Dietary Guidelines from 1983 onwards: How we got this all so very wrong!

It's this simple. We got our guidelines completely wrong! The wrong people set them. The wrong people have profited from them and the wrong people are continuing to interfere with the science and research evidence.

Let me explain.

Pre-1977 in the States and 1983 in the UK our guideless were wrapped around meat and two veg. We came from a time where food was not in such abundance as it is today and so we ate a nutrient dense diet. We didn't have an obesity or diabetes epidemic and heart disease, strokes and Alzheimer's wasn't the concern it is today.

Then things dramatically changed.

People were recovering from the 2nd World War in terms of having more money to spend and being able to eat out more. McDonalds opened it's first restaurants in the late 50s and were building momentum through the 60s and 70s.

A select committee headed up by Senator McGovern was commissioned to look into the problems of malnutrition in the United States. Unfortunately, this small committee's members was largely made up of people with invested interests in commercial food companies. There was also an heavy influence by the 7th Day Adventist group, a religious group still very active today influencing dietary guidance who fundamentally believe that meat is bad for the soul. They believe that its consumption creates corrupt minds in men and will send women to hell.

This was the group that developed the first set of guidelines that changed the course of history forever. Despite advice to the contrary from scientific scholars, the guidelines recommended a higher intake of carbohydrates (since these could be priced more cheaply), a lowing of dietary fat particularly saturated fat and a reduction in consumption of red meat.

The tide was turned.

It is today recognised by many scientific researchers most notably Dr Zoe Harcombe that these guidelines were not based on any research evidence and that ever since there has been an effort to support such guidelines, which is not how evidence-based practice works by the way. But the research that does now exist, does not support them. And never has.

The problem today is that pharmaceutical companies who make statins to lower cholesterol (based on the assumption high cholesterol is bad) by blocking the liver's ability to make Low Density Lipoproteins that carry cholesterol around the body to where it is needed are amongst the richest in the world.

The food companies and sponsors of research such as Kellogg's and, of course, supermarket chains are part of a multi-billion dollar industry too. Diabetes UK is sponsored by Tesco's for example and the Pharmaceutical industry pays $10 million a year to the medical advisory boards who write the curricula for medical degree programs that educate our doctors.

To add insult to injury, as you track major shareholders of some of the richest companies in the world you can see a migration from tobacco companies ('60s) to food companies ('90s) and now into the pharmaceutical companies (modern day) with many such shareholders with shares in both (i.e. companies that cause modern-day sickness as well as those that sell drugs to treat them).

The only cure to a lifestyle disease is lifestyle change. Drugs will never cure modern-day diseases like diabetes and heart disease only cover up the symptoms.

So, the good news.

There are many doctors who know better. Many of them are here www.diabetes.co.uk a website that is not the the official UK Government site (which is .ork.uk) and here www.phc.org.uk a group of medical professionals that take a lifestyle approach to medical intervention to tackle the route cause of sickness as opposed to simply medicating the symptoms.

Suffice to say, Allison and I both attend these conferences and conventions to ensure the guidance we offer is sound and safe. I am research trained with a post-graduate degree, formerly a university lecturer and once upon a time a PhD student to become a Dr too before succumbing to the overwhelming need to help others who most need it as opposed to the continued teaching of academic theory.

Hope this helps.

Darren