Basic HTML Version
FireFlyz | 63
D
o
you watch what
you eat? Which food
groups do you tend to
consume more of and
which do you avoid?
Let’s face it, most of us
have changed (or have
considered changing) our diets because
we weren’t happy with our eating habits
and wanted to lose a few kilograms.
Search the web and you will be inun-
dated with a plethora of dieting regimes
– some even popularized by Hollywood
celebrities – that guarantee the state of
health (and not to the mention, the body)
that is ideal for you.
You may vaguely recall the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s 1992 food
guide pyramid that recommended higher
intakes of ‘breads, cereal, rice and pasta’
and lower consumption of ‘fats, oils and
sweets’ as indicated by their positions
respectively at the base and peak of the
pyramid.
The USDA’s nutrition guidelines
have seen several revisions that adopt
new scientific findings, and some say
marketing strategies set by the food and
agriculture industry. It is not uncommon
to find prominent ‘low-fat’ or “0% fat”
messaging on food packaging. Of late,
more and more of these guides and
diet plans recommend limiting intake
of carbohydrates. You probably know
someone who has sworn off rice and
noodles altogether.
Of course, medical experts keep re-
minding us that our bodies require certain
types of sugars and fats in adequate
amounts to function optimally. And
that exercise is as important as diet. But
no one can deny the media’s influence
on consumer eating behaviours. The
information that reaches us, though,
are often overwhelming, and at times,
conflicting.
A study by the Cochrane Collaboration
in 2002 has shown that “fat-restricted
diets are no better than calorie-restricted
diets in achieving long term weight
loss by overweight or obese people”.
Subsequent research found that “low-
carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets
appear to be at least as effective as low-
fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing
weight loss for up to one year”.
Recently, Sweden revised national
dietary guidelines to reject low-fat diet
beliefs in favour of low-carb, high-fat
nutrition. This followed the publication of
a study by the Swedish Council on Health
Technology Assessment after a review of
16,000 studies.
Wel l-known Swedish
hea l th bl ogger Dr.
Andreas Eenfeldt
(www.dietdoctor.
com), in iterating
some of the study’s
f indings, stated
that the health care
system had previously
dismissed a low-carb, high
fat diet because it lacked scientific
backing. But this report basically over-
turns that view.
Critics of the low-fat diet have been
advocating the benefits of saturated fat
(think butter and bacon!) and are all
for reducing intake of carbohydrate-rich
foods like potatoes, pasta, rice and bread
to achieve healthy levels of insulin and
good cholesterol.
Not long ago, British media high-
lighted the story of identical twins Chris
and Xand van Tulleken, who underwent
a short experiment. Chris, a physician
at London’s University College Hospital
assumed an essentially no-carb, high-fat
diet, whilst Xand, director of the Institute
of Humanitarian Affairs at New York’s
Forham University went the low-fat,
high-carb route.
In the end, both brothers lost weight,
although Xand lost more – about 4kg
vs. Chris’ 1kg in a month. The van
Tullekens concluded that neither regime
was good in the long run. Singling out and
completely eliminating macro-nutrients
like fat or sugar can be detrimental to
your health, as evidenced by Chris’
constant snacking and never feeling full,
and Xand feeling slow both mentally and
physically. The twins also deduced that
the real culprits when it comes to weight
gain are processed foods that were high
in both fat and sugar.
So while the sugar vs fat debate con-
tinues, perhaps we should just stick to
the sage advice of exercising regularly
and eating in moderation?