Posted on by Geoff Clarke

How fat got a bum rap.

With all this talk about fake news and alternative facts, you might be lead to believe that this is a new phenomenon. While, admittedly, the recent assertions of alternative facts in place of actual dialog is disconcerting, the fact of the matter is that the art of developing and disseminating false narratives has been around a long, long time.

Take the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), a trade association for the sugar industry in the United States, for example. Fearing market share losses in the wake of a handful of papers linking sucrose to serum cholesterol levels (and ultimately chronic heart disease) back in the 1960s, the organization funded a research program specifically designed to discredit these links and instead point the finger directly at dietary fat consumption. Given that both theories existed at the time, a credible argument could have been made, at least to some capacity. However the way by which the SRF demonized particular dietary fats—which ultimately impacted both federal policy and public opinion– is suspect at best.

The SRF hired credible nutritionists, expressed desired conclusions, provided the articles deemed relevant for analysis and had access to early drafts to a report that would eventually be titled, “Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease.” The report attacked possible biases and inconsistencies in individual reports that correlated sugar consumption with chronic heart disease (CHD) while not addressing the greater trends that emerged across these studies, and concluded that the only step required to reduce the risk of CHD was the elimination of saturated fats from one’s diet. Additionally, when the report was released in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, the SRF’s participation and funding was omitted.

All this comes from a recent report by JAMA Internal Medicine that had access to SRF internal documents. It’s a pretty interesting read that sheds light on how an industry is capable of influencing federal policy decisions.

Posted on by Geoff Clarke

Ask Dr. Dadcore*

*Dr. Dadcore is not a doctor

 

A long-time reader writes:

“Dear Dr. Dadcore,

A number of gluten-free diets have popped up over the last couple of years. What’s the deal with gluten?

Sincerely,

Your wife

PS – We’re almost out of cat food, could you pick some up on the way home today.”

 

Thanks for the question, Rachael. Given that gluten is found in the endosperm of grass-related grains, one might falsely conclude that it was a carbohydrate of some kind. In fact, gluten is a protein compound and is primarily responsible for the elasticity of dough and the chewiness of bread.

At the root of the gluten-free diet phenomenon is celiac disease, an autoimmune disease affecting approximately 1 out of every 133 Americans. The disease damages the lining of the small intestine, which ultimately impedes the absorption of nutrients.

The consumption of gliadin–one of the proteins that comprise gluten—by a person with celiac disease triggers an inflammatory response which eats away at the hair-like villi that line the small intestine and are responsible for the absorption of nutrients. The prolonged unchecked consumption of gliadin results in the diminished absorption of certain vitamins, minerals, protein and overall energy.

 

If diagnosed with celiac disease, as there is no current cure, the best way to ensure that your body absorbs all the required nutrients it needs is through the implementation of a gluten-free diet. Sounds easy enough at face value, but given the extant that wheat-like grains are processed, and the fact that gluten is often employed as a binding agent in foods you’d be surprised where gluten can end up.  (Processed cheeses and meats, soy sauce, root beer, and canned baked beans being just a few examples.)  Log story short, you’ll want to make sure that any processed foods purchased are labeled “gluten-free”.

 

The purveyors of the gluten-free diet are also appealing to those who identify themselves as gluten-sensitive or –intolerant; those who experience milder versions of the symptoms exhibited with celiac disease though without the autoimmune component. In other words, the absorption of nutrients is not an issue. And while the ranks of the gluten-sensitive significantly outnumber those with celiac disease, the process of diagnosing is significantly more subjective and as of yet there is no conclusive data indicating that a gluten-free diet is warranted.   That said, if you think you feel better by reducing your gluten intake…then stick with it, by all means.

 

After all, gluten is found in all wheat-based products, the lion-share of which are made with refined flour. In contrast to whole grains, refined flour is low in nutrients & fiber, and induces large fluctuations in blood glucose and insulin levels upon consumption.

 

Ultimately the gluten-free phenomenon is really just an aspect of a larger dietary fad which preys upon our lack of understanding of chronic inflammation in the body….but I’ll save that for a later date.   In the meanwhile, if you’ve got a burning question pertaining to nutrition or fitness you’re welcome to leave me a message on my contact page. I may not have an answer, but I’ll happily research the matter and discuss what I’ve learned.

Posted on by Geoff Clarke

“…and knowing is half the battle.” – G.I. Joe

Yeah, yeah…it’s been while since I posted last, I know. Long story short, both the kids and I are back in school and it’s taken a while to recalibrate.

Well, truth be told, I’m still recalibrating…but I wanted to pass along a few things I learned about nutrition labels in—wait for it—my nutrition class.

Standardized food labeling, as we know it, is a product of the Nutrition Labeling & Education Act, established in 1990 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and contains 5 components:

  • Name of product
  • The net contents
  • An ingredient list
  • Contact information of food manufacturer, packer or distributer
  • Nutrition data

Meat and poultry are exempt from this particular format as they are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).   The USDA developed its own standardized labeling in 2012, though as the label is usually located on the bottom of the packaging, it doesn’t have the visual impact of the FDA’s. Heck, if you weren’t looking for it, you might not even be aware of its existence. Additionally, while the labels require the inclusion of saturated fat content, disclosure of the product’s trans fat content is voluntary.   In defense of the USDA, the trans fat levels in meat are traditionally low and they are of the naturally occurring variety, which shouldn’t be confused with the industrially produced trans fats found in margarine and processed foods.

Coffee and most spices are also exempt from labeling given that they contain insignificant amounts of the nutrients covered by the FDA’s labeling guidelines.

The ingredients list, usually located at the bottom of the Nutrition Facts graphic, is a list of all the ingredients in their common names in descending order according to weight.   Is this an earth-shattering revelation? Hardly, though it was news to me.

There are three kinds of claims that can be found on packaged food labels: nutrient claims, health claims, and structure-functioning claims—the first two requiring FDA approval.

Nutrient Claims like “High in fiber” or “low fat” correlate with the data on the Nutrition Facts graphic, which is based on a daily diet of 2000 Calories. According to Nutrition: An Applied Approach, which distilled data from the FDA’s Food Labeling Guide, nutrient claims must adhere to the following guidelines:

Energy:

  • Calorie Free – Less than 5 kcal per serving
  • Low Calorie – 40 kcal or less per serving
  • Reduced Calorie – At least 25% fewer kcal than reference (or regular) food

Fat and Cholesterol:

  • Fat Free – Less than 0.5 g of fat per serving
  • Low Fat -3 g or less fat per serving
  • Reduced Fat -At least 25% less fat per serving than reference food
  • Saturated fat free-Less than 0.5 g of saturated fat AND less than 0.5 g of trans fat per serving.
  • Low Saturated Fat- 1 g or less saturated fat and less than 0.5 g trans fat per serving AND 15% or less of total kcal from saturated fat
  • Reduced Saturated Fat – At least 25% less saturated fat AND reduced by more than 1 g saturated fat per serving as compared to reference food
  • Cholesterol free -Less than 2 mg of cholesterol per serving AND 2 g or less saturated fat and trans fat combined per serving
  • Low Cholesterol – 20 mg or less cholesterol AND 2 g or less saturated fat per serving
  • Reduced Cholesterol – At least 25% less cholesterol than reference food AND 2 g or less saturated fat per serving

Fiber and Sugar

  • High Fiber – 5 g or more fiber per serving*
  • Good source of fiber – 2.5 g to 4.9 g fiber per serving
  • More or added fiber – At least 2.5 g more fiber per serving than reference food
  • Sugar Free – Less than 0.5 g sugars per serving
  • Low Sugar – Not defined; no basis for recommended intake
  • Reduced/less sugar – At least 25% less sugars per serving than reference food
  • No added sugars or without added sugars – No sugar or sugar-containing ingredient added during processing

Sodium:

  • Sodium Free – Less than 5 mg sodium per serving
  • Very low sodium – 35 mg or less sodium per serving
  • Low Sodium – 140 mg or less sodium per serving
  • Reduced Sodium – At least 25% less sodium per serving than reference food

Relative Terms:

  • Free, without, no zero – No or a trivial amount of given nutrient
  • Light (or lite) – This term can have three different meanings: (1) A serving provides 1/3 fewer kcal than or half the fat of the reference food; (2) a serving of a low-fat, low-Calorie food provides half the sodium normally present; or (3) lighter in color and texture, with the label making this clear (for example, light molasses)
  • Reduced, less, fewer – Contains at least 25% less of a nutrient or kcal than reference food
  • More, added, extra, or plus – At least 10% of the Daily Value of a nutrient as compared to reference food (may occur naturally or be added); may be used only for vitamins, minerals, protein, dietary fiber, and potassium
  • Good source of, contains, or provides – 10% to 19% of Daily value per serving (may not be used for carbohydrate)
  • High in, rich in, or excellent source of – 20% or more of Daily value per serving for protein, vitamins, minerals, dietary fiber, or potassium (may not be used for carbohydrates)

