Chapter 23 Chapter 21 The Nutrition Pyramid and Other Health Graveyards

Balanced is a favorite word used by nutrition consultants, politicians and the media.However, the actual situation is often not the same as the outside, and there are many imbalances in the content of the balanced label.For example, nutrition authorities define a balanced diet as 60% carbohydrates, 30% fat, and 10% protein.Some more generous ones also recognize the ratio of 50%: 30%: 15%.Is this way of expression similar to the set concept in mathematics class?The latter remains incomprehensible to many. In short, the current ratio of this figure is also respected as a healthy standard by almost all nutrition societies around the world.They are presented in so-called nutritional dietary recommendations, on the basis of which experts judge the dietary behavior of individuals or entire peoples in quantitative and qualitative terms.If the diet of the respondents does not meet the recommended standards, they will be condemned: people today, especially women (especially in the age group of 25 to 51), consume far more carbohydrates Below the recommended value of the German Nutrition Society.Bread and pastries, the most important sources of carbohydrates and crude fibre, are not eaten enough, and intake of these foods, together with potatoes and legumes, should be greatly increased.This is the content of a recently published article commenting on German eating habits.

My first reaction when I read this passage, my God, the intake of these foods should be greatly increased!More bread and pastries, more cereals and potatoes, then what?Would we be healthier and live longer then?What diseases can this prevent?Has anyone done research on anyone before making this decision to change their diet?In which professional journal can the results of the study be found?For decades, we have measured our eating behavior against the recommendations of these professional societies, as if these ladies and gentlemen really knew the health benefits of their recommendations.Interestingly, nutrition consultants have always silently followed these dogmas and dared not go one step further.In today's world, I'm afraid there will never be such a blind obedience again.

Please imagine that from now on, the government will announce a speed limit for cars: on expressways, the speed of vehicles shall not exceed 80 kilometers per hour, and within any town, the speed shall not exceed 30 kilometers per hour.The reason is that it can reduce the emission of harmful gases, protect the ozone layer, and improve public health.What are the consequences of doing so?I seem to have seen the astonishingly sensational headlines in the well-heeled tabloids and the excited faces of commercial TV hosts.For the first time in their lives, the middle class, who usually follow the rules, will take to the streets on a large scale, angrily and even violently protesting the actions of the government.The opposition party and the German Automobile Club will demand that the government must first use convincing scientific research to prove the health benefits of this measure.

As for the bread we eat every day, the matter is quite different.Everyone is still accustomed to trusting the words of experts, but as for supervision, they have never thought about it.Thank God for inspiration, nutrition authorities can make wild judgments about carbohydrate-rich diets without relative research.For the nutritional guidance they make, we will not require them to submit clinical monitoring studies to prove their efficacy and safety like we do for drugs, as if this dietary change will not have a profound impact on the body, as if we do not Know that behind any kind of effect, there may be undesirable side effects!

Nutrition pundits have also created new and different ways to tell their favorite theoretical numbers game, subtly and concisely.They promote the nutrition circle model of a healthy and nutritious diet, or the nutrition pyramid adopted by most countries in the world.The instigator of the nutritional pyramid was an American who worked for the US Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health.The base of the pyramid consists of carbohydrate-rich foods: bread, pastries, cereal, pasta, potatoes and rice are all complex carbohydrates.You should eat six to seven servings of these foods a day.The second layer above, already smaller, is vegetables and fruits.It is recommended to eat two to four servings of fruit and three to five servings of vegetables every day.The third layer is even smaller and includes foods that should be eaten less, like meat, sausage, and cheese.The highest level and the smallest level are foods that should be controlled and eaten as little as possible, including various fats, sugars and sweets.

Using such a model instead of using abstract nutrient relationships to promote healthy dietary advice to the public is undoubtedly worth affirming.The nutritional pyramid, which also seems to be gaining popularity among consumers, can ease the burden of consulting experts.Therefore, there are nutrition pyramids specially designed for children in the United States. Due to the complex ethnic composition of the United States and different eating habits, there are even nutrition pyramids specially designed for people of Mediterranean, Asian and Latin American descent.It seems that there are only nutrition pyramids designed for homosexuality. I haven’t heard of it yet. Where is the fairness of Americans’ policies?

