by Marion Nestle
Dec 18 2014

The Healthy Nation Coalition doesn’t like the Dietary Guidelines. But what does it want?

This is my week to be talking about the Dietary Guidelines, apparently.  Yesterday’s Politico Morning Agriculture, a news source on which I greatly depend, noted yet another attack on the Dietary Guidelines, this one from a group called  The Healthy Nation Coalition.

The Coalition wrote a letter to the secretaries of USDA and HHS, the agencies sponsoring the Guidelines, with many complaints about process and ineffectiveness.

I had never heard of this group, so I went to its website and laughed when I saw this graph—a terrific example of why epidemiologists insist that association does not necessarily say anything about causation.

Screenshot 2014-12-17 10.46.00

 

The implication here is that the Dietary Guidelines either cause obesity (something patently absurd) or have had no effect on its prevalence (something only to be expected given the other changes in society that predisposed to obesity beginning in the early 1980s).

If anything, the Dietary Guidelines are a result of those forces in society, not their cause.

I have my own issues with Dietary Guidelines (see Fo0d Politics), mainly about the use of advice that is euphemistic (“choose lean meats”) or incomprehensible (reduce SoFAS—solid fats and added sugars), and their focus on nutrients (fat, sugar, salt) rather than foods.

But I can’t understand what this Coalition is about or what it wants.

Its website says the Coalition formed because

A sense of community has arisen around questioning our current approach to food and nutrition. Healthy Nation Coalition has its beginnings in the ancestral health, Weston A. Price Foundation, and low-carbohydrate nutrition communities.

I understand what the Coalition does not want.  It

suggests that the 2010 Guidelines are not appropriate for population-wide diet recommendations, especially with regard to restrictions on dietary fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and salt.

indicates that the 2010 Guidelines may lead to increased risk of weight gain, diabetes, and chronic disease in many populations.

indicates that reducing intake of sugars and starches has health benefits.

indicates that adequate, complete protein is a critical part of the adult diet and that many adults benefit from intakes above current minimum recommendations.

Here’s what it says it wants

the Healthy Nation Coalition proposes that this process be removed from the USDA and HHS and given to one or more independent agencies, offices, or entities that can create dietary guidance that is without bias and responsive to the needs of the people of America.

Really?  Like what?

The “ask” in the letter is this:

It is the duty of USDA and DHHS leadership to end the use of controversial, unsuccessful and discriminatory dietary recommendations. USDA and DHHS leadership must refuse to accept any DGA that fail to establish federal nutrition policy based on the foundation of good health: adequate essential nutrition from wholesome, nourishing foods. It is time to create DGA that work for all Americans.

But what would they look like?

I don’t recognize any of the names of the individuals listed as part of the Coalition.

Can anyone explain to me what this group wants and is about?

  • Mike

    Well, you could contact the director, Adele Hite and ask her directly. I’m sure she would be willing and able to answer your question, assuming it’s not rhetorical.

    A quick Google search indicates she also writes the blog at http://eathropology.com/

  • Shawna

    After reviewing their website, I think they have some similar ideas as you – actually this statement: “entities that can create dietary guidance that is without bias and responsive to the needs of the people of America.” speaks true to what you believe, correct?

  • Chelsea Ihnacik

    Sally Fallon and the Weston A. Price foundation are huge among moms in my local natural parenting group. Sally is the author of “Nourishing Traditions,” a book that advises a diet high in saturated fat and animal protein. Their farm and shop is here in Maryland–our group took a tour. They eat only raw dairy, often fermented, and emphasize the “cleanest” locally sourced meats. Lots of home made bone broth, gelatin, and eggs. Essentially it’s another ketogenic diet that relies on the idea that this is how people ate before the global epidemic of chronic disease. The thinking is that pasteurization of dairy, removal of fat in low fat foods, industrial agriculture (soil depletion), and CAFOs are the causes of our chronic disease boom. What financial or political entities could be behind this organization I can only guess.

  • Patricia Katia Murillo

    On the graph: Did the mention “causation”? I couldn’t find that. I think they meant that the DG have had no impact, or are not enough to solve the problem.

  • Adele

    The USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines were created to prevent obesity and chronic disease. They have been unsuccessful in achieving this goal and may have contributed to (notice I did not say “caused”) our current health crisis in America. Healthy Nation Coalition is asking for Dietary Guidelines that are based on adequate essential nutrition, not on failed recommendations for prevention of chronic disease.

