Nanny state at its most ridiculous, most costly, and most dangerous

On Monday 26 January 2009, UK's Daily Express published stories that illustrated the sheer and utter incompetence and wastefulness of the present government and our 'health' boffins. It also demonstrated how the 'health' industry is able to con the media so that they can profit from our ill-health.

The first was entitled NOW FOOD POLICE PLAN TO SWOOP ON YOUR FRIDGE

"SQUADRONS of 'Food Police' are to start knocking on doors to lecture families on how to feed themselves properly.

"In a move branded 'Government nannying at its worst', the teams — operated by councils across the country — will be recruited to visit homes at meal times before handing out advice on diet and how to reduce waste.

"Eight thousand Food Police, or Love Food Champions under their official title, will be paid up to £8.50 an hour of taxpayers" cash. And if a pilot scheme is successful, the idea could be rolled out across the country, costing the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.

"Employed by a private contractor, the teams will advise householders on how to plan their shopping carefully so that they do not over-cater."

You can read the rest here

Apart from the obvious intrusion into people's lives and the total waste of taxpayers' money (I thought we were in a recession and short of the stuff), what possible good can it do? Don't people know now that they are wasting money by buying more food than they can eat and so on?

But there are two other points:

1: Just what qualifications will these £8.50 per hour 'advisors' have to tell me what to do?

2. As my doctor is cannot legally prescribe for me without my consent, what law allows the (probably unqualified) otherwise unemployed to tell me what I can and can't eat?

And if these imbeciles think that advising people to eat more 'healthy' carb-based foods to cut the incidence of conditions such as obesity and diabetes, when there is such a huge amount of evidence that "healthy eating" advice is a major cause of these illnesses, then the result can only be that the situation will get worse.

This point was illustrated — yet again — only a few days earlier with a study published in the journal Obesity Reviews.

Low-carb, high-protein diet beats low-fat diet for weight loss

Results from a systematic review demonstrate, yet again, that low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are more effective for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health than are low-fat diets.

Catherine Rolland and colleagues from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, UK, carried out a systematic review of 13 randomized, controlled trials including a total of 1222 individuals comparing low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets with low-fat diets.

Inclusion criteria included publication between January 2000 and March 2007, length of at least 6 months, participants aged 18 years and above, and a mean or median body mass index of at least 28 kg/m2.

Of the 13 studies, five lasted for 6 months, six for 12 months, one for 17 months, and one for 36 months. Eleven studies compared low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets with low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets and two compared medium-protein with high-protein diets. Measurements were compared at 6 and 12 months.

At 6 months, weight loss was an average of 4.02 kg greater in the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group than in the low-fat diet group.

At 12 months, the difference between the two groups had reduced, with the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group having lost an average of 1.05 kg more than the low-fat group.

Rolland and team also noted improvements in serum lipids, although these were more mixed, as a significant improvement in high-density lipoprotein and triglycerides was seen favoring the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group up to 12 months, but improvements in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were higher in the low-fat group at 6 months.

A nonsignificant trend toward improvement in diastolic and systolic blood pressure was also observed up to 17 months for the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group.

The researchers conclude that their results show low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are more effective for weight loss up to 12 months than low-fat diets with unrestricted or high levels of carbohydrates.

They add that although trends toward cardiovascular improvement favoring the low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet were seen in this study, 'more evidence and longer-term studies are needed to assess the long-term cardiovascular benefits from the weight loss achieved using these diets.'

But there have already been many studies, both clinical and epidemiologic dating back over 140 years.

For example, a study conducted in 1932 with four different diets with the same number of calories but different constituents gave these results in grams of weight lost per day on average:

high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet — 49 grams (typical 'slimming' diet)

high-carbohydrate/low-protein — 122 grams

low-carbohydrate/high-protein — 183 grams

low-carbohydrate/high-fat — 205 grams (as I recommend)

Those were all 1,000 kcals. But obese patients also lost weight at 2,700-kcals - but only on the low-carb high fat diet.

Hession M, et al. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat/low-calorie diets in the management of obesity and its comorbidities. Obes Rev 2009; 10: 36-50

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00518.x

It"s the glucose, stupid!

But we aren"t just worried about rising levels of obesity, are we? There is also heart disease to consider. Well, another interesting study was published almost simultaneously with the previous one which looked at a wide range of possible variables in the formation of the arterial lesions thought to cause heart attacks. The interesting part was that, although all the traditional "risk factors" for heart disease such as cholesterol, HDL, LDL were considered, the factor that really stood out was none of these. It was blood glucose levels — from a "healthy" carbohydrate-based diet, perhaps?

Here is the title and abstract, but this study is open access so anyone can read the full paper online.

Nunes JPL, Silva JC (2009) Systemic Correlates of Angiographic Coronary Artery Disease. PLoS ONE 4(1): e4322. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004322

Abstract

Coronary angiography allows a direct evaluation of coronary anatomy.

The aim of the present investigation was to search for correlations between the magnitude of coronary artery disease, as assessed by angiography, and a number of systemic parameters.

A group of 116 patients (80 male, 36 female) with coronary heart disease diagnosed by angiography, was the subject of an observational study.

Correlation and linear regression analysis using coronary artery disease burden (CADB - sum of the percentage of the luminal stenosis encountered in all the lesions of the coronary arterial trees) as dependent variable, and age, sex, plasma calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, glucose, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, estimated glomerular filtration rate and body mass index as independent variables, were carried out.

Significant correlation values versus CADB were seen with age (r 0.19, p 0.04), uric acid (r 0.18, p 0.048) and fasting plasma glucose (r 0.33, p,0.001). Linear regression analysis, yielding a global significance level of 0.002, showed a significant value for glucose (p 0.018) and for sex (0.008).

In conclusion, among several systemic parameters studied, plasma glucose was found to be correlated to coronary artery atherosclerosis lesions. (emphasis added)

Then came the following article, which appeared in the Guardian. It demonstrated yet again that we are living in an asylum that's being run by the inmates.

People urged to cut out foods with 'killer' fats

guardian.co.uk by Rebecca Smithers on 4 February 2009

The food watchdog is to launch a multi-million campaign to urge people to cut out foods with "killer" fats amid growing evidence that families of all classes are eating far too many crisps, biscuits, cakes and pastries.

The Food Standards Agency will next week underline the strong links between heart disease and diets high in saturated fats, featuring "striking heart-shaped" images in popular foods.

Significantly the agency's research has shown that saturated fat consumption is too high across all social groupings, so the campaign will attempt to reach families from all classes and on various budgets. Middle-class cheese eaters, for example, will be urged to cut back on high-fat hard cheese products and to eat less cheese by grating it rather than eating it in blocks.

One image in the campaign reveals cheese coming through a grater in a heart shape, while another picture shows a "balanced" meal of salmon, peas and broccoli arranged in a heart.

According to the FSA, Britons are eating 20% more than the maximum recommended amount of saturated fat. The campaign will aim to educate consumers about the relationship between saturated fat and heart health, and will provide tips on shopping, preparation and cooking to help adults choose lower saturated fat options. The wide-ranging TV and media campaign will start next week, backed by leaflets, posters, flyers, recipe cards, postcards and shopping guides.

Last year the government announced a series of initiatives to crack down on saturated fats, including the appointment of a "tsar", Susan Jebb, of the government's Medical Research Council, to lead an academic group looking at strategies to reduce saturated fat consumption.

Cutting levels of fat intake by 20% would save an estimated 3,500 deaths a year, the FSA says. Although Britain's consumption of saturated fats has been falling over the past 20 years, largely due to people switching from full-fat to semi-skimmed milk, scientists say it is still too high. The fats make up almost one seventh of the average Briton's calorie intake.

Food manufacturers are also being encouraged to play their part by reformulating products. Snacks such as crisps are high in both salt and saturated fats, for example, but recipes have been altered so that many brands now contain 70% less fat than before.

Claire Hughes, nutritionist with Marks & Spencer, said: "We welcome any campaign from the FSA that helps educate consumers about a healthy diet, and how they can make more informed choices about what they eat."

The FSA hitlist

Foods high in saturated fat, which the FSA wants us to eat less often:

Meat pies, sausages, meat with visible white fat

Hard cheese

Butter, and lard, spreads containing palm oil

Pastry, cakes and biscuits

Cream, soured cream, and creme fraiche

Coconut oil or coconut cream

MY RESPONSE:

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was correct to indict the fats found in crisps, biscuits, cakes and pastries. But these are NOT saturated fats; they are artifically hydrogenated fats which merely resemble saturated fats. There is a huge difference between the two as far as our health is concerned; lumping the two together is highly misleading.

When we talk about saturated fats these days, the popular perception is that we are talking about animal fats. But animal fats are entirely healthy. Indeed, when all the fats we ate were from animal sources — butter, lard, dripping, cream, et cetera — the chronic degenerative diseases that plague our lives today were either very rare or non-existent. Evidence over the last decade or so indicates that for optimum health, animal fats should provide upwards of 60% of calorie intake. We should be eating more of these, not less.

An FSA campaign aimed at cutting the consumption of crisps, biscuits, cakes and pastries, may have a useful purpose as the fats used in these have been shown to be harmful, as have the starches they include. But if the safest fats of all — the fats found in meat, sausages, cheese, cream, butter, and tropical oils such as coconut oil -- are also to be targeted, then our health will only decline even more rapidly than it is at present.

It is no coincidence that diseases such as diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer's and more have taken off since 'healthy eating' was introduced by the COMA Report of 1984. These are classic cases of cause and effect. 'Healthy eating' is not the answer to the problem, it IS the problem. Until that is acknowledged, our health will only get worse.

How much more evidence will it take before the disastrous 'healthy eating' experiment is called to a close — and those perpetrating it, and who are responsible for the increasing ill-health in our society, are called to account?

To try and mitigate this, I imagine, we also had an "April the first" story in January:

OBESITY BUG YOU CAN CATCH

Then there was a complete change of direction: Now, it seems, you can 'catch' obesity!

OBESITY can be 'caught'as easily as a common cold from other people"s coughs, sneezes and dirty hands, scientists will claim today.

Researchers believe that an airborne 'adenovirus'germ could be causing the fat plague that is blighting Britain and other countries.

As many as one in three obese people may have become overweight after falling victim to the highly infectious cold-like virus, known as AD-36.

Read the rest here

Even if this were true, which I doubt, increasing the numbers of fat cells (adipocytes) won't make you any fatter — unless you fill those adipocytes with fat!

And even if it is true, cutting down on carbs, eating a higher animal fat diet and maintaining a higher cholesterol level have all been shown to strengthen the immune system. Which means that you are less likely to succumb to any such virus.

Ye Gods! And, at a time when we are desperately short of money, we are paying for this nonsense through our taxes.

Until the government realises that "healthy eating" is not the answer to our present health problems, that it IS the problem, things for us will only get worse. Under the circumstances, the best advice I can give, probably, is that you eat the diet recommended on this website to remain healthy — but buy lots of shares in the big food and drug companies. They are going to make a fortune out of the ineptitude and sheer incompetence of those who advise us.