Hannah Sutter

£80,000,000 spent unnecessarily

admin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:22 +0000

Last week the NHS published an interesting report providing us with up to date information on obesity in the UK. It did not attract much press attention because it repeats the same sad old story which is that the fat are getting fatter and diabetes and other associated illnesses are on the rise. What was slightly new was that there was a 100% growth in bariatric surgery which reflects the desperation for those who are overweight or obese.
These studies are great but only if someone actually reads them and then decides to take remedial action otherwise why bother spending all that money collecting all that data if you are just going to carry on doing what you are doing regardless. Amazing really.
In the same week we were also told that due to obese people had increased our incapacity benefit bill by £80million. God knows what the bill would be if you then added on all the costs to the NHS dealing with the side effects of obesity. With the average bariatric operation costing £7,000 the figure of £80million would equal 11 million operations.
This is quite an eye opener. Now if you then said that we could get the same results as bariatric surgery for just £1000 that would increase the number of people, who could solve their obesity problem, significantly. How mad is all this? £80million spent unnecessarily on a problem that can be solved by a simple diet change or the surgeon’s knife.

The FSA - Business as Usual

admin — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:43:07 +0000

Last week I wrote about the publication of a study which suggests that there is no link between the intake of saturated fats and CVD and this was referred to today in an food industry newsletter. In particular they referred to the actual conclusion of that study:
“Our meta-analysis showed that there is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD”

The journalist for this particular industry publication then went on to ask for a comment from the FSA ( Food Standards Agency) as this particular government office has only just recently announced that it wants to reduce our intake of saturated fats even further.

“The Agency recognises that there is evidence to support an indirect link between saturated fat intake and increased LDL cholesterol, which may lead to increased risk of CHD. This is in line with World Health Organization and other eminent health bodies,”

So let’s just make this clear. You can’t eat saturated fats because of an indirect link that may lead to ……heart disease. This is the vaguest connection I have ever read from a so called serious scientific body. This is the same organisation that released a statement just three weeks ago telling us to stop eating saturated fats because it would definitely save lives…Hello. We have gone from a definite risk to a really vague connection. Well just so that we are all clear. The studies that they are relying on when they make this statement are so flawed it would make you weep.

Secondly the FSA appears to be hiding behind another organisation’s view – the WHO.

This would be all fine and dandy if it was correct but unfortunately for the FSA, the WHO has recently published a study which shows that there is NO LINK between the intake of saturated fats and heart disease. I suspect that the FSA have not been keeping up with publications by the WHO.

So when you feel all warm and cuddly relying on the advice of the FSA and believe that it is backed by the WHO and other eminent health bodies ….STOP. It isn’t. When you reach for the low fat spread believing that it is good for you remind yourself that humans were never designed to artificial fats. And as you tuck into the pasta the rice the bread and the potatoes remind yourself of the fact that this food is perfectly designed for a 17 hour day in the fields and not for the life of a modern man.

Peer Review and Subsequent Responsibilities

admin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:25:08 +0000

This week the Lancet officially recognised its role in the issue over MMR jab and the apparent link with various problems. They chose to officially withdraw the publication of the article which apparently showed the link.
Whilst I must applaud the Lancet for doing this, which is right a proper in light of the various ruling since the unfortunate event, it would be good to know that the editor and the peer review process takes a closer look at how it goes about approving any research for publication. Over the years since I have been looking more closely at various studies published in the Lancet and other medical publications it is disappointing to a significant number of studies published which “misrepresent” actual findings. For example there was an study published in the New England Journal of Medicine ( a most respected medical journal) which talked about low carb throughout the paper but only after a very very close read was it apparent that low carb meant about 125- 250 grams of carbs. This is not nor ever has been low carb. It is true that there is no legal definition of low carb but any expert in diet would know that there is a significant difference between reducing carbs to a level that the body goes into ketosis and simply a general reduction in carbs.
This problem of publication of research which has misleading conclusions is constantly happening and digging into past copies of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition a 2006 study was published which concluded that there is no benefit to altering the macro nutrients of diets and that everything is based on calorie intake.
If you were a lazy reader it would be easy to read the conclusion and rely on the standards of the publication and peer review process to provide the comfort you need that the conclusion is proper and thorough. Unfortunately if you did not trust the peer review process and actually read the study you would find that:-
1. They studied “adults adhering to A ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or A nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.” but concluded Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets, ” that is , they studied one diet but drew conclusions about all.

2. If you want to demonstrate metabolic advantage you have to show that some people lost more weight, calorie for calorie, than others, that is, you have to show individual behaviour. The paper is all group statistics.

So the problem faced by the Lancet is probably an issue for numerous publications.

Should we listen to a heart surgeon talking about diet?

admin — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:26:27 +0000

Having been away on holiday for a week, I woke up this morning feeling relaxed and happy with the world. Switching on to Radio Five Live, as I made my morning coffee, I heard Dr Shyam Kolvekar suggesting to the British public that we should all give up butter to reduce the risk of death from cardio vascular disease and immediately my stress levels rose again!
The delightful Shyam Kolvekar quoted a Finnish Nurses Study as the irrefutable evidence of the link between saturated fats and death from heart disease. Since this so called pinnacle study there have been many more clinical trials that have fundamentally questioned the link between saturated fats and heart disease. For example just recently the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism published a report on Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition which was part of an Expert Consultation held by the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organisation.
There was two types of studies reviewed – epidemiological (statistical association studies) and intervention studies. Looking at the epidemiological studies first it was concluded that “Intake of saturated fatty acids was not significantly associated Cardiovascular Heart Disease mortality (deaths) “ and “ Saturated Fatty Acids was not significantly associated with Cardio Vascular Disease events “ (such as heart attacks etc )
The intervention studies – which is where they actually compare people on low fat with those not on low fat diets the conclusion was “ fatal cardiovascular disease is not reduced by low fat diets”
But this week there was another significant study published which looked at 21 epidemiological studies and the conclusion was
No association between saturated fat and risk of heart disease and no association between saturated fats and risk of stroke.
So you have to wonder why our friend the heart surgeon is referring to a very old study which has been superseded by many more accurate and significant studies. When you look at his expertise there is no indication that he has a special interest in diet or fat metabolism.

M&S (” Misleading and Spurious”)

admin — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:45:49 +0000

Happy New Year
Well as the world returns to reality after our seasonal break ( well earned and much enjoyed) it was confusing to see the Marks and Spencer’s New Fuller Longer Range announced on the second of January. Surely it is not the first of April so soon?
At first I was delighted. Finally a big corporate has switched on to the fact that protein is a very critical part of the human diet and a key tool for fat loss. I then went on to read that the New M&S range also was carb controlled…whatever that means. Wow was my first reaction.
I then took the trouble to read what was in the new meals!!!! New being the operative word. Well very little was new. Protein had been increased on average by a couple of grams and in some cases the carbs had been increased. Poor old M&S. Do they think we are stupid and that we will simply read their press announcements and not actually check what is in the meals?
To suggest that these meals are significantly different, nutritionally, from any other meals they produce is misleading and to put it bluntly naughty. They also are confusing the whole high protein debate. Any shopper who thinks that the MS new range is high protein will be completely wrong. The piece de resistance was to compare these meals and this dietary programme to Atkins. Poor Dr Atkins must be rolling in his grave. I do hope his wife and the Atkins Foundation brings an action against M&S…I will drop her office a line on this.
Happy New Year!

Clearly it is a new year but the same old message …Mislead the public as much as you can and then flog as much as you can.

Exercise - what really works

admin — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:40:20 +0000

How many times a week do I hear a thin, fit person harp on about the benefits of exercise and that all fat people are fat because they don’t do enough? It must be at least once a week and often more. Then there are the people who you see in the gym every week hammering themselves on the running machine or pounding away on the step master machine hoping that being out of breath is going to really make a difference to the ever disappearing waistline.
The belief that exercise per se will make a difference is probably the most wicked of all messages ever handed out. Watching the overweight making themselves sweaty running, while feeling uncomfortable, is painful but knowing that they think the sweaty exercise it is actually helping them lose fat is heart breaking.
I have no idea where this myth about running around came from but there is no doubt about the science which was recently covered in a study published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine.
So if you want to use exercise as a tool in your fat loss programme then you need to know that:-
• Burning calories does not mean fat burn.
• The most effective heart rate for fat burn is 60 – 80% of maximum heart rate which means that you are often better doing lower impact sports.
• The key to using the body as a fat burn tool is metabolic rate and that is determined as much by the amount of muscle you have.
• Building muscle can get your heart rate up to the right fat burning level and then at the same time you can improve your metabolic rate.
Having said all this you still need to know that the fundamental key to burning fat is diet and most diets actually don’t discriminate between fat and muscle so whilst the pounds come off you could be losing the very tissue (muscle) that you need to burn the fat. What is also not often understood is that fat weighs less than muscle so measuring your progress by your weight loss can be very deceptive.
The very intelligent way to use exercise is to understand what it is really doing for you.

Is the research finally being read?

admin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:06:34 +0000

Last time I blogged I was really angry about the ridiculous publication of a piece of nonsense research apparently showing no benefit from reducing carbohydrates. The study was funded by the Sugar Board and the poor definition of a “low carb diet” highlighted the poor quality of the study. For god sake, if the Sugar Board is going to fund research designed to bad mouth low carb,it really should do it with a more professional approach.
Well, within days of this silly piece of nonsense there was another study published in Circulation ( the magazine of the American Heart Association ( the same set up as out British Heart Foundation) which showed that guess what …… a low fat diet might not be as good as a moderate fat diet! No way!
That in itself was a good read but the best bit about the whole thing was the comments made by representatives of the AHA.
A moderate-fat diet may work better than a low-fat regimen for people suffering from metabolic syndrome, a collection of conditions putting them at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, new research finds.
“This is a good study that essentially confirms that the current recommendations are appropriate,” said Alice Lichtenstein, a spokeswoman for the American Heart Association (AHA). “Since 2000, the AHA has been recommending not a low-fat diet, but one that is low in saturated fats and trans fatty acids.”
Lichtenstein explained that people with metabolic syndrome are glucose-intolerant, meaning they can’t process blood sugar well. Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets exacerbate this condition.
Now read the following which was also picked up in the US……………………………….!

Dr. Alfred Bove, president of the American College of Cardiology was not surprised by the findings. “This sort of falls within the boundaries of what we used to call the Atkins diet, which was a high-lipid and low-carb diet. Normally this kind of diet suppresses appetite, improves diabetes,” said “This diet looks like it does a good job of altering the negative metabolic effects of early diabetes or high carbohydrate stimulation,” he said.
Could it be that someone somewhere is finally bothering to read the research? Has some great mind suddenly put two and two together and work out that a high carb diet might be actually making the diabetes and obesity epidemic worse?

The same misleading stuff all over again!

admin — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:45:02 +0000

earliet this year a minor publication otherwise known as the New England Journal of Medicine chose to publish a study which apparently showed that regardless of mutrient content , all that mattered was calories in the fight agains flab.

The study in question discribed one of the diets as Low Carb but in facf the participants all had significantly more than 100 grams of carbs a day. Now whilst it was true that they had less carbs than the low fat group the actaully number of carbs was hurdly low. As there is no strict definition of low carb , nothing can be done in the public arena to explain why it is misleading to discribed that paritcular diet as low carb.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of reading in the journal Diabetes another study which apprently showed how low carbing made no difference wot weight out come and infact suggested that it had negative implications. Apart from the fact that the study was funded by the Sugar Board , that well known carbohydrate organisation it was also interesting to read that the low carb group were getting on average 300 grams of carbs a day.

Anypne with the most basic knowledge of human biochemistry would know that :-

To go into ketosis - (which is the unique state that allows the body to burn fat fast and brings with it many beneifts to CVD risk and Diabetes ) requires less than 60grams of carbs per day.

To control insulin , without ketosis it is usual to limit the intake of carbs to about 100 grams a day which means a diet rich in vegetables and fruit but not alot of starch.

How is it then that a journal like Diabetes can publish a report which is so misleading since most people will read the headline title and the summary and will not bother to read in detail the actual trial which happened to only cover a handful of people. Talk about being misleading.

Perhaps the most improtant thing to do now is to have a proper definiton of low carb and stop this abuse.

Comparing Diets - Another Trial

admin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:40:46 +0000

Just last week another comparison trial was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and again the results showed that, whilst some experts would love to prove that low starch / high protein is less effective than the standard high starch/ low fat approach, the LSHP diet did better overall.

In particular the LSHP participants were able to maintain lower blood pressure after the weight loss period had ended and found it easier to stick to this form of dieting. It is really easy to follow a LSHP diet because you really dont need to count at all. As usual the HSLF group found it harder to follow and the added health benefits of low blood pressure did not last after the strick dieting ended.

What this trial did not test was inch loss and cholesterol profile and when these have been tested in the past , it is usual to find that the LS/HP group achieves a better cholesterol profile as well as improved inch loss.

How many more clinical studies is it going to take to get someone somewhere to tell the British Public that is possible to lose more fat faster, more efficiently and more sustainably following a low starch high protein diet.

More calories ?

admin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:02:56 +0000

SACN (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) an advisory panel to the government announced to day that we should increase our calorific intake guidelines. The guideline for men would rise from 2500 to 2900 and the female guideline whould rise from 2000 to 2400.

So while the Department of Health is busy telling everyone to eat less the so called experts have decided that we are not eating enough.

This is laughable but what is far more interesting but disconcerting is that our experts haven’t woken up to the fact that calorific intake is really a very small part of the whole nutrition equation. Infact it is really a big distraction. Anyone who simply views food as a pile of calories and our bodies as simply a machine that burns calories clearly fails to understand human bio chemisty which does not treat all caloires equally.

No wonder the average person is so confused and why 60% of the UK population is fat.

Could someone somewhere please remind the so called experts that counting calories whether you are fat or thin is pretty much a complete waste of time and energy? We have all been calorie counting like mad for 30 years but guess what …..it hasn’t worked!