Grant Roberts 

05/08/2015

I steadfastly oppose the continued participation of the USDA in publishing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The duplicitous nature of the USDA makes it impossible for the USDA to act without prejudice in favor of industry.

The public needs to be aware that the USDA was sued and the court ruled the USDA had violated federal law when 6 out of 11 committee members had financial interests to the food industry and most recently that the Guidelines perpetuate confusion and are purposely vague. This trend continues in just one example of the 2015 Findings and Conclusions: states, “lower consumption of red meat and processed meat” – followed by “lean meats were not consistently defined … lean meats can be a part of a healthy dietary pattern”?

Most egregious is the continued touting of the use “ latest science” yet the guidelines remain largely unchanged and obesity rates continue to rise.

The foundational principle of the 1st, 2nd. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and soon to be 8th edition of the Dietary Guidelines promoting the low fat high grain based diet is wrong and it is not new science that dietary fat is an essential element of human health and must be delivered daily.

The truth is, the Guidelines are about industry profitability. The industry influenced recommendations end up advising consumers how they should eat in accordance to what the manufacturer wants. Big food also gets the added bonus of indemnity from prosecution because in actuality it’s the government that is telling you to how eat, not the manufacturer.

We need a legitimate 3rd party to create science-based recommendations using tangible information. The USDA has proven it has failed the American public.

Consider the USDA’s Healthy People 2000 campaign that began in the late 1970’s and formed the foundation for the low fat grain based diet:

Chapter 6 of the USDA Report – titled ‘American Diets and the Year 2000 would serve more as an actuary table providing the statistical data of failure to meet the “healthy” objective despite adherence.

I should not need to point out the obvious, Healthy People 2000 would not be successful, in fact by 1999 the data would show that Healthy People were now a minority with 65% of the entire US population categorized as either overweight or obese.

Despite the catastrophic evidence, the chapter would open with the oddly optimistic preface: “This chapter describes the progress made toward the nutrition objectives”.

Please make note of that terminology, progress made toward nutrition objectives which is a positive way of saying we got people to eat the way we asked… the rest of the chapter provides the long term results of the publics adherence to the USDA advice…but, there would be no way to put a positive spin on the outcome.

The objective was to improve individual health status and measure the Nations progress in reducing death rates from chronic disease associated with diet. Specifically reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer, morbidity, overweight and diabetes.

The Healthy People 2000 plan would fail miserably in this regard and concede the following: Quote… “That incidence and prevalence of diabetes has increased as has the prevalence of overweight”.

Remember, the USDA reported they made progress in achieving the nutritional objectives. Want to guess what one, two and three were?

#1. Increase consumption of grain products

#2. Increase consumption of calcium rich foods (gee I wonder what food they are alluding to…got me?)

#3. Reduce the intake of total fat and saturated fat.

Here’s what the report said regarding objective (Goal) Number 1 : “progress is evident in terms of increased consumption of grain products the average increased from 5.8 servings to 6.7 servings per day. Thereby meeting the year 2000 target”.

Goal number 2 – “No progress is evident in terms of increasing consumption of calcium rich foods as measured by intake of milk and milk products”. I guess people are just maxed out on milk… But it is particularly noteworthy that this entirely biased calcium category only considered dairy consumption. They did not include any data on calcium rich foods such as fortified cereal which many contains three times the calcium of milk or sardines, tofu, salmon, spinach, greens, molasses, or even rhubarb which are better sources by volume.

Goal number 3 – “Some progress is evident in reducing intake of fat and saturated fat”, The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported an evident percentage decrease in both total fat and saturated fat.

So, let’s review, the USDA reported continued progress in acceptance of the ideologies they promote. People ate more grain products, maintained their fill of milk and they reduced the amount of fat and saturated fat in the collective diet. Yet in spite adherence to the USDA Guidelines the incidence of overweight, obesity and diabetes continued to escalate.

The USDA has demonstrated it does not rely on the latest science or act in empirical evidence to the contrary. The USDA is mandated to support and insure profitability of the food industry… Great do that and allow a legitimate 3rd party to recommend nutrition and lifestyle choices to the betterment of American citizens, I volunteer my services.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization: Unified Lifestyle

Topic:

• General Comment/Other

© 2015 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Grant Roberts – Comment ID# 29658

Sir/ Madam

This report is does not meet the definition of scientific:

1:   the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

On the topic of definition, Einstein suggested insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Since the Dietary Guidelines inception numerous flawed premises persist. The initial report influenced by A.Keys, Seven Country Study was a falsified document. The low fat, low cholesterol hypothesis is simply not supported by science. The resultant exaggerated consumption of grains and vegetable oils are in fact the problem not the solution. An incredible imbalance of omega 6 (inflammatory) to general deficiency in omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) is evident.

Providing praise where due, the acknowledging that no association between ingested cholesterol and blood levels is a positive step. Saturated Fat deserves the same revision – I know of no CREDIBLE study that supports reducing saturated fat. Any studies failed to separate man made trans fats (vegetable oils). The only safe level of man made trans fat is zero and they must be eliminated from all foods.

Thankfully the report excludes children under 2 years of age and hopefully parents logic will prevail not to feed infants in need of saturated fat, grain based low fat diets.

Perhaps the greatest flaw is what the 2015 DGAC considers a “fundamental reality”; the numbers of overweight and obese. Firstly we must acknowledge that America does not in fact measure obesity. The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a liner height and weight chart misdiagnosing 48% of women and 25% of men (PlosOne). The numbers sadly are much worse because BMI does not identify the non-medical term of skinny fat which is ubiquitous.

Secondly the reference to overconsumption of calories is equally non descript – Even Atwater himself who provided the first report to the USDA in the late 1800’s suggested that humans do not burn calories – metal ovens do. It is an oversimplification to suggest the energy balance theory as it pertains to calories. The law of thermodynamics can only be applied to nutrients and the complex digestive process, thermic effect of food and the likelihood of a nutrient to be stored as matter (muscle or fat) or used as energy is dependent on numerous other factors (metabolism, capacity etc.)

You simply cannot measure success if you don’t have quantifiable baselines and outcomes.

The continued insinuation that milk / dairy is preferred source of calcium is nothing more the industry influence. Better sources exist and inexplicably no consideration is given to the overwhelming numbers of the population that are lactose intolerant.

As noted on saturated fat being over consumed no credible evidence exists and that is problematic. I am tired of hearing meat is unhealthy and bad for the planet. Meat consumption is how we evolved, no record of any successful vegetarian civilization before the supermarket era exists. I support vegetarianism for individual ethical reasons but not for nutritional superiority. What is inefficient is how we produce meat – shipping cattle to feedlots to be fed grain to fatten them up (yes the same whole grain the USDA insist we eat as part of a “healthy” breakfast? … the same grains we have been eating more of in place of meat and no coincidence getting fatter?) destroying the nutritional profile of meat. Leave the cows in the field to eat grass and our health and the environment will be better for it. Stop subsidizing grain and start incentivizing nutritious fruits and veg to supplement healthy meals revolving around protein.

The American Heart Assoc. is not a credible source of science. They fell victim to Ancel Keys study and they continue to profit by sale of the heart check program endorsing low fat foods. The Canadian Heart Assoc. has notably dropped this endorsement program acknowledging the science does not support the low fat hypothesis.

On the topic of environment, it is acknowledged that it is an impossibility to eat healthy foods without a clean environment and we all must be accountable but frankly the DGAC needs to get individual nutritional needs right first before tackling environment.

If you wish to embrace change start with abolishing BMI and adopt body composition standards to better feed lean tissue acknowledging men, women and children as categories further divided by age and activity before suggesting a ridiculous non descript 2000 calorie meal plan for all.

Finally on the topic of exercise it is critically important we emphasize the real case of iron deficiency in this country is the fact that we need to LIFT more. Weight training insures active aging, improved metabolism and bone density. Weight training however is not recommended in the guidelines because BMI will rise asa result. Abolish BMI and we can empirically measure improved body composition through exercise and essential nutrients.

This report is does not meet the definition of scientific:

1; the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 :  knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

On the topic of definition, Einstein suggested insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Since the Dietary Guidelines inception numerous flawed premises persist. The initial report influenced by A.Keys, Seven Country Study was a falsified document. The low fat, low cholesterol hypothesis is simply not supported by science. The resultant exaggerated consumption of grains and vegetable oils are in fact the problem not the solution. An incredible imbalance of omega 6 (inflammatory) to general deficiency in omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) is evident.

Providing praise where due, the acknowledging that no association between ingested cholesterol and blood levels is a positive step. Saturated Fat deserves the same revision – I know of no CREDIBLE study that supports reducing saturated fat. Any studies failed to separate man made trans fats (vegetable oils). The only safe level of man made trans fat is zero and must be eliminated.

Thankfully the report excludes children under 2 years of age and hopefully parents logic will prevail not to feed infants in need of saturated fat, grain based low fat diets.

Perhaps the greatest flaw is what the 2015 DGAC considers a “fundamental reality”; the numbers of overweight and obese. Firstly we must acknowledge that America does not in fact measure obesity. The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a liner height and weight chart misdiagnosing 48% of women and 25% of men (PlosOne). The numbers sadly are much worse because BMI does not identify the non-medical term of skinny fat which is ubiquitous.

Secondly the reference to overconsumption of calories is equally non descript – Even Atwater himself who provided the first report to the USDA in the late 1800’s suggested that humans do not burn calories – metal ovens do. It is an oversimplification to suggest the energy balance theory as it pertains to calories. The law of thermodynamics can only be applied to nutrients and the complex digestive process, thermic effect of food and the likelihood of a nutrient to be stored as matter (muscle or fat) or used as energy dependent on numerous other factors (metabolism, capacity etc.)

You cannot measure success if you don’t have quantifiable outcomes.

The continued insinuation that milk / dairy is preferred source of calcium is nothing more the industry influence. Better sources exist and no consideration is given to the overwhelming numbers of lactose intolerance.

As noted on saturated fat being over consumed no credible evidence exists that is problematic. I am tired of hearing meat is unhealthy and bad for the planet. Meat consumption is how we evolved, no record of any successful vegetarian civilization before the supermarket era exists. I support vegetarianism for individual ethical reasons but not for nutritional superiority. What is inefficient is how we produce meat – shipping cattle to feedlots to be fed grain to fatten them up (yes the same whole grain the USDA insist we eat as part of a “healthy” breakfast? … the same grains we have been eating more of in place of meat and no coincidence getting fatter?) destroying the nutritional profile of meat. Leave the cows in the field to eat grass and our health and the environment will be better for it. Stop subsidizing grain and start incentivizing nutritious fruits and veg to supplement healthy meals revolving around protein.

The American Heart Assoc. is not a credible source of science. They fell victim to Ancel Keys study and they continue to profit by sale of the heart check program endorsing low fat foods. The Canadian Heart Assoc. has notably dropped this endorsement program acknowledging the science does not support the low fat hypothesis.

On the topic of environment, it is acknowledged that it is an impossibility to eat healthy foods without a clean environment and we all must be accountable but frankly the DGAC needs to get individual nutritional needs right first before tackling environment.

If you wish to embrace change start with abolishing BMI and adopt body composition standards to better feed lean tissue acknowledging men, women and children as categories further divided by age and activity before suggesting a ridiculous non descript 2000 calorie meal plan for all.

Finally on the topic of exercise it is critically important we emphasize the real case of iron deficiency in the fact that we need to LIFT more. Weight training insures active aging, improved metabolism and bone density. Weight training is not recommended because BMI will rise. Abolish BMI and we can empirically measure improved body composition through exercise and essential nutrients.

© 2015 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

First and foremost BMI does not measure obesity nor was it ever intended or designed to measure body fatness. Originally called the Quetelet Index after Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet who authored a paper entitled Sur l’homme or Average Man (1835), a collection of anecdotal observations, one of which plotted height and weight of men over twenty years of age as part of his opinion of what it meant to be an ordinary male living in Belgium in the early 1800’s.

Despite the facts that BMI does not measure obesity, excludes women and children and discourages participation in weight training the most effective method of body composition management, inexplicably the oversimplified BMI chart was revived one hundred and thirty seven years later by the infamous Ancel Keys, the same man who doctored a study (FWTpart1 , FWTpart2) convincing the American Heart Association (AMA) that Americans were getting fat because they were eating too much fat. The AMA would use the manipulated data to convince the USDA to publish and promote the low fat diet, which along with BMI remains firmly entrenched as methods to combat obesity despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It equates to medical malpractice that BMI remains the method we inaccurately measure the most pervasive and preventable plague of the 21^st century misdiagnosing 48% of women and 25% of men (PlosOne Study).

BMI needs to be replaced, that being said, I see no point in wasting a perfectly good acronym but maybe flushing it down the toilet isn’t such a bad idea.

It is quite common catch up on some light ready while doing your dootie. So please take a stool and let me tell you what I really think about the Body Mass Index (BMI). When you have completed excreting you keester cake, take a look into your porcelain throne to see why I say “BMI is really a piece of S#!T”.

Meet The New and Improved BMI

I propose we recycle and reinvent the BMI acronym to gauge an important and often overlooked aspect or nutritional health, the: Bowel Movement Index (BMI*).

Stool also has an optimum composition and the new and improved BMI* would identify one of seven categories (see graph at the top):

Type 1: Separate hard lumps, like nuts (hard to pass)

Type 2: Sausage-shaped, but lumpy

Type 3: Like a sausage but with cracks on its surface

Type 4: Like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft

Type 5: Soft blobs with clear-cut edges (passed easily)

Type 6: Fluffy pieces with ragged edges, a mushy stool

Type 7: Water, no solid pieces. Entirely liquid

Types 1 and 2 indicate constipation, with 3 and 4 being the “ideal stools”, while 5, 6 & 7 tend to illustrate diarrhea.

Follow the 3&3 Rule: It could be a health concern if you are defecating more then 3 times a day or it could also be unhealthy if you’re not going at least once every three days.

The shape, size, color, and other fecal features can tell you a great deal about your health, how your gastrointestinal tract is working and provides clues about serious disease processes such as infections, digestive problems, and even cancer.

But wait, that’s not all. There are even more important factors to consider:

SHAPE: should be S-shaped when it hits the toilet bowel (same shape of your rectum)

FORM: feces need bulk so that your intestines can squeeze on it. Healthy feces (#3 being best) is approximately 75 percent water, the rest is a combination of fiber, live and dead bacteria, cells and mucus.

SINK or FLOAT? A slow sink is optimal and denotes a good amount of fiber.

TRANSIT TIME: Normal transit time is approximately 24 hours from eating. Want to try a corny trick to find out your transit time. Eat full kernels of corn (we don’t fully digest kernels of corn) and take note of the time from ingestion to exit.

Constipation is generally a result of low amounts of fiber in your diet, lack of physical activity, and or not drinking enough water.

Now that we have re-assigned BMI to best describe the products of Uranus, I propose we begin measuring obesity accurately with a positive spin – stay tuned for my next blog: The Lean Mass Index

© 2015 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

I was enticed by the company’s latest ad campaign: Introducing fast food’s first All-Natural Burger. A grass-fed, free-range charbroiled beef patty with no added hormones, steroids, or antibiotics, topped with natural cheddar cheese and vine-ripened tomatoes.

Normally, my idea of fast food is very different from most. When I am in a hurry I will reach for hard-boiled eggs, nuts, a protein shake, full fat yogurt or a myriad of other protein rich healthy choices.

I am of course abundantly aware of the more conventional mindset of the thousands upon thousands of colorfully lit restaurants scattered throughout the nation boasting drive through windows that consumers ‘spork’ over more than one hundred billion dollars annually in the US alone.

Bridging this gap between healthy and fast food is what inspired me to build Restaurant Nutrition, my FREE APP that provides more than two million users with the macronutrient breakdown of every menu item of every major restaurant to aide in making healthier nutrient rich choices. I felt an obligation both to my app users and in support of a large franchise operation that made the conscious decision to offer grass fed beef.

Consumers are now driving the better nutrition and awareness trend influencing fast food franchises to provide healthier choices.

Over the past few years strides have been made like the consumers demanding and succeeding in the closure of beef packaging facilities manufacturing Pink Slime, the descriptive name of the adulterated addition of formerly unfit for human consumption meat scraps doused in ammonia that the USDA allowed industry to add ground beef to increase profit and yield without informing consumers – to today where consumers are beginning to understand the health benefits of grass fed, hormone and steroid free beef as a choice over fatty acid imbalanced factory farmed grain fed meat.

Naturally raised grass fed beef is not just better for you, it is also better for the environment.

If you want to know how I would rate the Carl’s Jr All Natural burger, while I am not a franchised food connoisseur – it tasted pretty much as I expected which is basically my way of saying if you are in the mood for a fast food burger under $5.00 then Carl’s Jr. has my vote as a significantly healthier choice (even better if you don’t eat the bun) than McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s or any of the other big names that continue to sell feedlot raised, grain fed products.

Carl’s Jr. All Natural Burger – Nutrition Info without sauces:

Calories: 750 , Protein 31 g,  Fat 44 g,  Carbohydrate 59 g, Fiber 3 g,  Added Sugar 18 g,  Trans Fat 1 g

In fairness to Chipotle, they were the first large scale fast food restaurant to go grass fed, however Carl’s Jr. is technically correct, they are the first large scale burger company to do so.

© 2015 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Reducing total fat intake to less than 30% of total energy helps prevent unhealthy weight gain in adults http://goo.gl/pTGfTS

I appreciate that it is difficult to solve the complex problem of obesity in 140 characters or less, however the WHO did include a link: Diet “Fact” Sheet #394 September 2014

When it comes to prescribing nutritional advice I believe it is important to choose words carefully so the information is not subject to misinterpretation. Unfortunately the WHO tweet, fact sheet and referenced studies fail on all counts.

In the tweet the WHO prescribes what initially appears to be a blanket statement that the world should limit fat intake to no more than 30% of total energy.

First of all, all fats are not created equal – something the “fact” sheet attempts to illustrate but perhaps fact is not the best word choice.

Fact: (noun) A thing that is true, indisputably the case.

The reference documents contain no conclusive evidence of any kind to support the reduction of fat categorically or saturated fat. It is in fact the lack of evidence that rendered the team uninformed and the basis to keep the existing low fat advice unchanged.

WHO referenced three studies – below are key points:

The first study entitled Effect of Reducing Total fat Intake On Body Weight…

Provides this conclusion:

In this review we have tried to separate out whether changes in individual fatty acid fractions are responsible for any benefits to health (using the technique of meta-regression). The answers are not definitive, the data being too sparse to be convincing. We are left with a suggestion that less total fat or less of any individual fatty acid fraction in the diet is beneficial.

“The answers are not definitive” yet inexplicably they “suggest” less fat “is” beneficial an perhaps most egregious is that the conclusion to consume less encompasses any individual fatty acid including the essential to life category of omega 3 and 6.

It is noteworthy that the focus of the tweet and this referenced study was specific to “ body weight” which is unscientifically vague instead of addressing body composition and providing the public with specific information of what represents healthy levels of body fat by age and gender. “Weight” tells is nothing about the composition. It is inexplicable that the WHO does not accurately measure obesity, instead the WHO continues to use the antiquated Body Mass Index (BMI) which, does NOT measure body fatness with the additional insult that BMI excludes women and children or alternatively inappropriate suggests gender is not relevant?

Obesity has become so pervasive over the past forty years (the same amount of time the low fat diet was forced upon North America) if the WHO actually measured body fatness and looked at nutrients instead of calories and the oversimplified energy balance theory perhaps we could finally put an end to the low fat diet that represents the worlds worst nutritional experiment in human history.

But I digress, even if the focus of the study was “Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular disease… “which coincidentally was proffered by the very same lead author Lee Hooper who lead the aforementioned “body weight” study, the fat / cardiovascular disease study concluded::

Despite decades of effort and many thousands of people randomised, there is still only limited and inconclusive evidence of the effects of modification of total, saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fats on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality

Lets take a look at the second referenced study the WHO relied upon to make the statement that dietary fat should be restricted to 30% or less:

WHO Technical Report Series 916 – Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases

The report suggests a near global increase in dietary fat consumption and further notes the specific increase the category of vegetable fats that the WHO actually recommends:

By 1990, vegetable fats accounted for a greater proportion of

dietary energy than animal fats for countries in the lowest per capita

income category. Changes in edible vegetable oil supply, in prices and

in consumption equally affected rich and poor countries, although the

net impact was relatively much greater in low-income countries.

“The types of edible oils used in developing countries are also changing

with the increasing use of hardened margarines (rich in trans fatty acids)

that do not need to be refrigerated.”

Here is the problem; the WHO media center Healthy Diet “Fact” sheet states:

“the risk of developing NCDs (noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer) is lowered by reducing saturated fats to less than 10% of total energy (2. 3), and trans fats to less than” 1% of total energy, and replacing them with unsaturated fats contained in vegetable oils (2, 3). “

WHO suggests limiting man made trans fats to 1% of energy – when the only safe level of man made trans fat is zero and should be completely eliminated from the diet   BLOG

While it continues to demonize saturated fats with no conclusive evidence of any kind and only reporting only two regions of the globe are consuming at or above WHO guidelines:

“A variable proportion of these fat calories are provided by saturated

fatty acids. Only in the two of the most affluent regions (i.e. in parts of

North America and Europe) is the intake of saturated fat at or above

10% of energy intake level. In other less affluent regions, the proportion

of dietary energy contributed by saturated fatty acids is lower, ranging

from 5% to 8%, and generally not changing much over time.”

I would have hoped the researchers might have noticed that correlation existed when they reported the rise is fat from vegetable oil sources (potentially rich in trans fat), that the trend line parallels the rise in obesity. Instead the report continues to suggest we should avoid saturated fat from animal sources and increase vegetable oil consumption as though Ancel Keys himself had doctored the study.

“Fats intake can be reduced by:

• changing how you cook – remove the fatty part of meat; instead of butter, use vegetable oil (not animal); and boil, steam or bake rather than fry;
• avoid processed foods containing trans fats;
• limit the consumption of foods containing high amounts of saturated fats (e.g. cheese, ice creams, fatty meat).”

Perhaps the WHO was saving the real evidence for the third of the referenced studies that suggest we should reduce fat intake to less than 30% of energy.

The study entitled: Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition: report of an expert consultation

I have read this numerous times looking for any evidence that would cause the study to conclude with Einstein’s definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I took the liberty of bolding the nonsensical demonization of fat and ambiguous consideration of weight instead of obesity and energy instead of nutrients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOTAL FAT

The Expert Consultation examined the background papers, scientific reports and various studies assessing the relationship between total dietary fats as well as selected fatty acids and various physiological conditions and illnesses. The experts agreed with the evidence summarized in two recent reports (WHO, 2003; WCRF/AICR, 2007) that

there is no probable or convincing evidence for significant effects of total dietary fats on coronary heart disease or cancers. Therefore, of primary concern and importance was the potential relationship between total dietary fats and body weight (overweight and obesity).

There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution of energy as % total fat and % total carbohydrates. Although the specific evidence was not reviewed in-depth at the consultation it was felt sensible that maintaining appropriate dietary patterns and energy levels, and adequate physical activity levels were critical in preventing unhealthy weight gain (i.e. overweight and obesity) and to ensure optimal health for those predisposed to insulin resistance.

Some older intervention studies from industrialized countries suggest that diets with lower % of energy from fat (i.e. %E fat) tend to be hypocaloric and are therefore associated with short term weight loss. Conversely, more recent randomized controlled trials in predominantly overweight populations from industrialized countries, which compared isocaloric diets with different levels of total fat, have shown that a higher %E fat can lead to greater weight loss than observed with low fat diets. However, the differences in the intake of other macronutrients such as amount and type of carbohydrates and the relatively high drop-out rate in some studies limit the strength of the evidence and the generalization of these results.

Various ecological data from observational studies in developing and transitional countries suggest that shifting from a lower to a higher %E fat has been associated with both lower and higher total energy intake and to unhealthy weight gain; thus, potentially contributing to the increasing problem of overweight and obesity. The opposite is observed in industrialized countries where %E fat has decreased while obesity has increased.

The insufficient evidence and conflicting interpretation of results on the nature of the relationship between the %E fat and adult body weight convinced the Expert Consultation that at this time it was not possible to determine at a probable or convincing level the causal relationship of excess % energy intake from fat and unhealthy weight gain.

Full agreement among the experts regarding the upper value of acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) for %E fat was not achieved; thus maintaining the current recommendation for a maximum intake value of 30-35%E fat was considered prudent. Further studies and a systematic review of all available evidence are needed to provide better evidence on which to base a recommendation on AMDR for %E fat that are applicable globally.

There was agreement among the experts that in populations with inadequate total energy intake, such as seen in many developing regions, dietary fats are an important macronutrient that contribute to increase energy intake to more appropriate levels.

Based on the considerations provided in the preceding section, the Expert Consultation proposed the following AMDR which are consistent with the existing 2002 expert consultation recommendations (WHO, 2003)

Shall I further summarize it for you?

Experts agreed no probable or convincing evidence existed to suggest dietary fats cause heart disease or cancer so instead they decided to focus on weight gain… but not measure it accurately. The experts decided to continue to use BMI that does not measure body fatness and misdiagnoses 48% of women and 25% of men (Plos One link)

The experts? apparently agreed if they are not going to measure body fatness, then why not continue the trend, instead of measuring and recommending individualized consumption of the essential nutrients of water, protein, fat, minerals and vitamins that support life and arm the immune system … why not lump them all categorically into something called energy so they could include the non essential category of carbohydrates that provide a source of energy and nothing else.

Experts? could not agree on how much fat was healthy so instead they disbanded leaving the decades old low fat diet recommendations of a maximum of 30-35% energy securely in place… if nothing else we should eventually learn just how fat the human race can get following a low fat diet.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Recently the media has been reporting about the latest mandate of adding calorie count to the menus of restaurants with more than 20 locations.  If you read my latest blog in opposition to USA Todays Opinion that calories added to menus are a helpful solution to the obesity crisis, I suggest the periodical doesn’t know WHAT it is talking about. The generic counting of calories tells us nothing about healthful eating and as you will find out later in this article – all calories are not created equal, and I share a study that confirmed “weight” gain following a diet of 0nly 1000 calories daily*.

So I decided to surf the net in search of an article that actually talked about measuring specific macro nutrients role in the accumulation of excess fat.  I found a somewhat confusing article that suggests Insulin Does Not Make You Fat – posted on musclegenes.com . Below is my response to the author and a request for the studies mentioned:

Sir,

I would appreciate if you would kindly send a link or reference the name of the studies or the authors of the two papers you mentioned that you report suggest only 6 grams of sugar was converted to fat when consumed in excess of GDA. Frankly, I am not clear what it is you are suggesting in this post nor what the study suggests is a GDA for sugar since all carbohydrates are categorized as non-essential. Please explain to me were we differ in opinion?

Insulin is an anabolic hormone – meaning it builds or stores things i.e. fat and / or muscle  – which one of the two depends on a number of additional factors (and yes we do store small amounts of glycogen in the cells and liver).

When we consume high glycemic load foods, sugar enters the liver and exits being transported as blood sugar (glycogen) to find a home or be consumed as energy. The more easily digestible sugar – the greater the insulin response. Insulin’s job is to build or store the excess glycogen in response to the present danger of the potentially toxic amount. The first stop are the cells (muscle) to be stored for future energy in excess of normal blood glucose levels. The problem: when the cells are full, the excess glycogen is sent back to the liver to be converted into triglycerides and ultimately stored as fat.

I agree with what I think you are saying … that when high glycemic carbs are ingested all fat burning slows or stops as the body prioritizes utilizing the excess sugar as energy to be stored into cells as glycogen … or ultimately excess glycogen will be sent back to the liver to be converted into triglyceride (fat) for future energy use.

This is where I fail to understand your explanation. What are you / the studies you refer to suggesting happens to the excess sugar if not being converted to / stored as fat. Metabolic syndrome supports the hypothesis that excess sugar results in a toxic and failing liver unable to process excessive carb intake beyond cellular capacity.

I refer you to a rudimentary but interesting experiment – the Middlesex Study that took place in London circa 1956 that demonstrated excessive carb intake beyond cell capacity equals “weight” gain despite a caloric restricted diet (1000 kcal) when the primary macro nutrient was carbohydrates due to the limited cellular capacity (between 2-4% of mass depending on total lean muscle mass).

In this study the subjects were divided into one of 3 macronutrient categories and consumed a daily allotment of 1000 calories consisting of either 90 % protein, 90% fat or 90% carbohydrates.

The allotted daily caloric value of 1000 calories was considered to represent an energy deficit required to support normal life functions. Accordingly the body would be required to access additional stored energy reserves to meet the energy needs required to sustain life from either breaking down lean muscle tissue or stored fat deposits. The amount of additional energy the body would consume was anticipated to provide measurable results in physical weight loss. Each patient would be measured at the beginning and end of each day and the results recorded.

If the calorie equilibrium theory was correct, in this case the calories IN being less than the calories OUTput to sustain life then the results for the subjects should be uniform in the amount of weight lost – that of course is not what happened.

As any intelligent fitness / nutrition professional knows – humans don’t actually burn calories – metals ovens do. Humans burn ATP derived from nutrients that can be measured either by weight or by calories. Therefore the educated fitness expert knows that all calories are not created equal and as the Middlesex study demonstrated.

The Middlesex Study demonstrated the group that ate 90% of the 1000 calories value from fat lost 0.9 pounds per day.

The protein group lost on average 0.6 pounds per day.

*And the group that ate 1000 calories of 90% carbohydrates gained weight – 0.25 pounds per day (presumably water and fat) since they did not have the capacity to measure body composition accurately at the time of the study.

Again, please provide a link or identify the studies you are referring to so I can better understand the inference of your article.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Our (USA Today) view “Eating Out? Now You Will Be Able To Count Calories”

When I state that you don’t know what you are talking about, I am specifically referring to your praise of calories tells the consumer nothing about nutritional content. Sad, considering your debate is entitled nutrition. Let me begin by pointing out the glaring problem: Calories don’t actually exist they are a unit of measure describing the amount of energy contained in a macro nutrient incinerated in a calorimeter. Humans don’t burn calories… metal ovens do. Humans burn adenosine triphosphate (ATP) derived from nutrients and it is nutrients we must count – not calories generically.

All calories are not created equal, a point proven in the 1950 Middlesex study. Often food manufacturers want you to focus on the fictitious calorie unit to distract you from low nutritional content. Case and point: The soda industry now boldly displays calories of the front of the can. Do you actually think they are trying to deter consumers from drinking carbonated sugar water? Or perhaps is a better explanation that they want to act like magicians and deflect your attention. By suggesting it’s a simple matter of counting calories, aided by mythical budget approved by the USDA what could possibly be the harm in consuming a mere 100 calories when consumers are allotted 2000 of these nondescript units. Taking your focus off  nutrients is like saying your car runs on fluids. It’s kind of true… up until you run out of gas or oil or brake fluid then the idea of adding any fluid non specifically will prove very problematic with potentially catastrophic consequences.

In your opinion you make some asinine and ambiguous statements much in line with your logic regarding calories: “Burger King Whopper, with fries and a coke make up the better part of calories you should consume in a day” Is better the right word? How many calories exactly should we consume in a day? Does it matter what these calories are composed of? Are you suggesting America will be of vibrant health if we just ate less calories? I can only assume you are not familiar with the term ‘essential nutrients’: their are five of them, water, complete protein, essential fats, vitamins and minerals that we need to support life? Yes, one nutrient is conspicuously missing from the essentials list because it is non-essential, carbohydrates. The number of carbohydrates you need to survive is zero. That cannot be said for the five essentials. Furthermore the capacity we have to store the highly profitable, long shelf life and major contributing factor to obesity category of processed carbohydrates is extremely limited ( approximately 2-4% of total mass depending on muscle mass). Over consumption of carbohydrates in excess of our capacity to store them no matter how few the caloric value they represent will result in the excess carbs being converted to and stored as fat along with the additional dangers of metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, diabetes and of course obesity.

Humans have individualized nutritional needs of the essential nutrients and they must be delivered in appropriate amounts, anything less will result is a nutritional deficiency. Yes, we measure food either by weight or by calorie but we must first understand our individual needs instead of focusing generically on calories. A person can starve to death from malnutrition consuming ten thousand calories of carbohydrates daily.

Calories are not the only thing we grossly oversimplify. You reference that more than one third of the nations adults are obese… but you don’t know how much more, because we don’t actually measure obesity in this country. The Body Mass Index (BMI) is not a gauge of obesity and it grossly underestimating the rate of obesity, inaccurately diagnosing 48% or women and 25% of men.

We live in the most technologically advanced nation on the planet, yet we can’t tell our citizens how much of a nutrient they should consume or if they are in fact obese. Most professional athletes will fail a BMI test, yet an under-muscled person with metabolic syndrome and a high body fat percentage will erroneously score just fine on a BMI scale because they don’t weigh too despite they are clinically obese based upon body fat percentage.

Focusing on calories in not doing America a favor. You state the escalating obesity rates are “attributable to the fact people like fattening foods.” What does that mean? What foods do you think are fattening? Fat? Carbs?  You unwittingly reinforce my opposition to your opinion when you say the obesity crisis is resultant of the “difficulty of knowing what’s in the food we eat…”

The solution to the obesity crisis is education. Defining and delivering the essential nutrients proportionately and illustrating to every American their own unique body composition, not just their weight. This is my passion, I have designed and invested in cutting edge non invasive and affordable technology to do just that and my clients and followers know precisely what a healthy body fat percentage is and how to achieve it. I would appreciate the power of the media to assist me in my quest to replace BMI with the Lean Mass Index and educate consumers on how to determine the amount of essential nutrients needed to live thrive and survive daily. It wasn’t that long ago we learned the world is not flat, likewise we need to now understand the world does not need to be fat. If we are going to force restaurants to list calories then why not add one more step defining exactly what those calories are comprised of? My free app: Restaurant Nutrition by Unified Lifestyle with more than two million followers does just that.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Consider this, a premature baby can consists of as much as 90% water, a full term newborn is 75% water, by the end of the first year of life infants drop to approximately 65%. Healthy adult males average around 60% water and females approximately 55% due to higher body fat percentages. Elderly and obese individuals can fall to 45% total body water or lower.

In general athletes tend to skew higher percentages of total body water since muscles contain more water than fat. Therefore, I advocate the secret to youthful vigor and a healthier life is to minimize the amount of excess fat and maintain or increase muscle mass by regularly lifting weights, drink lots of water complimented with a balanced diet with special focus on minerals.

Simply put a well hydrated body is a younger body complete with plump healthy skin. If the outer most layer of the epidermis is dehydrated the skin will lose elasticity.

Maintaining optimum hydration isof paramount importance to support life functions. Fluids maintain body temperature, cell shape and the transport of nutrients, gases and waste. Unfortunately most underestimate the complexity of true cellular hydration. Thirst and cramping are obvious signs of dehydration however a high percentage of the population exist in a perpetual state of mild dehydration where cells are not fully hydrated or provided with the correct electrolyte replenishment that promote energy production (ATP), muscular contraction, stamina and recovery.

Hydration is constant flux the body gains and loses fluid through several different processes. Environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and altitude additionally influence fluid loss. As a result we all experience varying degrees of dehydration daily that we must combat. It begins the moment we open our eyes, on average we lose 1- 1½ liters of water while sleeping (the loss occurs from respiration, perspiration and any impromptu trips to the restroom).

To determine how much fluid loss occurs weigh yourself before you go to sleep and first thing upon waking. You will want to replace what was lost as soon as possible assuming you were properly hydrated before you went to sleep.

The immediate consumption of water helps restore body temperature and blood volume, however water is absorbed relatively slowly, and drinking water initially only adds to extracellular fluid and can be proportionately expelled. The cells require time and nutrients to properly rehydrate by replenishing the solutes that promote intracellular fluid retention.

Fluid in the body is held in two basic compartments: intracellular and extracellular. Fluid inside the cell is called intracellular and as you have likely deduced fluid outside of the cell is called extracellular. Extracellular can be further divided into interstitial fluid that surrounds the cells, including transcellular fluid (cerebrospinal fluid, ocular and joint fluid), and intravascular fluid (plasma), the liquid portion of blood.

Fluids travel by osmosis into and out of the cell, but true cellular hydration (intracellular) is more complicated than just drinking water. Water is transported in and out of the cell aided by electrically charged ions (electrolytes).

Maintaining the balance of electrolytes is important. Two primary protagonists are Sodium and Potassium. A sign of low Potassium levels is skeletal muscle weakness, especially in the legs and is compounded by cramping. Typically we consume ample amounts of Sodium that promotes extracellular water retention so it can be important to consume Potassium rich foods daily to create balance.

Optimum hydration varies in quantity based on gender and total lean muscle mass however the correct distribution of total water volume is 2/3 intracellular and 1/3 extracellular.

To measure hydration I use a five-signal bio-impedance device (Bodivis.com) that measures total body water (both intracellular and extracellular), total lean mass, total fat mass, and total bone mass including segmental analysis.

Take away: We gain hydration from foods and beverages we consume, natural hypotonic drinks like coconut water may help restore hydration faster but in the long run the best source of water will always be water along with a balanced diet. So drink ample amounts, if you are thirsty you are already dehydrated.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

This weeks show is in response to you the listener, asking questions and commenting about the Dr. Oz Million Dollar You – Transformation Nation sponsored by Weightwatchers™

Is it right for you?

Grant is joined by Weightwatchers™ expert answering your questions and along with grant’s comments what he thinks is right… and where he thinks there is room for improvement in the Dr. Oz / Weightwatchers™ … FAT loss challenge (that was a hint)

Tune in on Saturday @ 6:00 pm PST and listen live on line at:  UnifiedLifestyle.com/radio