2020 Dietary Guidelines: Fight Over Low-Carb

The HHS and USDA put out new U.S. dietary guidelines every 5 years. They are having discussions now. There recently was allowed for various interests to speak. Several of the speakers were were promoting low-carb diets.

I doubt low-carb advocates will get a fair hearing after a half century of political suppression. But at least they are no longer being silenced. Being part of the conversation is the first step. They are at least being acknowledged now.

Too many Americans are changing their lives with low-carb. It can’t be ignored any more.

42:10 Priyanka Wali, MD – (Commenter 13)
1:25:20 Nina Teicholz (Commenter 28)
2:53:25 Georgia Ede, MD (Commenter 54)
3:16:26 Sarah Hallberg, MD (Commenter 64)

The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans:
Ensuring that Science is the Main Ingredient
from Union of Concerned Scientists

The Snack Food and Corn Syrup Lobbyist Shaping Trump’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans
by Laura Peterson

Food Companies at the Table in Trump Administration’s Dietary Guidelines Committee
by Derrick Z. Jackson

Diets are not one-size-fits-all. So why do we treat dietary guidelines that way?
by Nina Teicholz

Dietary Guidelines 2020: The low-carb debate
by Helena Bottemiller Evich

Dietary guidelines advisory panel to tackle carbs in 2020-2025 recommendations
by Steve Davies (Google cache)

Low-Carb Diets On The Rise
American Diabetes Association Changes Its Tune
Slow, Quiet, and Reluctant Changes to Official Dietary Guidelines
Official Guidelines For Low-Carb Diet
Obese Military?
The Creed of Ancel Keys
Cold War Silencing of Science
Eliminating Dietary Dissent
Dietary Dictocrats of EAT-Lancet
Highly Profitable Conflicts of Interest

Dietary Dogma: Tested and Failed

There were two recent studies that looked at diets. One compared the 2010 Dietary Guidelines against the typical American diet. The other compared multiple dietary interventions: Mediterranean diet, low-fat diet, and low-salt diet. This covers the main diets advocated most often by doctors, nutritionists, dieticians, and health officials. Yet neither study found a significant overall benefit to any of the recommended diets. That is shocking, when one considers how official experts and major institutions have pushed these diets for decades. The low-fat diet has been a favorite among dietary technocrats for about a half century (The Creed of Ancel Keys).

What these studies didn’t bother to consider is the benefits of traditional foods diet (Weston A. Price & Sally Fallon Morrell), paleo/hunter-gatherer diet, low-carb high-fat diet, ketogenic diet, carnivore diet, etc. Nor any of the related but less well known diets like ketotarian, pegan, etc. Nor related dietary strategies such as fasting, either intermittent or extended, along with calorie restriction. With a narrow focus, the comparisons were limited. Still, it is a powerful judgment that none of the diets that were tested stood out as being all that impressive. What is being brought under doubt represents the key message of authoritative opinion on diet and nutrition. These diets tested (official Dietary Recommendations, Mediterranean diet, low-fat diet, and low-salt diet) are among the best that the collective wisdom of mainstream thought has to offer.

Here is an intriguing point. The first study looked at the 2010 Dietary Guidelines as separate from weight loss, to determine what were the results of the diet itself (besides, even including weight loss, the low-fat diet is one of the worst, as studies show few people drop body fat when adhering to it — see meta-analysis by UK Public Health Collaboration, Eat Fat, Cut The Carbs and Avoid Snacking To Reverse Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes). This officially trumpeted dietary regime, a fad diet that hasn’t been around long by the way, had no noticeable affect on glucose homeostasis, fasting lipids, or type 2 diabetes. Let’s consider another study, as a comparison and to clarify a point (Parker N. Hyde et al, Dietary carbohydrate restriction improves metabolic syndrome independent of weight loss). As with the above mentioned study, body weight was carefully maintained so as to control for that potentially confounding factor. What were the results?

“Despite maintaining body mass, low-carbohydrate (LC) intake enhanced fat oxidation and was more effective in reversing MetS [metabolic syndrome, including type 2 diabetes], especially high triglycerides, low HDL-C, and the small LDL subclass phenotype. Carbohydrate restriction also improved abnormal fatty acid composition, an emerging MetS feature. Despite containing 2.5 times more saturated fat than the high-carbohydrate diet, an LC diet decreased plasma total saturated fat and palmitoleate and increased arachidonate.”

Interestingly, these particular two studies demonstrate that obesity by itself is not necessarily the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of the problem. Obesity can even be an attempt by the body to compensate in preventing something even worse (Coping Mechanisms of Health). The fundamental problem is the metabolic syndrome itself and the insulin resistance behind it, and any diet that doesn’t directly deal with that will be ineffective. Only some variation of a low-carb diet can accomplish that end.

It’s time to rethink dietary recommendations and guidelines. There are signs this is already happening. The public is already turning toward low-carb diets (Low-Carb Diets On The Rise). And slowly but surely the official position is shifting in this direction (Obese Military?, Weight Watchers’ Paleo Diet, American Diabetes Association Changes Its Tune, Official Guidelines For Low-Carb Diet, & Slow, Quiet, and Reluctant Changes to Official Dietary Guidelines). The evidence keeps accumulating. These recent two studies add to the growing pile. It’s getting harder and harder to ignore the obvious.

* * *

A randomized controlled-feeding trial based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on cardiometabolic health indexes
by Sridevi Krishnan et al

To our knowledge, this is the first controlled-feeding trial to test the effect of a food-based dietary pattern following recommendations of the DGA [2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans]. We measured cardiometabolic disease risk factors in an at-risk female cohort, while maintaining body weight, with the use of foods that are accessible and acceptable to the consumer. The higher quality of the DGA diet relative to the TAD [typical American diet] was confirmed by HEI scores of 98 and 62, respectively. We found that, in the absence of weight loss, consuming a diet based on recommendations of the DGA did not change glucose homeostasis or fasting lipids in our cohort. The 2015 DGA Advisory Committee report concluded that there was moderate evidence for reduction in type 2 diabetes risk associated with nutrient-dense diets (2); however, the results from our short-term intervention trial did not align with this evidence. By design, the intervention did not lead to significant weight loss, and because changes in body weight and body fat can play a role in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes (31), this may also explain why improvements in blood sugar control were not observed despite the improvement in diet quality.

Supplements and Diets for Heart Health Show Limited Proof of Benefit
by Anahad O’Connor

When Dr. Khan and his co-authors looked at various diets recommended for cardiovascular prevention, they found a similar lack of solid evidence.

That was certainly the case for low-fat diets, which health authorities have recommended for decades as a way to lower cholesterol and heart disease risk. Dr. Khan and his colleagues found that the most rigorous randomized trials provided no evidence that eating less fat, including saturated fat, had an impact on mortality or cardiovascular outcomes. Low-fat diets have largely fallen out of favor among health authorities in recent years, though the federal government’s dietary guidelines still encourage people to limit their intake of foods rich in saturated fat, such as butter, meat and cheese.

One diet that remains highly touted by health authorities is the Mediterranean diet, with its abundance of whole grains, beans, nuts, fruits and vegetables and olive oil. While clinical trials have found that it reduces cardiovascular risk, some of the major ones have been flawed, and experts who have scrutinized the evidence for the diet have urged caution.

One of the largest and most publicized Mediterranean diet trials, called Predimed and published in 2013, found that it reduced heart attacks and strokes. But last year it was retracted because of methodological problems. The Predimed authors published a new analysis of their data, claiming their conclusions had not changed. But other Mediterranean diet trials have been embroiled in similar controversies. After analyzing data from all the relevant trials, Dr. Khan and his colleagues found that “the totality of evidence did not favor the Mediterranean diet for cardiovascular outcomes.”

“It’s not favorable or harmful,” he added. “It’s just a neutral diet from a cardiovascular perspective.”

The one dietary intervention that seemed to have the most support from randomized trials was lowering salt intake, though the researchers graded the evidence only as having “moderate certainty.” And there was nuance. Low-salt diets reduced mortality from all causes only in people with normal blood pressure. Among people with hypertension, lowering salt intake reduced deaths from heart disease but not from other causes.

Dr. Topol said that in his own clinic he sees a wide range of responses to salt intake. Some people are very sensitive to salt: A small increase in salty foods can have a pronounced effect on their blood pressure. But others can eat salt-laden meals and their blood pressure will hardly budge.

Dr. Topol said he finds diet studies hard to interpret because they rarely take into account the unique way that different people can have markedly different responses to dietary changes, whether it is cutting back on salt or avoiding fat or carbohydrates.

“The problem we have here is that all these studies essentially treat all people as one,” he said. “I think that all these things are going to turn out to be quite heterogeneous. Maybe salt restriction really is beneficial for some, but we haven’t defined the people yet that would drive that.”

Corporate Media Slowly Catching Up With Nutritional Studies

“The change in dietary advice to promote low-fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history.”
 ~ Dr. Aseem Malhotra, cardiologist and expert on heart disease

“Fundamental problems were 2-fold. First, acceptance of weak associational epidemiological data as proof of causation. Second promotion of diet-heart hypothesis/lo fat diet to the public ahead of definitive proof of outcomes. Diet-heart hypothesis then became incontestable dogma.”
~ Tim Noakes, emeritus professor, scientist, and expert on low-carb diets

We’re All Guinea Pigs in a Failed Decades-Long Diet Experiment
by Markham Heid, Vice

The US Department of Agriculture, along with the agency that is now called Health and Human Services, first released a set of national dietary guidelines back in 1980. That 20-page booklet trained its focus primarily on three health villains: fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.

Recently, research has come out strongly in support of dietary fat and cholesterol as benign, rather than harmful, additions to person’s diet. Saturated fat seems poised for a similar pardon.

“The science that these guidelines were based on was wrong,” Robert Lustig, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told VICE. In particular, the idea that cutting fat from a person’s diet would offer some health benefit was never backed by hard evidence, Lustig said.

Just this week, some of Lustig’s colleagues at UCSF released an incendiary report revealing that in the 1960s, sugar industry lobbyists funded research that linked heart disease to fat and cholesterol while downplaying evidence that sugar was the real killer.

Nina Teicholz, a science journalist and author of the The Big Fat Surprise, said a lot of the early anti-fat push came from the American Heart Association (AHA), which based its anti-fat stance on the fact that fat is roughly twice as calorie-dense as protein and carbohydrates.

“[The AHA] had no clinical data to show that a low-fat diet alone would help with obesity or heart disease,” Teicholz told VICE. But because fat was high in calories, they adopted this anti-fat position, and the government followed their lead. Surely the 1960s research rigged by the Sugar Association, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, added to our collective fat fears.

By the 1990s, when Teicholz says the epidemiological data started piling up to show that a low-fat, high-carb diet did not help with weight loss or heart disease—calories be damned—much of the damage was already done. The US public was deep in what nutrition experts sometimes call the “Snackwell phenomenon”—a devotion to low-fat and low-calorie processed snack foods, which people pounded by the bagful because they believed them to be healthy.

“This advice [to avoid fat] allowed the food industry to go hog-wild promoting low-fat, carb-heavy packaged foods as ‘light’ or ‘healthy,’ and that’s been a disaster for public health,” Lustig said.

The stats back him up. Since the US government first published a set of national nutrition guidelines in 1980, rates of obesity and related diseases like diabetes have more than doubled. “Childhood diabetes was basically unheard of, and now it’s an epidemic,” Lustig said.

Overseas, national health authorities followed America’s lead on fat. The results have been similarly grim. Earlier this year, a UK nonprofit called the National Obesity Forum (NOF) published a blistering condemnation of its government’s diet and nutrition policies. […]

Teicholz said it’s hard to overstate the effect of national health authorities’ pro-carb, anti-fat stance. A whole generation of health professionals accepted—and passed on to their patients—the government’s guidance to avoid fat and cholesterol. Many still do.

“Both professional and institutional credibility are at stake,” she said when asked why more doctors and policymakers aren’t making noise about the harms caused by the government’s dietary guidance. She also mentioned food industry interests, the potential for “massive class-action lawsuits,” and the shame of copping to nearly a half-century of bad diet advice as deterrents for USDA and other health authorities when it comes to admitting they were wrong. […]

But one thing is clear: Dietary fat was never the boogeyman health authorities made it out to be.

“I think most of us would be 90 percent of the way to a really healthy diet if we just cut out processed foods,” UCSF’s Lustig said. “We wouldn’t need diet guidelines if we ate real food.”

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.

* * *

For more info, see:

Official Guidelines For Low-Carb Diet