by Tess | Jan 25, 2014 | News articles
Great to see the Telegraph reporting earlier this month that the Paleo diet was the most searched-for diet on the internet last year. Tap in ‘Paleo diet’ in Google trends and we also get some exceptionally high rises over the last year.
Things are progressing but unfortunately the Telegraph couldn’t let it go without a warning about all that ‘fat-laden meat at the expense of the whole host of good things (calcium, vitamin D, fibre and antixoxidants among them) which are found in dairy and grains.’
This sort of misinformation is a real shame.
As we know, fat is essential (see here). We should not be afraid of good fats and that includes the saturated fat in meat. In fact, our avoidance of fat (twinned with an abundance of ‘healthy’ carbs) has led us into all sorts of problems and deprived us of an essential nutrient, especially for brain function. Fatty meat was regarded as a prized source of food for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, with the leaner meat less so. If we are eating animals that have been entirely grain fed and factory farmed, we will want to limit the fat intake as this is where many of the toxins are stored, but on the whole fatty meat is good stuff.
Apart from the fact that many Paleo adherents enjoy limited forms of dairy if tolerated (fermented products in particular), the idea that dairy products are essential for adequate calcium intake is contentious. Foods such as oily fish (salmon, sardines, mackerel), nuts (almonds in particular), leafy greens (kale especially), tahini and sea vegetables are all excellent sources of calcium. Then there is the fact that Vitamin D controls the amount of calcium within the bones – see my post on Vitamin D here. It is impossible to make up for deficiencies in this hormone by food alone. Apart from this, the links between calcium and bone health are highly contentious, as are the links between calcium deficiency and osteoporosis.
As for grains, we know that the phytates in grain products inhibit mineral absorption (calcium, Vitamin D) and that upon examination, the bones of our Paleolithic ancestors, pre-agricultural revolution and consequently all those grains) showed remarkable strength.
Lastly, our fibre and anti-oxidants are easily available in leafy vegetables and limited fruit without the need to resort to grain consumption. This is nonsense.
Of additional interest in the article was the fact that the Ketogenic diet was also listed, although describing the process of ketone fuelling as a ‘starvation state’ rather than as a perfectly normal process was somewhat alarming.
Anyway, mustn’t grumble too much – at least it gets the word out for the start of 2014. Happy New Year!
© Past Present Paleo 2013. All Rights Reserved.
by Tess | Dec 7, 2013 | News articles
It’s not even Christmas and already the New Year diet stories are starting. The Daily Mail’s article published last month warns of the dangers of ‘faddy diets’ and announces that ‘experts’ have drawn up a list of diets to be avoided. Right up there with the ‘Breatharian’ diet (air and sunlight alone) and the ‘Alcorexia’ diet (eat small amounts of food so that you can knock back the drink) is none other than the Gluten-free diet.
The article refers to the press release from the British Dietetics Association, whose experts point out: ‘Whilst important for those with coeliac disease or gluten sensitivity, there is no credible published research showing that a gluten-free diet per se leads to weight loss in those without. Many foods that contain gluten, like breaded products, pastries, cakes and biscuits, are high in calories, so by avoiding them, many lose weight. Many believe, wrongly, they can eat as much as they like of gluten-free substitutes like biscuits, sausages and beer. Gluten-free does not mean calorie free.’
So according to the BDA, going gluten-free encourages calorie-cutting by default, which leads to weight loss. However, as soon as people over-eat gluten-free products like biscuits, sausages and beer, then the weight piles back on. Scratch the surface of a gluten-free diet that has led to weight loss and what you will really find is a calorie-counting regime, they say. Consequently, if you are not coeliac or gluten intolerant, rather than fuss around looking for gluten-free products, don’t worry about eating gluten-containing foods – just count the calories.
I decided to have a look at the BDA website in search of some further advice. The general stance taken by the BDA is firmly rooted in the low fat, high carbohydrate, calorie-obsessed conventional wisdom regarding diet. As Christmas is fast approaching, I decided to check out their recommendationsfor the big day (N.B. Taken down for review 2014).
