bite my words

Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


The truth about vegetables that will make you fat


Image: The courgette I forgot to pick by Caroline on Flickr. Used under a Creative Commons Licence.


Following on the heels of my post last week about greens vs grains is another diatribe stemming from an article I found online. This one? 5 Vegetable Foods That Make You Fat.

What are these insidious vegetables? Vegetable tempura, veggie chips, vegetable juice, vegetable smoothies, and vegetable dips. Was anyone under the impression that these are sound dietary choices on par with fresh vegetables? I’d hazard a guess that most people would realize that deep frying, adding sugar, and adding a smattering of vegetables to a creamy cheesy base is not the same as eating a salad or a carrot. Even so, these foods are not inherently fattening. You can eat them and not get fat. As with any food, it’s the amount you eat that matters. I’d even argue that home made vegetable juice and smoothies can be a nutritious choice. Even vegetable dips can be healthy if you make them with Greek yoghurt.

Why do we keep having to label foods as “good” or “bad” anyway? It’s rarely that simple. Even if you’re having vegetable chips you may be consuming less sodium and more fibre than if you were consuming potato chips. Even if you’re not, is that really so bad if it’s an occasional treat? We need to stop calling foods “bad” and “good”. This only leads to unhealthy relationships with food and greater desire for those forbidden “bad” foods.

The real lessons from this article: 1. don’t read articles that tell you X, Y, or Z will make you fat (or skinny, for that matter), 2. prepare your own meals the majority of the time. If you’re making your own meals you can control what goes into them (and what doesn’t) and you can make a perfectly healthy and delicious veggie smoothie.


Thoughts on “The Myth of High-Protein Diets”


Image used under a Creative Commons Licence. Photo by Sean_Hickin on flickr.

Part of me is a little hesitant to address the op-ed piece by Dr Dean Ornish in the New York Times last week. This because, the low-fat zealots have already attacked me for criticizing Dr Esselstyn in the past. But, you know me, when something gets under my skin I can’t leave it well enough along.

The piece was titled: The Myth of High-Protein Diets. One would think that the accompanying article would be about pitfalls to following a high-protein diet. However, Dr Ornish focusses solely on animal protein, with an emphasis on meat and fat. The gist of his argument is that if you eschew animal products you will live longer, as will the planet. Okay, so it’s not the myth of high-protein diets. It’s the myth of high-animal products diets.

One of the studies Ornish cites is one that I blogged about a year ago. At the time it ignited headlines proclaiming that protein was akin to smoking and that animal protein would contribute to our premature demise. Suffice to say, the study was flawed and these conclusions were tenuously drawn. In fact, in older adults, diets that were higher in protein were actually positively correlated with reduced mortality. And there was no negative effect from plant sources of protein at any age. So, even with the poor quality of this research, some of the results were in direct opposition to Ornish’s interpretation of them.

I read articles like this and think to myself “it’s no wonder that people are confused about what to eat and don’t trust any health care professionals”. You have one doctor insisting that a low-carb diet is the key to a long healthy life, another insisting that it’s low-fat, another insisting that it’s high-carb, another insisting that it’s blahblahblah. Of course, they all have the book to sell you. Maybe they’re all right. Maybe you can be healthy one any of their highly-restrictive diets. As I’ve said before, the best diet is the one that you can enjoy and follow for life. For me, that involves eating fat, protein, and carbs from both plant and animal sources. Yeah, I know it’s not sexy, but balance and variety are the hallmarks of a nutritious diet.


I guess some RDs are sexy


Eat big meals… Fat goes quick! Photo by L’imaGiraphe (en travaux) on Flickr. Used under a Creative Commons LIcence.

Right on the heels of my post about we dietitians not being sexy, this article comes out in the Daily Mail, and I’m forced to eat my words (good thing there are no forbidden foods!). Dietitian Trudi Deakin is proclaiming a high-fat, low-carb diet to be the be all and end all, and she’s written the book to “prove” it. Sigh.

Now, as you (my regular readers) know, I’m certainly not one to shy away from fat. New readers, My original by line was “real dietitians eat butter”. However, I also subscribe to the school of thought that says too much of anything is bad for you. Be it fat, salt, sugar, or carrots. You can have too much of a good thing. According to Trudi, saturated fat is the key. While it’s become widely accepted that saturated fat is not the demon it was once believed to be, that doesn’t mean that it’s suddenly a dietary super hero.

Trudi claims that her diet is 82% fat, and she’s never felt healthier. She alleges that high-carb diets are fuelling the obesity epidemic. The gist is that low-fat was wrong so low-carb must be right. Why do we have to go from one extreme to another? I’ll say the same thing about this that I said about demonizing sugar: blaming one nutrient for obesity or chronic disease isn’t getting us anywhere. These are complex problems that aren’t going to be remedied with simple solutions.

