THE LATEST “BREAKTHROUGH” WEIGHT LOSS RESEARCH

THE LATEST “BREAKTHROUGH” WEIGHT LOSS RESEARCH – one of the “pearls” of recent nutritional “science”

HOW THE MEDIA AND STUPID SCIENCE PLAYS WITH YOUR MIND

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

The Daily Mail newspaper in England recently published (online version, June 26^th, 2012) the conclusions of a study done at Tel Aviv University which bluntly states that eating dessert for breakfast helps you lose weight. The study, for obvious reasons, made for the BIG NEWS. But before you jump into eating doughnuts and cake for breakfast again, maybe you should at least try to dissect it a little bit further and see if the facts really hold up.

The article starts with: “Good news for dieters – having a sweet treat for breakfast can actually help you lose pounds and keep them off longer” – PERFECT advice! Have some processed sugar, Stupid!

It goes on to say: “Although both diets (there were 2 groups) had the same amount of calories (….) - one included a large breakfast with a sweet treat such as a doughnut, while the other allowed  for a larger meal later in the day”. What an ingenious statement that a bigger meal in the morning makes you fuller and more satisfied for the rest of the day, while being hungry all day and eating most of your calories at night keeps you fat. Did they really need to waste money on research to figure this out? Really???

The author of the study states that “The goal of a weight loss diet should be not only weight reduction, but also reduction of hunger and cravings, thus helping prevent weight gain”. Yes, indeed, that’s a smart statement, but how on earth did they draw the conclusion that you can (or should even attempt to) reduce hunger and cravings with extra sugar is beyond me.

In my holistic nutrition coaching practice I always suggest clients eat at least 25% (if not more) of their daily caloric intake for breakfast. The reason is simple and logical: your body needs most of the calories during the day to maintain a certain level of energy, not at night when it rests. No surprise here. So, if you starve it for the first part of the day, it will slow down its metabolic rate to conserve calories. This will result in fewer calories burnt overall and more calories stored. No surprise here either.

Unless you have been on a ketogenic diet for quite some time (meaning you have been eating mostly protein and fat, with minimal amount of carbohydrates, and your body has had a chance to switch to using body fat as fuel almost exclusively), you will still need some carbohydrates. Depending on your Metabolic Type you will need a lot, a little, or somewhere in between, but you will need them nonetheless for your body and brain to function properly. In the study, the subjects in the group that regained the weight were given not only 50% fewer calories, but of those calories only 13% were from carbohydrates – way too little even for Protein Types. The group that lost more weight was given double the amount of calories, more calories coming from carbohydrates (40%), AND a higher total amount of protein. (By the way, even in that group the ratio of 40% carbohydrates, 30% protein and calculated 30% fat still kept that group in a moderate carbohydrate/high protein classification – a perfect Zone Diet.)

Why is it then a wonder that the results came out the way they did? One has to be completely blind to not be able to figure out why the higher carbohydrate diet worked better. So, simply speaking, the bigger meal satisfied the body’s energy needs better, by providing more satiating protein, more energy producing carbohydrates, and a sufficient amount of fat to keep the participants’ blood sugar under control. In addition, higher amounts of protein and carbohydrates created a higher level of thermogenesis (amount of heat produced and calories burnt in the process of digestion, assimilation, etc.) since they take more energy to break down and digest than a low-calorie breakfast, whose 52% of calories came from fat, a nutrient with a minimal thermogenic effect.

At this point, I start to wonder why anyone would even undertake a study whose outcome is not only obvious, but at best unhealthy, and dangerous at worst. And who could possibly pay for a stupid science like this? The sugar industry? I would be curious to check the sources that funded it, and I probably wouldn’t be very surprised with my findings.

Another important point, if you haven’t figured it out already, is the fact that the same effects could have been achieved by substituting some high quality, high fiber carbohydrates: vegetables, fruit, whole grains like old-fashioned slow cooking oatmeal, dairy (whose big % of calories come from carbohydrates, e.g. yogurt, etc.), and even small amounts of healthier sweeteners like organic raw honey or unprocessed maple syrup for the "dessert treat". I bet the researchers knew the outcome would have been exactly the same, or better, but the study wouldn’t have made big news.

What bothers me most, is that this is exactly what companies that fund dubious studies like this one count on – masses of readers or listeners, who have absolutely no idea how to evaluate scientific research, and who take whatever is fed to them by the media (and sponsored by the food and drug industries) at face value. If it’s research from some university, it must be valid.

With the overwhelming obesity epidemic in the US and (thanks to commercial CRAP food production driven exclusively by money) spreading quickly to other countries, the last thing we need is scientists telling us to eat more sugar in order to lose weight.

Funny though, the researcher’s conclusions are correct, for the most part:

1. Timing of the meal is indeed an important factor in weight loss success (here having a bigger meal in the am),

2. Diets higher in protein reduce hunger by giving the feeling of satiety,

3. Carbohydrates make people feel full.

But here’s the conclusion I have a real problem with: “dessert kept sweet and fat cravings under control”. Any half-reliable nutrition source will tell you that dessert (or any sugar for that matter) does anything BUT that. As a matter of fact, in most cases, it does the exact opposite: spikes your blood sugar causing your body to release massive amounts of insulin, then making the blood sugar plummet and increasing the cravings for sugar even more.

One thing that researches did not mention is just exactly how many carbohydrate and fat calories in the whole meal came from dessert, were they only from dessert, or were they just a small addition to other, better carbohydrate options – an important factor in the whole equation that should not have been omitted.

By the way, the only reason why sugar might satisfy sweet and fat cravings (though in case of just sugar it is only a short-lasting effect) is when your diet is seriously out of balance, you have nutritional deficiencies, candida or parasites, or you have been working out long or hard without replenishing your glycogen stores by consuming adequate amounts of carbohydrates afterwards. A comment here on sweet breakfast: many people (including yours truly) do not feel like eating meat and vegetables in the morning and would rather have something “sweet”. But that’s when natural foods like fruit, yogurt, oatmeal, wholegrain minimally processed breads, nut butters, honey and low-sugar 100% fruit spreads come in, if that’s what you crave. Dessert, in a true sense of the word, should hardly be a main option for breakfast as part of a healthy diet.

So what conclusion will most readers draw from reading the headlines (which is the only thing a majority of people read these days anyway)? That not only is it OK, but downright advisable, to have sweets for breakfast, because it will help them with their battle of the bulge. And, of course, they will be dead wrong and most will find themselves in even deeper trouble following such an insane advice.

The science and resulting lengthy advice on what to eat for breakfast is beyond the scope of this article (and it will differ from person to person), but one thing is for sure: DON’T TAKE WHAT YOU READ IN THE MEDIA AS GOOD ADVICE, EVEN IF IT CLAIMS TO BE A SCIENTIFIC STUDY (AND ESPECIALLY IF IT DEFIES COMMON SENSE), AND LOOK FOR MORE RELIABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION WHEN YOUR HEALTH IS AT STAKE. This, however, is a whole other endeavor, and a whole other story, since most sources you have been told are trustworthy unfortunately are not.

When it comes to your own health, do the research, and take your own responsibility. The results are worth it.


Here’s the link to the original article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2164976/Dessert-breakfast-HELPS-diet-beating-cravings.html

CAN I JUST HAVE 3 SHAKES A DAY TO LOSE WEIGHT?

FROM THE SERIES “ASK THE TRAINER”

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

It may work for a week or so, but you will eventually be tired and grumpy, and most likely hungry. Any liquid food gets absorbed very quickly. The body doesn’t have to work breaking it down, digesting, etc. The digestion process actually requires energy.  Absorbing shakes – very little. This causes you to not be satisfied or feel full, and people get off these kinds of diets very quickly. It is also very difficult to get all the important nutrients, minerals and vitamins in a few shakes, so you’re running a danger of being nutrient deficient. If you need to lose weight really fast for some important event AND are able to find a nutritionally balanced shake:  one that has enough good quality protein to spare your muscles, some good fat and carbohydrates to keep your energy levels up, as well as vitamins and minerals, go for it, BUT……only for a very short time. Depending on what’s in the shake already, you might want to take a multi-vitamin/multi-mineral supplement. Shakes, however, will never be able to compete with fresh, whole foods. And they will never be really satisfying. And that’s always a clue to being able to stick to any diet or food regimen – if you get bored with it, you are going to quit.

The exceptions here would be your post-workout recovery shakes, which are designed to enter the blood stream very fast to stimulate protein synthesis and glycogen storage in the muscles, as well as shakes used by people trying to gain big amounts of muscle. In these cases, they do come in very handy in addition to solid food, as it becomes very difficult to eat enough calories to support intense workouts and muscle growth. (Think Hillary Swank in “Million Dollar Baby”.) But these would be in addition to, and not instead of, meals.

ARE CARBOHYDRATES REALLY BAD?

FROM THE SERIES “ASK THE TRAINER”

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

My answer is: it depends, AND depends for whom, as well as what kinds of carbs.

First and foremost let’s clarify what a carbohydrate is, because for some people it is still not so clear. We all know that pasta is a carbohydrate. So are rice and potatoes. So is bread. But where do fruits, vegetables, legumes, dairy and various drinks fall in? Well, they are all carbohydrates, in a sense.  We can divide them into almost pure carbohydrates, like grains, and, what I call, mixed carbohydrates like dairy. The reason why I call them mixed is that, in most cases, they are a source of both carbohydrates and protein, and sometimes also fat. We can also divide them into complex carbohydrates which are called starches and simple carbohydrates like fruits. All carbohydrates get broken down in our digestive system into simple sugars, but it is the speed of breakdown as well as the insulin response they generate that differentiates them.

Vegetables are definitely a great carb and most people should be eating more than they currently are.

They are full of vitamins, minerals, protective antioxidants and fiber. The only time you may want to rethink your veggies is if you are either allergic to anything or if it’s hard on your digestive system. Some may argue that since humans are not ruminants, we process raw vegetables, especially those like lettuce, chard, spinach, etc. differently, and are not really well equipped, so to speak, to digest them. My own advice is: see how they make you, and especially your digestive system, feel.  Are you bloated? Do you have a lot of gas and discomfort after eating them? Listen to your body. You may be one of those for whom lightly cooked vegetables are better.

Fruit – generally on my good list, as long as it’s ripe, ideally in season and organic, you are not allergic to it OR, and this is important, you are not insulin resistant or diabetic.

Unfortunately, many people walk around overweight and with insulin resistance, not knowing about it. If you are overweight and have trouble losing weight no matter what you do, insulin resistance may be one of the culprits. If you do indeed have it, it means that your body cannot handle sugar very well and watching your sugar intake in any form, including fruit, is necessary. Also, if you are trying to lose weight or drop body fat, you will need to limit your fruit intake, for the same reason, to 2-3 servings of fruit per day. Remember, that 1 serving is a medium piece of fruit or ½ cup of cut up fruit.

Legumes are a great source of carbohydrates and protein, as well as antioxidants and fiber.

Because of that, not much is needed to make one feel full. That’s one of their great benefits. But….protein makes only a small % of total calories. Most of them (about 70% depending on the type of bean) come from carbohydrates. So, if you’re carbohydrate sensitive or are watching your diet, you should be mindful of the portions or, in some cases, skip them altogether.

Grains – that’s a whole subject depending on which camp you are in: carb camp or no/low carb camp.

There are valid arguments for both. Most people are OK eating small amounts of grains (unless you have a clear allergy or sensitivity to gluten, of course). It’s when the portions become big, or huge, that we get into trouble. A lot of people don’t even know what a small portion would be, and that’s a real problem. Another issue is the form in which grains come in: are they whole grains as they would appear in nature, or completely processed, denatured and with all their nutrients sucked out of them? Even if they are fortified, it’s all synthetic vitamins and minerals, and natural are always better for the body. Remember that no matter how healthy, bread, pasta, white rice, pancakes, pretzels, tortillas, etc., are all processed products and they will enter your blood stream much faster than whole grains they came from, often times causing fluctuations in blood sugar, which, in turn, result in insulin spikes and resultant fat storage in your adipose tissue.

Unfortunately, gluten intolerance and gluten, and especially wheat, sensitivity is becoming more and more widespread. One of the reasons could just be the fact that more attention is being paid to this phenomenon; another that we are eating more grains than ever, and a different one yet, that we are buying genetically modified foods, which alter our digestive system. GMOs are being downplayed by the food industry as safe but the results speak for themselves.  If you are one of those people who struggle after eating grains or you have insulin resistance or diabetes, or you are simply a protein metabolic type, then you should certainly stay away from them, and make sure you get the nutrients you will now be missing from other sources.

Diary – another food that clients often have trouble classifying: protein, fat or carbohydrate?

Well, actually it is all three. High fat cheeses have almost no carbohydrates, but very high fat and a decent amount of protein. Yogurt, can be full fat, low fat or nonfat but is usually mostly carbohydrates (about 2/3) with a much smaller percentage of protein (about 1/3 in a nonfat variety). The exception is Greek yogurt which is very high in protein and has a much smaller percentage of carbohydrates. And fruit sweetened and flavored yogurts are another chapter altogether. Many of them contain up to 7 tsp of sugar, some natural from lactose and the rest from various sweeteners.

And finally drinks. What are they?

I have heard from some clients that they are just that – drinks. The answer is: most of them, with the exception of alcohol, are carbohydrates. Milk and drinking chocolate (and a few others) would be an exception here, being protein, fat and carbohydrates in one. Soda drinks and energy drinks are pure carbs. Energy drinks are needed only in low concentrations to replenish electrolytes when your workout exceeds 90 minutes or you’re sweating profusely in hot weather. Most of the time they are needed only by competitive or endurance athletes. These “monsters”, or sugar “bombs” as they should be called, are pure sugar. They are, so called, empty calories – they put calories in, but without any nutritional value. Worse, they actually deplete you of important nutrients in the digestion process. Many sports drinks or large energy drinks available these days on the market can have up to 100 g of sugar, which translates to 25 teaspoons. One of the best ways to replenish your electrolytes, during and after your workout, (if you’re an average person and not a competitive or endurance athlete), is diluting a teaspoon of organic raw honey and 1/8 tsp of good quality sea salt (like Celtic Sea salt) in a quart of water.* Juices, though full of vitamins, (mostly if freshly squeezed and not pasteurized) are deprived of fiber and are basically the source of liquid sugar. Once in a while, it’s OK to have a small portion of freshly squeezed juice. Otherwise, limit their intake and choose fresh fruit instead.

Alcohol is in a class of its own.

Its calorie value is similar to that of fat. It provides 7 calories per gram. The problem with alcohol is that it gets broken down to fatty acids and needs to be detoxified by the liver first, before the body can go on with the fat burning process. It is for that reason, that alcohol should be one of the first foods to eliminate if weight loss is desired.

