by Hannah Sutter
Just how much of your diet should be made up of carbohydrates and how much of fat? The long running advice that carbs should form the basis of a healthy balanced diet has recently been coming under heavy attack – here(Why demonising fat is daft) and here (Saturated fat is not the major issue) for instance. So is there any chance that official advice might change?
Unknown to all but a few experts, a government committee has been investigating this question for an astonishing five years. Hannah Sutter, an ex-corporate lawyer with a detailed knowledge of nutrition has been investigating that committee and has been appalled by what she has found.
About ten years ago for various personal reasons I became interested in the benefits of an Atkins-type low carbohydrate diet. I read a lot of research material, talked to many experts and became convinced that the advice to follow a low fat/high carbohydrate diet has been disastrous for our national health. I now run an organisation called Natural Ketosis which helps about 200 people a month follow a proper controlled low carbohydrate/high fat diet and I’ve seen dramatic health benefits as a result.
However I was always astounded at the apparent refusal of those supporting the classic low fat diet to consider the mounting evidence against it. So putting my investigative lawyer’s hat back on I set out to discover where in the government labyrinth this policy was monitored. This was how I discovered the little known Department of Health’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) which is overseen by the Food Standards Agency.
Since 2008 it has been leisurely considering just how much carbohydrate we should be getting. It meets every few months and the minutes of their meetings are available on line, although also not easy to find. For an ostensibly public body, you need to be pretty determined to find out about SACN’s activities and what I found was alarming.
I acknowledge my own prejudice but I believe I’m a good enough lawyer to be able to weigh up evidence impartially. I was amazed at the gaps in the expertise of the committee, their clear commercial interests and the way they evaluated evidence. All suggested that it was not fit to make an informed judgement about the benefits of a high or low carbohydrate diet.
Conflict of Interest
The first thing that jumped out from the data was that the majority of the members of this committee, directly or indirectly, receive income from companies that make money out of carbohydrates or low fat products, in which some or part of the fat is often replaced by a carbohydrate, usually sugar. Here is a table of members’ declared interests:
It’s worth noting that this information is not easily available from just visiting the site. You have to hunt for it. The fact that a conflict of interest is declared does not delete the conflict.
Read more at: http://healthinsightuk.org/
Thanks to another ( Graham_LCHF ) for the link over at:
Graham
7 comments:
You have to wonder why this lot are allowed to dawdle along at their own pace in this way, Except that we know the answer. It is far easier to say that a committee has been set up and he findings are awaited rather than press for some conclusions and deal with the issues arising. If diet and obesity etc. are such an issue and bringing the NHS to its knees etc. then surely the findings of this committee is a matter of urgency? Not only is this delaying a scandal but who on earth would appoint people with these interests? Has anyone anywhere ever believed that Mars Bars are nutritious? Well done the author!
Kath
So Hannah Sutter has no conflicts of interest then - she runs a company selling meals and low carb bars - that is a conflict of interest too!! It beats me why so many of these so called health gurus shout out about food comanies and are doing the same themselves - Sutter, Harcombe, Briffa etc. Double standards!
ps the food she sells is very expensive and actually not very nice.
That will obviously explain her interest Anon, but doesn't negate the points she has raised and the information she has uncovered.
Its not just a matter of opinion.
I personally would not go for ready made meals and low carb bars but they no doubt have a place and are useful in some situations and for some people.
It is up to the individual to search out low carb items and to make their own choices. These scientists are supposed to be advising on the health of the nation- a bit different from spotting a niche in the market in order to help people wean themselves off bad dietary habits.
Thanks for pointing it out though.
Kath
Kath it is in her interest to promote low carb so she is as bad! All of these health gurus are as bad as the food companies - they make money!! Mind you she is the worst of all - a lawyer by trade!
"So Hannah Sutter has no conflicts of interest then - she runs a company selling meals and low carb bars - that is a conflict of interest too!! It beats me why so many of these so called health gurus shout out about food comanies and are doing the same themselves - Sutter, Harcombe, Briffa etc. Double standards!"
How can it be double standards they are not involved in with advising on nutrition for the whole of the UK, if they were then you would have a case. They are small fry compared to the drug and food cartels and their £billions.
Another interesting article to read, the comments too.
As ever the choice is still our own, we must all decide our own views and action upon them.
But I would also say "well done the author"
All the best Jan
They may be small fry but the principle is the same! Hypocrites in my book!
Post a Comment