What is good for you? Don't ask the "experts"

When I first enlisted in the Army, I weighed in at a “whopping” 99 pounds. It was decided that my actual induction should be delayed nine months, during which time I miraculously experienced a growth spurt of two inches and six pounds. After that, my skinny frame didn’t support more than 115 pounds for another 20 years or so, no matter how much I ate. But once I hit 40, it appeared that something went awry with my metabolism and my belly started to expand, and my weighted ballooned to 145 pounds. I certainly didn’t care for the sight of my expansion, but for the last several months I’ve acquired a new hobby—saving money—and this required a severe cut-back in living expenses, especially in my food budget. 

Weight gain—or loss—is 75 percent diet and 25 percent exercise, although one suspects that the way a person naturally metabolizes food also has a significant impact on weight, particularly when young. Of course, the “experts” have differing opinions on the matter; an exercise proponent will say that working out does a better job at reducing fat than diet, while a nutritional proponent will point out that studies have shown that those who lose weight through diet alone lost fat at a much faster pace than those who try to lose weight by exercise alone. I’ve don’t have a car, and I usually walk briskly as much as two hours or more a day, and it didn’t have any appreciable impact on my keeping my expanding belly under control; all those conceited office types out jogging in their tights take note. It was only in significantly reducing my calorie and fat intake over the past four months that saw my belly flatten out again. 

The latest research on the dangers of fat intake is just as contradictory on how best to reduce weight. It seems that since forever we have been told that “fat” is a “bad” thing, unless you are an Eskimo living in the Arctic. Being “fat” is not only unhealthy, but it doesn’t “look” healthy either, although for some people it is genetic, or they just don’t care. Now it appears that several new studies suggest that fat, or at least some variations of it, are not as “bad” as previous thought, while others are not as “good” as commonly suggested. Furthermore, it has been opined that there is no proven link between saturated fat and heart disease. This follows on the heels of claims that a few ounces of chocolate a day is actually “healthy” for you. 

Of course, we are not quite at the point where science has discovered that “substances” previously thought to be unhealthy are laughably arcane, as was claimed in the Woody Allen sci-fi comedy Sleeper. Yet we are now told by some that chocolate, butter, coconut oil, meat (including chicken and fish) and all forms of dairy products that are particularly high in saturated fat—as well as foods that combine various forms of fatty substances, like pizza—may not be as “bad” as once thought, at least insofar as their impact on heart health. 

TIME magazine recently published a cover story citing studies which question the “badness” of food with high quantities of saturated fat, the labeling of which has naturally been “hurtful” for women who like their sugary and confectionary intake and don’t like being made to be self-conscious about it. Supposedly the whole saturated fat drama was started by someone named Ancel Keys, who published a study in the early 1960s which claimed that middle-aged men who ate large amounts of meat and dairy products had higher incidences of heart disease than those who had diets low in saturated fats. A journalist named Nina Teicholz, who ate a lot of “junk food” and didn’t like to be made to feel “self-conscious” about it, decided to conduct her own “study” to upset the conclusion of decades of commonly held theory. 

And there has apparently been a great deal of alternative history on the books, which blame sugar intake and so-called “skinny fat” for increased health risks previously associated with saturated fat. The latest research claims that diets high in saturated fat was not more likely to cause heart disease than diets high in unsaturated fat—like olive oil, highly ironic as we will learn later. It has also been noted that cutting down on “junk” food leads to the consumption of presumably “healthy” food, like bread, cereals and even fresh fruit—which can be “bad” for your heart. Huh?

There are those who now claim that the traditional “pyramid” approach to nutritional requirements is outdated, and that instead of focusing on set daily requirements, that dietary guidelines based on “real food.” That might include a “healthy” Mediterranean diet, comprised fish, fruits, nuts, high-fiber grains, vegetables and olive oil (remember it was claimed that olive oil was more dangerous than saturated fat in causing heart disease; what is more, such a diet has a much as 50 percent of calories coming from fat. I should also point out that I spent two weeks living on such a diet in Crete while I was in the Army, and it is about as boring a taste-free existence as all beat.

There is plenty more “confusion” on the topic. The same “study” that claimed that monounsaturated fat like olive oil was worse than saturated fat claims that polyunsaturated fat like corn oil is also “bad” is refuted by another study that claims that it reduces heart disease. What?  There are those who still say that reducing saturated fat intake and increasing unsaturated fat reduces “bad’ cholesterol. Yet other research claims that it is trans fats in processed food that is most likely to cause heart disease than either saturated and unsaturated fat. Make up your minds!

It gets worse. Carbohydrates are the base of the food pyramid, and we now “learn” that Americans have taken this as a “green light” to eat as much junk food and pasta as they wish. Since when? I never heard that before. Carbohydrates are now found (supposedly) to increase “bad” cholesterol, as well as helping “store” unwanted fat tissue. What else? Diets high in whole grains and fruit are worse than high fat meat and cheese!

This is all “good news” to whom? Why, women who like their cake, cookies and candy. Low fat diets actually cause heart disease!

Obesity is a problem—but wait! We are putting too much “weight” on weight! Is this good news for fat people? Compared to healthy people of normal weight, apparently. People with metabolisms that burn-up calories faster than overweight people may be hiding something more unhealthy because they think they can: Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and high blood sugar. It is just not “obvious.” Fat protruding from the stomach may actually be less an indication of unhealthiness than the “unseen” fat that surrounds bodily organs. 

Someday, the people who are supposed to know what is good for us will get it all straightened out. For now, you are on your own.