amounts are naturally found in salt. As for potential downsides, there is yet no clear evidence and no consensus. So, do as many others do, find out what works for you.

* * *

There is a secondary issue or rather some related secondary issues. Angela A. Stanton advises against consuming rock salts that have to be mined, such as Himalayan pink salt and Real Salt (The Truth About Himalayan Salt). She gives two main reasons. First, there might be impurities, including radioactive elements and heavy metal toxins such as lead, although she mentions there are also impurities in sea salt as well. The other problem is that these natural sources of salt lack iodine, an important nutrient. So, for both reasons, she recommends a refined salt that has been purified and iodized.

Her second point is the strongest. Iodine is, without a doubt, an essential nutrient and a deficiency is serious. I’m not sure how likely deficiencies are these days for those eating an otherwise wholesome diet, but it is something to keep in mind. Of course, you could solve this problem by occasionally sprinkling on your food some seaweed, a great natural source of iodine. Her fear about impurities, though, is maybe less substantiated because the amount of impurities is so small as to be insignificant. If we are to be paranoid, impurities are almost everywhere and in almost everything — the air you breathe and the water you drink, the food you eat and supplements you take. The human body evolved to handle such miniscule exposures.

If you have health concerns with iodine deficiency, then go ahead with iodized salt. But otherwise, it probably doesn’t matter too much which kind of salt you use, as long as it comes from a high quality source. But if you want to learn more about the issue of contaminants, David Asprey has directly responded to Stanton (Is Pink Himalayan Salt Toxic?) and so has Jeremy Orozco (Is Pink Himalayan Salt Toxic? Radioactive?). There are others as well who respond to the issue more generally to the topic. There were some responses to a Quora inquiry: Is the amount of plutonium in pink Himalayan salt dangerous? (less than .001 ppm). Also, in the comments section of a piece by Harriet Hall (Pink Himalayan Sea Salt: An Update), there were useful responses:

Jeff Mink • 2 years ago
“In case it wasn’t clear from the article, Himalayan sea salt does not contain “84 trace elements”. If you follow the link to the spectral analysis, it simply lists all non-noble gas elements in the periodic table. If the concentration is “< X ppm”, that means that none of that element was detected. That leaves it with a total of 29 elements (NOT MINERALS!) detected, assuming I counted correctly. In fact, they didn’t even test for as technetium and promethium, since there’s no chance (according to our modern scientific theories) that those could be in there. None of the elements that are actually contained in the salt are radioactive (at least not that I saw), but thallium and lead are definitely not good for the human body. Of course, at the concentrations listed, you’d probably succumb to sodium poisoning long before you got a harmful dose of heavy metals.”

Mathew Taylor • 2 years ago
“There are two main parts to this article: 1) Pink Salt does not provide any health benefits, or they are overstated grossly. I concede this point.

“However, the 2nd part, that pink salt is HARMFUL appears to be wrong. You state that it is full of poisons / contaminants. Lets look at a few of them;

“Arsenic – <0.01 ppm – There is more arsenic in some foods than this. In fact, local authorities limit arsenic concentrations in some seafood to 2mg/kg, thats 2ppm, orders of magnitude more than in pink salt and in something you would consume an order of magnitude more of.

“Mercury – .03 ppm in pink salt. Contrast that with Tuna, where levels are at least TEN TIMES higher, and the volume you would consume in a serving is many orders of magnitude higher.

“Lead – .1 ppm – There is lead in a variety of foods, but usually lower concentrations than this. Remember that salt is not used in massive quantities, unlike vegetables. The target for blood lead levels is less than 10 mcg/dl, or approx 500 mcg total. To get that much lead from pink salt, you’d have to consume 5 kilograms of the stuff. Good luck with that.

“Uranium – <0.001 ppm – Lots of food has uranium in it. Mushrooms can have over 100 μg U/kg (Dry mass).

“So don’t use it if you don’t want to, but don’t make out like this stuff is bad for you, it is, after all, 97.3% table salt.”

* * *

If you want further info about salt, here is a somewhat random collection of articles and videos, all of them bringing new perspectives based on the latest research:

The Salt of the Earth

Salt: friend or foe?

Why Salt Is Good For You, But Some Salt is Better Than Others

Dr. James DiNicolantonio On Sodium-Potassium Balance

The Potassium Myth

The Importance of Potassium and Sodium for Fertility Health

On Keto Flu and Electrolyte Imbalances

Leveraging basic physiology to prevent ‘keto-flu,’ ‘Atkins-flu,’ and ‘adrenal fatigue.’

How much sodium, potassium and magnesium should I have on a ketogenic diet?

Salt

Dr. Eric Berg on Insulin Resistance

Let me do a simple post by sharing a short video. Dr. Eric Berg has a talent for summarizing scientific explanations in a minimal amount of time. Watching it will require less than 10 minutes of your life. And after watching it, you’ll understand why insulin is so important, why insulin resistance is so problematic, and why a low-carb diet is so necessary. It’s simple and to the point.

Slow, Quiet, and Reluctant Changes to Official Dietary Guidelines

Nourishment
by Fred Provenza
pp. 236-237

In 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) issued a report with a striking recommendation: Eliminate dietary cholesterol as a nutrient of concern. This change astonished the public but is consistent with scientific evidence reporting no appreciable relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol or clinical cardiovascular events in general populations. A less obvious change was the absence of an upper limit on total fat consumption. With this report, the DGAC reversed nearly four decades of nutrition policy that placed priority on reducing cholesterol and total fat consumption throughout the population. As with other scientific fields from physics to clinical medicine, scientists contend understanding of nutrition has advanced in recent decades.

Yet, despite the apparent increase in understanding obesity and diet-related diseases continue to rise. In 1960, fewer than 13 percent of Americans were obese, and fewer than 1,100 scientific articles were published on obesity and diabetes. Today, 49 percent of Americans are obese and the United States ranks number one among thirty-five nations in childhood obesity. In 2013, 44,000 scientific articles were published on these topics. In total, over 600,000 articles have been published alleging to provide worthwhile information on diet-related disorders.

The Government’s Bad Diet Advice
by Nina Teicholz

FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health. Now both dogmas have been debunked in quick succession.

First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet. On Thursday, that committee’s report was released, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. Americans, it seems, had needlessly been avoiding egg yolks, liver and shellfish for decades. The new guidelines, the first to be issued in five years, will influence everything from school lunches to doctors’ dieting advice. […]

In 2013, government advice to reduce salt intake (which remains in the current report) was contradicted by an authoritative Institute of Medicine study. And several recent meta-analyses have cast serious doubt on whether saturated fats are linked to heart disease, as the dietary guidelines continue to assert.

Uncertain science should no longer guide our nutrition policy. Indeed, cutting fat and cholesterol, as Americans have conscientiously done, may have even worsened our health. In clearing our plates of meat and eggs (fat and protein), we ate more grains, pasta and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates). Over the past 50 years, we cut fat intake by 25 percent and increased carbohydrates by more than 30 percent, according to a new analysis of government data. Yet recent science has increasingly shown that a high-carb diet rich in sugar and refined grains increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — much more so than a diet high in fat and cholesterol.

