Low-carb - why were dietary guidelines changed?
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start Date
Me neither, and I'm intrigued about the missing 28% calories there! If I know my Northern Irish, it's going to be whiskey isn't it? 
fergus
fergus
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
I've just tried again but I can't get it to work on the link either nor can I make it work . I googled Lawrence lines diet diabetic and it was the second item, a Cambridge journal.
The figures were 42% carb 42% fat,16% protein= 100%
Too much red wine not Whiskey!
I also edited the original post adding another link which does (I hope work)
(and then lost internet access so this is with fingers crossed!)
The figures were 42% carb 42% fat,16% protein= 100%
Too much red wine not Whiskey!
I also edited the original post adding another link which does (I hope work)
(and then lost internet access so this is with fingers crossed!)
I think this links to the document phoenix is talking about: http://journals.cambridge.org/productio ... tid=668932
In terms of weight loss, when my mother was young (1920s) "everyone" knew to avoid starches.
When I was young (1970s) and read my girlfriend's Cosmo everyone still knew to avoid starches.
According to Taubes et al the recommendation for low fat diets to the general public came from Ancel Keys, I think it took a while longer to cross the Atlantic than it did in the States.
The recommendation against specialised diabetic diets in the UK seems to have been later still, AFAICR people were still being advised to control carbs until the seventies or maybe even later until fat was demonised as the "cause" there's a certain amount of magical thinking in terms of eating too much fat must make you fat and fat people get diabetes so eat less fat - and the only safe thing to replace it with is carbs.
Replacing saturated fats (butter) with trans fats (margarine) was also something of an own goal.
Gary Taubes The Diet Delusion is a massive book which will keep you busy for weeks and develops the themes from his earlier papers
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/taubes.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9649C8B63
The Yanks (ADA, AHA AMA et al) have an undue influence here though there's a time lag. They are in turn influenced by the Grain Lobby and the Food Manufacturers. Then if they were to change their recommendations and admit to having been wrong, my Yank colleagues tell me there would be a multimillion dollar class action lawsuit, so they have to change very slowly. In a recent post elsewhere I pointed to the ADA and DUK's corporate sponsors who will also have an undue influence on opinions. A lie is a fact which is not profitable.
So IMNSHO there's been a pincer movement on dietary recommendations here. If I put my cyncial head on I have to wonder if eliminating Type 2 diabetics would actually be *more* profitable to Big Food than having us stick around.
It's been said that we had the healthiest population during rationing. Fat was not demonised then as it is today. Would be interesting if anyone has any of the then dietary recommendations, I've seen programmes on TV but don't have any of it in writing. That was before the "epidemics" of diabetes, other cardiovascular diseases and obesity started.
When I was young (1970s) and read my girlfriend's Cosmo everyone still knew to avoid starches.
According to Taubes et al the recommendation for low fat diets to the general public came from Ancel Keys, I think it took a while longer to cross the Atlantic than it did in the States.
The recommendation against specialised diabetic diets in the UK seems to have been later still, AFAICR people were still being advised to control carbs until the seventies or maybe even later until fat was demonised as the "cause" there's a certain amount of magical thinking in terms of eating too much fat must make you fat and fat people get diabetes so eat less fat - and the only safe thing to replace it with is carbs.
Replacing saturated fats (butter) with trans fats (margarine) was also something of an own goal.
Gary Taubes The Diet Delusion is a massive book which will keep you busy for weeks and develops the themes from his earlier papers
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/taubes.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9649C8B63
The Yanks (ADA, AHA AMA et al) have an undue influence here though there's a time lag. They are in turn influenced by the Grain Lobby and the Food Manufacturers. Then if they were to change their recommendations and admit to having been wrong, my Yank colleagues tell me there would be a multimillion dollar class action lawsuit, so they have to change very slowly. In a recent post elsewhere I pointed to the ADA and DUK's corporate sponsors who will also have an undue influence on opinions. A lie is a fact which is not profitable.
So IMNSHO there's been a pincer movement on dietary recommendations here. If I put my cyncial head on I have to wonder if eliminating Type 2 diabetics would actually be *more* profitable to Big Food than having us stick around.
