Category: editorial

February 15, 2019July 9, 2019

Reference

Crawford A, Increasing evidence of a strong connection between sugar and cancer, MedicalXPress, March 20, 2019, https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-evidence-strong-sugar-cancer.html

McGill Professor’s Editorial: Known Benefits of Low-Carb “Keto” Diets

This morning, Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Professor of Chemistry from McGill University and popular radio show host released a follow-up to last week’s opinion article and video that was published in the Montreal Gazette on the cardiovascular risks of a keto diet; this one on the known benefits of low-carb keto diets.

Schwarcz begins by fondly reminiscing about going to the circus with his mother when he was about 7 or 8 years old and the memories of the snack that she packed for him of crusty Hungarian bread, slathered with butter and topped with green bell pepper. He said that he’s loved it ever since, but “now we question such snacks. Why? Because of the carbohydrate content of the bread”.

“I’ve been looking into this for quite a while. There is really a plethora of papers and information that floods us about the keto diets; the very low carbohydrate diets”.

To his credit, Dr. Schwarcz acknowledged (possibly as a result of my written response to his article of last week in the Montreal Gazette) that there isn’t just one “keto diet” (singular) but several very low carbohydrate diets (plural) .

Schwarcz reiterates;

“I would have thought that by having all of that fat in the diet that risk levels for certain cardiovascular factors would go up, but really there isn’t really that much alteration in these factors”.

Low-Carb “Keto” Diets and Diabetes

Transitioning from the lack of cardiovascular risks associated with low-carb keto diets, Schwarcz adds;

“When it comes to Diabetes the information is really overwhelming to the benefit of these low carb diets. There are people — Type 2 Diabetes sufferers, who have been able to give up their medication by following a stringent, low carbohydrate diet.”

Schwarcz dismisses anecdotal reports of people’s “brain fog” resolving and possible benefits for cancer, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease as not being scientifically based but is unequivocal about the known benefits;

“What we do know is that weight loss can be very significant on a low carbohydrate diet and as I said — surprisingly, without any significant risk factors.”

Schwarcz continues;

“On the other hand, the longest terms studies that I’ve seen which were really properly controlled have only been about six months, and that really isn’t long enough.”

NOTE: In this case, Dr. Schwarcz is referring only to randomized, controlled double blind studies — excluding the data from long term studies of other types.

“We also know from dietary studies that after about a year, it doesn’t much matter what diet you’re on when it comes to weight loss — whether it’s low fat, whether it’s low carb, the results tend to be the same as long as you’re cutting out some calories.”

NOTE: While this may be true, what Schwarcz neglects to mention is that the major difference is that in a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, people are deliberately restricting food intake, often feeling hungry — whereas in a low carbohydrate diet, people naturally feel less hungry due to the satiety (hunger-reducing effect of protein and fat) which results in them eating less. In one case people are purposely restricting calories in the the other case, they don’t feel as hungry so they naturally eat less.

Schwarcz reiterates;

“However, for people who are afflicted with Diabetes, I think there is no question that the very low carb diets are worth trying.”

Towards the end of the video Dr. Schwarcz reflects on his childhood snack of crusty Hungarian bread, slathered with butter and topped with a quarter of a green bell pepper and admits that he looks askew at this snack.

“I admit that I’ve been eating less bread — I haven’t cut it out because I don’t think I need to do that, but I’m eating less.”

Schwarcz adds that for those who are gravitating towards a low carbohydrate diet, they can opt instead to eat bell pepper with a dollop of hummus with tahini (ground sesame seeds) or raw broccoli dipped in a bit of hummus.

“It tastes good! I think it is possible to cut down on the bread!”

Since Dr. Schwarcz is presumably not Diabetic and has all the nostalgia of memories of the circus as a child, he concludes the video by happily biting into a slice of crusty Hungarian bread that’s been slathered with butter and topped with a quarter of a green bell pepper…for nostalgia reasons, of course!

Bon appetit, Dr. Schwarcz!

If you would like to know more about the low carb and ketogenic services I offer, please click on the Services tab, and if you have questions related to those, please feel free to send me a note using the Contact Me form located on the tab above.

To your good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

February 8, 2019July 9, 2019

Reference

Montreal Gazette, February 15, 2019, Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Known Benefits of Low Carb “Keto” Diets” https://montrealgazette.com/category/opinion

Quebec newspaper: “Keto diets work, but is there a catch?”

This morning, the English language newspaper, the Montreal Gazette published a special article written by Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Professor of chemistry from McGill University titled “The Right Chemistry: Keto diets work, but is there a catch?”, that had an accompanying video.

The article began;

“There is little doubt that cutting way back on carbs results in weight loss. But how does all that fat impact cardiovascular risk factors?”

This is a very good question, however it is incorrectly based on the assumption that a “keto diet” is necessarily very high in fat, especially saturated fat, something which is not necessarily the case.

Dr. Schwarcz stated in the article in the Montreal Gazette that on a “keto diet” there is no bread, pasta, cereal, potatoes, carrots, rice, fruit or beer but that one can;

“gorge on fish, butter, eggs, high-fat cheese, whipped cream, coconut oil and meat to your heart’s delight.”

As mentioned in an earlier article that I wrote titled Misconceptions About the Keto Diet;

“There is no one ”keto diet”, but many variations of ketogenic diets that are used for different therapeutic purposes.

Some therapeutic ketogenic diets are used in the treatment of epilepsy and seizure disorder and are extremely high in fat. Other types of therapeutic ketogenic diets are used in the treatment of various forms of cancer (those that feed on glucose), such as brain cancer. There are ketogenic diets that are used in the treatment of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS), as well as for weight loss and for increasing insulin sensitivity in those with Type 2 Diabetes and insulin resistance.

Even among those using a nutritional ketogenic diet for weight loss and to increase insulin sensitivity, there is no one ”keto diet”.

There are ketogenic diets with a higher percentage of fat than protein, with a higher percentage of protein than fat and mixed approaches which may have different ratios of protein to fat — depending on whether the individual is in a weight loss phase or a weight maintenance phase.

There are as many permutations and combinations as there are people following a keto diet for these reasons.

What makes a diet ketogenic (or keto) is that the amount of carbohydrate relative to the amount of protein and fat results in the utilization of fat as a primary fuel source rather than carbohydrate. “

Assuming that the specific type of “keto diet” that Dr. Schwarcz is referring to is one where one;

(1) avoids bread, pasta, cereal, potatoes, carrots, rice, fruit* or beer

and

(2) indulges in foods high in fat, such as fish, butter, eggs, high-fat cheese, whipped cream, coconut oil and meat,

it is a very appropriate question to ask as to what effect does this type of keto diet have on cardiovascular risk factors.

Note: Most keto diets used for weight loss allow fruit as berries, such as raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries as well as those fruit that we often think of as vegetables, including tomato, avocado, cucumbers, lemon and lime. Dr. Schwarcz raised a concern in the video that not eating fruit limits one’s access to the important antioxidants in fruit, which for the most part is incorrect.

The article states that;

“There is little doubt that cutting way back on carbs results in weight loss. The question is, why?

The body’s main source of energy is glucose, generally supplied by starches and sugars [i.e. carbs] in the diet. If consumption of these carbohydrates is drastically reduced, below about 50 grams a day, energy has to be derived from an alternate source. At first, the 65 or so grams of glucose the body needs per day are produced from amino acids, sourced from proteins. But this process itself has a high energy requirement, and furthermore, the body is not keen on using up proteins that are needed to maintain muscle integrity. Fortunately, there is a backup system that can swing into action.

The liver begins to convert fats into ”ketone bodies,” namely beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate and acetone. These are then shuttled into the mitochondria, the cells’ little energy factories, where they are used as fuel. At this point the body is said to be in ”ketosis,” with excess ketones being excreted in the urine.”

Great explanation!

The article raises a few excellent points;

The article states that the “usual argument” for the more efficient weight loss associated with extremely low carb diets as compared to low fat diets is that (1) low carb diets produce a metabolic advantage because a lot of calories are needed to convert proteins to glucose. The article adds that not everyone agrees with this premise and states that others suggest that (2) ketone bodies have either a direct appetite suppressant effect or that they (3) alter levels of the respective appetite stimulating and inhibiting hormones, ghrelin and leptin. Lastly, the article states that some argue that (4) ketogenic diets lead to a lower calorie intake which the article’s author believes is “due to the greater satiety effect of protein”.