*High fiber claims must also meet the definition of low fat; if not, then the level of total fat must appear next to the high fiber claim

Health Claims frame aspects of a product’s nutritional data in the context of heath concerns. For example, the box of a whole-grain cereal might indicate, “Low fat diets high in whole-grain fiber may reduce the risks of certain cancers.”   Given the qualitative nature of such claims, the FDA grades all health claims on a scale of A through D–all but “A” requiring the addition of some form of disclaimer:

Table 1. Standardized Qualifying Language for Qualified Health Claims.

Scientific Ranking* FDA Category Appropriate Qualifying Language**
Second Level B “…although there is scientific evidence supporting the claim, the evidence is not conclusive.”
Third Level C “Some scientific evidence suggests … however, FDA has determined that this evidence is limited and not conclusive.”
Fourth Level D “Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests… FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim.”
*From Guidance for Industry and FDA: Interim Evidence-based Ranking System for Scientific Data.

**The language reflects wording used in qualified health claims as to which the agency has previously exercised enforcement discretion for certain dietary supplements. During this interim period, the precise language as to which the agency considers exercising enforcement discretion may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

Structure-Function Claims describe how specific nutrients within a product theoretically apply to functions and structure within the body. For example, a milk carton may contain the claim “Builds Stronger Bones.” It is important to remember that such claims do not require FDA approval. At worst, they can be factually inaccurate or misleading. At best, they’re claims made in a vacuum, devoid of context. For example, while it’s true that milk contains calcium and calcium is an integral nutrient in the maintenance of healthy bones, if you are unable to properly absorb calcium due, for example, to an undiagnosed Vitamin D deficiency, then the claim is technically inaccurate.

Long story short: caveat emptor.  The more you know, the better decisions you can make.

Want to know even more?  Click here.

Posted on by Geoff Clarke · 17 Comments

Greetings And Salutations

My name is Geoff Clarke. I’m a 45-year-old stay-at-home dad transitioning to a career centered around nutritional science and personal training.

“So, what’s that all about?” you ask. Well….

All of my life I was one of those guys who ate whatever he wanted with little to no consequence…”was” being the operative word. Somewhere in my early-thirties something changed: my metabolism, to be specific. Not quite ready to address the issue at hand, however, I did the next most practical thing: I bought a larger set of pants.

This little dance went on for a number of years. I experienced “sympathetic weight gain” when my wife was pregnant with our first child.   Though while she shed her pounds quickly after birth, mine remained. Undaunted, I stuck to my guns and kept buying larger pants. That is, until the birth of our second child.

At that point I was at my heaviest—235 lbs. (While that may not seem overly excessive, bear in mind that I’m 5’10” and weighed a whoppin’ 125 lbs. when I graduated high school.) Additionally, I had also just been informed by my doctor that I was “pre-diabetic”—a nice way of saying that type 2 diabetes was in my future if I didn’t change things.

So I decided to change things.

Not for me, mind you, I decided to change things for my kids. Certainly, I wanted to ensure that I was in good heath so that I could be there for them as long as I could…but it was more than that. I wanted them to know that one simply doesn’t have to accept adversity at face value…that even if not readily armed for the task, one can start chipping away at a problem…that, if determined, a once-daunting obstacle can be reduced to a harmless mound of chips over time.

The funny thing is, in the back of my mind I always knew there would be some motivator that would literally get me off my butt—I just didn’t know when it would manifest. And while I make no claim of being the perfect parent, this desire to teach through example is likely my favorite aspect of parenthood.

Anyway, my youngest is now 8 years old. Over this time I have transitioned from an inactive guy in his late-30s who ate poorly and drank too much, to a guy in his mid-40s who attempts to feed his family with as few processed foods as possible and participates in 12-mile mud runs for fun. Not only do I feel great, I have the confidence that only comes through knowing I could whup my 25-year-old self. Take that, youth!

As I embark upon my new career path, I’ll be using this blog to process thoughts and information. I would love to say that it was my idea, but really, my wife suggested it.

Thanks for reading. I hope you continue to do so.