Flashback - Health Advice

[Here is a combination of a flashback and an example of how easy it is to predict future news. In November 2013 I wrote the below essay with the title "Secrets to Good Health." This month the BBC ran an article about a BMJ (British Medical Journal) report that men can live an extra 7 years, 10 years for women, of quality life by adopting five healthy habits: never smoking, healthy diet, exercise, body mass index (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 and moderate alcohol use. That's substantially what I told readers over 6 years ago in the following flashback.]

As I read this information from Johns Hopkins on how to maintain good eyesight, it occurred to me that products advertised as the secret to good health must be a scam.

This article from a group of medical experts tells that other than regular checkups, to maintain good eyesight “many lifestyle factors that protect our heart health may also help keep our eyes healthy, including being active; getting enough sleep; controlling blood pressure and diabetes; not smoking; maintaining a healthy weight; and eating a diet rich in fish and leafy, green vegetables like spinach and kale. Wow, that’s almost the same advice for every other health concern, not only heart health, but also improving the effects of arthritis, preventing chronic illness , promoting memory and general mental health.

The real secret to good health is that there is no secret.  Health authorities have not been trying to hide anything from us. There is no big secret "doctors don't want you to know."  In fact they have been shouting from the rooftops at every opportunity. We are told over and over on a number of issues that if we want to avoid problems and just generally feel better we should: get enough sleep, eat healthy, drink alcohol only in moderation, stop smoking, get plenty of exercise, drink enough liquids, use sunscreen, wear work gloves or protective eyewear as appropriate, learn relaxation techniques to reduce stress, brush and floss, wash your hands and get a flu shot. This should come as a surprise to no one. We have heard all this advice or subsets of it many times for many years.

The problem with advice like this is that no one wants to hear it. Americans are looking for the easy way, one that requires little discipline. So every time a new diet book is published or the doctors on TV tell us about a miracle cure or another health secret, people want to sign up for the program (and send in their money). They can’t hold an audience by saying the same things over and over, especially when we are so desperate for secrets, so the authors and television personalities must give us secrets.

The real secret is the boring truth – that there is no secret. Like every other endeavor in life, staying healthy requires a little luck and a lot of discipline to stick to the best course of action. The rest is distraction.

How Can Facts Compete With Fads?

A couple of years ago beet juice was all the rage. Promoters sold a powder to dissolve in water.  They called it a circulation super-food. They backed up their claim with a pile of testimonials but scant scientific evidence; except that beets are vegetables, and vegetables are healthy. Does that make any vegetable a super food?

Well, step aside beet juice. It’s time for celery to take a turn.

How do we know celery juice is the latest super food? – Testimonials, of course! Says one article, “Celery juice is everywhere. So much so, that the two New York Whole Foods locations I’ve gone to in the past two weeks have been out of celery” as people buy it in bulk to take it home and run it through the blender.

These are not ordinary testimonials. Apparently the fad start when the Medical Medium (MM not to be confused in any way with MD) told his thousands of on-line followers that celery juice was “one of the most powerful and healing juices we can drink.” Since then it has been “rising in popularity within the health and wellness world” with tens of thousands of personal endorsements on Instagram. Among them are celebrity/influencers including Gwyneth Paltrow, Kim Kardashian and Debra Messing.

When I looked up articles about celery juice, though, most that I found said that those claims are false. This one begins with a headline, “Celery Juice ‘Benefits’ Are Total B.S., According to Nutrition Science.” The claims of it reducing chronic inflammation are grossly exaggerated. It doesn’t necessarily help with weight loss, because juicing any vegetable “will yield a higher concentration of sugar.” Any mention of detox should automatically be a red flag for anyone with an ounce of nutritional common sense.

Another website mocks the whole idea of the detox claim saying, “this entire celery juice trend is the epitome of bullshit pseudoscience.” It’s all about being a member of the super cool crowd that crowed about kale until celery juice was declared the new kid in town. It’s more about a need to belong, than a desire to be healthier.

Another reason people are drawn to juice fads is the convenience. The answer to not having time for fruit and vegetables is to grab a bottle or tumbler of the liquid equivalent, but it’s not really equal. The process of juicing compromises some of the nutritional value because it loses the beneficial fiber you find in raw veggies.

And Americans don’t get enough fiber.

This BBC article argues, “people who eat more dietary fiber are actually feeding their gut microbiome,” and “fiber leads to greater satiety, less insulin secretion, and more short-chain fatty acids, which all amounts to one thing: less body weight.”

Studies show that “those who had the highest intake of fiber or total fiber actually had an almost 80 percent greater likelihood of living a long and healthy life over a 10-year follow-up, [and] were less likely to suffer from hypertension, diabetes, dementia, depression, and functional disability.” 

This fiber, that BBC calls a lifesaving food, is easily available. “You find it in fruit and vegetables, some breakfast cereals, breads and pasta that use whole-grains, pulses such as beans, lentils and chickpeas, as well as nuts and seeds.” That’s whole fruits and vegetables, not the ones that have been run through a blender.

Once again, that’s the truth about another so-called super food. But how does the truth compete with celebrities, influencers and self-declared wellness experts with thousands of Instagram followers but no formal training in nutrition or science? All these fad diets are based on testimonials and endorsements that appeal to the emotions without any scientific basis with the sole intent of selling to gullible people their books, products and other secrets of good health.

Save Your Vitamin Money

At least once a month we see reference to one or another survey or report about people being unable to afford retirement. They haven’t saved enough money, but may not be able to keep working either. But now just when it’s needed, along comes a reliable tip on how to save a little more: Don’t waste your money on vitamins. 

This is not the first time I have written about the waste and potential dangers of dietary supplements. The last entry on the subject of supplements in general was about two years ago where I quoted from the New York Times saying that annual spending in America averages about $100 per person. I focused on vitamin and mineral supplements as recently as last September. I was hoping after many attempts to have wrapped it up, but it’s good advice, so I will give it another shot based on some fresh headlines.

About two weeks ago researchers from West Virginia University School of Medicine published a study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine showing “that although reduced salt intake and certain supplements may lower the risk of cardiovascular diseases, most nutritional supplements do not improve the risk for heart disease or death.”

An article reviewing that study quotes the lead researcher: “The reason we conducted this study was that millions of people in the United States and across the world consume supplements or follow certain dietary patterns, but there was no good-quality evidence to suggest that these interventions have any effect on cardiovascular protection." 

The study itself was not a clinical trial but a review of 277 other studies with a total of nearly one million subjects. It looked at the effectiveness of many popular nutritional supplements and 8 diets. “Findings show that of the 16 dietary supplements, only two showed beneficial effects on heart health, namely omega-3 long-chain fatty acids and folic acid….[whereas] selenium, vitamin B6, vitamin E, vitamin C, iron, and vitamin A, among others, show no significant effect on heart health.” 

Other important findings were that some supplements by themselves, not just the tainted ones that appear in the news from time to time, are potentially harmful. Another surprising finding was that “most diets, like modified fat intake, the Mediterranean diet, and reduced saturated fat intake, had no effect on the heart at all.”

Some other sources reporting on the same study had more watered down headlines. This one says, “For Heart Health, Some Popular Supplements Aren't as Helpful as We Thought.” But the sub-headline is more direct: “Consumers should ‘stop wasting their money on these products.’ ”

Another one is even more careful in its wording: “Nutritional supplements and diets not always protective, research suggests.” But they did provide a link to another study from 14 months ago that also came to the conclusion that “most commonly consumed vitamin and mineral supplements provide no consistent health benefit.”

The final conclusion as always is “only eating a healthy balanced diet is the key to overall health.” That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to and looking into health news over the years. Once again, it’s looking for the easy, magical answers that cause us to waste time and money on pills and fad diets. Avoiding that mindset is, though, an easy way to come up with some extra money for that problematic retirement savings plan. 

Weight Loss and Diets

In America the news media tell us that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. This is clearly a discipline issue. As in most cases about the dimension of discipline, the answer is simple to understand and hard to do. Apparently though, and typically, a great number or people think there is some easy path to weight loss.