“No long-term studies of keto diets”

Correctly the article states that;

“There are numerous studies published over the last 20 years that have compared low-fat diets to low-carb diets with the overall conclusion that the low-carb diets are more effective in terms of weight loss, at least in the short term.

…but incorrectly adds;

“Unfortunately, there are no long-term studies of keto diets.”

While there have been 3 long-term clinical trials (2 years) published over the past 10 years involving low carb diets, unfortunately as documented in my earlier article, none of these involved research groups that actually ate a low carbohydrate diet. There is, however the recent two-year data from the Virta Health’s study that was published this past December 2018 which demonstrated the long term safety of a ketogenic diet and that participants on average;

(1) lost 12.4 kg (28 pounds) in two years; most of which was achieved in the first year maintained with only a slight increase of 2.3 kg (5 pounds) in the second year.

In addition to the weight loss, participants in the Virta Health study;

(2) significantly lowered medication use for Type 2 Diabetes (read more here)

(3) lowered glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) by a full percentage point at two years (7.7% to 6.7%)

(4) lowered fasting blood glucose from 9.1 mmol/L (164 mg/dl) at the start of the study to 7.4 mmol/l (134 mg/dl ) at two years.

High Fat Keto Diet and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

The article concludes with the initial question as to how a diet “high in fat, such as fish, butter, eggs, high-fat cheese, whipped cream, coconut oil and meat” impacts markers of cardiovascular risk.

“As one would expect, LDL, the ”bad cholesterol,” does go up, although the increase is mostly in the ”large particle” sub fraction that is deemed to be less risky.

Triglycerides, a significant risk factor, actually decrease on a very-low-carbohydrate diet, as does the body’s own production of cholesterol.

Levels of HDL, the ”good cholesterol,” increase.

That is, over the short term, markers of cardiovascular risk doesn’t change to any degree.

What about over the long term?

Unfortunately, the article concludes with;

“the problem is that there are no studies of people who have followed a keto diet long enough to note whatever effect such a diet may have on heart disease.”

…but as mentioned above, we do have the two-year data from the Virta Health’s study that was published this past December 2018 and which demonstrates that;

(1) LDL cholesterol of the intervention group at the start of the study averaged 2.68 mmol/L (103.5 mg/dl) and at two years was slightly higher as expected, to 2.96 mmol/L (114.5 mg/dl), however this level after 2 years was almost identical to what it was at 1 year; 2.95 mmol/L(114 mg/dl). That is, LDL (mostly the large particle sub-fraction) increased as expected the first year but didn’t continue to rise.

(2) At baseline, HDL cholesterol (“good cholesterol”) of the intervention group averaged 1.11 mmol/L (41.8 mg/dl) and after two years was stable at the same level it had risen to at 1 year, namely 1.28 mmol/L (49.5 mg/dl).

(3) At baseline, triglycerides of the intervention group averaged 2.23 mmol/L (197.2 mg/dl) and at two years was down to 1.73 mmol/L (153.3 mg/dl ), only up slightly for the one year average of 1.68 mmol/L (148.9 mg/dl).

Final Thoughts…

While Dr. Schwarcz seemed to be unaware of the publication of the two-year Virta Health study data in December 2018 that demonstrates both long-term safety and efficacy of a ketogenic diet for weight loss and improvement in metabolic health (including markers of cardiovascular risk), the Montreal Gazette article and accompanying video does indicate that a very high fat ketogenic diet does not adversely impact markers of cardiovascular risk.

To your good health!

Joy

UPDATE (February 15, 2019): a review of Dr. Schwarcz’ follow up to this article is located here.

You can follow me at:

February 1, 2019July 9, 2019

Reference

Dr. Joe Schwarcz, “The Right Chemistry: Keto diets work, but is there a catch?” Montreal Gazette, February 8, 2019, https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/the-right-chemistry-keto-diets-work-but-is-there-a-catch

Reflections on Being a Nutritional Centrist

INTRODUCTION: In a recent article titled Carbohydrates are not Evil I referred to myself as a “nutritional centrist” and in this post I’ll elaborate on what I mean by this. This post is more of an editorial than a standard ‘Science Made Simple’ article. References can be found in the previous articles by using the search feature.

Much of the discussion about nutrition these days on social media seems to take an “all-or-nothing” stance.

As in politics, there are those that tend towards a “left-wing” (liberal) position and others who tend towards a “right-wing” (conservative) position; some who are libertarian (let people decide for themselves) and others who are very authoritarian (dictate what they believe is best).

When it comes to nutrition, I am a centrist.

In this article, I am using the term “centrism” to include a very wide range of nutritional positions apart from any at extreme ends of the spectrum. I believe that a wide range of nutritional centrists positions are supported by current, evidence-based science.

Veganism and Carnivory – two ends of the spectrum

In the food world there are vegans on one hand and carnivores on the other. One eats only plant-based food with nothing coming from animals (no eggs, milk or cheese) and the other eats only animal flesh food (no fruit, vegetables or dairy). These can be looked at as the nutritional equivalents to ” left wing” and “right wing” political positions. While I respect people’s individual right to choose veganism or carnivory as a lifestyle, for health reasons, or on the basis of ethical or religious beliefs, in my understanding there are significant nutritional challenges to both ends of the spectrum.

Nutritional centrists – vegetarians, pescatarians and omnivores

Somewhere between veganism and carnivory are vegetarians
(who eat mostly plant-based foods but will also eat eggs, milk and cheese because no animal is killed or harmed in the making of these) and those who are omnivores (that will eat food from a wide variety of plant and animal sources). Somewhere in the middle of these two are pescatarians who are like vegetarians but who will also eat fish (perhaps because they are not mammals, and sometimes only when they are wild species i.e. not man raised).

From my perspective, people who chose any of these lifestyles fall somewhere in the “nutritional centrist” position. I find it easy to support people following any of these lifestyle or ethical choices because it is possible to design a diet that ensures adequate nutritional intake of a wide range of macro- and micro-nutrients from the foods they choose to eat.

Whole-food-plant-based

Those who follow a “whole-food plant-based diet” can be either vegan or vegetarian so in my understanding, whole-food plant-based vegetarians fall somewhere in the “nutritional centrist” position, whereas whole-food plant-based vegans are vegans with an approach that falls at one end of the spectrum.

Low Carb High Fat and Ketogenic diets – a centrist approach

As I’ve mentioned in numerous previous articles, there are several different types of “low carb” and “ketogenic” diets.

For example, if a client comes to me with a dietary prescription from a physician for a specific type of ketogenic diet to support a specific medical or metabolic condition that is a very different scenario than someone who wants me to help them with “quick weight loss” using a “keto diet”.

As a “nutritional centrist” my approach to supporting people in following a low carbohydrate lifestyle for weight loss is to start at a moderately-low level of carbohydrates (130 g carbohydrate per day) and lower the amount of carbohydrate as needed to achieve clinical outcomes. If individuals are insulin sensitive, this level of carbohydrate intake often works very well, especially at first when people were formerly eating ~300+ g of carbohydrate per day. For those who are insulin resistant or have Type 2 Diabetes, I start at a moderately-low level of carbohydrate intake and with self-monitoring of blood sugar and follow-up and oversight from their doctor with respect to any medications taken, will gradually lower carbohydrate intake as needed to achieve the desired clinical outcome(s).

It is not a “one-sized-fits-all” approach. As documented in several previous articles, people’s glycemic (blood sugar) response to carbohydrate varies significantly, even among those who are insulin sensitive and also in those with Type 2 Diabetes, so determining individual blood sugar response to carbohydrate is the best way to determine which types and amounts of carbohydrate people respond best to. I don’t believe it is appropriate or necessary for everyone to follow a “keto diet”.

Nutritional Centrism with respect to added fat

Amongst those that teach and support a “low carb” lifestyle, there are those that promote lots of added fat from a wide variety of sources. These are people that believe in adding coconut oil and butter to beverages, butter to top meat and vegetables and using whipping cream copiously. From the beginning this is not an approach I have taken. In light of the recent scientific evidence (such as the large-scale PURE epidemiological study and others), I do not believe that moderate saturated fat intake is harmful to cardiovascular health. At the same time, I see no reason that if added fat is helpful in a particular person’s diet, that fats such as cold-expressed olive and avocado oil as well as nut and seed oils such as macadamia, walnut and almond oil aren’t suitable options.

I don’t see the need for extremes with regards to added fat. I encourage people for whom the recommendation is appropriate to add enough good quality healthy fat to make the vegetables or salad taste interesting enough that they will want to eat a fair amount of them and enjoy them. After all, eating isn’t only about getting enough nutrients, but enjoying the foods that are eaten.

Fat that comes with protein

Unless there is a medical or metabolic condition involved which precludes it, I encourage people to eat the fat that comes naturally with their protein source if they enjoy doing so.

I encourage folks to trim excess external fat off a fatty cut of steak, but if they enjoy chewing on the bone on a rib steak to ‘go for it’. The yolk in an egg or the fat in cheese is not harmful when eaten in moderate amounts so unless there are strong risk factors, I don’t believe people need to avoid or limit these foods.

While the new Canada Food guide recommends limiting foods with saturated fat based on the fact that dietary saturated fat raises total-LDL cholesterol, as I’ve documented in several previous articles I don’t believe when considering all the recent evidence that there is compelling reason to advise all people to limit foods containing cheese or to select plant-based foods over foods that contain saturated fat.

As mentioned in a few recent articles, Canada Food Guide is directed towards a healthy population in order to help them stay metabolically well and I believe that the whole-food approach of the new Guide which avoids refined grains, fruit juice and processed foods is a good evidence-based approach to accomplishing this, and one I support in my practice.

My concern as covered recently is that as many as 88% of Americans are already metabolically unwell (with presumably a slightly lower percentage in Canada due to our slightly lower obesity statistics) so in those that already have indications of insulin resistance (which is a large percentage of my client base), I do recommend a whole-foods approach but with a lower percentage of carbohydrate intake. In my understanding, this is a “nutritional centrist” approach which is supported by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes who both support the use of a low carbohydrate diet as Medical Nutrition Therapy in the management of Type 2 Diabetes and for weight loss.

Supporting lifestyle choices

Veganism, like carnivory is a lifestyle choice that is sometimes made for religious or ethical reasons and sometimes for health reasons. Regardless of the reason for the choice, these are lifestyles that need to be respected and supported by healthcare professionals who are qualified to do so.

As a “nutritional centrist” I can help healthy individuals follow the new Canada Food Guide and provide meals for their family along those lines if they so choose, as well as to support those who are already metabolically unhealthy using everything from a Mediterranean diet, a whole-food plant-based approach or a low carbohydrate or ketogenic diet. There is no “one-sized-fits-all” diet for any of these approaches and each should be tailored to individual needs.

No Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories abound in many areas from religion to politics and there are plenty in the nutrition arena, as well. As a “nutritional centrist“, I don’t believe that “big-pharma” and “big-food” are behind everything, but at the same time I am also not naive enough to think that industries and special interests groups don’t attempt to influence the marketplace or government funding or policies by the types of research they fund, or by other means. I give scientists and researchers the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are in the interest of good science and the public interest, even though on occasion it is found out otherwise.

My writing about topics such the funding of the Harvard studies by the sugar industry does not mean that I believe the scientists involved deliberately wrote biased reports. The articles were written to document the fact that researchers were funded by the sugar industry to write articles about why saturated fat was the underlying issue with respect to cardiovascular disease. Likewise, the recently translated French language newspaper report that shed light on why the government (e.g. Agriculture Canada or a political party’s leadership) may have been motivated to encourage the highlighting of legumes does not mean anything inappropriate occurred. In my understanding, conspiracy theories are not compatible with a “nutritional centrist” position.

I would encourage my readers to give scientists and researchers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intentions; unless there is very credible and verifiable reasons to believe otherwise.

Libertarian versus Authoritarian Approach – a centrist approach

A libertarian approach to dietary choice supports each person’s individual’s right to choose the most suitable dietary approach for themselves whereas an authoritarian approach essentially tells a person what is best for them.

As a “nutritional centrist“, I am frequently in the scientific literature, reading and reviewing the latest studies and evaluating these in light of what is already known about nutrition. My motivation in writing articles that put these studies into “plain English” is that so ordinary people can evaluate these in light of what they know and choose what they feel is best for them. From my perspective, the current available quality research on the subject is the “authority” but by no means should this be used in an authoritarian way to tell a person what is best for them. My position as a “nutritional centrist” is that people should be presented with the range of available evidenced-based options and the supporting science behind those options, but in accordance with a libertarian approach, the choice is theirs to make.

I hope that as a result of reading this article, you have a fuller understanding of what I believe and why and that I support a range of evidence-based dietary approaches including those who want to follow the Canada Food Guide, a Mediterranean approach, a whole-food vegetarian plant-based approach or a low carbohydrate approach and that include moderate amounts of healthy fats of all types. There certainly isn’t a “one-sized-fits-all” dietary approach suitable for everyone so from my perspective, the issue is which one may be best suited to help you achieve your health and nutrition goals, within your personal food preferences.

If you would like to know more about the services I offer, please click on the Services tab and if you have questions related to those, please feel free to send me a note using the Contact Me form located on the tab above.

To your good health!

Joy

Feedback and question from Dr. Andrew Samis, MD, PhD – shared with prior permission

UPDATE: February 1, 2019 13:20

Dr. Andrew Samis, MD, PhD, a surgeon and critical care specialist from Kingston, Ontario asked a very interesting question on Twitter, in response to this article;

“Could the same eating strategy be healthy for one person, and make a second metabolically unhealthy?”

This was my response;

“Yes, I believe there is ample evidence that the same eating strategy could be healthy for one person and make a second person metabolically unhealthy. Monitoring metabolic markers enables us to catch this early and make adjustments, as necessary.“

You can follow me at:

January 29, 2019July 9, 2019

Quebec newspaper:”no coincidence” dried beans so prominent in new Canada Food Guide

DISCLAIMER: (February 1, 2019) The views expressed in the translated editorial are solely the opinions of the Journal de Montréal and its editors.

Today, the French language populist newspaper Le Journal de Montreal published an article that states that it is “no coincidence” that Health Canada featured dried beans so prominently in the new Canada Food Guide; ‘certainly they are good for health’, but there is also an ‘obvious economic benefit and benefit to local agricultural interests'[1].

[translation] “This is not well known, but Canada is the major supplier of legumes (pulses) on the planet. Between 35% and 40% of world production comes from here, essentially from the prairie provinces. Quebec is participating by growing dry beans.”

Economic and Local Interest

The article states that in addition to the health benefits there are two reasons why legumes (pulses) feature so prominently in the new Canada Food Guide;

I – Economic interests – the first “because”

The Journal de Montreal article states that one of the additional reasons legumes (pulses) were highlighted in the new Canada Food Guide was because Agriculture Canada had forecast a 20% decrease in production of legumes during 2019[1]. The reason for this decrease production is outlined below.

II – benefit to local agriculture – the second “because”

The article also states that growing legumes benefits local agricultural interests[1] because;

“legumes contain bacteria that allow them to transfer nitrogen from the air to the ground and this nitrogen is needed for growth of vegetables.”

This means that by growing legumes one season, the soil becomes enriched with nitrogen which helps the growing of other food crops the following growing season.

BACKGROUND TO THE FIRST “because”

Last March, the CBC reported that India, a top importer of Canadian chickpeas and lentils imposed a huge tariff on legumes which resulted in Canadian producers facing duties of 33% on lentils and 50% on desi chickpeas. The type that Canada produces are kabuli chickpeas, which have a slightly lower tariff of 40% [2]. These tariffs resulted in a decreased demand for Canadian legumes (pulses), as well as a price decline.

CBC also reported [3] that India’s imposed tariffs on pulses has sent “a huge ripple effect through the whole industry” as dried beans are a 1.1 billion dollar industry in Saskatchewan alone and India is it’s biggest customer[3].

“Farmers are calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for help to make sure that business continues and to consider the importance of agriculture in Canada”[3].

New Canada Food Guide – free of influence?

