Why Government Dietary Advice Has Not Changed in 40 Years
Meaningful change is nowhere in sight despite the skyrocketing levels of metabolic illness and the mounting evidence against this policy
In the 1970s, despite having played a crucial role in the human diet for tens of thousands of years, saturated fat was singled out as the main cause of Cardio Vascular Disease (CVD) and branded unhealthy.
So, following a similar move in the US, the UK government decided to issue dietary advice based on the replacement of saturated fat with unsaturated fat and carbohydrates. The evidence informing this view was allegedly contained in a single study (Ancel Keys 7 Country Study), and it precipitated the biggest change in diet the human species has ever had.
““Our current diet advice (eat low fat/avoid saturated fat/base your meals on starchy foods) was never developed as, nor intended to be, an obesity strategy. It became an American healthy heart strategy (launched in January 1977), on the basis of one of the most biased and fundamentally flawed studies ever to determine public health advice.””
Forty years later, despite there still being no proven causal link between saturated fat and CVD and an explosion in rates of obesity and diabetes, the advice remains broadly the same — reduce consumption of saturated fats and base all meals on starchy carbohydrates.
Source: The UK Government
Our Current Advice: The Eatwell Guide (2016) in Terms of Energy
Starchy carbohydrates take up over 33% of the plate, which according to the Food Standards Agency, is represented by weight. So, in terms of calories, the starchy carbs should actually make up 60–70% of our diet as they are more energy dense.
Fruits and vegetables are much less dense, so despite taking up another third of the plate may only represent less than 10% of our recommended energy consumption.
So with starchy and refined carbs making up more than 60% of our diet, fruits and vegetables (also carbohydrates) making up around 10% of our diet, and with carbs represented in the dairy segment (especially vegan substitutes), the protein segment with lentils, beans, and chickpeas, and in the inexplicable “eat less often and in small amounts” section with chocolate, crisps, ice cream, and muffins, there is a huge amount of carbohydrate being recommended.
And here’s the thing…
Carbohydrates are not necessary for the majority of our energy requirements. In fact, they are the only non-essential macronutrient.
When digested, carbohydrates are broken down into sugars, predominantly glucose.
Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a condition that is largely caused by excess glucose.
Since the low-fat/high-carb advice was prescribed, levels of obesity and diabetes have skyrocketed.
By eating a low-carb diet you can reverse the symptoms of Type 2 Diabetes.
Source: Max Roser - Our World in Data
Why Is the UK Government Ignoring This?
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), which is appointed by Public Health England (PHE) to oversee the government’s nutritional guidelines, seems blinkered to the groundswell of evidence that not only discounts any link between saturated fat and CVD but also highlights the link between diets high in refined carbohydrates and metabolic illness.
Under mounting pressure, they did invite comments and publish a report on Lower Carbohydrate Diets for Adults with T2D in 2021, but, as you would expect, there was a clear reluctance to display any admission that they may have been responsible for the ill health of millions of people for nearly half a century.
Instead, they chose to muddy the water by creating unnecessary definitional complications of what a low-carb diet is and by claiming a lack of data to support more robust recommendations.
“The implications of longer (>12 months) restriction of carbohydrates in adults with T2D are currently unknown due to a lack of data from longer-term intervention studies.”
This conclusion seems remarkable when you consider there was no evidence of the benefit of a low-fat/high-carb diet in the first instance and that perhaps the result of what has been, without question, the biggest dietary experiment ever is clearly evidenced by the frighteningly rapid decline in the metabolic health of our populations.
In addition, there are studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of diet in the treatment of T2D, and this study by Feinman et al in 2016 concluded:
““The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the available evidence. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.””
Conclusion
If this SACN report represents progress it is dangerously slow.
The committee’s utter lack of common sense and unwillingness to confront the evidence demonstrates unfathomable scientific pomposity and arouses more than a little suspicion that their wheels are lubricated by the (hydrogenated) oils of the processed food industry as well as Big Pharma.
We need an entirely new body that has no association with the food industry, no association with past dietary advice, and the humility to engender the progress that is so desperately required.
