Pages

Monday, January 30, 2017

Will Trump Be Bad for Science? His Cabinet Appointments Suggest Not

As President Trump settles into office and begins filling cabinet positions, we're starting to get a sense of how the new administration will influence science policy in America.

American Council on Science and Health president Hank Campbell has some interesting thoughts on Trump's cabinet picks as they relate to science:

When it comes to science and health, someone has clearly thought about these nominees, and they are also in line with the stated goals that got the President elected. These selections are certainly not anti-science, unless you are framing science through political or social goals.
A few quick thoughts:

Campbell rightly criticizes the EPA for the propagandizing they've engaged in over the last eight years, but acknowledges that they've also done some good research, especially on fracking in my opinion. Since Trump has been vocal about the importance of increased energy production and ordered the EPA to tone down their environmentalist preaching on twitter, I anticipate the agency will improve under the new president.

The Department of Energy will no longer preach the blessings of alternative energy, nor will they force all of us to pay for it, under the direction of former Texas governor Rick Perry. Greenpeace is breaking out in hives. Snort.

Francis Collins is staying on as director of the National Institutes of Health. He's a great science communicator and a great researcher besides. He's also been a voice of reason in the religion vs. science debate, mainly because he's convincingly argued that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's still early. But so far, so good. Trump could have done a lot worse with these cabinet picks.








Sunday, January 29, 2017

Never Mind the Muslim Ban; Trump should Focus on Obesity

This week President Trump has been making headlines with his rapid-fire series of executive orders, particularly with his efforts to start building a wall on the Mexican border and institute a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States.

Whatever you think of these controversial policies, there are other issues President Trump should focus on that have yet to receive any attention from the new administration--particularly obesity.

The exact number of Americans who are or will become obese can be manipulated depending on what political agenda is in question. But what's clear is that Americans are getting fatter than we used to be and our diets are becoming increasingly unhealthy.

Am J Clin Nutr
vol. 86 no. 4 899-906


So what should be done about this situation? The public health mullahs will urge Trump to shake his fists at the food industry for poisoning children with breakfast cereals and soda, then push for a federal tax on sugar. We're better than that sort of unhelpful nonsense by this point, hopefully.

Nonetheless, Trump has an opportunity to do something about obesity, and that something is very simple: he could cancel the USDA's policy of scolding fat people while subsidizing their bad habits. With good nutrition advice in hand, Americans may start making choices that ultimately eliminate obesity as a public health issue.

We Finally Know What Makes Us Fat

For decades, the federal government has promoted a low-fat diet, arguing that it helps us both shrink our waistlines and prevent heart disease. This message was dutifully picked up by the media, food industry and medical establishment in the 1970s, even though the relationship between high-fat diets and poor health was always tenuous. In recent years, though, an overwhelming amount of evidence has been collected that conclusively shatters whatever link there was between poor heart health, obesity and a high-fat diet.

Study after study confirms this assertion: not only will saturated fat keep you slim and your heart healthy, it's probably your body's preferred source of fuel, as opposed to the "heart healthy" whole grains we've been told to consume all our lives by clueless nutritionists and smug public health bureaucrats.

These are the kinds of claims that were made almost exclusively by isolated, rebellious voices in medicine just 15 years ago, figures like Robert Atkins and other such diet doctors. They were largely correct in their recommendation that people ought to avoid carbs and load up on fat and protein, though they were easily dismissed with the overwhelming majority of researchers denouncing their work.

What Can Trump Do About It?

 With prominent Harvard scientists now vocally defending saturated fat and bestselling books warning us about the dangers of consuming sugar, Trump has an opportunity to put his agenda to work promoting good nutrition advice that was previously suppressed by mainstream medicine. The president recently told every federal agency to halt the release of new regulations so his administration has a chance to review them, and I can think of no better setup for Trump to eliminate the USDA's "My Plate" dietary recommendations.

Released every five years since 1980, the USDA's dietary guidelines have hardly changed. They exclude any research that doesn't fit the agency's predetermined agenda and contradict research published by other federal agencies. More importantly, these haphazardly assembled guidelines are the foundation for every other iteration of the "eat less, move more" low-fat diet advice you're likely to see.

Instead of letting the USDA regularly issue outdated, scientifically dubious guidelines, Trump could make sure the agency is giving Americans accurate information about which foods constitute a good diet. He could also push to end federal agricultural subsidies for corn and soybeans, which artificially depress the price of junk foods everyone agrees are unhealthy. Some of the president's earlier comments about letting the free market work in agriculture give me hope on this second point, but we'll have to wait and see.

Conclusion

In the past, the government did an excellent job of promoting an unhealthy diet based on junk science. With a newly-elected populist president now directing the show, Washington could help reverse America's upward obesity trend by just leaving us alone. Following the decades-long debate over saturated fat, consumers are responding to the new science with changing preferences and food companies are happily catering to their customers' new demands.

If Trump keeps his agencies out of the way, we may have found our solution.







