Drive Thru Review Carl’s Jr. All Natural Burger

Written by Unified Lifestyle. Posted in Unified News

New Years day may seem like an odd time to post a fast food review and truth be told it is the first time I have ever set foot inside a Carl’s Jr. restaurant or even thought about trying anything displayed on their picture laden menu board.

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

Fat Lies & The World Health Organization

Written by Unified Lifestyle. Posted in Unified News

The World Health Organization recently sent out a tweet suggesting:

Reducing total fat intake to less than 30% of total energy helps prevent unhealthy weight gain in adults

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.




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

Insulin’s Role: Turn Off Fat Burning When Carbohydrates are Consumed

Written by Unified Lifestyle. Posted in Unified News


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 . Below is my response to the author and a request for the studies mentioned:



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

USA Today … You Don’t Know WHAT You Are Talking About

Written by Unified Lifestyle. Posted in Unified News

Re: Today’s Debate: Nutrition (December 2, 2014)

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

Take This Test…You May Need Glasses (of water)

Written by Unified Lifestyle. Posted in Unified News

Water is the most abundant component of a healthy human body however the risk of dehydration and fluid imbalance increases over time. One of the most fascinating observations regarding hydration has to do with age. We are all familiar with the mythical quest in search of the fountain of youth, but I propose the source and secret to eternal youth is actually held within each one of us on the cellular level. The objective is to hold on to as much of the rejuvenating powers of water as possible through lifestyle management.

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 ( 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

Voting to Consume Less Sugar? The Eyes Have It

Written by Grant Roberts. Posted in Unified News

A University of Alabama research team published a study in the journal Appetite suggesting a novel way to influence consumers to think before grabbing a soda or sugar sweetened beverage (SSB).

The research team attempted to show consumers just how much added sugar they would be consuming with the visual aid of sugar cubes.

This “concrete representation” of an otherwise abstract calculation such as “70 grams of sugar” reduced consumption in an experiment said lead researcher John Milton Adams.

I have long purported that food labeling and front of package health claims are largely confusing to consumers and must be revised and submitted an example to the FDA. Many problems exist within the nutrition facts area, not the least of which is the units of measure. Americans simply do not have a good understanding of the metric system. Suggesting any amount of sugar in grams is largely meaningless to American consumers a point illustrated by the researchers who conducted an experiment with 109 consumers who admitted to consuming soft drinks.

The subjects were not informed of intent of one of the experiments, instead they were led to believe it was a test of their abilities to convert numbers, such as miles to kilometers, US dollars to Euros, and a specific group was asked to tally the number of sugar cubes in sugar sweetened beverages. They were told that one cube contained approximately 2.5 grams of sugar. Following the tests each of the students regardless of group were allowed to chose a soft drink as a reward of their participation with a wide array of choices ranging from a bottle of water to a can of Sunkist orange drink featuring 85g of sugar.

69 percent of the students who completed the equations that did not involve sugar cube conversion chose a sugary beverage. While 48 percent of the students who did calculate sugar cubes opted for a sugar sweetened drink.

In a separate experiment sugar-sweetened beverages were displayed behind an illustrative sugar cube pyramid, along with a sign that read “This beverage contains x grams of sugar. This is what x grams of sugar looks like.” On an alternative day cans were displayed with a sign providing no sugar cube reference instead simply stating “This beverage contains x grams of sugar.”
It turned out the sugar cube pyramid had influential power. Those who simply read the information without the sugar cube reference were nearly three times more likely to choose a sugary drink than those who viewed the sugar cube equivalents.
I would suggest that illustrating sugar cubes per serving is an intelligent easily discernable visual aid that may reduce added sugar consumption.

Added sugar is not an essential nutrient and an unnecessary and potentially addictive additive we can all live better without. It is an uncontested fact added sugar provides absolutely no health benefit whatsoever and is a problematic empty source of additional calories (energy) only.

While much debate exists over front of package labeling and I have read some disturbing industry reports illustrating how healthy claims and logos primarily manipulate consumers to spend more with little or no impact on improving healthy choices.
I propose that mandatorily illustrating added sugar with the equivalent number of sugar cubes displayed on the front of packaging based on uniform realistic serving sizes categorically by food or beverage type would prove useful to educate and assist consumers to reduce added sugar consumption.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Canadians Are Not So Sweet

Written by Grant Roberts. Posted in Unified News

More big nutrition news from the Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation. About or A-boot (pronunciation) three months ago Canada’s Heart & Stroke Foundation announced it was discontinuing its low fat diet promoting health check program stating “Health Check is no longer the right program for the time.”

While technically speaking the Low Fat Diet Experiment was never right at any time, the genesis of the low fat debacle I addressed in The Fat Waist of TIME. Regardless, The Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation is further embracing empirical evidence and has just released an official Position Statement on Sugar.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends that an individual’s total intake of free sugars not exceed 10% of total daily calorie (energy) intake, and ideally less than 5%.

Individuals who consume greater than or equal to 10% but less than 25% of total energy (calories) from added sugar have a 30% higher risk of death from heart disease or stroke when compared to those who consume less than 10%. For those who consume 25% or more of calories from added sugar, the risk is nearly tripled.

Highlights of the statement report:

Sugar is a carbohydrate that provides energy to the body; it has no other nutritional benefits.

Added sugars are those added to foods and drinks and include glucose, fructose, sucrose, brown sugar, honey, corn syrup, maple syrup, molasses, fruit puree and juice etc. These sugars provide extra calories but few or no nutritional benefits.
Fruit juice, either as a beverage, or as a sweetener added to other foods has less nutritional value than a piece of fruit and is high in sugar.

How much added sugar do Canadians currently consume?

The short answer is too much. On average more than 13 per cent of our total calories come from added sugars and this is a conservative estimate. Sugar- loaded beverages are the single greatest contributor of sugar in our diets. These include soft drinks, sports drinks, juices, energy drinks and hot and cold specialty teas and coffees. One can of pop contains 40 grams, or 10 teaspoons of sugar.

How does sugar affect our health?

Consuming too much sugar is associated with heart disease, stroke, obesity, diabetes, high blood cholesterol, cancer and cavities.

What does the Heart and Stroke Foundation recommend?

Canadians are consuming too much added sugar, especially in foods that have little or no nutritional value such as sugar-loaded beverages. The positive benefits of consuming vegetables and fruit are clear.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends that Canadians decrease their consumption of added sugar to no more than 10 per cent of their total daily calories. This does not include sugar that occurs naturally in fruit, vegetables, milk, grains and other foods.

For an average 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, 10 per cent is about 48 grams, or 12 teaspoons of sugar. One can of pop contains about 85 per cent of the daily added sugar limit.

The Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation reported the single largest contributing category of added sugar is sugar sweetened beverages (SSB’s) and that a typical can of soda or sweetened fruit drink (355ml) contains about 10 teaspoons (40grams) of sugar, representing the approximate maximum amount of 10% of energy and provides no health benefit.

The CH&SF provided the following data:

• The total volume of SSBs available to Canadians is 3.5 billion litres, the equivalent of 110 L per person per year or over 300 mL per day.29 A standard sized soft drink can is 355 mL.

• As children get older, they consume more sugar from soft drinks. Boys’ average daily consumption of regular soft drinks is 68 grams at ages 4 to 8 years and increases to 376 grams at ages 14 to 18 years. Among girls the increase is from 47 to 179 g.30

• A tax of 5 cents per 100 mL on SSBs would raise $1.8 billion in tax revenue annually.29

• Worldwide it is estimated that 180,000 deaths annually are attributed to the consumption of SSBs, including 133,000 from diabetes, 44,000 from cardiovascular disease, and 6,000 from cancer.

All of the above is very relevant information, and a step n the right direction. Until three months ago the Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation was pretty much a carbon copy of the American Heart Association, selling its Health Check logo to any food manufacturer willing to pay for the organizations endorsement of the low fat diet. We can only hope that the American Heart Association will follow Canada’s lead and stop profiting through the promotion of low fat foods that tend to contribute to obesity and furthermore embrace the Canadian organizations recommendation to limit added sugar.

In my next blog “Voting to Eat Less Sugar” I will report on an interesting study authored by the University of Alabama that suggests a novel visual logo to assist consumers in doing just that.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Paleo By Comparison – Yesterdays Reason is Not TODAY

Written by Grant Roberts. Posted in Unified News

Lately it seems like all I am doing is refuting the media.

I was alerted to another media faux pas by a barrage of emails defending the Paleo diet following a poorly written article posted at Today Show Health section regarding superstar LeBron James’ leaner physique achieved by adopting a Paleo diet. Instead of praising King James the author and dietician inexplicably misinformed readers about the alleged perils of the Paleo / low carb diet.

What’s the difference between a Dietician and a Nutritionist? Most nutritionists will argue logic.

Dieticians are spoon fed a curriculum endorsing the USDA nutrition guidelines of a grain based low fat diet they blindly promote, representing the worst ongoing dietary experiment in human history. Despite the explosion of obesity, metabolic syndrome, heart disease and diabetes since publicly launching the USDA grain based, low fat nutritional guidelines in 1980, apparently the empirical evidence demonstrating the oversimplified theory we are getting fat because we are eating too much fat is just plain wrong is not convincing the powers that be (the powers that be are the cereal, processed foods and high fructose corn syrup manufacturers who fund skewed studies that dictate the USDA Guidelines).

Back to the article, as virtually every public commentary at the Today site stated (some less politely than others), the author is clearly unqualified to speak on the topic of nutrition.

She was somewhat correct in the basic premise of what a Paleo diet represents:
“Paleo proponents eat meat, fish, shellfish, poultry, eggs, vegetables, roots, fruits and berries — a diet believed to be similar to foods hunted, fished, or gathered by our ancestors. If you eat Paleo, you can’t have grains, dairy, or legumes (beans or peas). Sugar and salt are also no-no’s.”

A real Paleo diet is virtually impossible to follow today, since in its truest form, it would be seasonal and limited to the foods including insects of a geographic region. Modern day Paleo eaters typically consume fruits and vegetables that would not have existed in the Paleo era.

The author throughout the article continually contradicts herself commencing with the dieticians ridiculous mantra “if there’s one nutrition (I assume she meant nutrient) Americans don’t need more of on our plates, it’s protein. It’s recommended that 10 to 35 percent of your daily calories come from protein. Paleo encourages amounts of protein and fat beyond current federal recommendations.”

Wrong on both counts. Americans as a whole need more protein but specifically a complete protein, and Paleo meals do revolve around complete protein and total daily consumption represents an average of 35% of energy consumed in line with the so-called recommendations (however most dieticians I am aware of advise too low of an amount of just 10%)

Next to water, protein is the most abundant substance in a healthy body, in fact take away the water and as much as 75% of your composition could be protein. While the dietician food pyramid may not have much to say about protein – let me explain what a ridiculous oversight that is and just how critical a role protein plays in virtually everything about us.

Protein constitutes our muscles, ligaments, tendons, organs, glands, nails, hair, even certain enzymes, hormones and some body fluids including hemoglobin is comprised of protein.

Protein is absolutely essential for health and life, proteins act as enzymes, hormones and antibodies, they maintain fluid and ph balance, protein is an essential structural component of every cell in your body and make brain function possible… protein acts as a neurotransmitters or precursors of neurotransmitters – the chemicals that carry information from one cell to another.

Protein makes movement possible…every one of our muscles are composed of motor or contractile proteins that convert energy into animation pushing and pulling our bones to propel us. Structural proteins are what our bones, teeth, hair, and the outer layer of skin are made of. Enzymes and proteins facilitate chemical reactions that make the transport of vital materials like oxygen, vitamins and minerals possible

Immunoproteins are antibodies that defend the body from possible attack of bacteria and viruses protecting us from disease. Hormones are proteins that act as chemical messengers and regulate or balance functions. And last but certainly not least, protein determines and controls the activity of our genes…to what extent is still being uncovered.

Proteins are large, complex molecules that are not actually a single substance, but rather a collective name for a complex chain of smaller subunits called amino acids. There are more than a hundred thousand known protein possibilities in the body… Amazingly they are all made up of different combinations of just 20 amino acids each having a uniquely different structure and performing different functions in the body.

Protein in foods are available in animal and plant forms, protein from animal sources such as meats, eggs and dairy products are complete proteins. Vegetable proteins however are incomplete and lack some of the essential amino acid with the one single exception of soy. For this reason vegetarians are required to be eaten in combinations such as rice and beans to make a complete protein or alternatively consider taking a protein supplement.

In adults a protein deficiency may result in lack of vigor, stamina, mental depression, weakness, a weak or poor immune system, impaired healing and slow recovery from disease. In children it can be far more detrimental including abnormalities in growth and tissue development.

The dietician would also not make a very good defense lawyer for carbohydrates stating: “overloading on pasta, bread and potatoes can contribute to weight gain and diet-related diseases, such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes”

In fact carbohydrates categorically are non-essential and provide nothing but a source of energy. Yet the dietician overemphasizes this role also falsely suggesting 3 things people get wrong about carbohydrates.

She suggests that we “need” carbohydrates… when in fact categorically carbohydrates are non-essential. First of all lets make it perfectly clear, Paleo diets include carbohydrates, I am hopeful that the dietician realizes in her opening statement describing the Paleo diet that vegetables, fruits and berries are actually carbohydrates?

The author then speaks on behalf of science (in fairness she didn’t reference which century) using the dieticians reflex response to carbohydrates and the brain saying: “Science says: Carbohydrates are broken down into glucose, the important fuel needed by your brain, red blood cells, your entire central nervous system and even your muscles. When you skimp on carbohydrates, your body uses stored body fat to generate glucose. That may sound great, but eventually going too low in carbohydrate for too long causes your body to use protein from food and your muscles to create glucose.”
“And if you use fat and protein to create glucose, they can’t be used to perform their many functions. According to the National Academy of Science’s Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), minimum daily glucose needs can be met by consuming 130 grams (520 calories) of carbohydrates. The Institute of Medicine recommends 45 to 65 percent of total daily calorie needs from carbohydrate.”

“For someone who consumes 2,000 calories, that’s 900 to 1,300 calories daily.”

Ok. So which is it? 520, 900 or 1,300 calories worth of carbohydrates… and what source or are all carbohydrates created equal?

Don’t worry not only is this dietician confusing, so is the following three (3) italicized excerpts from the USDA text book on the subject wrongly suggesting and contradicting itself when stating “the brain is the only true carbohydrate-dependent organ” since the section specifically includes the following about fat or protein providing brain fuel:

“The minimal amount of carbohydrate required, either from endogenous or exogenous sources, is determined by the brain’ s requirement for glucose.The brain is the only true carbohydrate-dependent organ in that it oxidizes
glucose completely to carbon dioxide and water. Normally, the brain uses glucose almost exclusively for its energy needs…”

Then goes on to explain how fat can fuel the brain:

When glucose production or availability decreases below that required for the complete energy requirements for the brain, there is a rise in ketoacid production in the liver in order to provide the brain with an alternative fuel. This has been
referred to as “ ketosis.”

Or alternatively how Protein can power the brain.

“The required amount of glucose could be derived easily from ingested protein alone if the individual was ingesting a carbohydrate-free, but energy-adequate diet containing protein sufficient for nitrogen balance.”

The author also spoke on behalf of science saying: “ Science says: It’s about calories. Eating foods low in carbohydrates won’t guarantee weight loss unless you’re cutting the amount of calories you consume daily. A recent review of 19 studies published in PLoS One found that overweight or obese subjects lost similar amounts of weight after following diets that were low carbohydrate (less than 45 percent of total calories) or balanced (45 to 65 percent of total calories).”

First of all, calories don’t exist; they are a unit of measure. Humans don’t burn calories, we burn ATP derived from nutrients and different macro nutrient sources (protein, fat or carbohydrates) yield very different hormonal responses and outcomes. The study she sites is highly flawed, does not measure body composition change (fat loss), instead relies on weight and the antiquated Body Mass Index which tells us nothing. Perhaps what is most egregious is the study defines a low carbohydrate diet containing as much as 45% of energy from carbohydrates. 45% is not low! A Paleo consumption is approximately 10% carbohydrate. Regardless nothing in the reference study provides any accuracy regarding nutrients consumed or outcome.

Lastly, the author tells us once again that: “Science says: Whole grains like oats, brown rice and even popcorn are rich sources of fiber”

Fiber does actually provide some health benefits such as balancing glucose from the over consumption of … you guessed it carbohydrates, so why not just consume a fiber supplement – fiber has no caloric energy so you can consume buckets of fiber if you chose and the percentage amount of carbohydrates you would be eating is zero since the measure she is intent on using is calories.

Fiber is part of the complex carbohydrate group unlike other complex carbohydrates, fiber is so complex that it is indigestible and therefore is calorie or energy free. Fiber is found in all plant foods mainly in the peel, stalk, skin, germ and hull of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts and seeds. You know … the good carbohydrates that Paleo diets provide in ample amounts.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts All Rights Reserved

Fat Waist of TIME – Part Two

Written by Grant Roberts. Posted in Unified News

In Part One, I applauded TIME magazines change of “heart” regarding their position linking dietary fat to obesity and heart disease. I referenced how in 1961,TIME magazine actually contributed to the obesity epidemic by featuring physiologist Ancel Keys, the pseudoscientist behind the low fat diet advice. Keys used media attention and a falsified study he authored to convince the American Heart Association (AMA) of his grossly oversimplified theory that Americans are getting fat because they are eating too much fat; the basis of Keys infamous Seven Country Study that he excluded fifteen countries worth of non conforming data to Keys desired outcome.

The AMA supported Keys and in turn influenced the USDA to publish, promote and perpetrate the low fat diet experiment embodied in the iconic food pyramid found in doctors’ offices, schools and adorning processed food packaging.

Unfortunately the low fat advice remains well en”grained” to his day, however I appreciate that after fifty-five years of gullibility TIME has finally acknowledged the low fat hypothesis was wrong. Sadly, Keys influence as it pertains to TIME magazine publishing false and misleading information adversely contributing to the obesity crisis didn’t end with his fabricated low fat and cholesterol recommendations. Keys’ is also directly responsible for oversimplifying how we measure obesity in this country.

In July 1972, Ancel Keys published a paper in the Journal of Chronic Diseases, resurrecting and renaming the Quetelet Index to the Body Mass Index (BMI) as a method to measure obesity.

I have written extensively on the inaccuracies of BMI and the absurdity that the most technologically advanced nation on Earth continues to measure obesity incorrectly with an antiquated linear height and weight chart conceived in 1835 that to this day excludes women and children and does not in any way measure body fatness.

I am clearly not a fan of Mr. Keys yet I will acknowledge that while he did state BMI might prove appropriate for population studies (it does not), he did actually cite that BMI would not be inappropriate for individual evaluation (it isn’t). This message was unheeded and BMI due to its simplicity has become ubiquitous as a global measure of individual obesity despite the fact that BMI it is 48% and 25% inaccurate in women and men respectively. PLOS ONE Study

TIME magazine once again fell victim to Keys misinformation with the 2009 cover story The Myth about Exercise, authored by John Cloud who suggests exercise won’t help you lose “weight”. If you have read my blogs or heard me speak publically you know that I do not personally use the term weight-loss, or measure success by scale weight or BMI because each provide absolutely no verifiable information about body composition and what exactly is being lost or gained (water, excess fat or lean muscle).

In the spirit of Ancel Keys, Mr. Cloud likewise oversimplifies data and attempts to mold generic terms like “weight” “exercise” and “calories / calorie balance” to fit his theory. The article is pretty much a contradiction and a complete waste of words aside from the acknowledgement that exercise is good for you.

Cloud describes himself as a habitual exerciser who has generally maintained a body weight of 163 pounds his entire adult life yet still has a fat gut that hangs over his belt when he sits. He acknowledges some benefits of “exercise”: “Sure. It does plenty. In addition to enhancing heart health and helping prevent disease, exercise
improves your mental health and cognitive ability”.

A study published in June in the journal Neurology found that older people who exercise at least once a week are 30% more likely to maintain cognitive function than those who exercise less. Another study, released by the University of Alberta earlier this year, found that people with chronic back pain who exercise four days a week have 36% less disability than those who exercise only two or three days a week.

The author instead fixates on scale weight; saying exercise will not help you to lose weight, and may in fact be responsible for people gaining weight. “Weight” is not the issue. Scale weight can increase with exercise due to increasing lean muscle mass. Muscle is much denser than fat, improves metabolism, skeletal structure, prevents injuries the list goes on. Neither weight nor BMI are acceptable methods to define health or exercise success. Most athletes weigh more than non-exercising people due to muscle density. What is important and not discussed is body composition, specifically the ratio of fat to lean muscle.

When discussing exercise, the author remains vague but seems to focus his efforts and his inaccurately measured expenditures on cardiovascular type exercise, which in itself is problematic, overdoing cardio does not contribute to fat loss, instead when the limited resource of glycogen stores needed to propel muscle aided by oxygen in the muscle are depleted, the next source of energy used is predominantly protein derived by breaking down muscle tissue (gluconeogenesis), not fat.

Weight training is by far the superior method of exercise to improve body composition (lean mass to fat mass ratios). While an important component of health, cardiovascular training as the name implies conditions your heart and respiratory system and does not build lean muscle or create shape. As noted above it can breakdown muscle tissue while sparing fat loss… the reason why commercials featuring treadmills and climbers mislead viewers by focusing on “burning calories”?

To further explain the idiocy of measuring exercise success by calories burned – the benefits of exercise should never be measured by calories. A calorie is a fictitious unit of measure that describes the amount of heat produced if you incinerated a nutrient in a metal oven called a calorimeter. The human digestive system is far more complex than a metal oven and nutrients are absorbed and break down at different speeds and elicit a variety of hormonal and chemical reactions that determine whether the nutrient will be used as energy, build a material such as muscle and or fat or pass through. Counting calories makes even less sense than saying the weight of the food you eat, equals the amount of weight you will gain, at least momentarily the latter is true.

Regardless Cloud references calories and the calorie balance theory (calories in versus calories out) continuing his vague, nondescript and unreliable theories. The calorie balance myth is another topic I have written on extensively. Humans do not burn calories, we burn ATP derived from nutrients and all foods are not created equal. If people who exercised specifically with a goal to “burn calories” actually knew how few “calories” or the amount of nutrient derived energy was actually consumed by exercise they likely wouldn’t do it. Despite the calorie counting mechanisms on cardio machines are generic and grossly inaccurate, what most people don’t realize is that during an exercise session if you hypothetically burned 250 calories, if you had instead opted to stand beside the machine instead of exercising on it you would likely have consumed more that 200 of the units, because the body is always at work maintaining function and using energy, exercise contributes very little to energy consumption, but has many more long term health benefits.

Perhaps strangest of all, the author seems to suggest that it is normal to use exercise as an excuse to “reward yourself” by gorging on junk food post exercise. If this is a habit of the author it seems likely that he is focusing his exercise efforts on long in duration cardiovascular activities which will deplete glycogen stores and break down muscle tissue, fat will not be accessed as a fuel during the activity and post consumption of “junk food”, all of the sugar consumed in excess of capacity to refill glycogen stores in the muscle will be sent to the liver to be converted to, and stored as fat. This likely explains the fat waist the author can’t get rid of.

To summarize, most of what people have been told about exercise and nutrition for the last half century is dead wrong. We need to metaphorically acknowledge that the world is not flat and change our perspective of the universe. To combat excess fat we need to change the message, beginning with the mind set “that exercise is good for you”. The belief structure and phrase we need to adopt is not… that exercise is good for you but instead it is that it is bad for you if you don’t. Regardless of age, gender, ability or present condition it is time to embracing the life enhancing body mind and spirit benefits of a comprehensive healthy lifestyle.

* Forking Right is a trademark of Grant Roberts Inc.

© 2014 – Copyrights Grant Roberts, All Rights Reserved

Health Check…Out: Canada

Written by Grant Roberts. Posted in Unified News

This may be one of the most revolutionary nutrition news stories of the past thirty-four years depending upon how the Canadian Heart & Stroke association changes their nutritional recommendations. If you are awaiting part two of my recent blog: Fat Waist of TIME – Part One consider this part 1.5.

Before publishing the Fat Waist of TIME – Part One article, I forwarded a copy to a colleague who works for the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation, an organization very similar to the America Heart Association. On June 18th I received a return email with a Media Release link and the message “I think you are going to be happy”.

See News Release:

Because of this changing landscape, Health Check is no longer the right program for the time.”

 To summarize my original blog, I suggest the current obesity epidemic is principally the fault of an oversimplified hypothesis that we are getting fat because we are eating too much fat, conceived by a dubious scientist name Ancel Keys, who was featured in TIME magazine 1961. Keys published a paper recommending the benefits of a low fat diet infamously known as the Seven Country Study. It should have been called the Twenty-two country study but Keys deleted / ignored data from fifteen other countries that contradicted his desired outcome.

Long story short, Keys convinced the American Heart Association, who in turn influenced the USDA to publish the first Nutritional Guidelines in 1980 which led to the unprecedented rise in obesity and related diseases from the nations adherence to the low fat recommendations largely influenced my cute logos of happy hearts and check marks insinuating the packaged food was an endorsed and trustworthy healthy choice.

I explained why the grain based diet is particularily problematic and that grain remains the primary active ingredient of choice to fatten any mammal be they factory farmed humans or cattle. At the end of the blog I acknowledged the welcomed leap forward with TIME magazine reversing its position on the demonization of fat, in the  June 23rd 2014 edition.

I ended the Part 1 of the  blog with a note of skepticism regarding the American Heart Association, thinking they would be reluctant to admit any error in judgment or change its position because the organization also makes a lot of money selling the Heart Smart™ logo to any takers.

Other than the providing a check made payable to the American Heart Association – Heart Smart Program products are required to meet the following low fat requirements, virtually unchanged from Ancel Keys recommendations decades ago:

Heart-Check Food Certification Program Nutrition Requirements

To my great surprise the Canadian sister organization Heart & Stroke Foundation that also sells a Health Check symbol in favor of low fat foods has announced they will be discontinuing the low fat program due to “changing landscape” stating “Heart Check is no longer the right program for the time.”

I immediately responded to the Heart & Strokes comment section hoping to encourage the Canadian public:

Heart & Stroke Foundation – You Are My Hero!

Finally an organization has displayed the courage to say the Emperor has no clothes.

I recently wrote an article on the originating cause of the current obesity epidemic:

The low fat diet advice – the soon to be former health check program has been promoting without any credible scientific evidence of support, is in fact the primary reason.

Your statement that you will direct new funding for innovative nutrition- focused research encourages me. Please accept my invitation to provide you mountains of empirical science based research on the solution to the obesity epidemic and related diseases through nutrition and lifestyle management.

I am however concerned about your opening statement. It’s OK, you can say you made a mistake, and I wish you would be honest with the Nation. For the past 15 years you have sold a logo for profit promoting low fat foods that actually contribute more than any other category to metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  Yes, you can say you didn’t know any better and you were simply following the Governments (industry influenced) guidelines. Take a stand. Admit it and take pride in the fact that you finally recognized the blatantly obvious error in nutritional judgment – that fat is unquestionably an essential component of daily nutrition and healthy body composition.

I earnestly implore you – you have my unconditional support to reverse the nutrient order and promote a truly healthy diet based on delivering the five (5) essential nutrients (water, protein, fat, minerals and vitamins) in optimum amounts while encouraging the appropriate limited consumption of non-processed carbohydrate choices.

To anyone reading my comment please second the motion to the Heart & Stroke Foundation to accept my offer; together we can lead the way to a healthier Canada by following a unified lifestyle.


Grant Roberts


© 2014 – Copyright Grant Roberts, All Rights Reserved



WordPress SEO