Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


Leave a comment

Does removing gluten make foods healthy?

dvmxh

Based on some suggestions I’ve seen recently for “healthy” muffins and recipe searches for various baked goods I feel that a refresher on gluten is in order. I’m just going to put it right out there: the absence of gluten in a recipe has absolutely no bearing on how healthy it is.

For those who are unaware, gluten is a protein found in certain grains, the most common of which is wheat. Gluten helps to provide structure and texture in baked goods such as breads. Gluten is neither inherently healthy or unhealthy. Now, some people do have to avoid gluten in their diets if they have celiac disease, an allergy, or an intolerance, for that small percentage of the population, eating food containing gluten can make them sick. For the other 90-something percent of us though, gluten is perfectly healthy and safe for us to consume. In fact, some research has shown that a gluten-free diet may actually be less healthy than a glutenous diet. A gluten free diet may be low in fibre and some vitamins and minerals.

In addition, gluten free flours and packaged foods aren’t cheap. You’ll spend considerably more for gluten free products than you will for their gluten-full or potentially gluten contaminated counterparts. And while gluten free options have come a long way over the past few years, many of them are still inferior in taste and texture to regular gluten containing versions.

So, unless you have a medical condition which precludes you from eating gluten there is no health (or flavour, or financial) benefit to avoiding it. Be grateful that you don’t have to live your life in fear of being “glutened” and enjoy your gluten-filled baked goods.


3 Comments

What came first: the fried chicken or the heart disease?

1497516727563

Last month a study was published about fried food consumption and the risk of coronary artery disease. The study was conducted with US military veterans and concluded that: “In a large national cohort of U.S. Veterans, fried food consumption has a positive, dose-dependent association with CAD.” Meaning that the more fried food a veteran consumed, the more likely they were to have heart disease. But what does this mean for the average person?

It’s important to note that the vast majority of study participants were men (90%) and the average age was 64. It’s well known that heart disease in women is poorly researched and important to acknowledge that the results of this study don’t necessarily apply to women. There are also many factors that contribute to the risk of developing heart disease and the researchers took the following into account: race (insofar as to categorize participants as black, white, or other), BMI, alcohol use, education status, exercise, smoking status, pre-existing type 2 diabetes, consumption of fish, fruit, and vegetables. After controlling for these factors, the researchers still found a relationship between fried food consumption and CAD.

However, the authors neglected to control for one important factor: poverty. Poverty is a significant risk factor for many so-called “lifestyle-related diseases”, including CAD. Other lifestyle factors are often also enmeshed with poverty making it nearly impossible to determine true contributing factors. People who live in poverty often have poorer diet quality than those with higher incomes and may rely on fast food, including fried foods. If poverty is indeed a greater risk factor than fried food consumption, or if fried food consumption is a result of poverty, this means that simply telling people to consume less fried food may not be the most helpful advice. It takes a certain level of privilege to be able to “choose” to consume the recommended diet. It means having the financial means, time, access, and facilities necessary to prepare nutritious meals.

While the findings of this study support the common belief that fried food is not a healthy choice they also serve to entrench the belief that diet is all about choice when for many people it is not. We need to look further than fried food to determine the root causes of illnesses such as coronary artery disease if we truly want to work to reduce incidence of these diseases.


6 Comments

Lose the Weight Watchers

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 2.32.05 PM.png

Last year Weight Watchers rebranded as WW because they wanted to pretend that they were about healthy lifestyles and not just weight loss. This week they announced the release of their new weight loss app for kids (as young as eight!) and teens. They’re trying to frame it as “helping kids and teens build healthy habits” but when the central feature of the app is food tracking don’t be fooled; this is Weight Watchers points for kids and creating a “bad food” “good food” dichotomy is likely to do anything but help these kids build life-long healthy habits.

An eight year old tracking every morsel of food they eat with the sole aim of losing weight is pretty much the antithesis of a healthy habit. Rather than help kids develop healthy habits this app is far more likely to instil them with an unhealthy relationship with food and their bodies. And while I personally ascribe to the belief that weight is not indicative of health, I hope that all healthcare providers and parents can see why an app like this could be damaging to children whether or not they view “overweight” and “obesity” as a “problem”. Weight is not a modifiable behaviour and focusing on weight loss as an end goal doesn’t promote the adoption of healthy behaviours. Rather, it promotes restricted eating and quite probably disordered eating habits in order to attain that goal.

Given that very few adults successfully maintain intentional long-term weight loss, I find it baffling that WW claims that their new app is “evidence-based” and will somehow be more successful (if you are measuring success by pounds lost) in children and youth than similar programs have been in adults. It also makes me sad to see the quotes around “stopping arguments about food” so that parents and children get along better. Placing the responsibility for food choices in the hands of an app rather than working on fostering a healthy food environment at home may seem ideal but this doesn’t truly promote healthy behaviours. I know not everyone can afford to work with a registered dietitian (and not all RDs ascribe to the same school of thought when it comes to body weight); however, I recommend Ellyn Satter’s books which can be found at your public library if you want to help your child attain a healthy relationship with food.

It’s also important to keep in mind that WW is a for-profit business. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing this because there’s money to be made – one month use of the app is $69 USD. They’re doing this because a “fun” app is an easier sell to parents who are concerned about their children’s weight than working on the division of responsibility, role modelling healthy behaviours and positive relationships with food, and cooking and eating nutritious balanced meals together as a family. They’re doing this because weight bias is so rampant in our society that many people can think of few things worse than being fat and parents are desperate to save their children from that plight. I get that. Parents just want their children to be healthy. Unfortunately, an app that encourages a restrictive diet mentality is likely to achieve the opposite of health promotion.


9 Comments

Is it possible that chocolate milk actually saved Andrew Scheer’s son’s life?

1535388105203.jpg.7d7329937df4a921d1efba38efab8b6a

The other evening I was alerted to the latest absurdity in politicizing things that should not be politicized by an Instagram story posted by a fellow RD (thanks Pamela). I promptly went on a rant to my poor boyfriend and the fetus who made a valiant effort to escape my rage by pushing through my belly. This is precisely why I’m taking a break from twitter. It took some deep breaths and a chapter of a book to calm me down enough to go to sleep. So, now I’m going to dredge it all up and rant to you.

Okay, so this is probably old news by the time you’re reading this but I still need to get it all out. Did you see the utterly absurd news story about the esteemed federal Conservative leader Andrew Scheer speaking at the Dairy Farmers’ of Canada annual meeting? If not, you can check it out for yourself. Highlights include his pledge to review the new Food Guide. Why? Because, according to him, “the process was flawed” and there was a “complete lack of consultation”. Are you shitting me Andrew?!!! There was SO MUCH consultation. I know this because I, like any other Canadian, was able to participate in the process. I’m not sure where he came up with the idea that there was no consultation but I’m pleased to see our Health Minister Ginette Petitpas calling him out for “spreading lies”. Maybe his issue was that industry and lobby groups were not invited to the table. However, they were all perfectly welcome to provide input in the same manner as anyone else in Canada, and boy did they attempt to use their clout to influence the process.

Scheer then proceeded to claim that “chocolate milk saved my son’s life”. I know you want to win over the farmers buddy but that is an utterly absurd comment. Apparently his son was a “picky eater” and somehow the consumption of chocolate milk was the only thing that saved him from imminent death. I mean, come on. If your child is only eating toast, bacon, and “very plain grilled meats” as Scheer claimed then chocolate milk ain’t gonna save his life. This is just another shining example of someone who thinks they’re an expert in nutrition because they eat. If your child is a “picky eater” may I be so bold as to suggest working with a registered dietitian to promote life-long healthy eating habits before stocking up your fridge with chocolate milk.