It's been said that we had the healthiest population during rationing. Fat was not demonised then as it is today. Would be interesting if anyone has any of the then dietary recommendations, I've seen programmes on TV but don't have any of it in writing. That was before the "epidemics" of diabetes, other cardiovascular diseases and obesity started.
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
If you want to find out what people ate, rather than recommendations, you might want to research the 1946 British Birth Cohort. (post war but rationing until the early 50s) As I remember there is a fair amount of dietary data, the cohort is still being followed today. It is used to inform public health policy.
Here you go, courtesy of a friend in alt.support.diabetes
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.su ... 76495d73c4
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.su ... 76495d73c4
With reference to rationing in 1940.
Found this list in some family papers :- THIS WAS A WEEK'S RATIONS.
Butter 2oz
Bacon and Ham 4oz
Margarine 4oz
Sugar 8oz
Meat to the value of 1s 2d (6p in today's money)
Milk 3pints
Cheese 2oz
Eggs 1 fresh + dried egg powder
Tea 2oz
Jam 1/2lb
Sweets 3oz
This was supplemented with home grown vegetables and most families kept chickens.
Bread was not rationed until 1942.
Found this list in some family papers :- THIS WAS A WEEK'S RATIONS.
Butter 2oz
Bacon and Ham 4oz
Margarine 4oz
Sugar 8oz
Meat to the value of 1s 2d (6p in today's money)
Milk 3pints
Cheese 2oz
Eggs 1 fresh + dried egg powder
Tea 2oz
Jam 1/2lb
Sweets 3oz
This was supplemented with home grown vegetables and most families kept chickens.
Bread was not rationed until 1942.
My own research into the present mess of our health authorities and DUK recommending a diet that is totally inappropriate to anyone with diabetes, but especially a type-2, lays the blame firmly at the door of Ancel Keys. He was before my time but his biographers describe him as a highly charismatic speaker and passionate about his beliefs. He was a tremendously popular speaker on both TV and radio, a campaigner who seems to have come across as a sort of cross between Prof. David Bellamy and Jamie Oliver!
Along with the popularity came a high degree of power and influence, to the extent that people would believe that anything he told them must be true – after all he was the expert, and he had a whole university department at his disposal to prove that everything he said could be verified by research. In an increasingly health-conscious US public in the 50s and 60s, he exerted a huge influence in shaping public opinion on food and diet. Thus it was that in the 1960s the US government literally took him at his word (they could hardly do otherwise with such a publicly revered individual) and, with no independently commissioned research, declared that saturated fat is public enemy number one and that starch is what we must all eat more of.
What happened subsequently when Americans took this advice shows that Keys' basic premise was wrong. While consumption of dietary fat decreased from the 1960s to the 1990s, the rate of cardio vascular disease increased and the incidence of obesity and Type-2 diabetes soared. Despite all the evidence, it took another ten years before the US authorities (in the form of the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association) finally plucked up the courage to commission their own research. This was conducted by Stanford University, who are renowned for their impartiality through their consistent refusal to take funding from industry.
The research was actually to compare different types of diet and was the most expensive and most thorough research of its kind ever conducted. The research program lasted for a year and the results were delivered to the two sponsors in 2004 or 2005. They were so shocked by what they saw that they extended the Stanford remit to include a complete review of all the research that had been undertaken by Ancel Keys’ University of Minnesota Laboratory of Physiological Hygiene in recommending the high-carb/low fat approach to life. What Stanford found horrified them. Firstly the whole department had been created and funded by the US Wheat Growers Association! It quickly became apparent that the research itself was deeply flawed. Keys had started with the proposition that fat was the enemy and then set out to prove it. In doing this he either ignored or discarded as irrelevant anything that did not back his theory.
It took another year before the AMA took the bold step of abandoning the food triangle (from which the UK’s “healthy eating plate” was developed) and announcing new guidelines for healthy eating, whereby the maximum daily intake of carbohydrate should be only fractionally greater than the amount of protein (6.5oz carbs – 185g). Even this was well short of what Stanford had recommended, but it appears that the AMA were not prepared to make too drastic a change, as TW has commented most likely for fear of lawsuits. It took another two years for the ADA to pluck up the courage to admit that their own guidelines for diabetics of 230g carbohydrate per day were wrong and to announce that 145g to 165g was a more sensible target.
