Undoctored and Wheat Belly Wisdom.
This is a story about how the grain and processed food lobby has successfully manipulated our governmental agencies into feeding us so many lies about consuming fat.
Let me begin this story with some with some basic facts.
FACT: Fats, unlike carbohydrates, are essential, and are as necessary as water or oxygen.
FACT: We are, at the core, carnivorous creatures, a product of our unique evolutionary past, thus consuming the fat of animals is also part of our natural physiology.
FACT: Consuming fat, particularly the saturated fat of butter, animal flesh and organs, does not makes us fat and cause diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease, but grains do.
FACT: The evidence used to advance the low-fat message was incomplete, epidemiological, and riddled with methodological flaws—none of which stopped overenthusiastic dietary fanatics sold on the low-fat message in the 1970s and 1980s.
While grain consumption was a mistake we made 10,000 years ago, limiting fat consumption was a mistake we made starting 50 years ago, a man-made blunder based on misinterpretation, misrepresentation, the leanings of dietary zealots, and politics.
Here’s how it all began…
When such fanatical leanings reached the ear of Senator George McGovern, chair of the United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, he then decided that all Americans should engage in a low-fat lifestyle.
The McGovern committee pushed through legislation, written by a staff member with no background in health or nutrition, that charged the USDA, an agency whose mission had been to support agriculture and monitor food safety, to lead the charge in providing dietary advice to the public. This created an odd collision of responsibilities: Regulate an industry while also promoting consumption of the industry’s products.
Despite resistance from the scientific community over the potential hazards of government-driven dietary advice, the USDA proceeded to fulfill its charge. In addition to delivering McGovern’s pet agenda of limiting fat consumption, the grain and processed food lobby was allowed to weigh in on the details of the USDA’s final draft, doubling grain intake over that recommended by USDA nutritionists.
The low-fat movement gained further momentum when the processed food industry recognized what a financial bonanza had been thrown into its lap, paving the way to create thousands of foods to suit the reduction in fat created by government advice. Revenue growth at Kraft, General Mills, and companies represented by the Corn Refiners Association leapt to double-digit annual rates as they introduced low-fat cookies, low-fat yogurt, and margarines made with corn, soybean, and other processed oils (you’d better believe it’s not butter). It made the 1980s and 1990s an era of unprecedented growth in Big Food. Low-fat products proliferated, even gaining health endorsements from the FDA, the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. It meant that products that contained liberal quantities of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup but were low in fat could acquire the appearance of health with, for example, the AHA “heart healthy” Heart-Check mark endorsement affixed to them (Berry Berry Kix, Count Chocula, and Cocoa Puffs breakfast cereals, to name a few)—for a fee, of course.
Government advice, industry profiteering, and the innate human love of anything sugary (a genetically programmed survival mechanism taken to perverse extremes during times of plenty) all combined to create epidemics of disease that go beyond weight gain, with conditions such as diabetes (both type 1 and 2), autoimmune diseases, joint deterioration, and dementia. Incredibly, even while the USDA and other agencies continue to promote the low-fat, plenty-of-grains message and food companies continue to sell tens of thousands of low-fat products, the science has become clear: There are no clinical trials demonstrating that limiting fat or saturated fat provides any health benefits or reduces cardiovascular risk. Likewise, red meat consumption has no relationship to cardiovascular risk if the effects of cured processed meats (salami, sausage, lunch meats, hot dogs) are factored out.
And as this experiment in cutting fat and increasing grains and carbohydrates has played out on a worldwide stage, the data revealing how destructive this advice has been are now overwhelming. But as in many things in health care, this scientific revelation has not yet graced the ears of John Q. Primary Care, who still manages to obtain most of his ongoing medical education from the drug industry. Even in the face of societal and scientific evidence that contradicts the low-fat message, most of the medical community still sends their patients to the dietitian (i.e., the dietary professional whose “education” was largely subsidized with support from Big Food) for counseling on cutting fat and eating more “healthy whole grains”—you know, a “balanced” diet, all in “moderation.”
