The Science Behind Healthy Eating Patterns - Dietary Guidelines - blogmaths.info
The need to incorporate social science approaches in nutrition is apparent when To date, social research in nutrition has tended to focus on the relationship of. A timeline of nutrition research, from the era of vitamin discovery in the . saturated fat, calcium) belied the observed relations of these foods. Systematic reviews of scientific research examine relationships between the overall diet, including its constituent foods, beverages, and nutrients, and health.
Researchers regularly gather information from the people in the study on a variety of dietary variables. Cohort studies gather the information all along and before anyone develops the disease being studied. As a group, these types of studies have provided valuable information about the link between lifestyle factors and disease.
These studies are similar to cohort studies in the case that they follow a group of people over time. However, with randomized trials, the researchers actually intervene to see how a specific behavior change or treatment, for example, affects a health outcome. This randomization helps researchers hone in on the true effect the intervention has on the health outcome. However, randomized trials also have drawbacks, especially when it comes to diet.
While they are good at looking at topics like vitamin supplements and cancer, when the change in diet is more involved than say taking a vitamin pill, participants begin to have trouble keeping to their prescribed diets. Such involved interventions can also become very expensive Cell Studies[ edit ] Cells are the fundamental units of life and are the smallest components considered inside the human body.
These body cells are constantly communicating with each other, responding to the environment and to the signals they receive from a person's five senses. If the cells cannot operate efficiently, the functioning of the tissues and organs the cells make up, will become compromised. As a result, a person can experience a diminishment of physical functioning and the onset of a host of health conditions and diseases.
By keeping a person's cells well nourished, the individual will also be well nourished. Cells are analyzed in laboratories to look for the presence of diseases and to understand how it actively effects cells. Cells can be collected from urine, blood, and through the process of scraping the surface of organs. Cell studies are conducted to see what types of cells there are based on their appearance and characteristics.
The study of cells, including their origin, function, and structure is known as cytology. The analysis of cells is referred to as cytopathology. Animal Studies[ edit ] Animal studies have highly contributed to our current knowledge of metabolism and nutrition through the experimentation of other species besides humans; these experiments predict what might happen in the physiology of humans. Animal studies have been utilized to solve nutrition x nutrient interactions, bioavailability of nutrients and its precursors, and nutrient tolerance and toxicity levels Before animal experiments, people were already beginning to understand how certain foods and their elements affected health.
Nutritional scientist took it further by using animal studies to understand how minerals, vitamins and macronutrients can develop into diseases, deficiencies, and toxicities.
The types of animals used in these studies are generally rats, pigs, dogs, cats, farm animals, rabbits, and primates. Animal testing is viewed as a way for medical progress without harming people. Dogs were used in animal models that helped understand the role of the pancreas and insulin, and how pellagra develops from a deficiency of specific foods. However these experiments can give faulty data, due to the effects of the experiment giving different results for specific species Baker In one experiment, rats, chicks, dogs, cats, and pigs were used to see how amino acids could have a negative affect on one another Baker, In the experiment lysine affected arginine in chicks and dogs, but not for pigs and cats, which leads to the question, will this also be the same for humans Baker ?
The Animal Welfare Act is a law that protects animals from maltreatment and sets minimum requirements for housing and care Animal Welfare Act, Animals are not used strictly for human benefit, but also to better their future as well. Benefits and Advantages There are a plethora of benefits from animal studies, some of which include the eradication of nutrient deficiency diseases in most countries.
Fundamentals of Human Nutrition/Nutritional Science - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
With the advances being made in technology along with the usefulness of animal studies, this will lead to the understanding of the affects of diets on diseases, reproduction, brain function, and even longevity. There are also benefits in animal studies in a general sense: Of course, the most obvious advantage is that this safer for humans, but thanks to the Animal Welfare Act, this demands that an ethical approach be taken towards the animals.
Procedures Scientists do not just use any animal for their research. Specifically for nutritional studies, a great deal of research is put into strategically choosing an animal model Baker, For example, humans have the uncommon requirement for vitamin C.
For studies on vitamin C, scientists often look to use guinea pigs that also have this uncommon requirement. More often than not, rats are the go-to animal models for human nutrition. Animal studies in nutrition have prevented diseases due to deficiencies and even the eradication of some food preparation methods.
For example, nitrogen trichloride bleaching used to bleach flour was discontinued for human consumption after the incidental discovery that it causes hysteria in dogs, cats, ferrets, and rabbits. Animal models have led to the discovery of gastric juice, essential amino acids, and matched deficiency diseases and symptoms with the lacking vitamin Macrae, Human Studies[ edit ] Human studies are conducted to test the safety and efficiency of specific treatments.
My guess would be because there are only so much words you can write about the health effects of sugar.
Nutrition and the science of disease prevention: a systems approach to support metabolic health
If you asked me to write a similar book I might be able to write 50 pages. If I double-spaced and wrote superfluous and over-extended sentences I might be able to stretch it out to pages. But a publishing company is not going to be able to charge 25 bucks for a page book. You gotta give them pages or more before you can justify that price. A sugar novella may not be worth the editing and cover art and printing and marketing you put behind it.
Because of this Taubes discusses things like tobacco, cereal, why low-fat diets are bad, why the government sucks, and why the link between salt and hypertension is overblown. In the meantime, what follows is a non-exhaustive critical review and fact-check of some claims advanced in CAS. In short, much like GCBC, it is exceptionally dishonest and a misrepresentation of much of the source material.
We will discuss the merits of this soon enough, but on page 13 Taubes says the following: And on those very rare occasions when sugar consumption declined—as it did, for instance, during World War I, because of government rationing and sugar shortages—diabetes mortality invariably declined with it. My point in highlighting this is not that Taubes misrepresented the authors, although they did mention that sedentary behavior is also correlated with diabetes — something that Taubes leaves out.
What I want to mention is that this is an epidemiological study. Not only is it epidemiological, but it is also a cross-sectional which is one of the weakest analyses when it comes to suggesting causation. I want to remind readers that there has been no love lost between Taubes and the enterprise of epidemiology.
He has repeatedly maligned the study of population health, calling it unreliable and a pseudoscience.
However, this has never stopped him from citing epidemiological studies when it suits his needs. The Case Against Sugar is no different. I am not going to write a paragraph each time cites an observational study in support of his arguments because that would really muddy the waters of this review, but he does cite them quite often here and I will point them out when I feel it is appropriate.
Certainly, people and populations have acted as though sugar is addictive, but science provides no definitive evidence. Until recently, nutritionists studying sugar did so from the natural perspective of viewing sugar as a nutrient—a carbohydrate—and nothing more. They occasionally argued about whether or not it might play a role in diabetes or heart disease, but not about whether it triggered a response in the brain or body that made us want to consume it in excess.
That was not their area of interest. In short, Taubes claims that the neurobiological effects of sugar were not studied. Except several times throughout the same chapter Taubes cites research on the neurobiological effects of sugar, including one page tome published in by the NIH titled Taste and Development: The Genesis of Sweet Preference that does nothing but dive into the research. But if caloric or nutrient density is the answer, the nutritionists and evolutionary biologists have to explain why fats do not also taste sweet to us.
Firstly, does fat not have a pleasurable flavor? Is it not also desired for its texture, mouthfeel, and palatability? Thirdly, would having the ability to differentiate nutrients based on flavor salt, sweet, savory, etc. If Taubes had asked himself these questions would he have still written the above paragraph? There is a large body of scientific research on sugar that has been ongoing for as long as the enterprise of science has been around. Taubes even cites some of it himself.
Moreover, no nutritionist or dietitian that I know of has ever advocated consuming more sugar or that sugar is healthy or even that sugar is blameless when it comes to rising obesity.
The Marriage of Tobacco and Sugar, Taubes puts the blame on sugar not tobacco!
Consider the following excerpt from page 33 of Golden Holocaust: And now page 65 of CAS: To be fair to Taubes, there is no plagiarism here; everything is appropriately cited and quoted, but the whole chapter is like this.
Very little of it is original writing. Compare this to pages of GCBC: To British investigators, it was the disparate rates of diabetes among the different sects, castes, and races of India that particularly implicated sugar and starches in the disease.
It is difficult to state the part food plays in the production of diabetes, and what part gluttony supplies in the manufacture of sugar within the system. True it is that our diet chiefly consists of rice, flour, pulse, and cereals of diverse kinds; but so long as there does not exist the essential cause of diabetes, which Is still unknown, they exert little or no deleterious effects upon our health, and a man may continue to take carbohydrates and sugar lifelong, and still may not suffer from diabetes; he might suffer from temporary glycosuria.
I do not agree with those who believe that carbohydrates are the only factors of diabetes, for meat-eaters are not immune against the disease. New rice, curd, flesh of animals living in swamps, fish, sweets, wines, vinegar, excess of oil, and onions.
Barley, flour of old wheat, Moong dal, Arabar dal, Chena dal Bengal grainfried rice, sesamum seeds, meat juice, old wines, old honey, whey, sparrows, pigeons, rabbits, snipe, peacock, venison. So it is in the East. Further, in addition to sedentary habit, excessive mental labour, often in over crowded court-rooms, and ingestion of heavy, fatty, starchy, and saccharine meals, seem to be no unimportant factors in the causation of the disease among this class of highly useful Indian public officers.
If we take the whole of the text into account, we find that these Bengali gentlemen not only consume starches and pulses, but also heavy fatty foods, and they consume it all in excess. Might these lifestyle factors play a role in diabetes? Moreover, the physicians themselves make it clear that they do not think sugar and carbs cause diabetes since diabetes can also be present in those that do not eat carbs and be absent in those that consume a lot of carbs.
If these physicians thought carbs promoted the development of diabetes they would not be prescribing diets that included honey, flour, rice, sweets, and wine in the treatment diets. Allen found this point singularly compelling. This definite incrimination of the principal carbohydrate foods is, therefore, free from preconceived chemical ideas, and is based, if not on pure accident, on pure clinical observation. But Bose himself, with a more modern viewpoint, states that he does not know how much the heavy carbohydrate diet and the gluttony of the Hindus may have to do with the great prevalence of the disease among them; but unless the unknown cause of diabetes is present, a person may eat gluttonously of carbohydrate all his life and never have diabetes.
Among the authorities on diabetes, von Noorden declares against any relation between the eating of carbohydrate and the incidence of the disease.
Benedict considers that though some diabetics give a history of excessive eating of sugar or carbohydrates, many non-diabetics are guilty of equal excesses, particularly young girls who live on candy. Supporters of the sugar-theory call attention to the concomitant increase of diabetes and of sugar- consumption. But if sugar were a cause, diabetes should be more prevalent among the young, especially girls; and a larger proportion of case-histories should show sugar-excess.
The products of carbohydrate digestion and metabolism are not toxic, and indigestion generally stops the excess before long. By the mids, the rising mortality rates from diabetes in the United States had become the fodder of newspapers and magazines; Joslin, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and the New York State commissioner of health were all reporting publicly what Joslin was now calling an epidemic.
When Haven Emerson, head of the department of public health at Columbia University, and his colleague Louise Larimore discussed this evidence at length at two conferences in —the American Association of Physicians and the American Medical Association annual meetings—they considered the increase in sugar consumption that paralleled the increasing prevalence of diabetes to be the prime suspect.
But is this actually true? From the Emerson and Larimore article: The food shortage expressed itself not so much in the lack of sugar and carbohydrates as in lack of fats, which should make one suspect that it is not the quality but the gross quantity of food calories that plays the chief part in development of a high diabetes death rate in a community where more food is eaten than is required.
Sugar consumption was used only as a proxy.
Nutrition and the science of disease prevention: a systems approach to support metabolic health
This is repeated in the text: One index of the tendency of our people to use larger amounts of food is the record of per capita consumption of sugar, which is offered here not as an explanation of the increased death rates from diabetes in recent years, but more as a sign of the tendency to excesses in the use of foods of all kinds, beyond the needs of persons for foods in proportion to their expenditure of energy at the different ages of life, and in particular in the later decades.
If any prime suspect is fingered by the authors, it is the difference in physical activity between those that have diabetes and those that do not. This point is brought up many times in the text and is the closing sentence from Emerson. From here on out, any scientist offering contrary views to this misinterpreted theory is a hack, and any growing body of evidence against it is part of a conspiracy.
I wish I was making this up. In fact, Himsworth said the opposite: Ketosis is much better controlled [compared to a high-carbohydrate diet], there is less tendency to coma and to infection, and the general health is better. Furthermore, the diet is cheaper, less obvious to others, more palatable, and therefore more likely to be adhered to.
The disadvantage is that when put on to the diet the patient, if not carefully watched, may drift during the first week when his urine is just becoming sugar-free into acute hypoglycaemia. In a lecture to the British Royal College of Physicians, Himsworth described the problem with the hypothesis as a paradox: Do you know where it does exist?
Tactic 3 in this playbook involves accusing your opponent of your own weakness before they bring it up. Examples of this tactic include the Swiftboating of John Kerry or whenever Donald Trump claims one of his opponents is unhinged or corrupt.
Fundamentals of Human Nutrition/Nutritional Science
Taubes deploys it brilliantly here in that last bolded sentence. Because A Himsworth, in fact, does mention it. He even creates a nice graph illustrating the whole thing.
These populations are the counterexamples that suggest that this dietary-fat hypothesis is wrong Ugh, enough with Masai and Tokelau. Can we stop repeating nonsense? Continuing… The same is true of populations like the French and Swiss, who eat fat-rich and even saturated-fat-rich diets but are notably long-lived and healthy.
Systematic reviews of scientific research examine relationships between the overall diet, including its constituent foods, beverages, and nutrients, and health outcomes. Food pattern modeling assesses how well various combinations and amounts of foods from all food groups would result in healthy eating patterns that meet nutrient needs and accommodate limits, such as those for saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium. Analyses of current intakes identify areas of potential public health concern.
Together, these complementary approaches provide a robust evidence base for healthy eating patterns that both reduce risk of diet-related chronic disease and ensure nutrient adequacy. Scientific evidence supporting dietary guidance has grown and evolved over the decades. Previous editions of the Dietary Guidelines relied on the evidence of relationships between individual nutrients, foods, and food groups and health outcomes.
However, each identified component of an eating pattern does not necessarily have the same independent relationship to health outcomes as the total eating pattern, and each identified component may not equally contribute or may be a marker for other factors to the associated health outcome.