"Diet Review: DASH"
One man's "optimal" is another man's illness!
Date: 1/26/2018 8:18:30 PM ( 6 mon ) ... viewed 267 times
"Because people with gout often also have high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases, DASH is optimal in improving all of these conditions."
Thus saith "The Nutrition Source": the School of Public Health at Harvard.
"Optimal" for Harvard is certainly limited - in light of their additional statement: "The reduction of blood pressure in the DASH combination diet was comparable to that of people on medication for stage 1 hypertension".
Harvard has essentially defined "optimal" health as a health condition that is dependent upon one form of medication or another. Ugh! And this is from Harvard?
I wonder whether Sally Fallon Morell, author of "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats" had Harvard in mind as a "Diet Dictocrat".
In any case I'm "inspired" now to research into this. I now see "About 44 (search) results" to look into for references to Harvard as a "diet dictocrat". I think this may be fun!
Couple hours later -
She (Sally) singles out several notably bad eggs in the Diet Dictocrat establishment. One is the late Dr. Frederick Stare of Harvard University, who at one time had published a number of articles on the correlation between vegetable oils — not animal fats — and heart disease. Then when he became head of the nutrition department ...
51 years ago, a bribe and a lie led to one of the worst scandals ever in human nutrition… and you’re still paying for it with your health to this day.
A shocking revelation made the front page of the New York Times just days ago…
The story announced a new report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the country.
The report contains proof that sugar companies bribed leading doctors to lie to you… to tell you sugar was safe when they knew it wasn’t.
In 1965, in fact, the Sugar Association paid two Harvard scientists $6,500 to twist the facts surrounding sugar.
They wanted to blame fat for the health problems sugar seemed to be causing. Why? So they could keep selling you more sugar.
They succeeded, and it led directly to the chronic disease and obesity epidemics we’re facing today. These epidemics have claimed the health and lives of billions of people.
In this article, I’ll show you how deep this rabbit hole goes… and you’ll learn some things you won’t find in the New York Times article. Read on…
How they got away with selling poison…
Starting in the early 1950s, evidence began to appear that eating sugar might cause heart disease.
The Sugar Association: set up to create propaganda for “Big Sugar.”
So, the sugar industry formed the Sugar Association. It was the Association’s job to keep the public image of sugar squeaky clean.
The Association sought out scientists who were trying to prove that fat was the major health threat, not sugar. They gave funding to these scientists to try to push their research ahead of anti-sugar research.
One of these scientists was Ancel Keys, author of the Seven Countries Study and father of the low-fat diet craze.
(You might remember this name from my blog “Saturated With Lies: The Truth about Fat” – which I published back in April.)
Ancel Keys received sugar industry funding for many years at his lab in Minnesota.
However, by 1962, the Sugar Association was getting worried. Maybe payrolling scientists wasn’t enough! The evidence against sugar was growing too fast.
So, John Hickson — the Sugar Association’s vice president — started tracking down all the research that wasn’t friendly toward sugar.
In December 1964, Hickson reported back with bad news…
Multiple scientists — including John Yudkin, Europe’s leading nutritionist — had found major evidence that sugar caused both heart disease and diabetes.
(You may remember that name, John Yudkin, from another blog I wrote and published here in May, “Sweetened To Death: Exposing Sugar for What it Is.”)
In order to silence all this damaging anti-sugar research, Hickson made a proposal:
The Sugar Association would fund pro-sugar research of their own… at the highest academic level: Harvard University.
Several months later, they secured their inside man: Frederick Stare, founder and chair of the Harvard School of Public Health.
Dirty Ivy League Secrets.
Harvard scientist Frederick Stare was no stranger to sugar industry money.
Dr. Frederick Stare was the perfect man for the job… because he’d already been taking money from the sugar industry for years.
In fact, just 5 years earlier, Dr. Stare wanted to build a new building for his department at Harvard. So, General Foods — a major sugar industry player — threw in $1 million ($8.1 million in today’s money) to get the project done.
So, in 1965, with this influential Ivy League “yes man” on board… the Sugar Association launched “Project 226.”
Project 226 was the codename for their secret plan to create a major falsified nutrition report. It would use faulty science to “debunk” all the anti-sugar studies. And it would be published in the most prestigious medical journal possible.
Now, remember I told you there were TWO Harvard scientists involved in this plot?
The second was Dr. Mark Hegsted. He was hand-picked to write the “Project 226” report for a share of the bribe.
The Sugar Association’s vice-president, John Hickson, would correspond directly with Dr. Hegsted, coaching him on how to skew the report in sugar’s favor.