For breakfast, they advise: ‘Try breakfast cereals, porridge, bread, rolls, English muffins, scones, malt loaf, fruit bread, currant bun and bagels are all good sources of energy that will help kick start your metabolism and they’re all low in fat’ with an additional recommendation to eat wholegrain varieties where possible. For lunch, a portion of healthy Omega-3 smoked salmon is a good choice to start (although they go on to recommend cooking vegetables in pro-inflammatory Omega-6 oils). For the main course, the turkey comes with a warning though. They advise that it is: ‘low in fat and high in protein so tuck in – but don’t eat the skin or you’ll add lots more fat and calories’ (back to that low-fat, calorie counting obsession). They also advise people to: ‘Roast potatoes using pure vegetable oil, olive oil or sunflower oil rather than lard.’ Forget about the goose fat – that’s presumably so bad that it doesn’t even warrant a mention. We are encouraged to fill up on vegetables though: ‘…as long as they are not covered in butter or any other fatty spreads they are all low in calories and fat and contribute to the five portions of fruit and vegetables you need every day.’ Even the gravy doesn’t escape their beady eyes, just in case you should be tempted to sneak a drop of fat in. By the time we get to reading about desert, I am losing the will to live, but they reassuringly announce that Christmas pudding is low in fat. However, there is a veiled threat awaiting: ‘so to keep it this way; serve with low-fat custard or crème fraiche’. In terms of alcohol, it is clear that complete avoidance is preferable: ‘even better, offer to drive and stick to non-alcoholic options all night.’ Goodness, I bet Christmas lunches at the BDA are such fun.
After all that, it is clear that any diet regime that the BDA recommends would need to be very firmly rooted in the low-fat, high carbohydrate, calorie-counting sphere. Even more importantly, a gluten-free diet in the context of a no grain, real food, high fat, low-carbohydrate diet would most certainly not meet with their approval. It is important to look at the way that they are subtly defining a gluten-free diet in order to knock it down. Instead of a healthy natural diet that avoids all grains, they are suggesting that a gluten-free diet involves the consumption of highly processed foods that are manufactured to be gluten-free. A quick look at some gluten-free products brings up a list of ingredients such as:
…potato, tapioca, maize, buckwheat, sugar, golden syrup, glucose syrup, caramelised sugar syrup, maize glucose syrup, margarine, dextrose monohydrate, sunflower oils, emulsifier [mono and diglycerides of vegetable fatty acids], emulsifier (sunflower lecithin), emulsifiers sorbitan monostearate and soya lecithins, colour anthocyanins, corn glucose fructose syrup, stabiliser hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose…
The BDA stress that foods like this are laden with calories, but the real issue is not the calories. It’s the fact that they are highly processed foods with many ingredients that have no place in a healthy diet. The problem is that it is not real food. When we eat real food that sustains us – meat, fat, vegetables, eggs – and that doesn’t leave us craving for more in a couple of hours, we should not be worrying about the fat content. And gluten-free can certainly mean real food.
In addition, the issue is not just wheat. The problem with some gluten-free diets is that some of the foods allowed often contain other grains that have irritating effects on our gut and that can be just as problematic for our digestive systems, causing inflammation and blocking the absorption of vitamins and minerals. Read Chapter 6 of The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf and you may never eat grains again. Also check out the The Definitive Guide to Grains by Mark Sisson and the Grain Manifesto at Whole9 which has links to some excellent articles on gluten-free foods.
The association of a gluten-free diet with other diets such as the ‘Breatharian’ and ‘Alcorexia’ undermines anyone who has found tremendous relief from eliminating gluten – even though they are not coeliac or diagnosed gluten-intolerant. But as the whole subject of the article is about weight-loss, perhaps they would say that digestive health is a different matter. Perhaps the BDA would also contend that they are arguing against a specific gluten-free diet that contains highly processed foods and not one that is made up of natural, real foods, but they have not made any distinction between the two, and in fact have not even acknowledged that an alternative approach to gluten-free exists.
