A new study has been
published questioning the validity of counting food calories as an indicator of
health and obesity.
22 researchers from around
the world agreed that the theory stating a “calorie is a calorie,” no matter
what the food source, is not a theory backed by science.
An enduring dietary dogma has
been the emphasis on calories, even to the extent of calorie counting one’s
food intake and comparing the food’s caloric values as provided by tables of
calorie measurements according to food types and amounts as an indicator of
whether or not a food is healthy.
This theory of food nutrition
lacks scientific merit, similar to the saturated fat dogma/cholesterol
dogma which has been contradicted by real science. It benefits the soft drink
industry, which would like everyone to believe that calories from their highly
processed drinks are no different than calories from fruits and vegetables.
With most of these
calorie-oriented dietary regimens, the types or qualities of food consumed
don’t matter – only the number of calories.
Call 08033305744, www.wagainvestment.com.ng |
Sugar was replaced to appease calorie counters with artificial sweeteners, and cheap, processed low-fat foods were filled with MSG. Both are neurotoxins. The pursuit of reducing calories has been a boon for the processed food industry, especially those that sell sodas, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc.
The “calorie in calorie out”
equation has contributed heavily to current epidemics of autoimmune diseases and
dementia. And that’s a benefit for the pharmaceutical industry’s
production of synthetic remedies for diabetes 2 and statins to lower
cholesterol and more. All are contributing to the downward spiral of worsening
public health.
A Highly Detailed Study That
Challenges the Perception that All Calories are Alike; Metabolic Imbalances Can
Be Created by Food Factors Beyond Calories
The study, actually a review
of other studies to prove the fallacy of calorie counting as the way to
eliminate obesity and its disease consequences, was published in the journal Obesity in March 2018 with the title Pathways and mechanisms linking dietary
components to cardiometabolic disease: thinking beyond calories. (Full review text)
Note: The term cardiometabolic refers to
both cardiovascular disease and diabetes 2. Obesity is considered the precursor
to both.
This review involved 22
researchers in various institutions throughout the United States, Denmark, and
Germany. It was the outcome of a 2017 conference they had attended in San
Francisco called “Diet and Cardiometabolic Health: Beyond Calories”, presented
by The CrossFit Foundation, which also sponsored the published review with a
grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
The theme of beyond calories
was to urge nutritional policymakers to open up to the fact that the evidence
they rely on is insufficient and hazardous to health despite having positive
effects on weight or fat loss. The standard equation of “calories in energy
out” to create an energy homeostatic situation that doesn’t store energy as fat
is not working.
Here are some excerpts from
the study:
Objective 1: Do certain
dietary components increase the risk for cardiometabolic disease by metabolic
effects that are not driven solely by positive energy balance and fat gain?
After parsing several
studies, the abbreviated conclusions for objective 1 are:
- (…)
More research is needed to clarify the differences among the individual
SFA [saturated fatty acid] and SFA-containing foods.
- Evidence
strongly suggests that consumption of fructose-sweetened, HFCS-sweetened
or sucrose-sweetened beverages increases cardiometabolic risk
factors/risks compared with isocaloric amounts of starch. More research is
needed comparing the metabolic effects of SSB [sugar sweetened beverage]
versus sugar in solid food and refined or whole grain starch.
Objective 2: Do certain
dietary patterns or components have the potential to promote fat gain via
mechanisms that are in addition to their specific contribution of calories to
the ‘energy in’ side of the energy balance equation?
After parsing several
studies, the truncated conclusions for objective 2 are:
- There
is currently insufficient evidence that a high CHO diet affects weight
gain or weight loss to a different extent than a high-fat diet. (…) More
studies focused on strategies to prevent weight regain in weight-reduced
subjects are needed.
- (…)
Well-controlled and long-term RCTs in adults are warranted to assess the
effects of saccharin, acesulfame K and steviol glycosides on body weight
and other
health outcomes. (emphasis added)
- More
studies to assess the effects of all types of NNSs [non-nutritive
sweeteners] in children are needed.
- Continued
research on: The high-sugar, high-fat palatable [processed and junk foods
with unhealthy fats] Western diet could be perturbing both sides of the
energy balance equation through effects on brain regions associated with
reward and/or on the gut microbiome; susceptibility to weight gain may be
affected by exposure to sugar and/or NSS [non sugar sweeteners] during
critical periods of development from preconception to adult life.
The
Influence of the Soft Drink and Sugar Industry on Official Dietary Policy
Reading through this study’s
complete text can be very conflicting and confounding, because the 22 authors
came from different institutions here and abroad and specialize in different
medical research activities and backgrounds.
There are some biases, and
some of the 374 studies they used exclude others that would be more up to date
regarding saturated fats, PUFA’s (polyunsaturated fats), omega-6 and omega-3
ratio health impact, and the effects of artificial sweeteners. Also excluded
was the dietary differences among organic foods and non-organic foods, GMOs,
and food sources where glyphosate was used.
But Dr. Robert Lustig
expressed gratitude for the one thing all 22 attendees and review authors
seemed to agree on, that a calorie is not just a calorie. He endorsed the
conference and study with this statement:
The sugar industry maintained the dogma of saturated fats
causing obesity and heart disease by funding research to counter studies
demonstrating sugar was the source of both.
The University of California at San Francisco uncovered
documentation that exposed decades of the sugar industry’s efforts at blocking
research proving sugar as the culprit for cardiometabolic diseases and using
saturated fat as the scapegoat with paid research. See the section titled “How
the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat in this
Health Impact News article.
A passionate presentation during the first phase of the
“Beyond Calories” conference in San Francisco covers the current influence of
the soda or soft drink industry on nutritional policies in the video below.
Laura Schmidt’s presentation starts at the 5:30 mark and
goes to the 26:20 mark. Anything earlier than the 5:30 mark contains dropped
audio, and after that is the whole eight-plus hour conference.
The Fallacy of Using Government
to Enforce Sugar Restrictions
Unfortunately, using
government regulations to enforce sugar intake levels was the advice from
apparently all who attended the conference and contributed to the review
position paper quoted above, to ensure there’s political clout to do the right
thing.
A major issue
presented by many others, however, is how big government is involved
too much. Their involvement will never end until there’s a total nanny
state that restricts our every move. We would be better off with less
government invading our private lives.
Another valid objection to
using government regulations to enforce sugar intake is that governmental
nutritional policy is the source of our woes. Here’s an example of how easy it
is for an industry to manipulate the FDA, which receives money from industries
supposedly protecting us.
Aspartame is probably the
most adverse health reported item among approved food substances, yet it is
still GRAS, generally regarded as safe.
And the political manner in
which it was approved, despite FDA scientists concerns after animal testing, is
testimony to who controls government. Read more on this here.
Soda taxes punish only
consumers. If they’re ignorant of the health issues but driven by palatable
pleasures and convenience to buy sodas, they’ll buy regardless of high taxes on
sugar and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) drinks.
Instead of resorting to
external forces that have created most of our problems over the past few
decades, it might be better to educate everyone on nutrition, from alternative
media sources to the extent that the soda and processed food industries lose
enough of the consumer base to offer something better.
No comments:
Post a Comment