Mendacious medics and devious doctors.

This week I was told by a friend that I’m wasting my time eating a low-carb diet as “It’s been proven beyond any doubt that it’s calories that count.” When I asked for his source he pointed me to Volume 360:859-873 of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Here I found an impressive line-up of six MDs, eight PhDs, two MAs, and a BA who have published results of a two-year study involving 881 people. The Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies (otherwise known as POUNDS LOST) tested diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in dietary fibre.

Its stated aim was to “compare the effects of three principal dietary macronutrients”. and in order to do so the authors state that the diets were “low or high in fat, average or high in protein, or low or high in carbohydrates”.

Their conclusion?

“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize”.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what diet you follow, you will lose weight if you reduce your calories, and that was the message picked up by my friend.

However, the devil, as they say, is in the detail.

The study’s press release gives an indication of the extremely poor results:

“On average, participants lost 13 pounds at six months and maintained a 9 pound loss at two years.”

In our (admittedly very small and informal) group of forum members, those who had followed a low-carbohydrate diet for up to six months had lost an average of 31.5 lb, with the highest loss of 56 lb. Those who had been following it for one year had lost an average of 38 and 58 lb respectively. After eighteen months, it was 59 and 84 lb respectively.

Naturally I was especially interested in this study’s take on a low-carbohydrate diet, having reviewed the RISCK study. Once again I was disappointed to find that a group of so-called experts had embarked on a major study with no attempt to discover the truth about low-carb diets, despite that being a stated aim.

Incredibly, the sample 2000 calorie menu provides a massive 157g net of carbohydrates. That is eight times more than advised for weight loss and four times more than required for maintenance following weight loss.



Of the nineteen food items on the sample menu, ten – more than half – are unsuitable for a low-carb diet.

I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, though, as the lead researcher, Dr Frank Sacks, has long been a vocal opponent of the Atkins diet; obviously America's answer to Britain's Dr Susan Jebb.

So how long did your diet last?

In 2006 Nimble bread was fifty years old, and to celebrate they commissioned a survey to discover how long people were able to stick to their diet. These were the results:

Scotland: nearly half of dieters surveyed give up dieting after three weeks, and 13% last only two days, and 6% are permanently dieting.

North West: around 65% give up after three weeks, 21% in two days, and 4% permanent.

North East: nearly 55% in three weeks; 20% in two days; nearly 10% permanent.

Yorkshire & The Humber: 50% give up within a week; 16% in two days; 16% permanent.

Wales: nearly 70% in three weeks; 20% two days, and 10% permanent.

West Midlands: 48% in three weeks; 8% two days; and 10% permanent.

East Midlands: 54% in three weeks; 19% in two days; 7% permanent.

East Anglia: 50% give up after a couple of days.

South West: more than 60% in three weeks; 23% in two days; 5% permanent.

South East: more than 55% in three weeks; 20% in two days; 15% permanent.

Northern Ireland: nearly 90% give up within three weeks.

In fact, 95 per cent of dieters have regained all the weight they lost after three years.

Six years ago a briefing at the Royal Institution was organised to express academic concern about the Atkins diet, prompted by studies that proved it was successful, but experts concluded that "high-protein low-carbohydrate fare does not work, any apparent success being all in the mind." This statement is an admirable demonstration of experts not bothering to actually study the diet before condemning it. As all low-carb diets know, Atkins is not a high-protein diet, but a high-fat diet.

At the meeting, Dr Susan Jebb said

"There is not a shred of evidence that Atkins works".

and

"At the moment it is not even a safe experiment, as nobody is following what is happening to the millions of people who are following the Atkins Diet. It is an unknown risk."

and

"To recommend this as a strategy, we need serious, long-term trials."

Unfortunately for Dr Jebb her recent RISCK study has proved that a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is healthier than the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet she is currently advocating.

Given the reluctance of Dr Jebb and her colleagues to do "serious, long-term trials" into low-carb dieting, it will have to be a DIY project. We have made a start with a Diet and Health Survey, and if you haven't already completed it, we'd be most grateful if you would do so.

I also asked for help on a low-carb forum in order to gather data on the length of time members have been low-carb dieting, and how much weight they have lost. The forum has only been in existence since January 2007, and a few of the respondents have reached goal weight and are maintaining.

These are the prelimary results.

Total number of participants: 62

Low-carbing for less than 13 weeks: 18
Average weight loss: 17 lb
Highest weight loss: 26 lb

Low-carbing for up to 26 weeks: 8
Average weight loss 31.5 lb
Highest weight loss: 56 lb

Low-carbing for up to 39 weeks: 13
Average weight loss: 50.7 lb
Highest weight loss: 99 lb

Low-carbing for up to 52 weeks: 7
Average weight loss: 39 lb
Highest weight loss: 58 lb

Low-carbing for 65 weeks: 11
Average weight loss: 42 lb
Highest weight loss: 79 lb

Low-carbing for 78 weeks: 2
Average weight loss: 59 lb
Highest weight loss: 84 lb

Low-carbing for 96 weeks: 1
Weight loss: 84 lb

Low-carbing for 113 weeks: 1
Weight loss: 80 lb

Is it all in the mind? Try telling that to the forum members! The diet which most of them follow is based on the Atkins diet. So here, Dr Jebb, is your evidence that low-carb diets, such as Atkins, work.

When the Diet and Health Survey is completed and analysed, we expect to have evidence that it is also healthier than that currently advised by you, Government, nutritionists and dietitians.

"RISCK! RISCK anything!"

As I mentioned in yesterday's blog, the results of the RISCK study were expected towards the end of 2007, although it wasn't scheduled to end before 2008. It's now a quarter of the way through 2009, and The British Nutrition Foundation says it is still awaiting those results, according to their paper entitled Saturated fatty acid consumption: outlining the scale of the problem and assessing the solutions, recently published in British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 34, 74–84.

One of the early papers states that "further details of the RISCK project and up-to-date results can be found on the RISCK website http://risck.org.uk", and here they are, so I'm not entirely sure what the British Nutrition Foundation is waiting for.

Some details have emerged, quietly, which is rather surprising when you consider that we, the British tax payers, footed the £2.7m bill for the study. So, what have these results shown so far?

The first is that almost a quarter (24%) of the participants gave up on the study. That left just 548 subjects, divided into four groups, so it was a pretty small study.

The second is far more important - the actual results - but I'll come to them shortly.

What was the study actually looking for? The impact of diet on glucose metabolism, and from this statement we know that saturated fat had already been cast in the role of villain:

People who eat food rich in saturated fat found in meat and dairy products, tend to be at greater risk of developing the Metabolic Syndrome ...

The four groups of participants first followed a 'run-in' diet (Diet A), which was supposed to be what the average British adult eats regularly; high in both saturated fat and carbohydrates.

For the next six months each group followed one of the following:

Diet B: high in both monosaturated fats and carbohydrates
Diet C: high in monosaturated fats and low in carbohydrates
Diet D: low in fat and high in carbohydrates
Diet E: low in both fats and carbohydrates

The British Nutrition Foundation recommends "At least half the energy in our diets should come from carbohydrate, mostly as starchy carbohydrates. "

Low-carb diets such as Atkins typically recommend no more than 20% of total calories as carbs.

However, during the first month of the RISCK study all participants ate either 63.5% or 64.6%, and those who were in the high-carb diet groups continued to consume 63.2% and 64.8%.

What about the low-carb diet groups? They had 55% and 56% per day.

So in reality there wasn't the significant difference between high- and low-carb as defined by nutritionists' recommendations and well-known weight-loss diets that the authors claim.

Approximately 56% of those carbohydrates were supplied to participants, and included breakfast cereals, breads, rice, pasta and potatoes

What about the actual results? According to the authors:

During the intervention differences in dietary fat and CHO were highly significant

And how!

Which diet came out worst on triglyceride levels?
Low-fat with high-carbohydrate.

Which came out worst on total cholesterol levels?
High-fat with high-carbohydrate.

Which came out worst on LDL cholesterol levels?
High-fat with high-carbohydrate.

Which diet came out best on triglyderides levels?
High-fat with low-carbohydrate

Which came out best on total cholesterol levels?
High-fat with low-carbohydrate

Which came out best on LDL cholesterol levels?
High-fat with low-carbohydrate

Is this the reason for the early cessation of the study, and the lack of publicity?

The authors concede:

A novel finding of the present study is evidence to suggest that reductions in the GI of the diet were associated with greater reductions in total cholesterol

However, the really interesting point is that the RISCK researchers' idea of a 'low-carb diet' wasn't even typical, and yet it still came out best! How much better would the results have been on a diet less than 20% carbohydrates?

Why is there no mention of the other figures which appear to show conclusively that a high-fat/low-carb diet is healthier? Will these results actually change Dr Jebb's advice to Government, the Food Standards Agency, and the public? I doubt it.

There was an unforeseen risk in the RISCK study. It might just have proved the experts wrong again ...

"Care no more for the opinions of others ... Face the truth."

“Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.”

Katherine Mansfield (1888-1923)

When considering the RISCK study, that is such an apt quotation that it could almost have been written for it.

The RISCK (Reading, Imperial, Surrey, Cambridge, Kings) study commenced in January 2004 and was due to run until January 2008.

However, according to Dr Susan Jebb, the lead researcher, writing in Nutrition Bulletin Volume 32 Issue 2, Pages 154 - 156, published online on 26 May 2007, results were expected towards the end of 2007.

In her introduction, she writes about the World Health Organization (WHO) Technical Report 916 (WHO 2003), and says:

Recommendations: to consume less saturated fat, less salt and more fruit and vegetables. However, beyond these headlines there is less certainty and precision, because the evidence base is neither complete nor perfect.

As Dr Jebb seems to rate the WHO report so highly, I decided to take a look at it for myself. In its preamble it states:

The recommendations contained in this report are based on the examination and analysis of the best available evidence and the collective judgement of a group of international experts, brought together by WHO and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The report makes the statement on saturated fat:

On the health side, increased consumption of animal products has led to higher intakes of saturated fats, which in conjunction with tobacco use, threatens to undermine the health gains made by reducing infectious diseases

It goes on:

In observational epidemiological studies, a high saturated fat intake has been associated with a higher risk of impaired glucose tolerance, and higher fasting glucose and insulin levels

And the reference for this assertion? Dietary factors determining diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. A 20-year follow-up of the Finnish and Dutch cohorts of the Seven Countries Study

And what precisely was the Seven Countries Study? None other than that flawed one by Ancel Keys back in the 1950s! The one where he chose the only seven countries that fitted his theory and discarded the fifteen that disproved it!



So the World Health Organisation is yet another influential organ that is perfectly happy to regurgitate 'facts' based on lies.

This blog was to have been about the RISCK study, but this discovery has rather taken me down another avenue, but I'll return to it very shortly, in order to question its early cessation and the results - such as they are.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

There’s a new food-police force on the block, trying to stop us from eating real, healthy, natural food. Believe it or not, it’s called The Fat Panel. Here is ‘the clinical evidence’ against saturated fat, according to the website.

It's all right - I'll wait while you take a peek at it...

No, you’re not missing something – there is no evidence there. None at all. And so I asked for the evidence, and received a paper, entitled Saturated fatty acid consumption: outlining the scale of the problem and assessing the solutions, which, I was informed, is “copy write” (sic.) to the British Nutrition Foundation, although the paper’s authors are the eight Panel members

The Panel claims to be independent, but almost the first thing I noticed was the acknowledgement:

“The Fat Panel is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from the Margarine and Spreads Association.”**

Oh that’s all right, then – it’s sure to be a balanced, unbiased review... isn’t it?

Contradictions abound in the paper; contradictions between referenced studies, and between the report itself and current nutritional advice. For example:

Lauric, myristic, and palmitic acid raise serum cholesterol but stearic acid has no effect

The first three are found in coconut or palm oil, and in dairy products, but where do we find stearic acid? In meat fat, dairy products and chocolate ... but aren’t we told not to eat meat fat, and only this week Scottish doctors wanted to tax chocolate!

On page three I found precisely what I expected, under the heading of Saturated fatty acids in the UK diet:

Data from the 1997 and 2000–2001 National Diet and Nutrition Surveys (NDNS) show that adult males, females and children (4–18 years) derive 13.4%, 13.2% and 14.3% of their food energy from SFA, respectively.

Yes, once again those flawed food surveys are relied upon by people claiming to be experts – people who really should know better. But then we must remember who is paying the piper!

It goes on:

The main sources of SFA in the UK diet are milk and milk products, meat and meat products, cereal and cereal products and potatoes and savoury snacks

Now, unlike the authors, I’m no nutritionist, but I have been dieting for a good many years, and reading nutrition tables, and I know of no potatoes that contain fat – saturated or otherwise - and aren’t we now being exhorted to eat more grains?



If grains aren’t cereals, then what on earth are they?
Eventually we get to the supposed links between saturated fats and disease, beginning with some bold statements.

“The UK recommendations for intake of total fat and different fatty acids are based on the evaluation of the scientific evidence relating to risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).”

“It is well recognised that dietary SFA causes atherosclerosis in animals ...”
“... and that certain SFA raise blood cholesterol levels which are key risk factors for CVD”

Then comes a fascinating sentence,

“The evidence from intervention trials is less convincing but does indicate that replacing SFA with PUFA and cis-MUFA does reduce the risk of cardiovascular events“

“... and there is now convincing evidence that trans fatty acids increase risk of CVD.”

Hallelujah! At last a statement with which I can agree. However, weren’t we urged to eat trans fats just a few short years ago??

Coronary heart disease

Here we have our first inkling of the quality of some of the studies used in the review:

There is good evidence that SFA (C12–C16) increase serum cholesterol levels by raising both LDL- and HDL cholesterol concentrations (Keys 1957).

Good evidence? Good grief! Did you notice who the study was by? None other than Ancel Keys, who started the whole low-fat diet bonanza all on his own, by using just the data that fitted his hypothesis. The data was available for twenty countries, but Keys chose just the seven that ‘proved’ his theory, and the Western world has got fatter and sicker ever since.

SFA intake is positively related to an increase in ...mortality from CHD. (Hu et al. 2001a)

Hu's study opens with an astonishing admission:

It is now increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences.

followed by:

A higher intake of total and saturated fat is widely believed to contribute to the development of CHD.

And the source for that belief? Ancel Keys again!

Hu et al admit the low-fat campaign was based on little scientific evidence, and then cite that same ‘evidence’ to show how unhealthy saturated fats are!

But does the Hu study conclude that SFA intake is positively related to an increase in mortality from CHD? Nope – it’s a comparison between the various fats that could or should replace saturated fats in the diet.

The Panel's paper continues:

Although the replacement of SFA with carbohydrate reduces energy intake and total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations, it has a TAG-raising (Berglund et al. 2007) and HDL-lowering effect (Turley et al. 1998), both of which increase the risk of CHD.

So, replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates increases the risk of coronary heart disease?

Why the blazes is Dr Susan Jebb and her cronies telling us we should reduce saturated fat and increase whole grains [carbohydrate] in our diet? Ah yes! She's the wolegrain and Slimfast lobby, isn't she!

Next the review asserts:

... a reduction in the male population SFA intake from the current levels of 13.4% to the recommended level of 11% of food energy, by replacement of SFA with PUFA, would be expected to reduce LDL-cholesterol levels by 0.13 mmol/l (2.4 ¥ 0.052) (Sorkin et al. 1992)

However, the study that’s based on is Cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in elderly men so were its conclusions relevant?

Serum total cholesterol shows a positive association with CHD morbidity and mortality in men aged 65 years and above. This may, however, not hold true for persons aged 80 years and above.

And what sort of research was carried out by Sorkin et al?

A MEDLINE search of all published studies that evaluated the association between high cholesterol levels and CHD in persons aged 65 years and above

So the evidence that men should replace their saturated fat intake with polyunsaturates is based on a Medline search of published studies – good, bad, indifferent, or hopelessly biassed – which may, or may not have had something to do with PUFAs or men under pension age?

What great advice from our Government bodies!

Then the Panel gets to deciding which types of SFA are the best:

... lauric acid, myristic acid and palmitic acid are known to be the most hypercholesterolaemic SFA (Mensink et al. 2003)

It doesn’t sound good, does it? But hang on one minute. What were Mensink’s actual findings ?

... lauric acid decreased the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol. Myristic and palmitic acids had little effect on the ratio, and
stearic acid reduced the ratio slightly. Replacing fats with carbohydrates increased fasting triacylglycerol concentrations.

In other words, contrary to the Panel’s statement, myristic and palmatic acids had little effect, and carbohydrates made things worse.

... stearic acid appears to be neutral in relation to total cholesterol concentrations, but not in relation to the progression of atherosclerosis or risk of CHD (Hu et al. 1999).

Do the study’s conclusions support this statement? No!

A distinction between stearic acid and other saturated fats does not appear to be important in dietary advice to reduce CHD risk ...

And after all the verbiage about the effects of different types of fats that might or might not be good/bad for us, we have this statement from the Panel:

... the difficulty in sourcing highly enriched sources of individual SFA makes it difficult to conduct meaningful intervention trials to compare their individual impact on the blood lipid profile and CHD risk.

We have a situation where the Panel admits that meaningful trials to prove what they want proving would be difficult, so it has relied on extremely thin, misleading, and unrelated evidence from other sources instead!

Type 2 Diabetes mellitus

As summarised in recent reviews (Vessby 2000; Hu et al. 2001b), results from large epidemiological studies are inconsistent, with studies reporting both positive and negative associations between intake of SFA and risk of impaired glucose tolerance, type-2 diabetes and insulin
resistance.

Well, Vessby’s conclusions are negative:

... controlled dietary intervention studies in humans investigating the effects of different types of fatty acids on insulin sensitivity have so far been negative.

Hu’s 2001 studies must be very important as they have been cited 949 times. As Vessby’s was negative, Hu’s must be the positive one, right? So does this one show a positive association between SFA and diabetes? No it does not!

Nineteen epidemiological studies on dietary fat and carbohydrate in relation to hyperglycaemia and Type 2 diabetes are listed. There is no consistency whatsoever between the results. Some associate carbohydrates, some total fat, some saturated fat, some meat, while four of them show no associations at all.

As Hu says, "the findings are inconclusive" and struggles for possible reasons, ranging from methodology to false reporting by participants. He does, however, report:

“A purported benefit of a low-fat diet is weight loss. But the association between dietary fat and obesity is not clear and
long-term clinical trials have not provided convincing evidence that reducing dietary fat can lead to subsequent weight loss.”

and he concludes

“Although it is generally agreed that dietary modification is an important means of preventing Type II diabetes, there exists no general consensus about the role of dietary fat and carbohydrates.”

So it would seem that neither Vessby nor Hu bear out the Panel’s statement.

The Panel concludes that further evidence is needed and is awaiting the results of the RISCK and LIPGENE trials, both of which are very likely to be badly flawed, as they seem to be using the same food groupings as the NDNS 2000-20001, except that LIPGENE has removed the healthy fats and replaced them with polyunsaturates provided by Unilever Best fods UK Ltd.

Other diseases linked to SFA intake

... studies investigating the relationship between SFA intake and obesity have reported inconsistent results ...

Hmmm... now that’s interesting, isn’t it?

... increased intake of animal fat, particularly as meat products, may be related to increased risk of colorectal cancer (Gonzalez 2006) and breast cancer (Sieri et al. 2008); however, there is little evidence to suggest that different classes of fatty acids (i.e. SFA vs. MUFA vs. PUFA) are associated with differential effects on risk.

Both references are from the EPIC study data, and Barry Groves has cast sufficient doub on both to render them meaninglesshere and here.

A moderate intake of SFA was found to increase the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but this association was found only in those with the Apolipoprotein (Apo) E4 polymorphism (Laitinen et al. 2006)

In other studies, a high intake of SFA was associated with neither dementia (Engelhart et al. 2002) nor Parkinson’s disease (de Lau et al. 2005).

Then comes admission number two:

In epidemiological studies, it is difficult to distinguish between different fatty acids as all dietary fat consists of
mixtures of fatty acids and it is often not possible to adjust for intake of other fatty acids.

Saturated fatty acids and public health

The evidence linking SFA intake with increased risk of CHD and other diseases highlights the importance of implementing strategies to reduce population SFA intake in the UK and thereby associated morbidity, mortality and economic costs.

Pardon?! Remind me again - the evidence linking SFA with CHD and other diseases is what, exactly?

Let's see what we have gleaned from the studies referenced in the Panel's paper:



CHD? No evidence
Dementia? No evidence
Parkinson’s? No evidence
Breast cancer? No evidence
Obesity? Inconclusive evidence
Colorectal cancer? No evidence
High cholesterol? None – unless you count Ancel Keys
Alzheimer’s? Some, but only in a very specific group of people.

Do you know what really p*sses me off most about all of this? We’re paying for these so-called experts to sit around and produce papers that do not stand up to even amateur scrutiny.


** The Fat Panel comprises Unilever (Flora), Dairy Crest (Clover), and Kerry Group (Move Over Butter).

Scary stuff, eh?

This image has been made available by Purdue University, with the official caption:

Researchers at Purdue have precisely measured the impact of a high-fat diet on the spread of cancer, finding that excessive dietary fat caused a 300 percent increase in metastasizing tumor cells in laboratory animals. Here, lipid-rich cancer cells (the two round objects) attach to collagen fibrils, simultaneously visualized using coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering and sum frequency generation imaging. Cancer cells attach to collagen before spreading to organs in the body. (Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University)

As I said, scary stuff. So a high-fat diet causes a 300% increase in metastasising tumour cells in mice? The official press release continues:

"These findings demonstrate that an increase in lipids leads directly to a rise in cancer metastasis." Ji-Xin Cheng of Purdue's Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Chemistry.

Then there's:

Results showed the increase in lipids had no impact on the original tumors implanted in the mice. However, the rate of metastasis rose a dramatic 300 percent in the mice fed a high-fat diet.

and:

The researches used the imaging and cell-counting tools to document that linoleic acid, which is predominant in polyunsaturated fats, caused increasing membrane phase separation, whereas oleic acid, found in monounsaturated fats, did not. Increased membrane phase separation could improve the opportunity of circulating tumor cells to adhere to blood vessel walls and escape to organs far from the original tumor site.

What's the truth behind the headlines and the scary graphic?

It's something that has been known for years.

Something that nutritionists and governments alike are not only ignoring, but actively encouraging the world to do.

What is it?

"The new findings support earlier evidence from other research that consuming high amounts of polyunsaturated fat may increase the risk of cancer spreading."

Yes, polyunsaturated fats - those 'healthy' vegetable oils - may help the spread of cancer through the body. The researchers fed the mice on linoleic acid - Omega-6 - a PUFA.

Don't believe me? Read the study here.

How long will it be before Dr Susan Jebb, the Food Standards Agency, and the World Cancer Resarch Fund et al start citing this study as proof positive that we must never, ever, ever, eat saturated fats?

Let's just see, shall we?

Anyone for foie gras?