No doubt the BDA would say that a Paleo diet (by default gluten-free) could only work for weight loss too because it reduces the amount of calories consumed. Everything leads back to low fat, high carbohydrates and calorie-counting. Sian Porter, Chairman of the BDA’s Communications Board states that ‘people will believe almost anything and anyone when it comes to nutrition, food and diet.’ I absolutely agree. Margarine healthier than butter, red meat a killer, eggs dangerous, we’ve heard it all. We have believed and trusted the diet ‘experts’ for far too long and look at the state of the nation’s health.
© Past Present Paleo 2013. All Rights Reserved.
by Tess | Dec 7, 2013 | Vitamin D
As we approach the longest night of the year and the summer sunshine seems like a world away, thoughts turn to Vitamin D. Ok, well more like Christmas presents and turkey but bear with me. Vitamin D is not only essential for healthy bones through it’s management of calcium and phosphorus but also for a strong immune system, cardiovascular system and nervous system. Unlike other vitamins, the body can make it’s own vitamin D when we expose it to the sun, and subsequently turns it into a hormone (a chemical ‘messenger’ that affects the functioning of many different processes throughout the body). Unfortunately for many people who live in the Northern hemisphere, and particularly here in the UK, this is a rare occurence indeed, especially when the last winter seemed as if it would never end. Even when we do get the chance to go out in the sun, we avoid it through fear of cancer and cover ourselves in strong sunscreen laden with chemicals. So what are we to do?
As we cannot make up the shortfall by eating Vitamin D-rich foods (there is simply not enough Vitamin D in them to make a real difference), we are left with supplementation to help us out. After reading up about the importance of Vitamin D, we decided to take Vitamin D3 supplements soon after starting Paleo (April 2012). Vitamin D3 is the type produced by sunlight and is recommended over D2. These consisted of 1000iu per day and we were pretty satisfied that we were doing our best.
Some time later I read Dr Briffa’s excellent article here and began to look at the Vitamin D Council’s website too. I was interested to read the following: ‘A lack of vitamin D has also been linked to some other conditions such as cancer, asthma, type-II diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, Alzheimer’s and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s and type-I diabetes.’
Vitamin D deficiency appears to be especially detrimental to neurological health. According to a report on Vitamin D, nervous system and aging: ‘Clinical data suggest that vitamin D(3) insufficiency is associated with an increased risk of several CNS (central nervous system) diseases, including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, seasonal affective disorder and schizophrenia. In line with this, recent animal and human studies suggest that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with abnormal development and functioning of the CNS. Overall, imbalances in the calcipherol system appear to cause abnormal function, including premature aging, of the CNS.’
In light of this, I wondered if the supplementation that I was taking was enough. The Council recommends between 5000-10,000iu per day and so I decided to get a blood test done with City Assays as this seemed to be well recommended via Dr Briffa and his posters. It cost me £25. To check vitamin D status, a metabolite called 25-Hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is measured in the blood. My results came back with a reading of 50.9 nmol/L. On the results, it gave the following information:
Less than 15 – Severe deficiency
15-30 – Deficiency
30.1-50 – Insufficient
Greater than 50 – Adequate
I was basically borderline insufficient despite taking 1000iu per day for around a year. Reading up, I noticed that even above 50 was also considered rather low. According to an overview of proceedings at the Experimental Biology 2004 Symposium on Vitamin D, ‘Vitamin D sufficiency or “normal” concentrations should be defined as circulating levels of 25(OH)D > 30 ?g/L (75 nmol/L).’
In October, there were calls from Dame Sally Davies, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer to provide children with free Vitamin D supplementation due to the rising incidence of rickets. Around 40% of children may be deficient in Vitamin D and this is rising. Listening to radio interviews and news stories at the time, there was an emphasis placed on diet as a solution yet it is clear that in the absence of regular sunlight exposure, supplementation is the key. On the NHS news pages they state: ‘It is easily prevented by exposure to sunlight several times a week without wearing sun cream, as well as a balanced diet that includes plenty of vitamin D and calcium. However, in many families – often those on low incomes – the quality of children’s diets is restricted, meaning they do not receive enough vitamins and nutrients. Children who spend long periods indoors are also at risk.’ It seems to me that spending short periods outdoors in the Northern hemisphere combined with the minimal amounts of vitamin D available in food is not enough to protect from Vitamin D deficiency. If that is the case, then supplementation seems to be essential.
