After watching the video The Perfect Human Diet, I had a few questions. One was about the change from the low-carb diet routinely prescribed by doctors for chronic conditions since 1863. The movie explains that Banting researched and wrote a book that became the accepted paradigm in treating obesity and chronic conditions that accompanied it, but that all changed in the 1960s. The video doesn’t explain why.
That information was not relevant to the video’s purpose. It’s entirely relevant to mine, seeing as my daily fight with clients, my children, my doctors, and online trolls is to refute decades of poor science and corruption in the nutritional sciences.
Needlesstosay, the change sprung from payoff money and politics.
At last, the Journal of the American Medical Association has published some facts about the money trail that wound its way through Harvard in the 1960’s. Harvard nutrition is one of the worst institutional offenders of good nutrition still today (I hope one of their students who received a worthless nutrition degree sues them soon). Even today, Harvard is attacking “Nutrition-related disease states such as diabetes and obesity” by “the use of therapies at the cellular and molecular levels. The Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard seeks to establish a research environment which encourages the approach to defining common clinical nutrition research problems using the most sophisticated technology and scientific knowledge available.”
Or they could just tell you to eat meat and not products made by the corporations that fund their research.
We all already know about the poor science that was used to support the lipid-heart hypothesis. The efforts of the Paleo movement to analyze, apply logic, and push current scientists to re-examine established dogma have revealed the scandalous origins in the ideological Ancel Keys and McGovern Commission. Now we know the money angle provided by industry to academia and policians.
Sugar not saturated fat has ALWAYS been the culprit in heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Since the first published nutrition guide in 1863 by Banting, the medical establishment accepted and succeeded in prescribing low-carbohydrate diets for these chronic conditions, especially focusing on restricting sweeteners and refined carbohydrates. After 100 years of this – an entire century of success – it all changed in the 1960′s. Why? Here’s why: Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates
The Money Trail is No Longer Disputed
From the NY Times article reporting this study: “In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.
“Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”
“As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.
“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.
“After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities”