Some history is in order. In 1980, the
US Government issued its first Dietary Guidelines without any
scientific evidence, only the say-so of “experts.” The
guidelines shaped the diets of hundreds of millions of people.
Doctors base their advice on them; food companies develop products to
comply with them. Their influence extends beyond the US. In 1983, the
UK government issued advice that closely followed the American
example.
The most prominent recommendation of
both governments was to cut back on saturated fats and cholesterol
(this was the first time that the public had been advised to eat less
of something, rather than enough of everything). Consumers dutifully
obeyed. We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter
with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with
low-fat milk or orange juice. Instead of becoming healthier, we grew
fatter and sicker.
Look at a graph of postwar obesity
rates at this source (and about two thirds of the way down the page)
and it becomes clear that something changed after 1980. In the US,
the line rises very gradually until, in the early 1980s, it takes off
like an airplane. Just 12% of Americans were obese in 1950, 15% in
1980, 35% by 2000. In the UK, the line is flat for decades until the
mid-1980s, at which point it also turns towards the sky. Only 6% of
Britons were obese in 1980. In the next 20 years that figure more
than trebled. Today, two thirds of Britons are either obese or
overweight, making this the fattest country in the EU. Type 2
diabetes, closely related to obesity, has risen in tandem in both
countries.
At best, we can conclude that the
official guidelines did not achieve their objective; at worst, they
led to a decades-long health catastrophe. Naturally, then, a search
for culprits has ensued. Scientists are conventionally apolitical
figures, but these days, nutrition researchers write editorials and
books that resemble liberal activist tracts, fizzing with righteous
denunciations of “big sugar” and fast food. Nobody could have
predicted, it is said, how the food manufacturers would respond to
the injunction against fat – selling us low-fat yogurts bulked up
with sugar, and cakes infused with liver-corroding transfats.
Nutrition scientists are angry with the
press for distorting their findings, politicians for failing to heed
them, and the rest of us for overeating and under-exercising. In
short, everyone, business, media, politicians, consumers – is to
blame. Everyone, that is, except scientists.
But, it was not impossible to foresee
that the vilification of fat might be an error. Energy from food
comes to us in three forms: fat, carbohydrate, and protein. Since the
proportion of energy we get from protein tends to stay stable,
whatever our diet, a low-fat diet effectively means a
high-carbohydrate diet. The most versatile and palatable
carbohydrate is sugar, which John Yudkin had already circled in red.
In 1974, the UK medical journal, the Lancet, sounded a warning about
the possible consequences of recommending reductions in dietary fat:
“The cure should not be worse than the disease.”
I would suggest reading the rest of the
long article as I can only make a mess of it and I think you would be
better served reading it yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment