Comments on: Do calorie-rich foods make you fat?

By: hcg rss

hcg rss — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:17:02 +0000

Awesome. Thanks for posting that. I’ll definitely come to your site to read more and tell my coworkers about it, hcg.

By: kerry

kerry — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:21:48 +0000

It is simply maddening that public policy and nutriton education is still using the low-fat mantra as the core component to educate and inform. I am about to put out a series of emails that must use the govt guidelines to inform staff. The basis of which is low-fat. Aaargh this system is so flawed. I am currently completing my masters and if we don’t use the low-fat guidelines in answering questions and nutrition care plans we are marked down.

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:43:12 +0000

Hi Jenna
The core business of the Dietary Guidelines is to review the latest nutrition science and to develop guidelines consistent with that science. But when the first document from the Australian Dietary Guidelines process was circulated it was obvious that environment had been placed first and nutrition second. The document identified iron as a marginal nutrient and then restricted red meat serves; it identified calcium as a marginal nutrient (adolescent girls) and then restricted dairy serves; it recognised that vitamin D deficiency was a growing problem in Australia and then restricted ALL major dietary sources of vitamin D – all on environmental grounds.
What shocked me was how willing those responsible were to compromise nutrition for the sake of the environment. If nutritionists don’t defend nutrition, who will? It’s our job! Regards, Bill

By: M.C.

M.C. — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:58:03 +0000

Bill, what do you think about this?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-still-matter.html

By: Duncan Hunter

Duncan Hunter — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:07:27 +0000

Hi Bill

Another great article that really challenges my thinking love it.

Can you talk about satiety and GI some time soon? Is fuller for longer evidence based?

Thanks Duncan

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:29:37 +0000

Hi Tim. I think your low GI/Mediterranean approach is soundly based. I guess I might add higher protein as another means of keeping the glycaemic load down.

There have been some comparisons of nutrition interventions, such as the Diogenes study mentioned in a recent blog. I’ll cover some other interventions in future blogs. Regards, Bill

By: Tim Eden

Tim Eden — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:01:37 +0000

Thanks for this opinion review/blog. Is good to see how the science is stilling being kept to the forefront of advice or potentially in many cases not. I don’t think many dietitians would dispute the case of the carbohydrate issue – in terms of quality and quantity especially in the backdrop of ever increasing rates of insulin resistance/T2DM. I have come to appreciate that from clinic work the likeliness of an overweight patient actively listening after the mention of ‘low fat’ diet or even ‘calorie restriction’ is slim to none. I think it would be really useful and interesting if more work was done to monitor and review outcomes if dietetic intervention was compared i.e low fat/low calorie vs low GI/high fibre or are there studies already out there? This may help move policy/recommendations along but ultimately also ensure the most beneficial info is provided.

Personally I tend to advocate for low GI (to aid satiety) whilst promoting the Mediterranean diet (good fats and higher fibre). In essence it has to be a lifestyle change and this doesn’t necessarily equate to counting exact calories or grams of fat for the negative effects already mentioned.

By: Jenna

Jenna — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 05:26:53 +0000

Hi Bill,

I understand entirely where you are coming from when you say the environment and nutrition are separate issues. But are they? I do think that the guidlelines should show an optimal diet, but seeing as it is a national set of guidlines which is widely used, do we not have a responsibility to make sure people know that we won’t be able to acheive it forever more? Although I’m not up to date on the latest, fish is the first one that comes to mind. Perhaps a disclaimer is needed on the optimal diet to explain these things.
On top of environmental factors are economic factors. Do we not need to take them into account? For example, *if* organic fruit and vegetables were shown to provide better nutrition than conventional produce, would we put that on the DGAs, seeing as they would then be shown to provide ‘optimal’ nutrition?

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Hello Paul. Yes, promoting ‘low fat’ has a couple of negative effects. Firstly, if unsaturated fats are preferentially reduced in the diet it would be expected that the risk for coronary heart disease would be increased. Secondly, if carbohydrate takes the place of fat in the diet there may be different consequences for different types of carbohydrates. If the carbohydrate is high fibre/low GI/nutrient-dense – fine, but if it is low fibre/high GI/nutrient-poor nutritional status would be reduced and risk would increase.
I can see no reason for recommending low fat diets – they are a hangover from another era. It’s better to advocate that people eat good fats and good carbohydrates. Regards, Bill

By: Paul Jones

Paul Jones — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:29:45 +0000

Bill,

The results of the study didn’t come as a surprise to myself.

One the ‘low fat’ question. I think where the guidelines also need to be careful is how the ‘low fat’ message is interpreted by the public. Can having this message in the guidelines further encourage people to look for “low fat” on processed foods? This study (published in a marketing journal) found when a product was labelled ‘low fat’, consumption increased.
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2006/LowFat-JMR_2006.pdf

As well as lacking in evidence, does the promotion of ‘low fat’ have other negative effects?