Lessons

Lesson Info

Dietary Goals Report Inaccuracies

All right, so the food guide pyramid is rooted in a political document called the dietary goals for the united states. By the way, if this is it all interesting to you and you haven't read the book, good calories, bad cow calories by gary ta bs it is the definitive six hundred page resource on the summary I'm about to provide so the food guide pyramid is rooted in a political document called the dietary goals for united states. If you look up that document online, which you can, it had two primary goals. The first goal was to increase carbohydrate consumption to account for fifty five to sixty percent of calorie intake. The second goal was to reduce the overall fat consumption from forty percent to about thirty percent of caloric intake, so most starch less fat. That was the goal of the document we can get until why when we have time, but we don't have time right now. So why did the government do this? Why did the government make this recommendation? It wasn't backed by the science. Yo...

u can see a bunch of crazy quotes from researchers saying, like, what are you doing? Government? But rather than getting into the science, I want tell you, quick story so it like a joke, so how it is the government qualified to tell us what's healthy well there's this little story what what god looks like story so there's this little girl kindergarten student and she's sitting in class and it's drawing time so they're all just drawing and the kindergarten teacher comes over the little girl's name is maggie and says maggie what are you drawing? And maggie looks up and looks down at her papers she's drawing on with crowns and says uh god and the teacher looks down and says, well maggie nobody knows what god looks like and maggie looks confused she looks tarpaper shacks teachers with paper and she says teacher they will in a second so the point of the story right is you can't just say it's healthy because like health is not determined by anyone's opinion or any government board it's determined by science but the government just looked up from their report and said you wanna know healthy is this is what it is despite that scientific research didn't support it really quickly doctor trust well over the university of sydney tells us that the first edition of the dietary goals took nutritionist by surprise the first edition was written by a group of politically interested interested activist with small knowledge of nutrition the collected of objections can be summarized very briefly too soon more research needed relationships not proved politically motivated dr harper at the university of wisconsin madison the dietary goals report is not scientifically sound is a political and moralistic document dr german from the university of california. At the time the dietary guidelines were established, there was no solid basis for understanding what the consequences of such overall dietary changes would be for most persons and the american medical association. When these dietary goals were issued, this was the american medical association opinion at that time they've since changed it, but this was their opinion. There is potential for harmful effects for a radical long term dietary change, as would occur through the adoption of the proposed national goals. The president off the national academy of sciences went on record, saying, what right has the federal government to propose that the american people conduct eve vast nutritional experiment with themselves as subjects on the strength of so very little evidence that it will do them any good? We have been subjects in an experiment, and it has hailed and the consequences are fatal that's when politicians started playing physicians, so is that is that is, that why, where we get our information from not taking anyone's word for it not even me is so important the source of our clogs that we've been told that the wrong quality food into the wrong quality of exercise so how did that happen? Well, at the root of it thiss calor calorie ization of everything is this fear of fat and fear of foods containing fat or lipo phobia so how did we come to fear fat? How did we come to think that natural foods that are extremely high in carbohydrate are good for you and that other foods that are high in fat are bad for you? Based on the fact that they have fat alone? So back in the nineteen fifties, there is a gentleman by the name of ancel keys and ancel keys conducted a study where he looked at the heart disease rates in twenty two countries, as well as their consumption of fat and take. He then published a study with six countries, so he had data from twenty two he published a study from six countries and only the six countries that showed that as the percent of calories from fat in your diet goes up, so does heart disease deaths. So as you may suspect like that shocking, like how that graph is incredibly scary, like it's the apocalypse, we should never eat fat, but that was looking at six random. Actually, it wasn't random at all. I won't. I won't start to make claims as to why dr keyes picked those six but if you look at all twenty two countries in the study there was no relationship between fat and taken heart disease in fact, other researchers said that the examination of all available basic data that showed that the associate between fat and heart disease lacks validity in fact some of his peers who like their weren't bloggers in the fifties so it was really hard to blow the roof off this as we would today but his peers did also publish this chart which said hey look we picked six different countries from your own data set finland australia, ireland, switzerland, germany and the netherlands and dr keyes in your own data set these countries show that there's an inverse relationship between the calories from fat you get and the incidence of heart disease he's so some shady science was taken place but it didn't matter dr keyes had a really effective pr campaign in fact he was on the cover of time magazine as someone who has now discovered the cause of heart disease and the cause of heart disease is fat we know that to be false we never knew it to be true it was a hypothesis and a hypothesis was rooted in very, very shady science. Harvard university is on the cutting edge of refuting this fat phobia dr hugh over at harvard university tells us it is now increasingly recognized that the low fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences more awesome data this is a lot more data there's no shortage of data showing that low fat does not need lead to long term health or heart health. In fact, it can lead to the opposite no shortage of data check it out in the book, but dr willet really brings it home. Dr willet is the chair of the department of nutrition at the harvard school public health really, really cutting edge researcher tells us that low fat has been like a religion, but it was just hypothesis to begin with, like that's the important thing to keep in mind it was never proven it just got talked about a lot and sometimes when you say a lie often enough it can become the truth. I didn't come up with that quote, but I just remembered it so there you go so politicians screwed up. Scientists know what the data show it why haven't we been told about it so it's? Because there are some key myths that we need to free ourselves from first methods rooted in again calories is why he gets so amped up about calories and it's that eating foods containing fat make us eat more calories and god forbid we eat calories right? And the second myth is that eating food containing fat causes risky cholesterol levels, so it's quickly dispelled