    There is a mistaken belief that Americans get all the nutrition they need. This is not the case. Currently, only 15% of Americans get adequate dietary choline, a crucial nutrient for neural development in unborn and young children. Dietary guidance should focus first and foremost on essential nutrition needs–which apply to all Americans–and not on controversial guidance that has sought, unsuccessfully, to prevent chronic disease.

    Such guidelines would tell people what foods (as opposed to isolated nutrients) are good sources of essential nutrition. Removing the guidance that is focused on prevention of chronic disease would remove health claims from food product labels, a consequence that I believe you would support. It would also remove prohibitions against whole foods such as eggs, meat, butter, and full-fat dairy products, as these foods are wholesome, nourishing foods which many Americans consider part of their traditional food culture. However, removing prohibitions against these foods does not mean that Healthy Nation Coalition recommends a “high fat”or “low carbohydrate” or “ketogenic” diet. Nor does it recommend a “reduced fat” or “high carbohydrate” one. These diets may be fine for some people, but inappropriate for others. Guidance based on adequate essential nutrition applies to all individuals.

    While I would agree that association does not “necessarily” say anything about causation, there are a whole lot of nutrition epidemiology studies that insist that it says a great deal. An ecological association, such as that between the Dietary Guidelines and the rapid rise in obesity, does raise questions about possible contributions that an event may have on population-based outcomes. For example, if rates of gastroenteritis went up in a community after the installation of a new water treatment plant, I do think epidemiologists would be interested in that “association.” While there is no correlate at the individual level for exposure to a new water treatment plant (similarly, there is no correlate at the individual level for exposure to national dietary recommendations that were a radical departure for many Americans from their typical way of eating), that does not mean this exposure is inconsequential. The effect of the dietary guidelines go far beyond whether or not individual Americans know about or “follow” them. As DHHS acknowledged at the beginning the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee process, the Dietary Guidelines are “widely cited” and represent “a foundation for public health in this country.” They form the basis for all Federal nutrition programs, “including research, education, nutrition assistance, labeling, and nutrition promotion.” They also have significant influence on a number of processes they don’t directly control: formulation of food products; nutrition research agendas; practices and programs of clinicians. They are far from being a “poorly distributed federal publication, as you have called them. In fact, it is patently absurd to think that it is possible that the Dietary Guidelines could have had zero effect on our food environment, or that whatever effect they might have had on our food environment has had no effect on our food practices, beliefs, or health outcomes.

    In fact, it is clear that eating patterns in America have shifted toward increased consumption of grains, cereals, and vegetable oils and decreased consumption of red meat, eggs, butter, and full-fat dairy products–all of which are in line with the Dietary Guidelines recommendations. Although you may argue that Americans weren’t supposed to eat “refined” grains, or that they should be eating more fruits and vegetables, the fact remains that it is the responsibility of the USDA/DHHS to first and foremost provide the public with recommendations that do no harm. Public health nutrition policy must adhere to the standards of “intention to treat” analysis. We cannot judge the success of the policy based on what was “supposed” to happen; we must evaluate them on what has happened. And in fact, the Dietary Guidelines are not accountable to any evaluation process based on health outcomes–they are not accountable in any fashion at all.

    Yes, there have been many changes in American society that might have also contributed to the rapid rise in obesity; however, many of the commonly cited changes–increased sedentary behavior, women in the workforce, television, suburbia–appear to have less of an impact that is commonly believed. (See: http://eathropology.com/2012/03/01/its-not-the-guidelines/) Furthermore, the impact of these other factors is beside the point when considering the goals and outcomes of this particular piece of policy. So America has changed. That in no way removes the responsibility from the Dietary Guidelines to act as intended as policy. They were created to prevent obesity and chronic disease; they did not. As policy, they have failed and should be changed dramatically or eliminated altogether.

    Healthy Nation Coalition is a non-profit, fully volunteer organization, composed of dietitian, physicians, scientists, students, and concerned citizens who have found that a diet that is contrary to the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines has health benefits for their patients, their clients, their families, or themselves.

    What follows is my story, although I believe I speak for many, and it is why Healthy Nation Coalition was created: I have seen many patients who followed the reduced-fat, whole grain, low-calorie diet that the Dietary Guidelines recommends and ended up in ill health. You can accuse them of “doing it wrong” or lying or whatever, rather than examining the possibility that this diet was simply not appropriate for them, but that is hardly a humane, or even scientific, approach. These patients were able to regain their health by choosing a diet that contained familiar whole foods that the Dietary Guidelines suggests must be strictly limited–eggs, meat, butter, full-fat dairy products–along with vegetables, fruit, and whole grains as suited their own health outcomes.

