Wow, we've been lied to!?

[daisymommy]

So a few days ago I posted my question asking how eating TF foods had changed your health or weight, and I was worried about dietary cholesterol and fat.

I used to have a copy of Nourishing Traditions, but had really only flipped through all of the recipe sections, got turned off by the organ meats, and really couldn't follow all the obscure little tidbits of information in the sidebars. I ended up giving it away.

Yet something is drawing my attention back to T.F. and I bought another copy yesterday. I'm reading it now. I just noticed the introductory chapter and am reading about all the lies concerning fat and cholesterol! My jaw is hitting the floor! My eyes are bugging out of my head!

WHAT!?! Polyunsaturated fats is the main substance found in artery clogs?! Only 26% is saturated fat?! Seriously? Then why have we been told to consume so much PUSFA? I really thought I was doing my family a favor reading the labels and watching out for the dreaded saturated fat, and feeling so good when it was higher in poly-unsaturated fats. And to read that it is a huge contributor to cancer and heart disease? The total opposite of what we've been told all these years?!

I would totally be laughing at this information and not believe a word of it (it sounds so ludicrous) if it were not for the fact that she backs up every single statement with a reference to a major medical journal article (which I do want to look up just to make myself feel better .

But still still, I feel like someone just told me the earth isn't really round, it's square!

What I don't understand is WHY the government agencies have been telling us the opposite information? What do they stand to gain? Are they really just that ignorant and misinformed? I mean, as a regular person with no scientific background (myself) it makes sense to think "eat fat-get fat", but they have all the scientists on their hands who studied these these things, and then no one listened?!

The beef industry is so huge, you would think they alone would show that saturated fat in beef is good for you and not bad (I know, conventionally raised cows are a sad, sad thing, but still, you'd think the whole fat argument alone would come out from them!).

Anyway, I think I'm going to be hanging around these parts a lot more now, trying to wrap my head around this new found information. I've been lurking for awhile off and on, but just didn't believe it

[serenbat]

The beef industry is so huge, you would think they alone would show that saturated fat in beef is good for you and not bad

a whole other industry has sprung-up that promotes "LOW" fat and what kind of PR company would it take to reverse the thinking on beef? evil beef is hard to reverse when hit with low fat! low fat!

marketing=MONEY!!

I know people what won't eat eggs yet the American Heart Assoc. even says to eat them!!!

[SoulCakes]

There's a lot we still don't understand about nutrition, but personally, I'd take the new info with a grain of salt before I adopted a totally new perspective on saturated/unsaturated fats. Lots of people cite journal articles to seem more credible (and not all articles are peer-reviewed). I would read the journal articles she cites and then scholarly google other articles to see if that's actually the consensus or just what one study concluded. Then I'd decide whether my mind should be blown or not.

[AJP]

IMO, what's behind the seemingly government-sponsored nutrition advice to eat low-fat and only unsaturated fats at that, high carb (without differentiating between refined starches or sugars and real, whole-food carbs), only lean protein, etc., isn't actually "the government" per se. It's the corporations that have funded all the stuff they point at to back up that advice - food processing and agribusiness corporations, the ones that make more profits by getting people to eat more and more refined starches and vegetable oils. They churn out these "foods" that no one could conceivably create from scratch at home, that are relatively cheap to produce because of subsidies (which they were instrumental in putting into place), and by sleight of hand have convinced nearly everyone are healthy, things like breakfast cereals and what passes for bread in a supermarket, all that stuff in boxes with ingredient lists a mile long. I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy in the sense of an organized, conscious effort to prevent people from eating food closer to what nature offers, but it's a fraternity of thought that has developed among a sector that unfortunately has a disproportionately huge influence on government policy. Seriously, the major food processors and giant agribusiness corporations that grow industrial-style corn, soy and wheat have enormous pull at the FDA and USDA. Lots of caring, earnest people now promote that same set of ideas, because that's what they were taught as correct, in nutrition school for instance, but the information has still come from the same source, those business interests that have so magnanimously funded universities and research projects for decades.

I have come to the point that I pretty much ignore reductionist, nutritionism-type research, and rely on the evidence of what healthy human populations of the past ate, as well as my own instinct.

[LauraLoo]

OP - Have you watched the movie, "Food, Inc.?"
If you haven't, you may want to rent it -- or buy it. You can watch the trailer here:
http://www.foodincmovie.com/

[gardenmommy]

Originally Posted by AJP

IMO, what's behind the seemingly government-sponsored nutrition advice to eat low-fat and only unsaturated fats at that, high carb (without differentiating between refined starches or sugars and real, whole-food carbs), only lean protein, etc., isn't actually "the government" per se. It's the corporations that have funded all the stuff they point at to back up that advice - food processing and agribusiness corporations, the ones that make more profits by getting people to eat more and more refined starches and vegetable oils. They churn out these "foods" that no one could conceivably create from scratch at home, that are relatively cheap to produce because of subsidies (which they were instrumental in putting into place), and by sleight of hand have convinced nearly everyone are healthy, things like breakfast cereals and what passes for bread in a supermarket, all that stuff in boxes with ingredient lists a mile long. I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy in the sense of an organized, conscious effort to prevent people from eating food closer to what nature offers, but it's a fraternity of thought that has developed among a sector that unfortunately has a disproportionately huge influence on government policy. Seriously, the major food processors and giant agribusiness corporations that grow industrial-style corn, soy and wheat have enormous pull at the FDA and USDA. Lots of caring, earnest people now promote that same set of ideas, because that's what they were taught as correct, in nutrition school for instance, but the information has still come from the same source, those business interests that have so magnanimously funded universities and research projects for decades.

I have come to the point that I pretty much ignore reductionist, nutritionism-type research, and rely on the evidence of what healthy human populations of the past ate, as well as my own instinct.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[daisymommy]

Yep, just watched Food Inc. yesterday. I am SO DISGUSTED! I have read about these issues, and we eat an organic diet, but seeing it on video was really impactful in my mind.

I have actually ordered from Polyface farms in the past

On a side note, I'd like to read more about how we got to a place of the farm subsidies on corn and soy...two of the most highly recommended "healthy" fats, along with canola. Gee, subsidized and now recommended over other oils and fats...smells fishy to me!

[syd'smom]

Also read Real Food by Nina Planck. Eye-opening!

[Magelet]

Originally Posted by daisymommy

What I don't understand is WHY the government agencies have been telling us the opposite information? What do they stand to gain? Are they really just that ignorant and misinformed? I mean, as a regular person with no scientific background (myself) it makes sense to think "eat fat-get fat", but they have all the scientists on their hands who studied these these things, and then no one listened?!

The beef industry is so huge, you would think they alone would show that saturated fat in beef is good for you and not bad (I know, conventionally raised cows are a sad, sad thing, but still, you'd think the whole fat argument alone would come out from them!).

Money money money. all of the industries producing vegetable oils, and fake food products that make low fat foods taste ok are much bigger industries and lobbies than say the beef industry. (you've got companies like monsanto and dow, you've got the companies that process the vegetables/corn, you've got companies that process addititves that make food taste ok, you've got companies that make low fat foods and foods with vegetable oils/additives. that's just a lot more marketing power than the beef lobby, AND this has been the conventional wisdom for a long time now. that's hard to change.)

[JElaineB]

Originally Posted by daisymommy

On a side note, I'd like to read more about how we got to a place of the farm subsidies on corn and soy...two of the most highly recommended "healthy" fats, along with canola. Gee, subsidized and now recommended over other oils and fats...smells fishy to me!

I'm pretty sure Michael Pollan gets into this in Omnivore's Dilemna. He has a couple other good books as well.

[mama1803]

I second the recommendations for Pollan and Planck's books. Very eye opening and informative.

[Teenytoona]

Also, don't forget EGO. The original scientists who were pushing the low fat diets were also very selective about their data in order to get their hypothesis out there and be "the one" to solve all the problems. At the time all the studying was going on, there was quite a big of controversy between scientists. There is a huge human ego part to play in the very beginning of all this fat is bad stuff as well as the corporation pocket stuffing that goes on.

[ursusarctos]

Originally Posted by AJP

I have come to the point that I pretty much ignore reductionist, nutritionism-type research, and rely on the evidence of what healthy human populations of the past ate, as well as my own instinct.

And the rest of your post was great too!

[JMJ]

Honestly, mainstream meat isn't that good for you. When you stick cows in tiny boxes and pump them full of antibiotics and hormones and feed them corn, you're better off eating plants. I was reading the other day how feeding this way creates high levels of "natural" trans-fats. Their milk isn't that good either. Everyone knows that vegetables are good for you... so nobody will question how good they are for you when they're genetically modified and grown out of conventional fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides. Same with grains, and nobody knows how to soak them anymore. If wheat is good for you, it must be good for you if it's hulled and bleached and refined and left in a paper bag for a year.

Then, when nutrient deficiencies occur, we can't change what people are eating, so we'll "enrich" what they're eating. We add folic acid to their grains to prevent birth defects, fluoride in their water to prevent tooth decay, and put everyone on daily multivitamins so that they get the recommended doses. Then, we learn that people can overdose on some of these vitamins, so we tell them to watch how much they're getting and not to take CLO.

In some strange way, the progression makes sense. They're just fixing the wrong things. Each "fix" makes things marginally better or covers over a bigger problem but creates another problem. We need to rethink our diets to solve the root problems.

The USDA is making some strides. My DH is on the USDA's plan for diet and exercise, and we're molding it more TF. I'm finding that they're not mutually exclusive. The grains can be all soaked whole grains. The vegetables can be all organic, and they give good advice about varying vegetables. The meats can be all free range, grass fed, and if you exercise (which my DH does a lot), there's plenty of room for those great TF fats and other TF foods as long as you spend your flex calories on fat instead of sugar.

[MamaEli]

Don't forget Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes....really answers the WHY and HOW. And what to do next--I think that book has changed my life!

[LauraLoo]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Then, when nutrient deficiencies occur, we can't change what people are eating, so we'll "enrich" what they're eating. We add folic acid to their grains to prevent birth defects, fluoride in their water to prevent tooth decay, and put everyone on daily multivitamins so that they get the recommended doses. Then, we learn that people can overdose on some of these vitamins, so we tell them to watch how much they're getting and not to take CLO.

In some strange way, the progression makes sense. They're just fixing the wrong things. Each "fix" makes things marginally better or covers over a bigger problem but creates another problem. We need to rethink our diets to solve the root problems.

It's a band aide approach, isn't it? My dh and I were talking about the change in our mothers' approaches to food over the years. We were born in the 60's and remember when so many processed foods & the microwave hit mid-70s. I'm sure that it was similar to the relief that women felt when they owned their first washer and dryer because of the time savings. It's just so tempting when you are told over and over that there's an easier way for you and a "healthier" way for your family. And we remember diet pills being a big hit, too. Overweight? There's a pill for that.

Originally Posted by JMJ

The USDA is making some strides. My DH is on the USDA's plan for diet and exercise, and we're molding it more TF. I'm finding that they're not mutually exclusive. The grains can be all soaked whole grains. The vegetables can be all organic, and they give good advice about varying vegetables. The meats can be all free range, grass fed, and if you exercise (which my DH does a lot), there's plenty of room for those great TF fats and other TF foods as long as you spend your flex calories on fat instead of sugar.

I'm really glad to hear this. Unfortunately I think it will take many years to reprogram mainstream society after decades of contrary information. My mother, who used to cook with butter and lard years ago, is now afraid to give up her margarine and canola oil.

[geekgolightly]

Originally Posted by MamaEli

Don't forget Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes....really answers the WHY and HOW. And what to do next--I think that book has changed my life!

My DH read this book and is now convinced that we should be eating more of a paleo type diet. He is truly taking an interest in nutrition, which is fantastic.

Does anyone know of a well researched comprehensive book, of the same caliber as Good Calories, Bad Calories that shows how we should be eating only organic? This is the only way that he will be swayed.

Thanks

[mamaofthree]

i was equally as shocked. as an RN you NEVER EVER hear of having people eat meat and fat! never! but you should see the stuff we do encourage them to eat. YUCK!
slowly slowly i have been changing our diet. honestly it is hard because all that "low fat food" is addictive. all that sugar. egads! it makes it easier that we have good local beef and a raw dairy near by.
i think i will come and look around here more often!

h

[berry987]

Just want to add another plug for "Good Calories, Bad Calories." That book changed my life. I want to shout it from the rooftops. And I have read just about every single nutrition book that exists.

And, yes, we have been lied to. For whatever reason....money, ego, ignorance...who knows. And it makes me incredibly mad...and sad.

My dad, who has followed a low-fat, high carb diet, as prescribed by his doctor, for 25 years (and very well for that matter), now has diabetes, dementia, and high blood pressure. He initially went on it at age 42 because his cholesterol was above 200. Now he is on a cocktail of meds. His health is getting worse, and the doctors are now telling him to cut salt, but it's apparently fine for him to eat those nasty glucerna supplements. And the problem is, I can't get through to him or my mom. They are so brainwashed they think I am nuts. I just keep picturing my dad at 42 - tall, slim, active, healthy - and the doctor reads a lab and changes his whole life for the worse. Tragic.

[SophieAnn]

I found Nina Plank's "What to Eat and Why" to be very informative, and also really enjoyable to read. It's particularly fascinating how cultures (such as the Inuit) whose diets are much much higher in fat (something like 75% fat diets?) have a much lower incidence of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc... Not suggesting that it works for everyone, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Something to keep in mind:
Diet or Low Fat = Added Sugar or Artificial Sweeteners and Chemicals (most of the time)