So, to sum it all up: choose your carbs carefully, try to eat mostly whole carbs, learn what the right portion sizes are and be extra careful with the high glycemic ones if you are struggling with extra weight or have insulin resistance. Be CARB SMART!

THIS?

                                                            Or THIS?

*In research done on comparison of sports drinks to water with a small amount of honey, the latter outperformed every sports drink on the market.

IS FAT REALLY BAD?

FROM THE SERIES “ASK THE TRAINER”

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

Generally, the answer is a big NO, though it can be, if the kind and quality is bad.

Fats like trans fats and hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are a no brainer. We know they are extremely unhealthy: they contribute to heart disease by lowering the good cholesterol (HDL) and increasing the bad (LDL). They also have been shown to get stored around the abdomen, the most dangerous area to store fat because when stored there it releases many different hormones into the bloodstream that can be problematic.

Too many polyunsaturated fats are not good either. Polyunsaturated fats mostly consist of Omega 6 and Omega 3 fatty acids, and while Omega 3 play an anti-inflammatory role, Omega 6 are pro-inflammatory. We need them both but in drastically different ratios than what we have been getting in our diet for many years now. In addition, Omega 6, when hydrogenated, can last for months, if not years, on the shelf, but become terribly dangerous for human health. Due to the politics of the food industry, as well as a simple fact that Omega 6 oils are cheap to produce (soybean, sunflower, cottonseed, etc.), these oils have been pushed for years until there was enough public outcry supported by research that something had to change. A healthy ratio of Omega 6: Omega 3 should be somewhere between 1:1 and 4:1. At the moment, it is between 10:1 and 15:1, and in some cases, as high as 25:1.

Nut and seed oils, which are mainly a combination of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (depending on the source), are good in small quantities, as long as you don’t heat them. They are very unstable, become rancid at high temperatures, and carcinogenic free radicals are produced in the process. Like with fish or flax seed oils, they should be stored in the refrigerator.

Fats considered very healthy and beneficial for their antioxidant qualities, as well as for being heart protective, are monounsaturated fats like olive oil and avocados. Many nuts have mostly monounsaturated fats. Olive oil should not be heated to high temperatures. Avocado oil, on the other hand, is one of the most heat resistant, having one of the highest smoking points of all oils.

The most controversial of fats is saturated fat, with which we have a love-hate relationship. We love it because it’s delicious, and it enhances the flavor of just about anything. We hate it because we were told that it’s the source of all evil. So let’s look at saturated fat and its role in human evolution.

During the prehistoric times, before humans domesticated animals and introduced agriculture, which led to the incorporation of dairy and grains into the daily diet, respectively, man lived predominantly on hunted animal protein, with all the saturated fat included, and supplemented his diet with sweet fruit and berries, and, to a smaller degree, vegetables. Research shows that cardiovascular or degenerative disease, so common in our civilization, was non-existent at the time. Just recently, a new research discovered signs of heart disease in the population of ancient Egypt. Could it be the introduction of grains that was the cause? Or dairy? Or both? We don’t know just yet, but the truth is humans evolved on saturated fat and did very well on it. How else did we get here? If it had been so bad for us for thousands of years most of us probably wouldn’t be here today because Nature has its own way of eliminating what it considers unhealthy or too weak to survive. It’s called natural selection. This is an important question for everybody that demonizes saturated fat. There is actually NO conclusive research showing that saturated fat causes heart disease. The research that has been done shows only correlation but NOT causation. Again, food politics has played a huge role in spreading this misguided and twisted science. Saturated fat is extremely important for many bodily functions. It is needed in times of stress. It is needed for the production of sex hormones: testosterone, aldosterone, progesterone, pregnenolone, DHEA, estradiol and cortisol. These hormones are produced from cholesterol. When your body doesn’t get enough of a supply from the diet, it starts producing its own cholesterol and that’s one of the ways for your cholesterol to go up.

Saturated fat itself is not the evil. We all need it, though everybody in different amounts depending on your biochemical individuality. What is bad, however, are the commercial sources of this fat. And here’s the reason. The saturated fat of commercially raised meats is full of not only hormones and antibiotics, but also toxins from the less than perfect commercial feed. Nature intended animals to feed on grass, not grains and other products that are being used to fatten them up quickly. (If you ever wanted to know what’s in your meat, watch the movie “Food Inc.”) Toxins get stored in adipose tissue (fat) and if you eat it, you are getting it, too. Any toxin will act in your body as a proinflammatory agent. And inflammation is what leads to heart disease, strokes and other diseases.

Meat from organic, grass-fed animals is not only leaner (so you’re getting less fat overall), but also has a very different fatty acid profile. It actually has a pretty considerable amount of Omega 3 fatty acids as well as good amounts of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid), which helps burn body fat. A very different meat indeed.

One of the healthiest sources of saturated fat is organic, extra virgin coconut oil. For those still worried about cholesterol, it has none as it is not an animal product. It is great for eating, cooking, baking, salad dressings, you name it. It has amazing antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal and antimicrobial properties.