    Most strikingly, many of these patients were able to reduce or eliminate their use of diabetes medications and reverse their symptoms of diabetes altogether, by changing their diet in a way that is contradicted by the Dietary Guidelines. My father is one of those people. As a dietetic intern, I saw person after person with complications from diabetes–rotting toes, amputated limbs, failed eyesight and kidneys. Their lives were defined by their disease, their schedules circumscribed by dialysis and wound clinics. And all I could think was that for each of those people, there is a son or daughter or spouse watching this person die, literally, piece by piece–and they were never given the opportunity that my father had, to not just put ever larger bandages over ever larger insults to the body, but to reverse the primary symptoms of the disease at its roots.

    Perhaps if you don’t engage with members of the public who have suffered from the consequences of following the Dietary Guidelines recommendations, you can continue to blame them for not eating even less or moving even more–or you can blame circumstances beyond their control and remove any agency at all from them. But the fact remains that I–and many others–have seen these same people regain their health once given guidance that was appropriate for their needs.

    National public health nutrition guidance should apply to everyone and should not raise the risk of chronic disease for anyone. While the current reduced-fat, whole grain, plant-based diet works well for some, it doesn’t work for all Americans. Guidelines based on essential nutrition would be Guidelines for all Americans.

  • TR

    All you had to do was mention that Healthy Nation Coalition has its roots in the Weston A Price foundation to discredit them. Enough said. With that in mind, I would say that HNC’s main beef with the USDA’s guidelines is that the USDA’s guidelines are in fact based in science even if the Cattleman and Ranchers association successfully sued the USDA over the Food Guide Pyramid. Weston A. Price never did do any real scientific research. His was assumptions based upon shallow observations.

  • zbrak

    I love the “let’s discredit them because of their associations” game. Much quicker and easier than actually addressing the issues raised. Impressive.

  • Pingback: The Healthy Nation Coalition doesn’t like the Dietary Guidelines. But what does it want? - Exploring the News()

  • RIchard Feinman

    Adele was the first author on our critique of the 2005 Guidelines. In my blog post “Evidence-based Medicine: Who Decides Admissibility? I. The Frye Standard” (http://wp.me/p16vK0-4A) I described the Guidelines as “based on the Report of a prestigious committee (DGAC) [3] who, in turn, made much of their reliance on a new Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL). I and my colleagues were invited to submit a critique of the Report by the journal Nutrition. The editor, Michael Meguid indicated that the journal wanted a balanced report, pros and cons. I called Dr. Meguid:

    RDF: You know, the report is not particularly balanced. I’m not sure how you write a balanced review of an unbalanced report.

    MM: You can make the critique as strong as you like as long as you carefully document everything. But what’s your main problem with the Report?

    RDF: Well, it makes very strong recommendations in the face of contradictory evidence.

    MM: Make that the title of your article.

    So we wrote an article called “In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee” [4]…. In the end, we were one-upped by Steven Malanga, whose article in the New York Post was called “Fed’s Food Fog.”

    For sure, both the Report and the final Guidelines were the proverbial camel-like production of a committee, tedious, repetitive and stylistic dreadful. But what about the NEL? What about the evidence? Style aside, wasn’t this evidence based medicine?

    Where do these guidelines come from? The assumption is that evidence follows its etymologic roots, stuff that is visible, stuff that comes from the sensible and true avouch of our own eyes. In fact, it is most often applied, as in the case of the DGAC, to the most controversial and contentious subjects. Calling something evidence is not enough. So what happens in courts of law? In a court of law, a judge decides on whether the jury can hear the evidence. Who decides admissibility of the evidence in Evidence Based Medicine (EBM)?

    There is no system to decide on admissibility is applied in the cases considered in EBM. I am not the first person to point out that EBM is largely the position of experts on one side of a scientific conflict [5], the lowest level of evidence on traditional EBM scales (e.g. Level III: Opinions of respected authorities… of the US Preventive Services Task Force Systems, Table 1). EBM is sustained by those who want to use its particular criteria and these have never been subjected to outside affirmation.”