The article in Le Journal de Montreal raises the question as to how much of the prominent inclusion of legumes (pulses) in the new Canada Food Guide has to do with their reported health benefits and how much may have been driven by industry or lobby groups influence on various levels of government due to decreased demand and resulting falling production.

Figure 2 Adapted Framework for Developing Dietary Guidance – Evidence Review Cycle Model for Canadian Dietary Guidance, from Colapinto et al 2016

UPDATE:(February 3, 2019): While it is evident from the CBC report[3] above that the pulse industry was exerting pressure on various levels of the Federal government to address decreased demand for its product, decreased legume production would have been factored into the design of the new Canada Food Guide as both (1) the role of legumes and plant-based dietary patterns on health and (2) food availability of legumes in light of decreased production would have necessarily been evaluated i.e. two of the four of the direct influences involved Dietary Guidance design. [see “Evidence Review for Dietary Guidance: Summary of results and implications for Canada’s Food Guide, 2015” – available here) which on page 2 refers to the longer document “Colapinto CK, Ellis A, Faloon-Drew K, Lowell H Developing an evidence review cycle model for Canadian dietary guidance. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2016;48:77-83)” that has Figure 2, below. This figure indicates that Food Availability of the Food Supply is one of the four direct influences in the development of Dietary Guidance. While decreased legume production (i.e. food availability) would have been factored into the decision for Canadians to include more legumes in their diet for health benefits on the new Canada Food Guide, I can find no evidence that legume’s benefit to agriculture was ever evaluated. Some thoughts… I think it is important to know what is said in the populist press about important issues such as this because a large segment of the population relies on such sources, as well as the internet for their news. Often times such stories are based on truth but leave what isn’t said up to the audience (readers or listeners). Knowing the facts behind the story enables us to tease out conjecture from fact.

If you would like to learn more about what I do and how I can help, please have a look at the Services tab to learn more about the hourly consultations and packages that I offer. If you have questions about my services, please send me a note using the Contact Me form located on the tab above and I will reply as soon as I can.To your good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

January 27, 2019July 9, 2019

References

Le Journal de Montreal – 29 January 2019 0600 https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/01/29/des-arguments-de-pois?
CBC News – Pulse industry worries about precedent as India slaps 60% tariff on chickpeas – March 02, 2018 3:50 PM CT https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/india-chickpea-tariff-pulse-industry-1.4559947
CBC News – Prairie farmers want Canada’s trade dispute with India ‘straightened out’ – February 25, 2018 4:00 AM CT

Carbohydrates are Not Evil

Much of the discussion about nutrition these days on social media seems to take an “all-or-nothing” stance on carbohydrates. On one hand there are those who promote a plant-based diet that necessarily comes with a large amount of carbohydrate as grains, legumes (pulses) such as beans and lentils as well as carbohydrate-containing vegetables and fruit, and on the other hand there are those who eschew anything with the remotest amount of carbohydrate.

In politics, there are left-leaning ‘liberals’ and right-leaning ‘conservatives’, as well as those that hold a moderate position called “centrists”.

I am a centrist when it comes to my position regarding carbohydrates. In this article, I will elaborate on the following;

Carbs are not evil or single-handedly responsible for the obesity epidemic or metabolic diseases. If that were the case, then the traditional diets of much of Asia and West Africa would have resulted in obesity and diabetes and they did not. It is the degree of processing of the carbohydrate-based foods that impacts the blood glucose and blood insulin response of carbohydrate-containing foods.
Carbohydrate-based foods combined with fat in the same food ‘hijack’ the reward center of our brains (striatum), resulting in over-consumption.
Carbohydrates are not essential macronutrients.

Part 1 – Degree of Processing

Processing carbohydrate even in simple ways such as cooking or grinding means that more of the carbohydrate is available to the body to be digested. As pointed out in an earlier article which I will refer to throughout this section, when grains are cooked they become much more digestible — meaning that more of the nutrients in the grain is available to be absorbed. In the case of potatoes, there is double or triple the amount of energy (calories) available to the body when they are cooked versus when they are raw.

Mechanical processing, such pounding, grinding or pureeing are also forms of food processing which have an effect on how many nutrients are available to be digested. The nutrients available to the body when food is eaten raw and whole versus raw and pounded is significant.

Glucose Response – based on the amount of food processing

Mechanical processing of a food doesn’t change the amount of carbohydrate that is in it. That is, when 60 g of whole apple are compared with 60 g of pureed apple or 60 g of juiced apple, there are the same amount of carbohydrates in each and the Glycemic Index of these are similar, however when these foods are eaten the blood glucose response 90 minutes later is significantly different. As outlined in the earlier article, in healthy individuals, blood glucose level goes very high with the juiced apple and in response to the release of insulin, blood glucose then goes very low, below baseline. The response that we see with the juiced apple in healthy individuals is typical of what is seen with other forms of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

This is why it is preferable for metabolically healthy people to eat carbohydrate-based foods as whole, unprocessed foods with a minimum of disruption to the cell structure.

Insulin Response with Mechanical Processing

When healthy individuals eat grain-based meals, the plasma insulin response is inversely related to the particle size of the grain. That is whole, unprocessed grain releases less insulin than the same amount of cracked grain, which is still less than the same amount of course flour. The highest amount of insulin is released in response to eating the same amount of fine flour.

This increased insulin response of eating grains that are highly processed can drive chronic hyperinsulinemia (chronically high levels of insulin) that eventually results in insulin resistance; the beginning of the metabolic disease process.

It is for this reason that for metabolically healthy individuals, eating whole, unrefined grains is recommended.

Effect or Lack of Effect of Fiber

It is the lack of disruption to the cell structure of the grain that limits the insulin response and not the fiber content that makes the difference.

As mentioned in the earlier article (link above), studies have been done with bread where the fiber was added back in (such as in so-called “whole wheat bread” which is essentially white bread with added bran) and the insulin response was the same as with white bread, so it is not the amount of fiber in the grain that makes the difference, but the lack of disruption to the grain structure itself. I find it helpful to think of it in terms of ‘the fiber that counts is that which is part of the whole, undisrupted grain’. (Note: it is for this reason that I only factor “net carbs” for food whose fiber is in this undisrupted form. For all other products where fiber is added, I don’t deduct the fiber).

The disruption of the structure of the grain also has an adverse effect on GIP response (an incretin hormone released from the K-cells high up in the intestine that triggers the release of insulin). Bread made with flour (as opposed to whole, intact grains) results in a much larger and earlier plasma GIP response, which in turn results in a higher and earlier insulin response, than bread made with whole kernel grains, such as artisanal rye or wheat breads.

In metabolically healthy individuals, the eating of whole, intact minimally processed carbohydrate-containing food is preferable, as opposed to eating processed carbohydrate-containing foods (be it grains or fruit) with significant disruption to the cell structure.

Part II – Carbohydrate and Fat Combined

In nature, there are very few foods in the human diet that contain a combination of both carbohydrate and fat in substantial quantities. Human breast milk is one of those few natural foods, along with some nuts and seeds. When humans began drinking the milk of other mammals such as goats, sheep and cows, milk became one of those foods.

Also as outlined in a previous article foods with both fat and carbs together result in much more dopamine being released from the reward-center of our brain, called the striatum. Dopamine is the same neurotransmitter that is released during sex and that is involved in the addictive ”runner’s high” familiar to athletes so this is a very powerful neurotransmitter.

It is believed that there are separate areas of the brain that evaluate carb-based foods and fat-based foods but when carbs and fat appear in the same food together, this results in what the researchers called a ”supra-additive effect”. That is, both areas of the brain get activated at the same time, resulting in much more dopamine being released from the striatum and a much bigger feeling of ”reward” being produced. This combination of carbs and fat in the same food is why we find foods such as French fries, donuts and potato chips irresistible and this powerful reward-system is why we’ll choose French fries over baked potato and why we have no difficulty wolfing back a few donuts, even when we’ve just eaten a meal.

This ”supra-additive effect” on the pleasure center of our brain along with the fact that more insulin is released when both carbs and fat are eaten together helps explain the roots of the current obesity epidemic and the metabolic diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes that go along with it. The high rates of obesity seen more recently in places like China (as covered in this article) are due to the adoption of Western eating habits (refined, processed foods) that are notoriously high in both carbohydrates and fat.