From an evolutionary perspective I wondered about people such as the Inuits who live in extreme Northern latitudes. How did they survive with such a low exposure to sunshine? In the interesting article ‘Vitamin D deficiency among northern Native Peoples: a real or apparent problem?’ it states that although levels of vitamin D are low, this does not necessarily indicate a deficiency for these northern Native peoples. Pre-European skeletons show no signs of rickets and it seems that the people have naturally adapted to low levels of the vitamin over time. However, the article goes on to state that the incidence of rickets in such populations is rising. This seems paradoxical considering the fact that we would expect evolutionary adaptation to the shortage, so what is happening? The article goes on to state that ‘…dietary causes are ubiquitous. Northern Natives eat much less meat now than in the past, and a high meat diet seems to reduce the risk of rickets independently of vitamin D intake…Modern diets also contain substances that react with calcium or phosphorus to form insoluble salts, thereby depleting the body’s supply of usable calcium and phosphorus. Such substances include phytic acids in commercially processed cereals, sodium bicarbonate in baking soda, and aluminum hydroxide in antacids.’ It is interesting that a move away from their traditional diet could possibly be contributing to the incidence of rickets. I wonder if this applies to other populations? Could rising levels of rickets in children be due not only to a lack of sunshine, but also to a diet predominantly focused on cereals at the expense of meat and fish? This is something that wasn’t discussed in the news articles about rickets. The focus was clearly on eating oily fish and vegetables (no mention of meat), but no word on whether eating a high-cereal diet could be a contributing factor.
When I received my results, I was pretty surprised to say the least and immediately looked for some higher strength supplements as a precaution. We now take 5000iu a day and sometimes up to 10,000iu. I think we pay around £10 for a bottle of 360 tablets containing 5,000iu per tablet, so it’s pretty good value compared to the cost of Vitamin D deficiency.
© Past Present Paleo 2013. All Rights Reserved.
by Tess | Dec 7, 2013 | News articles
Last month the government launched the ‘Responsibility Deal Saturated Fat Reduction Pledge’ which promises to remove ‘one and a half Olympic size swimming pools of saturated fat’ from the nation’s diet’ (who writes these press releases?). We are told that various food manufacturers and retailers have willingly signed up to the pledge and will aim to reduce the saturated fat content in their products to make them ‘healthier.’
I really don’t know where to begin with this one, as it is all so depressing on so many levels. The press release states that ‘Cutting the amount of saturated fat we eat by just fifteen per cent could prevent around 2,600 premature deaths every year from conditions such as cardiovascular disease, heart disease and stroke.’ Ok, first let’s stop there. This first statement assumes that saturated fat is the cause of such diseases. This is a view that has been increasingly rejected over many years. See for instance the ground-breaking article by Gary Taubes What If It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie? (2002) and pop over to the Resources page for more excellent clips and articles. The demonization of natural saturated fats – meat, coconut oil, butter – is beginning to look at least erroneous and at worst dangerous. Especially in terms of brain health, the reduction in saturated fats and the increase in carbohydrates in the diet over the last few decades could be disastrous.
It then goes on to state that ‘One in six male deaths and one in nine female deaths are from coronary heart disease – this is why it’s critical that we challenge the way we eat and that we all make changes where we can.’ Once again they link worrying heart disease figures back to saturated fats with the implication that cutting such fats will reduce overall deaths by CHD. Where is the conclusive proof of this?
It adds that companies are ‘…leading the way to give their customers healthier products and lower fat alternatives.’ The linking of ‘healthier products’ with ‘low-fat’ implies an inextricable link between the two. Who says that low-fat products are healthier? Where is the proof of this? Butter healthier than margarine? Low-fat (sugary) yoghurt healthier than full-fat Greek? Low-fat coconut milk healthier than full-fat? Just type in ‘low-fat’ on a supermarket shopping site and then look at the lists of ingredients in these foods. Many products have been pumped full of sugars, artificial sweeteners (Saccharin, Aspartame) and flavourings to make them more palatable after the fat has been removed. How can these be healthier than natural, full-fat foods?
Next we have a list of some of the proposed changes that producers and retailers will be making:
- Nestlé – which will remove 3,800 tonnes of saturated fat from over a billion Kit Kat bars per year by reformulating the recipe
- Tesco – which will remove 32 tonnes of saturated fat from products such as breadsticks
- Morrisons – which will be reformulating its spreads range to reduce saturated fat, this will remove approximately 50 tonnes
- Aramark – which will increase the amount of 1% fat milk it supplies across its sites and increase the training it gives to its chefs
- Cricketer Farm – which will help one retailer remove 1.5 tonnes of saturated fat by switching to their half fat cheese
So let’s just re-cap: in order to combat heart disease in the UK, we should be eating low-fat Kit-Kats, low-fat breadsticks, low-fat margarines, and low-fat milk and cheese. Is this for real?
The statement then explains how additional companies will also be joining this initiative by reducing saturated fats, changing ingredients, promoting ‘healthier’ menus and generally helping us to eat the ‘right’ foods: ‘reformulating recipes so they include less fat, and introducing new products with lower fat.’ Isn’t this what they have been doing for the past 40 years? Urging us to eat low-fat foods and lecturing people about what/what not to eat. Take a look around – it hasn’t worked! Something is wrong with the low-fat, high carbohydrate approach and yet they still regurgitate the same old line.
On talking about the commitments, Chair of the Responsibility Deal Food Network, Professor Susan Jebb said: ‘They recognise that too much saturated fat can increase cholesterol levels and cause heart disease and premature deaths which is why it’s fantastic that so many companies have committed to helping people cut down on their consumption.’ Not so fast! There are quite a few people that would disagree with Professor Jebb. One such person is Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra. It was great to see him flying the flag for good fats in the wake of the government’s press release and generally disputing the lipid hypothesis. I missed the debate on Jeremy Vine between Dr Malhotra and an NHS spokesman, but was reliably informed that the NHS man failed to provide a convincing rebuttal to Dr Malhotra’s argument.
In addition, this article in the Daily Mail about the controversy was a refreshing change and manages to quote an excellent trio of Malcolm Kendrick, Robert Lustig and Timothy Noakes.
The Telegraph printed a similar article but just can’t help gravitating back towards a cautionary note, warning viewers to indulge in no more than ‘a wee bit’ of steak. It also unhelpfully lumps together ‘butter, fatty meats and pastries’ when talking about saturated fats and warns that when it comes to bread, our daily allowance of fat permits ‘one slice spread with a thick layer’. Perhaps things might improve if we cut the bread out and didn’t worry about eating the butter, but Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College, London might disagree, stating that ‘It is sensible to avoid fatty meat dishes, choose reduced-fat milk and eat cheese in moderation. Cream is best kept for special occasions.” That’s me done for then.
I did note that Dr Melhota also called for the following measures to be implemented: “a sugary drinks tax, banning junk food advertising to children, ensuring compulsory nutritional standards in schools and hospitals… “. I’ve got to say this worries me. I doubt that schools and hospitals would be singing from the same hymn sheet as Dr Melhotra regarding saturated fats and rejecting decades of advice from their government funders doesn’t strike me as an option. I would add that it is the government poking its nose into what people eat that caused this mess in the first place, not just in the UK but also in the US (George McGovern’s Dietary Goals for the United States for a start). I also think that a change will come not through taxing or banning foods, nor from governments, authorities or quangos, food manufacturers or indeed any government or industry funded organisation to tackle obesity but instead from the grass roots, from individuals who choose to ignore the conventional advice and go looking for themselves. Unfortunately that takes time, and goodness knows how many people will suffer in the interim.
© Past Present Paleo 2013. All Rights Reserved.
by Tess | Dec 7, 2013 | News articles
Once again the scare stories are surfacing regarding red meat. Barely a week goes by without a newspaper article urging us to avoid red meat for fear of some terrifying consequence. A recent story comes courtesy of the Daily Mail (UK) which seems to be obsessed with these hysterical food scares. While showing the usual photographic cliches of a man chewing a steak and a woman proudly clutching a salad (although it won’t mitigate the effects of all that dangerous meat), the article triumphantly announces:
‘Eating too much meat ‘raises risk of diabetes’ even if they eat lots of fruit and vegetables too’
At first glance, this could seem worrying. The article states that the study focused on 66,485 women and tracked their health for 14 years. It found that those who ate ‘acid-forming foods’ such as meat, cheese, fish, bread and soft drinks were 56% more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes. At the end of the study, 1,372 women had developed diabetes and diagnoses were particularly common in those with an acidic diet. The volunteers had given details about their diet.
The ‘culprit’ foods mentioned include bread and soft drinks, two foods that that cause potentially huge rises in blood sugar levels. The experiment is based upon volunteers giving information about their diet, presumable recalling what they ate and when; a notoriously inaccurate way to gather information. At the end of the experiment, 1,372 women developed diabetes out of a total of 66,485 which works out to around 2.1% of those monitored.
The original report, which you can find here, states that ‘With respect to specific food groups, a high-PRAL (potential renal acid load) diet included significantly more meat, fish, cheese, bread and soft drinks, particularly artificially sweetened beverages, whereas a diet with a low-PRAL score included more dairy products, fruit, vegetables and coffee (Table 1).’
How can meat be singled out as a potential diabetes risk in the presence of several other foods that cause massive insulin swings? The report states that ‘Although we adjusted for most of the known and potential type 2 diabetes risk factors, residual confounding cannot be ruled out.’
It reports that ‘A Western diet rich in animal products and other acidogenic (acid forming) foods can induce an acid load that is not compensated for by fruit and vegetables; this can cause chronic metabolic acidosis.’ Ok, so if we accept that excessive acidogenic foods could be a problem, how do we tell which foods are the problem – or is it all of them? Meat shares the list of acidogenic foods with, amongst others, white flour, bagels, croissants, popcorn, pasta, pastries and most grain products including refined cereals, carbonated soft drinks, sweetened juices, sweetened yoghurts, artificial sweeteners and many other products that we would (hopefully) steer well clear of. Fish and seafood are on there too. I don’t see the headlines warning us not to eat fish.
The strange thing is, I googled the report and found an earlier article by most of the same authors here. In this report, it quite clearly states that red meat (beef, pork, veal, horse, and sheep) poses no increased risk of diabetes, but ‘a direct association was observed only for processed red meat and type 2 diabetes.’ It also states that ‘…we observed no association between unprocessed red meat and diabetes risk’ and ‘Our results suggest that habitual consumption of processed red meat may be associated with a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes and that consumption of unprocessed red meat may not.’
Again, even here it would be interesting to know how they isolated processed meat (sausage, salami, bacon, and ham) from other foods such as bread, sweet beverages, and other high carbohydrate foods that could increase diabetes risk.
I find all this is pretty confusing but I cannot understand how it gets interpreted by the Daily Mail as effectively saying that meat causes diabetes. Surely we would expect to see high incidences of diabetes in modern hunter-gatherer tribes whose diet is predominantly meat, if it is such a risk? Instead we are seeing increasing numbers of people diagnosed with diabetes in western societies and in particular developing societies that have adopted a ‘westernized’ diet in place of their more traditional foods. Presumably one needs to add increasing levels of stress and a decrease in physical exercise to this too. Check out this report for some global figures and projections:
http://www.idf.org/sites/default/files/The_Global_Burden.pdf
All in all, I am not convinced that red meat raises the risk of diabetes, any more than I believe that it causes cancer and heart attacks.
A recent article in the Telegraph claimed that we should eat red meat only once a week: ‘Having analysed the diet of some 120,000 people over a 20-year period, researchers suggested that adding just one daily portion of red meat – steak and burgers for example – increased the overall risk of death by 13 per cent.‘ Presumably that’s the risk of getting hit by a bus on that extra trip to the butchers.
© Past Present Paleo 2013. All Rights Reserved.