    I think the real point is that I am an expert. Adele is an expert. Dr. Nestle is an expert who disagrees with some of the USDA guidelines and disagrees with much of what I say. This is sensibly considered a scientific controversy, not the basis for didactic guidelines. This is the basis for discussion. This is a subject where I and Dr. Nestle and Alice Lichtenstein and Jeff Volek and Adele should be interviewed in a congressional hearing. Whatever the causes, the Guidelines have produced little positive outcome (by their own admission). We should not keep doing them until we can get some agreement. I think, given the state of nutrition, we might adhere to the suggestion of Gerald Reaven, generally credited with developing the idea of metabolic syndrome: “What we need is more information and less advice.”

  • “If anything, the Dietary Guidelines are a result of those forces in society, not their cause.”

    What does that even mean? The DG recommends so many grains because people are eating so many grains? But that doesn’t match history. The DG are not guidelines but a description of people’s diets? Then why call them guidelines and give them so much influence over how people eat.

    This quote makes no sense whatsoever; it seems like nothing more than an attempt to discredit the strong casual “feeling” of the association between the DG and the soaring rates of obesity, but Ms Nestle could not actually come up with any other mechanism that made sense.

  • George

    It’s true that the WAP has some deplorable links to pseudoscience, but also true that their work on basic nutrition has been exemplary and world-class, and that is the point of commonality with the Healthy Nation Coalition.
    Mary Enig was one of the first researchers into trans fats to identify their dangers, and Chris Masterjohn’s research into vitamin K is filling important gaps in our knowledge.
    Both are examples of rigorous modern scientific research confirming the “assumptions based upon shallow observations” of Weston A. Price.

  • Abalone

    How in the world can someone in your position not be aware of the problems with the guidelines discussed so widely? I could understand your choosing to support the guidelines in the face of the opposition. But being oblivious to the claims against them?

    The guidelines are the tangible product of an apparatus that has contributed to much obesity. You are part of that apparatus in your role as advocate for the imposition of those guidelines, directly or indirectly, on people whose health is challenged. There are plenty of stories out there of people who have recovered from the effects of nutrition dogma. Here’s mine. Trying to keep my weight down approaching mid-life by following the best advice available–cutting out fat, salt, cholesterol, even all animal protein for a while (I had long since cut out sugar)–I gained 160 lbs. The fatter I got, the more I learned and followed the advice, even more weight followed. Only when I, in desperation, did my own examination of the underlying science was I enabled to trade in the absurdly prescribed eleven daily servings of “bread” in favor of fatty, cholesterol-laden meat, lose 130 of those pounds, and see my health markers improve dramatically. Trigs at 40 anyone? Did the guidelines “cause” my obesity? Even knowing the difference between correlation and causation (unlike many studies and news reports on studies), surely one can recognize that the nutrition apparatus and its guidelines fostered it by leading me astray. The wrong direction, good intentions or not, is the wrong direction.

    When surveys ask if I eat whole grains, I respond that I don’t. I’m sure the conclusion drawn is that I’m filling up on Wonder Bread. Actually I eat virtually no grains or other starches. I am an old woman who followed this travesty develop contemporaneously over decades from the time that the prepared food and restaurant industries responded to calls for “improved” nutrition by substituting sugars and trans and omega-6 fats for butter, tallow, and lard in an attempt to retain palatability. I bought it at the time. Now, it breaks my heart to to see school kids subjected to constraints that discard animal products and healthy, satiating fats along with the soda. Recently there has been some backing off from unsupportable positions. The guidelines are more modest now on pushing bread servings and eliminating cholesterol, for example, but they are still not supported by the evidence apparent if you read primary sources on studies and can fend off the cognitive dissonance.

    It’s one thing to publish guidelines that are not in the people’s best interest. It’s quite another to try to impose them by law, regulation, and bullying. If the apparatus can’t get the message right, it should at least ease up on the accelerator.

  • Adele

    TR, Healthy Nation Coalition doesn’t have “roots” in any foundation. We do have members and supporters who are members and supports of WAPF. We also have members and supporters who are from the low-carbohydrate community, some who are interested in ancestral health diets, and some who are interested in everyone shutting up about diets already. We respect the right of individuals to choose the ways of eating that work for them, and we respect the right of individuals to justify their food beliefs howsoever they please.

    A look into the history of the Dietary Guidelines, which have changed little in 35 years, would show you that from the beginning they have been based more on ideology than science. The creators of the 1977 Dietary Goals were interested in the romantic notion of returning Americans to a more plant-based “natural diet” of the past, one that they felt would feed the hungry, save the earth, and prevent disease. (This is not all that different from WAPF principles, except for the “plant-based” part.) They covered their ideology with a thin veneer of science so that it would be acceptable to the public and to policymakers. There are many aspects of the Dietary Guidelines that have been controversial from the beginning because of inadequate, inconclusive, and weak science. The eating patterns in the Guidelines themselves “have not been specifically tested for health benefits.” That’s a quote from the 2010 Guidelines.

