Sorry seems to be the hardest word

I think that the four words ‘I told you so’ should only be thought, and never written down. No-one likes a smart arse. But sometimes it is impossible to resist….just impossible. In this case I have failed. ‘Father forgive me, for I am weak.’ So, here goes…’I told you so.’

Some of you may be aware that the US dietary guidelines are going to be changed. For some reason it is required that the full report is suppressed for about a year. Presumably so that everyone can pile high their defences when the attacks begin. ‘I think you will find that I have always, ahem, supported these ideas.’ Cough, shuffle of papers….cough. ‘Sorry, no time to take questions.’ Exit left.

The entire report, I believe, stretches to about a bazillion pages. However, here are four of the highlights.

  • Cholesterol is to be dropped from the ‘nutrients of concern’ list. [I love that phrase ‘nutrient of concern’].
  • Saturated fat will be… ‘de-emphasized’ from nutrients of concern, given the lack of evidence connecting it with cardiovascular disease.’ [Whatever de-emphasizing may be. Pretending you never said it in the first place, I suppose].
  • There is concern over blanket sodium restriction given the… ‘growing body of research suggesting that the low sodium intake levels recommended by the DGAC (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) are actually associated with increased mortality for healthy individuals.’
  • And…’ The identification and recognition of the specific health risks posed by added sugars represents an important step forward for public health.’

In short. Cholesterol is healthy, saturated fat is healthy, salt is healthy and sugar is unhealthy. I have pulled those four points out of a press release by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which I reproduce in full, below.

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Commends Strong, Evidence-Based Dietary Guidelines Report

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, commends the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee for drafting a strong, evidence-based Scientific Report outlining recommendations and rational for the forthcoming 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Academy supports these recommendations that will improve how and what Americans eat.

“The Academy applauds the evidence-based systematic review of the literature, which is vital to the DGAC’s assessment of the science,” said registered dietitian nutritionist and Academy President Sonja L. Connor. “We commend the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture for their commitment to the Nutrition Evidence Library and their ongoing efforts to strengthen the evidence-based approach for assessing the scientific literature for future dietary recommendations.”

In comments recently submitted to USDA and HHS, the Academy supports the DGAC in its decision to drop dietary cholesterol from the nutrients of concern list and recommends it deemphasize saturated fat from nutrients of concern, given the lack of evidence connecting it with cardiovascular disease.

“Despite some criticism suggesting that changed recommendations illustrate concerns about the validity of the nutrition science upon which the Dietary Guidelines are based, the DGAC should change its recommendations to be consistent with the best available science and to abide by its statutory mandate,” Connor said.

The Academy also expresses concern over blanket sodium restriction recommendations in light of recent evidence of potential harm to the overall population. “There is a distinct and growing lack of scientific consensus on making a single sodium consumption recommendation for all Americans, owing to a growing body of research suggesting that the low sodium intake levels recommended by the DGAC are actually associated with increased mortality for healthy individuals,” Connor said.

The Academy supports an increased focus on reduction of added sugars as a key public health concern. “Among the identified cross-cutting issues, the evidence is strongest that a reduction in the intake of added sugars will improve the health of the American public. The identification and recognition of the specific health risks posed by added sugars represents an important step forward for public health,” Connor said.

In its comments, Academy also emphasizes that enhanced nutrition education is imperative to any effective implementation. “It is critical to ensure that individuals making diet and behavior changes in accordance with the Dietary Guidelines have access to the resources and support necessary to succeed. HHS and USDA must have sufficient resources to commit to improving a number of initiatives,” Connor said.

“The Academy appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Scientific Report and to serve as a resource to HHS and USDA as they finalize the 2015 Dietary Guidelines and develop resources to implement and promote their use,” Connor said.1

In one way, I commend this press release. At least it has made no real attempt to fudge what is now going to be said. These are the facts.

But you know what. Organisations like this have been haranguing the entire population of the world about the dangers of cholesterol, saturated fat, and salt for the last thirty years. Foodstuffs which they now seem happy to admit, cause no harm, indeed they are almost certainly good for you.

At the same time, they have bombarded us with messages to consume sugar(s). They usually call them carbohydrates, which is disingenuous in the extreme. Carbohydrates are all just sugars in disguise. A disguise that the digestive system can strip off in a few minutes.

Yes, all those healthy fruit and vegetables are simply extended chains of simple sugar(s). And once they enter your digestive system, your body cares not whether or not you ate a carrot or a sugar cube. It delivers them into your bloodstream as sugar [primarily glucose and fructose].

Now there have been a number of people, including me, who have been saying for years that cholesterol and saturated fat are perfectly healthy, salt is good for you and sugar (in large amounts) is bad. We have all been dismissed as cranks and idiots who would have caused the deaths of thousands of people, if they had ever dared to listen to what we had to say.

It turns out the cranks and the mavericks were right. The experts were wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Damagingly wrong. Whilst the words ‘I told you so’ are temptingly easy to say; and saying them should be resisted. There is another, single word, that appears impossible to say.

Sorry.

1: http://www.newswise.com/articles/academy-of-nutrition-and-dietetics-commends-strong-evidence-based-dietary-guidelines-report

233 thoughts on “Sorry seems to be the hardest word

    1. Pat

      I only spotted this yesterday and was very surprised. My initial thought was how long will it take for some similar revised guidance in this country. Hope our nice lot (hum) will do this very soon.

      Reply
    2. anglosvizzera

      Not so fast! Here’s the report – it’s easiest to ‘Ctrl+F’ to find specific entries than wade through the whole thing, unless you have the time and inclination…..

      http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/PDFs/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf

      “A number of studies in the scientific literature describe diets based on macronutrient proportion or test only a specific food group or nutrient in the diet. For example, a low-carbohydrate diet fits this description and has been of public interest. The DGAC reviewed the body of evidence related to this type of diet as part of Question 2. Additionally, the Committee examined the results of exploratory searches on low-carbohydrate diets (defined as less than 45 percent of calories from carbohydrate) and all of the health outcomes considered in this chapter published since 2000. Overall, it appears that only limited evidence is available to address the relationship between low-carbohydrate diets and health, particularly evidence derived from U.S. based populations. The most evidence available focuses on low-carbohydrate diets and body weight.
      The 2010 DGAC examined the relationship between macronutrient proportion and various body weight outcomes, concluding that:

      “1) There is strong and consistent evidence that when calorie intake is controlled, macronutrient proportion of the diet is not related to losing weight
      2) A moderate body of evidence provides no data to suggest that any one macronutrient is more effective than any other for avoiding weight re-gain in weight reduced persons
      3) A moderate body of evidence demonstrates that diets with less than 45% of calories as carbohydrates are not more successful for long-term weight loss (12 months). There is also some evidence that they may be less safe. In shorter-term studies, low-calorie, high-protein diets may result in greater weight loss, but these differences are not sustained over time; and
      4) A moderate amount of evidence demonstrates that intake of dietary patterns with less than 45% calories from carbohydrate or more than 35% calories from protein are not more effective than other diets for weight loss or weight maintenance, are difficult to maintain over the long term, and may be less safe.”

      The published literature since that review does not provide sufficient evidence to change these conclusions. Thus, in summary, although studies that examine macronutrient proportion or that test only a specific food group or nutrient are important, they answer different questions related to diet and health than those proposed by the DGAC. In addition, these studies generally did not meet the DGAC’s definition of a dietary pattern study unless a full description of the dietary pattern consumed was provided and appropriate methods were used to adjust for the confounding of foods and nutrients.”

      Reply
      1. BobM

        OK, so when they started this whole process, they had no randomized controlled trials indicating that low fat diets (or replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat) were suitable (or prevented disease or at least didn’t cause disease), but they have no problem with that. Yet they have a problem because “high protein” diets (which are actually high fat, not high protein) haven’t been tested enough?

        Egad.

      2. nathanb

        45% of calories from carbohydrates on a 2000 kcal/day diet would allow 900 kcals from carbs. That’s 225 grams! That’s not low carb diet.

      3. Maureen H

        I agree, 45% of calories in a 2000 calorie diet is definitely not a low carb diet. It’s laughable. Instead of making assumptions, like “oh, let’s see, if most people’s diets consist of 60-70% carbs, then 45% is low”, why don’t they look at the diet of people who have succeeded in losing weight and “curing” their diabetes and high bloodpressure etc., and working out what they are eating. Our diet on average is 60-70% of calories from fat, (coconut oil, olive oil, animal fat from mostly pastured animals, cream and cheeses), 20-30% protein (so definitely not high protein) and the rest carbs. We have both lost 20lbs, feel well with lots of energy, and I partially credit this way of eating to my continued health despite a diagnosis four years ago of IPF, with prognosis of 2 to 3 years.I think of it as my “chemo”, which tastes good and doesn’t make my hair fall out. I may be totally up the creek with this opinion but…..it works for me. I believe this kind of diet results in profound changes in body chemistry and can potentially improve many health conditions. Unfortunately it seems that most of us need a scare and a shake up before we stop taking our health for granted. As for the comments that “it may be harmful”, oh for crying out loud, what does that mean? Nothing. It may not be harmful. They didn’t think of that when pushing low fat on us all.

      4. Professor Göran Sjöberg

        My firm belief here is that it is not until you have ‘hit’ the metabolic syndrome by going ‘high carb’ for many years that you really have to worry about going low carb. Experience tells us that your health may benefit significantly by going the opposite direction.

      5. Socratic Dog

        Hey Goran, sounds to me like you just can’t let it go.
        I dunno about “speaking from experience”, but I’d suggest it’s likely the high CHO intake that CAUSES metabolic syndrome. Or at least contributes. I know Kendrick’s book says otherwise, but speaking from experience…..
        The precautionary principle suggest to me that one would be wise to at least consider the possibility, and act accordingly. It’s would be much more useful to avoid getting something like the metabolic syndrome than to treat it once present. Speaking from experience.

  1. Lorraine Thomas

    Fantastic, good sense may be on the way! Let’s hope many other countries jump on the bandwagon and even go a little further into it. De-emphasize indeed. “Look out fellow scientists, Doctors, phrase it so it looks like we know what we are doing, don’t let them say we were wrong, an awful concept”. Fools.

    Reply
  2. Paul Travis

    Is that a grin I see Malcolm? I read the report yesterday…it brought a broad smile to my face. I too like their terminology, not once have they used the phrase ‘cock-up’.

    Reply
    1. Gay Corran

      Tha Aussie pyramid: same old advice, same old misinformation. All those wasted years of not eating the delicious, crisp, lemon-and-butter flavoured skin of roast chicken! And to what end? We sacrificed our good health along with the golden chicken skin…

      Reply
    2. mec76

      Can`t believe it – am appalled. Can but (sincerely) hope that they retract the nonsense… We could send em Dr Kendrick !!

      Reply
      1. mec76

        I have sent Nutrition Australia the link to the Dr Kendrick article by e-mail and also the link to the ReachMD podcast…

  3. George Henderson

    I think your body does care whether you ate a carrot or a sugarcube, unless you already have diabetes.
    But if you juice the carrot, it cares a lot less.
    Good news and we’re all allowed a moment of self-congratulation, and your case, some thanks.
    Will the last one to leave the lipid hypothesis please turn out the lights?

    Reply
  4. Mike Pollard

    It still astonishes me why intelligent people with access to a computer who are ill (diabetic, obese, heart disease etc) are still bewildered. I changed my point of view over 5 years ago regarding the cholesterol controversy nonsense.

    Reply
    1. Flyinthesky

      The thing is the vast majority of people mentally lobotomise themselves before an audience with “the doctor” The same people can often question anything and everything else but not “the doctor” It’s a phenomenon in itself and should have a title.

      Reply
      1. Maguerite

        Hi Flyinthesky, thing is there is the older fraternity like my mom, who considers her GP on the same level as the Vicar. She NEVER asks what her BP was and THEY unfortunately play her game with mmm..”very nice”, never an utterance as to what the BP is. I have watched how she sits with her hands folded reverently in her lap too afraid to question (out of respect – bless her in every way, her kindness is unlimited), but see, they don’t do computers, smart phones, research or any such. Plus I find that she gravitates to odler doctors too (those who are really at retirement age) and they (I may be stepping over the line here again) are not inclined to read up and so the scripts flow with many lists of meds… well, you get the picture. Oh wel..

      2. Anthony Abbott

        The terminology aids the so called authority – you became a patient which glosses over what is really going on – money – when actually you should be called a customer – customers pay for a product or service and expect a result, not an ongoing delay full of excuses for why the result is not achieved while still expecting payment – – also why are there nurses ? are we all infants ? why ;sisters’ from some reilgious order with divine healing skills??? – or some concerned family member who seems more concerned than the general populace? Just a thought!

    2. Chris Adams

      believe me, vast swathes of people would rather waste their lives watching cooking shows, blockbuster movies & hollywood drivel..

      Reply
    3. Linda

      Mike,
      But many of them don’t seem to look at their computers regarding new research, other than looking at patients’ medical histories!

      Reply
  5. Jennifer

    Dr Kendrick, this is music to my ears.
    What wonderful “news”, and now I can relegate to my history archive all the books on nutrition which I had been advised to use as a Nurse from 1983! All boxed and cellotaped up, so that I can access them when I feel like a good laugh….although its not a laughing matter is it.
    I look at my present nutrition bookshelf loaded with recent books by the likes of Zoe Harcombe and Gary Taubes, along with yours, and enjoy the praises of my husband telling me…”so, Jennifer, you were right all along”.
    Of course in our household we have always used cholesterol laden foodstuffs, saturated fats and salt, but at the expense of being ridiculed by our peers. Unfortunately I did not acknowledge the unsafe nature of added sugar until coming across work by Dr Lustig, and must apologise to my offspring for rearing them with the sweet tooth I developed as a child when sugar rationing ended in the early 1950s….my older siblings never developed the same cravings as myself.
    Having just had a General Election, may I touch on the serious aspect of the way politicians and the electorate are brainwashed by big business? For those not familiar with the story, I suggest they look at the influence Mr Cube had on the demise of the Labour Government at the General Elections of 1950/1.

    Reply
    1. celia

      Wonderful! So the full report is to be suppressed for about a year – maybe to allow industry to regroup? What is Dr Steven Nissan going to do with his PCSK9 inhibitors???

      Reply
    2. Jo

      You remind of my stepmother who did her nursing training in the 1950’s in NZ. She showed me the booklet she was given which recommended that if a patient was overweight cutting back on sugar and carbohydrate was a good idea. No mention of fat. I told her to hang on to it, as it would become relevant again soon.

      Reply
      1. David

        Instead of getting into arguments about what cavemen really ate and whether we’ve really evolved since those times I advocate referring to the grandmother diet. People of her generation understood that someone putting on weight was the result of eating too much ‘stodge’ or carbohydrate. Lipophobia is a recent phenomenon and those who are resistant should not allow themselves to be portrayed as seeking to return to the palaeolithic age. Pre-1970 should just about do it – although the rot had set in by then poor diet hadn’t yet received medical approval.

  6. Kevin O'Connell

    Perhaps they should be offered a choice: say ‘sorry’ or, alternatively, import a single Japanese word into the American language and do the honourable thing … seppuku.

    Reply
  7. Jen

    Unfortunately the official 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s report does not exonerate saturated fat and sodium; those are still deadly. Only dietary cholesterol has been given a pass. They still recommend limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of calories by replacing it with polyunsaturated fat. Moreover, despite expressing concern about “shortfall nutrients” such as iron, the report recommends plant-based diets in order to stave off environmental apocalypse.

    The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as the American Dietetic Association,) in its comments on the proposed dietary guidelines to be issued by the US government, agreed that cholesterol intake was not a concern, but also, rather shockingly, recommended that the Committee apply the same respect for lack of evidence of harm to saturated fat and sodium. Impressive as it is that the dietitians have changed their own thinking, their remarks will have little affect on the idealogues who actually write the guidelines.

    Reply
  8. Anne

    Hooray ! Things are going back to pre Ancel Keys days 🙂

    I have a 1955 home doctor book (which was my parents’) “Pictorial Home Doctor, your guide to good health” by Dr T Traherne in the Good Housekeeping range. This is what it said about diet then, I quote just a very few bits from the book:

    “Foods for Calories: The carbohydrates (sugar and starch) are the foods that supply most calories and little else; they are the least important foods. But as they are the cheapest and easiest to get they play too large a part in most family diets. They come from the sweet shop, the baker and the grocer. It is fatally easy to fill up on them and leave no room for the other far more important foods……..”

    “Calories Plus Vitamins: Fats are fuel foods, but in each ounce they provide twice as many caloires as do proteins and carbohydrates. Also most of the animal fats and the vegetable oils contain two important vitamins, A and D. If you eat fat you can obtain plenty of energy from a diet that is not too bulky….”

    “Food for Building and Repair: Proteins is the name given to the foods which provide the materials essential for growth and for the continual repair of the bones and body tissues. They are the most important of all foods…..”

    From the Illness section, a snippet from under Diabetes (there was only one type in 1955, divided into “mild” and “severe”):

    “What to Do: Once the diagnosis has been established, it will be necessary to control the diabetes, which can be done in two ways: In mild cases: by restricting sugar in the diet, and by reducing starchy foods. In severe cases: the patient has daily doses of insulin….”

    Reply
  9. Bridgette

    Reblogged this on lchf4health and commented:
    Making changes to the guidelines is a start but it’s an almost insurmountable task at this point to reverse years of damaging dietary advice. All believers need to get on board.

    Reply
  10. Carolyn

    Mmmm, seems to be across the board.
    I said ‘I told you so’ to my GP after successfully treating myself with natural dessicated thyroid after told me there was nothing wrong with my thyroid while I could barely stand for 4 months. They didn’t say sorry either!

    Reply
    1. maryl@2015

      Yes, Carolyn they never will say I am sorry…they will sidestep the issue and continue on as though they came up with a brilliant replacement.

      Reply
  11. Leigh Gold

    Perhaps Albert Einstein summed it up best when he said ” Only two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity And I am unsure about the former”. The obstinate and unyielding beliefs perpetuated by Big Pharma and their well-paid cohorts surely rank as infinite human stupidity.

    Reply
  12. anglosvizzera

    It looks great as far as it goes – but as you say, “At the same time, they have bombarded us with messages to consume sugar(s). They usually call them carbohydrates, which is disingenuous in the extreme. Carbohydrates are all just sugars in disguise. A disguise that the digestive system can strip off in a few minutes.”

    So there are presumably no changes in the fact that ‘carbohydrates’ in general are still meant to make up the bulk of our (or US citizens’) daily diet? And that cereals are usually recommended to make up most of those carbohydrates? And that these are usually consumed in the form of ‘refined carbohydrates’ which as we all (at least on this blog) know by now are almost instantly converted to ‘sugar’ by our digestive processes. Of course fruit and veg are carbs too, but we are often told that eating them in their natural state is better (than, for example, cooking – unless necessary, or blending them into a smoothie, which also breaks down fibre) due to the inherent fibre preventing that form of ‘sugar’ from flooding the bloodstream.

    I suppose it will take a few more decades of ‘research’ for that to filter through to dietary guidelines, given the vested interests of Big Farma that are involved! I’m not quite ready to celebrate yet, I’m afraid!

    Reply
    1. Sally Taylor

      I do sympathise with your reticence to celebrate what appears to be a small victory, but I believe it is in fact a major step in the right direction. If cholesterol, saturated fat, and salt, are deemed to be healthy by The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the world’s largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals), the corollary is that these nutrients don’t cause heart disease or anything else nasty! So attention will now be focussed on sugar, in all its guises. And we need to concentrate on spreading the simple fact that all digestible carbohydrate is sugar!

      Reply
      1. Sally Taylor

        @Stephen Rhodes – sucrose (table sugar) is glucose + fructose; fruits and vegetables also contain glucose and fructose in varying ratios; grains/cereals and vegetables contain long chains of glucose molecules, called starch. It’s all the same stuff.

        Just had a quick Google for a good source that explains ‘sugars’ simply but this is all I can come up with at present (no more time to spare, sorry!):
        http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Biochemistry/Carbohydrates

  13. mec76

    Thank you Dr Kendrick – a little light at the end of one tunnel !!
    One has to laugh – too amusing – except the need to remember the number of people who have been injured. Having listened to that ReachMD podcast yesterday outlining the very facts that Kendrick is speaking of here. Wunnerful – it is sugars, and all those carbs and starches that turn into sugars, that one has to be wary of. An ankylosing spondylitis group has been advocating low / no starch diet, and for many, no lactose, for a long time, years in fact. Since way back in the 80s when Prof Alan Ebringer (now retired) who was head of rheumatology at Kings, pointed out the starch-gut-inflammatory linked process, and put his patients on low / no starch diets, achieving great success, many of his patients achieving remission and certainly lowered pain levels who, in turn were able to take much less medication. Of course Ebringer was howled down – wot, no drugs ?!! Was even howled down at the 2014 international rheumy conference. He smilingly shrugged em off. He who larfs last etc etc. Will see that this latest from Kendrick is highlighted to the spondy group

    I believe all this follows on from the human biome research project which has been pulling endless rabbits out of the hat – magic. Again, huge thanks to Dr Kendrick for his enlightened approach. Sanity.

    P.S. And now for some further INsanity…
    Horrified to see this in Pulse this morning, Statins ‘reduced risk of stroke by 30%’
    French study concludes reduction would have ‘important effect’. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/cardiovascular/statins-reduced-risk-of-stroke. Sigh. A big step backwards

    Reply
    1. David

      Your link is broken. There should be no full stop. The page it leads to just keeps reloading.

      However, and I didn’t read the paper but I assume it means relative risk? 30% of very little isn’t a lot. So it might be okay as far as it goes.

      Reply
  14. Simon Thompson

    Is smartarse a bad thing? I reckon an appropriate move is to “Volunteer” all the low fat clowns to a very long trial to determine the heart outcomes of low fat diet. Is it just me, or does Dean Ornish look like an asteroid death cult leader?

    Reply
  15. Tom Welsh

    While I respect your opinion, and I heartily agree that saying “I told you so” may provoke results similar to poking a wasps’ nest, nevertheless there are excellent reasons for shouting “I TOLD YOU SO!!!” loud, clear and often. When a serious problem is fixed, by whatever means, it is prudent to “look beyond the fix”. Ask “what brought about this problem?” and “what other problems are being caused by the same underlying conditions?” In this case, the lipid hypothesis defies our understanding of the nature of science, which is to pursue the objective truth without fear or favour, to be guided always by the facts, and to treat all theories as provisional and subject to refutation. Everyone needs to understand exactly why the revered institutions of science (and, following them, of government) gave the public, for 40 years or more, nutritional advice that was without basis in fact and that was quite harmful to public health. There should be an extremely public, transparent investigation into exactly what went wrong, so that we can avoid such disastrous and harmful mistakes in future.

    Reply
  16. Flyinthesky

    ‘de-emphasized’, how discombobulating. They just can’t say it can they.
    It would appear to be falling apart but it’s going to take some time, broadly based on the time it takes to replace the revenue stream with another hobgoblin.

    Reply
    1. thetinfoilhatsociety

      I’m not sure it’s another revenue stream per se. I just read this morning that the WTO has told the US it cannot favor meats raised and processed in the US by having this meat labelled as such because it puts up an unfair advantage for US meats in US consumers’ minds. So per the WTO we in the US are not supposed to know where our meats come from because that’s not fair to the Asian meat producers. Nevermind that maybe we don’t want to consume fish laden with radioactive waste from Fukushima, or heavy metals from China or Thailand, or chicken produced in China (etc.). Saying cholesterol doesn’t contribute to heart disease at the same time that these regulations are being changed just opens the door to allowing meats of questionable overall health into the US food supply. And ultimately allows Big Pharma to capitalize on the resulting poor health of the dupes who willingly purchase and consume said meats of dubious provenance.

      Reply
      1. Flyinthesky

        What has to be borne in mind is the much vaunted WTO is not a neutral organisation, it may well have started as that, The old “looks good on paper” reality, it has actually evolved into a corporate facilitation entitiy. Just as big pharma. They want all markets open while deciding the best place to produce.
        It will be corporate entities that are importing meat of dubious provenance while actively lobbying for the country of origin not to be flagged up.

  17. Maguerite

    Fantastic stuf Doc. Now to tackle medical Marijuana! I am astounded that scientists now have to first find out when since biblical times this was G-d’s meds to the people. Sorry to throw in my anti-prohibitionism here but it’s daft. But then… I come from a family of biochemists. Thanks for the article. There’s still that niggling matter of people with HeFH wh could do wonders for the LCHF cause, but unfortunately I think both patient and doctor are afraid of this disease in all sorts of ways, esp re HeFH. But I am Keto but no-one in my family want to try it. They were certain that I would die very quickly but it didn’t happen, did it. Aaah, strange feeling to be the only one of a sort in the universe. know of NO-ONE with this mutation who has taken this diet on board. Their Docs put the fear of G-d into them. I didn’t care and won.

    Reply
    1. Flyinthesky

      The issue there, I don’t have a fixed opinion either way, is it’s a naturally occurring substance, it isn’t patentable so has to be vilified. We can’t have people mending themselves now can we.
      From what I glean from the limited investigations I have done is it’s like all medicines. It isn’t a panacea, it can have negative and positive effects on different people but as an uncontrolable substance the emphasis will always be on the negative whereas a patented substance it’s always on the positive.

      Reply
  18. Stephen Town

    Excellent news, a great summary and vindication of the ‘mavericks’, including of course Dr Kendrick.

    I wonder how long it will take for the NHS guidelines to change and for this to filter down to the GPs’ surgery. I heard a laughable defence of the NHS position quite recently on radio (featuring Nina Teicholz, Aseem Malhotra and Zoe Harcombe).

    Alison Tedston is the national lead for diet and obesity for Public Health England. When pressed in an interview with Adrian Goldberg on the affect of the guidelines on obesity and diabetes, she responded, with breathtaking complacency, that the guidelines were about lowering heart disease risk and not about obesity and diabetes. I’m no medic but I was dumbstruck at the stupidity of this reply. Goldberg was too and went on to point out that the NHS ‘Eatwell Plate’ includes a can of cola. “No it doesn’t.” was the foolish and incorrect reply. Finally realising the huge hole she was digging, and after defending them, she suddenly claimed the guidelines were under review. The ‘Eatwell’ plate includes a can of cola, fruit juice, cake, chocolate and encourages “Plenty of potatoes, bread, rice, pasta and other starchy foods.” All sugars in disguise as Dr Kendrick points out. Fruit is championed and fat condemned.

    How much harm has been done by this nonsense? I see people every day who are trying to do the ‘right’ thing and inadvertently eating or drinking sugar in one form or another.

    If you’d like to listen to Alison Tedston’s astonishing performance, it comes after 24 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1yPvlBCjiA

    The edifice built upon Ancel Keys is being holed every day. One day soon, I hope, it will come crashing down. What then for statins? Will the manufacturers fight like the tobacco companies and hope to get another five or ten years’ profits? Or will they see the futility and move on to their next wonder drug?

    Reply
  19. Sue Richardson

    This is fantastic. I hope the UK will follow. How can they not? I feel like sending this post to everyone I have been talking to about cholesterol, fat etc. and printing it out for those who don’t have a computer (there are such people). Not, of course to say ‘Yah, we were right all along’. Goodness no. Just being a good friend/relation. And I’m going to!

    Reply
  20. Helen

    I’m still outraged that these official bodies who do so much damage to the health of the millions who trust the advice they are given, can perform this kind of about-face without any apology.

    Before I start swearing, can any of you good people recommend a suitable book for an elderly relative who has T2 diabetes and needs some help to change his very set high-carb diet and also to resist the renewed attempts by his GP to put him on yet more anti-diabetic medication? He is a retired academic, comfortable with piles of stats and reams of references, but he does not have internet access. I’d be grateful for any suggestions. He has read Dr K’s book on cholesterol and resisted statins using the evidence in it, and I will send him a copy of Doctoring Data shortly.

    Reply
    1. Sally Taylor

      Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars
      Atkins Diabetes Revolution: Control Your Carbs to Prevent and Manage Type 2 Diabetes
      The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living

      Reply
      1. Helen

        Thank you, Sally. I’d been wondering about the last one (Art and Science… Volek & Phinney), for my own reading, but I think it might be to my relative’s taste too. I haven’t heard of the others but I’m about to look them up!

      2. BobM

        You should also consider Dr. Kendrick’s “The Great Cholesterol Con”, as although it’s not related to blood sugar and T2, as soon as you say “I have to eat fewer carbs” you then say “But that means I’ll be eating more fat, which is going to cause heart disease!”.

        Other good books in this vein include “Big Fat Surprise”, anything by Uffe Ravnskov, Gary Taube’s books, etc.

        Let’s proselytize! 😉

      3. jillm

        Dr Bernstein gives a one hour teleseminar on the last Wednesday of the month. It is available for a few days after. I always listen. There is lots of great info on Dr Bernstein’s site.

      4. Anne

        The especially good thing about Dr Bernstein’s ‘Diabetes Solution’ is that the good doctor is himself a Type 1 diabetic now in his 70’s with no diabetic complications. The book, btw, is aimed for both Type 1’s and Type 2’s. He has been advocating extremely low carb for years. It was also he who pushed for blood glucose meters to be available to diabetics many years ago before they were. If I remember right, his wife was a doctor and brought home a hospital blood glucose meter which he found invaluable. At the time he was an engineer and tried to publish in medical journals how diabetics could benefit from having meters tailored for home use. No one listened because he wasn’t a doctor. So he changed career, trained as a doctor and was able to publish about the usefullness of meters. He’s now a diabetologist. His book was, luckily, the first book I read on diagnosis of diabetes (atypical Type 2 – I’m thin, underweight actually), thank goodness or I might have fallen for the NHS c**p about starchy carbs which was pushed on me subsequently……but by that time I had my own meter and had already seen that starchy carbs were the worst.

    2. Stephen Town

      Helen, the book suggestions by Sally are spot on, but I’d also take him somewhere with the Internet and get him to watch a couple of short Ted-x talks on Youtube. I’d be amazed if a retired academic didn’t easily see the logic. The first is by Wendy Pogozelski, a Type 1 diabetic who is a Professor of Biochemistry. She successfully treated her diabetes until the dieticians got involved. Her conclusions are crystal clear.

      The second is by Sarah Hallberg, a doctor who treats diabetes. Her talk is entitled ‘Reversing Type 2 Diabetes’. She’s describes the vicious circle of ‘standard’ advice. I’ve attached links.


      Reply
      1. Chancery Stone

        These were exceptionally interesting talks, and I found the information invaluable – especially the second one. What a pity she hasn’t written a book: worth a hundred diet books. Many thanks for posting these, Stephen.

      2. Helen

        Thank you, Stephen. Several family members have tried and failed to persuade my relative to buy a computer (or have offered to buy one for him) and teach him how to use it, but where modern technology is concerned he just does not want to know. It’s a great shame, but there we are.

        I did watch the Pogozelski TED talk you posted earlier and found it fascinating, particularly her original reason for going on a low carb diet after her diagnosis: minimising error in blood sugar maintenance. Matching her insulin doses to her carb intake produced erratic results, so it seemed the most logical solution to her. She still had to recognise and resist her own automatic deference to mainstream medical practice though.

        I’ll have a look at the other Hallberg video too – thanks very much for posting.

      3. Jennie

        Brilliant videos!!
        Breaking News in today’s Daily Mail comic
        ‘Eating Porridge for Breakfast cuts Diabeties Risk’
        (I nearly choked on my scrambled eggs made with butter, washed down with coffee and cream) especially when I read the comments to the article where a number of people had been diagnosed with T2.
        They were all regular porridge eaters and couldn’t understand why they had T2.
        The so called dietary advice we have all been ‘tricked’ into over the last 30 years or so by the media, and clever advertising has a lot to answer to.
        I remember my science lessons at school back in the early 70’s and being taught then that too much Carbohydrate makes you ‘fat’.
        Then on to train as a General Nurse and every patient who was diabetic had very restricted carbs on their plates at meal times.
        What on earth went wrong?
        Sadly even I was taken in my the likes of Rosemary Conley with her Low Fat Diet, and was always fat aware, thinking this was the way to go. Even with our family of 4 children. Dishing up low fat, home made meals, with far too many ‘healthy carbs’ because they were
        ‘Low fat’ and we all thought were ok . But why, I thought at the time didnt the scales budge? Well, it was ok then to have a ‘meringue and a sugary diet yogurt’ for a ‘treat’ after your high carb first course.
        If I hadn’t had a blood test which showed I had High Cholesterol I wouldn’t have found this fantastic informative website. (Thank you Malcolm) also (Diet Doctor website ) and re educated myself, in fact turning the clock back years to a much healthier way of eating. Natural food, most of which doesn’t have a bar code on it!
        I didn’t go back, ‘as asked ‘ to have a repeat blood test, and a chat about taking Statins, or anything else come to that.
        I’ll do my bit, by taking the pressure off the already stretched GPs and the NHS, by not wasting theirs, and my time ticking boxes and trying to fill me with medication I neither want or need.
        They have enough to do looking after seriously ill people and of course the ‘Worried Well’ The surgery is full of them.
        Right I’ll get off my soapbox now! 😉

    3. Leaf Eating Carnivore

      Protein Power & Protein Power LifePlan by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades. Successfully treated thousands of diabetic and overweight patients during the course of their clinical practices. Informative style, and a great blog with some relevant posts worth printing out.

      First book I found on Low Carb living – saved my life.

      http://www.ProteinPower.com

      ……………………………………………..

      Go to SpaceDoc.com for sobering discussions about the oft-ignored bad consequences of these drugs, and more books about cholesterol, including Dr. Kendrick’s.

      Google O-Primitivo-Cholesterol and find a truly illuminating chart, and some great discussions thereof.

      And finally, let us not forget Gary Taubes and “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, which might well appeal to your relative’s academic mind. Did mine, at least.

      Reply
      1. Helen

        Thank you for the suggestions. I think Taubes would appeal to him – he’s a good, weighty read!

      2. jillm

        Good Calories, Bad Calories is called The Diet Delusion in some countries. Brilliant book.

    4. Janet Beach

      Where a PC can appear a bit overwhelming to a technophobe, I would recommend an iPad. It’s simplicity itself to operate. My elderly sister-in-law always shied away from a PC but loves her iPad and wouldn’t be without it now.

      Reply
    5. Cindy C

      Hi,, can he check out the Internet at his local library? Here are scans of a Diabetic cookbook from 1917. The recipes are all low carb/moderate protein and high animal fat( meat and butter are said in the book to be the most nutritious ). The flour used is from nuts and protein sources. They had some artificial sweeteners then( I do not really bake or buy low carb bakery products myself) The book can be downloaded.

      https://archive.org/details/diabeticcookeryr00oppeiala

      Reply
      1. Helen

        Thank you very much for this link, Cindy. What a find! I think my relative’s branch library is under threat of closure, like so many. However, I can email this link to someone who has a functioning printer and ask them to run off the basic text file for him.

        I was looking through some cookbooks yesterday and found a very battered 1970 edition of Marguerite Patten’s Bedsitter Cookery (500 Recipes). It was already well-used by the time my husband took it to college with him in 1980. There is a section at the back titled Dishes to Keep You Fit, and under a sub-heading ‘What are the golden rules of keeping slim?’ she writes:

        “To plan meals around the protein foods – eggs, cheese, meat, etc.

        To ‘fill up’ with plenty of vegetables and salads and citrus fruits. Other fruits, such as apples and bananas may have to be restricted slightly if you wish to lose weight and so may vegetables that contain starch, e.g. peas, beans, potatoes.

        To include small amounts only of the carbohydrate foods – starches and sugar.

        To avoid ‘nibbling’ between meals.”

        During the early 1960s my grandmother, who had got fat on the allegedly healthy wartime high-carb diet, restricted in fat and protein, went back to the diet of her youth and shed all the middle-aged spread that was so apparent on my parents’ wedding photographs. She remained slim and fit into her 90s.

  21. T Hart

    Ha ha… I can hear the primal roar of Malcolm, Tim, Uffe, Jay, Andreas and many others! and my own, by the way!

    Reply
  22. Sally Taylor

    Thank you so much for blogging on this, Malcolm! It is really big news, which must be disseminated so it percolates through to GPs and specialists. A pillar of the American nutrition establishment has crumbled. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the world’s largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals, and it has seen the light! How long will it be, I wonder, before the UK diet dictocrats catch up, and the NHS stops pushing statins on everyone over 50?

    Reply
      1. maryl@2015

        I have seen your name on Facebook many times. Someone out there shares you a lot!!

  23. mrsmelwoodbeer

    Fantastic post Sir! I admire your writing a lot. I embarked on a LCHF diet in January and I’m losing weight and becoming healthy. I don’t like to preach to people but I find so much resistance to my way of eating now so irritating! People are very unwilling to unlearn what they have been ‘taught’ I’m sharing your website at every opportunity; perhaps people will listen to you? Thanks again.
    Julie

    Reply
  24. Maureen H

    After going on a LCHF diet, losing weight, feeling great, more energy etc. etc., we put our overweight border collie on a similar diet. He lost the weight and also the ‘deadly farts’.

    Reply
  25. Fergus

    Doc, it must be very gratifying to see the drip drip of old guidelines dissolving into mush. Especially with the insults you have had to take over the years. Congrats!

    You probably already do but signing up to Medscape USA gives you lots of articles that back up many of your positions. eg “The certainty of uncertainty in medicine” George D Lundburg M.D.

    Reply
  26. David Bailey

    OMG – I my first thought when I read that was that this was some sort of April fools joke and that I had skipped a few months for some reason!

    Will this somehow not get reported, or could there be an explosive effect with a house of cards effect:

    Statins are no longer to be recommended for any medical condition.

    CO2 will be de-empahsised as a source of climate change.

    Climate change may have been an unfortunate data processing error.

    A committee will be set up to look for similar unfortunate errors in other sciences.

    All those who acted as whistle blowers over the years will be awarded generous compensation for their efforts over the years.

    Malcolm, you are going to have one hell of a hangover tomorrow!

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      I wish. The problem I have is that, once you start looking at this stuff, it seems immediately obvious that the ‘experts’ have got it horribly, horribly, wrong. I don’t think I am particularly bright, so it constantly amazes me how wrong they have got it. Can’t they see. I then came to realise that they don’t want to see – for many and varied reasons.

      Reply
      1. Gay Corran

        Bright? You have been shining the brightest light into a dark tunnel for a long time now. Keep going, along with your star colleagues…

      2. Stephen Town

        Dr Kendrick, I think it’s more about a questioning nature than intelligence. Some people ask why and want the answer to make sense. It’s what saves us. Eventually.

      3. Gary

        Read “Science for Sale,” by David L. Lewis, PhD, and it will become crystal clear why both medical and nutritional guidelines have gone so terribly wrong, and won’t change any time soon. At least here in the U.S., the regulatory agencies (CDC, FDA, EPA, etc.), as well as legislative bodies and the media have been entirely captured by industry, although in the case of the nutritional guidelines, the story is more complex. At least in the case of food, there is some body of evidence, some good science, growing by the day, of the stupidity of the dietary guidelines. In the case of vaccination, which the drug industry is pressuring all 50 states to force upon every infant with no exceptions, there is no science at all, not a single RTC, with none likely to occur in the future, but plenty of evidence of harm. We were told in one of our opposition rallies that you folks got rid of the vaccination mandate in 1892. Is this correct?

  27. raymm1942

    Don’t you just love “experts”? Remember the Y2K fiasco? The world as we know it was supposed to end at midnight December 1999! Planes were going to drop out of the sky etc.

    I just wish there were many, many more Mavericks like Dr KendricRay

    Reply
  28. David Boothman

    A few of us have know this as a fact for some time, almost a decade, but are less diplomatic than Dr Kendrick. I have no hesitation in saying the majority who promulgated the current advice are quacks, worse than quacks because they have credentials and when you put letters after your name you have a greater responsibility. Collectively they have made an ass out of credentialed science, peer review and even worse, done it for personal gain of both money and prestige. The data has been clear for many years, several excellent, large, well conducted studies simply confirmed prior studies. There is no excuse, no mitigation for their abominable behavior, which has led to untold suffering and premature death on a grand scale.

    Reply
  29. fablabmum

    I am actually ashamed to admit that I used to be a Dietitian working in the field of Health Promotion! I towed the party line of low-fat, high fibre diets promoting all kinds of low fat products and the like – it makes me shudder to think about it now. To be honest, as a so-called professional, I pretty much just churned out the information that had been presented to me in Uni and didn’t have the time (nor perhaps the inclination) to personally consider and challenge this “evidence”. I have been horrified to see that the professional organisation to which I used to belong is STILL churning out the same old stuff more than 20 years on. Let’s hope this report will herald much needed change. As for me, I can only apologise………

    Reply
      1. maryl@2015

        Well, it is about time. It took long enough. Poor Dr. Atkins was maligned by his opponents who falsely reported he died from his own diet. In fact, he developed the diet in the 70’s and died in 2003 from a Cardiomyopathy. No wonder the statistics on heart disease have not been affected by adherence to the low fat diet relative to the old dusty diet heart hypothesis. I wish he were here to say “I told you so” too. I am glad you forward thinking researchers and physicians are here to say it for him and yourselves. I cannot believe that as early as January of this year, Nutritionists were still recommending the low fat diet to diabetics and those with heart disease. It is about time they wised up as people no doubt were beginning to figure it out long ago.

        Congrats to all who held their ground when it came to the HFLC lifestyle. It is good to see the guidelines catch up with irrefutable facts. Now, hopefully the statin debate will not take this long to die…but I would not hold my breath waiting for any I am sorry’s from those who stood to profit the most by false science.

        Thanks again Dr. Kendrick!!

      2. fablabmum

        Thanks Malcolm. To be honest, I left the profession because I didn’t have a lot of respect for it. What worries me is that they are STILL training young Dietitians to promote these outmoded hypotheses! It angers me – they want to be seen as a reliable source of information to the public, the nutrition “experts”, but they have got it so wrong for so long. I recently saw on online debate on the cholesterol hypothesis in which a student Dietitian from Australia was “shouting down ” a sceptic and declaring that she, (after an impressive 4 years at Uni,) must know best! This professional arrogance seems to me to be a major problem with breaking down these myths. No one seems to be prepared to consider the possibility that they might be wrong, a culture that needs to change.

    1. Chris Daniel

      A whole generation of professionals working in this field will feel guilty. Since graduating in nutrition 40 years ago I have personally disregarded these dietary myths and expressed this opinion in private. However being employed in public service I have had to accept and abide by every new dietary guideline. I have cringed at the advice given by many arrogant medical professionals and viewed with dismay the increasing drugs being prescribed. I have delivered an education programme based on lies. Why? Anyone who values their job will not challenge government guidelines. We have all taken part in a conspiracy that has been mainly led by the Big Pharma. What have we done? Sorry!!

      Reply
      1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        You cannot blame yourself. The system is very powerful, and no single individual can make much difference to it. We also all need to make a living somehow. Personally, I just keep battering away.

      2. fablabmum

        I feel your pain! At least you weren’t just blindly following the guidelines. But I know that had I tried to present an alternative argument I would have been kicked out – may well have lost my professional registration.

    2. Stephen Town

      Well said that lady. Most people go to work and largely follow the standard text given from on high. The problem is when the ‘standard’ advice is just plain wrong.

      It’s frustrating listening to the overweight nurse in my surgery giving abysmal nutritional advice, but the responsibility rests with people like the astonishingly complacent Alison Tedston of Public Health, England.

      Reply
  30. Ash Simmonds

    Here’s my “I told you so” from a few years ago – looks like they’re going to change things right on schedule:

    STRESSING ABOUT AND TREATING ‘HIGH CHOLESTEROL’ IS MORE LIKELY TO HARM/KILL YOU THAN HAVING IT IS.

    Thankfully there seems to be a movement toward sanity on this issue in the mainstream, and I’m guessing within 5-10 years all the current recommendations and the folks who have profited most by this madness over the last 30-40 years will slink into the background.

    Sadly this issue likely won’t completely die off until it’s main proponents do.

    http://highsteaks.com/cholesterol/

    Reply
  31. Judy Barbes Baker

    Just recently we in the US were invited to submit comments to the USDA/HHS about the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. I posted the comment I sent in on May 8th here: http://carbwars.blogspot.com/2015/05/last-day-for-comments-on-2015-dietary.html

    The document that we were to review and comment on was here: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2015/comments/writeComments.aspx

    At that time, they were planning to give DIETARY cholesterol an OK but still pushing a plant-based diet with no red meat. I hope that has changed or will change as a result of the letter from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, but I’m not breaking out the champagne just yet.

    Reply
  32. foodnstuff

    Reblogged this on Foodnstuff and commented:
    I like ‘mavericks’…people who don’t go along with accepted wisdom, because they’ve done their own homework and educated themselves with facts. Dr Malcolm Kendrick, a Scottish GP, is one of those. I don’t know how I first found his blog, but I’ve since bought his two books…The Great Cholesterol Con and Doctoring Data. I started reading the second one only last evening. His cynical humour makes reading it worthwhile for that alone. Laughter is the best medicine, as they say.

    I’m becoming more and more fed up with the medical profession and the way they seem to do only what Big Pharma tells them. I go for a consultation, my GP takes my blood pressure, then spends the rest of my allocated 10 minutes looking at his computer screen. Finally he presses the print button and I am handed a prescription for some drug or other. I have never been asked about my lifestyle…what I eat, how much exercise I get, etc, etc. Holistic medicine went out the door years ago and reductionist medicine took its place. I believe more than ever, ‘you are what you eat’, not what someone tells you you should eat.

    So anyway, the US dietary guidelines are about to be revised according to Dr K. Cholesterol, saturated fat and sodium (salt) are no longer ‘nutrients of concern’. Sugar is the killer. Didn’t we already know that?

    So prepare yourself a satisfying plate of tasty, fried bacon and sit own and read the good doctor’s blog.

    Reply
  33. Jeffrey Neil Willits

    Unfortunately, the DGAC’s idea of low carb is less than 45 percent so the trend of metabolic syndrome will not be reversing soon. The USDA’s MyPlate Facebook page will continue recommending that just a little sugar be sprinkled on those whole grain pancakes. There won’t be any apologies. They will just keep backing out of the low fat dogma very very slowly.

    Reply
  34. Jeffrey Neil Willits

    Reblogged this on Jeff's Health Notes and commented:
    I thought this post from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick was interesting and so are many of the comments that are on his blog. My comments are:

    Unfortunately, the DGAC’s idea of low carb is less than 45 percent so the trend of metabolic syndrome will not be reversing soon. The USDA’s MyPlate Facebook page will continue recommending that just a little sugar be sprinkled on those whole grain pancakes. There won’t be any apologies. They will just keep backing out of the low fat dogma very very slowly.

    Reply
  35. Marietsebiel

    Thanks Malcolm, after having read this, I understand why I could not come rejoice with the others about the new guidelines. I hold a grudges and acid anger. That I still have to get rid of. It comes too little, too late for me. And especially no sorry for my lost years in ill health.

    72 years, 26 years DMT2, 3 years LCHF. More healthy now and hope to be 100 years. These years I will spent in health ❤

    Reply
  36. Tom Boyles

    Really EBMers don’t say sorry or I told you so. They change their opinions when new evidence comes in. You should try it sometime.

    Reply
      1. maryl@2015

        Thanks for correcting that information about Dr. Atkins. I am sorry if I blogged anything inaccurate. I guess you can’t believe everything you read. However, I do believe that if he had cardiomyopathy, it was not related to his diet. But, it seemed to be a hot debate when he died. That is the exact problem we have today in terms of heart disease and cardiovascular health. There are so many reasons people die of the disease and those monies that should be used to explore something beside the diet heart hypothesis, have been wasted. Many who might have benefitted from that research have paid a dear price.

        Saying I am sorry means you have to take ownership and responsibility for the wrong we do to others or dispensing inaccurate information. Again, I would not hold my breath. As regards statins, they will think of a way to change things WITHOUT taking responsibility for the damage left in the wake of there close minded, self serving mentalities.

        Recently I sent one of your articles to my GP. I told him that I was not trying to be combative or confrontational but that doctors need to listen to their patients complaints and realize statin side effects are real and under reported. His response was very gentlemanly and he said he understood and now recommends his patients take statins three times a week instead of every day!!!!! They just can’t admit the obvious. It is however a good sign in my mind that things are changing for the good. But you are right. Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

        It has been a long hard fought battle to dismantle those outdated belief systems. Many people have made outstanding contributions to the debate. Perhaps having these issues slowly resolve based on solid scientific evidence (and longitudinal studies) is, in fact, the only way we can avoid what happen with Ancel Keys. People don’t take anything at face value anymore…I hope anyway.

        Thanks again for the information which is very encouraging news.

      2. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        When Dr Atkins died all hell broke loose. His death certificate was obtained (not sure how) by animal rights activists who tried to claim Atkins was massively obese and died of some form of heart disease. There was an agenda. I am very certain (as certain as my memory allows) that Dr Atkins slipped on ice in New York, smashed his head and was then in a coma from which he died. He was not slim when he died, nor obese. Such, however, is the horribleness of some people that they tried to make political capital out of his death. If you look behind the vehement attacks on the HFLC (high fat low carb) movement you will often, I believe, find organisations with a significant animal rights interest.

  37. edp

    Reblogged this on fatplease and commented:
    “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”
    Dr Malcom Kendrick on the highly anticipated report on US dietary guidelines.

    The article has a little summary of key amendments in the report:
    “In short. Cholesterol is healthy, saturated fat is healthy, salt is healthy and sugar is unhealthy. I have pulled those four points out of a press release by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which I reproduce in full, below.”

    It is a good day. Time for some coffee with a splash of cream.

    Reply
    1. Old fogey

      Time for some cream with a splash of coffee!! That’s what I’ve been drinking for breakfast for some years now. . .

      Reply
  38. mikecawdery

    Dr Kendrick another blistering attack on stupidity. BRILLIANT!

    I seem to remember blogs by your good-self on all four points in the past so you have every right to shout “I TOLD YOU SO from the roof tops.

    Your third point “There is concern over blanket sodium restriction given the… ‘growing body of research suggesting that the low sodium intake levels recommended by the DGAC (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) are actually associated with increased mortality for healthy individuals.’” is particularly telling and emphasises my own view that applying HERD DIAGNOSIS to those who do not require it because of a tiny minority of “intolerants (sick people)” is totally wrong.

    The fourth point, “SUGAR” was known back in the 1960s-70s when Yudkin presented his research. Now some whipper snappers are claiming to have found this out as “new”. It really underlines the degree of ignorance and stupidity of the so-called experts.

    I loved the following: “Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Commends Strong, Evidence-Based Dietary Guidelines Report.”. What on earth were the previous guidelines? Myth and Opinion-based Dietary Guidelines? It really makes me wonder the cognitive ability of our so-called experts.

    “The Academy applauds the evidence-based systematic review of the literature, which is vital to the DGAC’s assessment of the science,” said registered dietitian nutritionist and Academy President Sonja L. Connor.. Wow and what have they been doing for the last 50 years promoting ignorance?

    Why can’t they be honest and say “We were totally wrong and conned by non-science”

    Congratulations and PLEASE, PLEASE keep up these revealing medical disasters.

    Reply
    1. Jennifer

      Hello Mike. Yes, it was known in the ’60s and ’70’s about the problems with sugar, and I would go one step back to the ’50s, when the management of ‘senile onset’ diabetes was reasonably managed, due to better nutrition than today’s toxic ‘food’. Unfortunately Keys had a louder voice, and greater influence than Yudkin, (due to big money backing him). Yudkin was hounded about his revealing work, which very effectively caused his message to be completely suppressed.
      Again, money and big business was calling the tune.
      I am grateful that the likes of Lustig have brought Yudkin’s message out into the open, and to be fair, Lustig has always given credit where credit is due.
      Like other people responding on this topic over the last couple of days, I, too, was brainwashed into towing the line in the health service.
      I feel very guilty now.

      Reply
      1. mikecawdery

        i took the 1960s-70s because that is when there was research to prove the point but was overshadowed by Keys.

        Lustig is not included in the the term “whipper snappers” – it is the much younger “researchers” that I refer to.

        The problem, of course, is the fact that most staples include starch, which, as I am sure you know, is the stored carb. To improve digestibility, starch has to be cooked and is then reduced by amylases to glucose for absorption. A surfeit of glucose in the diet is hardly likely to cure a condition in which there is already a problem of metabolization.

        On diagnosis of diabetes (type 2 – not defined when I trained in the early 50s) basically caused by going on a hicarb/lofat diet, I went to see the local NHS Trust dietitian. Oh Dear clearly hadn’t a clue on nutrition. Never went back.

    2. BobM

      The problem is that the “founders” of the dietary guidelines and the American heart association and the like all chose the low fat/cholesterol hypothesis instead of the sugar hypothesis. The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz probably has the best explanation of how the US got to where we are. Regardless, once they chose a path, then all resources went into “proving” that path was correct. Entire careers were — and still are — made based on that path.

      I think more in terms of “baby steps”: this is one baby step toward the repeal of these policies.

      I would honestly prefer that they come out and just say they have no idea what makes a good diet, because they do not (and no one else does, either). Since adhering to a low carb diet, I believe this diet is more beneficial than low fat.

      But what about a more plant-based diet? What about a diet where you feed your intestinal bacteria in such a way you cause the “good” bacteria to grow and cause the “bad” bacterial to die off?

      1) I don’t think anyone knows. 2) Because they selected a choice (even a better choice such as sugar is bad), they limited themselves to what they studied. Instead of studying a lot of different diets, they studied one. That was and remains wrong.

      Reply
      1. David Bailey

        I think if we are ever going to get good science (in any field) we need some big changes. One change would be to fund some people to attack the currently accepted hypotheses in every area of science. These people would be able to choose what to attack and would be expected to get their kudos out of proving negatives, and they would be respected for their work – not hounded as they are now.

        Another change would be to insist that research that depends primarily on statistics, must be reviewed by a statistician unconnected with the relevant field.

  39. Pingback: New US Dietary Guidelines? | InsulinPrices.com

  40. Annelise Wedebye (Denmark)

    Thanks so much, Dr Kendrick. I often felt I had to kind of defend myself for asking ‘Please, may I have some more butter’ (or even to have butter on the table!) – clearly I was looked upon as heading for an immediate heart attack!).

    I also have to constantly fight with my GP for refusing statins (but my Trig/HDL ratio is picture perfect).

    I posted a link to your article on a very big US diabetes site, so you might get response from overseas as well.

    Reply
      1. maryl@2015

        Dr. Kendrick, it must be time consuming. I see your name everywhere!!! That is what you get for being a wonderful author, doctor, and humorist!!!
        You are the best!!!

      2. SJ

        I try, nobody listens. The NHS is sacrosanct, it seems – as is NICE. Sorry for the language, but I’ve got to the “Fuck ’em!” stage now. Let ’em die, I simply don’t care anymore.

        You’re a lot less cynical than I am, Dr. K, it has to be said. To whoever said the NHS was “conned”, don’t you believe a word of it. The NHS is Big Pharma’s puppet, there are ex CEOs on the boards of NHS England and Scotland, and it was Lansley who ordered universal stains whilst moonlighting as a NED at wherever it was (GSK, I think).

        The NHS hasn’t been conned – the NHS is conning US; make no mistake about it, this is very, very, VERY deliberate.

        I would sooner spend the next however many years stuck in this bed, than have anything to do with the NHS EVER AGAIN!

  41. Steve Morrissey

    Dr Kendrick,
    I would just like to express my thanks to you for opening my eyes to the truth about fat and heart disease many years ago. I checked many scientific papers and also looked at the WHO database for Europe at the link between fat intake and health in order to check your arguments. Apart from seeing that fat intake was negatively linked to cardiovascular disease I was intrigue to see that it was linked to living longer. I came to the conclusion that you were right and I have past on this message to as many people that would listen. It is sad seeing so many people being given such bad advice by the various health organisations.

    I have had many interesting conversations with my doctor, he has been impressed with the changes in my lipid profile, HDL has gone up and triglycerides have gone down. I wasn’t surprised at these changes since the studies all indicate that this is the effect of lowering carb intake and increasing fat.

    I used to think that overweight people ate too much and didn’t exercise enough, now I know that I was totally wrong they are suffering from the wrong diet.

    Thanks again for sticking your neck out and speaking out.

    Reply
  42. Palva

    I find this somewhat difficult to swallow. Yes, sat fat and cholesterol etc are not dangerous. But comparing carrots to a cube of sugar? That’s just as bad and potentially damaging as the advice given by the USDA. Sugars accompanied by a host of nutrients are not the same as isolated sugars.

    Reply
    1. maryl@2015

      Palva, I certainly am not a nutritionist. However, there are some vegetables that have a high or relatively high glycemic index. Carrots are one of those, as are beets, and yellow corn. And, I certainly agree with Flyinthesky too about our misconceptions about sugar (plain white sugar) long ago. Children who are active (and most are) can burn it off. But, you set your children up for obesity if they are not active and you keep a lot of it in your home. Sugar is a tough one. It is my greatest weakness. I am fortunate that I did not develop diabetes as both maternal grandparents had it. My grandmother lived to be 93 and her diabetes was controlled with diet. No sugar and very few carbs. So, you can go on several websites and input glycemic index of vegetables and you will find some are higher than others. Having carrots occasionally is not going to kill you, but it is not one I would chose to eat in large quantities. I think carrots make you hyper. Look what happened to Bug’s Bunny. He had ADHD, I am certain of it.

      I was trying to control my children’s sugar intake for years. I recall one incident where my daughter was in the top the grocery cart and demanded I buy sugar coated rice crispies. I told her no because it had too much sugar. We went back and forth like that…I want it, no, I want that cereal, NO NO NO. She crossed her arms, squinted those eyes at me and said “You just wait until you get old!!!! I am gonna be so mean to you!!!” Even today, it sends shivers up my spine!!! I was a young mother, but we were of the opinion that sugar made children hyperactive. It took years for us to understand how our bodies respond to sugar. I try to be nice to my grown daughter, by the way. REALLY NICE!!!!

      Reply
  43. Flyinthesky

    Let’s be careful here, we demolish some demons and promptly install another, sugar(s), Was it Magnus Pike who said in the seventies that it was immaterial to children how much sugar they eat. What we have to bear in mind is activity levels. Sugar(s)have near no consequence if they are rapidly burned by activity.
    The problem arises when sugar input greatly exceeds the instantaneous requirement. If you work or play it off in a short period I don’t see a problem.
    The greatest problem we face in the west is food is seen as and presented as a pleasure by most people, instead of what it actually is, fuel. This along with many other realities is corporate inspired.
    What people need to realise and accept is if you overfill your car and it oversspills into the boot it becomes explosive.
    Sugar is a wonderous instantaneous fuel, the trick is don’t use it if you don’t need it.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Town

      Flyinthesky, sugar and carbohydrates stimulate an insulin response and are then stored as fat. If we ate small amounts and immediately exercised we’d probably be okay, but that’s not the real world 99.9% of the time. We weren’t designed to eat sugar in anything but small quantities (from summer fruit) and it wasn’t widely available until the nineteenth century. In 1800 the average American consumed 2 pounds of sugar a year. It’s now over 140 pounds a year. Run that off! I don’t think so. Sugar is added to most foods we buy (estimated at 80%) and it takes a conscious effort to avoid it. Most people haven’t a clue how much sugar they’re consuming. My health conscious and sensible friends were shocked when I read the label on a tin of beans (six tea spoons of sugar) and a ‘healthy’ fruit drink (seven tea spoons). A ten fold increase in obesity and nine fold increase in diabetes is the result in just forty years. Sugar and too many carbohydrates have created a colossal public health disaster.

      Reply
      1. Flyinthesky

        Stephen, When I was a child in the fifties the standard breakfast was two or three Weetabix a good glug of full cream milk and a dessertspoon+ of sugar. We were all like sticks, whizzing about all day, school dinner followed by a sugar laced school pudding and off we went again.
        The difference today is kids don’t whizz about as much and when they arrive at secondary school the extent of exercise at breaktime is texting with bionic thumbs but the fuel input remains the same or indeed more
        I am not conversant with the scientific nuances of insulin but I’m acutely aware of the realities. The insulin problem, to me, is spikes generated by overconsumption and it’s a circular phenomenon. You eat too much, the body responds with an insulin spike, in quite a short time the overdose of insulin reduces the sugar level, the reduced sugar level tells you that you need food and off we go again.
        This may not seen to be very scientific but I have seen it in my family many times and indeed on occasion experienced it. The only times I feel hunger, not peckish or fancying something but actual hunger is when I have overindulged a few hours earlier.

        It’s my contention that there are no bad foods only bad quantities. The government and health care sector impetus will be based on content, not quantity.

        The point I’m trying to make is we are in danger of an hysterical and disproportionate response, so what’s new. Skull and crossbones and dire consequences of content consumption on a can of pop or a tin of beans.

      2. Maguerite

        Hi Fly, A lot you say resonates with me. The word “food” was sort of not uttered anywhere. We were not aware of it at all. Growing up in a small fisherman’s (English Setlars) town, Port Alfred in South Africa, Friday night was fish and chips and children stayed home because of it. Fridays we DID speak about food because EVERYBODY stood a cue at Mr. Cameron’s fish and chips shop right across the Cowie River where the boats came in from deepsees as 5 o’clock. My children today are a little more sullen, responsible, knowledgeable than we were, but pretty much the rest for uswise as children was sugar and living under running laughter. I can’t remember seeing a fat child. Our teachers used to tell our parents to feed us more when they glanced us over. Thursday mornings we spent an hour of school time with St. Johns people to learn about bandages and CPR. Nobody died. Oh well… very off the subject but this Dr. Malcolm is extremely humane and personable, hence my liberty to talk along your lines. Heady days. PS Today Port Alfred is taken over by developers who built a marina which in essence destroyed its soul. A world phenomenon, BUT I am fully persuaded of Keto dieting now, since we’ve eaten from the tree of knowledge. Sigh…

      3. David Bailey

        I do have some sympathy with Flyinthesky’s point of view, in that it does seem a bit rich to instantly replace one food scare with another. Maybe we all fared somewhat better without scientific (if that is what you call it) advice. Maybe manufacturers would have been less inclined to tinker with food, if they hadn’t been encouraged to do so by scientists who must have already known that the story they were telling was not quite right.

        I have seen it suggested that saturated fat helps us to feel satiated, and that just getting saturated fat back into our diets would help a lot.

        I don’t want the take home story to be that science has been lead to its new advice by new discoveries, I want it to be that scientists accepted very poor experimental evidence from the word go, scoffed at those like Professor Yudkin who pointed out the truth years ago, and knew that they were pedalling lies for years, but continued for the sake of their image!

        Finally, I think fighting a war on sugar may be almost counter-productive. As people begin to realise that the last set of scientific advice was such a mess (regarding both saturated fat and salt), they are unlikely to heed another.

      4. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        I agree David. I do not want give the impression that sugar(s) are deadly. I am more trying to fight against the saturated fat/fat is bad nonsense. Plenty of vegetarians live long and happy lives. Sugar tastes nice, and can be fully enjoyed (in whatever form). The problems occur in diabetes, and those who do have problems with carbohydrate metabolism, and those who take no exercise at all. If you exercise you can eat plenty of carbs/sugars. Food should not be feared.

      5. Flyinthesky

        Malcolm, David, that’s the point I’m trying to make but you both can express it better than I can.
        What we tend to do is accept the latest hypothesis and expand it to it’s greatest potential, we write it in blood and then we become dissatisfied and we try to attach flesh to it to reinforce it. We seem to leap from one hysteria to another. It doesn’t do us mere mortals on the ground any good but it does empower others. In the vein of be mindful of our proclamations or die early and horribly.
        I’m one of a minority that isn’t prepared to play that game.
        I don’t want to play the card again, but I will, according to the experts I died seven years ago, I’ve seen the big farm, the grim reaper., the end game. You can’t frighten me. I may be grossly out of order but you do see life from a totally different perspective. If you accept the terms given by the experts you won’t prolong your lifespan but you may ruin the span you have left.

    2. Cindy C

      Well, horses are worth a lot more than people, it seems. If a person’s muscles are hurting and can’t exercise off the sugar/carbs, they do not tell the person to cut down on carbs and add protein and fat. For horses, with such a problem, they reduce carbs and add fat and protein. Some of them , like some people have genetic mutations and cannot burn carbs well out of the muscles, but can do better on fat. Some people have Glut 1 DS and cannot get glucose into the brain, so they have movement disorders and seizures. A ketogenic diet is the only answer for them.

      http://horsetalk.co.nz/2012/10/09/tying-up-rhabdomyolysis-in-horses/#axzz3ap9NYsZt

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0387760409001594

      Reply
      1. Dr Liz Stansbridge

        Flyinthesky
        You don’t appear to have a weight problem, or a disorder of carbohydrate metabolism. So you eat one high fat, high carb meal a day, (fish and chips, whooo, whoo!) why does that entitle you to tell us all what to do?
        All I can say, is that you are a very lucky person, the rest of us can’t do what you do and stay healthy. You have a sensational genetic profile, lucky, lucky you!!
        Where is your struggle?

      2. maryl@2015

        I have married friends both of whom are physicians. They have a home in our neighborhood and one in the country where they always have had acreage and horses. She has had 3 die and I told her I thought it was a case of what the horse ate. I told her about Tying up syndrome which I have read about. They said “Oh no, it is not that”, but I do believe it as they have lost too many horses. I cannot believe they won’t even consider this possibility. One day the horse is alive and well…the next day, he is found dead!! Oh well. IT is their money!

    3. Maguerite

      Hi Fly, I admire your discipline. If I had to eat because I need the nutrition and not because of pleasure, I would never eat. World is dreary enough. BUT, when you’ve been on (well I am on a seriously high fat diet Keto in the true sense) it does become really pleasurable. I find myself looking at all the good fats and if it doesn’t appeal to me I will simply stop eating. Sorry I really worded this badly… Why all the diversity if it’s a job?

      Reply
      1. Flyinthesky

        Hi Maguerite, I must confess that it is now not down, totally, to discipline, my now prevailing physical condition makes eating a necessary and often hazardous chore, there’s little joy in it.
        I’m all for getting pleasure out of what you eat but a lot of people eat for the pleasure.
        However previously I have been a one meal a day person for over thirty years, no breakfast no lunch just dinner and I have done some strenuous physical work on that regime.

        I must recount a conversation with a “professional” I owned a fish and chip shop for over ten years and a late night customer in nurses type uniform was in placing an order. We got round to discussing food and nutrition as she worked in the hospital nutritional clinic. The general assumption would be that ate fish and chips all day long, I assured her I didn’t as I only had one meal a day and that was after the shop closed at 10-30 pm. She was horror stricken, she said in an authoritative tone “you can’t do that, that’s terrible you need to rethink your dietary requirements, it isn’t good for you”. Now me as a 5’11” 12 stone forty something lean mean fighting machine peered back over the counter at this 5’2″, in any direction you wished to measure, probably circa14 stone woman and said “well one of us has got it wrong”. Funny she never called again.

      2. Jennifer

        Flyinthesky…..you have made my day! What a laugh…..and one of the reasons I stopped having faith in NHS staff ‘advising’ me……just looking at the size and shape of many of the personnel these days gives out a clear message that their understanding of nutritional matters is sadly lacking.
        Just to lighten up on this serious blog as we end the week, I thought it might be interesting to tell my little tale.
        I am nearing the end of a month of experimentation with food, just to see how time consuming or otherwise it is to produce everything for the two of us completely and absolutely from raw materials.
        I want it to be nutritious, pleasant tasting, and nice looking food, because I am a believer in the notion that we eat for other reasons than just to survive.
        Hubby suggests I could do with a tribe of kids ( bit late in the day for that!), as it would not take much more effort to feed a big family.
        I am being quite extreme…..juicing, sprouting, dehydrating, percolating, mincing, salting meat, making cheese, yogurt and sourdough bread. I am avoiding all bought processed food as much as possible, and all meat/poultry/fish are in their natural state. We are knee deep in veggies, and the fruit is being prepared and frozen in small quantities to avoid over indulgence for my sweet tooth. (I must point out that I am extremely fortunate in having a very extensive range of kitchen equipment acquired over 47 years).
        The time spent thinking about the balance of the nutrients, the variety of meals we have grown used to enjoying, and the sheer labour involved is amazing…..good job hubby offers to do the washing up and the ironing.
        So, my conclusion?
        It will be a rare household that manages this regime, taking up nearly all day….( what’s on telly this month, I ask myself)
        SO, HOW ABOUT THE FOOD SUPPLIERS DOING THE DECENT THING!!!
        They need to sell proper food, of decent quality, in quantities that can be eaten in sensible serving sizes, so that the housewife ( and I am being gender-specific here, deliberatly), can get herself out to work as soon as the kids are out of nappies…..that’s government policy these days, isn’t it?
        My experiment finishes this weekend……oh how welcome my bag of fish and chips from our brilliant, local chippy will be on bank holiday Monday.

      3. Maureen H

        Jennifer, when we started on our LCHF diet, we went absolutely cold turkey….no grains, starchy veggies, no fruit except for berries, no processed foods of any kind, or alcohol. It took about 2 months of researching, experimenting with recipes, adding up grams of carbs, protein, fat, working out what percentage of calories, writing everything down. It was a bit overwhelming I must admit and if we had been working full time I doubt we would have stayed the course. But the rewards are well worth it. My gastric reflux disappeared in two days and never came back,and that was a huge incentive to continue. Most people with IPF have gastric reflux and when I mentioned to my respirologist that my reflux had gone and what I had done, he was unimpressed, and said he could prescribe a PPI, no need to deprive myself of any foods. Well, I was unimpressed with that response I can tell you. My calorie intake is around 1600 per day and my hubby’s around 2000, our food is tasty and satisfying. No will power is needed, I couldn’t eat more if I tried, I just know when I’ve had enough, and eating the ‘old way’, I didn’t. I did miss my red wine though. After a year on the diet I tried a glass or two, but both times it made me feel a bit ill. Don’t know what that’s about but now I don’t miss it anyway.

      4. Flyinthesky

        Jennifer, carefully adorning tin foil hat, It would seem to be a prerequisite for NHS employment, borderline obesity. The amount of them you see in the hospitals is mind boggling.
        The analogy, to me, would be attending a smoking cessation clinic talking over a desk to someone who is smoking a cigar.
        There are only three processed foods I eat, Heinz baked beans, high meat content sausages and wait for it………..Vesta chow mein, garbage I know but I like it. Other than that it’s scratch made everything for me. My repertoire is by no means limited but as you illustrate it does require time and effort.
        On the housewife front the corporate desire is to monetise everyone, once upon a time, long ago the wives used to go out to work for those little extras in life, better car or indeed a car a better holiday or indeed a holiday, you get the drift I’m sure, all those once benefits have now diminished and the wives have to go out to work to make ends meet so the individual benefit has been eroded to near zero. Even house values are dictated by two earners applying for a mortgage. Once upon a time It only required one earner.
        As to the fish and chips I wouldn’t beat myself up on that one, fish and chips properly prepared are a near perfect balance of nutrition with just seven ingredients, fish, potatoes, flour, peas, salt, fat and bicarb for pea steeping. The only dubious ingredient is the flour as it’s made from over bred wheat. Very high in gluten.
        Where fish and chips can fall down is the use of commercial batter mixes containing, sugars, stabilisers, raising agents, MSG, colourings, preservatives etc. Our batter was flour, water and salt. Another one is potato preservative, stops the chips going brown if not immersed in water, completely dispels on cooking the manufacturer claims, no it doesn’t, if I eat chips that have been preserved it’s instant repeating and indigestion. Peas, if they’re bright green they have had colouring added to them, I don’t want to eat luminous green mushy peas, just the peas as they come and trust me they are not bright green. Apart from these potential pitfalls you should be OK. Snigger.

      5. Maureen H

        Fish and Chips. Sorry to be a wet blanket, if your chippy is using regular vegetable oils (most likely) and not palm oil (most unlikely) to fry with, when heated they produce toxic oxidative breakdown products. See Nina Teicholz, “The Big Fat Surprise”. Chapter 9. Scary reading.

  44. Stephen Town

    I don’t know about carrots, but the vegetables in my freezer are 3% and 4% carbs. Dr Atkins thought fruit was over rated and high in sugar but ate vegetables.

    Atkins did indeed die after slipping in the snow and banging his head. His treatment apparently caused him to bloat before his death and the zealots in the vegetarian movement used this to criticise his diet. Putting aside the squalid morality of such behaviour, it shows the weakness of the vegetarian case when they have to behave in this way. For some it’s a bit of a religion and they’re so desperate to promote it that any tactics are justified. They attack Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholtz and anyone who broadly support LCHF. Former vegetarian, Tom Naughton has some brilliant debunking items on his Fathead blog on the twisted association studies that the zealots use to try to frighten people away from meat. Apparently three-quarters of such studies later turn out to be wrong.

    I have no problem with most vegetarians who are generally principled and well meaning. But the zealots seem to hate low carbers because they assume it means eating more meat and that’s wicked beyond words in their eyes. Actually, since I went low carb I’ve eaten little or no more meat. I do eat lots more eggs, cheese, cream, high fat yoghurt, cottage cheese and fish to replace the carbs. I believe in high welfare standards for animals and try to buy accordingly, but that’s a different discussion.

    Reply
    1. jillm

      I also believe in high welfare standards for animals, but some animals are not nice to other animals, in the wild.

      Reply
  45. dearieme

    I can see that sugar intake on the US scale might be a bad idea, but surely many countries aren’t packed with adults who have a childish appetite for sweet things, and a deplorable habit of swigging brown sugar-water, when they should be drinking milk, beer, water, tea, or wine.

    Still, being anti-sugar should keep the food-Puritans busy.

    Reply
  46. Paul bunning

    After sending your blog to all my nutrition-interested friends ( with my own yahoo!!!!! cover comment) I got a horrified thought this was a recycled April Fool’s joke. P-l-e-a-s-e tell me the Committee’s view change is real, not a fantasy!

    Reply
  47. Flyinthesky

    Read elsewhere:

    “A row is brewing in the Department for Health after a junior minister yesterday said snack companies could be forced to pay a “sugar tax” if they continue to sell unhealthy foods.

    George Freeman, Life Sciences Minister, said he may support such a tax to pay for the cost of treating obesity, blaming sugary drinks and snacks for Britain’s expanding waistline.

    However, his comments put him at odds with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who has already ruled out such a move, saying that the government would look at alternative ways to get people to eat healthily. Although the Health Secretary opposes the move, Teesside University is compiling a review of the proposals for Public Health England.

    Other figures in the Department for Health, however, have backed the tax, including chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies and Susan Jebb, chairman of the Food Responsibility Network.

    The chairman of campaign group “Action on Sugar”, Graham MacGregor, backed Freeman’s comments, saying: “We are very much in favour of a sugar tax and we welcome Mr Freeman’s words.”

    Not a mention of course of the real problem, quantity.

    How many on message experts will this support, how big a department can we make from it, how much tax can we get from it and how many can we fine or prosecute for not complying with it.
    Trading standards and environmental health officers issued with sugarometers for spot checking takeaways and food manufacturers, maybe.

    When it dawns on them that it’s quantity that’s the issue where and what then?
    I’m sorry sir if you want a dinner plate over 8″ or a cereal dish over 4ozs it will be subject to a glutton tax of 25%. and be aware they will self destruct in 30 days.

    The essence of the problem is too many people are being paid too much for thinking for a living, postulating solutions for problems that other thinkers have generated.
    The latest thoughts sound about right on sugar, it’s still dependant on quantity, but how many millions have been killed and disabled by the cholesterol, saturated fat and salt hypothesis.
    I’m tending to think we’d all be better off if most of these “thinkers” kept their thoughts to themselves.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Town

      There’s clearly a difficulty with eating a small amount of sugar or carb when it leads to your body telling you you’re hungry when you shouldn’t be. I think it was someone on here who mentioned eating a huge Chinese meal and feeling hungry again within an hour or so. I’ve had the same experience with pasta. The ten fold rise in the number of obese people since fat was stigmatised and carbs were suddenly lauded (contrary to all previous advice) tells its own story.

      The sugar tax issue is interesting but I agree with David that admitting they’ve made a huge mistake on fat is hardly likely to increase public confidence. However, as with the American dietary guidelines, they’ll hide any partial admission behind 500 pages of waffle and euphemism. Saturated fat is ‘de-emphasised’. Academic obfuscation at its best. These people will probably have to retire before the cracks turn to full collapse.

      Putting a sugar tax to one side, perhaps we can all probably agree that there should be clear labelling. Instead of a table in grams that few understand, how about “Contains six tea spoons of sugar”? The food industry would fight this to its last breathe because food companies want to sell and formulate their products with the maximum sugar we’ll accept. They call it the sweet spot! Why does tomato soup need seven tea spoons of sugar and a tin of beans six? They deliberately hide the contents behind an unhelpful labelling system that often quotes a figure for half a tin. Who eats half a tin of soup? Does anyone think this isn’t deliberate caused confusion. Pull any tin of a supermarket shelf and see how much sugar it contains. There isn’t a level playing field for the public to make informed decisions and it’s like that for a reason. I don’t really blame the manufacturers because I don’t expect them to care about anything but profit, but this is where Government should step in to help the public.

      Reply
      1. Flyinthesky

        This is an illustration of the problem “this is where Government should step in to help the public.” The government stepping in to “help” the public is how we got to this abhorrent state in the first place. They aren’t helping the public at all, what they are doing in a totally misguided way is to mitigate their public health liabilities. They have been persuaded, as in the statin question, to follow the, vested interest guidelines of experts by statinating ever increasing percentages of the population, disregarding the negative consequences experienced by some, that the overall cost and liability can be reduced. Let’s not delude ourselves here, the government has little to no interest in personal health, wellbeing or outcome, it’s only interest is how much we cost. The balance sheet.
        If you think otherwise, without trying to be offensive, you are deluding yourself. We are not people, we are not individuals, we’re a herd to be managed and I don’t like it.
        As an aside, try the soup without the sugar, my guess is you would spit it out.
        Government “help” and prescribed, authorised and approved medications have killed more people than tomato soup ever will by a huge margin.

      2. mikecawdery

        Flyinthesky
        We are not people, we are not individuals, we’re a herd to be managed and I don’t like it.

        That is precisely what has gone wrong – diagnosis by herd even when in the incidence of whatever is very low within the herd. An example is salt!

        As an aside, try the soup without the sugar, my guess is you would spit it out. Or meat pies!

        The sugar is probably there because when salt is removed it tasteless. Try them with salt.

      3. Flyinthesky

        Hi Mike, I do “modify” some processed foods, Heinz baked beans, I add a half teaspoon of sugar, sorry Stephen, and a quarter teaspoon of salt to return them to their original taste. As posted in a previous comment my wife is celiac and has a very limited choice in sausages, around three I think, they have all followed the saltophobic guidelines rendering them near tasteless although the meat content is higher by a huge margin, one is circa 90% meat. The thing with the sausages, it may be just a mental thing, but you can’t seem to fix it by putting salt on them as opposed to the original with the salt in it.
        My Grandmother, I’ve said it before, her dinner looked like it had been snowing with the salt she put on it, she lived till she was 92 and was still shopping, daily, up to near ninety.
        Butchers: can I have two sausages a quarter of liver please and a slice of ham, I don’t want that slice on the top it may be dry. They must have hated her, hey ho.

        The herd thing, the powers that be don’t employ the services of GPs as pathfinders, carers or innovators they employ them as shepherds and until people can vote with their wallets that isn’t going to change. If you have a serious disagreement with your GP and wish to transfer to another there will probably be an annotation on your records that you are troublesome and uncooperative, recipient practice beware.

      4. maryl@2015

        BRAVO, STEPHEN TOWN. I am seeing so many products on the shelves of American grocery stores that say “no sugar added” or “sugar free” or ” low sugar”. Still need to read our labels. I read the sugar grams but also the fiber grams. So if it says 20carbs, nutritionists will say, that you can subtract the number of grams of fiber from the total carbs grams and it is then is a reduction in total carbs. Hope they are right. We are moving in that direction here in the states. I have no doubt that these guidelines will be accepted. There is just too much evidence in how we see younger and younger obese children who are developing diabetes at record numbers.

  48. Fergus

    When the tide turns sufficiently against the high carb guidelines, lets hope that the 5 a day fruit and veg trope is changed to just 5 veg a day. Fruit and vegetables are so different they shouldn’t be lumped together.

    Reply
    1. Flyinthesky

      You can lump them together they’re both foods, You may live ten minutes longer by separating fruit and veg, that advantage will be negated by being induced to worry about it, Life kills everyone.
      It would be better if they got their vested interest prognostications out of everything and left us alone. Let’s not forget that todays prognostic solutions are the result of yesterdays prognostic errors. Leave us alone. I’m going to live as I wish and for as long as I do, end of.
      If I have to live my life constrained by the opinions of so called experts, kill me now because living my life within such constraints isn’t life it’s existence and in the main it isn’t for my benefit it’s for theirs.

      Reply
    2. Jennifer

      The concept of (just) ‘5 veggies a day’ could be questioned, in particular, to the historic rational behind it. ( why put a number on the amount eaten….there are just so many hours in a day which we could dedicate to chomping on raw carrots and celery). But at least it would be a step in the right direction.
      And by relegating fruit way down the nutritional index scale, an even better scenario may come about. Now mentioning a number for fruit portions would help……anyone can easily put away pounds of bananas, soft pears, and yes…even berries..in pretty short shrift……not good!
      The answer may well be…..moderation in all things.

      Reply
      1. Stephen Town

        Zoe Harcombe says that the “Five a day” was a commercial initiative. I’m with Atkins, who avoided fruit because of the sugar and happily ate veg and salad. If, Fly, you don’t care, that’s fine because you’re free to choose. But many people prefer to avoid unnecessary sugar with, I think, good reason.

      2. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        It is very difficult to work out where the five a day came from. I think it started in the world of cancer, then moved across to cardiovascular heatlh. Like many things, tracking down the original source of nonsense can be tricky. Very often it seems that that if I say a thing three times it is true:

        “Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
        As he landed his crew with care;
        Supporting each man on the top of the tide
        By a finger entwined in his hair.

        “Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
        That alone should encourage the crew.
        Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
        What I tell you three times is true.”

      3. mikecawdery

        Robert Lustig, in his recent book, is against fruit juices but not, as I remember, against fruit as fruit.

        The five a day is simply a number out of a hat; in France I believe it is seven a day. Take your pick – it is good as anyone elses.

        Cooking is what makes greens and vegs digestible. Just try eating raw potatoes.

  49. Boundless

    The anointed would love to ease in the truth so slowly that by the time a sane diet is the consensus diet, everyone who ever advocated the current deadly nonsense is dead.

    Fortunately, they don’t have time for that, as public awareness of real results from low-carb, high-fat, grain-free, inflammatory-free eating, plus gut remediation, are becoming unmistakable.

    As for getting an apology, forget it. Comedian Tom Naughton pretty much nailed the anointed in his video:
    http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/12/17/speech-diet-health-and-the-wisdom-of-crowds/

    The anointed have a real problem. As I pointed out in a semi-humorous take on the wheat aspect of it, posted by Bill Davis on his blog:
    “… the subtext message is going to be: `We today admit that we have zero credibility, but we have some important news, so pay attention.’ Again, not soon.”
    http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2011/11/flash-in-the-pan-fad-diet/

    This is all going to take some time yet, perhaps just about as rapidly as the food chain can convert from industrial grains to phased pastured flocks and herds.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Town

      Mary, I tried the link but I was refused entry on the grounds that I live under a monarchy and have a funny English accent. Fair enough, but they should listen to the really people in the next village!

      Reply
      1. Jo

        If you go to hola dot org you can download an app that will work in certain browsers and allow you to view overseas clips. It’s free.

      2. maryl@2015

        Sorry Stephen, I don’t think your accent is funny per se, but rather gentlemanly. Perhaps you could go to YouTube and type in Dr. Stephen Colbert (he is not a real doctor) on “Women’s Health and statins” which aired on 11/12/08. The first time I saw it, I could not gather myself I laughed so hard. There was a segment mentioning Great Britain, too. I think he was poking fun at Crestor and the Jupiter trial. If you have a sense of humor, you will love it! Hope you can access using the date at least. Good Luck!

  50. Dr Liz Stansbridge

    The tide is turning, but as someone said, it will take 30 years for this to become mainstream. Meanwhile many, many people will die or suffer awful complications.
    Just watched Mary Berry on BBC2, her cookery programme. Yes, nostalgia is fashionable, but her dietary info has been skewed by the high carb, low fat school. Every recipe contains more carb than I could consume in a day.
    I am a T2 diabetic. Over the last year I have lost 8 stone and reduced my HbA1c from over 80 to 31! LCHF lost me 6 stone. Now I have to watch the calories to lose the last bit of weight. Not a problem. When your blood glucose stays normal (i.e. under 6.5 at ALL times, you don’t feel hunger). A carrot was indeed a problem at the start of my journey, Over 10g carb for a large carrot pushed my BG over 10. I believe Dr Bernstein hasn’t consumed carrot, tomato and onion in 40 years. With my improved insulin resistance, I can eat a large bowl of carrot and coriander soup. Whoo whooo! Delicious! So, Flyinthesky, who never had a weight or carbohydrate metabolic problem, how lucky are you!! The evidence I need is my glucose meter and be damned the NHS guidelines, To be ‘heart safe’, you must keep your BG under 8, if you want to have non diabetic health risks you should keep your BG’s at non diabetic levels i.e. under 6.5 at 1hr post food.
    We need to complain to the BBC.
    They DO listen. They have to, it is their remit. We need low carb cookery programmes and we need them now!
    So my fellow Kendrick followers, complain to the Beeb. It is a simple process online.
    Combine to protest against the nonsense they are feeding us.

    Reply
      1. Maguerite

        SOOO sorry, but I am never going to protest against business of any kind. It is prohibitionist in essence and diet is a case of read and become acquainted and apply if you will. So to start boycotting business makes the entire issue very unionist and another form of “lording over” and that is not for the scientist, I don’t think. I cringe that people should offend that lovely lady Mary Berry and I’m not even British. Her twinkling blue innocent eyes – they’re craftsmen and not all craft is good but brides will always want a wedding cake. Dr. Tim Noakes in South Africa said in his first book the diet is for those who choose it and something to the effect that he will not be closing down the farming community. To be able to bake and decorate a cake is a thing of beauty – you don’t have to eat it. I worry about a fascist element in everything that’s good under the sun. Dates, honey and figs are biblical and ancient foods but it wasn’t intended for constant gluttony over it.

    1. Flyinthesky

      Hi Liz, The problem there is The BBC are still with HCLF and it’s going to take some time for them to change that, as with the new guidelines the new position is going to take a long time to percolate down as it goes against decades of accepted wisdoms. There are an awful lot a faces to be saved. The egg on the face will only be near invisible specks and cleaned off as they appear.

      My wife is celiac and has crohns disease, they don’t do many cooking programs for her either. She has spend many years building her own repertoire of recipes.

      A couple of points, I don’t presume to tell anyone what to do I only recount my own experiences.
      I’m sorry you have had so many metabolic problems but within normal metabolic parameters fish chips and peas is a good meal. The problem arises when you have a big mac and fries for lunch, fish chips and peas for tea and a dominos for supper, believe me some people do it!

      I have some serious nutritional issues of my own. I am no longer a 12 stone forty something, care of cancer in my neck I am now a wisened 10 stone sixty something, I’ve lost a good portion of my soft palette to tissue necrosis, I have holes in my oropharyngeal cavity where tumours used to reside, gum to cheek adhesions, oh the joys of radiotherapy. So eating is a nightmare.
      Oops nearly forgot a prerequisite for the radiotherapy was I had to have all my teeth removed.
      I try to stick to a ketogenic diet as much a possible to reduce the chance of tumour regrowth.

      Reply
  51. mikecawdery

    And that is what the establishment is depending on unfortunately. No protests and nothing changes – bad advice is simply accepted as correct which is precisely what has happened over the last 50 years; result an obesity epidemic, followed by epidemics of diabetes, Alzheimer’s and others.

    Reply
  52. Stephen Town

    Fly, in relation to your health issues can I give you my very best wishes.

    I think you’ve said before that you’re a conspiricist. I’m not. I believe there are vested interests, and the drug industry is clearly one, but I don’t believe the Government is out to get us. Governments get some things wrong and some things right.

    You say it’s all about money, but what costs the Government most? Healthly sensible people who try to exercise and look after themselves and ratrely go near the NHS or the obese and diabetic? I’ve repeatedly read that the ever rising rate of obesity and diabetes will bankrupt the NHS if it continues. If your logic was right the Government would be hitting the food industry hard, but they pussyfoot around because of an ideology that believes in ‘light touch’ regulation and ‘working with industry’. That approach is right in many areas, but is hopelessly naïve when dealing with drug companies and the food industry.

    I can’t for the life of me see why anyone outside the food industry shouldn’t support clear food labelling. What tomato soup tastes like without sugar is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the consumer has a right to know what’s in the tin, so he or she can make an informed decision. Why do you think the industry is so opposed to clear labelling?

    We don’t have a level playing field at all for consumers and most don’t have a clue what they’re buying or eating. I recently picked up a packet aimed at children in my local supermarket. The whole message on the packet was how fruity and healthy it was. I read the label and the product was 49% sugar. Yes, many people in the 1970s ate three tea spoons of sugar with their Weetabix and probably another three with their cup of tea. There was also rampant tooth decay and the rise in diabetes had begun.

    Some people will always eat a terrible diet but many people are trying to do the right thing and helping them can only be right.

    We have the right to know what’s added to our food. It’s opposed only by vested interests. Food manufacturers have already noted that the limited labelling we have affects consumer behaviour and clarity would hurt them further.

    Reply
    1. JPA

      I think the food manufacturers are against having to label foods accurately because it would give away what they would rather us not know.

      If a food manufacturer did make a food with no added sugar it would not taste as good as those with, and so that manufacturer would lose money. Of course they could state boldly that their product contained no added sugar, but I don’t know if that would get them many more customers as most people don’t think of added sugar as a problem.

      Reply
      1. David Bailey

        While I don’t really want to support big business, it has to be said that if the food industry had been given correct scientific advice it might have made a better job of keeping people healthy. Once the war on salt and saturated fat began, food manufacturers must have really struggled to sell ‘healthy’ food that people would actually buy.

        I love science, but right now, I feel big science needs to suffer a huge loss of credibility and funding if it is ever to return to methods that converge to the truth. I want the saturated fat/salt debacle to be recognised for the disaster it has been, and for the relevant scientists to be held to account – and all the various whistle blowers to be rewarded.

        I wish that the newspaper science editors would brush aside all the waffle about “nutriments of concern” and expose this mess for everyone to see – and then go after all the other science led campaigns – asking the really awkward questions. Their rule of thumb should always be that if they don’t understand a scientist’s reply, he is probably hiding something!

        The obvious way forward for newspaper editors is to start with the whistle blowers who have forced this revelation, and ask them what else they are concerned about!

      2. maryl@2015

        JPA, I do think people have thought sugar is a problem for years now. It was a calorie problem, we thought it made our children hyper, then obese (which it does and did), and now realize we have to demand that foods be properly labeled. If they would just be honest about what they put in the foods, at least people can make informed choices. I think they owe everyone that. If you choose still to consume it, then YOU have to take responsibility. I think there was always a lot of msg in foods as well. It enhances the taste. I have to admit, I thought it was harmless. I do not think that any longer. So I do think people feel very strongly about what they are eating. Manufacturers can still do well and make money but have to address people’s concerns. It is just the right thing to do. I hate to think of any huge economic collapse for the food and drug industry, but things have got to change for the good. It is quite possible, I believe as any change requires planning and action.

    2. Flyinthesky

      Hi Stephen, Thank you for your kind wishes, I have been in this condition for over five years, over five years whoopee, statistically I’m cured. If you only have one leg you learn to hop.

      It isn’t so much conspiracy is a realisation of actuality. Most of the ills the world face are corporate inspired, pharma is just a branch of it.
      The government may indeed not be out to get us but it doesn’t do enough to protect us from it’s corrupt bedfellows. In a lot of areas it seems to go out of its’ way to facilitate them.
      We change the colour of our administration every four or five years but the real government remains, the upper echelons of the civil service who advise the incumbents who are themselves advised by the corporates. The corporates have access to all tiers of government. This includes the eu,, UN, WTO, WHO et al, these entities have become so large and powerful they don’t respond to legislation they generate it.

      I have no issue at all with accurate food labelling but as you infer, the tails wagging the dog again. One of my concerns is when the great sugar reduction kicks in is what dubious chemical are they going to replace it with.

      “Some people will always eat a terrible diet but many people are trying to do the right thing and helping them can only be right.” My opinion is those who are trying to get it right will figure it out for themselves.

      I also have no objection to government advice, where I do object is when advice becomes mandatory with menaces, often disguised as nudging. It’s this nudging on salt and fat that’s created a lot of the problems we now face and that includes, again in my opinion, obesity and T2.
      It’s time that the people directed the activities of the corporates but that would be democracy, instead we leave it to our elected representatives, the illusion of democracy. I can’t think there would be a single person who wouldn’t want to know what they are actually eating.

      I’d like accurate information in all areas, it all works the same, but I can’t see it ever being on offer.

      Reply
      1. Stephen Town

        Fly, I agree with what you say. I wouldn’t object to nudges so much if they could manage to push in the right direction and for the right reasons.

    3. amie

      It is a question of adapting your palate. After cutting out all fruit drinks or squashes and only drinking water, (even though I still eat chocs and cake) I now cannot bear commercial soups with any sugar in whatsoever. I can detect it without even reading the label. They taste utterly sickly to me. Even Carrot soup with no sugar now tastes unpalatabley sweet to me. I even wrote to Baxters about the high levels of sugar in their soups.

      Reply
  53. Lovely Laura

    Fly, can I join others in giving you my best wishes.

    I have been following the discussions here and really enjoying them for some time, but I am a bit shy about putting ideas in print, as I am sure something else will occur to me immediately I press send!

    Stephen talks about what would be logical, but very few of the decisions that got us to where we are were logical, they are all to do with underlying assumptions. Personal experience illustrates this best. I have Type 2, celebrating 21 years since the diagnosis this month. In that time, I have interacted with many health professionals and told a lot of people who were trying to make me eat stuff I didn’t want to.

    With a couple of honourable exceptions, health professionals talk to me like I don’t have a brain, brought it all upon myself and my only desire is to sit on a sofa eating. Am I overreacting? I don’t think so! When I don’t fit their stereotype, for example by continuing to refuse the medication they are paid to prescribe, they back off, but don’t look at the evidence before them i.e. why is this patient ok when they won’t follow the protocol? The scientific method seems to be largely dead in GPs surgeries, most are just trying to keep up with the workload and remember how to use the latest computer system. They do not have time to question their assumptions and challenge the stereotype that was trained into them before they had the life experience to question it. Any GPs out there – what can we do to help GPs change?

    Similarly, when I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis more recently, I went to the doctor as I was having a bit of trouble getting going in the morning when i was mucking the horse out and feeling a bit slow while out running with my daughter. Although I clearly told the consultant this, she advised me to start taking some gentle exercise as it would be good for me – tai chi particularly. The information I had given didn’t even get past the assumption filter already in place! Although I can understand that to a certain extent, having shared a waiting room with a number of other patients who had clearly suffered a lot more than I had to contend with.

    As long as professionals, the NHS and agencies hold onto their assumptions, the ‘blame the individual for their choices approach’ will continue. Government policy is formed by this approach and there seems to be little that politics likes better than blaming individuals.

    Anyway, I carry on looking at the evidence, trying to make sensible choices and my luck has held so far, diabetes well controlled, RA in remission (sadly not before doing some damage, hey ho), no medication, so no side effects and I am happy.

    As we all continue to challenge assumptions and more gets out there, attitudes will change. It is happening and the more professionals join in the quicker it will be. I know you all know this, I am just looking for ways to help the process along. I want my daughter to live in a better place as far as this is concerned, and seeing the eating habits of her friends scares me.

    So thanks for persevering Dr Kendrick. I know you are a busy man, but if you had time to post a summary of the evidence re cholesterol in terms suited to people with no medical knowledge who are unlikely to read a book on it to discuss, I could sure make use of it at a peer support group I am involved in!! Or do any of your readers know of one? I am looking for something endorsed/created by a professional, so it carries more kudos than simply my view…..life is full of irony!

    Reply
    1. David Bailey

      Laura,

      I think that is a wonderful post – and yes we need GP’s to feel it is important to collect the experiences of their patients and make them count in the decision making process, rather than rely on randomised trials which are great in theory, but not if they are run and interpreted by those with vested interests.

      To respond to your last point, after a nasty experience with statins, I don’t do anything to control my cholesterol, and I don’t even have it measured! Since people tend live longer with high blood cholesterol than those with low values, I am not in the slightest bit worried by cholesterol and would never take a statin under any circumstances. I came to that conclusion after reading “The Great Cholesterol Con”, so I guess you could say that is the ultimate summary that you want – except that I am not a medical doctor!

      Reply
      1. Jennifer

        David. I mentioned about a 75 year old female who told GP she was stopping statins after many years. GP asked for a blood test after 8 weeks. It showed cholesterol level 7.4…..”far too high”….so she was restarted on them!
        Crazy, or what?
        But, people are nervous about discussing things. As a 70 year old man told me….”I just take what the Dr orders, and wouldn’t dream of questioning him….after all, he diagnosed my prostate cancer correctly, so I owe my life to him”.
        Like yourself, I don’t get anything measured ever nowadays….not my HbA1c, nor my B/P, nor my sanity………( the inference hinted at at each clinic visit, ….whilst giving my toes a cursory glance….., that I am a bit loopy) .
        I just get on with life as best I can, and I am doing pretty good these days….in fact, infinitely better than when I lived at the surgery having this than and the other tested, and each day spent juggling around endless medications.

      2. David Bailey

        Jennifer,

        I do empathise with what you wrote – none of us are fully rational in these matters. For example, although I know Dr Kendrick’s view is that blood pressure pills are useless except for extreme cases, I still take mine – but then, they don’t seem to give me any side effects! I expect I would be still taking statins if they had not been so unpleasant, but even so, I think statins seem far more insidious that BP pills because even if they don’t cause muscle problems, they increase your chance of T2 diabetes, and possibly Alzheimers and heart failure.

        I have also decided to ignore future invitations to have this or that tested – just in case! Every one of those tests is stressful because you worry about the potential outcome, and the possibility of a false positive.

        People are taught to treat doctors rather like priests, and it does take a wrench to break with that custom! I think it also takes a shift in attitude to realise that something gets us all in the end, so it is really important not to let the medical profession mess up what time you have left.

        My doctor doesn’t make problems for me now, because he originally prescribed the statins, and he knows what they did to me – so I think he feels a bit guilty! I think it is good to stay on good terms with your doctor if possible because you might need him for real one day!

        I am also amazed just how much better I feel without the statins and without constantly worrying about the outcome of tests!

    2. Flyinthesky

      Laura, of course you can, and thank you, but there really is no need at all, You evolve to work with what you have. My grandchildren see the mouthful of cabbage I have just swallowed coming out of my nose as a party trick and observe it with much hilarity. not so pleasing for adults mind.
      Great post, If you have a thought go with it, they’ll either like it or they won’t but it’s a broad spectrum of ideals, ideas and perspectives that can temper the individual view. I post a lot of things that even on writing I know people are going to hate it. The broader your input the greater likelihood of you coming to a balanced perspective.
      I do go to lengths to try and not offend people but to some the mere presentation of a contrary position is deemed offensive.

      Reply
    3. maryl@2015

      Laura, I think the above synopsis Dr. Kendrick gives here is an excellent start for your support group if we are talking about overall health. He breaks it down very well for the lay person. In fact my favorites are The Great Cholesterol Con and Dr. Graveline’s blog, at spacedoc.net. I am not reading Dr Barbara Robert’s book, “The Truth About Statins”. Some of the information is very difficult to understand, I know and I had to try very hard to get it. Still don’t have a lot of it.
      I am ashamed to say I purchased convenience foods that kids crave and was concerned about it but did not understand the overall damage until much later. I am also ashamed to say I smoked at one time. I quit but I knew from many sources (for quite some time), it was bad for me. I made my choices knowing that I was taking a risk. So blaming others is not the answer for either us or the medical community. Each has to take responsibility for our choices good and bad. I think Dr. Kendrick’s most important message in the Great Cholesterol Con is that we must take our own healthcare in hand rather than rely on a pill to do the work for us. In some cases, medications are life saving and necessary. However, we can do a lot to change our own medical status. It sounds as though you have tried to just that. You can be proud.

      Reply
  54. JPA

    Dr. Kendrick. Thank you for making it clear that you are not condemning any particular food type.

    I work with people who have eating disorders and one of the starting points for them seems to have been a fear of certain types of food, fats usually. They start out wanting to eat “healthy” and end up not eating anything. My comment to them is that unless what they are eating is poisonous, contaminated with harmful bacteria, or radioactive their body will handle it.

    Of course people with food allergies or metabolic conditions need to avoid certain foods or types of food. I have had patients with type II diabetes be told that it was OK to eat dessert a couple of times per day by their dietitian because they had “binge eating disorder” and needed to stop being afraid of sugar. Strange. I had another dietitian tell me that sugar couldn’t be addictive because she would have a hard time not eating sugar and she was not an addict. Even more strange.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Town

      JPA, if Dr Kendrick’s item wasn’t criticising sugars and carbohydrates I must have completely misunderstood. It’s clear enough.

      You are clearly having to deal with fools in the dietary world. It doesn’t seem to be where many real scientists go. It must be hard for the good ones like Zoe Harcombe.

      Reply
      1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        Stephen. It is, of course, complex. Carbs are not inherently bad for us. They become bad if a: we eat too much (not entirely sure how much is too much) b: we do not, or cannot exercise. c: we have problems with carb/sugar metabolism (mainly insulin resistance). Unfortunately most people eat too many carbs, do not take exercise and, thus, usually have a degree of insulin resistance. So, almost everyone would do well to reduce cabs intake and increase fat intake.

    2. Lovely Laura

      Hi JPA,

      There are now so many professionals who have been trained to believe really strange things. Combined with ‘expert’ status, this is so hard to combat. I have listened to talks about cholesterol from doctors who knew less than I do (having read all the sources discussed on this blog) but were convinced that the guidelines are right. Also Diabetes UK provided our group with an expert whose entire message was that sugar is a carbohydrate, so diabetics should eat it – she did not want us to miss out on puddings, (particularly spotted dick, whatever that is). Poor woman had never even tried a homemade kefir/chia seed/Baileys pudding – so she was trapped in a cultural ghetto and paid to stay there!

      Reply
      1. Flyinthesky

        The problem is Laura we live in a society with a hierarchial structure, you don’t have a valid opinion If you don’t have the necessary qualification paperwork to express it. It doesn’t matter how much you know or how much the expert opinion defies common sense, even if you’re right your input is discredited and dismissed.
        ” I am looking for something endorsed/created by a professional, so it carries more kudos than simply my view” The problem here is how to select a professional, most of these care of their own internal hierarchial structures they are singing off the same sheet. They don’t actually know X but for career progression they have to accept X and not question it.
        It’s a bit of a vicious circle, if you find a “professional” that reflects your carefully evaluated conclusions he/she may not have the kudos to carry it.
        It’s the same with most science discipline professionals they rarely confer their own wisdoms they retail someone else’s. Once in the game the primary motivation soon becomes maintaining a place within it, the best way of doing so is to accept the consensus, questioning it puts you on a knife edge, very few can cope with that sort of pressure.

  55. Pingback: Cholesterol and Heart Disease | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page

  56. Socratic Dog

    I don’t know if this comment has already been made, but regardless…. to my mind the elephant in the room here is the question of how many people have been killed by following the dietary guidelines issued over the last 60 years or so. Killed, as in died before they otherwise would have. Murdered, you might say. Or suffered debilitating disease. Tortured, you might say. The western obesity epidemic correlates quite nicely to the progressive change to a low-fat-high-CHO.

    When I see a massive media storm of opprobrium directed against the high priests of medicine and diet then I might start to wonder whether there is still hope for the west. When I see learned professors, and lots of them, stand in public and abjectly grovel then I might have hope. When the drug companies talk about multi-trillion dollar compensation programs, that will put them out of business, I’ll have hope.

    This has probably been the greatest genocide in history. I would guess the number of slaughtered measures in the hundreds of millions.

    Perhaps the most important lesson to learn from it all is that being a malcontent, an outsider, an eccentric, a curmudgeon, and most importantly a shunner of the medical system, is the most beneficial thing you can possibly do for your health and life expectancy.

    Get you vaccines over here folks. We’ll start your kids on the day they’re born. Trust us, it’s safe.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Town

      Oh, Socrates, I was with you until you got to vaccines. Do you prefer measles in children?

      Anyway, the rate of obesity has risen from 2.5% to 26% in thirty years, so that’s an awful lot of illness and premature death. Diabetes has risen to a similar extent.

      It’s been an absolute disaster, but I still think it would be better to leave ‘genocide’ for different contexts.

      Reply
      1. Socratic Dog

        Steven, the point I am making with vaccines is that it might be wise to extrapolate a little from this disaster, as you put it. It seems to me the credibility of the medical establishment must take a major blow over this. Not just in diet and heart disease, but across the board. ALL the recommendations coming from it need to be treated with skepticism. The more the drug companies are involved, the more the skepticism is warranted. And I would suggest that the more apparent religious-type fervor attached, the more the skepticism is warranted. Vaccinations feature high on both measures. As well, a cursory glance at the literature suggests that the research behind vaccination as it is now practiced is as about as extensive and convincing as that behind the cholesterol hypothesis. Meaning, of course, it ain’t.

      2. David Bailey

        Stephen,

        It is worth reading “Doctoring Data”, because at one point Dr Kendrick discusses vaccines. It would seem that Germany takes the idea that vaccines can damage a small number of people seriously. His comments rather shocked me!

      3. Flyinthesky

        Stephen, There are no zero sum outcomes from any medical interactions there is always an effect. Some indeed are positive but there are a lot of negatives also. Early attempts at mammography created as many problems as it found, it’s better now but still not risk free. You really should read “Doctoring Data” by a well known author. All is not how it’s presented.

        As I can attest, the MMR vaccine can have some serious effects, my grandson started to display, very markedly, autistic traits the day after. From an “expert” perspective these would be deemed sub clinical but to those around him, blindingly obvious. I have six grandsons, one affected and one getting measles despite MMR.
        Women in my day had measles and chicken pox parties, no one died but it does tune up the immune system.

        A lot of the obesity epidemic can be blamed on increasing disposable income, despite protestations from some quarters we have never been so well off. Another part of the problem is women “have” to go out to work to sustain a household nowadays, leaving little time to cook so relying on the corporates to feed the children although how any sentient person could think that 20 chicken nuggets for a £1 would have any nutritional value at all beggars belief.
        Another issue is the demise of traditional cookery lessons at school, replaced by home economics and food technology. That said cookery lessons would still have to follow the prevailing governments’ diktats. LFHC at this time.

        Genocide infers intent, jury’s out on that, How about acceptable collateral mortality, it’s certainly one or the other.

      4. Jennifer

        Flyinthesky. You are in tip top form this week with your responses…..saving me the time of putting the very same thoughts into my own words.
        I think we may be accused of being old fashioned and smug when we look back to the days of Mam cooking the food for the family, and Dad bringing his meagre wages home. There will be lots of folks who say we are looking through rose coloured glasses, when we tell tales of the family eating what was put down to them, with little input for the opinions of the offspring turning their noses up at Mam’s concoctions. But in those days, Dad’s would also eat what was presented, without question, but with grateful thanks for even the horrible breast of lamb…yuk!
        In the present day, the families just don’t have time to continually
        prepare from scratch.
        Oh, by the way….chippy closed today! So chicken curry it is!

      5. Flyinthesky

        Thanks Jennifer, it’s a subject that I feel very passionate about, it isn’t just Malcolm’s small area of interest either, we are being systematically lied too in an awful lot of areas, my latest area of interest, also based on abject lies, is the eu, the vested interest and expressed reality is we have to be governed by it to trade with it. Being governed by it is for their, corporate and eu, interest not ours. The first and primary focus is to wrest control of our country back from corporates and unelected bureaucrats, the bigger we make blocs the easier it is for them to, bloc wide, implement their malign intentions. They only have to convince one entity, the commission, for the edicts to be foisted onto 28 nations.
        Sorry Jen’ it’s a bit tangential but it’s all interconnected and it all works the same.
        The one line perspective on this thread, In my opinion, is within the constraints of normal metabolic processes is there are no bad foods only bad quantities.

      6. Flyinthesky

        Sorry Jennifer, missed a bit.
        Breast of lamb:
        Get two breasts from a good butcher.
        Cut between the ribs to separate into pieces, place in a roasting pan, add 3/4 pint of water, salt and pepper, tightly seal with tinfoil, casserole for two hours at 120c or a little more until falling of the bones, remove from oven, increase temperature to 180c, remove foil, drain liquid off, makes good gravy for freezer stock, return to oven for 30/45 minutes until brown and crisp, serve with raw shredded cabbage, best results with a mandolin, shredded iceberg lettuce, finely sliced raw onion, tomato segments, mint sauce, and all dressed with fresh lemon juice and salt to taste. delicious but each to their own.

    2. Professor Göran Sjöberg

      Socratic Dog

      The feelings you are expressing here about this whole medical business are exactly what I have arrived at now after sixteen years of increasing frustration with what I have found during these years. The ‘hard endpoint’ now relates to my first LCHF comment on this thread.

      It is a really question of a complete lost trust in medicine as a natural science in my case – it is just religion.

      Of course not everything is ‘bad’ in medicine but why should I trust what is suggested, especially if there is a lot of money at stake for Big Pharma?

      My attitude is that you have to do your own serious research if you have turned seriously ill before taking your decision to accept the suggested ‘treatment’, in my case a complete cardiac by-pass and all the drugs involved in CHD, now amazingly rejected sixteen years ago. Especially the ‘scientific’ question of the cause is important since that is where a sound treatment (LCHF, Hippocratic?) could dwell.

      Or find a doctor of Malcolm’s caliber who instil trust in you 🙂

      About vaccines I today prefer not to do any deep research since I could lose my trust here as I have already done with the CHD, diabetes, mental illness and lately with cancer treatments.

      What is then left in the medical church?

      Reply
      1. Socratic Dog

        Goran

        You are correct, I lifetime working in the medical field has led me to this. I have little faith left in allopathic treatment for just about anything that isn’t an acute condition. I think that’s what it comes down to. The pharmaceutical medical paradigm has led us badly astray, even while it has garnered all involved immense profits. It’s called corruption.

        Unfortunately for my peace of mind, my dawning realization that when the medical establishment is totally wrong about some of its most sacred cows one is wise to be skeptical about ALL of its sacred cows had to be extrapolated outside medicine. I’m now at the point where I have lost all faith in media, in government, in big business, in science, in organized religion, in higher education, in basically aenything with an “establishment”. And all this because, immediately following a traumatic delivery, they wanted to give my newborn son the Hep B vaccine, which disease I was well aware he was at essentially zero risk from.

        It would have been much easier to just drink the kool aid.

        And by the way, to my mind a genocide is a genocide regardless of the intention of the perpetrators. It’s the outcome that defines a genocide. It’s much easier to count bodies than good intentions.

  57. Dr Robin Willcourt

    Malcolm. Marvellous as usual. In Australia we are battling dietary idiocy, namely the heart, diabetes, dietetic, endocrine and cardiac organizations that have failed the public for decades, reaped massive profits through grants and other shennanigans and who have railed against the new guidelines. Pete Evans who is a chef of extraordianry talent has been promoting a version of Paleo, low carb high fat, in his TV series, ‘My Kitchen Rules’ and in his books, and has been piloried by all the above organizations. That puts him in first place! It is going to be interesting to see if any of these folk apologize to Pete for their ignorant vitriolic attacks. MMmmmm Nope!

    The truth is always going to win but the battle is arduous and slow. It is going to be interesting to see how the Aussie organizations are going to wriggle out of this embarrassment. My guess is they won’t, and will carry on as though the American Dietetic epiphany never happened. Then hell will freeze over and pigs will fly and they will keel over.

    Reply
  58. Lovely Laura

    Two really interesting strands of thought here – one that families do not have the time to cook anymore from scratch and the other losing faith in the establishment. Most of us reading this blog will have questioned many of the ways we do things is my guess. Once you figure out that what you told in one arena is wrong, it is only logical (I’m a big Star Trek fan!) to question everything. I found this a painful and at times quite scary process – a bit like starting your own political party I would think. But it has been one of the most interesting things I have ever done and I have now formulated enough policies to write a manifesto! Sadly though, no one believes a word that’s written in such things any more, so I probably won’t bother, though I am interested to see what the Womens Equality Party comes up with.

    Trying to get back to a place where people can cook their food from scratch and only eat quality food when they eat out seems to me like a goal too important to give up on. I have found a way to make it work for me by constant experimentation and focus – it touches on so many important areas. Choosing what is right for ourselves, caring for the planet and others and just basically getting more bang for your buck are all aspects that I think are powerful drivers, not to mention the pleasure of sharing good food with kids! Don’t give up on home cooking, just redefine it!

    Reply
    1. Flyinthesky

      “one that families do not have the time to cook anymore from scratch”
      The thing is I’m/we’re being kind to them, it’s a question of priorities. An hour in the kitchen or Corrie and xfactor, no contest it would seem. My mum, a lone parent, supervised or made breakfast, out of the house at 8-30 to get the bus to work, returning at six ish and then making the tea.
      You can still make a chicken dinner for four for less than a tenner. less than the price of one takeaway pizza.
      Cottage pie, cheese and onion pie, braised steak etc but it requires effort and planning.
      You can buy manufactured foods that sometimes are near as good but they are much more expensive. The cheapest end of the market foods are near nutritionally worthless.
      Do you want to feed your offspring or poison them.

      ” losing faith in the establishment” The thing is they have an agenda to follow, agendas posed by “experts” often on situations that don’t need addressing, hobgoblins. These are not always for our benefit and certainly not for our individual benefit.
      One of my life rules: “Beware expert opinion as the principal beneficiary is often the expert.”
      It a very difficult and lonely path to tread but once on it you stay with it.
      The bottom line is I don’t get everything right but I’d rather punish myself for my own mistakes than mindlessly follow someone else’s. I think it’s called, the long demised, personal responsibility. The buck stops here and that’s how I like it.

      Reply
  59. amie

    My husband had 2 TIAs a couple of years ago, strongly correlated with his lone AF (he used to be an ultra marathon runner). Aside from his AF, his heart is in tip top shape. I succeeded, with the aid of your book and blog, in marshalling enough research to convince his consultant that statins were not only not helpful for lone AF but actually increased the risk of haemorrhagic stroke. He wrote to our GP that he was not an expert on lipids (how can a cardio consultant not be an expert on lipids!!) but agreed after reviewing the literature I sent him, that statins were not indicated. The GP kept nagging to put DH on statins, so he went back to the Stroke clinic consultant who asked: Why are you here? Because the GP keeps on insisting I go on statins. Consultant says, given your heart results, there is absolutely no reason you should be on statins. Please tell my GP that so he will get off my back, we ask.

    2 years later, at a review with the cardio consultant this time, and fresh echo showing heart still in v good shape, we are asking whether DH can go onto K3 to counteract the artery clogging effects of warfarin which he has to take for the AF related TIAs. Doc of course knows nothing about K3, but says: if you are concerned about heart health you should consider statins, especially as your cholestrol is over 5. (Total is 6, and with good trigs and HDL, which even the results printout says, no need for action because of good trigs and HDL.) I say, but 2 years ago, you agreed that statins were contraindicated. Ah, he replied, that concerned the stroke risk; today you are asking about heart risk.But if you don’t want to go on statins, you can lower your cholestrol by changing your diet: to very low fat, no red meat, sterol marge, etc etc. This is a young UK cardiologist, in April of the year 2015!
    We ignore this, and continue with the low-ish carb, no seed oils, high fat diet we have followed for past 2 years. He said of the K3, about which he knew nothing, that if DH wanted to go on it, fine. Which seemed pretty cavalier in the other direction.

    Reply
  60. Frank Mason

    I wish somone would tell the NHS. Immediately after reading this, I received an NHSChoices email linking to a page on their website that says: “Too much fat in your diet, especially saturated fats, can raise your cholesterol, which increases the risk of heart disease. … Cutting down on saturated fats is only one aspect of reducing your risk of heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases. Other risk factors include eating too much salt and sugar, being overweight, smoking and a lack of physical activity.”

    Reply
    1. liz3321

      I don’t think the NHS has changed it’s mind yet. I know from experience that when I told a rather arrogant hospital registrar about some Harvard research on interactions between 2 drugs I was on at the time, she was very dismissive, as it wasn’t British research!

      Reply
  61. David Salter

    Many people may see this as only a very small step – albeit in the right direction – but still very small. But I am optimistic, as these things often have a snowball effect. Most people will now be very suprised that what they thought about dietary cholesterol for many years turns out to be wrong, and at that point they will be receptive to the idea that there are probably other things that are wrong too. This might cause many more people to start doing their own research, and paying a bit more attention to all the websites that have been labelled as “quackery” by the mainstream, that have been extolling the virtues of eating cholesterol for years.

    It then only requires a very small amount of intelligence to realise how politics poisons health advice.

    Reply
  62. George Smith

    Malcolm:
    Thanks for this great article. I’m attempting a little due diligence to follow your arguments, but can’t find any use of the word “de-emphasized” anywhere in the entire 571 pages of the report, even when searching through the document digitally.

    The .pdf copy that I have is line-numbered. Would you be kind enough to say where this quote about saturated fat is from? Thanks for your patience.

    Reply
  63. gillpurple

    George,

    How I am making sense of this is that the press release from The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, from which Malcolm quoted, is trying to nicely encourage the Dietary Guidelines Committee to take the bull by the horns. They are not going to do that. Too scared of how many lawyers are going to be sharpening their pencils and too scared of the public outcry if the underlying significance of the Scientific Report was actually laid out in good old plain English, in no more than two paragraphs which the average 10 year old could understand.

    I have started reading the Scientific Report. I can only describe the language used as a gigantic forest of linguistic foliage and ground cover which makes it jolly hard to figure out what it is they’re really saying. I am assuming that the body who issued the press release, well done to them, have experience of this, and have hacked their way through it all to pick out the trends and what all the woolly comments about particular aspects of research really mean, for example.

    I also notice that many organisations who have vested interests have had a big hand in the Scientific Report. Nothing new there then. This wider and commonplace lack of ethics which have become normalised is disgraceful and the use of language to fluff the important points is infuriating. I thought communication skills were about being clear, not camouflage. Silly me, obviously I’ve got it all wrong.

    I am looking forward to some decent journalists getting their teeth into the obvious contradictions between the press release and what will be in the Dietary Guidelines. Not holding out much hope on that though, because the state of journalism on health today is in the pits, with a few exceptions.

    A bit off topic. I have two friends who were taking the dreaded statins, and both of them suffered awful side effects – one got changed to another brand after a moan at the G.P. Side effects a bit less awful. Both have now stopped taking them after reading your book. So many thanks. Keep up the good work.

    And there’s no way on God’s earth I’m going to let my cholesterol levels be tested. Save the NHS a bit of money.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s