When foods that are rich sources of carbohydrate are eaten it is best that foods that are also rich sources of fat are not eaten at the same time in order to avoid this supra-additive effect.

I do not believe that carbohydrate-based foods in and by themselves in metabolically healthy individuals are the underlying cause of obesity and metabolic disease. I believe that it is the (1) consumption of carbohydrate-based foods that have undergone some kind of food processing (grinding, milling, pureeing, etc) that has disrupted their cell structure and (2) the consumption of foods that combine both carbohydrate and fat in the same food that have driven both.

Part III – Carbohydrates are Not Essential Macronutrients

With all the arguing about eating more carbs or less carbs, it needs to be emphasized that carbohydrates are not essential nutrients. Yes, the body needs a certain amount of glucose for the brain, but the body can make this glucose from protein and fat through a process called gluconeogenesis.

This is not simply my opinion, but is stated by the Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids (2005) on page 275;

”The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.

That is, there is no essential need for dietary carbohydrate provided there are adequate amounts of protein and fat provided in the diet.

The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for carbohydrate is set at 130 g / carbohydrate per day based on the average minimum amount of glucose utilized by the brain— however the body can manufacture this glucose from protein or fat. A well-designed low carbohydrate diet provides sufficient amounts of fat and protein such that the body can manufacture the glucose it needs.

Carbohydrate – to eat or not to eat

For Healthy Individuals

For those who are healthy and metabolically flexible, consumption of whole, unprocessed carbohydrate-containing foods such as whole grains, tubers, starchy vegetables such as peas, squash and corn and whole fruit are of no concern. Due to the ‘supra-additive’ effect of fats with carbohydrate, I recommend that when eating carbohydrate-based foods, to avoid foods that are a rich source of fat.

For Metabolically Unhealthy Individuals

As mentioned in the two previous articles related to the new Canada Food Guide (here and here), 88% of Americans are already metabolically unwell, with presumably a large percentage of Canadians as well.

That is, only 12% have metabolic health defined as;

Waist Circumference: < 102 cm (40 inches) for men and 88 cm (34.5 inches) in women
Systolic Blood Pressure: < 120 mmHG
Diastolic Blood Pressure: < 80 mmHG
Glucose: < 5.5 mmol/L (100 mg/dL)
HbA1c: < 5.7%
Triglycerides: < 1.7 mmol/l (< 150 mg/dL)
HDL cholesterol: â‰¥ 1.00 mmol/L (â‰¥40 mg/dL) in men and â‰¥ 1.30 mmol/L (50 mg/dl) in women

For the large majority who are metabolically unhealthy, knowing which carbohydrate-based food raise one’s blood glucose levels is important. Even if lab tests show one’s fasting blood glucose is still normal, blood glucose levels after eating carbohydrate may be quite abnormal, and even more significantly insulin levels may be as well. You can read more about that here. As mentioned previously in this article, these high insulin levels are what drives metabolic disease by driving insulin resistance.

Eating a low carbohydrate diet can be very helpful to lower blood glucose response and lower chronically high levels of insulin. Which carbohydrates can be tolerated and in what quantities varies considerably between people, but is easy to determine and I help people do this.

For those that already have Type 2 Diabetes, reducing carbohydrate intake for a considerable length of time will enable them to reduce their overall blood glucose and insulin response, which will help them reverse the symptoms of Diabetes as well as other metabolic diseases that often go along with it, such as high blood pressure and high triglycerides. In time, some carbohydrates may be able to be eaten again however the amount and type will vary between individuals.

Final Thoughts…

Carbohydrates aren’t “evil”. In and by themselves, they don’t result in obesity or metabolic disease. It is the amount of food processing that carbohydrate-containing foods have undergone that results in cell-wall disruption that will determine how much of a glucose- or insulin-response they will cause. In metabolically healthy people, eating minimally processed whole grains, starchy vegetables and fruit without a source of fat is fine.

For those who are metabolically unhealthy, especially those who have a measurably abnormal glucose- or insulin-response, the amount of carbohydrate that can be tolerated is individual and will need to be determined.

For those who have Type 2 Diabetes and follow a low carbohydrate diet to reduce the symptoms of high blood sugar or metabolic diseases that often go along with it, eating the amount of tolerated carbohydrates as minimally processed ones, without a source of fat is also best.

There is no “one size fits all” diet that is suitable for everyone.

For metabolically healthy individuals, following the new Canada Food Guide and selecting carbohydrate sources using the above principles can provide people with a healthy diet. For those that are already metabolically unhealthy, I can help design a Meal Plan that will meet your energy and nutrient needs and that provides the amount of carbohydrate that you can tolerate. If you would like more information, please send me a note using the Contact Me form, above and I’ll be happy to reply soon.

To your good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

January 25, 2019July 9, 2019

New Canada Food Guide – carbohydrate estimate of the sample plate

There has been some discussion on Twitter that the macronutrient estimated in the previous article of an average ~325-350 g of carbohydrate per day based on a 2000 kcal per day diet for the new Canada Food Guide was “too high”, so in the interest of determining whether it was accurate, I’ve evaluated the carbohydrate content of the illustrated plate.

Actual Number, Standard Cup Measure and Scale of Reference

Since no portion sizes are provided with the new guide, both scale of reference or when available, the actual number of items was used.

The actual number of chickpeas, kidney beans, nuts and seeds were used and determine in terms of the portions of a standard cup measure.

For items such as vegetables and fruit, actual portions were measured using a standard set of stainless steel measuring cups.

For any remaining quantities, since a quarter of an egg is featured on the illustration of a healthy plate and a large sized egg is the standard on which nutrient analysis is based and this is of a known size, I used the 1/4 of a large egg as the scale of reference for other items,when the actual number was not available.

Carbohydrate Content of the Protein Group

The protein group contributed~37 g of carbohydrate to the sample plate.

Carbohydrate Content of the Whole Grains Group

The whole grains group contributed more than~58 g of carbohydrate to the sample plate.

Carbohydrate Content of the Vegetable and Fruit Group

The vegetable and fruit group contributed more than~53 g of carbohydrate to the sample plate.

The sample plate used as an illustration for the new Canada Food Guide has close to 150 g of carbohydrate on it— and this is for only one meal. The carbohydrate content of lunch and dinner (the two generally mixed meals of the day) already totals as much as 300 g of carbohydrate — and there’s still breakfast to add! Whether it’s a couple of whole grain toast (30 g carbs), 2 tbsp unsweetened nut butter (6 g carbs) or some whole grain cereal (30 g carbs) and 1/2 cup of low fat unsweetened yogurt (6 gm carbs), there’s another 42 g of carbs (plus the carbs for the milk or nut or soy milk to pour on the cereal); bringing the average for the three meals alone to 337+ g of carbs which is exactly what it was estimated as in the previous article — as between 325 – 350 g carbohydrate per day.

And this is just for 3 MEALS.

What about snacks?

Yes, snacks are mentioned TWICE on the first page under the link for “eating habits” in the section on “how to make a meal plan and stick to it”;

Assuming a person eats a “healthy whole grain” muffin without any dried fruit in it for coffee break in the morning (~50 g of carbs) and a single piece of fruit like an apple or orange mid-afternoon (15 g of carbs), these add another 65 g of carbohydrate to this day, bringing the average total to over 400 g of carbohydrate for one day.

UPDATE (January 26, 2019) Given the sample plate is there to demonstrate proportions, not portions — looking at the grain group alone, the proportion of grain is 1/4 of the dietary intake. Based on a 2000 kcal/day diet, that’s 500 calories per day / ~125 g of carbohydrate from the grain group alone. Add in the carbohydrate from the largely plant-based protein group, that’s another ~100 g carbohydrate per day, on average. Since half the plate should be vegetables and fruit and both starchy vegetables such as squash, yam, potato, peas and corn contain 15 g of carbohydrate per half cup, as does the same amount as fruit, it is reasonable to assume that on average, half of the vegetable servings will be comprised of a mixture of starchy vegetables — along with the fruit servings and the other quarter of the plate of non-starchy vegetables. That is, 1/4 of the vegetable and fruit side of the plate will be carbohydrate-containing, adding another ~125 g of carbohydrate per day to the diet. Of course, there will be days where people will eat lower carbohydrate grains like quinoa and lower carbohydrate plant-based protein such as tofu, but equally there will be days where vegetable servings are starchy ones such as peas and corn along with plant-based proteins that are higher in carbohydrate, such as legumes like kidney beans. So, the numbers above are averages. Whether one uses the portions on sample plate as a basis for estimating the carbohydrate content or uses the proportion of the diet that is carbohydrate, the results fall in the same range of an average of 325 – 350 g carbohydrate per day, based on only 3 meals (without snacks).

Real Life Meals

Despite there being no “portion sizes” in the new Canada Food Guide, some insist that a “serving of pasta is 1/2 cup” because that is what is illustrated on the sample plate. Okay, let’s go with that for the sake of argument.

If a person ate twice that amount of pasta (instead of also eating some wild rice or rice or bread, for example), this is what the size of that portion would look like (of course it would be “whole grain”):

1 cup of cooked pasta – size of a tennis ball

I’ve been in private practice a long time and in my experience only children and women who are portion restricting eat pasta in amount the size of a tennis ball. More than 90% of my clients report eating servings of pasta that are significantly larger than that. In fact, the usual ‘smaller-sized’ servings are about a cup and a half when eaten along with salad or a cooked vegetable (bigger if eaten alone). What does a cup and a half of pasta look like? It looks like this;

…and this amount of pasta without sauce has 45 g of carbohydrate in it — which is still less than the 53 g of carbs illustrated in the Canada Food Guide sample plate.

Naturally, no one is expected to eat exactly like the “sample meal”, but whether one eats their “whole grains” as all brown rice, wild rice, Bulgar wheat or something else, 1/4 of the plate all have the same amount of carbohydrate per 1/2 cup serving as pasta.

Add to the pasta the vegetables and fruits above on the sample plate (or corresponding assortment of a mix of starchy, non-starchy vegetables and fruit) and that adds up to 100 g of carbohydrate …and we still haven’t added any protein into the meal, yet.

Add another 37 g of carbohydrate for an assortment of legumes, nuts and seeds as well as a bit of meat and “low fat” cheese for the pasta sauce (because after all, we are encouraged to eat animal protein “less often”) and that totals more than 135 g of carbs for just this one “real life” meal. Eat a meal like the one in the sample illustrations, it adds up to 150 g of carbs!

The question I’ve been asked is if it is “healthy whole grain”, then what’s the concern?

For metabolically healthy adults, none. For metabolically healthy adults, the new Canada Food Guide is a huge improvement from it’s predecessor! It eliminates refined carbs, sugary drinks including fruit juice and encourages eating whole foods, cooked at home as much as possible.

The problem is, most adults are not metabolically healthy.

Majority of Adults Metabolically Unhealthy

As mentioned in the previous article research indicates that as many as 88% of Americans[1] are already metabolically unwell, with presumably a large percentage of Canadians as well. That is, only 12% of the adult population would be considered metabolically healthy [1]”.

Metabolic Health is defined as [1];

Waist Circumference: < 102 cm (40 inches) for men and 88 cm (34.5 inches) in women
Systolic Blood Pressure: < 120 mmHG
Diastolic Blood Pressure: < 80 mmHG
Glucose: < 5.5 mmol/L (100 mg/dL)
HbA1c: < 5.7%
Triglycerides: < 1.7 mmol/l (< 150 mg/dL)
HDL cholesterol: â‰¥ 1.00 mmol/L (â‰¥40 mg/dL) in men and â‰¥ 1.30 mmol/L (50 mg/dl) in women

Given the slightly lower rates of obesity in Canada (1 in 4) as in the United States (1 in 3), presumably there is a slightly lower percentage of Canadians who are metabolically unhealthy. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there are TWICE as many metabolically healthy adults in Canada, which would mean that only slightly over 75% of adults are metabolically unhealthy. Since Canada’s Food Guide is intended for a healthy population in order to reduce the risk of overweight and obesity as well as chronic diseases manifest as the markers above, that means that the new Canada Food Guide — as beautiful as it is, is only appropriate for ~1/4 of the adult population.

For the other 75% of adults that are presumably metabolically unwell, a diet that provides 342 g of carbohydrate per day for meals alone (based on a 2000 kcal per day diet) and as much as 400 g of carbohydrate per day with 2 “healthy” snacks is not going to address the large percentage of adults who are already demonstrating symptoms of being carbohydrate intolerant.

Carbohydrate Intolerance

As outlined in detail in a previous article, based on a large-scale 2016 study that looked at the blood glucose response and circulating insulin responses from 7800 adults during a 5-hour Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, 53% had normal glucose tolerance at 2 hours but of these people, 75% had abnormal blood sugar results between 30 minutes and 60 minutes demonstrating that they were already hyperinsulinemic, although it went undetected on standard assessors that only look at glucose and insulin responses at baseline (fasting) and at 2 hours.

These people are already exhibiting symptoms of not tolerating a normal carbohydrate load of 100 g.

How does it make sense to encourage adults that already have abnormal glucose response to eat 150 g of carbohydrate per meal when these people already have an impaired first-phase insulin response? How will eating “whole grains” and the “added fiber from plant-based proteins” improve their first-phase insulin response (which likely results from dysfunction in the release of the incretin hormone GIP (Glucose-dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide) from the K-cells?

For these people, continuing to eat a diet high in carbohydrate, irrespective of the amount of fiber or the glycemic load will not restore their insulin response, and in time is likely to make it worse. This is my concern.

Canada Food Guide is for a healthy population to avoid the risk of chronic disease and based on these statistics most adults are not metabolically healthy.

Final Thoughts…

For the ~1/4 of adults that are metabolically healthy, I think the new Canada Food Guide is beautiful and focuses on real, whole food, preparing food at home, avoiding refined grains and avoiding high sugar beverages such as fruit juice (formerly seen as “healthy”).

For the high percentage of adults that are already metabolically unwell and who already demonstrate abnormal glucose responses, I don’t see that advising them to eat a diet that is between 325-350 g of carbohydrate per day (meals without snacks) helps them to avoid the progression to Type 2 Diabetes.

If you are part of the majority of Canadians that are already struggling with overweight and/or being metabolically unwell and would like to know more about how I may be able to help you achieve a healthy body weight and restore metabolic markers then please send me a note using the Contact Me form, on the tab above.

To your good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

January 3, 2019July 9, 2019

References

Araíºjo J, Cai J, Stevens J. Prevalence of Optimal Metabolic Health in American Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009—2016. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders Vol 20, No. 20, pg 1-7, DOI: 10.1089/met.2018.0105
Crofts, C., et al., Identifying hyperinsulinaemia in the absence of impaired glucose tolerance: An examination of the Kraft database. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016. 118: p. 50-7.

There’s Something About Real Life Personal Stories

NOTE: This article is an editorial but is cross-posted under Science Made Simple to make it easy to find.

Critics of the use of a low carbohydrate diet for weight loss and for putting the symptoms of Type 2 Diabetes into remission will often say that there are no randomized control trials (RCTs) showing that this diet is safe and effectiveness over the long-term, but what they often don’t realize is that there were no randomized controlled studies demonstrating safety and efficacy underlying the recommendation that people consume 45-65% of their daily calories as carbohydrate, while limiting their fat intake. What we do have in both Canada and the US since 1977 (when the Dietary Guidelines in both countries changed) is 40+ years of epidemiological data showing a massive increase in the incidence and prevalence of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes that shows no sign of letting up, and a millions of people that are fed-up of feeling “sick and tired”. Is it simply that people stopped “moving” as much or could it be the diet?

Recently, the therapeutic use of a low carbohydrate diet as a dietary option for reducing blood sugar, use of blood-sugar lowering medications and for weight loss has been recognized by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in the release their 2019 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (you can read more about that here. In addition, in October 2018 the ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) released a joint position paper that classifies a low carbohydrate diet as Medical Nutrition Therapy for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in adults (more about that here). This means that physicians and healthcare professionals in Europe and the United States can recommend a low carbohydrate diet as one of the treatment options for their patients. This moves a low carbohydrate diet from the realm of popular lifestyle choice to Medical Nutrition Therapy for the purpose of disease management.