My Beef With The AHA’s Saturated Fat Recommendations
by Larry Husten

Reading the new AHA paper I was struck by its extreme self-confidence, paralleled by its unwillingness to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the last time the AHA pushed back against dietary fat and cholesterol. The result, as we all should know by now, was to unwittingly help unleash or at least contribute to the obesity and diabetes epidemics, as saturated fat and dietary cholesterol were replaced by carbs, often refined carbs, and sugar. Notably, the AHA took a long time to change its guidelines, and when it did those efforts were far less aggressive and received far less publicity than the original campaigns.

Now the memory of that catastrophe is fading, at least in some people who would rather forget it. In an article in Medscape one nutrition expert, defending the new AHA paper, offered the following quote: “But the AHA has always taken the stance that saturated fat is bad and that we should be eating more plant oils, and this view is endorsed by the vast majority of nutritionists who are scientifically qualified. [emphasis added]” He’s already forgotten that, in fact, in its earlier campaign the AHA did not explain that saturated fat should not be replaced with carbs, or even sugar.

Government revises Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Go ahead and have some eggs
by Peter Whoriskey

The federal government on Thursday told Americans not to worry so much about cholesterol in their diets, that lots of coffee is fine and that skipping breakfast is no longer considered a health hazard.

The recommendations were part of a new “Dietary Guidelines for Americans,” the influential nutrition advice book that, updated every five years, expresses official thinking about what constitutes a nutritious meal.

In what may be the most striking change, the new version drops the strict limit on dietary cholesterol, stepping back from one of most prominent public health messages since the ’60s.

But there were several other notable changes. Salt limits were eased, if only slightly, for many people. Coffee won official approval for the first time, with the book saying that as many as five eight-ounce cups a day is fine. And apparently, skipping breakfast is no longer considered a health hazard: While the old version of Dietary Guidelines informed readers that “not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight,” the new version is silent on the topic. […]

Nevertheless, the new version seems inconsistent in places, or torn between new science and past recommendations.

For example, the new document dropped the warning about dietary cholesterol from its key recommendations and the document no longer calls for people to limit their cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams per day. This change was recommended by its own expert committee, which found that cholesterol is no longer “a nutrient of concern.”

But elsewhere in the report, the guidelines cite a 16-year-old report from the Institute of Medicine and advises people to “eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.”

Similarly, the report calls for people to limit the amount of saturated fat in their diet to 10 percent of their calories, and accordingly to choose milk and other dairy products that are no-fat or low-fat. But newer research, also cited by the guidelines, shows that merely reducing consumption of saturated fats may offer no benefit if people merely replace those saturated fats with carbohydrates, as they often do. […]

For all the debate, whether the guidelines have made American healthier is also a matter of debate. Critics have faulted the guidelines for failing to prevent the nation’s epidemic of obesity, and say major changes are necessary in the advice given.

“Given the same advice, it’s not clear why we should expect different outcomes, especially when consumption data shows that over the past decades, Americans have, in fact, followed USDA advice,” said Nina Teicholz, the author of Big Fat Surprise and a board member at the Nutrition Coalition, a new group, funded by Houston-based philanthropists Laura and John D. Arnold, lobbying for changes to the way the government develops dietary advice.

American Heart Association doubles down on outmoded saturated fat
by Dr. Ronald Hoffman

Are you suffering from health news whiplash? It seems lately that all the news has been about the how saturated fats have been exonerated—studies show that meat and high fat dairy contribute negligibly or not at all to the risk of heart disease.

In the face of all this new evidence, I’ve railed against the American Heart Association’s obdurate refusal to acknowledge that they were wrong. They continue to maintain, on their website and through their public pronouncements, that consumers should curtail their consumption of saturated fats and substitute instead polyunsaturated oils—corn, soy, and safflower.

A recent National Institutes of Health reviewshattered that premise: It showed that by swapping dietary saturated fats with vegetable oils, subjects indeed lowered their cholesterol. But that cholesterol reduction didn’t translate into protection against atherosclerosis, heart attacks or death from all causes.

But last week, to my astonishment, the American Heart Association reiterated its position: Its “Presidential Advisory on Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease” states “Lower intake of saturated fat and coupled with higher intake of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease and of other major causes of death and all-cause mortality.” The magnitude of this protective effect is estimated to be a whopping 30%, comparable to the use of statin drugs [irony intended!].

This is reminiscent of the way a religious orthodoxy, whose authority might be threatened with facts that undermine its cherished dogma, would fight back with renewed vigor: Science declares, “The earth is round.” Counter this heresy by delivering a pronouncement that, indeed, the earth is flat. Order it proclaimed from every pulpit.

The Big Fat Surprise
by Nina Teicholz
pp. 184-185

Taken together, these trials have shown that the low-fat diet has at best proved ineffective against disease and at worst aggravated the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. The standard, AHA-prescribed low-fat diet has consistently failed to produce better results for health than diets higher in fat.

A review in 2008 of all studies of the low-fat diet by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization concluded that there is “no probable or convincing evidence” that a high level of fat in the diet causes heart disease or cancer. And in 2013 in Sweden, an expert health advisory group, after spending two years reviewing 16,000 studies, concluded that a diet low in fat was an ineffective strategy for tackling either obesity or diabetes. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion from numerous trials on this diet, altogether costing more than a billion dollars, can only be that this regime, which became our national diet before being properly tested, has almost certainly been a terrible mistake for American public health.

“It is increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences,” wrote Frank Hu, a nutrition professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, in 2001. With this growing pile of evidence on the table, health authorities clearly see the need to update their advice. Yet they are understandably reluctant to reverse course too loudly on fifty years of nutrition recommendations, and this hesitance has led to a certain vagueness on the subject. The USDA and AHA have both quietly eliminated any specific percent fat targets from their most recent lists of dietary guidelines. Those 30–35 percent fat targets that we’ve abided by for decades? They’re now gone. And so is, actually, any discussion of the topic in their reports. How much fat should we be eating? These groups now don’t say, and this silence on the issue—it must be said—does not seem like the clear, confident leadership from our authorities that we might like to see on the subject of how we should eat to fight the major diseases of our time.

Of course many of us who’ve been paying attention to the science have been welcoming fat back into our diets for some time already. We’ve given up spraying with Pam, stopped poaching, and started using salad dressings again. And if there’s a silver lining to those low-fat years, it’s this: we learned that fat is the soul of flavor. Food is tasteless and cooking nearly impossible without fat. Fat is essential in the kitchen to produce crispness and to thicken sauces. It is crucial in conveying flavors. It makes baked goods flaky, moist, and light. And fat has many other, essential functions in cooking and baking. To satisfy all these compelling needs, nutrition experts coming out of the low- to nonfat 1980s and looking for a solution found one apparently perfect candidate: olive oil. And that is one of the reasons why, in the early 1990s, the “Mediterranean Diet” entered the picture.

pp. 339-342

Americans have dutifully followed official dietary advice to restrict fat and animal products for more than sixty years now, ever since the AHA first recommended this diet in 1961 as the best way to avoid heart disease and obesity. Nineteen years later, in 1980, the USDA guidelines joined in. Since then, the government’s own data shows that Americans have reduced their consumption of saturated fat by 11 percent and overall fat by 5 percent. XXXIV Red meat consumption has steadily declined, replaced by chicken. According to a USDA report, Americans also complied with official advice to lower the dietary cholesterol found abundantly in egg yolks and shellfish, even though the cholesterol in food has long been known to have little impact on serum cholesterol (as discussed in Chapter 2). XXXV The original rationale for cutting back on fat was to lower serum cholesterol, and Americans have successfully done that, too. Since 1978, total cholesterol levels among US adults have fallen from an average of 213 mg/dL down to 203 mg/dL. The portion of Americans with “high” cholesterol (over 240 mg/dL) has dropped from 26 percent to 19 percent. Moreover, most of that drop has been due to declines in LDL-cholesterol, the target most emphasized by officials for the past thirty years. In 1952, when Ancel Keys first started arguing for the reduced-fat diet, he predicted that if “mankind stopped eating eggs, dairy products, meats and all visible fats,” heart disease would “become very rare.” This has certainly not been the case.

Indeed, during these years, and despite or perhaps because of these efforts, Americans have experienced skyrocketing epidemics of obesity and diabetes, and the CDC estimates that 75 million Americans now have metabolic syndrome, a disorder of fat metabolism that, if anything, is ameliorated by eating more saturated fat to raise HDL-cholesterol. And although deaths from heart disease have gone down since the 1960s, no doubt due to improved medical treatment, it’s not clear that the actual occurrence of heart disease has declined much during that time.

Authorities are naturally reluctant to take responsibility for this outcome. The same recent USDA report that documents the public’s success in adhering to its dietary guidelines nevertheless places the onus of blame for obesity and disease squarely on American children and adults, “very few” of whom “currently follow the US Dietary Guidelines”—an unsubstantiated assertion that is repeated throughout the report.

The dietary recommendations now offered by the USDA and AHA for solving the nation’s health problems are basically: stay the course. Both groups have backed off their limits on fat slightly. The most recent set of AHA dietary guidelines shifts its dietary fat recommendation from a limit of 30 percent of calories to a range of between 25 percent and 35 percent, arguably a meaningless change to most people. And the USDA’s latest Dietary Guidelines, published in 2010, scrapped any specific percentile targets for the three main macronutrient groups, protein, fat, and carbohydrates, altogether. XXXVI Yet the prohibitions against saturated fats remain strong, and the USDA report continues to take the stance that “healthy diets are high in carbohydrates.”

Meanwhile, the same biases that have sustained the diet-heart hypothesis for so many decades remain, and those biases continue to steer the nutrition conversation every step of the way. So, in 2006, when the Women’s Health Initiative reported that a low-fat diet made no difference to disease or obesity, the WHI investigators, as well as officials at the AHA and NHLBI, issued press releases stating that this half-a-billion-dollar study had not been conducted well enough to make any conclusions about changing our diets. In 2010, when Krauss’s metanalysis came out with good news about saturated fats, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition minimized its impact by publishing the critical editorial by Jerry Stamler as an “introduction” to Krauss’s work. And inconvenient findings, such as those by Volek and Westman, continue to be ignored, reasoned away, or misinterpreted by the great majority of nutrition experts.

Moreover, the alliance between the media and the nutrition mainstream endures. Mark Bittman, a food columnist at the New York Times , is perhaps the most prominent example of a voice in the media encouraging a diet based on fruits and vegetables while minimizing meat, a mantle he inherited from Jane Brody. Journalists and nutrition authorities also continue to dovetail in amplifying any study finding that appears to condemn either red meat or saturated fat. XXXVII And the public gets the message. Americans continue to avoid all fats: the market for “fat replacers,” the foodlike substances substituting for fats in processed foods, was, in 2012, still growing at nearly 6 percent per year, with the most common fat replacers being carbohydrate-based. XXXVIII

If, in recommending that Americans avoid meat, cheese, milk, cream, butter, eggs, and the rest, it turns out that nutrition experts made a mistake, it will have been a monumental one. Measured just by death and disease, and not including the millions of lives derailed by excess weight and obesity, it’s very possible that the course of nutrition advice over the past sixty years has taken an unparalleled toll on human history. It now appears that since 1961, the entire American population has, indeed, been subjected to a mass experiment, and the results have clearly been a failure. Every reliable indicator of good health is worsened by a low-fat diet. Whereas diets high in fat have been shown, again and again, in a large body of clinical trials, to lead to improved measures for heart disease, blood pressure, and diabetes, and are better for weight loss. Moreover, it’s clear that the original case against saturated fats was based on faulty evidence and has, over the last decade, fallen apart. Despite more than two billion dollars in public money spent trying to prove that lowering saturated fat will prevent heart attacks, the diet-heart hypothesis has not held up.

In the end, what we believe to be true—our conventional wisdom—is really nothing more than sixty years of misconceived nutrition research. Before 1961, there were our ancestors, with their recipes. And before them, there were their ancestors, with their hunting bows or traps or livestock—but like lost languages, lost skills, and lost songs, it takes only a few generations to forget.

Obese Military?

I came across some articles on obesity and the military (see below). Metabolic syndrome, obesity being one part of it, is on the rise in the military and in the population in general, along with much else such as autoimmune and mood disorders.

Weight issues are not an issue of mere exercise, as I discovered in aging. The weight began accruing in my thirties and continued into my forties. I’ve always been active and so, in response, I became even more active. I had long done aerobic exercise multiple times a week, often long jogs and sometimes carrying extra weight. Weightlifting was added to my regimen these past few years. Still, the body fat wouldn’t budge. Besides, the worst rates of obesity are found among the young and so aging is not the issue, as further demonstrated by age-related diseases (e.g., what was once called adult onset diabetes) hitting hard at younger and younger ages.

Why is that? Some of it is basic biological changes in aging, of course — still, that couldn’t explain it all since it is happening in all age groups. I had improved my diet over time, but admittedly I was still eating a fair amount of carbs and sugar, even if no where near the amount the average American gets. In the wider population, the consumption of carbohydrates and added sugars has drastically increased over time, specifically as dietary percentage of red meat and saturated fat has gone down while dietary percentage of vegetables and vegetable oils has been on the rise. There are other complex factors that could be mentioned, but I’ll keep it simple.

The point is that the American population, in and outside of the military, are in compliance with official dietary recommendations. The military is even able to enforce a high-carb, low-fat diet on military personnel since they have few other choices when food is prepared for them, and it is specifically during deployment that military personnel have the worst diet-related health decline. There is no greater opportunity than the military for gathering highly-controlled dietary data, as the only other segment with more controlled diets are those locked away in institutions. Also, the military enforces a rigid exercise program, and those who join are those who self-selected for this lifestyle and then had to meet high standards to be accepted. Yet military personnel apparently are getting fatter and fatter.

The amount of carbohydrates we’re talking about here is not insignificant. The USDA recommends 50-60% of the diet to consist of carbohydrates with an emphasis on grains, most of those simple starchy carbs. Even adding some fiber back into processed foods doesn’t really make them any healthier. Grains alone brings up a whole mess of other issues besides gluten (e.g., grains block absorption of certain key nutrients) — it’s long been known that the best way of fattening animals is with grains.