Do you know what foie gras means and how it's produced? It means 'fatty liver' in French, and this is how it's produced:

This is what we are doing to ourselves and our children by following the nutritional advice currently being forced down our throats. The result of a diet high in grains is exactly the same as in the production of foie gras, only in humans it's called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and cancer.

In the nineteenth century it was noted that the spread
of cancers across the world matched the spread of grains.

Stanislaw Tanchou showed that the more grains consumed in a population, the higher the cancer rates. He claimed that cancer would never be found in hunter-gatherer populations, and it never was - until they adopted"civilized" diets, high in grains. Allthough some researchers (Mann [1962] and Dunn [1968]) stated that both heart disease and cancers could be found in hunter-gatherers, their research was based on populations which had trading links with the outside world, and their diets were not consistent with true hunter-gatherers, as they were cultivating crops and adding salt.

Today, in the twenty-first century, instead of learning from that evidence, we are being exhorted to eat more whole grains. According to BBC News ,

Dr. Susan Jebb, of the Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research Centre, said: “The evidence is compelling that a diet rich in whole grain foods has a protective effect against several forms of cancer and heart disease.”

Dr Jebb, who I have mentioned before in these pages, is also quoted as saying,

"There is a growing body of evidence that a diet rich in whole grain can help maintain a healthy heart"

Where can this 'growing body of evidence' that Dr Jebb speaks of be found? In those flawed National Dietary and Nutritional Surveys - of course! And what exactly do these surveys class as 'whole grains'? Breakfast cereals! Hmmm ... that's certainly not my idea of whole grains.

And then there's Dr Jebbs's own report, Tackling the Weight of the Nation - Obesity in the UK, A report commissioned by the Flour Advisory Bureau and Grain Information Service

Obesity in Britain: gluttony or sloth? by Prentice and Jebb, demonstrates the totally closed mind of the authors.

It is certain that obesity develops only when there is a sustained imbalance between the amount of energy consumed by a person and the amount used up in everyday life.

They blame watching TV, claiming the rise in viewing between 1980 and 1991 correlates to increased obesity, but completely ignore the simultaneous rise of low-fat, polyunsaturated and soybean-based foods.

The problem is that they truly believe that calories in must be fewer than calories out to lose weight, so that is the mantra preached to Government, the Food Standards Agency, and any other important body that then tells us what to eat and what not to eat.


BUT THEY ARE SO WRONG!!!

I know they are wrong from my personal experience, but let me introduce you to Dave Mills and his Carbwiser low-carb diet. His story is not too dissimilar to that of many low-carb dieters who lose four, six, eight, or even more stone by consuming huge numbers of calories while not exercising. The difference is that his progress to losing eight stone is well-documented on the internet.

Dave's Dinners are an inspiration to low-carb dieters. This is his menu for 29th October 2001

Breakfast
half of a Ryvita dark rye crispbread thickly spread with butter, and sprinkled with lo-salt
cold chicken breast

Lunch
180g tin of pink salmon
grated Chedder cheese
loads of lettuce
small handful of peanuts
big dollop of mayo
sprinkling of bacon bits

Dinner
2 sirloin steaks (I do have a 3000 cal target remember)
3 fried eggs
small portion of runner beans

Evening Snack
chicken breast
large handful of peanuts

Drinks
2 cups of de-caf tea with milk
6 cups of de-caf coffee black
1 pot of green tea
3 litres of water

The following day his lunch was two chicken breasts, Chedder cheese, lettuce, peanuts and a big dollop of mayo with a sprinkling of bacon bits, and dinner was three pork steaks, with an evening snack of another two chicken breasts and peanuts!

And he lost eight stone on 3,000 calories a day, where a dietitian would have recommended something like 2,200 calories. It's enough to give Dr Jebb a heart attack!

Let me remind you - Dr Susan Jebb has recently been appointed "saturated fat tsar" by the UK Government; she advocates ultra-low calorie diets, and Slimfast meal replacements.

In these days of rewarding failure it comes as no surprise to learn that Dr Susan Jebb was awarded the OBE "for services to public health"!