That’s not even the best part though, he went on to say that, “The idea that these types of products that we’ve been drinking as human beings and eating as human beings for millennia — that now all of a sudden they’re unhealthy — it’s ridiculous.” Um… We haven’t been drinking chocolate milk (at least not as we know it now) for millennia but let’s assume he meant milk in general. Nowhere in the new guide does it advise against drinking milk. No one from Health Canada has claimed that milk is “unhealthy”. Milk, and dairy, are still included in the Food Guide. I’d also like to note that there are many people in the world who are unable to digest the lactose in milk or who suffer from milk allergies or who choose not to consume dairy products and who somehow manage to live long healthy lives without the regular consumption of chocolate milk.

I find it completely enraging that the current brand of Conservative seems to think that the best thing they can do is to undo everything that the previous Liberal government has done before them. In addition, it is unconscionable that politicians are politicizing our health and well-being. Evidence-based measures, policies, and healthcare should be non-partisan issues and politicians should not be sacrificing the welfare of the residents of Canada in order to win votes from industry groups.


17 Comments

How pregnancy has made me confront my own weight bias

IMG-1062

Two months to go! Photo credit: Randall Andrews

I have a confession to make and I’ve gone back and forth about whether or not to write about it because I’m not proud of this. However, I’m taking a deep breath and going for it because I think that it’s important to acknowledge these things.

During the first trimester as I started to gain weight but wasn’t yet obviously pregnant I found myself struggling with the thought that people might think I was *gasp* fat. As someone who has always had a small body I have lived a life rich in thin privilege. Despite my support of HAES and firm belief that people should not be judged by their weight I realized that I wasn’t comfortable extending this mindset to my own body. My body is small, my body has always been small, and therefore, my body should remain small. It’s great for other people to accept their own larger bodies but I, I am ashamed to admit, am not willing to accept that my own body could be anything other than small.

When I would go running at the local indoor track, as my clothes became a little tighter around my belly, I imagined people thinking “good for her, trying to lose weight”. I also imagined people who knew me thinking “looks like she’s not running as much these days”. or passing other judgements on my physique. I was pissed at these people for judging my body. I wanted to wear a sign to tell the world that my imperceptible weight gain was due to the fetus growing inside of me, not because I’m incapable of taming my unruly body. And then I was ashamed and disappointed in myself for not extending the courtesy of body acceptance to my own body as it changed. I was also ashamed because this was how I envisioned others thinking about strangers bodies. Do people really pass these judgements on each other? On themselves? Why did I care what people were (or weren’t) thinking about my body? How have I allowed so much of my identity to be tied to my size? And how self-absorbed of me to presume that others are spending any time judging my body – given the number of people who expressed surprise upon learning I was pregnant when I thought it was pretty obvious people are not nearly as attuned to my body as I imagined. 

As my belly grew and it became more obvious that it contained a tiny human and not just one too many cheeseburgers I became physically less comfortable but mentally more comfortable. People started to compliment me on my “adorable bump”. It feels good to have an acceptable larger body but I’m still carrying that extra guilt around too. It’s not right that women in larger bodies should be shamed while I’m praised for my belly. I truly have no more control over the shape and size of my “bump” as this fetus grows inside me than I have over my height or the size of my feet. 

I truly believe that we do people, particularly women, a disservice by not talking more about how our bodies change over time. It’s as though we all expect to reach a certain size and then remain there permanently. This is not realistic. Our sizes and shapes changes over time for myriad reasons. This is part of being a human in possession of a body. Some people may remain a similar size and shape for decades while others will evolve by the season (winterspeck anyone?). This is all natural.

As I previously wrote, women don’t need to “get their bodies back” after pregnancy. Our bodies have not gone anywhere, they have simply adapted to meet current demands. My new philosophy (during pregnancy and postpartum): my body is going to be the size it wants and needs to be right now.