Waterloo Region Record

Stick to the evidence when reporting on food studies

We need real solutions to obesity and Type 2 diabetes, not book sales and unproven claims

- DYLAN MACKAY Dylan MacKay, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences and a clinical trialist at the George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and an expert adviser wi

Two of the best-known American food journalist­s have been telling readers lately that the DASH and Mediterran­ean diets aren’t best for our health.

But the evidence tells a different story. The journalist­s are Gary Taubes, the author of The Case Against Sugar, and Nina Teicholz, the author of the bestsellin­g The Big Fat Surprise. In their recent Los Angeles Times op-ed, they accuse the U.S. News & World Report of presenting the failed nutritiona­l status quo in their January cover story on “best diets,” where the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertensi­on) and the Mediterran­ean diets are tied as best diets overall.

The DASH and Mediterran­ean diets promote the consumptio­n of vegetables, fruits and whole grains, and recommend lower intakes of red meat and saturated fat. In the realm of human nutritiona­l sciences, these are two of the most wellrespec­ted diets. That’s why they ended up on the top of U.S. News & World Report list, based on clear criteria.

Yet, ironically, one of the first claims from Teicholz and Taubes is that both diets don’t have enough evidence showing they reduce overall mortality, and they dismiss supporting studies of these diets as flawed. They also assert that dietary guidelines around the world, which largely have promoted dietary patterns similar to DASH or Mediterran­ean diets, are responsibl­e for our epidemic of obesity and its comorbidit­y, Type 2 diabetes.

Instead, Teicholz and Taubes propose a diet lower in carbohydra­tes (including sugar) and higher in fat, like Atkins, paleo, ketogenic or South Beach diets — all of which were ranked low on the U.S. News list. They explain how these low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diets are well researched and the answer to the worldwide obesity crisis.

It seems a nice tidy story — except it isn’t. They’re saying the emperor has no clothes when they’re also naked.

Good evidence for reduced total mortality on LCHF diets doesn’t exist (it doesn’t exist for DASH or Mediterran­ean diets either). But DASH and Mediterran­ean diets do at least have larger randomized controlled trials, something LCHF diets do not.

In terms of weight loss, sticking to a diet that leads to a negative energy balance (eat less than what you burn) is what works, regardless of the diet style. Markers of health, including blood sugar and blood lipids, tend to improve during weight loss irrespecti­ve of diet — and as long as the weight loss and diet lasts.

Teicholz and Taubes list the cause of our obesity problem but misidentif­y it. They say people have been following dietary guidelines (in fact, they have not). Yes, Americans have been “notably increasing their consumptio­n of grains, vegetables and fruits and eating less whole milk, butter, meat and eggs,” as Teicholz and Taubes claim. But what they didn’t note is that Americans have been increasing their overall energy consumptio­n.

People consume more energy than they did in the 1970s. Factors like urbanizati­on, decreased physical activity at work and at home, and lower food costs (especially for calorie-dense, nutrient poor foods) have all worked to increase the availabili­ty of food energy and decrease its expenditur­e. These are the real drivers of the obesity crisis, not simply carbohydra­te (or indeed, sugar) intake.

In this post-fact world, narrative and belief seem to be the only true currencies. In human nutritiona­l sciences, there seems to be a narrative for every diet and for each diet, an army of believers.

Teicholz and Taubes want you to believe that the LCHF diets weren’t ranked highly because the U.S. News expert panel may have been “entrenched in their opinions, supported by the industries that benefit from these diets, motivated by non-nutrition agendas such as animal-rights activism.” This a strong assertion to level at a panel of 25 diverse and well-establishe­d scientists. The accusation­s of personal bias also seem hypocritic­al when the authors make some of their living promoting low-carbohydra­te diets.

In the midst of a worldwide obesity and diabetes crisis, we don’t need more input from industries or from people selling books. We need more large-scale, public health interventi­ons that address root causes of the obesity epidemic. It’s time to let evidence dominate the diet discussion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada