What the government is feeding you

Let’s look at how the United States government tells us to eat by way of its nutritional recommendations (known for many years as the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, before being re-branded as MyPlate and reprocessed every five years through Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a USDA-FDA joint venture.)

According to the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans:

“Individuals should meet the following recommendations as part of a healthy eating pattern while staying within their calorie needs:

Increase vegetable and fruit intake.

Eat a variety of vegetables, especially dark green and red and orange vegetables and beans and peas.

Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase whole grain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains.

Increase intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages.

Choose a variety of protein foods, which include seafood, lean meat and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, soy products, and unsalted nuts and seeds.

Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry.

Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.

Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.

Choose foods that provide more potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D, which are nutrients of concern in American diets. These foods include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and milk and milk products.”*

*source: Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, www.dietaryguidelines.gov

At first-glance, it seems the USDA is trying to get people to eat more “real food,” right? Not so fast! While a handful of their recommendations are intuitive—increasing vegetable intake, eating a variety of vegetables and protein foods, and increasing seafood consumption—four out of their nine overarching recommendations are extremely flawed from the standpoint of nutritional biochemistry and health. And, unfortunately, these are the biggest points of contention when trying to get people to open their minds up to a new possibility—that what we “think” we know about nutrition is wrong.

Let’s take a closer look at these four questionable USDA recommendations.

what we’ve been fed: recommendation #1

This recommendation states: “Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase whole grain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains.” When people replace their “refined” grains with “whole” grains, how do you think this translates on their plates? Do you think it means they begin eating bulgur wheat and wheat berries instead of white bread, cereal, and pasta? (Not that I regard either bulgur or wheat berries as healthy, but they are more “whole” than standard supermarket fare.) No, it simply means that people will read packages of bread, cereal, and pasta for those shiny, happy words, “whole grain.” They’ll buy the same brands, albeit with different lettering. Nobody in the food production industry will lose money, and nothing on the business end will change. Only now you think that the bread you’re buying is healthy, and you can’t wait to tell your doctor/neighbor/friend that you’ve switched to whole grain bread.

Anything that has been popped, puffed, flaked, floured, shredded, or made into an instant form has been refined.* This includes gluten-free rolls, gluten-free oats, whole/sprouted grain breads, quinoa pasta, puffed cereals, and corn chips, to name a few. They are no longer in their natural state, no matter how “whole” the grains may have started out before the factory got hold of them.

Know this: Whole grain products are still refined foods.

The refinement process of whole grains simply includes more parts of the grain than are found in white bread, standard cereal, or pasta. Refined foods will never promote health more than whole foods, not even if the word “whole” is tacked onto them.

Consumption of grains, specifically—even so-called “whole grains”—causes a host of problems for many people and we’ll discuss the why and how’s in great detail when we look at digestive function in the next section. For now, it is worthy to note that the basis for the USDA recommendation to eat “whole grains” is supported by what is termed “Moderate Evidence,” which the USDA defines as a level of evidence that “... reflects somewhat less evidence or less consistent evidence. The body of evidence may include studies of weaker design and/or some inconsistency in results. The studies may be susceptible to some bias, but not enough to invalidate the results, or the body of evidence may not be as generalizable to the population of interest.”**

In other words, the science on which they base their claims is not entirely sound nor can it be trusted. And they know it.

do umbrellas make it rain?

As we see repeatedly in nutritional research, most of the studies cited are epidemiological, which means they are based solely on the study of patterns and correlative information in populations. Discovering correlations does not provide evidence of any causation. It simply means that two factors seemed to be related, but it doesn’t take into account every other possible variable involved. For example, you’d never say that the presence of the umbrellas you see people carrying outside on a rainy day caused the rain to fall, would you? These nutritional studies are not randomized controlled trials in metabolic wards (where food given to test subjects is carefully measured and recorded), which can be used to discover direct cause and effect. The latter would be the appropriate way to scientifically prove a basis for nutritional advice. When diet records are reported by the subjects in these epidemiological studies, they’re based on what are known as “dietary recalls” that often date as far back as several years.

Let’s get real! Do you remember what you ate last year? Last month? Last week? Even yesterday? Obviously, these claims are far from science.

When you see broad nutritional recommendations without actual biological explanations, you can assume they’re derived from evidence reported in an epidemiological study using dietary recall as the source. Run the other way.

*source: Radhia Gleis, “popped, puffed...”
**Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, www.dietaryguidelines.gov

what about calcium on a paleo diet?

Fact #1: Calcium is abundantly present in more than just dairy foods. Did you know that bone broth, sardines, sesame seeds, and dark green leafy vegetables are sources of calcium? What’s more, these whole, unprocessed foods are also fantastic sources of magnesium, a mineral required in order to help to assimilate calcium in your body. Boom. Right there you have a great way of getting calcium and magnesium into your diet.

Fact #2: To absorb and utilize calcium appropriately, we need to eat more than just the calcium. Simply consuming calcium as a mineral, whether it’s from dairy or other food sources isn’t enough to make stronger bones! We also need fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 to help direct the show. At this time, vitamin K2 is emerging in research more and more for its value in orchestrating the placement of calcium in our bodies into our bones—where we want it—and not into our soft tissues. In other words: it’s not just how much calcium you eat, but how much you absorb, and where it goes when you absorb it. If you want to build strong bone matrix with the calcium you’re eating, be sure you’re also eating foods rich in vitamin K2—primarily fermented cod liver oil or fermented grass-fed dairy (think kefir or 24-hour-fermeted yogurt). Vitamin K2 will likely be indiscernible in pasteurized, grain-fed commercial (even organic) milk.

Fact #3: Grain consumption can actually inhibit calcium absorption. As you’ll learn a bit later in this book, grain products all contain anti-nutrients called phytates. What phytates do is bind to minerals we are eating and keep them from being absorbed by our bodies. So, when people sit down to a bowl of cereal with milk, they’re actually eating a food that blocks the absorption of any calcium in their meal right in the same meal!

Fact #4: Not all dairy is created equal. The dairy nature produces isn’t the problem. The primary problem is that we think we have to process dairy to be “healthier” for us to consume, and we muck it all up! If you can find a great source of raw, grass-fed milk or other dairy products from a local producer and you feel good eating it, I say go right on ahead. Much of the research that is compiled on the problems with dairy are from studies examining either isolated dairy proteins like casein or whey, not the whole food wherein whey and casein come packaged together, or processed and reduced-fat forms of dairy foods.

REAL MILK INFO

Visit realmilk.com to find out where you can access raw milk.

what we’ve been fed: recommendation #2

This one states: “Increase intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages.”

This could mean pasteurized, processed milk and dairy products from cows raised in circumstances like concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or an even more highly processed milk substitute made from legumes (soy). You will be hard pressed to find a raw, grass-fed milk producer selling low-fat or fat-free cows’ milk. Why? Because vitamins A, D, and K2 are found in that nutritious, straight-from-the-farm beverage. Skimming and processing would be a waste of beautiful nutrients.

All of the products listed by the USDA are “fortified,” which means that nutrients have been added to them. Why does this happen? To prevent nutrient deficiencies across populations—deficiencies that began to appear in the Western world when processed foods were introduced. As soon as we started pasteurizing, homogenizing, and stripping the fat from a formerly health-promoting food (raw/unpasteurized milk from grass-fed/pasture-raised cows), we destroyed and removed the naturally occurring vitamins—largely vitamins A and D—from the milk. We need these fat-soluble vitamins for proper growth, strong immune systems, and the integrity of our bones (often referred to as bone density). It isn’t just about how much calcium you consume.

Without vitamins A, D, and K2, in fact, your body doesn’t have its “marching orders” for how to use the calcium you have ingested. Although most people ingest extra calcium from low-fat dairy products or supplements in the hope of building bone strength, they aren’t getting enough of these vitamins for the calcium to be assimilated. In response to the problems of nutrient deficiency, the government mandated that vitamins be added back to milk after the natural nutrients are destroyed in processing, but this “fortification” adds synthetic (man-made) nutrients.

Yet, the USDA recommends that we eat fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products. Why? Do they mean that milk straight from the cow isn’t recommended, and milk that has been processed and had its most traditionally valued constituents removed is actually healthier? Perhaps in addition to forgetting how real, nutritious milk should be produced and consumed, they have also misinterpreted epidemiological data yet again. Is the government smarter than Mother Nature?

Know this: Real milk is raw (unpasteurized), comes from grass-fed/pasture-raised cows, and is not low-fat or fat-free.

If you are lactose-intolerant, you may be able to drink raw milk without a problem, as the lactase enzyme necessary for digestion of lactose is still present in raw milk. Real milk is a good dietary source of protein, fat, carbohydrates, calcium, and fat-soluble vitamins A, D and K2, all of which are important for bone density. If you find that you tolerate dairy well without sinus congestion, sneezing, digestive upset, or signs of chronic inflammation (see here), find a trustworthy source and enjoy your milk in its whole, full-fat, natural state.

If you don’t tolerate dairy products well (after trying real milk/dairy as outlined above), you may still be well-served by the incorporation of grass-fed butter, which contains fewer of the commonly irritating dairy proteins. You could also use ghee, which is a product that contains virtually no dairy proteins (learn how to make it quite simply at home see here), or a butter-oil supplement (I recommend the Green Pasture brand), which has the lowest potential for containing any remaining traces of dairy proteins. Typically, an allergic or inflammatory response to dairy does not occur with pure butter-oil since the milk protein constituents such as casein and whey or sugars, like lactose, are the underlying problem. (See here for more information about choosing dairy products responsibly.)

THE SKINNY ON FAT

Check out the Guide to: Fats & Oils see here for more information.

what we’ve been fed: recommendations #3 & 4

These suggest that we: “Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.”

And…

“Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.”

These recommendations are based on the notion that cholesterol in the bloodstream is the cause of heart disease, and that by avoiding both dietary cholesterol and saturated fat that we can avoid heart disease. The problem is that these claims have never been supported by scientific literature. It should be noted that dietary cholesterol has only ever been shown to raise serum or blood levels of cholesterol by less than 1%. Additionally, naturally occurring saturated fat can raise both “good” (HDL) and “bad” (LDL) cholesterol, but this is not cause for alarm. Eating foods that support cholesterol production serves to support your body and gives it a break from having to manufacture cholesterol on its own.

Much of the research done on cholesterol metabolism was performed on rabbits, whose natural diet does not include cholesterol-containing foods! How would we expect human cholesterol metabolism to mimic that of a rabbit that isn’t supposed to eat cholesterol in the first place?

Know this: The science has never existed to support the claims that have been made to demonize dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. The USDA is wrong, and their recommendations have made the refined seed oil industry lots of money while you’ve run scared from eggs, bacon, and butter.

The first report on Dietary Guidelines for Americans was created in the late 1970s, nearly twenty years after initial claims were made that dietary fat and cholesterol were harmful to our health. While these hypotheses were pushed as truth even as early as the 1950s in an effort to sell more factory-made vegetable oil products versus naturally occurring animal fats, it wasn’t until more recently that we were inundated with fear-based information about the fat in real, whole foods. The corporate ‘Food Giants’ were presented with a way to replace animal fats and previously used tropical oils like coconut and palm with less expensive vegetable oils that were “partially hydrogenated.” As we know now, these words indicate the presence of manmade trans fats. By 1978, an even more exciting development arose: The amount of fat used in many processed products could be reduced while still preserving flavor and palatability through the use of, you guessed it: high fructose corn syrup! Oh boy.

sources:
*Wallis, Caludia, et al. “Hold the Eggs ad Butter.” TIME Magazine, March 26, 1984.