Whether it is a nutrition circle or a pyramid, the principle of propaganda is the same: reduce animal food and increase intake of plant food.The reasons behind it are questionable. It is believed that a large intake of meat, poultry, eggs, milk and their products is one of the reasons for the high incidence of heart and circulatory system diseases and cancers in the country.There is still no definite understanding of this issue.One of the reasons that is often mentioned to explain the intake of carbohydrates is that this is the traditional diet of our human beings before we have been infected with various civilization diseases.It sounds plausible: In the past, we only had meat on Sundays!Most of the time, bread and potatoes are used to fill the stomach.People back then were healthier than they are now!

Everyone nodded.Only a restless voice asked: What is the tradition here?The tradition you mentioned includes which period of time?What was healthy in the hundreds of thousands of years before we ate potatoes and grains?According to them, what humans should stay away from is the food that provides the highly unsaturated fatty acids and most of the essential amino acids that are necessary for our survival. These substances can be said to be the basis of our survival. Why is it that the nutrition community around the world is so convinced that carbohydrates are good and animal foods are bad?As a restless person, I can't help but ask, has anyone ever verified the health benefits of this diet?What exactly are there?Where are the results published?

On this basic question, I would like to quote Walter J., chair of the Harvard Department of Nutrition and Public Health.Words from Professor Walter Willet.As for whether this can attract the attention of our domestic nutrition authority, I don't have much hope.In 1998, Willett wrote in an introduction to the "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition": In the past, the mainstream view was that diets rich in complex carbohydrates can promote health. However, there is no evidence to prove that such foods wholesome.In fact, results of metabolic studies and epidemiological investigations have shown that excessive intake may be detrimental to health

This punch hit the nail on the head.Willert's statement is not the same as the old tune repeated year after year in the German nutrition circle.Is this guy out of his mind?Could it be that the most influential nutrition department in the world will be presided over by a weirdo with confused thinking?Is he a visionary?Or is he talking gibberish?I don't agree with Walter.All of Willett's remarks, but many of them, and this one in particular, I wholeheartedly agree with.Unlike our domestic nutrition authority and their carbohydrates, Willett's position is based on a relative investigation and research matrix, which is the scientific method.These and many other investigations have been summarized in the first part of this book.If my readers were interested in taking the trouble to read these sources for themselves, they would surely share Willett's concerns.

What's the point of arguing like this?Some people will ask.Could it be that people at Harvard University can see these materials, but can't our nutrition authorities see them?Of course not, and I can assure you they see it too.But with these things, you must first read, and then continue to attract attention, in order to be effective.If you ask our nutrition authority, what scientific studies have proved the low-fat and high-carbohydrate diet they advocate, either you will not get an answer at all, or the answer will not be the source of the information you asked.It seems that many other problems can be explained by looking at it, but not the problem posed. This kind of reckless chasing will not wake up these leaders, who are still engrossed in playing their old tunes.I also recently read a book about the correct diet for obese people, head of a famous German professional association: grains are the most important basic food, especially in the diet of modern society, a high proportion of grains is very necessary Starch is the main component of grains.70% of these carbohydrates come from grains.I was shocked, and continued to read.The following are specific recommendations for obese people, of course, in strict accordance with the standards of the nutritional pyramid: eat five to seven slices of bread, one serving of rice or noodles, and four to five medium-sized potatoes every day. However, obese people who are most likely to develop insulin resistance and abnormal glucose tolerance should eat more starch!So that the elevated blood sugar can toss their blood vessels and pancreas! I would like to mention Professor Pudel and the German Health Insurance Agency (AOK) again, with their low-fat diet and their special contribution to the large number of obese people in Germany.We should thank them for promoting this important knowledge: carbohydrates are not only good for health, but also can make people slim, especially recommended for obese people.So you can safely eat bread, biscuits, popcorn, gummy bears, soft drinks, and cola, preferably in large family-sized packages at special prices.These things can cause multiple peaks of glucose load in a day, which provides the most favorable conditions for the development of unknown syndrome, and the risk of myocardial infarction will also take advantage of it.Perhaps they are trying to get rid of these heavy burdens with dignity, in order to control the soaring medical expenses? According to the nutrient pyramid model, not only obese people, but also everyone, including mental workers who are locked in offices all day, should eat more starch than the current general standard, and it is best to fill their stomachs every day. 11 servings of complex carbohydrates.And who can accomplish such a task?Just think about the size and taste of this meal.Failure to do so, however, can be accused of a poor diet. So in the nutritional pyramid, white bread, whole wheat products and potatoes are equally and balancedly arranged together.However, in the instructions for use, it says that whole wheat products are better.From a nutrient content, blood sugar and insulin standpoint, this is quite commendable.Just does it fit reality?Eating only a little bit of meat, poultry, and fish, with almost no fat, but at the same time swallowing hills of grains, how does this way of eating teach people to swallow?How will our stomach react?Maybe our high-tech surgeons should try their hand at transplanting cow stomachs into humans.If it is really successful, there is still a question, are so many grains really good for health? In 1999, the prestigious professional journal "World Reviews of Nutrition and Dietetics" (World Reviews of Nutrition and Dietetics) published a report by Colorado State University physiologist Lauren.Prof. Loren Cordain's overview paper Cereals: Humanity's Double-Edged Sword.The scientific research listed in this paper shows that grains, especially whole grain foods, have many adverse effects on the human body. If we read it again, our enthusiasm for whole grains may immediately cool down. Many nutrients.When you eat a lot of grains, you crowd out other foods in your diet, creating a nutritional imbalance.A high intake of grains typically results in a lower intake of highly unsaturated fatty acids and thus an excessively high ratio of Omega︱6 fatty acids to Omega︱3 fatty acids.In countries where grains and other starchy foods are the staple food, such as India, people with low fat intake have a particularly high incidence of myocardial infarction.Grains contain certain nutrients that the body cannot properly absorb, such as calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc and copper.In addition, the non-nutrient substances contained in grains will hinder the absorption and utilization of other nutrients.Different protein components in grains originally have the function of resisting foreign natural enemies in plants, but they will have destructive effects after entering the human body.From the perspective of human evolution, grain is a relatively new food, and obviously the human body is not particularly adapted to it.Therefore, all the beneficial characteristics of the grain are offset by its various unfavorable effects, which is indeed a double-edged sword. Also, we have to repeat, a diet with lots of potatoes, bread, rice, and noodles creates a high glucose load.This is harmful to our blood vessels, and the shadow of myocardial infarction is getting closer and closer.This was confirmed not long ago by the Nurses' Health Survey of 75,000 women.Professor Simin Liu of Harvard University summarized his research results: the more foods with high glycemic index you eat, the greater the risk of myocardial infarction.Studies have also proved that the stronger the insulin resistance, the more obvious the adverse effects of high carbohydrate ratio.The inactive and obese suffer the most, and this group is expanding and may soon make up the majority of the population. Now experts even suspect that excessive glucose load will increase the risk of cancer.They also suspected myocardial infarction, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn's disease (crohn's disease), and glucose load. Among ethnic groups that have only recently been hit by the carbohydrate deluge, the disease has hit hardest, including the Aboriginal peoples of the Americas, Asia, South Pacific islands and Australia, where rates of diabetes have exploded.No one would deny that type 2 diabetes is closely related to carbohydrate metabolism.Jenny from the University of Sydney.Professor Jennie Brand-Miller recently took a firm stand against selling non-European residents carbohydrate chowders stuffed with pasta, bread and pastries through public nutrition advice.Advising these residents on a high-glycemic, starch-rich diet is unethical, she argued in an interview with New Scientist. The whole topic does not seem to be very easy, and those who avoid these many bad signs have a certain degree of ignorance.Today, nothing alarms the upper echelons of these professional societies.They still sound the alarm as always, not for carbohydrates, but for animal foods, especially meat In a mixed diet, for many people, a small amount of grains is not only not a problem, but will contribute to the overall supply of nutrients.But too much is not good.If we look back at the content of the previous chapters, we may even feel that the grain and potato feeding method advocated by the nutrition circle or pyramid is an imbalance in the nutritional structure.This structure has proven life-threatening in many individuals and is in dire need of revision or radical change.Fortunately, my compatriots have not blindly followed the advice of nutrition authorities for decades!why? The current general carbohydrate intake is much higher than the actual needs!Grains alone provide 56% of the world's dietary calorie intake and 50% of the protein.On the one hand, this saves millions of the poorest from starvation, but on the other hand, in rich countries, the high consumption of carbohydrates threatens human health.Should we still be eating more carbs?Maybe we should ask Walter.Willett or Claudio.Experts like Claudio La Vecchia, a leading Italian cancer epidemiologist.They warn people not to increase their intake of foods rich in carbohydrates and starches. The scientific insights presented in this book allow us to draw the following conclusions: In industrialized societies where people generally do not exercise enough, eating a diet that contains fewer carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates and Starches, as well as a diet high in fat and protein, are good for your health.Roughly estimated in a purely theoretical way, if the proportion of nutrients reaches 30%, carbohydrates mainly come from vegetables and fruits, 20% to 30% protein, and 40% to 50% fat, the metabolic effect of the diet is ideal, not only for health People, especially those with unknown syndrome and diabetes.Such an intake method and nutritional composition can be called more balanced. I know devout nutrition readers will be horrified by this advice.Some people will laugh at this nonsense.However, future scientific research will prove that who is reasonable At the end of this chapter, I also want to introduce a practical example, which is very close to the composition of nutrients mentioned above.In a study conducted at the Endocrinology and Metabolism Institute at the Minnesota Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minnesota, experts tested different dietary modalities in men with mild, non-insulin-dependent diabetes.Start with a generally recommended healthy diet: 55% carbohydrates, 30% fat and 15% protein, with very little meat but lots of bread, pastry and potatoes, a little low-fat milk and a little lettuce.In order to test the metabolic index of the subjects, the contents of breakfast, lunch and dinner are the same every day.After a one-day break from the experiment, the same subjects received a different diet, double the amount of meat, add a portion of cheese, and replace bread, pastries, and potatoes with rich fruit.On this diet, subjects consumed only 43 percent carbohydrates, but 22 percent protein and 34 percent fat.As a result of the diet adjustment, compared with the healthy diet, after switching to the latter, the blood sugar and insulin concentrations of the subjects during the day and night were significantly reduced, and there was no significant difference in blood fat. Why do such research results not attract enough attention in the German nutrition circles?Why hasn't anyone here built on these results to do further research on this dietary pattern?Because to judge whether this reduced carbohydrate ratio, changing the structure of the diet, in addition to providing an overview of the metabolic index, can also be healthier?This must be carried out in clinical monitoring studies, and the judgment standard is not metabolic index, but morbidity and mortality.Such research has not yet been conducted.And how long do we have to wait? In order to gain a better understanding of obesity, unidentified syndromes, and diseases of civilization, one question should be explored: why do so many people respond so negatively to the current diet rich in sugars and starches in general; Your body responds much better when you eat a diet that is low in processed carbohydrates and high in protein and fat, with as little processed carbohydrates and monounsaturated fatty acids as possible.Could humans be better suited to such a diet from a genetic standpoint?Therefore, we must answer another urgent question: what kind of diet is most suitable for us humans?What would be a species-appropriate, or genetically-appropriate diet, for us? The answer to this question can only be found in the evolutionary history of our species.The human gene pool, that is, the sum of individual genes, has been established through hundreds of millions of years of evolution.The natural environment and food sources play a key role in the formation and development of genes.Experts speculate that the genetic code in the nucleus of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has a mutation probability of only 0.5% every million years.According to the latest knowledge, anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, arose 100,000 years ago.That is, from this point in time to today, our genetic material may have changed by 0.5%, but 99.5% is the same as our Stone Age ancestors. In the process of human evolution, living conditions have a decisive impact on the formation and development of our genes, which is the first question we need to study.The food intake of our ancestors can provide us with quite important clues if we want to know what a diet suitable for today's modern human species looks like.Let's take a look now!