A confusion of criticism… a whirlpool of invective.

On the basis that I often point to articles that agree with my thinking and experience, I think it’s right that I also, sometimes, point to articles that don’t. 

The Guardian newspaper has been having an odd week so far. After getting excited about the latest (pretty horrific but nothing new) statistics on diabetes in th UK, it has been publishing some pretty ropey nutritional advice followed by a suggested weekly menu from the British Dietetic Association, that was advocating eating from a specific fast food restaurant chain. What’s that about? 

Then to top it off, this evening, the Guardian published this.

I don’t know what is upsetting the author, but somewhere along the way, something bad related to paleo must have happened to him. Anyway, have a read and see what you think. 

I am disappointed that he belittles the Primal Blueprint certification without knowing anything about it. Disappointed but not surprised….  maybe it’s the same journalist that got to page 3 of the SACN report on carbohydrates ( see July 22).

Never mind. There’s room on the planet for us all.    🙂 


Physician, heal thyself… 

With a hat tip to The Diet Doctor, an article from The New York Times about how Coca Cola is funding exercise programmes in the U.S.

Not a bad thing in itself, provided that exercise programmes is what they actually are, but there seems to be more to it than that from what the article says (and it’s a long article). I suggest you read it all but here are some snippets:

“The beverage giant has teamed up with influential scientists who are advancing this message in medical journals, at conferences and through social media. To help the scientists get the word out, Coke has provided financial and logistical support to a new nonprofit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network, which promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise.

“Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on,” the group’s vice president, Steven N. Blair, an exercise scientist, says in a recent video announcing the new organization. “And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.””

Hmmm… Now paying attention to exercise is a good thing but is ignoring what you are putting in your mouth also a good idea? The article doesn’t say who the “health experts” it refers to are but I tend to agree with them: 

“Health experts say this message is misleading and part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. They contend that the company is using the new group to convince the public that physical activity can offset a bad diet despite evidence that exercise has only minimal impact on weight compared with what people consume.”

For primal people and particularly Blueprinters like me, we have known for a long time that exercise alone is ineffective for weight management unless coupled with a healthy diet, adequate sleep of good quality and sufficient sunlight. You simply cannot out-run a bad diet. 

So my question to the scientists that are pushing this message is simply this:

Given a 330ml standard can of Coke contains 35 grams of sugar (!) which equates to 140 calories – and that’s 140 calories that provide no nutritional benefit to you whatsoever – why on earth do you want to take those calories into your body if you are then going to have to exercise them off before you even begin to think about burning off some body fat? It’s simply making it harder on yourself! 

But who are these scientists that say the way to lose weight is to increase your exercise? Here they are… 

 Three scientists who helped start the new nonprofit supported by Coke, from left: Steven N. Blair, a professor in the department of exercise science, epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of South Carolina; James O. Hill, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine; and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University School of Public Health.Credit University of Colorado, West Virginia University.

If you want to take weight loss advice of any of these guys, be my guest.

Ancel Keys study that purported to show saturated fats being detrimental to health trashed… yet again…

Another day and another study into saturated fats in the diet debunks Ancel Keys’s seminal, but fatally flawed, report that linked saturated fats with heart disease. See previous post about John Yudkin who first debunked this study by Ancel Keys in the 1970s.

This one, 40 years later, is from Doctor Russell de Souza, an assistant professor in the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, at McMaster University in Canada.


“The “vilification” of saturated fats dates back to the 1950s when research suggested a link between high dietary saturated fat intake and deaths from heart disease.

But the study author drew his conclusions on data from six countries, choosing to ignore the data from a further 16, which did not fit with his hypothesis, and which subsequent analysis of all 22 countries’ data.

Nevertheless the research stuck and since the 1970s most public health organisations have advised people to cut down on fat.

However the new research found no clear association between higher intake of saturated fats and death for any reason, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, ischemic stroke or type 2 diabetes.”

I find it interesting but not surprising that the comment on the report from the British dietician amount to saying that we should not change what we are eating because this report does not prove cause and effect between eating fat and NOT getting heart disease…. Eh? I would like to see the study that could do that. In any case, did the Ancel Keys study prove there WAS a link?

Most emphatically not.

Some recipes for using butter at the end of the article too.