This dietary pyramid has begun to crumble. After decades of dietary misinformation, the latest 2015 dietary guidelines concede that restricting total fat and cholesterol is not beneficial, thereby removing that woefully outdated and destructive advice, though the saturated fat limitation remains. The number of servings of grains recommended every day was also reduced from the 6 to 11 servings per day to just 6. (Such a slow and stepwise backpedaling on previous bad advice, by the way, is how you manage damage control and avoid the liability that could result. Imagine if all the guilty agencies admitted that their dietary advice not only did not provide health or reduce cardiovascular risk but also contributed to the nationwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes? Liability, loss of credibility, and loss of revenues would be huge.) However, how much faith can you put in advice that has been flawed for so long, having made substantial contributions to the deteriorating health of the public? Should we suddenly accept that they were wrong on such a colossal scale, only now to have finally gotten it right? I think you’d have to be nuts, or at least incredibly naive, to believe anything they say.
«The evidence used to advance the low-fat message was incomplete, epidemiological, and riddled with methodological flaws…»
…not the least of which was raw data concealment.
Here’s a paper from last year on what Ancel Keys withheld:
BMJ: Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)
“Conclusions Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.”
TC (total cholesterol) went down, but all-cause mortality went up. McGovern got his legacy, based in large part on this fraud. Deadly diet advice, shoving lipid markers around, and totally ignoring actual outcomes, remains the ‘Standard of Care’ today.
While it isn’t necessarily comforting to know, the accumulated wealth of the big fat liars will vanish sometime soon from their own lies. Google ” fertility rate decline ” and you will see the value of nearly all investments are in jeopardy.
I am intrigued!
this is a comment of mine that was deleted from Nutritionfacts.org. Let see if it remains here.
The citizens of Monaco enjoy the best health and greatest longevity on earth. They attain this while apparently indulging in a most hedonistic lifestyle. It seems the quality of food is more important than the types of food.
Steve wrote: «Let see if it remains here.»
I suspect you’ll have to be a lot more provocative than that to raise any eyebrows here.
re: «The citizens of Monaco enjoy the best health and greatest longevity on earth.»
Not sure it’s the “best”. Their results don’t seem to be that much different than for a Med Diet™ generally (for people actually living on the Med – the latitude itself matters).
I haven’t seen a precise analysis of the Monaco Diet®. Merely paying more for food, alas, is today no assurance that it is necessarily less hazardous food. Most of the search hits ended up suggesting: eat Med, live on the Med, and be rich, and you can expect to live 10 extra years.
My guess is that we can do 20 extra years at least, in great health, and don’t need to be rich to accomplish it.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
You are correct about the latitude. But the cuisine in Monaco seems to also encompass all the world has to offer. On the issue of just spending more, compare stats from Monaco to any affluent middle eastern country, there health is deplorable. Monaco referred to as a sunny place for shady characters caters to the 1 percent of the 1 percent. If I had Davis’s scratch I’d sell everything and move there.
Jeno wrote: «I am intrigued!»
Well, Steve may be alluding to Planck’s Dictum, which is commonly paraphrased as: science progresses one funeral at a time. The actual quote attributed to Planck is “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
On the subject of nutrition and healthcare, we have the serendipitous situation that consensus advocates, who fail to see the outright hazards and destructive deficiencies in standard diets, and who rely on subsequent symptom-chasing by consensus medicine, are presumably following their own advice. They may thus be the early expirers driving the present lack of progress in longevity statistics.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
So I’m still waiting to learn what the true goal, if any, is for TC, HDLs, LDLs, and triglycerides… Do they matter, or not??
Kathie wrote: «…what the true goal, if any, is for TC, HDLs, LDLs, and triglycerides…»
Here’s Dr. Davis on the lipid panel last year: “Treat” cholesterol, exorcise the bogeyman
Interestingly, the new Undoctored book doesn’t even have target values for the various elements. Preferred testing is the NMR Advanced Lipoprotein Panel. Whatever test you get, don’t bother while weight loss is in progress or while shifting your metabolism from full-time glycemic to part-time (or more) fat burning. Also get the blood draw done fasting (and if your doctor says that’s unnecessary, raise an eyebrow).
If there’s a specific cardiac concern, the book suggests other tests in Appendix A, Coronary Disease protocol.
Since getting the lipid panel is often all-but-unavoidable (it may come standard with NMR), a couple of the numbers are useful:
TG (triglycerides): under 60 mg/dL
HDL: above 60 m/dL
TC (Total Cholesterol) is not useful unless at an extreme value, suggesting that some actual lipoprotein testing is needed.
LDL-C is a fiction (not actually measured), being merely LDL=TC-HDL-(TG÷5).