To put in context how distorted is our diet, a recent study compared a high-carb and a low-carb diet where the latter consisted of 40% carbs. If that is what goes for low-carb these days, no wonder we are such a sickly population. Most traditional societies rarely get such high levels of carbs and what they do get usually comes from sources that are fibrous and nutrient-dense. Look at hunter-gatherers — 40% carbs would be at the extreme high end with many groups only getting 22% carbs. As a concrete example, compared to potato chips or a baked potato, chewing on a fibrous wild tuber is a laborious process because of how tough it is, only gaining slightly more calories than you’d be expending for all the effort.

For further perspective, a study published this month implemented a ketogenic diet (Richard A. LaFountain et al, Extended Ketogenic Diet and Physical Training Intervention in Military Personnel). That by itself isn’t noteworthy, as ketosis has been scientifically studied for about a century. What is significant is that it was the first time that such a diet done was done with military personnel. If you’re familiar with this area of research, the results were predictable which is to say they were typical. Military personnel aren’t essentially any different than other demographics. We all evolved from the same ancestors with the same metabolic system.

The results were positive as expected. Health improved in all ways measured. Body fat, in particular, was lost — relevant because the subjects were overweight. Benefits were seen in other aspects of what is called metabolic syndrome, such as better insulin sensitivity. All of this was accomplished while physical fitness was maintained, an important factor for the military. Going by what we know, if anything, physical fitness would improve over time; but that would require a longer term study to determine.

Ketosis is how I and millions of others have lost weight, even among those who don’t know what ketosis is. Anyone who has ever restricted their diet in any way, including fasting, likely has experienced extended periods of ketosis with no conscious intention being required — ketosis simply happens when carbs and sugar are restricted, and even commercial diets like Weight Watchers are quite restrictive along these lines. Other ketogenic gains often are experienced in relation to hunger, cravings, mood, energy, stamina, alertness, and focus. The point here, though, was weight loss and once again it was a glorious success.

That such studies are finally being done involving the military indicates that, after a century of research, government officials are maybe finally coming around to taking ketosis seriously. It’s understandable why drug companies and doctors have been resistant, since there is no profit in a healthy sustainable diet, but profit isn’t a concern for the military or shouldn’t be, although military contractors who provide the food might disagree (high-carb food is cheaper to provide because of high-yield crops subsidized for a half century by the government). If the USDA won’t change its guidelines, maybe the military should develop its own. A military filled with those of less than optimal health is a national security threat.

As for the rest of us, maybe it’s time we look to the studies and make informed decisions for ourselves. Not many doctors know about this kind of research. And if anything, doctors have a misinformed fear about ketosis because of confusion with diabetic ketoacidosis. Doctors aren’t exactly the most knowledgeable group when it comes to nutrition, as many have noted. And the government is too tied up with agricultural and food corporations. Any positive changes will have to come from the bottom up. These changes are already happening in a growing movement in support of alternative diets such as ketogenic low-carb, which is maybe what brought it to the attention of some military officials.

Government will eventually come around out of necessity. A global superpower can’t maintain itself in the long run with a malnourished and obese population. The healthcare costs and lost sick days alone could cripple society — even now most of the healthcare costs go to a few preventable diseases like diabetes. I’m willing to bet that when the next world war is fought the soldiers will be eating low-carb, high-fat rations made with nutrient-dense ingredients. Not doing so would risk having an inferior military. For-profit ideology only goes so far when the stakes are high.

* * *

Is U.S. Nutrition Policy Making the Military (and Recruits) too Fat to Fight?
from Nutrition Coalition

This year, for the first time since 2005, the Army fell short of its recruitment goal, according to the recent report, “Unhealthy and Unprepared,” by The Council for a Strong America, a group of retired generals and admirals. Obesity was largely to blame. Some 71% of young people between the ages of 17 and 24 fail to qualify for military service, says the report. These alarming numbers raise the disturbing question of whether the U.S. will be able to continue the luxury of maintaining an all-volunteer army in the future.

Another recent study, this one by the Rand Corporation found that some two-thirds of the nation’s active military personnel are overweight or obese. Topping the scale is the Army, with 69.4% of its personnel overweight or obese. But even the trimmest military branch – the Marine Corps – isn’t much better, at 60.9%. These numbers may be misleading, since “obesity” is defined by BMI (body mass index), which does not distinguish between whether extra pounds come fat or muscle—the latter being more likely to be the case in the military. Still, rates of 60-69% are disturbingly high. Since these folks are following the military’s exercise program, we certainly can’t blame them for shirking on physical activity.

It seems, in fact, that the U.S. military diet actually worsens health, according to an Army publication six years ago. Chanel S. Weaver of the U.S. Army Public Health Command wrote, “Even those Soldiers who are actually fit enough to deploy can face challenges in maintaining a healthy weight while serving in the deployed environment.”

In the article, Dr. Theresa Jackson, a public health scientist at the U.S. Army Public Health Command, states, “Literature suggests that fitness decreases and fat mass increases during deployments.” This is an astonishing fact: fitness declines in the military, despite mandated regular exercise.

This paradox could be explained by the growing understanding that exercise plays a relatively minor role in weight loss. “You can’t exercise your way out of a bad diet,” is the new common catchphrase among experts. Instead, the principal factor driving obesity, as the data increasingly show, is poor nutrition.

A look at the Army’s nutrition guidelines shows that they emphasize low-fat, high-carbohydrate foods. The Army recommends eating “…high protein, low-fat items such as: fish, beans, whole wheat pasta, egg whites, skim or 1 percent milk, and low-fat yogurt” while avoiding “items such as: fried items, high fat meats, egg yolks, and whole milk.” This guidance comes from the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), a policy that has been co-issued by USDA and US-HHS since 1980. The military essentially downloads these guidelines and serves food in mess halls to reflect DGA recommendations.

Ironically, this reliance on the U.S. Guidelines could well be the very reason for the military’s obesity problems. This diet tells the entire U.S. population to eat 50-60% of their calories as carbohydrates, principally grains, and just as a high-grain diet fattens cattle, a large body of government-funded science shows that a high-carbohydrate diet, for most people, is inimical to sustainable weight loss.

The argument that Americans don’t follow the guidelines is not supported by the best available government data on this subject—which demonstrates widespread adherence to the Dietary Guidelines.

New military study: “Remarkable” results among soldiers on a ketogenic diet
by Anne Mullens and Bret Scher

Those on the ketogenic diet lost an average of 17 pounds (7.5 kg), 5 percent of their overall body fat, 44 percent of their visceral fat, and had their insulin sensitivity improve by 48 per cent. There was no change in the participants on the mixed diet. Training results in physical strength, agility, and endurance in both groups were similar.

The researchers noted:

The most striking result was consistent loss of body mass, fat mass, visceral fat, and enhanced insulin sensitivity in virtually all the ketogenic diet subjects despite no limitations on caloric intake. Physical performance was maintained…. These results are highly relevant considering the obesity problem affecting all branches of the military.