**Eades, Michael, MD. “You Bet Your Life: An Epilogue to the Cholesterol Story.”
www.proteinpower.com, October 11, 2010

A Time Magazine article in 1984 entitled “Hold the Eggs and Butter” is among the most impactful propaganda that molded the modern food landscape that we know today. The article claimed that “Cholesterol is proved deadly, and our diet may never be the same.”* Then, it went on to say: “For decades, researchers have been trying to prove conclusively that cholesterol is a major villain in this epidemic [of heart disease]. It has not been easy. Cholesterol is, after all, only one piece in a large puzzle that also includes obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, stress and lack of exercise. All of these play their part in heart disease ‘like members of an orchestra,’ explains Pathologist Richard Minick of the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center…. Despite its bad reputation, cholesterol is essential to life: it is a building block of the outer membrane of cells, and it is a principal ingredient in the digestive juice bile, in the fatty sheath that insulates nerves, and in sex hormones such as estrogen and androgen.”*

Even within the article itself, the information contradicts the title and main claim. Unfortunately, more than the details, people remember headlines and cover images like the one used with the article—a sad looking plate of eggs and bacon arranged to form a frowning face. The biology and the science, or lack thereof, became secondary to the striking image, and the article created a massive fear of dietary fat (especially saturated fat) and cholesterol, claiming that heart disease risk was drastically increased when blood levels of cholesterol were high.

There is just one problem. According to Dr. Mike Eades, “... only about half the people who have heart attacks have elevated cholesterol levels.”** Even more contradictory information within the Time article states that: “The experts were still not quite able to pin the blame on cholesterol, however. Explains Fred Mattson, a leading researcher at the University of California at San Diego, ‘We were missing a key piece of evidence: No one had ever shown that reducing the level of cholesterol in the blood did any good.”

The entire country, for better or worse and in the wake of conflicting ideas, was thereafter encouraged to stop eating natural foods like butter, cream, egg yolks, and fatty meats—all based on science that didn’t exist. And we bought it hook, line, and sinker. Egg substitutes appeared on the market (hardly whole foods), and eggs were made out to be bad for us, even though they are rich in essential nutrients, including choline, selenium, vitamin B2, and vitamin B12.

The boom of low-fat and fat-free profit-earning products began to snowball. Fat-free cookies, “light” yogurts loaded with sweeteners, fat-free puddings, and low-fat “buttery spreads” hit their stride, filling our cupboards and refrigerators and crowding out the natural foods that could be made from scratch in every kitchen in America.

We fell prey to the motivators of convenience, taste, and marketing without realizing it, and, as a nation, our waistlines and internal, biochemical, state-of-human-affairs became unbalanced.

Know this: Manmade trans fats and refined seed/vegetable oils (canola, soybean, and corn oil, to name a few) are not healthful and may even be considered food toxins.

IN FRAMINGHAM:

According to the Framingham Study, “the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. We found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, and ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most active.”

source: “Cholesterol and Mortality: 30 Years of Follow-up From the Framingham Study.” Journal of the AMA,
April 1987. Vol 257, No 16

We know manmade trans fats are dangerous, but why must natural saturated fats like those in egg yolks, well-raised meats, coconut oil, and grass-fed dairy products take equal blame when their chemical structure and origin are entirely different? People all too often jump to the assumption that the naturally occurring forms of saturated fats are also harmful—quite possibly due to media reporting on the topic that continues to promote these notions. The reality is that the chemical structure of a short or medium chain “saturated” fat—from butter or coconut oil, for example—is actually easier for your body to break down and digest. Why? Because they place a lesser demand on bile salts, which the body uses to break down or “emulsify” and utilize fats.

---

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14