This 82% fat has me curious though. What would a diet that’s 82% fat look like? According to Trudi:

BREAKFAST: Three eggs cooked in the microwave with butter and cheese, like a souffle, served with oily fish – smoked salmon or mackerel – or avocado.

LUNCH:A bowl of berries with double cream or a homemade walnut scone, made with ground almonds rather than flour, served with double cream

DINNER: Meat or fish with a serving of vegetables cooked in butter 

Just for fun, I entered this meal plan into my fitness pal to find out the breakdown. Obviously without quantities, it’s near impossible to say exactly what caloric and macronutrient totals would look like. Based on one serving of each of the items listed above, I would only be consuming 995 kcal, and fat would account for roughly 40% of these. If Trudi’s diet is being accurately reported, she’s obviously consuming greater quantities than I recorded, particularly of the high-fat foods. Regardless, it doesn’t sounds overly appealing to me. I’d rather be a few pounds heavier and die a couple of years earlier than never have cereal for breakfast, never snack, and put butter on everything (as much as I love butter).

While Trudi may be content with this restrictive diet for now, it will be interesting to see what will happen with time. Most people following low-carb diets find them to be extremely difficult to follow over the long-term and usually relinquish them. Aside from the difficulty adhering to these low-carb, high-fat diets, there are other risk factors to consider.

Children with epililepsy following ketogenic diets provide us with some insight into the long term effects of a ketogenic diet. A study of children following a ketogenic diet found that poor growth was common. Other side effects were kidney stones and bone fractures.

There’s some other misinformation in the article. Trudi states that she consumes 30 grams of protein at breakfast because “your body doesn’t store it.” Um… I don’t know where this is coming from. While 30 calories at breakfast is certainly reasonable, excess calories, regardless of macronutrient, will be stored as fat.

The unfortunate thing about most weight management research is that “long term” equals several months to a year. While someone might experience weight loss, and find a high-fat diet relatively easy to adhere to for a few months, years, or a lifetime, are a far different story. Trudi’s been following this diet for less than year. Let’s see the tune she’s singing in a decade. Until then, you might want to take her high-fat diet with a grain of salt, or better yet, a baked potato.


No big fat surprise that butter is being touted as the next Superfood


Why, oh why must we take everything to the extreme? Is it because simple healthy eating is boring? We have to have “clean eating”, “superfoods”, “low-fat”, “low-carb”, “cleanses”, “high-protein”, yada yada. The latest mantra to irk me “slather on the butter”. I know, I know, I said it first “real dietitians eat butter”. But this doesn’t mean that we have to eat it to excess. What am I on about now? An article in the Daily Mail that I came across on the weekend: Can eating fatty meat, whole milk and lashings of butter help you LOSE weight?

Okay, most of us in the nutrition world have accepted that low-fat was a grievous error. Taking anything to the extreme is a nutritional error. Just because something is not “bad” for you, or even good for you, doesn’t mean that you should consume more of it. The logic seems to go: apples are delicious and nutritious; therefore, an entire bag of them must be even better. In this case, we’re not even referring to foods that we know to be healthy when consumed regularly. We’re referring to foods that were unfairly demonized but have not been shown to lead to good health when consumed daily.

Perhaps, the article in the Daily Mail does not accurately portray Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise. I haven’t read the book, so I can only comment on the news article. Encouraging people to eat more cream, high-fat red meat, butter, and other foods high in saturated fat is not the solution to the obesity epidemic that the Daily Mail would have you believe. Yes, you can lose weight eating anything; remember the Twinkie Doctor? This doesn’t mean that you’re healthier (especially in the long-term).

Apparently Teicholz claims that removing the fat from milk means adding more carbohydrates. No. When you remove fat, you are not adding anything. Yes, an equivalent quantity of skim milk will be higher in carbohydrate (not sugar though) than whole milk. That’s simply a result of what’s left behind when you remove the fat. It’s also higher in protein, minerals, and vitamins. We wrongly vilified saturated fat, let’s blame carbs.

Health and the battle against obesity should not be a nutrient blame-game. How about we stop demonizing and glorifying foods and nutrients and accept that there is a place for bread and a place for butter in a healthy diet.


Fat does not equal fat


The article: Anyone Silly Enough to Think Fat is Good for You Needs to See This Brain Study made me want to scream and scarf a bag of potato chips out of spite.

The article reports that the study found that body fat doesn’t just sit around your midsection, it also affects your cognitive function. This lead them to the conclusion that recent reports that dietary fat has been wrongly demonized are incorrect.

What’s my problem with this? One, body fat and dietary fat are not the same! You can become obese by consuming too many fat-free foods. Dietary fat does not equal body fat. The study was looking at  body fat not dietary fat. This means that we can’t go blaming butter. Two, the study was done on mice. Mice are not humansYes, it’s quite likely that excess body fat has negative effects on many aspects of your system. However, we can’t make the leap from a study on mice to humans. And we most certainly can’t make the leap to dietary sources of fat.