So…..look at the quality of the fats you’re eating and also the amounts. If you are trying to lose weight, no matter how healthy the fat, you still have to take total calories into account. For some people who are sensitive to carbohydrates and eat a primarily high protein diet, this is less of a concern, as most of them can tolerate a much higher amount of fat. But…..that’s a whole other subject.   

WHAT SHOULD I BE EATING?

FROM THE SERIES “ASK THE TRAINER”

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

My only answer to this question is: it depends. Of course, there are some basic rules like no processed foods, more vegetables, good quality protein, no sugar, etc., etc., but the only way to tell a person what to eat is doing a very thorough assessment first. What you should eat will depend on your age, your ancestry, genes, body weight, activity level, stress level, health history, the climate you live in, and of course, your metabolic predisposition. There are very detailed ways of figuring out what your body will respond best to and more often than not it is finding out what makes you feel full of energy, alert, focused and healthy at the same time. Many people fall into the trap of mindlessly listening to the media, or reading some book that claims to help you lose 30 lbs in 30 days, or worse yet, following some new fad diet. YOU ARE YOU and nobody else. What worked for someone else will not necessarily work for you or even if it does, the results will not be long lasting or you will be miserable and tired along the way.

The only way to answer this question is look at everything you’re eating for a couple of weeks and carefully evaluating how it makes you feel. This requires getting in touch with your body, listening to what it’s telling you, and being a lot more mindful than most people are when it comes to food. You can then start working on improving your diet and feeling better.

For more detailed tips on nutrition, please refer to my earlier blogs.

DECLARING WAR ON MAINSTREAM NUTRITION

DECLARING  WAR ON MAINSTREAM NUTRITION

THE SAD STATE OF NUTRITION IN THIS COUNTRY – My response to 2 articles from the Health Section of Los Angeles Times from Dec. 20, 2010*

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

Dear Los Angeles Times Editor and Health Section Editor,

I have been a reader of your Health section for quite some time now but it hasn't been until recently, since you started publishing James S. Fell's articles to be exact, that I have started seriously questioning the qualifications of your writers. I did a little bit of research on Mr. Fell and short of his ONE certification he is an individual with an MBA employed by a technology company in Calgary who specializes in marketing. I don't even think he qualifies as a trainer. How many years has he been in the training industry? How many actual clients has he trained? How much continuing education does he have? How many conferences does he attend? Fell claims that his certification is a "gold standard" in the training industry. Well, it is not. It is a good certification, like many others, but a gold standard? By whose standards? I am a health and fitness professional myself. I have been in the industry for almost 19 years. I am a certified personal trainer, nutrition counselor and a Holistic Lifestyle Coach. I hold certifications from ACSM, NASM, NSCA, ACE, UCLA Extension and CHEK Institute. I am currently pursuing a degree in applied and holistic nutrition.

I have trained dozens of clients. My specialty is weight loss and weight maintenance as well as special populations, post-rehabilitation training and general fitness. I have been running my own company, Fitness Science, Inc. for over 15 years. I hope this qualifies me somewhat to talk about Mr. Fell and his articles.

While I enjoyed Jay Blahnik's articles published by your paper until fairly recently, I do have an issue with both the subject matters chosen as well as qualifications of the current author. I happen to know Jay Blahnik from many conferences that I have attended over the years. He is a fine professional. His columns were informative for an average reader looking for good fitness information. They were to the point and addressed many interesting aspects of fitness. James S. Fell, on the other hand, seems to have chosen to thrive exclusively on the criticism of others. How about some real information that readers would actually benefit from? Fell seems to also be extremely subjective having spoken from the point of a fitness enthusiast rather than an experienced trainer or nutritionist. Here's one example: the Bowflex machine. I have many clients and friends who have used it and love it. They have all been able to get great workouts on it. It is a good and relatively cheap piece of home equipment, especially when space is an issue. Just because Mr. Fell doesn't use it and says it's bad it doesn't make it so.

Another example from his latest article: the Paleo-Cleanse Powder, produced by a much respected supplement company Designs for Health, which he criticizes in a rather stupid and sarcastic way, happens to be extremely effective. ( I have used it myself with great results.) I wish Mr. Fell, and many others so quick to criticize any kind of detoxification, had at least a bit of knowledge about the phases of detoxification in the human body and were able to understand that while our bodies have a pretty ingenious design they were NOT equipped to deal with the amount of chemicals and toxins we have been bombarded with in the last 100 years. But Fell is obviously incapable of seeing the real picture.

He couldn’t even get the name of the organization right when citing his fellow trainer as certified by the National Association of Sport Medicine. Such organization does not exist. It is called the National ACADEMY OF SPORTS Medicine. It just shows you how familiar he is with the fitness world.

It is, however, his most recent article from Monday, Dec. 20th, that had me enraged. What does he REALLY know about holistic nutrition? Or is it, maybe, his physician wife's point of view who, gathering from her comments mentioned by Fell, subscribes strictly to allopathic medicine? And what kind of knowledge does she have in nutrition in general, considering that most medical schools offer a few hours of basic nutrition as part of their curriculum? 

 I have been trained in and have taken hundreds of classes and lectures in nutrition as it has always been my special area of interest. It is my complete disenchantment with the "mainstream nutrition" that prompted me to look further and embrace holistic nutrition. While I agree with Fell that there are many bad, unqualified holistic nutritionists (as is the case in any profession), I assure you that there are just as many terrible ones that are Registered/Licensed Dietitians. As a matter of fact, I found the holistic ones to be superior in many cases because they are not only able to think independently but, what is more important, do not constantly change their position depending on what the current new “wave” or fad presented as “research” and promoted by the ADA or food industry is. The majority of mainstream dieticians are slaves to the American Dietetic Association which, as all of you hopefully know, has very strong ties to the food companies. They have lost their own voice even when they know, that especially now, this voice is so badly needed. I have real trouble believing they have all been so brainwashed that they can't see for themselves what's happening in this country and where all the misinformation about food has taken us.

I have had the benefit of observing this particular industry for the last 18 years, listening to lectures of nutrition scientists, sport nutritionists, dietitians, etc. at various conferences I regularly attend and I have seen it go from one extreme to the other making this country fatter and fatter. One huge difference between holistic nutritionists and mainstream ones is the fact that we have not changed our position stand on many issues: we have always advocated eating healthy, organic, whole, unprocessed foods - foods that are natural and not genetically modified, full of chemicals like pesticides, herbicides and fungicides or full of hormones and antibiotics or coming from animals fed the unnatural diet of grains and other junk. (For anyone doubting these facts, please, see the movie "Food Inc."). It is the mainstream nutritionists that keep constantly changing their recommendations from one extreme to the next: low fat, nonfat, high carb, low carb, high protein, low protein, vegetarian, good fats, bad fats.

Your last Monday's section is the most “brilliant” example of this kind of flip-flop.  Just look at the article "Carb Reversal". You couldn't have chosen better than to print the above article together with James S. Fell's article on the same day. Fell criticizes holistic nutritionists who have maintained their position on natural foods and who tailor their recommendations to individuals as opposed to many mainstream nutritionists who follow the constantly changing “research”. Do you see my point? I remember when Barry Sears published his book on the Zone Diet and finally made us aware of the dangers of too many carbs and insulin resistance. There was an absolute uproar in the nutrition world. How can he say such things? How can too many carbs be bad? How can more fat be good? There were so many people trying to defend their position of the old school. I personally know good nutritionists who were afraid to stand up to the public and their peers' criticism, in fear of being laughed at. But then the inevitable happened - quietly, more and more of them started saying that actually adding more protein couldn't hurt, adding some fat might be beneficial, etc., etc.

Take a look at the article you just printed on carbohydrates. If you read points of view of different scientists many of them are now almost totally convinced about the benefits of cutting down carbohydrates. They were just as convinced before about eating low fat, low protein and so on. Mind you, if you read carefully, some are actually saying that eating even saturated fat may not be so bad after all. Am I reading this right???

But wait, they are still very cautious about actually recommending saturated fat.

So here's the news for all of you who don't know much about holistic nutrition. It has never demonized saturated fat, or any food for that matter, as long as it was in its natural form. Read: AS INTENDED BY NATURE! Neither has it confused people for years switching from one recommendation to the next.

And maybe a definition of holistic nutrition is in place here. What is it really? It is nutrition based not only on natural healthy foods but one that takes a whole person into account. This means looking at different issues/problems that a person may present with and looking at a nutritional (read: natural) way of addressing it. Yes, food is that powerful. Many times an improper diet will result in hormonal dysregulation (including some thyroid issues), blood sugar problems, weight issues, depression, fatigue, and so on, just to name a few. Mr. Fell disputes this as if either he or his wife were experts on nutrition. Neither one actually is.

As to the use of supplements: holistic nutritionists use them to HELP the body while trying to fine tune it with a properly designed nutritional plan, and only as long as it's absolutely necessary. I would dare to dispute the fact that many supplements are unsafe (though some certainly can be) and propose that many drugs prescribed by doctors are a lot more harmful than most people realize. The sad part is - physicians are aware of it but their relationship with the drug industry pays for their houses, cars and nice lifestyles many of them have, as one of my colleague's clients, an orthopedic surgeon, admitted when asked if he was aware of the dangers of prescribing strong anti pain and anti inflammatory drugs long term. If doctors sell/prescribe drugs why can't holistic doctors or nutritionists sell natural supplements? Let's judge everyone equally here and apply the same standards to everyone. And let’s not be delusional about what drives the medical industry. Big PHARMA is ALL about the money. So what’s wrong with holistic practitioners charging for supplements they might use to help treat their patients? (Actually, many of them do it only as an added convenience for their patients and in many cases they just refer clients to homeopathic pharmacies.) 

So why do we have such a mound of misinformation and why are we making this nation fatter and fatter? Well, that's a very multi faceted question, but one that I will attempt to answer here. It starts with the power of the food industry and then drug industry, respectively. There is a great saying that "a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth". Many years ago when the rate of lifestyle diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease started to rise somebody decided that the dietary fat was to blame. So the food industry quickly figured out that it could make a huge profit by making us believe that a high carb diet is the answer. Well, it was, sort of, but only for a short period of time since, as we all know, the truth will always come out in the end. Why? Because most carbohydrate products are easy to produce, very cheap to make and with the addition of some wonderful chemicals and preservatives, can last almost forever.  So the food industry pushed it for as long as it could.

Then came the "healthy" vegetable oils. The truth about vegetable oils got so entirely twisted that not only did every restaurant and food vendor advertised that they used ONLY vegetable oils but the nation's incidence of cardiovascular disease got completely out of control. Why? Because it changed the healthy ratios of fats in our diets advocating almost exclusively Omega 6 fatty acids, which we know are pro-inflammatory and leaving Omega 3, the anti-inflammatory ones, way behind. Now we are desperately trying to reverse that mistake.

Trans fats came next. Noted scientist and an internationally known lipid researcher, Dr. Mary Enig, (author of "Eat Fat, Lose Fat" and "Know Your Fats") tried to tell us close to 20 years ago how destructive trans fats were to the human body and how much they contributed to heart disease. Her research funding got cut off by one of the food giants. But, as I said before, the truth always comes out in the end. And it has. But they were considered "healthy" because they were super cheap to produce, had a never ending shell life and were a source of huge profit. The information on the extremely beneficial coconut oil is just as twisted and incorrect. (Please, read Dr. Enig’s research in the books mentioned above if you are interested.)

So...what about the "bad" guys, the demonized saturated fats? So here's the news. We all really need them. They are absolutely necessary for the production of sex hormones, needed in times of stress etc., etc. (their many beneficial effects are beyond the scope of this article). So wait, did I actually see it right? Did Dr. Ronald Krauss say in your article: "....and don't agonize about saturated fat"? Did Dr. Stephen Phinney actually say that he eats "less than 50 grams of net carbs a day ...." (Oh God!)"....including cheese and buttermilk"? He says he would rather eat a diet higher in fat, rich in protein and lower in carbs than take two drugs a day with side effects, which he used to do to control his blood pressure. Am I hearing this right? A diet higher in fat and rich in protein so he WOULDN'T have to take two drugs??? Is Dr. Edward Saltzman saying: " A very-low carb diet is likely healthier for the long term...."? Dr. Walter Willet, an often cited authority on food from Harvard School of Public Health, is living on "...well under..." 40% of carbs per day? What would have the nutrition world said if he admitted to doing that 5 or 10 years ago?

And Dr. Eric Westman: "If we were to design a one-size-fits-all diet, it should probably be a low carb diet. We should go back to the days of hunter-gatherers. The secret to maintaining a low carb diet is to increase fat intake, but only natural fats, not man-made fats. I can keep patients on a low-carb diet forever if they can have cream, butter and bacon". No, really? There is a great book on the subject, ignored by many, as books that speak the truth often are, by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD - "The Cholesterol Myths - Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease". It is an amazing read, however technical at times, for anyone who wants to know the facts about cholesterol and how the whole "theory" was created and the truth twisted.

Linus Pauling once said during one of his lectures: "A person who is 10 years ahead of his time gets a Nobel prize. The one who is 25 or more years ahead is considered a quack". How so very true and so very sad! There have always been people who told the truth about nutrition but we refused to listen to them. Why? Because it is money that we listen to and wherever there is an opportunity to make a buck the "research" gets twisted accordingly.

So here we have just come back full circle. Saturated fats are NOT bad as long as they are (as I said at the beginning of this article about where holistic nutritionists stand on the subject) NATURAL. But here's the REAL problem. Most people don't even have an idea how natural foods taste because they grew up on commercial foods of this country.

Just a funny little anecdote here. As a health professional I obviously care about the quality of the food my family eats. I cook everything myself, buy only natural and organic foods and make almost everything from scratch. Yes, it is a little more costly and more time consuming but worth every penny and every minute of extra time. Since, in my opinion, pasteurization and homogenization of dairy has caused more problems than it was intended to prevent I am not a big proponent of it. (Most people unfortunately do not realize that Louis Pasteur, the father of the "germ theory" and an inventor of the pasteurization process, revised and re-stated his own theory in 1882). A while back I switched to raw dairy products which I have shipped to me directly from a reputable organic farm in Northern California. My husband, who grew up in America and was used to eating processed foods, made a comment when he took his first sip of raw milk and his first bite of raw organic cheddar cheese: "It tastes like a barn!" Well yes, alleluia! It actually taste like real food is supposed to taste.  I grew up in Poland. Yes, on organic raw dairy, saturated fats and other presumably "unhealthy" foods. I was always a picture of health until I came to the US. It is the food here that has caused me many health issues like mercury poisoning and digestive problems. Now I am adamant about seeking the best quality foods I can find even if it adds some inconvenience to my life. Just to be clear, I do NOT expect everyone to run out and start ordering from farms or buying organic food only. I know people are struggling with other issues at the moment. What I am proposing, however, is speaking up for natural foods and beating the food giants who will sacrifice anybody's health to get profits at any cost. Have we all lost our voice? Do we even have a voice anymore?

Here, I would like to go back to saturated fats for just a moment. Many people, I am sure, will argue with me that saturated fat has been shown to cause heart disease, to be pro-inflammatory and so on. Yes, it is true but ONLY partially. Studies done on saturated fats have been conducted only on animals fed, what is now considered standard and "normal", grain diet. Grains are NOT what animals were designed by nature to eat. They contain mainly polyunsaturated fats and if the amount in the body is disproportionate to saturated fats they will cause an inflammatory response. So for years we were constantly told that saturated fats were bad and grains, low fat diets and artificial fats were good and look what we have done to this country's health.

And in the meantime the drug companies have been having a field day - selling more drugs than ever before: for cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease and various cancers. When are we finally going to get smarter and figure this out and accept the simple fact that it is NOT a good idea to fool with Mother Nature? We would be so much better served if we put all our time, money and resources to protect it so it can feed us the real healthy foods as it was initially intended to do? When are we finally going to figure out that denaturing food is a bad idea and stand up to expect the food producers to give us quality versus quantity?

  

THE BIGGEST SIN IN THE NUTRITION INDUSTRY TODAY.

I think we have done the biggest disservice to people by categorizing them as the same and absolutely refusing to believe in biochemical individuality. Why is it so hard to see that people are different, that our chemistry is different, that how we individually respond to food and what we need depends hugely on our ancestry, our genetics, where we live (the climate and temperature), our state of health, stress levels, age and many other factors? Why can't we just accept that some of us will thrive on a high-carb diet while others will be a lot healthier on proteins and fats?

I have worked with many different clients in the past and, with my experimental nature, have used myself as a guinea pig and I can tell you that people's response to foods and different diets varies drastically. More interestingly, it also varies within the same person depending on many factors at that particular moment. A wonderful book on the subject was written by Dr. William Wolcott ("The Metabolic Typing Diet") who has done a tremendous amount of research on the subject of hormonal responses to food and biochemical individuality.

Many people are seemingly incapable of evaluating research, listening to the information fed to them in the media and press and then actually using their heads to think and make their own conclusions. Many scientists and most of the public are guilty of just repeating what they hear, blindly following others and never using their own ability to think for themselves. That's a long lost talent. So now we are paying the price. Good information on foods and nutrition has always been available out there. You just have to look for it and be able to distinguish between the truth and “research” driven by the desire to make a name for oneself as a scientist or the desire for financial profits.

We as public have to become more responsible for our own education, our children's education and our own lifestyle choices and decisions. Good nutrition really isn't as complicated as they try to have us believe. While confusion pays off for an invested few it leads most of the public to disastrous results. The state of our country's health is but one such example.  

People like Dr. Stephen Barrett, now notorious in the medical field for his website Quackwatch.com and who Fell “consulted” for his article, will always exist. He has obviously made it his retired-life's mission to discredit many accomplished and successful professionals from the medical industry. (I have sent him a letter some time ago regarding his position on holistic dentists with whom I have personally had nothing but an amazing experience and whom I admire for their depth of knowledge). His opinion on many fine professionals, specializations, procedures and conditions is totally unfounded and simply shows his lack of knowledge as well as close-mindedness.

I would like to add here that I have been in the scientific circles all my life. I grew up as a daughter of a research scientist. My father is a world famous embryologist, a published author of over 70 scientific papers (among them a few in highly regarded Nature), recipient of many international awards, including a prestigious Japan Prize, and member of numerous international academies including the National Academy of Sciences in the US. The rigors of scientific research are not foreign to me. I can't help but wonder though: why are we so arrogant and cannot accept the fact that just because the research hasn't been done YET but the human experience shows otherwise, it is not true? How can we be so sure? Do you really think we need a double-blind, 10-year long research study with 10,000 subjects to show that blueberries are good for us?  And why do you think there AREN'T more studies on natural foods and supplements? It is so very, very simple I cannot comprehend why people do not see the truth. Who would pay for a study of a substance that no one can patent or make huge profit on? Who do you think funds the studies if not food and drug industries? It makes absolutely NO sense for them to provide funding for the studies of anything natural.

As to Mr. James Fell - here is my brief advice:

I wholeheartedly congratulate you on changing your lifestyle habits and losing 45 or so pounds. A successful dieter you may be but an accomplished and experienced trainer or nutritionist you are NOT. So use your time more productively and instead of trying to make a name for yourself by only criticizing others in the areas you often know nothing about take some advanced courses in both training and nutrition and get yourself more educated. Oh, and one more thing..... once you've listened to all the information, don't forget to think for yourself!

* Articles mentioned above from LA Times, Dec. 20, 2010

1. “Does “H” in HN stand for hokum? – by James S. Fell

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-fitness-holistic-nutrition-20101220,0,5943222.story.

2. “Carb Reversal” – by Marni Jameson

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-carbs-20101220,0,5464425.story.

3. “Cleaning up your carb act: Where to begin? ”  – by Marni Jameson

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-carbs-tips-20101220,0,4034450,full.story.