The English version offers selected articles from. The tobacco industry has focused more recently on divide-and-conquer strategies to create schisms within the tobacco control movement. The healthy food movement can. Find recipes for every meal, easy ideas for dinner tonight, cooking tips and expert food advice. Other nutritionists agreed with the assessment that you shouldn’t adopt a gluten free diet if you don’t have to. ![]() If You're Going to Go Gluten Free Don't Be Dumb About It. Gluten is incredible for its ability to piss off a diverse spectrum of people: Folks who are giving it up for a diet, folks who say it’s stupid to give up gluten, and folks with celiac disease who probably just wish they could avoid their symptoms and their gluten in peace. A team of researchers is trying to add data to the question of whether or not a gluten- free diet has health benefits, with a new study that analyzes questionnaires filled out by over a hundred thousand people. They’ve concluded that those who don’t suffer from celiac disease or a wheat sensitivity shouldn’t avoid gluten. They think there may even be harm in doing so—but others aren’t so sure about that.“There’s a lot of interest in the lay public regarding gluten free diet,” study author Andrew Chan from Harvard Medical School told Gizmodo. But that hasn’t been critically examined.”The dataset the authors used in the paper, published today in the British Medical Journal, wasn’t specifically collected to study gluten- free diets. ![]() ![]() Around 6. 5,0. 00 women from the Nurses Health Study, which started in 1. Health Professional’s Follow- up Study that started in 1. The researchers estimated the participants’ gluten intake based on the answers to the questionnaire, and compared those estimates to the incidence of coronary heart disease. Their estimates showed that a lower- gluten diet was not associated with a lower chance of disease. But when they made another tweak to their analysis, analyzing the subjects for differences in their whole grain intake, they found that more gluten consumption was associated with a lower risk of heart disease—possibly because people weren’t getting the benefits from eating whole grains.“It raised the possibility that if you adhere long term to a gluten free diet, then you miss other essential nutrients and that might have a negative effect,” said Chan. Other nutritionists agreed with the assessment that you shouldn’t adopt a gluten free diet if you don’t have to. She says that this study adds clarity to whether this sort of fad diet has benefits. Alessio Fasano, Chair of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition at Massachusetts General Hospital and celiac disease expert, agreed that gluten free diets are unnecessary for those who don’t suffer from celiac disease or a non- celiac wheat sensitivity. But he didn’t find the study’s results compelling. He pointed out that the datasets, though large, are not intended to study gluten- free versus gluten- filled diets. He compared the study to trying to build a boat with motorcycle parts. He agrees with his study’s results and its conclusion, that gluten- free diets don’t have cardiovascular benefits and could lead to worse health from fewer whole grains. But Lebwohl points out that “more research is necessary to determine additional future health implications of a gluten- free diet in people without celiac disease or non- celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity.”So, what should you do? Lichtenstein suggests you just find a diet that works for you, one that includes foods you actually like to eat. The important thing is the long term.”. Twitter is a weird social network, and while there are plenty of tools for muting an account or keyword entirely, Supermute takes a different approach. ![]() The Healthy Food Movement: Strength in Unity. Dietary changes appear to be shifting universally toward a diet dominated by higher intakes of calorie- dense foods - corn syrup, sugar, animal products, and oils - thanks to global agricultural policies that have built in a long- term focus on creating things like cheap corn. Consumption of these foods high in saturated and trans fats, salt, and sugar is the cause of at least 1. This is not a failure of individual willpower, says the Director- General of the World Health Organization. This is a failure of political will to take on big business, which is a formidable opposition. Few governments prioritize health over big business. As we learned from experience with the tobacco industry, a powerful corporation can sell the public just about anything. This is difficult terrain for many public health scientists. It took five decades after the initial studies linking tobacco and cancer for effective public health policies to be put in place, with enormous cost to human health. ![]() Must we wait another five decades to respond to the epidemics of dietary diseases? They do have money on their side. The chemical, tobacco, and food industries have the luxury to share similar tactics with the drug companies, because they have the resources to do so. By contrast, powerful and cheap health- promoting activities like eating a healthy diet are too cheap and can’t be patented. Preventing cardiovascular disease is not an easy task because it means engaging in a battle against strong industrial sectors, but it is possible with sufficient political courage. And, it’s been done before. ![]() There’s a great example of action in public health nutrition that is succeeding: the move back to breastfeeding. Breastmilk doesn’t make anyone money. ![]() So, companies like Nestle pushed infant formulas, and millions of babies may have died as a result. But a global movement rose up and resulted in the passage of a code regulating the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. As the Director- General of the World Health Organization at the time said, “Without their constant lobbying, reminding us of our duty as public health officers, they simply would not have had the courage to do it.” What has this got to do with nutrition and food policy now? Everything, if we want to improve public health. We must seek out the food and nutrition equivalents of Greenpeace. ![]() ![]() We should be prepared to stand up and be counted, even if it puts jobs and careers in nutrition on the line. To do that, the healthy food movement needs to stay united. Phillip Morris is still fighting into the 2. Check out their latest campaign, dubbed, . This is from the actual internal planning documents. They figured the #1 vulnerability of the anti- smoking movement is that their success may blind organizations to carefully orchestrated efforts by the tobacco industry and its allies to accelerate turf wars and exacerbate philosophical schisms. Their overall objective is to attack the credibility of the anti- smoking movement by creating schisms, to force them to fight amongst themselves. Think of how much of that we already do in the healthy food movement, distracting us from the bigger picture. Because unity was identified as a source of strength for the anti- smoking movement, one of their primary strategies is to drive a wedge between various anti- smoking groups. Another is to weaken the public health movement’s credibility. One strategy to weaken the credibility of anti- tobacco groups is to develop communications strategies to demonstrate the extremism of the health prevention movement. First tobacco, then alcohol, then meat, then who knows? Not only are tobacco lawyers a bit spelling challenged, but public health groups are part of a health promotion movement. Health prevention is more the purview of Big Ag. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer. Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
July 2017
Categories |