The memos between these two men show how corruption really works.
In November 1966 — after months of work — Dr. Hegsted submitted the final draft of the report for Hickson’s approval. It was exactly what the Sugar Association was looking for. Hickson wrote back happily:
“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print.”
~Hickson to Dr. Hegsted, November 1966
Dr. Mark Heisted, Dr. Stare’s right hand man, worked closely with sugar execs to sabotage anti-sugar research.
Several months later, the review was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.
The report firmly concluded sugar was NOT to blame for America’s growing health problems. And because it came from Harvard, the entire medical community listened.
This is what corruption at the highest level looks like…
A secret project funded by Big Sugar called “Project 226” turns into a report written by Harvard scientists and published in a major medical journal.
It’s actually frightening how far they went to deliberately mislead the American public. But sugar was big business, and there was just too much money at stake.
This review was only the beginning… In 1970, Ancel Keys’ historic Seven Countries Study was published. In the study, Keys famously blamed fat for heart disease. 
This was another major sigh of relief for the sugar industry — but not for your health!
Soon after that, many legitimate and uncorrupted anti-sugar scientists were deliberately discredited.
Meanwhile, more and more influential decision-makers landed on the sugar industry’s payroll…
People like Edwin Bierman, who was considered one of the top experts on DIABETES.
Senators Larry Craig (left) and John Breaux (right) shot down WHO’s anti-sugar nutrition advice.
People like senators Larry Craig and John Breaux. These two managed to shut down a World Health Organization proposal to change nutrition guidelines for the public. (The new guidelines would have called for less sugar in the diet.)
And what about the two Harvard scientists who were bribed by the sugar industry in 1965, Dr. Stare and Dr. Hegsted?
Well, Dr. Stare was on the advisory committee for the USDA’s historic 1985 nutrition guidelines. Here’s a direct quote from the official USDA pamphlet:
“Contrary to popular belief, too much sugar in your diet does not cause diabetes.”
~100% false statement inserted into USDA’s 1985 nutrition guidelines
In fact, the only problem the USDA tied to sugar that year was dental cavities. Type II diabetes, heart disease, and obesity were completely ignored.
So, was Dr. Stare still in Big Sugar’s pocket? Looks like it to me.
The USDA’s 1985 nutrition guidelines denied the sugar-diabetes connection.
As for Dr. Hegsted… he eventually became the head of nutrition for the USDA!30 I guess it pays to be crooked.
This new JAMA report puts the final nail in the coffin of what I’ve been talking about since I made the “3 Harmful Foods” video over a year ago.
It also supports two blogs – “Saturated With Lies” and “Sweetened To Death” – which I published on this site five months ago.
And there’s a reason I’ve talked about the corruption behind sugar for so long. It’s because I want you to know the truth. I want you to be able to make the best decisions for your health — and the health of your family.
And in the interest of knowing the truth, I think it’s about time we kicked big industry lobbyists out of health science and nutrition policy.
How about you? Do you agree? Comment below and let me know your thoughts.
And be sure get your friends and family in on the discussion. There are share buttons at the top and bottom of this page. Share with everyone you think would want to know about this corruption.
Nothing’s for sale here. There are no ads on this page. I just want as many people as possible to see this and chime in.
Dr. Amy Lee, MD
And much more!
January 27, 2018 - "Reflections on the US News & World Report diet rankings, and my involvement in them" - by Stephan Guyenet -
Each year, US News & World Report publishes diet rankings based on the opinions of a panel of experts. This year, I served on the panel. In this post, I’ll discuss my general thoughts on the rankings, as well as the fact that the popular ketogenic diet tied for last place among the 40 diets.
Here’s how it works. US News staff summarizes information on each diet– including the diet’s recommendations and what current evidence says about its effectiveness– and provides it to a panel of expert reviewers. This is the same information that is publicly available on each diet’s US News webpage. It’s not perfect but they appear to put in a good faith effort, and they ask reviewers to recommend corrections if anything seems off. On the basis of this information, as well as the reviewers’ existing knowledge and optional literature searches, reviewers are asked to rate the diets in a number of different ways on a scale of 1-5. These scores are then compiled into four areas that are shared with the public:
How effective is it for short-term weight loss?
How effective is it for long-term weight loss?
How easy is it to follow?
How well does it support general health?
Note that these “diets” also often include lifestyle modification advice, such as physical activity, and these are considered in the scoring. US News also provides an overall score for each diet, which I suspect is an average of the four scores above.