VLDL-C, if reported, is an insulting fiction, being merely TG÷5.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
The only thing that matters is triglycerides and HDL, and only to the extent they tell you whether you’re insulin resistant or not (high TGs + low HDL = insulin resistannce, though women tend to have higher HDL than men). By the way, HDL became “good” “cholesterol” only because they couldn’t explain why women, with “high” total and LDL “cholesterol” had fewer heart attacks. Hormones were initially thought to be protective, but that died during RCTs (randomized controlled trials). So, HDL magically became protective.
Through a low carb, now close to or in ketosis, diet I’ve raised my HDL from 39 to 55 and lowered my TGs to 58. NOTE: These are wildly variable, based on many factors, including fasting. I have LDL readings from 96-152, TC from 163-224, TGs from 58 to 158, etc. Fasting causes TC, LDL, TGs to go up and HDL to go down. These are short term effects. But if you want to get a “better” test, eat a “normal” diet for at least a week before getting tested.
I also recommend fasting insulin and hemoglobin A1C (a measure of fasting blood sugar over 60+ days).
Are the new cholesterol mess like praulent any better than statins if they don’t drive your numbers below the normal range???
Norman wrote: «Are the new cholesterol mess like praulent any better than statins if they don’t drive your numbers below the normal range???»
It’s pretty clear that driving down TC or LDL-C, per se, does not automatically confer benefit. The CETP inhibitors were effective drivers, but what they provided in the way of all-cause outcomes resulted in them being abandoned. Anyone who has studied statin studies may quite reasonably raise the same question about statins.
Praluent® (alirocumab) is one of two PCSK9 inhibitors presently on the market. The other is Repatha® (evolocumab). A third (bococizumab) has already been withdrawn. Those following PCSK9 developments suspect that there’s a similar concern with all-cause mortality (within the context of the studies).
And there are several Cureality members watching developments with some interest, because one of the markers these agents move is Lp(a). It may yet be the case that PCSK9 inhibitors have value for those at risk due to high Lp(a), where they have also taken steps to remediate diet and lifestyle, and those strategies don’t resolve the Lp(a). The question is: will we ever learn that, because the trials underway likely either have no one on an Undoctored style diet, or if they do, they aren’t bothering to record or report it. These potentially valuable agents may get withdrawn from the market because they provide no net benefit to those who remain on standard diets.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
I do not disagree with anything in this article, but I do want to mention that it might be prudent to limit animal fat if you have had a particular form of breast cancer. Estrogen receptor positive breast cancer is fed by circulating estrogen. Even an organic grass-fed animal that has not been raised on hormones will have some naturally occurring in their fat, just like estrogen lives in our fat ( the main reason you need to lose weight if you have ever had this type of cancer). As someone who has had it I don’t eliminate animal fat completely but I don’t eat it freely either. Most of my fat comes from plant sources, like avocados, olive oil, coconut oil, nuts. This has not affected the success of my program, and I have the blood work to prove it.
I don’t think estrogen caused my cancer (then every woman would have it) but it did help it along once it occurred.
I am a recent discoverer of this site by Dr Davis. And I am perplexed by one thing. : his advice to to eat potatoes, They are not a grain or a grass seed, Rather they are tubers from a species of solanace plants from Peru, The people of Peru have eaten them for millennia.
And there are so many very different types of potatoes with different nutritional qualities.
( By the way I have no argument about roasting or deep frying spuds and chips. These are NOT good food for anyone.
But simply baked with olive oil or butter and pepper & salt. Is this problematic ? It would be good to read an explanation.
Bill in Oz wrote: «…perplexed by one thing. : his advice to eat potatoes…»
Did you have a specific reference you found perplexing?
[White] potato has considerations different from sweet potato.
Raw white potato has zero net carbs, and provides prebiotic fiber. At our house, we consume it as slices marinated in vinegar, or as an ingredient in a smoothie.
When cooked, any type of potato is subject to program net carb limitations, and cooked white potato has over twice the net carbs of sweet potato, so portion size matters.
Seek organic potato. On white potato, non-GMO is less worth worrying about, because the troubling mutants (e.g. Bt toxin) are off the market, and the newer Simplot Innate® strains may not be harmful, but are providing a pointless benefit in deep frying, which, as you note, we avoid.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
Hello, Mr. Niland.
I’m pretty interested in the potato.
When I started the “Wheat Belly Lifestyle”, Oct., 2015, I weighed 263 lb, at 59 years old.
Since then, I’ve lost close to 40 lb.
I eat a strict low carb diet, seldom consuming 20 grams of carbs / day, aiming for 10 gm or less.
I’ve gained other benefits, mainly improving blood glucose.
I eat no grains, potatoes, or sucrose, unless you count the occasional 10-15 grams of organic dried dates, figs, or mulberries. I take some supplements, including a chia, ground flaxseed, & inulin fiber supplement, usually every other day, made w/ almond milk.
I drink fermented milk/kefir for probiotics.
I started this lifestyle because of being pre-diabetic/borderline metabolic syndrome.
I think potatoes could be a welcome treat, but I’m under the impression that they’ve been genetically altered, like wheat or corn.
Is that not the case?
The reason I’m inquiring is that I’m trying to restore my health, as much as possible, since being disabled about three years ago. [I have asthma & COPD, which limits my activities.]
Thank you for your assistance.
Jon wrote: «I’m pretty interested in the potato. … I eat a strict low carb diet, seldom consuming 20 grams of carbs / day, aiming for 10 gm or less.»
Potatoes, like bananas and plantains, are the Jekyll and Hyde of foods. Raw, they provide prebiotic fiber and no net carbs. Cooked, they are nearly candy.
Since someone is apt to wonder, “raw” starches extracted from these foods are not reliably low net carb. Something in the process is converting the starch (applied heat from the dehydration, and mechanical heat from milling, are both suspects).
re: «I take some supplements, including a chia, ground flaxseed, & inulin fiber supplement, usually every other day, made w/ almond milk.»
How many grams per day of prebiotic fiber does that work out to? (the program recommends 20 grams/day of mixed and varied sources).
Does your list of supplements include these key ones that are part of the core Undoctored six strategies:
#2 iodine (as part of optimize thyroid status)
#3 fish oil
#4 magnesium
#5 Vitamin D
re: «I drink fermented milk/kefir for probiotics.»
Fermented live-culture foods are a useful way to help maintain gut flora, but tend to be too few CFUs, of too few strains, to be effective if remediation is needed (or in the face of hostile personal environments, such as routinely drinking public water subject to certain treatments). If a dysbiosis is suspected, a deliberate course of a high potency probiotic might be needed (and I’m expecting continued developments in what’s considered optimal).
re: «I started this lifestyle because of being pre-diabetic/borderline metabolic syndrome.»
I would expect that to be fully reversible.
re: «I think potatoes could be a welcome treat, but I’m under the impression that they’ve been genetically altered, like wheat or corn.»
Actual GMO potatoes may be found in some markets, but even where they aren’t, potatoes have been subject to intensive selective breeding over millenia, with over 4000 varieties now known, some bred just for cosmetic purposes (color).
Cooked potato is strictly a net carb issue. On your 20 gram daily target, which qualifies as strict ketogenic, that wouldn’t allow for much cooked potato.
re: «I have asthma & COPD, which limits my activities.»
Asthma is a condition which often vanishes on this program, and this has been the case since the early days, when the focus was primarily wheat elimination. It’s one of the conditions listed as “addressed” in the new Undoctored book. COPD is listed as not addressed, but the back traffic on this blog includes a couple of anecdotal reports of symptom relief.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
Bob, thanks for the reply and tips about spuds.
I cannt point now to any specific comment about potatoes..I read it some time ago and did not note it down…
I usually buy organic potatoes and also grow them in my garden organically. I prefer o grow coloured spuds such as a variety we call”Purple Congo” which has a dark blue/purple skin and dark purple flesh. I have read that these are more nutritious than ordinary white skinned and white fleshed potatoes..
There is also a Low GI spud here which supposedly has 25% less carbohydrate than other types. But I feel it might be just advertising hype. ( BS )
Again thanks.. raw sliced spud marinated in apple cider vinegar seems like a great treat !.
There are no GMO’d spuds sold here in Oz so none of us needs to worry about that issue.
Bill in Oz wrote: «There is also a Low GI spud here which supposedly has 25% less carbohydrate than other types. But I feel it might be just advertising hype. ( BS )»
That’s pretty easy to test for with a blood glucose meter. If the starches are still glucose polymers (rather than fructose), the BG meter tells the tale.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)