[…] Although neither group counted calories, the ketogenic diet group naturally reduced their caloric intake while eating to satiety.

The most noteworthy response was a spontaneous reduction in energy intake, resulting in a uniformly greater weight loss for all ketogenic diet participants.

The military should lead the U.S. fight against obesity
by Steve Barrons

That advice, driven by the government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans, has largely stuck to the familiar low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet that calls on us to cut meat, butter and cheese. Yet in recent years, the science has evolved, and it has become increasingly clear to people like me that fats aren’t the enemy. Indeed, as I ate more fat and reduced my intake of sugars and other carbohydrates like grains, I lost weight and became healthier.

Experiences like mine are now backed by a fast-growing body of science, showing carbohydrate restriction to be effective for fighting obesity and diabetes while improving most heart-disease risk factors.

For many, it’s hard to get past the basic assumption that the fat on your plate becomes the fat in your body. But the truth is that it’s excessive carbohydrates that turn into body fat — completely contrary to what Americans have long been told.

So why hasn’t the government’s dietary advice caught up to the science? According to a rigorous investigation in The BMJ on the dietary guidelines, the experts appointed to review the scientific evidence relied on weak scientific standards in their report and failed to review the most recent science on a number of topics, including optimal intakes for carbohydrates, saturated fat and salt. Most critically, the report relied heavily on observational studies in which researchers follow test groups over long periods of time. But even the best epidemiological studies, according to the BMJ, “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.” This is science 101.

The U.S. military serves more than 150 million meals per year to its personnel, and when those meals are based on a government-advised, high-carbohydrate diet, our troops have a harder time staying trim and healthy. The Army’s own website warns people to stay away from high-fat meats, egg yolks and whole milk and advises “eating less fatty food for better overall health,” while encouraging a diet that includes pasta and bread. Making matters worse, service members usually have fewer options for avoiding these nutritional mistakes, especially on deployments when they often can’t cook their own meals. 

The World Around Us

What does it mean to be in the world? This world, this society, what kind is it? And how does that affect us? Let me begin with the personal and put it in the context of family. Then I’ll broaden out from there.

I’ve often talked about my own set of related issues. In childhood, I was diagnosed with learning disability. I’ve also suspected I might be on the autistic spectrum which could relate to the learning disability, but that kind of thing wasn’t being diagnosed much when I was in school. Another label to throw out is specific language impairment, something I only recently read about — it maybe better fits my way of thinking than autistic spectrum disorder. After high school, specifically after a suicide attempt, I was diagnosed with depression and thought disorder, although my memory of the latter label is hazy and I’m not sure exactly what was the diagnosis. With all of this in mind, I’ve thought that some of it could have been caused by simple brain damage, since I played soccer since early childhood. Research has found that children regularly head-butting soccer balls causes repeated micro-concussions and micro-tears which leads to brain inflammation and permanent brain damage, such as lower IQ (and could be a factor in depression as well). On the other hand, there is a clear possibility of genetic and/or epigenetic factors, or else some other kind of shared environmental conditions. There are simply too many overlapping issues in my family. It’s far from being limited to me.

My mother had difficulty learning when younger. One of her brothers had even more difficulty, probably with a learning disability as I have. My grandfather dropped out of school, not that such an action was too uncommon at the time. My mother’s side of the family has a ton of mood disorders and some alcoholism. In my immediate family, my oldest brother also seems like he could be somewhere on the autistic spectrum and, like our grandfather, has been drawn toward alcoholism. My other brother began stuttering in childhood and was diagnosed with anxiety disorder, and interestingly I stuttered for a time as well but in my case it was blamed on my learning disability involving word recall. There is also a lot of depression in the family, both immediate and extended. Much of it has been undiagnosed and untreated, specifically in the older generations. But besides myself, both of my brothers have been on antidepressants along with my father and an uncle. Now, my young niece and nephew are on anti-depressants, that same niece is diagnosed with Asperger’s, the other even younger niece is probably also autistic and has been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and that is only what I know about.

I bring up these ailments among the next generation following my own as it indicates something serious going on in the family or else in society as a whole. I do wonder what gets epigenetically passed on with each generation worsening and, even though my generation was the first to show the strongest symptoms, it may continue to get far worse before it gets better. And it may not have anything specifically to do with my family or our immediate environment, as many of these conditions are increasing among people all across this country and in many other countries as well. The point relevant here is that, whatever else may be going on in society, there definitely were factors specifically impacting my family that seemed to hit my brothers and I around the same time. I can understand my niece and nephew going on antidepressants after their parents divorced, but there was no obvious triggering condition for my brothers and I, well besides moving into a different house in a different community.

Growing up and going into adulthood, my own issues always seemed worse, though, or maybe just more obvious. Everyone who has known me knows that I’ve struggled for decades with depression, and my learning disability adds to this. Neither of my brothers loved school, but neither of them struggled as I did, neither of them had delayed reading or went to a special education teacher. Certainly, neither of them nearly flunked out of a grade, something that would’ve happened to me in 7th grade if my family hadn’t moved. My brothers’ conditions were less severe or at least the outward signs of it were easier to hide — or maybe they are simply more talented at acting normal and conforming to social norms (unlike me, they both finished college, got married, had kids, bought houses, and got respectable professional jobs; basically the American Dream). My brother with the anxiety and stuttering learned how to manage it fairly early on, and it never seemed have a particularly negative affect on his social life, other than making him slightly less confident and much more conflict-avoidant, sometimes passive-aggressive. I’m the only one in the family who attempted suicide and was put in a psychiatric ward for my effort, the only one to spend years in severe depressive funks of dysfunction.

This caused me to think about my own problems as different, but in recent years I’ve increasingly looked at the commonalities. It occurs to me that there is an extremely odd coincidence that brings together all of these conditions, at least for my immediate family. My father developed depression in combination with anxiety during a stressful period of his life, after we moved because he got a new job. He began having moments of rapid heartbeat and it worried him. My dad isn’t an overly psychologically-oriented person, though not lacking in self-awareness, and so it is unsurprising that it took a physical symptom to get his attention. It was a mid-life crisis. Added to his stress were all the problems developing in his children. It felt like everything was going wrong.

Here is the strange part. Almost all of this started happening specifically when we moved into that new house, my second childhood home. It was a normal house, not that old. The only thing that stood out, as my father told me, was that the electricity usage was much higher than it was at the previous house, and no explanation for this was ever discovered. Both that house and the one we lived in before were in the Lower Midwest and so there were no obvious environmental differences. It only now struck me, in talking to my father again about it, that all of the family’s major neurocognitive and psychological issues began or worsened while living in that house.

About my oldest brother, he was having immense behavioral issues from childhood onward: refused to do what he was told, wouldn’t complete homework, and became passive-aggressive. He was irritable, angry, and sullen. Also, he was sick all the time, had a constant runny nose, and was tired. It turned out he had allergies that went undiagnosed for a long time, but once treated the worst symptoms went away. The thing about allergies is that it is an immune condition where the body is attacking itself. During childhood, allergies can have a profound impact on human biology, including neurocognitive and psychological development, often leaving the individual with a condition of emotional sensitivity for the rest of their lives, as if the body is stuck in permanent defensive mode. This was a traumatic time for my brother and he has never recovered from it — still seething with unresolved anger and still blaming my parents for what happened almost a half century ago.

One of his allergies was determined to be mold, which makes sense considering the house was on a shady lot. This reminds me of how some molds can produce mycotoxins. When mold is growing in a house, it can create a toxic environment with numerous symptoms for the inhabitants that can be challenging to understand and connect. Unsurprisingly, research does show that air quality is important for health and cognitive functioning. Doctors aren’t trained in diagnosing environmental risk factors and that was even more true of doctors decades ago. It’s possible that something about that house was behind all of what was going on in my family. It could have been mold or it could have been some odd electromagnetic issue or else it could have been a combination of factors. This is what is called sick building syndrome.

Beyond buildings themselves, it can also involve something brought into a building. In one fascinating example, a scientific laboratory was known to have a spooky feeling that put people at unease. After turning off a fan, this strange atmosphere went away. It was determined the fan was vibrating at a level that was affecting the human nervous system or brain. There has been research into how vibrations and electromagnetic energy can cause stressful and disturbing symptoms (the human body is so sensitive that the brain can detect the weak magnetic field of the earth, something that earlier was thought to be impossible). Wind turbines, for example, can cause the eyeball to resonate in a way to cause people to see glimpses of things that aren’t there (i.e., hallucinations). So, it isn’t always limited to something directly in a building itself but can include what is in the nearby environment. I discuss all of this in an earlier post: Stress Is Real, As Are The Symptoms.

This goes along with the moral panic about violent crime in the early part of my life during the last several decades of the 20th century. It wasn’t an unfounded moral panic, not mere mass hysteria. There really was a major spike in the rate of homicides (not to mention suicides, child abuse, bullying, gang activity, etc). All across society, people were acting more aggressive (heck, aggression became idealized, as symbolized by the ruthless Wall Street broker who wins success through social Darwinian battle of egoic will and no-holds-barred daring). Many of the perpetrators and victims of violence were in my generation. We were a bad generation, a new Lost Generation. It was the period when the Cold War was winding down and then finally ended. There was a sense of ennui in the air, as our collective purpose in fighting a shared enemy seemed less relevant and eventually disappeared altogether. But that was in the background and largely unacknowledged. Similar to the present mood, there was a vague sense of something being terribly wrong with society. Those caught up in the moral panic blamed it on all kinds of things: video games, mass media, moral decline, societal breakdown, loss of strict parenting, unsupervised latchkey kids, gangs, drugs, and on and on. With so many causes, many solutions were sought, not only in different cities and states across the United States but also around the world: increased incarceration or increased rehabilitation programs, drug wars or drug decriminalization, stop and frisk or gun control, broken window policies or improved community relations, etc. No matter what was done or not done, violent crime went down over the decades in almost every population around the planet.

It turned out the strongest correlation was also one of the simplest. Lead toxicity drastically went up in the run up to those violent decades and, depending on how quickly environmental regulations for lead control were implemented, lead toxicity dropped back down again. Decline of violent crime followed with a twenty year lag in every society (twenty years is the time for a new generation to reach adulthood). Even to this day, in any violent population from poor communities to prisons, you’ll regularly find higher lead toxicity rates. It was environmental all along and yet it’s so hard for us to grasp environmental conditions like this because they can’t be directly felt or seen. Most people still don’t know about lead toxicity, despite it being one of the most thoroughly researched areas of public health. So, there is not only sick building syndrome for entire societies can become sick. When my own family was going bonkers, it was right in the middle of this lead toxicity epidemic and we were living right outside of industrial Chicago and, prior to that, we were living in a factory town. I have wondered about lead exposure, since my generation saw the highest lead exposure rate in the 20th century and probably one of the highest since the Roman Empire started using lead water pipes, what some consider to have been the cause of its decline and fall.

There are other examples of this environmental impact. Parasite load in a population is correlated to culture of distrust and violence (parasites-stress theory of values, culture, and sociality; involving the behavioral immune system), among other problems — parasite load is connected to diverse things, both individually and collectively: low extraversion, higher conscientiousnessauthoritarianism (conformity, obedience), in-group loyalty (in situations of lower life expectancy and among populations with faster life histories)collectivism, income inequality, female oppressionconservatism, low openness to experience, support for barriers between social groups, adherence to local norms, traditionalism, religiosity, strength of family ties, in-group assortative sociality, perceived ‘ugliness’ of bodily abnormalityhomicide, child abuse, etc. Specific parasites like toxoplasmosis gondii have been proven to alter mood, personality, and behavior — this can be measured across entire populations, maybe altering the culture itself of entire regions where infection is common.

Or consider high inequality that can cause widespread bizarre and aggressive behavior, as it mimics the fear and anxiety of poverty even among those who aren’t poor. Other social conditions have various kinds of effects, in some cases with repercussions that last for centuries. But in any of these examples, the actual cause is rarely understood by many people. The corporate media and politicians are generally uninterested in reporting on what scientists have discovered, assuming scientists can get the funding to do the needed research. Large problems requiring probing thought and careful analysis don’t sell advertising nor do they sell political campaigns, and the corporations behind both would rather distract the public from public problems that would require public solutions, such as corporate regulations and higher taxation.

In our society, almost everything gets reduced to the individual. And so it is the individual who is blamed or treated or isolated, which is highly effective for social control. Put them in prison, give them a drug, scapegoat them in the media, or whatever. Anything so long as we don’t have to think about the larger conditions that shape individuals. The reality is that psychological conditions are never merely psychological. In fact, there is no psychology as separate and distinct from all else. The same is true for many physical diseases as well, such as autoimmune disorders. Most mental and physical health concerns are simply sets of loosely associated symptoms with thousands of possible causal and contributing factors. Our categorizing diseases by which drugs treat them is simply a convenience for the drug companies. But if you look deeply enough, you’ll typically find basic things that are implicated: gut dysbiosis, mitochondrial dysfunction, etc —- inflammation, for example, is found in numerous conditions, from depression and Alzheimer’s to heart disease and arthritis — the kinds of conditions that have been rapidly spreading over the past century (also, look at psychosis). Much of it is often dietary related, since in this society we are all part of the same food system and so we are all hit by the same nutrient-deficient foods, the same macronutrient ratios, the same harmful hydrogenated and partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils/margarine, the same food additives, the same farm chemicals, the same plastic-originated hormone mimics, the same environmental toxins, etc. I’ve noticed the significant changes in my own mood, energy, and focus since turning to a low-carb, high-fat diet based mostly on whole foods and traditional foods that are pasture-fed, organic, non-GMO, local, and in season — lessening the physiological stress load. It is yet another factor that I see as related to my childhood difficulties, as diverse research has shown how powerful is diet in every aspect of health, especially neurocognitive health.

This makes it difficult for individuals in a hyper-individualistic society. We each feel isolated in trying to solve our supposedly separate problems, an impossible task, one might call it a Sisyphean task. And we rarely appreciate how much childhood development shapes us for the rest of our lives and how much environmental factors continue to influence us. We inherit so much from the world around us and the larger society we are thrown into, from our parents and the many generations before them. A society is built up slowly with the relationship between causes and consequences often not easily seen and, even when noticed, rarely appreciated. We are born and we grow up in conditions that we simply take for granted as our reality. But those conditions don’t have to be taken as fatalistic for, if we seek to understand them and embrace that understanding, we can change the very conditions that change us. This will require us first to get past our culture of blame and shame.

We shouldn’t personally identify with our health problems and struggles. We aren’t alone nor isolated. The world is continuously affecting us, as we affect others. The world is built on relationships, not just between humans and other species but involving everything around us — what some describe as embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended (we are hypersubjects among hyperobjects). The world that we inhabit, that world inhabits us, our bodies and minds. There is no world “out there” for there is no possible way for us to be outside the world. Everything going on around us shapes who we are, how we think and feel, and what we do — most importantly, shapes us as members of a society and as parts of a living biosphere, a system of systems all the way down. The personal is always the public, the individual always the collective, the human always the more than human.

* * *

When writing pieces like this, I should try to be more balanced. I focused solely on the harm that is caused by external factors. That is a rather lopsided assessment. But there is the other side of the equation implied in everything I wrote.

As higher inequality causes massive dysfunction and misery, greater equality brings immense benefit to society as a whole and each member within it. All you have to do in order to understand this is to look to cultures of trust such as the well functioning social democracies, with the Nordic countries being the most famous examples (The Nordic Theory of Everything by Anu Partanen). Or consider how, no matter your intelligence, you are better off being in an on average high IQ society than to be the smartest person in an on average low IQ society. Other people’s intelligence has greater impact on your well being and socioeconomic situation than does your own intelligence (see Hive Mind by Garett Jones).

This other side was partly pointed to in what I already wrote in the first section, even if not emphasized. For example, I pointed out how something so simple as regulating lead pollution could cause violent crime rates around the world to drop like a rock. And that was only looking at a small part of the picture. Besides impulsive behavior and aggression that can lead to violent crime, lead by itself is known to cause a wide array of problems: lowered IQ, ADHD, dyslexia, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, etc; and also general health issues, from asthma to cardiovascular disease. Lead is only one among many such serious toxins, with others including cadmium and mercury. The latter is strange. Mercury can actually increase IQ, even as it causes severe dysfunction in other ways. Toxoplasmosis also can do the same for the IQ of women, even as the opposite pattern is seen in men.

The point is that solving or even lessening major public health concerns can potentially benefit the entire society, maybe even transform society. We act fatalistic about these collective conditions, as if there is nothing to be done about inequality, whether the inequality of wealth, resources, and opportunities or the inequality of healthy food, clean water, and clean air. We created these problems and we can reverse them. It often doesn’t require much effort and the costs in taking action are far less than the costs of allowing these societal wounds to fester. It’s not as if Americans lack the ability to tackle difficult challenges. Our history is filled with examples of public projects and programs with vast improvements being made. Consider the sewer socialists who were the first to offer clean water to all citizens in their cities, something that once demonstrated as successful was adopted by every other city in the United States (more or less adopted, if we ignore the continuing lead toxicity crisis).

There is no reason to give up in hopelessness, not quite yet. Let’s try to do some basic improvements first and see what happens. We can wait for environmental collapse, if and when it comes, before we resign ourselves to fatalism. It’s not a matter if we can absolutely save all of civilization from all suffering. Even if all we could accomplish is reducing some of the worst harm (e.g., aiming for less than half of the world’s population falling victim to environmental sickness and mortality), I’d call it a wild success. Those whose lives were made better would consider it worthwhile. And who knows, maybe you or your children and grandchildren will be among those who benefit.

Eliminating Dietary Dissent

There was a hit piece in the Daily Mail that targeted three experts in the field, all doctors who are involved in research. It’s not exactly a respectable publication, but it does have a large mainstream readership and so its influence is immense, at least within the UK (even as an American, I occasionally come across Daily Mail articles). Here is the response by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s (Scottish). And by Dr. Zoe Harcombe’s (Welsh). Both responses were sent to the Daily Mail. The hit piece was published in timing with her planned speech before the UK Parliament, an attempt to discredit her and to distract from debate of the evidence. The third target of attack, Dr Aseem Malhotra (British) who also spoke to the UK Parliament (and the European Parliament as well), chose not to respond as he concluded it would be futile and it appears he was correct, in that the Daily Mail chose not to alter its message in the least because of what Kendrick and Harcombe wrote.

This is the same basic battle that I’ve mentioned previously, the conflict between two prestigious British medical journals, the BMJ and the Lancet. It has developed into full ideological warfare. But those defending the status quo are being forced to acknowledge their detractors, which is an improvement over silencing.

In the failed attacks on Robert Atkins (American), Annika Dahlqvist (Swedish), Gary Taubes (American), Tim Noakes (South African), Gary Fettke (Australian), Peter C.Gøtzsche (Danish), Maryanne Demasi (Australia) over similar disputes, and among others who have felt the politically correct wrath of conventional and corporatist authority (Uffe Ravnskov, Nina Teicholz, etc; and, as I’ve discussed before, Adelle Davis, Carlton Fredericks, Gayelord Hauser, and Herman Taller), we see how the powers that be use mainstream institutions (private and public) as weapons. But that isn’t to ignore that there are also some successful examples of silencing such as John Yudkins (British), Jen Elliott (Australian), etc. In The Big Fat Lie that is soon to be a documentary, Nina Teicholz discusses other major figures in the healthcare field and research community that were effectively silenced in being discredited and excluded, in that they couldn’t get funding and were no longer invited to speak at scientific conferences; and Gary Taubes earlier discussed the same territory in Good Calories, Bad Calories; but if you prefer a detailed personal account of how a systematic attack is done, read Tim Noakes’ Lore of Nutrition. Anyways, failed or successful, these attacks are cautionary tales in setting examples of what the authorities can and will do to you if you step out of line. It creates a stultifying atmosphere and a sense of wariness among researchers, healthcare professionals, science writers, journalists, and public intellectuals — hence encouraging people to censor themselves.

In a similar area of dispute, there is another ongoing fight where an individual, Diana Rodgers (American), like the others has been targeted. Attacking individuals in trying to destroy their careers or authority seems to be the standard tactic. Fortunately, social media sheds light on this dark practice and brings out the support for these doctors, dieticians, researchers, etc who in the past would’ve felt isolated. It’s one of the positives of the internet.

Yet again, here is an example of conventional idiocy in its attempt to use a mainstream platform to spread disinfo and enforce conformity. Consider Newsweek that, like the Daily Mail, is a low quality but widely read mainstream publication. They decided to do a piece critical of the carnivore diet. And the writer they assigned to do it normally writes about video games and pop culture. Unsurprisingly, written by someone with no knowledge or expertise, the article was predictably misinformed. Every single comment in the comments section was critical (nearly the same in the comments of Nina Teicholz’s tweet), including comments by doctors and other experts. It’s less to do with a specific diet. This same kind of backlash is seen toward every variety of low-carb diet, whether plant-based paleo or plant-free carnivore, whether high-(healthy)fat or moderate, whether ketogenic or not. The reason is that there is no way to have a low-carb diet while maintaining large profits for the present model of the big biz food system of heavily-subsidized, chemical-drenched, and genetically-modified surplus grains as used to produce shelf-stable processed foods.

