The Goods Are Odd

Well I may be lax in my postings, but it seems even with over a month away from Mind to Mouth I am still ahead of the news, at least when it comes to the important things…like butter.

Scientific American Magazine published a short piece in their latest issue that addresses the recent studies that have taken a more critical look at this (apparently) confounding relationship between dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, saturated fat, heart disease, and overall health including body mass. As history and the current health of those still eating traditional diets would have us understand saturated fat is just not the culprit they thought. Instead these studies have shown that carbohydrates are problem.

The finding joins other conclusions of the past few years that run counter to the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is bad for the heart because it increases total cholesterol levels. That idea is “based in large measure on extrapolations, which are not supported by the data,” Krauss says.
…
One problem with the old logic is that “total cholesterol is not a great predictor of risk,”
…
Although the subjects on the low-carb diet ate the most saturated fat, they ended up with the healthiest ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and lost twice as much weight as their low-fat-eating counterparts.

While I agree that sugar and white flour should have a very different role in our lives than it currently plays (celebrity cameo for occasional special times rather than the lead) it is a bit frustrating to have one evil replaced by another. It seems like our puritanical roots make us have to have something to burn at the stake and we are unable to be satisfied with or have the attention for an explanation that involves an understanding of the quality and quantity of food and the importance of balance (I didn’t say, “moderation in all things” which is the favorite comment section posting of those annoyed at the dietary contradictions and prescription). But humans have never lived with just “good things” and no “bad things.” This is food, not a moral tug of war. As long as it has gone through minimal and/or careful processing and is in the right quantities and qualities, we can use it all.

How the general, non Scientific American Magazine reading, public is going to learn about the redemption of sat fats was the other concern of the article…meaning mostly, will the FDA change its recommendations/pyramid to reflect these findings? And they responded by saying, in so many words, not if it involves losing political contributions:

Right now, Post explains, the agency’s main message to Americans is to limit overall calorie intake, irrespective of the source. “We’re finding that messages to consumers need to be short and simple and to the point,” he says. Another issue facing regulatory agencies, notes Harvard’s Stampfer, is that “the sugared beverage industry is lobbying very hard and trying to cast doubt on all these studies.”

This Scientific American Magazine article provides a great defense for whole foods that have not been tampered with to fit a new idea of health. The winner in this (besides us) is butter.

The categorization of butter as a healthy whole food has significance on this blog, because it was in this post, from almost two years ago (!), that I found the Weston Price Foundation and moved to a next-level way of eating that involved avoiding most things in packages, eating pretty much no white grains, and few grains that haven’t been soaked/fermented/sprouted. I also REALLY cut out sugar. This whole change really just sprung from the fact that butter is so lovely, so many lovely healthy people eat/have eaten it and it seems so much simpler and more pure than anything created to replace it. Also, no one can really make a dishonest amount of  money from butter and this fact seemed to warrant trust and loyalty through all the contradictions and food technologies that are supposed to be better than what we had before.

And butter has stayed true through it all hasn’t it? Despite its modern maligning, we have more health problems related to diet than ever before. So, no  “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” we don’t know better. But maybe we finally are starting to again.

“If you reduce saturated fat and replace it with high glycemic-index carbohydrates, you may not only not get benefits—you might actually produce harm,” Ludwig argues. The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, he says, consider that “butter is actually the more healthful component.”