FOR ALMOST 100 MILLION AMERICANS, DIABETES IS KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR
SO WHY DOES THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CONTINUE TO SAY DIETARY CARBOHYDRATE AND SUGAR CONSUMPTION IS NOT A PROBLEM?
One of the more well known and respected of the thousands of medical journals is the ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE. A study that came out just the other day (The Scientific Basis of Guideline Recommendations on Sugar Intake: A Systematic Review) reviewed numerous guidelines published over the past two decades dealing with the effects of dietary sugar consumption on human health. They then made some recommendations of their own based on the conclusions of these collective guidelines.
What conclusions did this latest study from the Annals offer? After looking guidelines from nine different organizations that all, "advocated for reduced intake of nonintrinsic free or added sugars and/or decreased consumption of foods and beverages high in refined sugars, and recommendations provided specific sugar intake limits," the authors concluded that none were really valid because the, "quality of evidence supporting recommendations was low to very low. Guidelines on dietary sugar do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations. Public health officials and their public audience should be aware of these limitations." But it didn't end there.
The authors went on to argue that on top of the poor evidence, they couldn't be trusted because, "most of the guidelines either did not provide a statement about funding and its influence in the process of guideline development or failed to state conflicts of interest of authors or the guideline panel." CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Really? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Guess who sponsored this particular study? Can anyone say Coca Cola? That's right folks; they, along with the numerous other soda, candy, and junk food manufacturers that are members of the Technical Committee on Dietary Carbohydrates of the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (essentially a lobbying organization), funded a study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal --- a study telling MD's that there is no reason to recommend that people consume less sugar. Listen to these authors lather the butter, while defending their 'neutrality' in the matter...
"ILSI North America is a public, nonprofit foundation that provides a forum to advance understanding of scientific issues related to the nutritional quality and safety of the food supply by sponsoring research programs, educational seminars, workshops, and publications. ILSI North America receives 60% of its financial support from its more than 400 industry members. The funding source had no role in the interpretation of data, manuscript review, or publication decisions."
This, folks, is the definition of a joke. Science has shown us repeatedly that the last sentence of the quote above is never true. Ever (HERE). And what exactly was the purpose of their research anyway? Wasn't this essentially the modus oporandi Big Tobacco used forty years ago --- paying scientists for studies to discredit any research showing their product in a bad light (THE INSIDER)? JUNK FOOD? JUNK SCIENCE? What's the difference as long as everyone's making money? The thing is, junk science from the sugar industry has been the status quo for at least six decades --- since Ancel Keys infamous and discredited 'Seven Nation's Study' from 1956 (HERE).
Please note that this is not similar to the "junk science" seen with FLU VACCINATION RESEARCH. This is more like what we saw with the growing number of scientists pointing out that the RESEARCH ON DIETARY FAT continues to be based on junk science and false premises. Truthfully, it's probably quite similar what we have seen as far as CHOLESTEROL GUIDELINES, ANTIBIOTIC GUIDELINES, CORTICOSTEROID GUIDELINES and ANY NUMBER OF OTHER GUIDELINES are concerned. Never forget folks, it's all about the money. Maybe there was a time when this wasn't the case, but today it's an indisputable, cold, hard fact --- even if the authors of this study try and convince you otherwise. Follow the links and you'll see that "Medical Guidelines" are frequently created by the highest bidder.
WHY IS IT SUCH A BIG DEAL?
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).