And it is far from limited to trashy popular media, as the same kinds of dismissive articles are found in higher quality publications like the Guardian, along with major medical organizations such as Harvard and the Mayo Clinic (although there is increasing positive press as the scientific research and popular support becomes overwhelming). Harvard, for example, is closely tied to the EAT-Lancet agenda (by way of Walter Willett, the ideological heir of Ancel Keys and, as I recall, involved in the leak of Robert Atkins’ medical records in a failed attempt to smear his reputation after his death) and the corporations behind it (Harvard, like other universities, have become heavily funded by corporations, as government funding has dried up; the Koch brothers have been key figures in the corporate takeover of universities with influence over hiring and firing of faculty and, by the way, the Koch brothers are heavily invested in big ag which is to say they are financially connected to the government-subsidized “green revolution” and the processed food industry).

Yet a growing movement is emerging from below, not only seen in comments sections and social media, but also in forming new organizations to demand accountability; for example, Gary Taubes’ Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) that is promoting much needed research. In reaction, the self-proclaimed authority figures in the mainstream are trying to enforce dietary conformity. I suspect the fact that so many people are questioning, doubting, and experimenting is precisely the reason elites all of a sudden are pushing even harder for basically the old views they’ve been pushing for decades. They sense the respect for their position is slipping and are in damage control mode. This isn’t only about statins, LCHF diet, or whatever else. It indicates a deeper shift going on (with low-carb diets on the rise) and those who are resisting it because of vested interests. What’s at stake is a paradigm change and the consequences of the status quo remaining in place are dire for public health.

* * *

On a related note, there is also a dark side to how the internet has been wielded as propaganda network. We know how effectively social media can be used to spread disinfo — yes, by whackos and controlled opposition like Alex Jones but even more powerfully by governments and corporations, think tanks and lobbyist groups, astroturf operations and paid trolls.

Wikipedia and Rational Wikipedia seem to have been taken over by defenders of the establishment, a sad fate for both of them. Many Wikipedia pages related to low-carb diets and alternative health (including tame criticism of statins by world reknown scientists) have been heavily slanted or deleted on Wikipedia. This agenda of censorship goes straight to the top — Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has called all critics of conventional medicine “lunatic charlatans” and demands that they be eliminated from Wikipedia, as if they never existed. This is a major change from earlier Wikipedia policy that promoted articles showing multiple viewpoints, but the reason for the change is that Wikipedia is being pressured to be an authoritative source as with traditional encyclopedias since Wikipedia is now used by services like Apple’s Siri.

Rational Wikipedia labels as “statin denier” anyone who is skeptical of highly profitable and corporate-promoted overprescription of statins, including critics who are practicing doctors and peer-reviewed researchers (the same false accusation is made by other pseudo-skeptical organizations such as CSICOP) — according to this logic, one of the most well-respected medical journals in the world, the BMJ, are “statin denialists” for being skeptical of the overuse of statins that the scientific research shows can cause much harm. Meanwhile, Rational Wikipedia rationalizes away this concerted effort of propaganda, probably because it’s the same people behind both operations, by way of hard-to-track sock puppets (I know from personal experience and research how deep the hole can go in trying to track down the identity of a disinfo agent, be they paid troll or merely the mentally disturbed). Pseudo-skepticism has come to rule the internet —- some of it as mentally disturbed true-believers but it also includes organizations that are astroturf. And so be skeptical most of all of anyone who poses as a skeptic.

Fortunately, alternatives are emerging such as Infogalactic as a non-censored, balanced, and independent version of Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, an editor or group of editors can’t monopolize or delete a page simply because they ideologically disagree with it. And unlike Rational Wikpedia, there is no narrow institutional ideology informing what is allowable.

This is partly why it is so hard for the average person to find good info. Not only are we being lied to by big gov and big biz by way of big media for the same powerful interests are co-opting the new media as well. The purge and demonetizing of alternative voices, left and right, on YouTube was a great example of this. A similar purge has happened on Pinterest, generally censoring alternative health views and specifically targeting low-carb diets using centralized propaganda as the justification: “Keto doesn’t conform to CDC dietary guidelines” — despite the fact that ketogenic diets are among the most widely and longest researched with massive amount of data supporting numerous areas of benefit: longevity, cancer, epilepsy, autism, insulin resistance, autoimmune conditions, Alzheimer’s, etc. If the CDC is anti-science when particular science opposes highly profitable corporate interests, that is a major problem — but it shouldn’t be surprising that Pinterest, a highly profitable corporation (likely owned by a parent company that also owns other companies involved in agriculture, food production, pharmaceuticals, etc), defends the interests of big biz in collusion with big gov.

There is a struggle by the powerful to regain control of all potential avenues of propaganda and perception management. In terms of public debate, it’s always a matter of the perception of who wins. This is why propagandists, as with advertisers, have long understood that repetition of claims or ideas will make them so familiar as to feel true — what is called cognitive ease. That is why it is so important to silence opponents and make them invisible. Repetition requires total control, as the other side will also attempt to repeat their views. But it doesn’t matter how often alternative views are repeated if they are effectively erased from public view and from public forums. Look widely for info and scrutinize everything carefully. Find the few experts that are genuine honest actors and follow what they put out.

* * *

The Dark Side of Wikipedia
from Full Measure

Astroturfing Revealed–the Ruining of Wikipedia
by Angela A. Stanton

Wikipedia Declares War on Low Carb Diet Experts
by Aarn

Jimmy Wales Admits Free Access To Health Knowledge Has Strict Limits On Wikipedia
by Paul Anthony Taylor

Wikipedia: Cementing The Power Of The Status Quo
from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

Let me tell you a little bit about how the @Wikipedia farce works from someone who spent a lot of time battling there as an editor.
by Mike Carrato

Wikipedia Captured by Skeptics
from Skeptics about Skeptics

The Philip Cross Affair
by Craig Murray

Wikipedia censorship of natural, non-drug therapies
from Alliance for Natural Health

Kendrick, Wikipedia and ‘Dark Forces’ Waging War on Science
by Marika Sboros

Dr Malcolm Kendrick – deletion from Wikipedia
by Malcolm Kendrick

Wikipedia a parable for our times
by Malcolm Kendrick

Who Deserves to be a Wikipedia Article?: The Deletion of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
by Anthony Pearson

‘Fat Head’ Targeted For Deletion By The Weenie At Wikipedia
by Tom Naughton

Follow-Up On The Weenie Wiki Editor
by Tom Naughton

BEWARE: New Plan to Censor Health Websites
by Joseph Mercola

Reddit discussions:
Doctors who are against statin are being removed from Wikipedia
Fat Head movie Wikipedia article up for deletion next !
Malcolm Kendrick and other low-carb and keto advocates are being attacked at Rationalwiki as pseudoscientists