Time to stop confusing people with nutrition advice

If we are looking at obesity/weight etc perhaps we should have a Conversation that includes other factors that may give cause to excess weight.

People will no doubt be interested in the recent US research that shows PBA has an obesity effect on girls. A seven year study of pregnant women and their off-spring reveals those mothers with the highest PBA in their blood stream had the largest daughters. This complements previous research which did not monitor the pregnancy.

Intriguingly PBA does not make make boys fatter as they have different hormones.
motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/new-study-bpa-makes-young-girls-put-excess-fat

Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A to see what other effects this endocrine disruptor may well have.

I followed the Atkins diet for two years and lost a lot of weight. But the problem is that no one really understands what causes heart attacks. It’s almost certainly unrealistic (not to mention impossible) to expect informed nutritional advice that works for everyone. Over the years achieving a consensus on healthy diets has been as difficult as training cats: it simply can’t be done, and competing ‘instant diet’ fads often place financial reward ahead of considered research. Just about the only thing that almost all dieticians agree on is to avoid processed food.

Saturated fat does appear bad in large quantities, but the body needs a fat intake, while some in the medical profession openly query why fruit is regarded as good. No easy answers, then, but probably a general leaning towards avoiding processed food, eating a lot of nuts and cereals and – best of all – doing a lot of regular and demanding exercise.

Well you cant say Which isnt “on the ball” or “up to scratch ” with the latest news . The NOF +PHC said the recent Eatwell Guide from PHE was produced with the “assistance ” of a large number of people in the Food + Drink Industry (visions of the Tobacco Industry ? ) anyway Professor David Haslam chairman of the NOF reckons the official guidelines are “flawed ” . He is backed by Dr. Aseem Malhotra consultant CARDIOLOGIST FM of the PHC also backing it up is Professor Ian Broom from Robert Gordon University Aberdeen . In rebuttal Professor John Wass of the RCP contradicts their findings along with Professor Simon Capewell of the FPH stating the NOF is not peer reviewed so you pick your Professors and chose a side – ding ! round -# 1 – Professor fights Professor . Actually I think both have a point .

Why no one does a real study into the amount of growth hormone and antibiotics that are contained in virtually all available meat?
We do notice (for example) the difference in the size of the poultry between 20-30 years ago and present. Does anyone believe that this was (and still is) achieved through a “natural selection” process? All the animal meats and derivatives (sauces, gelatins, etc) that end up in our body contain exactly how much of these substances that promote growth and fatness. Neither are destroyed by cooking or processing.

Which? should look into this!

Andra -quite right and all this growth hormone stuff comes from one place —America – who have for decades been experimenting with it by the biggest suspect company for this type of thing . They approved it and it is now part of every American,s diet for a decade or so , so look to American citizen health for adverse reactions first . It was found to be a “winner ” not in a public sense, but in the Boardrooms of BB USA and their shareholders for one reason only —-Profit — fat cattle = fat profit and produced -fat Americans but the taste was affected but I am sure they overcame that . Only one country ? is blocking this and OMG –Russia which has very strict food health laws and constantly blocks it after testing with scientists , they say they wont allow this type of stuff to take over Russia food/farming but the US still keeps trying to slip it in. Personally I find it unacceptable and wont eat any of the stuff, the excuse is –it helps third world countries —eh no ! just look at Monsanto worldwide and write,s issued against countries that use their products and dont give them their profit (India etc ) and of course the amount of leftovers that could keep a third world country in food for a year. There is more on the health side .

The biggest problem with dietary ‘advice’ has to be the UK press. The gutter press in particular love anything that sells papers and makes a profit, so they jump on phrases and conclusions which make sensational headlines. The recent furore about eating fat is an excellent example:
Dr Aseem Malhotra, a senior adviser to the National Obesity Forum, said: “The change in dietary advice to promote low fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history.
“We must urgently change the message to the public to reverse obesity and type 2 diabetes. Eat fat to get slim, don’t fear fat, fat is your friend.”

But the report has been criticised for not going though scientific peer review.
Dr Tedstone, Public Health England’s chief nutritionist, responded to the publication by saying: “In the face of all the evidence, calling for people to eat more fat, cut out carbs and ignore calories is irresponsible.”
She said thousands of scientific studies were considered as part of the official guidance adopted throughout the UK, whereas the National Obesity Forum quoted just 43 studies, some of which were comment pieces.
She added: “It’s a risk to the nation’s health when potentially influential voices suggest people should eat a high fat diet, especially saturated fat. Too much saturated fat in the diet increases the risk of raised cholesterol, a route to heart disease and possible death.”
The Royal Society for Public Health described the report a “muddled manifesto of sweeping statements, generalisations and speculation”.
Naveed Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, said the report was “good, bad and ugly”.
He backed calls to cut snacking, but said eating more fat as a cure for obesity and type 2 diabetes was “not warranted” by the evidence and would have “adverse” consequences.
He said the authors had been selective in their choice of evidence and had ignored “an abundant literature which goes against their conclusions”.
The government’s obesity adviser Prof Susan Jebb said the “current dietary advice is based on the best evidence we have”.
She said the debate should be widened from a focus on fat. “We’re eating too many calories – if we want to tackle obesity people do need to eat fewer calories [and] that means less fat and less sugar.”

The scientist, at the MRC epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC: “This is a highly selective review, it is not a systematic appraisal of the evidence and in places opinions are expressed that are not backed up by a body of evidence.”
She praised the call to lower refined carbohydrates, but said the overall message to cut carbs ignored the issue of quality as “we do need wholegrain carbs and fibre in out diet”.

Prof Tom Sanders from King’s College London said: “It is not helpful to s**g off the sensible dietary advice. The harsh criticism of current dietary guidelines meted out in this report is not justified as few people adhere to these guidelines anyway. There is good evidence that those that do follow the guidelines have less weight gain and better health outcomes.”

The authors of the report, the National Obesity Forum, receive funding from the following:

LighterLife UK Limited
Roche Products Ltd
Abbott Laboratories
Slim Fast Foods Ltd
Safeway Foods plc
Tanita UK Ltd
Sanofi-Aventis Ltd
Mantis Surgical Equipment Ltd
GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd
Canderel
British Meat Nutrition Education Services