  • Penelope Sands

    I would very much doubt that Weston Price diets are ketogenic. they do not restrict carbohydrate in the least.

  • Drea

    The Weston A. Price Foundation does not advocate for a ketogenic (or even low carb) diet.They also aren’t controlled by some behind the scenes special interest group.

  • Michael Bulger

    It seems to be an interesting coalition of outsiders. There are raw milk activists (Hartke), salt industry boosters (Satin), and low-carb bloggers/authors.

    One advisory board member is the author of “Genocide! How Your Doctor’s Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You!!!”. Those exclamation points are actually on the book cover.

    I suppose they all found a common frustration in not being part of the research/academic community. They probably feel shut out from the DG process (although they are free to make recommendations to the DG Advisory Committee). Their goals, with my translations:

    1. “Promote nutritional literacy” translation: promote their interpretation of nutrition research

    2. “Promote individualized approaches to nutrition” translation: do away with population health recommendations and efforts

    3. “Promote open and sustainable food systems” translation: do away with restrictions on raw milk and other government regulations

    The HNC “Experts” and “Resources” webpages are also interesting.

    (http://forahealthynation.org/experts/)
    (http://forahealthynation.org/resources/)

    I wonder how these experts will feel when they learn they are being quoted in that context. HNC quotes all sorts of academics and public health researchers on the “Experts” page, but the HNC “Resources” page doesn’t provide links to these researchers or their research. Instead, the “Resources” page provides links to HNC members’ websites.

  • Michael Bulger

    You say: “Healthy Nation Coalition doesn’t have “roots” in any foundation.”

    Your website says: “Healthy Nation Coalition has its beginnings in the ancestral health, Weston A. Price Foundation, and low-carbohydrate nutrition communities.”

    (Third paragraph below the graph: http://forahealthynation.org/ )

  • Adele

    I can’t speak for everyone at Healthy Nation Coalition, but it is difficult to feel frustration about being “shut out” of a process that is so badly broken. Healthy Nation Coalition raises as many concerns about the process behind the Guidelines as about their content; these things are deeply intertwined.

    Positioning anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of any discipline as “disgruntled outsiders” is a common rhetorical motif that serves to re-establish boundaries that silence dissent. Silencing dissent, however, doesn’t make our current recommendations any more effective, transparent, science-based, or unbiased. And it doesn’t do a thing for those individuals whose health has worsened, rather than improved, through their efforts to adhere to dietary patterns recommended by the Guidelines.

    “Promote nutritional literacy” means educating people in how to consider information about nutrition in a context that takes into account its socially constructed nature. There is, clearly, not one interpretation of nutrition research or scientists would not have been arguing about some of the content of the Dietary Guidelines for decades now, and we do not propose to establish one. We are pointing out the controversy–the science is not settled, as Marion Nestle has frequently asserted–and suggesting that public health nutrition recommendations take it into account.

    “Promote individualized approaches to nutrition.” You really aren’t paying attention, are you? The whole point of the blog post was a letter to USDA/DHHS Secretaries that says, if population-wide health recommendations and efforts are to be in place, they must apply to all Americans equally. Risk-prevention dietary guidance does not. That is why we are calling for population-wide recommendations based on adequate essential nutrition.

    “Promote open and sustainable food systems.” Healthy Nation Coalition does not take a stance on raw milk in particular as an issue. We do however support policies that take into considerations the ways in which smaller, independent farmers and producers operate differently than larger ones.

    The quotes from the experts are simply to make a point that Richard Feinman has expressed above. There are real concerns with the Dietary Guidelines. These concerns have been expressed by individuals other than those involved with Healthy Nation Coalition. All quotes are fully cited; you may look them up yourself, although you may need access through an academic library to do so. All of the quotes are in the public record, but not all are in the public domain.

  • George

    That’s not any foundation, but an indefinite number of communities who are not necessarily linked in any way, except in some of their members, and many who don’t identify with any group, wanting to identify with the aims of the Coalition. Other members of those groups undoubtedly think the Dietary Guidelines are a lost cause. A foundation in the context of disclosure is a bankrolling entity that creates and underwrites a lobby group or think tank.
    That’s not what’s going on here.