You can get a one-page downloadable summary (with references) of both the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2019 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes and the ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) joint position paper here.

As covered in previous articles, there are ample studies showing that a well-designed low carbohydrate diet is both safe and effective for putting Type 2 Diabetes into remission and for weight loss.

In fact, there was a list compiled by Dr. Sarah Hallberg at the end of January 2018 of studies that involved a low carbohydrate diet which spanned 18 years, 76 publications involving 6,786 subjects, including 32 studies of 6 months or longer and 6 studies of 2 years or longer. Now, it is a year later and there are numerous other studies including very recent two-year data from the Virta Health study which demonstrates that a low carbohydrate diet is not only safe, but effective long term.

But there’s something about real-life, personal (n=1) accounts of ordinary people losing weight and putting their Type 2 Diabetes and other metabolic conditions into remission that people find very compelling.

Diet Doctor, a well-known website dedicated to a low-carb high fat / “keto” approach has a whole section of “success stories”, and a very popular ketogenic Facebook page from Nigeria which promotes a “keto” diet (mostly self-defined) does as well.

What about when the “ordinary people” that lose weight and put their own metabolic disorders into remission also happen to be healthcare professionals? It seems many find this particularly compelling because we know the full range of dietary options and have chosen the method we have after careful consideration.

As many of you know, I was recently the featured guest on the Low Carb MD Podcast which was hosted by Dr. Tro Kalajian and Dr. Brian Lenzkes. As outlined on the article at the link above, both of these doctors struggled with obesity their whole lives and both have lost weight and found improved metabolic health, and are now helping their patients to do the same.

Then there’s me, a Registered Dietitian in private practice who’s lost almost 50 pounds and put my Type 2 Diabetes of 10 years into remission.

The three of us are just ‘two Docs and a Dietitian’ who were sick of being sick, but there are many more healthcare practitioners just like us that have done similarly, including some of the more than 1500 that are part of the Canadian Clinicians for Therapeutic Nutrition (CCTN) Facebook group and members of CCTN.

We are ordinary people who as clinicians are knowledgeable about the therapeutic benefits of following a low carbohydrate diet and who have implemented it in our own lives. Our stories are not scientific case studies, nor are they part of a randomized controlled trials or research of any kind. Our single subject (n=1) anecdotal stories and those of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people from all walks of life are powerful because they stand in sharp contrast to the large percentage of the population that are overweight or obese just like we were, but who keep eating the same way and getting sicker.

We offer people choices.

The choice of turning things around.

The option of getting healthy.

The ability to achieve a healthy body weight and in the process be able to have our doctors reduce or eliminate medications for metabolic diseases.

If you’re tired of being “sick and tired” then I’d encourage you to listen to the podcast above or to have a look through some of the “Science Made Simple” articles on this web page under the Food for Thought tab. There you can learn about the different types of “low carb” and “keto” diets and get a feel for what eating this way is like.

If you would like medical support in the US, be sure to check out Dr. Kalajian and Dr. Lenzkes, other physicians such as Dr. Eric Westman and Dr. Ted Naiman, as well as the Virta Health Clinic, as well as many others who are knowledgeable and experienced to provide you with support in this area. If you are in Canada and are looking for a therapeutic nutrition practitioner, you can search the list on the CCTN website (link above) and if you’d like to know how I can help (either in-person or from where you are via Distance Consultation) then feel free to send me a note using the Contact Me form above and I’ll reply as soon as possible.

To your good health!

Joy

You can follow me at:

September 30, 2018July 9, 2019

Silver Bullet for Addressing Carb Cravings

I was asked an interesting question recently which was “have you found the silver bullet for reducing carb craving“? This was an interesting way to phrase something I have been asked in many different ways the last few years.

Some people have been told that it really doesn’t matter what or how much they eat as long as they only eat “real” food. Others have heard that they need to eat plenty of fat each day, and that this will work to keep them full and reduce cravings. Some have read that what they need to do is eat mostly protein with some fat or only eat during a very small ‘eating window’.

So what is the answer?

There really isn’t a ‘silver bullet’ as much as there is the need for a well-designed low carbohydrate diet that is specific to each person’s physiological needs.

Every person has different nutrient needs based on their age, stage of life, gender and activity level. As well, each individual has different degrees of insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia and each person’s blood sugar responds differently to a carbohydrate load (called glycemic response). Much of these depends on their specific family history, their medical history and the type of foods they normally eat. [You can read more about all three of these here.]

There isn’t a ”once-size-fits-all low carb diet”. Based on all of the above factors, some people will do better with a higher ratio of protein to fat, whereas others need plenty of natural, healthy fats and average amount of protein. The amount and type of carbohydrate each person can tolerate will also be different. Since everyone’s needs are different, in designing a Meal Plan for someone, I start by conducting a complete nutritional assessment (personal medical history, family medical history, review of recent lab tests, dietary and lifestyle review, etc.) so that the Meal Plan that I design is tailored to their individual needs.

If there was a ‘silver bullet’ to eliminate carb cravings it would be to understand what causes them. Carb cravings are driven by several different hormones that the body produces in response to the way each person eats, as well as how much and how well they sleep, how they manage stress (or don’t), as well as any conditions or diseases that they have and any medications that they take. All of these affect the various hormones that impact cravings for carbohydrate-based food. When I design people’s Meal Plans, I take all of these into account.

A well-designed low carbohydrate diet designed specifically for each person and taking into account the various factors that are driving their specific carbohydrate cravings is the most effective means to addressing them.

A person’s Meal Plan is not carved in stone. If a person has a fair amount of weight to lose, their Meal Plan will change once they’ve lost a significant amount of weight or if they’ve hit a plateau where they haven’t lost either weight or inches in a while. Achieving optimal body weight is a dynamic process not a static one — as people’s needs change, so should their diet. It’s not that a person’s Meal Plan needs to be re-designed, as much as ‘tweaked’ or ‘adjusted’ to keep them moving towards achieving their goals. This is where follow-up can be helpful.

If you have questions as to how I can help you achieve your health and nutrition goals — either by taking service in-person in my office or via Distance Consultation please send me a note using the Contact Me form above and I will be happy to reply as soon as I am able.

To your good health!

Joy

you can follow me at:

August 2, 2018July 9, 2019

When Fat Became the Villain

Those who are younger than 40 years old probably grew up hearing that saturated fat is ”bad” and polyunsaturated fat is ”good”, but where did we get this idea and is it true?

The process of what I call the ”vilification of fat” began when researcher Ancel Keys presented a graph at a talk at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York in January 1953 and later published it in a research paper titled Atherosclerosis: a problem in newer public health [1]. It was said to show the relationship between fat calories as a percentage of total fat” and the number of deaths from degenerative heart disease per 100,000 people’ for men between the ages of 45-49 and 55-59. The linear relationship of these data points from the Six Country Study (Japan, Italy, England & Wales, Australia, Canada and the USA) suggested that there was a strong relationship between the amount of fat calories as a percentage of dietary intake and deaths from degenerative heart disease for men aged 55-59. At the time of publication of the Six Country Study, Keys said that it was possible to only get complete data from those 6 countries [1] at the time. He concluded;

”Whether or not cholesterol etc. are involved, it must be concluded that dietary fat somehow is associated with cardiac diseases mortality, at least in middle age [1].

In Key’s mind, the total amount of dietary fat was ”somehow associated” with cardiac death in middle aged men, but he expressed doubt whether or not cholesterol was involved.

In 1957, Yerushalamy and Hilleboe [2] published data from 22 countries which showed there was no linear relationship between fat calories as a percentage of total fat” and the number of deaths from degenerative heart disease per 100,000 people’.

Keys went onto conduct what became known as the Seven Country Study which collected data on almost 13,000 men aged 40-59 from the USA, Finland, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece and Japan. Findings were only published in 1970 in the journal Circulation in several papers from separate countries [3]. Keys no longer believed that total fat was associated with heart disease but that saturated fat was the villain. Keys concluded that the average consumption of animal foods (with the exception of fish) was positively associated with 25-year heart disease death rates and that the average intake of saturated fat was strongly related to 10 and 25-year coronary heart disease death rates.

What solidified this association was that the 1970 publication on the Seven Country Study contained Keys’ 1953 graph from the Six Country Study (above) [4]. Even though it indicated a linear relationship between total fat intake and degenerative heart disease it became tied in the minds of many that this graph ”proved” that saturated fat was linked to heart disease—even though that is not what the graph shows at all. It isn’t even about saturated fat. Keys also neglected to mention Yerushalamy and Hilleboe’s data from 22 countries showed no relationship between total fat consumption and heart disease.

The Diet Heart Hypothesis

The diet-heart hypothesis originated with Ancel Keys and is the belief that eating foods high in saturated fat contributes to heart disease. Keys believed that replacing fat from meat, butter and eggs with newly-created polyunsaturated vegetable oils such as soybean oil would reduce heart disease and deaths by lowering blood cholesterol levels.

The Sugar Industry Funding of Research Vilifying Fat

In the mid-1960’s, the Sugar Research Foundation (predecessor of the Sugar Association) wanted to offset research that had been published and that suggested that sugar was a more important a cause of heart disease and stroke from atherosclerosis than dietary fat. The Sugar Research Foundation invited Dr. Fredrick Stare and the late Dr. D. Mark Hegsted of Harvard’s School of Public Health Nutrition Department to join its scientific advisory board and then approved $6,500 in funds ($50,000 in 2016 dollars) to support a review article that would respond to the research showing the danger of sucrose [5]. Letters exchanged between the parties came to light a November 2016 article published by Kearns et al [6] which said that the Sugar Research Foundation had tasked the Harvard researchers with preparing ”a review article of the several papers which find some special metabolic peril in sucrose and, in particular, fructose [7]”.

The Sugar Industry paying researchers to blame dietary fat and vindicate sugar for heart disease seems a little like the tobacco industry having secretly funded articles demonstrating that something other than smoking was responsible for lung cancer.

In August 1967 the New England Journal of Medicine published the first review article written by Drs. Stare, Hegsted and McGandy titled ”Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease” which stated;

”Since diets low in fat and high in sugar are rarely taken, we conclude that the practical significance of differences in dietary carbohydrate is minimal in comparison to those related to dietary fat and cholesterol“.

The report concluded;

”the major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the levels of serum lipids [fats], especially serum cholesterol.”

The Harvard researchers went on to say;

”there can be no doubt that levels of serum cholesterol can be substantially modified by manipulation of the fat and cholesterol of the diet” and that “on the basis of epidemiological, experimental and clinical evidence, that a lowering of the proportion of dietary saturated fatty acids, increasing the proportion of polyunsaturated acids and reducing the level of dietary cholesterol are the dietary changes most likely to be of benefit.”

At no point did Stare, Hegsted and McGandy disclose that they were paid by the Sugar Research Foundation for the two-part review.

A commentary in the Journal of Accountability in Research [8] summarized the significance of those articles as follows;

“Researchers were paid handsomely to critique studies that found sucrose [sugar] makes an inordinate contribution to fat metabolism and heart disease leaving only the theory that dietary fat and cholesterol was the primary contributor.”

The same Dr. Hegsted that was funded by the Sugar Industry to write the above articles vindicating sugar and vilifying dietary fat went on to work on editing the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines [9], which entrenched the vilification of fat into the US Food Pyramid for the next 40+ years. The rest, they say, is history.

The same year (1977), Canada’s Food Guide recommended that Canadians limit fat to <30% of daily calories with no more than 1/3 from saturated fat but did not specify an upper limit for dietary cholesterol. This was based on the belief that total dietary fat and saturated fat were responsible blood levels of LDL cholesterol levels and total serum cholesterol [10]. Cholesterol in general (total cholesterol) and LDL cholesterol was assumed to be tied to heart disease, so the focus was on lowering the proxy measurements of LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol.

Recommendations for the continued restriction of dietary fat continued in both the US and Canada in the 2015 revision of the Dietary Guidelines based on the enduring belief that lowering saturated fat in the diet would lower blood cholesterol levels and reduce heart disease.

The question is does it?

A 2018 study published in the journal Nutrients looked at health and nutrition data from 158 countries from 1993-2011 and found that total fat and animal fat consumption were least associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease and that high carbohydrate consumption, particularly as cereals and wheat was most associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease [11]. Significantly, both of these relationships held up regardless of a nation’s average national income.

These findings support those of the 2017 PURE (Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological) study, the largest-ever epidemiological study which recorded dietary intake of 135,000 people in 18 countries over an average of 7 1/2 years, including high-, medium- and low-income nations. The PURE study found an association between raised cholesterol and lower cardiovascular risk and that ”higher carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality”. It also reported that ”total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality (death)” [12].

A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports that long-term consumption of the saturated fat found in full-fat dairy products is not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, etc.) or other causes of death, and may actually be protective against heart attack and stroke [13].

This recent large-scale epidemiological data provides strong evidence that eating a diet containing saturated fat is not associated with heart disease. While eating saturated fat raises blood levels of LDL cholesterol, we now know that there is more than one type of LDL cholesterol and only the small, dense LDL cholesterol is linked to atherosclerosis. The large, fluffy LDL is protective [14].

We now know that fat was made out to be the villain in scientific reviews paid for by the sugar industry and this combined with Ancel Key’s Diet-Heart Hypothesis ended up being the impetus for the creation of an entire food industry designed to extract fat from industrial seed oils, such as soybean oil and rapeseed (Canola). These industrial seed oils are the so-called ”healthy polyunsaturated fats” that we are encouraged to eat instead of so-called ”dangerous” saturated fat, yet these industrial seed oils are only able to be produced using solvent-based chemical extraction under very high temperature. Should we be confident in industrial fats brought to us by the same industry that brought us ”trans fats”? With a lack of evidence that natural fats such as butter or cream are dangerous, perhaps eating a bit of real animal fat and plenty of natural plant-based monounsaturated fats such as olive oil is the better way to go?

For more than forty years, generations of Americans and Canadians have avoided eggs, full fat cheese and creamery butter — and done so because they have believed that saturated fat raising LDL cholesterol predisposed them to heart disease. We know much more than we did in the 1970s when the first Dietary Guidelines were created in the US (under the watchful editorial oversight of one of the researchers that had been paid by the sugar industry to vilify fat). We now know that eating foods with saturated fat will raise LDL-cholesterol, but not all LDL-cholesterol is ”bad”[14]. Before we knew this high total LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) was seen as a good proxy (indirect substitute) measurement for heart disease risk, but no longer.

It has been known since the early 1990s that a high TG:HDL ratio is very good estimator of coronary heart disease risk [15].

The measurement of the LDL-cholesterol particle number (LDL-P) which measures the actual number of LDL particles is a much stronger predictor of cardiovascular events than LDL-C [16] because the more particles there are, the more small, dense LDL there are.

The ratio of apolipoprotein B (apoB): apolipoprotein A (apoA) is another good estimator of cardiovascular risk. Lipoproteins are particles that transport cholesterol and triglycerides (TG) in the blood stream and are made up of apolipoproteins, phospholipids, triglycerides and cholesterol. Apolipoprotein B is an important component of many of the lipoprotein particles associated with atherosclerosis, such as chylomicrons, VLDL, IDL, LDL — with most found in LDL. Since each lipoprotein particle contains one apoB molecule, measuring apoB enables the determination of the number of lipoprotein particles that contribute to atherosclerosis and for this reason that ApoB is considered a much better predictor of cardiovascular disease risk than LDL-C [17].

In light of the recently published epidemiological evidence and much stronger proxy measurement of cardiovascular risk we must update our thinking that fat in general, or saturated fat in particular is the ”villain”. It’s not.

Perhaps you could use some help as to which fats you should eat more of and in what amounts, or on deciding on what ratio of protein to fat in your diet will best help you reach your health and weight goals? I can help.

I provide services via Distance Consultation (Skype, long distance telephone) as well as in-person in my Coquitlam office.

If you have questions on my services, please send me a note using the Contact Me form located on the tab above, and I will reply as soon as I’m able.

To our good health!

Joy

If you would like to read well-researched, credible ”Science Made Simple” articles on the use of a low carb or ketogenic diet for weight loss, as well as to significantly improve and even reverse the symptoms of Type 2 Diabetes, high cholesterol and other metabolic-related symptoms, please click here.

You can follow me at: