But I wanted to scream at the TV when the narrator began to talk about prevention of Alzheimers and recommended a low fat, low saturated fat diet! Anti-oxidents were also mentioned, with a still life of wine and grapes shown (the case for anti-oxidents isn’t a slam-dunk either, but you wouldn’t know it from the media). Those two things were all that were offered for prevention suggestions. The rest of the story about on-going research was about dicovering drug treatment (which, while proving very difficult, will be a financial boon to the lucky drug companies that come up with something with even a minimal level of efficacy.

The brain is at least 60% fat and my “library” research (I’m not the scientist in the family) indicates that high insulin (due to high CHO intake) is at least part of the mystery of Alzheimers origins, not saturated fat, cholesterol, or even total fat (except perhaps, lack of it for stuctural use). Most of what I have been coming across says that for the elderly, low cholesterol levels are associated with increased risk of dementia, too.

It has gotten to the point where I don’t even bother reading the weekly “health” section of the newspaper anymore because the info in it is so out of context, incomplete, useless and misleading, and too often, downright wrong and extremely biased (especially against saturated fat). And while the internet has its own pitfalls, it is still the best way to navigate through all the baloney to explore health issues and info.

all these components, plus the replacement of animal fats with omega 6 vegetable oils, with their proven immunosuppressive characteristics, puts the body under great oxidative stress and compromises its first lines of defence – all leading to cancer promotion of all types.

Thanks. Not too much righteous indignation?

If I were Gary Taubes, I’d say that the cancer and the obesity are probably both promoted by the same thing- excess insulin and blood glucose due to overconsumption of refined carbs.

If I were me, I’d agree with Gary Taubes.

I didn’t fully understand that (but long suspected it) until I read Gary Taubes’ book, Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control and Disease. Taubes’ excellent review of the history of nutrition studies, physiology, and biochemistry lays it out well – the contemporary “science of nutrition and obesity” we are hammered with isn’t rigorous, isn’t even all that scientific, and even when well done and the data says something rather compelling (like it isn’t merely calories in, calories out or that driving insulin up with carbohydrates increases fat storage and inhibits the release of body fat for energy), the conclusion and subsequent advice is something else entirely – just a rehash of “excess fat storage is due to sloth and gluttony”. Now they’re just simplifying it into Eat Less, Move More, like we are slothful and gluttonous morons.

So now we’re stuck with a couple generations of lousy “checkbook science” and “consensus science” ( a recipe for incorrect and biased conclusions) and no one seemed to notice that it wasn’t even “hard” science until recently. The ones who noticed were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. The low fat message has stuck like glue, nearly everyone is hooked on processed cheap convenience foods, and the parade of highly indoctrinated experts still harangues us on sloth and gluttony, but now they’re also hitting us with diseases of sloth and gluttony, that they helped inflate.

Efforts will be needed to increase education on diet and physical activity, train health professionals, restrict advertisements of high-calorie and low-nutrient foods, limit access to unhealthy foods in schools and workplaces, levy taxes on sugary drinks and other foods high in calories, fat, or sugar, lower the prices of health foods, and promote physical activity in schools and workplaces.