That’s why Americans buy about 5 million diet books every year. Millions are looking for that magic answer and presumably going back to buy a second and third book as each particular formula invariably fails them. Hundreds of different diet books are listed on Amazon, many labeled as best sellers. I found from another source a list of the ten best books on the Ketogenic diet. How many books do we need on a diet described as an “extreme form of low-carbohydrate diet” originally used to treat epilepsy in children a century ago. But today, by way of “celebrity endorsement it has become a popular weight-loss fad diet, but there is no evidence of any distinctive benefit for this purpose, and it risks causing a number of side effects.The British Dietetic Association named it one of the ‘top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018’.” 

This article in the Guardian from earlier in the year challenges these diet programs with all their accompanying hype by presenting five myths about weight loss. The thrust of the argument is that people tend to misjudge the dangers of their condition as well as their personal progress toward their goals.

People can hugely misjudge their calorie intake, and overweight people have a strong tendency to grossly underestimate the calorie content of their food (by about 47%). Those who believe they are fat but healthy, according to the writer, are deluding themselves. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy. “Their risk of becoming ill was eight times higher than that of the healthy group with normal weight. The risks include, but are not limited to: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, sleep apnea, arthritis/joint problems, fertility problems, asthma, back pain, incontinence, gout and stroke.”

The BBC reinforces the seriousness by proclaiming in this headline “Obesity-related cancers rise for younger US generations, study says.”

The other side of the problem has to do with the fact that people also misjudge other factors including: how many calories they burn through exercise, how overweight they are, that the extra weight doesn’t slow them down or that they can blame it on genetic differences. (See last Friday’s comments.) 

The most reliable advice comes from people not trying to sell books or diet programs, for example, advice from the book, The Cure for Everything, which I also referred to last Friday. Exercise is necessary and healthy, but it does little toward weight loss without a change in eating habits. (This is backed up by over 60 independent studies.) It’s not about a diet, in the popular sense of the word, but in a lifestyle choice. To make good choices the author recommends paying close attention to what you eat, either by calorie counting or any other method. This “forced self-monitoring…causes you to eat less, which is the only way to lose weight” (p. 54). The tendency to give yourself special treats for being successful or to treat the whole exercise as a temporary “diet” yields only temporary results – an outcome familiar to so many. It’s all about portion size.

This certainly seems Spartan and the opposite of fun, but simple-to-understand-and-hard-to-do is the hallmark of discipline. Unfortunately, the search for magic answers continues; but doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is the mark of insanity. Quoting from the book one more time: “If you see the word detoxify, cleanse, supplement or metabolism associated with a product or process, be suspicious. Someone is trying to sell you something that likely does not work and, in fact might be harmful” (p. 92). (I would add celebrity endorsements to the list of warning signs.)

Abandoning Critical Thinking

We are faced every day with friends and neighbors who seem to be able to stare logic straight in the face and still make the wrong decision. This can easily be misinterpreted as stupid behavior, except we know that many of these people did well in school. Some even have advanced degrees. How else can we explain this apparent abandonment of critical thinking?

My theory is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, opinion polls and the apparent direction of popular trends, America is still a very religious country and is getting more religious with each passing day. The difference is that I am not talking about standard, organized religions. The new religions involve pseudoscience and are promoted by personal interactions, especially on social media, and by celebrity endorsements, rather than by priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. 

Consider how a traditionally religious person reacts when his faith is challenged. Show someone an obvious contradiction in the Bible or the Koran – and there are many to choose from – and such a person will argue for a while, but eventually fall back on the argument that it's a mystery only God can explain or that it is a matter of faith not subject to logical analysis. End of conversation! No one has changed his mind. He may even feel vindicated because his faith was challenged but endured.

Now have a similar conversation with someone convinced that communication with the dead is not only possible, but that it happens frequently on daytime TV and in private homes where mediums hold séances. No matter how much logical information such a person receives, a change of mind is a rare occurrence. A more likely response is the same quasi-religious reaction, resistance to logic and reliance on a strong belief in the spiritual realm.

But this new-age religious experience is not limited to the customers of séances and tarot card readings. With the help not only of charlatans, but also of marketing departments, industry institutes, lobbyists, interest groups, fund-raising organizations and individual crusaders, it spreads through the entire country creeping into every corner of our lives. It is so much easier to sell to people on the basis of faith than on the basis of logic. So all these forces work in concert to gain converts to particular products, services and ideas. The emotional argument draws them in; then the feeling of embarrassment or of betrayal of one's beliefs, keeps them coming back.

Consider the religious fervor displayed by backers of ideas like: harm from vaccination, danger of GMOs, danger of fluoridated tap water, superiority of bottled water, benefits of a gluten-free diet (except for medical necessity), power of alternative medicines, danger of anything artificial or chemical, dietary supplements, radiation from power lines, food irradiation, sea salt, therapeutic touch or Reiki, refusal to consider nuclear power as a clean electricity source, super foods, unquestioned halo-effect of words like green, natural, sustainable and ancient wisdom, essential oils, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, we are truly a religious nation. The religions of junk science, fads, hype and misinformation are thriving, converting new believers every day!

The Fad Diet Strikes Again!

Even though Americans should react to the news of another diet fad the same way they do to the news of an epidemic of shark attacks, they don’t. Instead of fleeing, enough fall in line to merit an article on the Huffington Post site.

This time the gimmick to lose weight is intermittent fasting. The piece begins, “For years, we’ve been told it’s important to eat breakfast within an hour of waking up, to rev up our metabolism and get our day started right.” So apparently the writer has not been reading the Huffington Post for years because, as I wrote in February 2017, they reported that breakfast had been declared optional. But by May of this year, “experts” had once again reversed course on that decision.

Intermittent fasting is the newest answer to our prayers. “The technique relies on restricting your eating to set times and alternating between feasting and fasting” and is considered by its proponents as more of a lifestyle than a diet. It’s more about when you eat than what you eat, although to be successful it still requires healthy food choices. (Aren’t those ideas of lifestyle and food choices essential for any successful weight-loss program?)

There are several flavors of intermittent fasting. The 16:8 plan is most common and most reported on. Eat meals “within an eight-hour window” and then fast (and sleep) for the rest of the day. The 5:2 plan involves restricting calories to 500 on two nonconsecutive days each week. Alternate day fasting involves fasting every other day (500 calories) and eating whatever you want with no calorie restrictions on alternate days.

The first method may present a challenge for “people who have busy family lives or social commitments.” The second “can have an impact on a person’s sleep, mood and energy level.” And the third has been found by a JAMA Internal Medicine study to be no more effective than a restricted-calorie diet. And any one of them “can be particularly dangerous for people with certain health conditions.”

But it’s all for a good cause. How else are we supposed to lose weight if not for the latest fad diet? It’s a hard job made harder by the purveyors of fast food, fancy coffee, streaming entertainment and not enough sidewalks. Then there are all the excuses about genetics.

Consider those excuses and what science (from Harvard) has to say. “In 1990, obese adults made up less than 15 percent of the population in most U.S. states. By 2010, 36 states had obesity rates of 25 percent or higher, and 12 of those had obesity rates of 30 percent or higher. Today, nationwide, roughly two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese (69 percent) and one out of three is obese (36 percent).” 

The USDA index of food consumption shows that the per person intake of calories increased by 22% from 1990 to 2006. We have been eating more (and moving less). What do we expect? 

Consider also the cost, as presented by the Business Insider. “According to a 2010 study, direct obesity related medical expenses in America are $160 billion per year. The estimated indirect costs? $450 billion." Costs include more food, larger clothing, increased energy consumption (fuel and electricity), weight loss programs, and obesity related medical care. Medical problems lead to missed work, decreased productivity and short-term disability expenses, which we all pay for when we buy goods or services from the businesses that have to cover those costs.

This is a problem, but it’s one people can solve on their own a lot faster when they finally stop looking for magic answers. When we hear about the latest diet fad, we should run as if it were a shark attack. And the exercise would be good for the waistline.

New Study, Indeed!

Here is another no-brainer for the discipline-challenged.  According to this source, researchers at Harvard University released late last month “a major study” investigating the influence of behavior on longevity.  They used lifestyle questionnaires and medical records from 123,000 volunteers to understand how much longer people could live if they made some simple adjustments to their lifestyle.

The dramatic headline read: Five Habits That Can Add More Than a Decade to Your Life.”  That is an announcement sure to capture attention, especially for people looking for the easy answer, the magic bullet, to ensure longevity.  In this era of fads and gurus one is tempted to suspect such a new discovery would be about a vegan diet, avoiding processed foods with their additives and preservatives, eating only local or organic produce, going gluten-free and shunning the GMOs and fast food, drinking only bottled water instead of tap water or discarding the artificial sweeteners – and don’t forget the periodic detox.  These are the so-called secrets we hear about daily, the warnings we hear about on the news, fears that advertisers pick up on in their promotions and food packaging.  Surely a high-profile study from Harvard with a very large sample size would be able to validate at least some of these popular beliefs about healthy lifestyles.

Actually what they came up with in 2018, they could have easily come up with in 2008 or 1998.  As a matter of fact, except for some of the wording, this was common knowledge in 1968!

Here it is, straight from the article:  “The five healthy habits were defined as not smoking; having a body mass index between 18.5 and 25; taking at least 30 minutes of moderate exercise a day, having no more than one 150ml glass of wine a day for women, or two for men; and having a diet rich in items such as fruit, vegetables and whole grains and low in red meat, saturated fats and sugar.”

Wow!  Imagine that! If we don’t smoke, keep our weight down, drink alcohol only in moderation, exercise, and eat healthy foods, we have a better chance of living longer, even 10 years longer.  Notice that the recommended foods were available 50 years ago, and they made no mention of the fad foods, special fruits (acai berries), super-foods (beet juice), or ancient Chinese secrets with a new one coming into vogue every year like the colors in a fashion magazine.  Where is the mention of nutritional supplements that the majority of Americans pop every morning or evening?

It seems Harvard spent a good deal of time and energy confirming what we knew, or should have known, all along.  No easy answers?  What a disappointment!

To Breakfast or Not To Breakfast?

That continues to be the question.  When I was growing up many years ago, we were told that breakfast was your most important meal.  The government still subscribes to this as many communities provide breakfast as well as lunch to qualifying students, subsidized with federal funds through the USDA’s School Breakfast Program (SBP).

It wasn’t too long ago that the news took the opposite view of breakfast.  Only 16 months ago I published the original To Breakfast or Not To Breakfast telling how breakfast had been declared optional based on a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  This opinion was backed up by an earlier (Summer 2014) study reported by the Huffington Post and USA Today.

The emphasis was on whether people who were skipping breakfast to lose weight were making a good decision.  They surmised that from a standpoint of weight loss, skipping might hold a slight benefit.  If you are hungrier at lunch and eat a little more, it will usually not be enough to offset all the calories missed from skipping breakfast.  So the net intake would be favorable.

But that stance was so 2017! The latest study is in and we are back to eating breakfast as a better solution.  (I originally saw the story on a TV health segment but these two sources are available on line here and here).

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic divided 347 healthy adults into three groups, those who never ate breakfast, those who ate infrequently (one to four times a week), and those who regularly ate breakfast (five to seven days a week).  Then they followed them for 12 years and found that the breakfast eaters ended up with “smaller waistlines and were less likely to be obese.”

But the really scary part of the report came next. The “people who ate breakfast regularly only gained about three pounds over the past year. People who ate breakfast occasionally put on five pounds, while people who skipped a morning meal entirely gained eight pounds and developed dangerous belly fat.”  (Since this was a 12-year study, it is unclear why they only reported on weight gain over the past year.)  In any case, notice that the breakfast eaters did better, but on average no single group lost weight!  Isn’t it interesting that success is now defined not as losing weight, but as not gaining as much as the other guy.

After reporting on the study, each of the news sources turned to their expert who dazzled readers with such earth-shattering observations as:  people should “stick to healthier foods in the morning [and]…avoid high density, sugar-filled foods.” They should also “consider how many nutritionally empty foods they eat during the day – and then cut those out.” (Not earth-shattering after all - just common sense.) This sounds more like the dimension of discipline than any magical link between breakfast and weight loss.

This whole breakfast question, like so many others in the health-research category, is like being on an amusement park ride with abrupt corners, twists and turns only to end up in the same place we started.  Of course, no one can explain why there would be a link between eating breakfast and weight loss, so the issue is still up in the air until the next study is published. 

More on Resolutions

Last time I recommended overcoming fear of the stock market and investing all the money that's basically thrown away on lottery tickets, because they are statistically a terrible deal, and on most nutritional supplements, because those that are not outright dangerous are usually ineffective.  The money saved and invested could easily reduce anxiety over future education and retirement costs (or even car repairs).  By thinking in terms of wants vs. needs individuals can easily come up with other sources of cash to set aside.  This is perspective, critical thinking and discipline rolled into one set of beneficial behaviors.

Now it’s time for the other side of the coin, a subject for a silly resolution motivated by hype and celebrity endorsements.  I refer to skinny wine.  As thedrinksbusiness.com puts it, “With around 20% of Americans on a diet, low-calorie wine brands are booming in the US, and particularly where celebrities are involved.”  The article was from 2013, but the subject seems to come up around this time every year.

Top brands include skinnygirl, introduced by chef, author and TV star Bethenny Frankel and then sold to Fortune Brands/Beam for $8.1 million, and The Skinny Vine promoted by Christine Avanti, celebrity nutritionist and author.  Since most dry wine has little sugar, these brands cut calories by reducing the alcohol content.  They contain 100 and 95 calories compared to 112 for a regular glass of wine for a savings per glass of 12 to 17 calories.

If true, that’s not much of a reduction.  One fruit and nut granola bar, which many people consider healthy eating, contains 140 calories.  Break it in half, in half again and in half again.  That little piece, one eighth of a granola bar still has more calories than you are saving by buying skinny wine.  Another site pins their high sales on customers being “duped into thinking the calorie count is significantly [less] merely because it is prominently posted on the label.  Actually it is “no less caloric than other wines” with the same percent alcohol by volume.  [Emphasis is in the original.]  They go on to recommend drinking regular wine in moderation.  That's not rocket science.

Huffington Post makes a few more good points beyond the issue of calories, asking why the ads for these brands are directed at women.  “Would anyone make a Skinnyboy wine?  I don’t think so.  Why do we need a special wine brand, especially when the calorie savings are [modest]?  According to most recommendations, women should not drink more than one glass of wine a day.”  The rant goes on, accusing these wines of working against equality by implying women need wines of their own as they are not capable of wisely choosing from a wine list without some not very subtle guidance.

Calories in a bottle of wine vary based primarily on alcohol content (about eight and a half calories for each 1% alcohol) and the sugar content (for sweeter wines).  Some French and German wines naturally have fewer calories.  But if a New Year’s resolution is to lose a few pounds, the answer will not be found in the wine section.  That fact does not keep the marketing machines of the various companies from trying to dupe their customers into another supposedly easy answer to the challenging problem of weight loss. 

For wine and so many other products the pattern is the same, some combination of hype, celebrity endorsement, Internet buzz, misleading information, junk science, and trigger words.  And we fall for it every time.

Sound Familiar?

It’s interesting how a little critical thinking can anticipate events.  Here is a list of just a few recent news items that looked so familiar in light of my entries on this site over the last six years.

Driverless vehicles:  Almost 4 years ago I asked the question, “What could lie ahead in the case of self-driving cars?”  I suggested driverless 18-wheelers moving freight from warehouses to stores, trash trucks with automatic lifts to both collect and drive the route, a robot to deliver mail from an autonomous vehicle sorting and filling the boxes, taxis with a touchpad to enter destination but no driver and even safer school buses with CCTV to take attendance and keep an eye on the children.

Today we have heard much about testing driverless trucks.  This Guardian article tells us the UK government has approved trials of convoys of semi-automated trucks on their highways.  “Up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will travel in convoy, with acceleration, braking and steering controlled by the lead vehicle, a concept named platooning.”

At the same time that Uber is testing self-driving taxis, in Ann Arbor, MI “Domino’s and Ford are teaming up to see if customers will warm to the idea of pizza delivered by driverless cars.”  It’s all coming true and probably faster than expected.

On another subject:  Many Americans look to our neighbors to the north to set the example for medical care, but recently Manitoba, “the only remaining Canadian province that covers a portion of chiropractic care” has reduced the per visit insurance by about 30 percent and it covers only the manipulation.  This according to Dynamic Chiropractic.

Only a few weeks ago I warned about the dangers and possibilities of fraud concerning chiropractic services.  Apparently most Canadian provinces address these issues by refusing to pay for any of it, letting citizens pay their money and take their chances.

Low-fat diets:  A new analysis presented at the European Society of Cardiology spanning more than a decade and considering 135,000 adult subjects from five continents reveals flaws in government dietary guidelines around the world.  “The ongoing Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) project has found both saturated and unsaturated fat intake linked to better heart health, that a high-carb diet is a better predictor of health risks than fat consumption, and that the health benefits of fruit, vegetables, and legumes like beans and chickpeas may plateau at three to four servings per day.

  

The dispute about the dangers of eating fat has been going on for almost 60 years.  Unfortunately, the political side crowded out the science.  As I put it earlier this year, "With virtually no evidence that eating less fat had any health benefits, [the authorities] assumed that 'if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same.'  But the research and the experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion."

On the subject of homeopathy:  Recently, a couple of negative articles arrived at my desk on this subject.  One listed almost fifty warning letters sent by the FDA to makers of homeopathic products over the last 10 years.  “Nearly all ordered the seller to stop claiming that products could effectively treat specific diseases or conditions. Some ordered the seller to stop claiming that products were vaccine equivalents. A few involved the failure to use good manufacturing practices.”

The second revealed that the Russian Academy of Sciences “has become the latest body to declare homeopathy has ‘no scientific basis’ and endangers people who believe it to be effective.”  I came to pretty much the same conclusion two and a half years ago in “Homeopathy – Does It Really Work?”

I’m sure there are at least several more, but these are the ones that stood out in my mind or happened to catch my attention.  Seeing some of the trends before they become broadly accepted requires only that one pay attention and try to stay strong in the five key dimensions.

Dietary Fad Alert!

It’s almost like I can see into the future.  At least these kinds of fads don’t surprise me anymore.  If you pay attention to behavior, they won’t surprise you either and better still, you won’t be caught in the trap of the latest health craze.

And what is the latest health craze?  There are so many it’s hard to keep track, but this one is right up there:  Lectins.  The Washington Post tells us, “Going ‘lectin-free’ is primed to become the next big thing in dieting.”  They characterize lectin-free as “the latest pseudo-science diet fad.”

The article explains that research over the years has found both positive and negative effects from lectins, a type of protein found throughout nature.  Unlike gluten, lectins are not a single compound, but many different ones with many different functions.  They have been researched for years in isolation, but there are not yet any definitive findings about health effects.  Some are toxic and some make it difficult for certain people to absorb certain vitamins, whereas others have beneficial qualities, such as assisting the body to resist cancer.

“The problem is that online health gurus are painting all lectins with the same brush, and playing up the negative effects without the evidence to back it up.”  These warnings are easy to find on line, but it’s like saying some members of the nightshade family are highly toxic so it’s dangerous to eat tomatoes, potatoes or bell peppers.

Much more information is included in this article, but it appears to be just one more publicity-seeking scare tactic used by people who fancy themselves “online health gurus” and crave attention over truth.

MSN agrees.  Asking if lectin is the new gluten, they put it bluntly: “Why you shouldn't fall for the latest dumb diet fad.”  In fact the Mediterranean diet, that some consider the gold-standard to reduce the chance of heart disease, “contains plenty of foods containing lectins.”

This is just one more case of foodie fanaticism.  As I wrote just last week, there is a “tendency for people to blindly adopt views on health and good eating regardless of a lack of scientific support.”

If you too have been a keen observer of behavior, you will expect to see in the near future people who are sure that going lectin-free is the best (safest and healthiest) answer for themselves and their families.  They will have fallen for the “latest dumb diet fad” and no discussion of science or logic will talk them out of it; they read it on Facebook or their favorite “online health guru” said it’s so.  If it goes far enough, the food industry will chime in with labels boasting “lectin-free” just to increase sales among science-challenged consumers.  We've seen this happen so many times with gluten, organic, GMOs, pink slime, sea salt and rBGH, why would anything change now?

And so it goes in America today.  Money is thrown away on so many unsupported beliefs, magical supplements and worthless gadgets.  And then we worry about consumer debt and retirement insecurity.  When will we ever learn?