The diet ranking system is necessarily an imperfect process. With 40 diets to review and rank, there isn’t enough time to do comprehensive literature reviews to get the best possible picture of effectiveness for each diet. This less-than-comprehensive approach leaves a certain amount of room for uninformed opinions to substitute for evidence, particularly in areas of evidence that reviewers may not be very familiar with. Still, the information it provides should be more helpful for selecting diets than the current alternatives, like reading Amazon reviews, Googling, or asking your aunt Martha.
I found this site by way of a search intending to grok the foundational orientation of US News & World Report in their dietary assessment. I accept the "general thoughts" Stephen presents and especially that this perspective acknowledges the presence of "uninformed opinions" on the diets under evaluation. I agree that it is at least "an imperfect process". I don't know that it actually "should be more helpful" than other approaches. I have never looked at any of the "US News" reports over the forty seven years that I have been actively interested in diet and I am the most delighter with my dietary selections - at least over the last seventeen years.
A few days ago one of my research projects led me to Harvard's school for public health and their praises of the Mediterranean Diet. That inspired my own review of the diet and my great affinity with the perspective presented by Sally Fallon. I deeply appreciate the following critial questions that she raises:
"The question that the believers haven’t asked themselves is this: Was the lean, so-called Mediterranean diet they observed after the war the true Mediterranean diet? Or were they observing the tail end of deprivation engendered by half a decade of conflict? Were the inhabitants of Crevalcore and Montegiorgio abandoning the traditional Mediterranean diet, or were they taking it up again? And did Keys miss the sight of Italians enjoying rich food in the early 1950s because Italians had never done such a shameful thing, or was the visiting professor too poor at the time to afford anything more than plain pizza in a sidewalk cafe?":
Re: A "Mediterranean"(sic) Grocery List -
Just sent the following to the OldWays.org:
Greetings dear OldWays Friends!
Just discovered your "Grocery List". I see a total of four "Healthy Oils/Fats" items "Healthy Oils/Fats" that includes canola oil - that makes me wonder how in the world that came to be considered as a true "Mediterranean" food. Please explain that.
In any case I'd like to know why the other Mediterranean fats apparently are not mentioned and especially including butter, lard, and goose fat?
A Short Concluding Commentary:
If you want a truly Mediterranean diet then consider any of the authentic traditional diets of any Mediterranean country and without putting a filter in front of the truth of any of those diets (whereby certain traditional foods are omitted because of conflicts with food manufacturing interests that want their products as proper replacements i.e. canola oil). If you have any concerns about cholesterol then you probably need to allow yourself full-disclosure on that by doing some reading on that particular subject at the Weston A. Price Foundation's online library.
February 2, 2018 - More on "Mediterranean Diet" (a term that was apparently co-opted by certain mega-food corporations to the detriment of our health!)
Correspondence with an "agency"( that may be representing the interests of "certain mega-food corporations"). -
Thanks for your reply (following this reply).
Are you aware that the majority of canola oil produced today is genetically modified?
In a 2011 review published in Environmental Sciences Europe, 19 studies of mammals fed GMO soybeans and corn were evaluated. The 90-day trials indicated liver and kidney problems as a result of GMO foods.[i]
In light of this I don't recommend including canola oil in the diet. On the other hand grass-fed butter and other traditional ruminant fats are both healthy and safe options that have been used in traditional "Mediterranean" diets.
Thank you again for your support ~
Toward Greater Health!
[i] Here's a link to (this studies) in case you hadn't seen it:
On 01/31/2018 13:27, Kelly Toups wrote:
Hi Chef Jemichel,
Thanks for reaching out. Olive oil is the primary cooking fat in the
Mediterranean diet, and is in fact one of the hallmark characteristics
of Mediterranean diets. This is evidenced by epidemiological studies
spanning several decades. On the other hand, animal fats were much
less common. This is partly because olive trees are such an integral
part of the Mediterranean landscape, that olive oil was more abundant,
and partly because animal products were much more expensive than they
When we first introduced the Mediterranean Diet Pyramid in the early
1990’s, olive oil was an ethnic product, and not widely available in
most stores. Canola oil, although not native to the Mediterranean,
offers a similar fat profile, but is typically more accessible, which
is why it was included on the list.
I hope this helps!
Kelly Toups, MLA, RD, LDN
Director of Nutrition
Oldways - Health Through Heritage
FROM: Chef-Doctor Jemichel
SUBJECT: "THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET GROCERY LIST"
DATE: January 28, 2018 at 2:22:42 AM EST
Greetings dear OldWays Friends!
Just discovered your "Grocery List". I see a total of four "Healthy Oils/Fats" items "Healthy Oils/Fats" that includes canola
oil - that makes me wonder how in the world that came to be considered as a true "Mediterranean" food. Please explain that.