Incidentally Keys did actually do some good work. He retired to Pioppi in Italy and was the person who first identified what we now refer to as the Mediterranean Diet.
Along with the popularity came a high degree of power and influence, to the extent that people would believe that anything he told them must be true – after all he was the expert, and he had a whole university department at his disposal to prove that everything he said could be verified by research. In an increasingly health-conscious US public in the 50s and 60s, he exerted a huge influence in shaping public opinion on food and diet. Thus it was that in the 1960s the US government literally took him at his word (they could hardly do otherwise with such a publicly revered individual) and, with no independently commissioned research, declared that saturated fat is public enemy number one and that starch is what we must all eat more of.
What happened subsequently when Americans took this advice shows that Keys' basic premise was wrong. While consumption of dietary fat decreased from the 1960s to the 1990s, the rate of cardio vascular disease increased and the incidence of obesity and Type-2 diabetes soared. Despite all the evidence, it took another ten years before the US authorities (in the form of the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association) finally plucked up the courage to commission their own research. This was conducted by Stanford University, who are renowned for their impartiality through their consistent refusal to take funding from industry.
The research was actually to compare different types of diet and was the most expensive and most thorough research of its kind ever conducted. The research program lasted for a year and the results were delivered to the two sponsors in 2004 or 2005. They were so shocked by what they saw that they extended the Stanford remit to include a complete review of all the research that had been undertaken by Ancel Keys’ University of Minnesota Laboratory of Physiological Hygiene in recommending the high-carb/low fat approach to life. What Stanford found horrified them. Firstly the whole department had been created and funded by the US Wheat Growers Association! It quickly became apparent that the research itself was deeply flawed. Keys had started with the proposition that fat was the enemy and then set out to prove it. In doing this he either ignored or discarded as irrelevant anything that did not back his theory.
It took another year before the AMA took the bold step of abandoning the food triangle (from which the UK’s “healthy eating plate” was developed) and announcing new guidelines for healthy eating, whereby the maximum daily intake of carbohydrate should be only fractionally greater than the amount of protein (6.5oz carbs – 185g). Even this was well short of what Stanford had recommended, but it appears that the AMA were not prepared to make too drastic a change, as TW has commented most likely for fear of lawsuits. It took another two years for the ADA to pluck up the courage to admit that their own guidelines for diabetics of 230g carbohydrate per day were wrong and to announce that 145g to 165g was a more sensible target.
Incidentally Keys did actually do some good work. He retired to Pioppi in Italy and was the person who first identified what we now refer to as the Mediterranean Diet.
Excellent stuff from both TW and Dennis.
It's interesting to read that both hypotheses re diabetes and weight gain held equal sway for a while. If anything the anectdotal evidence tended to support the hypothesis that weight gain and diabetes were essentially hormonal issues and had little to do with eating too many calories. More important was the quality, no the quantity of calories.
The real wrong turning,on the back of Ancel Keys Seven Nations Study, was in making food a political issue - when the US govt. decided to adopt a position. Unfortunately for the developed world, they chose the wrong one and the rest followed their lead.
The fact that the world's biggest, most profitable and politically influential companies make most of their money out of the current diatery dogma is something that will make it very difficult to change.
Change, I believe, will ultimately come about through grass roots movements involving dedicated individuals prepared to demonstrate that the paradigm is wrong.
That's where forums such as this come in.
fergus
It's interesting to read that both hypotheses re diabetes and weight gain held equal sway for a while. If anything the anectdotal evidence tended to support the hypothesis that weight gain and diabetes were essentially hormonal issues and had little to do with eating too many calories. More important was the quality, no the quantity of calories.
The real wrong turning,on the back of Ancel Keys Seven Nations Study, was in making food a political issue - when the US govt. decided to adopt a position. Unfortunately for the developed world, they chose the wrong one and the rest followed their lead.
The fact that the world's biggest, most profitable and politically influential companies make most of their money out of the current diatery dogma is something that will make it very difficult to change.
Change, I believe, will ultimately come about through grass roots movements involving dedicated individuals prepared to demonstrate that the paradigm is wrong.
That's where forums such as this come in.
fergus
Excellent stuff from *everyone* in this thread, we all seem to have much the same "big picture" and everyone is filling in details very nicely.
I'm recalling a discussion elsewhere which made some useful points.
The "diabetes diet" was principally for Type 1s on insulin and a major factor was to prevent hypos while using the elderly insulin regimes, so the diet would emphasise running high BG.
Over time insulin regimes changed.
Humalog/novolog/apidra being so much faster than R were actually *designed* to deal with high carb spikes so eating high GI carbs was actually recommended - think of the pizza effect where the insulin outruns the carbs and causes a hypo, then the carbs turn to glucose later when the insulin has run out and cause a high.
The cynical view is then that since a high carb diet would cause all Type 2s to end up on insulin anyway it is simplest to push this diet on everyone rather than make different recommendations for different individuals with different diseases. This also has the benefit of increasing sales of the most profitable insulins over the cheapo N and R (and Lantus/Levemir since L and UL have also been largely discontinued) everyone wins except the patients.
I'm recalling a discussion elsewhere which made some useful points.
The "diabetes diet" was principally for Type 1s on insulin and a major factor was to prevent hypos while using the elderly insulin regimes, so the diet would emphasise running high BG.
Over time insulin regimes changed.
Humalog/novolog/apidra being so much faster than R were actually *designed* to deal with high carb spikes so eating high GI carbs was actually recommended - think of the pizza effect where the insulin outruns the carbs and causes a hypo, then the carbs turn to glucose later when the insulin has run out and cause a high.
The cynical view is then that since a high carb diet would cause all Type 2s to end up on insulin anyway it is simplest to push this diet on everyone rather than make different recommendations for different individuals with different diseases. This also has the benefit of increasing sales of the most profitable insulins over the cheapo N and R (and Lantus/Levemir since L and UL have also been largely discontinued) everyone wins except the patients.
Why must we follow the US? look where their financial patterns have got us. their dietary ideas are no better.
Of course, if thry learn better, Our "Establishment" won't follow that. :?
Of course, if thry learn better, Our "Establishment" won't follow that. :?
Hana, You come from a science background yourself so you must be aware that the US has always been prepared to pay for research (which is extremely expensive) whereas we basically can't afford to without raising taxes (political suicide). Hence we just take whatever the US tells us as gospel, because we can't prove otherwise without spending money we don't have, and then adopt it ourselves. From a contact at Stanford I have some idea of how much the research commissioned by the AMA/AHA in 2004/5 cost - and it is somewhere close to a quarter of our entire annual NHS budget!
and did they disclose how much was spent on diabetes research?
The NHS Diabetes R&D budget was increased to just under £22m in 2006-7.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... g233291.r0
Regards, Tubs.
The NHS Diabetes R&D budget was increased to just under £22m in 2006-7.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... g233291.r0
Regards, Tubs.
Hi Tubs,
Interesting figures, although I see they come from Red Dawn so probably should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. The figures show that we do some research in the UK, but it is a tiny amount compared with what is done in the States.
Interesting figures, although I see they come from Red Dawn so probably should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. The figures show that we do some research in the UK, but it is a tiny amount compared with what is done in the States.
The history is covered (at exhausting length) in Gary Taubes' 'Diet Delusion'. The US Surgeon General came under congressional pressure to give dietary advice to the public, because of heart disease/ obesity concerns. Just our luck that Keys' anti-fat campaign caught the politicians' ears just when he was considering his report (Taubes also suggests that the sugar and corn lobbies were infuential in steering blame away from their products). Thereafter it became obligatory for all the professions to 'sing from the same hymn sheet' so as not to send confusing messages to the public. So, bizarrely the ADA and the BDA went along wirthit, despite the absence of solid evidenve. Since the late seventies, it's been set in stone, because any evidence which contradicts it gets sidelined, slighted or just ignored.
Dwilson,
I was wondering how to summarise Gary's Opus !
You've done it for me.
Thank you.
Are you a film critic or book editor in your real life?
I was wondering how to summarise Gary's Opus !
You've done it for me.
Thank you.
Are you a film critic or book editor in your real life?
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
Thanks for that link Phoenix. It does confirm what we all believe is probably the case - that the amount invested in diabetes research is pitifully small compared to the billions that the government is throwing at the banks.