both of those myths, okay again harvard university among european countries no association no association was observed between the national percentage of energy from fat and median body mass index and men a clear inverse relation was observed in women so translating that in european countries eating more fat did not correlate with more body fat for men and it was inversely related with body fat women we have been told about that harvard university again different researcher although reduction in percentage of calories from dietary fat intake is commonly recommended for weight loss, long term clinical trials have provided no good evidence that reducing dietary fat per se can lead to weight loss here's the basic argument less calories means more fat loss fat has more calories and carbs or protein therefore less food containing fat means less calories therefore less fat containing foods means more fat loss, right? No not at all less calories does not mean more fat loss and that's what we spent the first two sessions of today talking about it leads to metabolic slowdown and muscle deterioration if we don't accommodate it with mohr st foods fat does have more calories and carbs or protein but that no way shape or form leads to the rest of this argument it doesn't at all prove that fat having nine calories per gram versus protein or carbohydrate which each have four respectively that if we less fat or less foods containing fat that will eat less food overall and in fact, the national academy of sciences tells us that obesity itself has not been found it to be associated with dietary fat and either enter or intro population studies lots of there's no shortage just the stuff I'll pick some in country to country surveys across europe, women with the lowest fast fat intake are the most likely to be obese and dr scary to harvard university so less calories doesn't mean more fat loss and eating less food containing less fat doesn't mean less body fat, but we really haven't gotten to the best part yet right there's there's a step missing in this argument and it's this actually there was a slide script here, but the less food containing fat means less calories is that still might seem intuitive, right? If you eat less food containing fat, you'll eat less calories overall like that actually seems reasonable but it's not think back to society satiety it's the satiety of foods that tells your brain in your stomach when to stop eating what determines satiety water fiber and protein play the biggest role in society we didn't really mention fat that plays a role but it's water, fiber and protein that the term in the society and many, many water fiber and protein packed foods contain quite a bit of fat for example fish, meat, nuts, eggs, seeds, all that good stuff basically everything other than non starchy vegetables and fruit is going to contain fat so what this argument is saying is if you eat less satisfying foods that contain fat you'll avoid over eating wait so hold on so so you're saying the argument is eat less satisfying so eat fewer foods that have high society such as salmon meat whole food fats eat less of those that have high society any more of these low fat starches and sweets which we know have low satiety and that will reduce your caloric intake if you want to increase someone's caloric intake if you want to increase the number of calories they're eating, what you should do is stop eating these foods and start eating these foods because again these foods are dry lo and fibre low in protein and if you fear fat you're going to fear the vast majority of food you can eat over on the same end of the spectrum. So we've been given guidance that we need to avoid foods that contain fat and by doing so we will eat fewer calories were in reality that will make you eat mork calories again. The solution we've been given is causing the problem we have so if we fear fat we eat less foods containing fat we eat less high society food, we eat more fat free low society starches and sweets which forces us to eat more calories to get satisfied that's the definition of low satiety foods you have to eat more calories of them to achieve the same level of society. So the only thing we have to fear is the fear of fat itself right? Less calories doesn't mean more fat loss fat does have more calories in it than carbs or protein, but that's irrelevant less food containing fat means less calories overall is false that's what we just said and therefore of course less food containing fat does not mean more fat loss. So how did we ever come to think that avoid that we avoid overeating by eating mohr unsatisfying foods? I just let that statement sit in there for a second like we've been told that the way you over you avoid overeating is by eating mohr of foods that require you to overeat to become for you that's why right? I mean, we've been told the foundation of our diet should be starch from when we were all children and we continue to be told that what has that done? So if you look at the actual for example grams per person per day, we have seen an increase in the calories we're consuming right? We talked about this, but where are they coming from? The increase in calories is all coming from carbohydrate dietary goals released here overeating graph here, less food containing fat, more body fat this is the rate of obesity in our country, and this is the percentage of our calories from fat dietary goals issued percentage of our calories from fat goes down. Rate of obesity goes up. We are eating less of our calories from fat, and as a result, we are getting heavier again back to harvard university. Within the united states, a substantial decline in the percentage of energy from fat during the last two decades has corresponded with a massive increase in the prevalence of obesity. Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions and fat will not be a solution. That's from the chair of the department of nutrition at the harvard school of public health what are kids taught in school? Right, like I mean so, so there's there's no that's a good one, we've got to say this one. Sorry back to harvard university, dr skerritt, few public health messages or as powerful as persistent as this one that is bad. The average american has substantially reduced the percentage of calories that she or he gets from fat over the past three decades, but we aren't any healthier for all of this effort, in fact, were worse off for it. More fun graphs this one's a little bit more complicated, but we can understand it's all good shaded grey is the percent of the u s at least overweight. This represents the percent of our calories from carbohydrate. This represents the percent of our calories from fat, and when I say carbohydrate, I'm really saying starch and sugar. Because it's not like this increase in calories has come from a dramatic increase in eating fruits and vegetables. Right? It's coming home, a dramatic increase of eating starches and sweets. Dietary goals issued starch percentage goes up fat percentage goes down obesity skyrockets, diabetes, dietary goals issued percent of our calories some starch goes up percent of our calories from fat goes down rate of diabetes is almost exponentially increasing. So what the government recommended is happening it's not like we're not trying hard enough. We are doing as a society what they're telling us to do, and this is what's happening as a result. So eating foods containing fat doesn't make us eat more calories. It doesn't make us it does not yield the results. Anyone who recommended it initially was looking for, but they made the recommendation it's hard for them to change it. Now we need to change it.