Newsletter Update | March 2019

Download a PDF version of this issue

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

The Nutrition Coalition Update | March 25, 2019 Eggs Are Unhealthy, Redux Newly Appointed Dietary Guidelines Committee Meeting this Week - Guided by Science or Religion? Finding: Only 8.3% of Guidelines by American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology are Based on Strong Evidence Fake Facts on Keto Meatless Mondays for NYC Public Schools 2020 Dietary Guidelines: Committee Appointed, and First Meeting Set for March 28-29 The expert committee that will review the science for the 2020 Guidelines was announced earlier this month. Much to our disappointment, the agencies in charge of this process, USDA-HHS, did not include an evidence-based policy expert, as The Nutrition Coalition had urged. Thousands of people sent letters to the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, emphasizing the importance of including this type of expert. Instead, the committee's 20 members include someone quite different: a professor from a 7th Day Adventist Church university. This church promotes the use of a vegetarian diet as a matter of faith, and our question is: What is religion doing in our Guidelines? See our post on the 2020 committee here. Anyone who wants to watch the first committee meeting via webcast or attend in person, see our blog post on this and other ways you can make your voice heard during the Guidelines process. Weak Science Undermines Guidelines by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) According to a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Only 8.5% of recommendations in ACC/AHA guidelines…were classified as level of evidence A (supported by evidence from multiple RCTs [randomized controlled clinical trials]), compared with 11.5% of recommendations…in 2009.” In other words, more than 90% of the recommendations put out by these groups are not based on rigorous evidence. And this problem has gotten worse, not better. In fact, the just-published new set of AHA/ACC lifestyle recommendations for the primary prevention of heart disease are disappointing on this front. Most key recommendations are not supported by rigorous science, as judged by their own reviewers (which were not the authors themselves but a group in Oregon to which the science reviews were outsourced). Not based on “Grade 1” evidence were recommendations to: Replace saturated fat with unsaturated fats (oils) Reduce dietary cholesterol and sodium Minimize intake of processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages The sole nutrition recommendation given a Grade 1 rating was: A diet emphasizing intake of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, whole grains, and fish Yet this advice is heavily dependent on a single Mediterranean diet trial whose data has come under serious question. Also, the full report (but not the executive summary) contains a statement that low-carbohydrate diets are associated with cardiovascular risk. This statement does not appear to be the product of any systematic review but was instead inserted by the authors, based on epidemiological evidence (principally an analysis of ARIC data, which has also been seriously questioned). We are concerned about the scientific integrity of these guidelines. This concern is both for heart patients, whose doctors will likely only read the top-line summary and not notice the moderate quality of the supporting evidence, and for all Americans, since the U.S. Dietary Guidelines have historically patterned themselves closely on these AHA/ACC lifestyle reports. Current Guidelines on Salt Still Controversial A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) recommends 1,500 mg/day of sodium as the adequate intake (AI) level. This is much lower than the 2,300 mg/day recommended by a 2013 NASEM report, which stated that below this level, there was evidence for increased cardiovascular risk. Since then, studies by separate teams of scientists have tended to favor the 2013 conclusion. We’ll have more on salt in a future post. Meanwhile, see our review of the evidence here. Diet Wars Eggs cause heart disease (redux). This story, in headlines around the world, was also the product of an epidemiological study (see our video about these types of studies). This paper showed only an association between eggs and cardiovascular (but not coronary) heart disease. Since coronary heart disease is a major part of cardiovascular heart disease, one should already be wondering if the paper’s findings make sense. Among the paper’s numerous problems was that it tried to count eggs contained in “mixed dishes” such as casseroles, pies, etc., from six different studies, each of which may have defined its “mixed dishes” differently. Considering that the original data, coming from self-reported food-frequency questionnaires, is already highly unreliable, the likelihood that the authors could have accurately measured egg consumption seems quite small. Most surprisingly, the authors do not mention the large body of clinical trials (the rigorous studies that can show cause-and-effect) that have already tested the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease. Even Ancel Keys, one of the original proponents of this hypothesis who tested it extensively, found only “trivial effects” of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol, and by 1955, stated that this question needed “no further consideration.”[1] Since then, many trials have been conducted, confirming Keys’s findings—a rigorous body of evidence that has led most European nations to drop their cholesterol caps in recent years, and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines to do the same in 2015. If a hypothesis has been tested and found lacking, why go back to a hypothesis-generating paper, as these authors have done? #FakeFacts on Keto We support legitimate debates about the science and don’t intend to focus on any one diet, but we can’t help noticing the intensity of the recent flood of attacks on the ketogenic diet, or “keto.” Our stance is simply that this dietary approach is evidence-based and has shown promise for people with metabolic diseases, especially diabetes. It should be one possible option. So why all the scary headlines? For example, a slew of headlines claimed that the keto diet is linked to heart arrhythmias. These stories were the result of a decision, by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), to issue a press release of an unpublished talk that had not yet been presented. It was not a published paper and therefore not peer reviewed. This kind of very preliminary data is hardly ready for prime time, and it’s strange that the ACC would promote this finding so prematurely. Another set of anti-keto stories based on no evidence were particularly offensive. They took aim at women, spurring more than one observer to dub them “misogynistic.” These would be the “keto crotch” stories: 28 of them in just 8 days, including some by mainstream media such as Forbes, the New York Post and Yahoo. There was no evidence for these headlines—not a survey or study of any kind. One citizen of the twitter sphere researched the reporters and experts involved in these stories. It seems they were #fakenews, a well-funded PR campaign, in other words. Non-Evidence Based Policy…Redux NYC Public Schools announced they will adopt Meatless Mondays, based on health and environmental reasons. Regarding the health benefit claims, rigorous science cannot be found to support them, i.e., there is a dearth of evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials demonstrating harm from red meat. (See our two-pager of the clinical trial evidence on red meat. The negative health findings on meat come from epidemiological studies—again, see our video on this type of weak science.) The NYC government appears to have been successfully lobbied by the group Meatless Mondays, which is funded by 46 food companies, from bean producers and Ronzoni pasta to “Tofurky,” and “Walnut Burgers,” all of which stand to benefit when meat is removed from the diet. Moreover, it’s not clear that NYC policy makers knew about the potential negative health consequences of their policy. For poor children, especially, who rely upon school meals, meat is an important source of complete amino acids (proteins) needed for healthy growth as well as many essential vitamins (B12, D3, K2, iron, choline, zinc, and the bioavailable type of omega 3s), none of which are available or nearly as bioavailable in plant foods. NYC Public Schools should be doing everything possible to foster the healthy minds and healthy bodies of children, not submitting them to the food lobby or teaching them that there is something inherently wrong with eating meat based on so little evidence. [1]Tested the question extensively: “Diet and the Epidemiology of Coronary Heart Disease,” Journal of the American Medical Association 164, no. 17 (1957): 1912–1919. Quote in Ancel Keys et al., “Effects of Diet on Blood Lipids in Man Particularly Cholesterol and Lipoproteins,” Clinical Chemistry 1, no. 1 (1955): 40. Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter here. The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Newsletter Update | January 30, 2019

Download a PDF version of this issue

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

The Nutrition Coalition Update | January 30, 2019 Close to A Thousand Americans Write USDA Secretary Perdue Asking for Balance on the Dietary Guidelines Committee Vegan-leaning EAT-Lancet Found to be Biased, Backed by Vast Corporate Interests Lancet Article says Observational Studies Limited to “Hypothesis Generation” Only CLOSE TO A THOUSAND AMERICANS ASK USDA SECRETARY PERDUE TO CHOOSE BALANCED DIETARY GUIDELINES COMMITTEE With just a few weeks before USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue is expected to select members for the expert committee that will determine the 2020 Dietary Guidelines, close to a thousand Americans wrote to ask Perdue to please choose a balanced committee that will represent up-to-date views of the most rigorous available science. Also, many believe the committee needs an expert in evidence-based policy who understands the difference between weak science (epidemiology) and strong (clinical trials). Why the need for this push? We’ve heard that USDA bureaucrats who’ve overseen the same one-size-fits-all guidelines for decades are not—understandably—amenable to change. Nominee applications that our group has supported have reportedly been “lost” or passed over. It’s not too late to add your voice—and make a difference. This post explains why and how to lend your voice to this effort. EAT-LANCET REPORT BACKED BY CORPORATE GIANTS, LACKS RIGOROUS SCIENCE ON VEGAN DIET Launched by corporate behemoths such as Mars, Nestle, Kellogg’s plus seven of the world’s largest chemical companies, the EAT-Lancet report claims that the only way to save the planet is to drastically reduce red meat consumption and replace it with grains, soy, and rice along with 8 teaspoons of sugar per day and 14% of calories as vegetable oils. Sound like a formula for health? The EAT diet, which is demonstrably deficient in essential nutrients as well as low in complete proteins, is supported by virtually no human clinical trials showing that it can either sustain healthy human life or protect against nutrition-related diseases. See our overview of this report, from its pervasive, undeclared potential conflicts of interest to the lack of rigorous science. What’s at stake? This industry-backed report calls for dramatic government interventions to drastically cut back on the consumption of natural foods…meaning that meat taxes could very well become a reality. Also, for a quick primer on why more plant-based foods are unlikely to be the solution to reversing obesity and diabetes, see this chart, based on the best-available government data. This chart makes no claims that plant foods cause these diseases; it demonstrates only that increasingly plant-based foods has not worked so far. (For a chart that breaks out sugar from the plant-foods total, see this, here). LATEST IN NUTRITION SCIENCE U.S. Health is Continuing to Worsen: According to a recent study from the University of North Carolina, just 12 percent of Americans meet targets for cardiometabolic health without medication. And this crisis doesn’t just affect those who are obese or overweight. The UNC study found that less than one third of normal-weight adults are metabolically healthy. Given that the U.S. Dietary Guidelines are mandated to serve only “healthy Americans,” this means that our national nutrition policy is irrelevant for almost 90% of the American public. Canada Announces a New Food Guide that Eliminates Dairy and Meat as food groups Canadian health representatives said they did not do their own reviews of the scientific literature but instead relied on those done by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. If the U.S. is indeed leading the world on nutrition, then it’s extra-important that we get it right. The New York Times calls out the lack of evidence for the efficacy of low-salt dietary regimens. When it comes to heart failure, the evidence is shockingly thin — only nine clinical trials with a total of just 479 subjects. Worse, “there were no data that showed that salt restriction reduced mortality or cardiac disease” in heart failure patients. Wow… please pass the salt. “How did America’s plan for eating right get it so wrong?” Watch the Big Fat Lie trailer for the answer. LATEST SCIENCE The Lancet published an important opinion piece stating that observational data is a limited science that should only be used for generating hypotheses.“[E]ven with the use of sophisticated methods to address various sources of bias,” observational data cannot replace randomized, controlled trials for establishing cause and effect. People like to say, yes, but what about smoking? There was never a clinical trial on cigarettes to show they caused lung cancer. That’s true, yet the effect sizes between heavy smokers vs. never smokers for risk of lung cancer were in the magnitude of 10-30 times greater. By contrast, the effect sizes seen in observational science on diet and health are usually <1.5. This is not strong enough to rule out confounding bias and significant measurement errors that come from self-reported food intake. This paper by statisticians should be a classic. It states that the claims made by meta-analyses in nutritional epidemiology "are not statistically supported" given the large numbers of of food items sampled. This paper has widespread implications, since such meta-analyses commonly used for setting policy and more. PARADIGM CHANGE—IT'S HAPPENING “Praise the Lard: Why the Fine, White Fat is Making a Culinary Comeback,” says the Financial Times (paywall). What are “Phat Fats,” and why is Whole Foods listing them as a top food trend for 2019? The keto diet was the number #1 most Googled diet of 2018. Also in the top five: the Carnivore and Mediterranean diets. Absent from the top five: DASH, vegetarian, and vegan. Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter here. The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Newsletter Update | November 7, 2018

