Dairy Officially Deemed Unhealthy

Dairy, Nutrition, Diet, Digestive Health, Organic Food, Food Intolerance

The Harvard School of Public Health sent a strong message to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and nutrition experts everywhere with the recent release of its “Healthy Eating Plate” food guide.  The university was responding to the USDA’s new MyPlate guide for healthy eating, which replaced the outdated and misguided food pyramid.

Harvard’s nutrition experts did not pull punches, declaring that the university’s food guide was based on sound nutrition research. The greatest evidence of its research focus is the absence of dairy products from the “Healthy Eating Plate” based on Harvard’s assessment that “…high intake can increase the risk of prostate cancer and possibly ovarian cancer.”  The Harvard experts also referred to the high levels of saturated fat in most dairy products and suggested that collards, bok choy, fortified soy milk, and baked beans are safer choices than dairy for obtaining calcium, as are high quality supplements.

In my practice, I try to emphasize to people how “duped” we’ve been by the dairy industry, and that dairy products aren’t indeed the most nutritious source of calcium, as we’ve been brainwashed to believe in our society. Of course, this report doesn’t mean that you should avoid dairy entirely, especially when you can acquire local or non-commercial organic sources. Mainly, the take-away message here is that both past and present food recommendations from the government have emphasized dairy as a requirement, and this is clearly not the case!

Vitamins and Death? Not So Fast . . .

A lot of hype and negative press has been surrounding the recent study that demonstrated the supposed risks of taking supplements.  This is a reprint of an editorial written by Alan Gaby, M.D. that exposes the faults of this study, and why it should be taken with a grain of salt!
An observational study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that women using multivitamins or certain other common vitamin and mineral supplements had higher mortality risk over 22 years. However, while it achieved widespread media coverage, it did not provide any convincing evidence that nutritional supplements are harmful. Researchers calculated the mortality rates were by manipulating the data, and nothing in the study contradicts decades of controlled research showing healthful benefits of these vitamins and minerals.

What the study said

In this study, 38,772 women from Iowa, whose average age was 62 years, filled out questionnaires three times over an 18-year period regarding dietary supplement use.

After a total of 22 years, researchers followed up and report that the risk of dying from any cause appeared to be 6% higher among women who took a multivitamin supplement than among women who did not take a multivitamin. Additional supplemention with vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper was also said to be associated with increased mortality rates.

Two factors should be taken into consideration while interpreting these results, the method used for calculating the results and the type of study.

Interpreting mortality risk methodology

The media coverage did not note a potentially serious problem with this study: that researchers looked at “adjusted” mortality rates rather than actual mortality rates in the population of women who took supplements, adjusting for a wide range of factors including caloric intake, cigarette smoking, body mass index, blood pressure, educational level, diabetes, use of hormone-replacement therapy, physical activity, and intake of fruits and vegetables.

Studying health events to find patterns in a population (epidemiology) is a relatively inexact science, and it is quite possible that the assumptions upon which the researchers based their adjustments were not entirely correct. When they adjusted the data only for age and caloric intake, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality rate between supplement users and nonusers.

Observation only tells part of the story

The study was observational, meaning that while it might show a relationship between certain supplements and mortality, it does not provide evidence that one causes the other.

In observational studies, scientists correlate various lifestyle factors with health outcomes. Such studies help researchers develop hypotheses that can be investigated further, but the only type of study that can prove cause and effect is a randomized controlled trial, in which participants are randomly assigned to receive either a particular treatment or a placebo (an inert dummy pill) without knowing whether they are getting the treatment or not.

In the history of medical research, results of observational studies have sometimes eventually been contradicted by randomized controlled trials. In a famous example, numerous observational studies suggested that the use of hormone-replacement therapy by postmenopausal women prevents heart disease, but subsequent randomized controlled trials demonstrated that hormone-replacement therapy either has no effect or actually increases the risk of heart disease.

Should women stop taking supplements?

The new study does not negate previous research demonstrating that vitamins and minerals can have a wide range of health benefits. However, as with all substances that can affect your health, talk to your doctor about which dietary supplements are right for you.

(Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1625–33)

Is Eating Healthy Really More Expensive?

Time and again, I hear from patients that it’s too expensive to buy “healthy” food on a regular basis. It’s often this misconception that prevents them from following a healthy diet long-term, ultimately obstructing their ability to heal, or remain healthy. Some recent research has pretty much refuted the notion that eating healthy is more expensive than eating food that’s not so good for you-In fact, quite the contrary!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?scp=5&sq=cheap%20food&st=cse

High Fructose Corn Syrup Tries To Hide Behind Name Change

In an attempt to try and fool the public, the Corn Refiner’s Association has applied with the FDA to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar”. This would imply that high fructose corn syrup is a “natural” product, when in reality it is a highly synthetic product. The move may have partly been prompted by a recent Princeton University study demonstrating that rats who consumed high fructose corn syrup “gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.”
For more information, visit the following website:

http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/09/14/high-fructose-corn-syrup-up-for-a-new-name?fb_js_fbu=757915220