In any case I'd like to know why the other Mediterranean fats apparently are not mentioned and especially including butter,
lard, and goose fat?
Revelation Consultations @ San Diego HQ -
Additional commentary -
The right use of science "in the public interest" certainly includes the safety of our foods (as well as the impact of all other environment issues). The accumulation of scientific studies regarding GMO crops and as food for human consumption deserve out attention, our understanding and our response toward restraining the proliferation of this mis-use of science as GMOs have (one way or another) invaded the agricultural systems world-wide. One could possibly liken the detrimental impact of GMOs unto the impact of all the nuclear disasters that have ever occurred over the past seventy years, even though the GMO impact may appear invisible in the "public's eye". That "invisibility" is due in large part to the "blind eye" of conventional news coverage in their disregard of the issue. A co-factor can be attributed to all the governmental agencies that were established for the purpose of food safety that are in collusion with "mega-corporations" in allowing and approving of GMOs in our food systems.
March 3, 2018 - "Lean" -
I'm "inspired" by the quote below to follow-up on this particular blog-page as it's here where I had previously included a reference to "lean" along with a critical commentary:
"I encourage my clients to eat foods as close to Mother Nature as possible. ... Even though I have worked with a few vegans and vegetarians, most of my clients do eat lean animal proteins in their diet".
Some of what "inspires" me with the above quote is a quest to know to what extent Americans still believe "lean animal protein" is the healthier form of animal protein. I see the following question on the professional website of the individual (from whom I quoted the above statement): "Are you getting ready for an athletic event, like a physique show or 5K race?" My response is the following:
LOWFAT FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS -
“Redskins catch on to healthy habits” was the headline of a Washington Post article about Jane Jakubezak, nutritionist for the Washington, DC football team (September 16, 2010). Thanks to Jane’s urging, veteran running back Clinton Portis now eats lean protein and vegetables, avoids butter and cream, and shuns his mother’s comfort foods. The weird, birdfood diet Jakubezak recommends for these star athletes includes whole grain cereal, skim milk, energy shakes, lowfat chocolate milk (after workouts), lean meat, egg white omelets, peanut butter and jelly, and lots and lots of whole wheat bread. By Thanksgiving, the Redskins had the longest list of injured players in the league—fourteen in all, including Portis. By contrast, the Philadelphia Eagles, whose trainers recommend a more caveman-like diet and pickle juice during practice, have one of the lowest injury rates in the league.
I don't know who can say just how long the "lean" craze will continue until "nutritionists" come to their senses. I thought we had gotten over this when certain national zines "confessed" their errors in mistakenly endorsing the low-fat propaganda of the preceding three decades.
 O’Connor A. Sugar Backers Paid to Shift Blame to Fat. The New York Times. September 13, 2016: A1.
 Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA. Published online ahead of print, September 12, 2016. DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394.
 Ibid. at A1.
 Ibid. at 1.
 Taubes G, Couzens CK. Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies –
How the industry kept scientists from asking: Does sugar kill? Mother Jones. Nov/Dec 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign
Accessed September 17, 2016.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Kearns et. al. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Taubes et. al. at 1.
 Ibid. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 McGandy RB, Hegsted DM, Stare FJ. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. N Engl J Med. Jul 27, 1967; 277 (4): 186-92 contd. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM196707272770405.
20 McGandy RB, Hegsted DM, Stare FJ. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. N Engl J Med. Aug 3, 1967; 277 (5): 245-7 concl. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM196708032770505.
 Ibid. at 1.
 Ibid. at 1.
 Keys A (Ed). Coronary Heart Disease in Seven Countries. Circulation. 1970; 41 (Suppl.1): 211.
 Taubes et. al. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 Id. at 1.
 United States Department of Agriculture. Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1985. Health.gov Website. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/1985thin.pdf?_ga=1.236812676.429643227.1474349563. Accessed September 19, 2016.
 Id. at 1.
30 O’Connor at A1.
"Harvard Scientists Paid To Lie About Sugar Health Risks":
 Unless "aunt Martha" is Sally Fallon Morell or possibly your local Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter leader.
 Not only is it NOT "Mediterranean" it's NOT a healthy oil.
 Choose from among at least a dozen articles on this one (of several) pages:
 "As of 2005, 87 percent of canola grown in the U.S. was genetically modified, and by 2009, 90 percent of the Canadian crop was genetically engineered.":
Diet Dictocrat, optimal health, lean animal proteins, lean meat, egg white omelet
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page