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

The Nutrition Coalition Update | November 7, 2018 Rigorous Evidence on Reversing Type 2 Diabetes Gets Heard on Capitol Hill USDA Sends Positive Signals that Next Dietary Guidelines Won’t be ‘More of the Same’ New reports on staggering economic costs of obesity, diabetes in America REPORT TO CONGRESS: LOW-CARB DIET YIELDS GROUNDBREAKING RESULTS FOR T2 DIABETES Sarah Hallberg, chair of the Nutrition Coalition’s Scientific Council, took her breakthrough research on reversing type 2 diabetes to Congress last month. In a briefing to the bipartisan “Food As Medicine” group in the House, Dr. Hallberg detailed results from the large, university-based controlled clinical trial she leads, which reversed T2 diabetes in 60% of participants after just one year on a very low-carb diet (with support provided by a mobile app). Sixty percent reversal of diabetes! This ought to make headlines around the world. No other diet has had results that come close. By contrast, the American Diabetes Association reports only 0.1% reversal on their nutritional program. We could not be happier that Congress listened to this important science regarding a disease that is crippling our country.* The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) calls for the next Dietary Guidelines committee to be more balanced, diverse and to include “fresh points of view.” Additionally, USDA is largely prohibiting previous committee participants from being reappointed. This is a significant step toward ensuring that the next Dietary Guidelines will not simply rubber stamp the status quo. Read our post on this important development here. Speaking of the status quo, an analysis by the Nutrition Coalition found that 11 of 14 of the last DGA committee members, in 2015, were vegetarian diet advocates. This is exactly why we need fresh perspectives and a greater diversity of views going forward. WHY THE DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER $1.72 trillion each year. That's the real economic cost of overweight/obesity in America, according to a new report by The Miliken Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank in Santa Monica, CA. The estimates include both direct health care costs and indirect costs due to lost productivity. And the latest numbers on the cost of diabetes? For adults with type 2 diabetes, direct medical costs over their lifetime ranged from $54,700-$130,800, according to a new report by Paul Keckley, a health policy analyst. That’s more than twice the cost for non-diabetics. Keckley calculates that the total diabetes hit to the economy in 2015 – direct costs and lost productivity – was $322 billion, nearly twice the impact in 2007. CNN reports on a detailed study, published in The Lancet last week, that forecasts life expectancy changes across 195 countries between 2016 and 2040. Spain is predicted to edge out Japan for the longest lifespan – 85.8 years. By contrast, study authors believe that the U.S. is likely to fall from 43rd to 64th place in the rankings of high-income countries. Why is the U.S., a rich country, falling behind? Lifespan is largely determined by nutrition…which leads us, again, to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines and the need for these nutrition recommendations to be based on good science--to keep us healthy. A staggering number of U.S. troops weigh too much, according to a new RAND report. Rates vary by service, with the Army reporting highest rates of obesity and overweight – 69%, and the Marines with the lowest rate – 61%. The Coast Guard (68%), Navy (65%), and Air Force (63%) fall in between. The military gets plenty of exercise and follows the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Need we say more? NEWS FROM NYC In a widely reported move aimed at reducing obesity, the New York City Health Department (NYCHD) intends to lead a voluntary campaign to get food and beverage companies to reduce the amount of sugar in their products. Specifically, NYCHD will seek a commitment from food manufacturers to lower average sugar levels in packaged foods by 20%, and a commitment from beverage manufacturers to cut sugar in sweet beverages by 40%. MORE NEWS FROM WASHINGTON The FDA makes it official, finalizing the complete elimination of artificial trans fats from America’s food supply. Politico reports that the FDA will “revoke all prior sanctioned uses” of partially hydrogenated oils. BEYOND ALT FACTS In another story that undermines our faith in nutrition science, a prominent Harvard doctor was exposed for scientific fraud, leading to the retraction of more than a dozen papers. Among other things, Harvard allowed this researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital to start a company profiting from his scientific findings at the same time that he continued to research them--a huge conflict of interest. Harvard seems to have a more general problem in allowing its researchers to be tied to commercial interests, as we reported on here. PARADIGM CHANGE—IT'S HAPPENING Following an exposé revealing that the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) was targeting journalists who investigated the sugar and cereal lobbies, the association announced recently that it will cut ties with the food industry. Great move. We’d be delighted if the American Diabetes Association would do the same. That said, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes did take a step forward by adding a new therapeutic option for patients with diabetes: a low-carb diet. This change serves to acknowledge the strong evidence in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of low-carb and ketogenic diets in fighting diabetes. LATEST IN NUTRITION Does prediabetes contribute to male infertility? A study by Italian researchers found that 15% of 744 men with primary infertility met the criteria for undiagnosed prediabetes. A study out of Japan shows that patients who develop type 2 diabetes show signs of metabolic dysregulation 10 years before diagnosis. A gradual rise in blood glucose levels and decline in insulin sensitivity are thought to be the telltale signs. The Dept. of Veterans Affairs is outed for the bad choices it makes in stocking hospital vending machines. According to a new study, options are mainly soda, candy, chips, and other junky snacks. Why should kids be getting donuts for breakfast at school? Because donuts comply with the Dietary Guidelines. We need your support as we work towards evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again. DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us/newsletter/ With thanks to Jenni Callahan for contributing story ideas. *Note: Virta Health funded the study, and Dr. Hallberg is a Virta Health employee, in addition to serving as the medical director for the Indiana University-Arnett Health Medical Weight Loss Program. The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

Newsletter Update | October 18, 2018

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

View this email in your browser The Nutrition Coalition Update | October 18, 2018 Keeping fingers crossed for next round of Dietary Guidelines Battling headlines in the trenches of the low-carb debate How sometimes proper nutrition can cut a politician down to size Apologies for the long hiatus in our newsletter! Much has happened since we’ve been away. We can’t catch up on all the news, but we include a selection of top stories here and promise to return to you with a regular, more timely schedule of newsletters in the coming weeks. THE 2020-2025 DIETARY GUIDELINES PROCESS IS UNDERWAY Nominations recently closed for the all-important expert committee that will review the science for the next guidelines. We are hoping that USDA-HHS will select nominees who will push for evidence-based guidelines. Some good news: USDA-HHS has said that “low-carb” diets and “saturated fats” will be among the topics selected for review. You, members of The Nutrition Coalition, helped make that happen! The bad news: USDA-HHS dismissed most of the ideas suggested by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (in the first-ever outside peer-review of the Guidelines) on how to improve transparency and manage bias on the Dietary Guidelines' expert committee. That’s a shame. Read our post on it here. IMPORTANT NEWS WE'VE MISSED Dr. David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner, takes on food pundit Marion Nestle about what we really know about healthful eating: "I think we have failed in giving nutritional advice to people. If diet & exercise were the answer, we'd all do it & there wouldn't be a problem...I would try to get answers to very basic questions...Is a calorie a calorie?" One of the world's leading oncologists, Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee of Columbia University Medical Center (and of The Emperor of All Maladies fame), is set to launch a human trial of ketogenic diet therapy as an accompaniment to drug therapy in specific types of cancer treatments. Recent mouse studies demonstrate the efficacy of administering ketogenic diets—which lower insulin levels—while treating some types of cancer. Scientific American asks, does ingesting artificial sweeteners cause us to eat more? The FDA on the new “added sugar” designation on Nutrition Facts Labels… The question of whether honey and maple syrup should count as “added sugars” led to the great maple syrup fiasco... and is why the FDA has gone back to the drawing board on this issue. DIET WARS: DO LOW-CARB DIETS SHORTEN LIFE? The past two months have seen a proliferation of headlines about how low-carb diets shorten life, based mainly on a paper in Lancet Public Health. The idea that low-carb diets might harm long-term health is contradicted by the significant benefits found in the near term (with experiments up to two years long). Here are some responses to the Lancet piece that lend some balance to an issue which, on the whole, the media presented in a quite one-sided way: A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Nina Teicholz (behind a paywall). A long piece in Medscape by Nina Teicholz and Dr. Fabiano Sefarty (free but registration required). A post in Psychology Today by Dr. Georgia Ede. A blog post on the limits of epidemiology by Dr. Chris Kresser. WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER Problems with sugar start early and get worse. According to reports on a new CDC study, American toddlers build up to 7 teaspoons of added sugar per day by age 2. "High amounts of added sugar can be hidden in seemingly healthy food: a single-size serving of yogurt with fruit at the bottom can contain up to 6 teaspoons of sugar. In a regular 8-ounce serving of apple or orange juice, there are 5.5 teaspoons of sugar, on average." Cancer is linked to nutrition as well (of course): A CDC report says that obesity accounts for 40% of all cancer cases in the US. Obesity is a bigger problem in rural America, according to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. And remember, according to a recent report by the CDC, rates of exercise have been increasing…just to remind you that you can’t exercise your way out of a bad diet. Or just skip reading all of the above and watch the trailer to a new film, Fat: A Documentary. CARDIOLOGISTS' CORNER The Washington Times ran an op-ed entitled "Carbohydrates are Killing Us" by cardiologist Eric Thorn. He writes, "Many doctors, myself included, have seen with our own eyes how low-carb diets help patients lose weight, reverse their diabetes and improve their cholesterol." Another cardiologist writes, “Want a Healthier Heart? Eat a Steak,” in an op-ed for the Houston Chronicle. PARADIGM CHANGE—IT'S HAPPENING Mayors in the US start sharing their personal successes with their constituents: California mayor, Sean Wright, is sharing his success with a keto diet for weight loss, reversing prediabetes, and resolving fatty liver. He invites fellow residents of Antioch to learn more and join him in a journey to better health. Pittsburgh area politician, John Fetterman, loses ~150 pounds by cutting out sugar/grains and walking more. Will this mayor and Democratic nominee for LT Governor help bring the message of reducing sugar and starch for better health to the people of Pennsylvania? In the UK, Deputy Labor Leader Tom Watson, lost 96 pounds in eleven months by cutting out sugar and starch and eating more fat, as featured on the BBC. Watson asks (rightfully, we’d say) if government should be giving dietary advice when there is such scientific controversy surrounding nutrition. We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again. DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

Newsletter Update | June 21, 2018

Updates on food politics, policy and science from The Nutrition Coalition. 

View this email in your browser The Nutrition Coalition Update | June 21, 2018 FEATURED Science shines at groundbreaking conference in Zurich  Tim Noakes speaks to Nina Teicholz about his victory New paper on "Virta” study: In addition to reversing T2 diabetes, most heart-disease risk factors improved "MIRACLE" CONFERENCE IN ZURICH The BMJ and global reinsurer SwissRe co-hosted a “Food for Thought” conference in Zurich last week, which BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee launched by saying, “There is no such thing as miracle diet, but if there’s a miracle meeting, this is it.” The “miracle” referred to the fact that for the first time, real debate took place on key contested issues in science, including saturated fats and low-carb diets, with speakers on all sides of the issues. Participants included some of the chief architects of our current nutrition policy, such as Walter Willett from Harvard, Dariush Mozaffarian from Tufts, and Nita Farouhi from Cambridge, as well as critics of that policy, including researcher Zoe Harcombe, author/journalist Gary Taubes and Executive Director of The Nutrition Coalition (TNC) Nina Teicholz. The conference videos are all available on the conference website, and we would particularly recommend watching Godlee’s closing remarks. At minute 1:33, she says, “One big reversal [in our thinking] is the demonization of fat. I think we’ve got to recognize those reversals, acknowledge them, and have some humility about what is said. I think there may be a tipping point that we're hearing about the reversal of some conditions, diabetes and obesity being two. I also think that the humility must extend to the [dietary] guidelines.'”   TIM NOAKES DECLARED INNOCENT -- AGAIN! In a unanimous decision, South African authorities acquitted professor Tim Noakes, for the second time, of all charges claiming that he had endangered the public health by tweeting to a mother that she could safely wean her child to a low-carb diet. S. African officials had declared Noakes innocent in April 2017 but then appealed their own verdict. Learn more about this important case and its potentially global implications here. To support Noakes during this second hearing, an international group of doctors launched a petition -- signed, in the end, by more than 42,000 people . TNC's Teicholz recently interviewed Noakes and his wife about the difficulties they've endured over the past four years, and Noakes thanked his petition signers, which you can watch here. READ MORE POLITICS OF NUTRITION If the Noakes case can be seen as an effort to silence voices speaking about the benefits of carbohydrate restriction, an echo of this tactic occurred recently when the Australian Medical Association asked Netflix to stop distribution of the film The Magic Pill, claiming that the real-food advice promoted for various health conditions in the movie was “irresponsible.” This effort backfired, and Netflix is expanding its distribution of the film world-wide as a result. TNC recommends this film. THE NEW SCIENCE ON METABOLIC DISEASES Diabetes reversal is possible on a low-carbohydrate diet -- while also improving cardiovascular health. That is the latest news from the “Virta study,” in which a ketogenic diet, combined with a smartphone-based monitoring app, resulted in a stunning 60 percent reversal of type 2 diabetes. Most cardiovascular risk markers improved during that time as well, according to this detailed post by the Virta team based on a paper recently published in Cardiovascular Diabetology. Virta also found that patients with diabetes on their program saved an average of $4,300 in annual medication costs. "The science is clear. Reversing diabetes is possible -- and should now be our goal,” writes Dr. Sarah Hallberg in a recent op-ed in Detroit News.   Intermittent fasting is fast-growing in popularity but has been little studied. A new study shows intermittent fasting, particularly with an early time restricted feeding window (8am-2pm), improves insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, and oxidative stress -- even without weight loss -- in men with prediabetes.   The low-carbohydrate diet is also reported to hold promise for patients with type 1 diabetes, giving them exceptional glucose control, according to a survey conducted by Boston Children's Hospital, published in AAP's Pediatrics and covered by the The New York Times. It's been considered nearly impossible for people with type 1 diabetes to achieve normal blood glucose -- but this survey gives hope that it is possible. POLICY NEWS  A recent recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Nina Teicholz questions why our government now requires chain restaurants to post calories on menus when science cannot demonstrate that these regulations have any meaningful effect on calorie restriction. The World Health Organization has announced plans to recommend a cap on saturated fat, at ten percent of total calories, as well as a virtual ban on trans fats. Unfortunately, the limits on saturated fats are not based on rigorous scientific evidence. The public comment period lasted only a month.  Cato Institute reports that despite the growing evidence that sugar is bad for health, U.S. lawmakers do not seem inclined to reduce subsidies to the sugar industry. WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER "A Medical Mystery: What happened to U.S. healthcare spending, beginning around 1980?" asks The New York Times in an article about how U.S. spending shot up in this particular year. Yet compared to peer countries, American life expectancy gains have fallen behind. The Times article does not mention one likely factor: the year 1980 is when the U.S. launched its high-grain, low-fat Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Could this policy have played a role? We think so. Bad news from the new WHO study presented at a European obesity conference in Vienna. The report projects that without a change in course, one in four people globally will be clinically obese in 30 years. Some 22 percent of the people on earth will be obese by 2045, compared to just 14 percent last year. In addition, 12% percent will have type 2 diabetes, compared to nine percent in 2017, the report estimates. That is unsustainable. We need new thinking on the obesity crisis.    Salt Wars: What should our guidelines say about salt? The epidemiological evidence is conflicting (i.e., the current advice that "lower is better" is not supported by a at least six large analyses). Only a clinical trial can properly establish cause-and-effect, but how can a large, well-controlled trial be done? One group of researchers proposed conducting the trial in prisons, an idea that spurred some debate. Meanwhile, we believe that since the evidence is so conflicting, the government ought to walk back its current salt guideline, or at least couch it with less certainty. BEYOND #ALTFACTS IN NUTRITION "Nutritional epidemiology is a scandal" Stanford University Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis told CBC News. "It should just go to the waste bin." But instead, policies and guidelines are largely based on this type of evidence, which Ioannidis characterized as "complete chaos." (Ioannidis also gave an hour-long critique of nutritional epidemiology for the Zurich conference, available to watch here.) Tuft's Mozaffarian presented a rebuttal in his closing remarks the next day. Other outlets are picking up on this problem. "Almost 40% of peer-reviewed dietary research turns out to be wrong,” reports one story, with the subhead: “Food science has a huge statistics problem. The solution, for now? Stop treating new nutrition studies like they contain the truth.” PARADIGM CHANGE -- IT'S HAPPENING An organic egg producer has petitioned the FDA to be allowed to use the word "healthy" on its product. Currently, the FDA does not permit eggs to use this term but does allow sugar-laced cereals and bars to be labeled "healthy." Eggs used to be considered unhealthy due to their cholesterol content, but both the American Heart Association, in 2013, and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, in 2015, quietly dropped their long-standing limits on dietary cholesterol due to the fact that these caps were not evidence-based. It turns out that there’s no reason to fear eggs. What’s more, eggs are full of essential nutrients, including choline and lutein-- essential for brain and eye health. Yet it will take a long time to re-educate consumers after 50 years of mistaken warnings about dietary cholesterol. And that’s precisely the problem with guidelines based on weak evidence. It takes people far longer to unlearn than to learn. One must ask: what harm is done in the meantime? TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based. SIGN HERE We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines -- to make America healthy again.   DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

*Source for Chart “Rise in U.S. Overweight/Obesity Coincides With Beginning of Dietary Guidelines”: US-CDC

Newsletter Update | April 27, 2018

Updates on food politics, policy and science from The Nutrition Coalition.

The Nutrition Coalition Update | April 27, 2018 FEATURED Egg Company Petitions for "Healthy" Label Why Nutrition Epidemiology has Failed as a Basis for The Dietary Guidelines Fatty Liver Disease and Type 2 Diabetes on the Rise WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER An egg company is petitioning the FDA to allow eggs to use a “healthy” label, noting that “sugar-packed foods, such as toaster pastries and pudding cups” can claim to be ‘healthy,’ but not eggs. This is due to longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol--first launched by the American Heart Association in 1961 and then adopted by the US Dietary Guidelines in 1980—based on weak, epidemiological evidence. These caps were finally dropped, by the AHA in 2013 and Dietary Guidelines in 2015, long after most European nations had done so. And what has been the potential harm of this erroneous advice? Millions of Americans needlessly avoided eggs (plus shellfish and liver), excellent sources of protein and many nutrients needed for good health. Fearful of eggs for breakfast, Americans turned instead to high-carb, often sugary cereals—this was healthier? Not likely. This is why the Dietary Guidelines must be based on rigorous science, to avoid this kind of mistake. READ MORE Following on this theme: two epidemiologists including Tufts University’s Dariush Mozaffarian wrote an article in The BMJ asserting that nutrition epidemiology has been “up to the task” of informing population-wide dietary guidelines. Science journalists Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz (who is also Executive Director of The Nutrition Coalition) respectfully disagreed, in this response. Needless caps on cholesterol are a good example of why this kind of science is not reliable. It turns out that the claims of nutrition epidemiology are correct only 0-20% of the time, when tested in rigorous trials--which are very poor odds on which to bet for the public health. Taubes and Teicholz also ask: where are the positive health outcomes, i.e., the evidence, to establish that our nutrition policy has thus far been successful? READ MORE NUTRITION-RELATED DISEASES: NO END IN SIGHT An article on “The Hidden Liver Crises” explores why fatty liver disease has risen so dramatically recently, affecting up to 1/3 of U.S. adults and 1/10 of children. Nutrition changes can reverse that, as Dr. Robert Lustig explains in the article.   A new CDC report released looks at diabetes prevalence in US adults. The National Health Interview Survey was expanded to include questions about type 1 diabetes, now afflicting (0.55% of adults) vs. type 2 (8.6% of adults). That is 21 million adult Americans now living with type 2 diabetes. Non-Hispanic blacks have highest prevalence: 11.52%. A LOOK AT THE LATEST SCIENCE A study looking at food consumption data across 158 countries—possibly the largest such study of its kind—found that “high carbohydrate consumption (mainly in the form of cereals & wheat) [was] the dietary factor most consistently associated with the risk of CVD [heart disease]." For a thoughtful analysis of this study, see our recent post.   Is sugar actually addictive like a drug? This review presents the evidence.   Another good example of why policy recommendations need to be based on solid science--this one from the world of vitamins. Based on epidemiological data, the public was told to take Vitamin E, anti-oxidants, etc., but then rigorous data showed that those supplements had no effect--or worse, were harmful. Getting people to “un-learn” what they’d been told requires a huge educational effort, which rarely happens. As this article finds, older Americans still taking too many vitamins. BEYOND #ALTFACTS IN NUTRITION Earlier this month, a study was published in the BMJ suggesting that pasta might lead to weight loss. Many media outlets like Newsweek failed to mention a glaring conflict of interest – several of the study’s authors had received funding or support from pasta company Barilla. Barilla’s influence in the nutrition debate goes beyond funding studies and press outreach, they are also donors to prominent think tanks like Foodtank in Washington, D.C. Flip-flopping headlines on nuts. The New York Times reports “Nuts May Lower Your Risk of Heart Disease” but then, 5 months later, this: “May be Good For Your Heart but Hardly a Miracle Food.” These stories are both by a journalist dutifully reporting on epidemiological findings, which are weak, unreliable, and tend to flip-flop. So the question is: why report on them at all? PARADIGM CHANGE - IT'S HAPPENING “Big Food and Big Pharma: Killing for Profit,” a recent panel at the European Parliament, included cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, the Queen of England’s former personal physician, and member of Parliament Nathan Gill, who says (at ~min 2 in the video): "I am convinced that what we need to do now is change the government’s approach, and it needs to be a top-down change, because every single day, hundreds of people are diagnosed with type 2 and type 1 diabetes. This is the epidemic of our times. And unless the government is giving valid and current and sensible advice, then a lot preventable diseases and effects diabetes which could be avoided are going to happen to people unnecessarily.” The panel was covered by the European Scientist, among other places.   A member of Canadian parliament says that he may bring forth a petition by doctors challenging the proposed “front-of-label” warnings on salt and saturated fats, which the petition contends are not based on rigorous evidence.   In the state with the highest rates of obesity in the U.S., West Virginia University Medicine’s Jefferson Medical Center has eliminated sugar-sweetened beverages from its premises. The doctor who made this happen says it’s like getting rid of smoking in hospitals: institutions about health should promote, well…health. NUTRITION FUN Did you know that the familiar smell of Crayola crayons is the smell of beef tallow? And here’s the story of how an obscure Irish brand of butter, Kerrygold, rose to become America’s second-biggest seller. TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based.   SIGN HERE We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again.   DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

Newsletter Update | April 4, 2018

Updates on food politics, policy and science from The Nutrition Coalition.

The Nutrition Coalition Update | April 4, 2018 FEATURED Thousands Provide Public Comments on the 2020 Dietary Guidelines New Stats on Rising Obesity in the U.S. Show Poor Diet to Blame Group Attempts to Ban Processed Meat Based on Weak Evidence NEWS FROM WASHINGTON On Friday of last week, the USDA closed its public comment period for topics to be addressed by the 2020-2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Thousands of you commented on the need to update the guidelines on topics where the science has evolved, particularly on saturated fats (over 1,100 comments) and low-carbohydrate diets (over 1,300 comments). We particularly want to thank our board member Dr. Mark Hyman, who stirred up the set on CBS This Morning by talking about the lack of good science behind the Dietary Guidelines. READ MORE WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER The grim picture for rising obesity rates in America continues. According to the latest report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rates of obesity among adults rose from 33.7 percent in 2007-2008 to nearly 40 percent today. And yet at the same time, Americans are exercising more! The report notes that 54 percent of Americans now meet the government’s physical activity guidelines, up from just 41 percent in 2005.   Yikes! Obesity is also on the rise for children. Roughly 29% of children aged 2 to 19 were overweight in 1999. Just seven years later, that figure had risen to 35%, according to a study recently published in the journal Pediatrics. This happened despite the “Let’s Move” campaign rolled out under Michelle Obama. It’s clearly diet that’s driving these trends. As experts increasingly say, ‘You can’t outrun a bad diet.’ Rather, the problem is what we’re eating. Or, more likely, what we’re being told to eat. The costs of these diseases is mind-boggling—now at $327 billion, according to a new study in Diabetes Care. This is a 26% rise since 2012. If one wants to talk about sustainability, this is what’s unsustainable. FOOD WARS The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a vegan group run by animal-welfare activist Neal Barnard, has launched a series of attacks against processed meat, based on claims that these meats, such as cured ham and sausages, cause disease. This group is behind a legislative proposal announced March 22 in Brooklyn, NY, to ban processed meat from all New York city public schools and also a lawsuit in March charging the Texas Beef Council with engaging in deceptive trade practices by promoting beef as good for health. This follows PCRM’s unsuccessful effort last summer to eliminate processed meats from public schools in Los Angeles along with another Southern California county. PCRM bases its case exclusively on weak epidemiological evidence that cannot show cause and effect. We’re not aware of any rigorous (clinical trial) evidence demonstrating any ill effect of red meat on obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer or heart disease. See a recent talk by science journalist and Nutrition Coalition Executive Director Nina Teicholz on this topic.   Of course WHO-IARC in 2015 did categorize processed meat as a “Class One” carcinogen, but the science behind this decision was only released this week (2.5 years later), revealing that it was not only based exclusively on low-quality epidemiological data but also that this evidence was in itself exceptionally weak (a “relative risks” of just 1.18, which does not remotely meet criteria for establishing cause and effect). Keeping this in perspective, we’d like to remind folks that according to IARC, everything causes cancer and that just this week, a Los Angeles judge ruled that California must soon require Starbucks and other coffee sellers to display cancer warnings on all coffee drinks.  We’ll have more to say on this science in our next newsletter. (Reminder: The Nutrition Coalition is not “for” or “against” any food; we believe only in policy based on rigorous science). WORTH WATCHING/READING Do soda taxes work to reduce obesity? The Cato Institute says probably not. "The tendency to declare victory early with sin taxes is common..." but often the complete picture tells a different story. (Remember there was a Bloomberg study showing that soda taxes were effective, but since Bloomberg also funds these taxes, it has a vested interest).   It turns out that the FDA’s regulation requiring calorie postings on restaurant menus has an almost minimal effect on food choices. People informed of calorie counts wind up selecting foods reduced by only 38 fewer calories (about 41/2 almonds worth) than those who are uninformed, according to a report by the RAND Corporation. Is the investment in publicizing calorie counts worth it? One has to wonder, especially since the science in recent years has conclusively shown that sustainable weight loss is determined by much more than simply counting calories. We also wonder why the FDA was allowed to pursue a policy without prior efficacy evidence. The New Yorker reports on how professor Brian Wansink, director of Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab is accused of faking his data to grab headlines, including some that targeted the iconic The Joy of Cooking. This story has a serious side—namely the dangerous degree to which nutrition scientists may be motivated not by good science or the public health. Wansink’s case is interesting because, as originally reported by BuzzFeed, he is alleged to have been fueled almost entirely by a desire for fame, a.k.a, headlines in the media. This kind of attention-mongering is a well-established motivator for nutrition scientists, going back to Ancel Keys who landed on the cover of Time for suggesting that fat and cholesterol cause heart disease (which we now know is not the case). PARADIGM CHANGE - IT'S HAPPENING Egg consumption in the US is on the rise, perhaps because consumers are responding to the fact that America health authorities since 2015 have dropped their longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol. For decades Americans ate egg-white omelets to avoid cholesterol, but this advice turns out to have been flawed all along. And what a shame, because all the nutrients (choline and lutein, which are essential for brain and eye health, plus plenty of vitamins) are in…yes, the yolks.   Older consumers are warming to animal fats, following a trend already established by millennials.   Butter really, really is back, says Bloomberg, looking at market demand and a recent USDA report. “Consumers are increasingly demanding dairy products that are richer in fat as they are allowing fat, and thus also butter, back into their diets,” commented Hanne Soendergaard, executive vice president of marketing and innovation of Arla Foods. NUTRITION FUN Can this analysis of health and diet in Victorian England shed any light on healthful dietary patterns? The analysis shows that rural dwellers were healthier than city folk. “Poor urban families subsided mostly on white bread and potatoes with a little meat, milk and vegetables…But in rural areas, the poor often received meat, milk and vegetables instead of cash as payment for their work. Many also had small patches of land where they could grow vegetables or raise an animal or two for additional sources of food.” TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based.   SIGN HERE We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again.   DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

Newsletter Update | March 16, 2018

Updates on food politics, policy and science from The Nutrition Coalition.

The Nutrition Coalition Update | March 16, 2018 FEATURED USDA Seeks Public Comments on the 2020 Dietary Guidelines How the Dietary Guidelines Impact Our Military  New Research on Metabolic Diseases  NEWS FROM WASHINGTON In a groundbreaking step, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it was kicking off the process for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines by soliciting public comment on “key issues” in nutrition science. This is the first time that the USDA has taken this unusual step, and it appears to reflect a commitment to increased transparency in the process (See our post on this here). What is truly stunning is that the USDA’s “key issues” list includes saturated fats and low-carbohydrate diets. The implication is that the USDA believes current recommendations on these topics are based on outdated science and need updating. We certainly agree!  This is an unprecedented opportunity to contribute your thoughts about how the current guidelines can be brought up-to-date on the science—and therefore start helping to make America healthy again. Don’t miss your chance to participate!! The comment period runs only another two weeks, until March 30, 2018. For our guide on how to submit a comment, click here.   READ OUR GUIDE WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER Our fighting forces get their nutrition directly from the government, and increasingly, these men and women are too fat to fight. The Dallas Morning News published an op-ed by a retired U.S. Air Force Special Operations Combat Controller making that point that the armed forces get plenty of exercise. Rather, the problem isn't exercise -- the armed forces get plenty. Rather, it's the military diet, loaded up on starches and grains, while discouraging fats and proteins—a direct download from the Dietary Guidelines. The implication is that these guidelines are actually impairing our military readiness—and that is serious. A must read.   An op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal (NM) by a local MD argues that the federal guidelines are partly to blame for the state’s burgeoning type 2 diabetes problem. “Research shows that these carb-heavy diets [recommended by the government] can be suboptimal for type 2 diabetics,” writes Dr. Wood.   The New York Ttimes reports on a new comprehensive scientific review that found optimal protein levels for people over 40 trying to gain muscle mass are roughly twice our federal recommendations. And remember, many women do not even get the recommended level of 46g/day. This is another good argument for why we need guidelines based on current science, because otherwise they cause harm—the very opposite of what they intend.   A clinical trial at two federally qualified health care clinics found no difference whether the primarily Hispanic subjects (n=261) followed the government’s MyPlate approach or a standard calorie-counting diet. Subjects received coaching sessions for 1 year, but in the end, both strategies proved completely ineffective, with subjects losing no weight. Those results are really no surprise. Since the late 1980s, the National Institutes of Health have funded trials on more than 50,000 people, using the government’s food pyramid (same as “My Plate”) as the guide, and in none of these experiments did subjects meaningfully lose weight (More on this here). Conclusion: it seems time for some new graphics, and a new diet altogether—namely, one that works. THE NEW SCIENCE ON METABOLIC DISEASES A clinical report, published in Cell Metabolism, found "rapid and dramatic reductions of liver fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors" in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) when carbohydrate restriction is employed.   Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism published a study that demonstrates how, as fasting glucose gradually creeps up over the years, this reflects growing insulin resistance. The authors argue for early detection and intervention to prevent progression.  PARADIGM CHANGE - IT'S HAPPENING Some doctors believe that this non-invasive continuous blood sugar monitoring wearable will change the face of diabetes care. When people understand that pasta and bagels spike their blood sugar just as a much as a candy bar, this will be a powerful, instantaneous feedback loop to spur change. BEYOND #ALTFACTS IN NUTRITION Jane Brody, health columnist at the New York Times, wrote another piece  stating that weight loss is only about cutting calories and promoting exercise. This advice ignores all the recent science about the effects of hormones (especially insulin), the microbiome, sleep and stress on fat deposition. Even though Brody’s diet has clearly worked for her, her ideas as population-wide recommendations clearly now belong in the #altfacts department.   Jane Black wrote an article on fats for the Wall Street Journal that portrayed zero controversy on the topic of saturated fats, which is bizarre, because she wrote an entire article about that controversy in 2014. Does she think it’s gone away? In fact, we’ve seen quite the opposite, with ever-more prominent voices speaking out about how the guidelines got it wrong on saturated fats. It’s important for nutrition journalists to recognize where science is legitimately disputed and not falsely portray issues as “settled.” A lack of balanced reporting does a disservice to readers. PETITION UPDATE Over 40,000 supporters of evidence-based nutrition have signed the petition in support of Tim Noakes, a well-known professor of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at the University of Cape Town, who over the past few years has been subjected to hearings by health authorities, for tweeting to a breastfeeding mother that she could safely wean her child onto a “LCHF” (low carb, high fat) diet. The petition has been formally sent to the South African health authorities reviewing the case, and it will stay open until the verdict is announced, which is expected any day now. NUTRITION FUN Just how "vintage" is cooking? Did it enable the evolution of our big brains? "When humans try to eat more like chimpanzees and other primates, we cannot extract enough calories to live healthily." America's corn crop, visualized. Acres of corn grown for sweeteners (like high fructose corn syrup) would cover all of New Jersey.  Does a diet high in refined carbohydrates make men smell less attractive to women? A new “real food” meal idea generator has rich graphics and is fun/easy to use—check it out! Why are coconut sales falling? Could lard be good for you? Why is Shape Magazine writing about a vegetarian keto diet? FURTHER READING Diana Rodgers, a dietician, podcast host and farmer, argues in a blog post that fake meats are not real food, not even proven safe for humans, and not the best way to preserve the environment. Famous fitness guru Ben Greenfield loves to sweat but reveals that exercise doesn’t make his clients thin: it’s 99% diet, he says. Only when he tells people to cut down on sugar and excess carbs do they start to slim down. That’s why the Dietary Guidelines’ advice on diet and exercise needs to change, he writes in an op-ed published in The Hill. TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based.   SIGN HERE We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again.   DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research.  We accept no money from any interested industry. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

Newsletter Update | February 26, 2018

Updates on food politics, policy and science from The Nutrition Coalition.

The Nutrition Coalition Update | February 26, 2018 FEATURED Stunning Results from a Large Dietary Study on Type 2 Diabetes More Calls to Change the Dietary Guidelines Obesity Causes Health Care Costs to Rise, New Study Shows  A LARGE STUDY ON TYPE 2 DIABETES SHOWS PROMISING RESULTS One of the biggest-ever diet studies on people with type 2 diabetes, conducted at the University of Indiana, recently published results, and they are stunning. The intervention was a low-carb diet with continual care delivered via a mobile app (the product of a company named Virta, which funded the trial). After 1 year, the group of 262 patients in the intervention group saw: 60% reverse their diabetes, meaning their average blood sugar dropped so low that they no longer could be diagnosed as diabetic 94% reduce or entirely eliminate reliance on insulin. an average reduction of 12% of body weight Meanwhile, a control group following the American Diabetes Association’s standard (high-carbohydrate) diet saw no improvement in health.   Even more impressive: Adherence to the diet was measured via blood markers (called ketone bodies) meaning that the high adherence numbers found in this trial—83% for the intervention group—were real.  Sixty percent reversal in a field where type 2 diabetes is considered a chronic, progressive, irreversible disease is potentially nothing short of revolutionary for the treatment of this disease.[1] Yet of almost equal interest to this apparent groundbreaking news is the fact that the media ignored it almost entirely. We salute Politico, the only major outlet to feature the story, including a tweet by a health company executive saying that if the intervention were a drug, it “would be the biggest blockbuster in history.” PARADIGM CHANGE - IT'S HAPPENING A professor at the University of Illinois recently argued in an op-ed “the guideline drafting process needs a revamp. Right now, the experts who develop the guidelines are guilty of group think. They embrace evidence that supports conventional dietary wisdom, and neglect research that contradicts it."   A Canadian doctor also made the same point in a recent op-ed: "Most nutrition researchers and dieticians were educated at a time when low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets were thought to be healthy. They are heavily vested in this obsolete model and are reluctant to accept a new, scientifically validated model contrary to their beliefs. But this is what good science demands: the rejection of an existing model in the face of new, compelling evidence." BEHIND THE HEADLINES: THE LATEST LOW-CARB VS. LOW-FAT STUDY Another diet study, just published in JAMA, which tested a low-carb versus low-fat diet, showed no difference between the two groups: both lost about the same amount of weight. What's the news here? Both groups reduced sugar + refined carbs while adding vegetables, but there was no control group eating a regular amount of sugar, carbs, and vegetables so we can't conclude that the change in these foods was the "healthy" factor at work here. Nor can we credit the "lack of processed foods," as some have claimed, because--again--there was no control group eating a regular amount of processed foods. We can't even say that the two diets are equal, because the study was not well controlled (e.g., it lacked oversight), so it's hard to know exactly what subjects actually ate. For instance, "participants were instructed to reduce intake of total fat or digestible carbohydrates to 20 g/d during the first 8 weeks," yet the first data collection did not occur until the 3-month mark, so the researchers had little idea of what their subjects actually ate before then. Still, subjects did achieve some of the researchers' goals, achieving low-ish carb and low-ish fat diets, and they did so without counting calories. Our best take-away? The study supports existing, more rigorous trial data showing that losing weight without counting calories is possible if you also reduce carbs. Perhaps adding veggies, sticking to whole foods helps, too, but the absence of a control group in this trial and/or other trials on these points make them, as yet, inconclusive. WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER Obesity continues its relentless rise. A new report concludes that obesity drives up US Health care costs by 29%, with obesity-related illnesses now making up nearly 8% of health care costs in the U.S. Some of the largest increases were in Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.  NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD In just a week, over 32,300 supporters of evidence-based nutrition signed a petition in support of Tim Noakes, a well-known professor of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at the University of Cape Town, who over the past few years has been subjected to hearings by health authorities, for tweeting to a breastfeeding mother that she could safely wean her child onto a “LCHF” (low carb, high fat) diet. Specifically Prof. Noakes was charged with giving advice that is “not evidence-based." Prof. Noakes was acquitted of all charges last April, but now the S. African authorities are appealing their own decision in further hearings which took place this week. The Nutrition Coalition helped launch a letter/petition in support of the science. This petition will stay open for another week. Decision is due in 3 weeks. BEYOND #ALTFACTS IN NUTRITION The notion that red meat causes cancer is indeed terrifying. When the World Health Organization came out with its decision in 2015, two professors in evidence-based medicine wrote this rebuttal, published as an op-ed in the Financial Times (but behind a paywall). We posted the original, for you to read and share. NUTRITION FUN The New Yorker’s amusing look back on how carob traumatized a generation.   Weird, but fun: crocheted food.  FURTHER READING See this excellent profile of our founder, Nina Teicholz, investigative journalist and "bulldozer for truth." TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based.   SIGN HERE We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again.   DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research.  We accept no money from any interested industry or commercial interest.   [1] Note: The principal limitation of the study is that there was no randomization, meaning that subjects chose the study arm in which they wanted to participate. Normally, non-randomization can be a problem, because study subjects who choose a diet they believe to be healthy are likely to be more motivated to adhere to it and improve their health habits in various other ways as well.  Whereas: those choosing a placebo know their treatment is ineffective and are unlikely to feel motivated. However, in this trial, since all subject were choosing their own diets, presumably they all felt they made the best choice, and one could reasonably assume they all felt equally motivated to follow them. Moreover, even with some distortion from non-randomization, self-selection could not explain a 60% vs. zero result in diabetes reversal. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.

Newsletter Update | February 6, 2018

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

The Nutrition Coalition Update | February 6, 2018 FEATURED USDA Backs Reform of the Dietary Guidelines U.S. News and World Report "Best Diets" Shown Not to be Evidence-Based Low-Carb Diet Clinical Trial Numbers Show Definitively: Not a "Fad" GOOD NEWS FROM WASHINGTON The US Department of Agriculture announced that among the agency’s priorities for the Farm Bill currently being written in Congress is to “Assure the scientific integrity of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process through greater transparency and reliance on the most robust body of scientific evidence. “ This is an important statement and should lead to significant change. WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER Last week in The New York Times, a physician lamented that hospitals are serving, MD-backed “nutrition booster” drinks like Ensure--full of sugar (pictured above). High-carbohdyrate hospital food is the norm, even for diabetic patients, a direct consequence of the Guidelines prescribing high-carb diets for all. This is why the Guidelines should not be a one-size-fits-all diet and why they need reform. BEYOND #ALTFACTS IN NUTRITION Beyond #Altfacts in Nutrition Since January is diet month, plenty of status-quo nutritional advice made headlines: U.S News and World Report published it’s annual “best diets” cover story, ranking DASH/Mediterranean first and ketogenic dead last. In a joint op-ed in the LA Times, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz took a hard look at the evidence and concluded that the U.S. News rankings don’t reflect the science. Jane Brody, New York Times health columnist since 1976, writes yet another column saying that saturated fats are bad and should be replaced with vegetable oils. She quotes only experts from Harvard (longtime promoters of vegetable oils) and does not even acknowledge the existence of a debate on the topic of saturated fats, despite writing on that exact debate in her last column on the topic (“Should We Be Scared of Butter?”). It seems she is now just shoring up defense of her long-held beliefs. THE NEW SCIENCE ON METABOLIC DISEASES Dig into the details with this comprehensive list of over 70 clinical trials on the low-carb diet, on nearly 7,000 patients. In all of these controlled trials, lower-carb, higher-fat regimes perform as well or better than the lower-fat alternative regimens. One of the critiques of the low-carb diet is that it's an anecdotal "fad," yet this large body of scientific evidence disproves that. WORTH WATCHING A terrific new documentary, The Magic Pill, has just been released on iTunes, Vimeo, Amazon, and Google Play. This is a potent film about the power of real food to heal disease, by super-talented filmmaker Rob Tate. Watch this film! Then watch this space; The Nutrition Coalition will be supporting screenings of this film in local theaters, organized by members like you. PARADIGM CHANGE - IT'S HAPPENING Here are just two examples of mainstream institutions embracing real food. Weight Watchers just named eggs a "zero point" food, meaning you can eat as many of them as you like. KNOW Foods, a grain-free, sugar-free line of baked goods (and chocolate chips!) that aims to minimize insulin effects is being rolled out in all Wegmans supermarkets in stand-alone cases. NUTRITION FUN What are the roots of the vegetarian fad in America? Turns out it was the hippie movement. NPR reports on a new, interesting book—Hippie Food: How Back-to-the-Landers, Longhairs, and Revolutionaries Changed the Way We Eat. TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based. SIGN HERE We need your support to work for evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again. DONATE Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational and advocacy organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry or commercial interest. This update was written with help by Jenni Calihan. Copyright © 2018 The Nutrition Coalition, All rights reserved.