  • Pamela Schoenfeld

    I have had the privilege of knowing both Dr. Masterjohn and the late Dr. Enig – two scientists with unimpeachable motives who have enlightened us on significant issues in nutritional science. These issues (the insufficiency/imbalance of fat soluble vitamins and the negative impact of trans fats) have likely been major contributors to our nationwide epidemic of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. I would suggest that low-fat dietary guidance has been one of the worst instances of pseudo-science perpetrated on the American public in the name of prestige and profit. The Weston A. Price Foundation offers alternatives to the nutritionally depleted diets that Americans have been directed to follow with questionable outcomes at best. Whether all of its science has yet to be proven, I can attest of positive benefits for myself and my patients and associates who have followed the ancestral wisdom that the WAPF offers with no interest in profit.

  • Deepanshu

    I recommend reading up http://vaaft.com/blog/ once.
    Interesting stuff out there!

  • Russell_Aboard_MV_Sunshine

    This is transparently written by a publicist — a paid shill — for the organization.

  • Russell_Aboard_MV_Sunshine

    A bit defensive, dontcha think?

  • JRLatham

    Marion
    I would say that the Weston A Price Foundation is a typical part of the paleo diet/lowcarb/wheatbelly/anticarbohydrate/Atkinson/South Beach/Zone diet “movement” that is pretty much without exception funded by the meat/dairy industry. Anti-carb leads to high meat consumption so they have gone after carbohydrates. That is the thesis of T Colin Campbell’s new Low Carb Fraud book and I personally have seen nothing that contradicts this view.

  • Gabriella Elizondo

    Forgive me, as I have just jumped into this conversation. What lead each of you to this discussion? Many of you offer interesting thoughts however these thoughts could also be considered incomplete, based on logical fallacies and/or moral relativism. I was lead to this conversation because I am a practicing MS/RD/LD and am a reader of Nestle.
    Yes, diet is based on the individual, however, weight loss and one lab value does not mean you have found the ultimate cure all diet. It means that you were successful in a weight loss trial. Has the ketogenic diet been a long term solution? Are you constipated? Are you concerned about kidney stones? The reason this diet worked in the past is because the lifestyle was completely different. Humans were constantly searching for their next meals, other for water as well. The higher salt intake was to increase fluid retention to prevent dehydration. In the “cave man days” if you must, the body was so lean because it was literally in starvation mode, what ketosis still does to this day. However, that is what the human body is programmed to do, protect you when there may not be food present, burn stored fat when there is no energy available. However, now there is energy available at every turn. Do you think if the cavemen had a taco bell next to them they would be able to continue? The ketogenic diet is a huge risk because many regain the lost weight within a year. Ketosis is a fantastic way to break down fat in overweight or obese individuals however, the diet must then be gradually balanced out after the weight is lost. Ketogenic diets have been utilized in tumor reduction and to decrease seizure frequency in epileptic patients. The only reason the ketogenic diet is making a comeback is because of our obesity epidemic and instant gratification mindset. It is absurd to point your finger at the Dietary guidelines for being linked to the obesity epidemic. Yes you made a very impressive chart that shows an association, well done. The next step however is to incorporate association rules and detect relationships between categorical variables. The variable in this case being, the introduction of processed foods and alternative sweeteners. Would you like me to draw up a graph for you?

    I am all about excluding processed foods from your diet to achieve weight loss and internal health, but when it comes to cutting out food groups, I am not on board. Look up phytochemicals. Look up the gastrointestinal ability to digest animal protein. Look up NAFLD and glucose intolerance as an adverse effect of ketogenic diet. Look up gluconeogenesis and how it is an alternative mechanism for when we become hypoglycemic, meant for short term starvation periods. Look up the adverse effect of calcium imbalance and how this can increase the risk of bone loss. Look up the increased risk of cancer including colon, prostate, and pancreatic. This is due to decreased fiber and antioxidants FOUND IN PLANT FOODS. Again, look up the phytonutrients.

    It has been noted that short-term use of the ketogenic diet can decrease triglyceride levels. The fact that triglycerides have been reduced does not mean it reduced cardiovascular events such as angina, heart attacks, and strokes. Total cholesterol and LDL levels are the predictors of cardiovascular events.

    Blaming the dietary guidelines is just another step backwards. Notice the connection between Government and how they are controlled by the money from huge food corporations. Recognize the current hole we are in already. Government took control of our children’s nutrition programs, now fast food and pre-made meals supply the kitchens. McDonalds are in hospitals. Once the government took control of school nutrition, how much did child-onset obesity increase? Should we make another graph?