Saturday, January 7, 2017

In Defense of Artificial Sweeteners for 2017


The new year has arrived! Naturally, everybody everywhere has pledged to start a new diet and join their local gym.

Following this temporary nationwide shift in diet and exercise habits, every major news outlet is running silly advice articles promising readers the weight loss results they want if they tweak their habits in just the right way.

Most of this advice is typical pop-science boilerplate, unworthy of anyone's valuable time. But there's one bromide I've seen repeated more than usual this January: the claim that artificial sweeteners will make you fat.

I've seen everyone from HuffPo health writers to bona fide nutrition experts smugly asserting that your diet soda will stunt your weight loss effort and even push your weight in the wrong direction.

Bullshit.

With that eloquent thesis laid out, we're going to go through every fallacious reason people give for swearing off artificial sweeteners, and we're going to rely on the best science that's available.

Artificial sweeteners stimulate your appetite

If you're a fly. None of us are flies, so we could move on to more interesting facets of this debate. But disingenuous health writers also like to point out that overweight, diabetic people are more likely to drink diet soda than slimmer, metabolically healthy people. That's got to tell us something about the negative effects of sugar substitutes.

Of course, we could discount every diet ever conceived as ineffective since only fat people and diabetics go on diets to slim down. Or as the authors of a recent PLoS One article put it, " ... findings from observational studies might be biased by residual confounding ... as overweight/obese people are more likely to consume [artificial sweeteners] in an attempt to control weight." This didn't stop the authors from cautioning against consuming sugar substitutes, of course.

Some dieters do gain weight when they switch to sugar substitutes, but that's because they eat more than they otherwise would, assuming they can get away with an extra slice of pizza because they're abstaining from Code Red Mountain Dew. Though that's no reason to blame artificial sweeteners for stimulating your appetite.  

Impaired self-control

According to this study, low blood sugar predicted a lack of self-control in a series of tasks that involved regulating emotion and suppressing negative thinking. Consuming a sugary drink helped participants in this study perform better on subsequent self-control tasks.

The paper is interesting and underscores the importance of properly regulating blood sugar, a point stressed by advocates of low-carb and paelo diets, mind you. However, the geniuses at The Conversation took this as evidence that sugar substitutes impair self-control since they didn't spike blood glucose the same way the sugary milkshake used in the study did.

It's widely accepted that high blood sugar is the primary cause behind weight gain. Therefore, you should obviously avoid sugar substitutes because they don't spike your blood glucose like sugar does. Think through that a few times, then read on.

Artificial sweeteners are full of chemicals

I won't patronize anyone by smugly harping on the obvious retort that everything is full of, or rather composed of, chemicals. But this objection to artificial sweeteners is usually grounded in the ambiguous claim that the especially nasty chemicals in your diet Coke somehow damage your metabolism by harming your gut health.

The best support that can be mustered for this link between poor gut health and artificial sweetener consumption is this paper in Nature, in which the researchers altered the microbiota of mice by feeding them saccharine and increasing their glucose intolerance. The problem, though, as the researchers state is that "... human individuals feature a personalized response to [artificial sweeteners], possibly stemming from differences in their microbiota composition and function..."

The authors go on to argue that the changes they saw in these mice likely occur in humans as well, however, because they found "significant positive correlations between [artificial sweetener] consumption and several metabolic-syndrome-related clinical parameters ..." To find that correlation, they relied on self-reported data around artificial sweetener consumption. Of course we all know how awfully unreliable food frequency surveys are.

These limited results leads us on a search for better studies, preferably those in which the researchers didn't study rodents and then infer that people have the same reaction to artificial sweeteners.

Clinical Studies

A few papers of this sort have been published, but the results are mixed. Some studies show no effect whatsoever, others indicate that sugar substitutes  can help people lose a modest amount of weight. None implicate artificial sweeteners as culprits in causing weight gain.

The naysayers handle this as expected. They claim that dieters who switch to diet soda lose less weight than dieters who drink only water, though the difference is clinically insignificant--only 2.6 lbs in the cited study. If you're severely overweight or obese, losing two pounds won't do much for your health, and it's certainly less than you had in mind when you thought up your weight loss resolution.





I hope you see the theme here. The research returns an inconclusive result or suggests--as does common sense-- that sugarless, calorie-free sweeteners aid weight loss. Yet again and again we're told to avoid sweeteners.

N=1?

One point worth acknowledging is that everyone is indeed slightly different. Some people stuff their faces with junk food, for instance, and maintain the slender figure everyone else wants. So it's at least possible that some people gain weight when they eat sugar substitutes while others don't. But exceptions prove rules more often than they refute them.

Let me borrow a cliche from psychology and point out that humans aren't individually all that special. Being the narcissists we are, we like to think that we're the special case that bucks the trend. But that's usually hubris. There'd be no point in studying nutrition if everyone was so different from one another.

Conclusion

What seems most reasonable given the evidence we've discussed is this: there is some small sliver of the population that doesn't react well to sugar substitutes. This is true of vaccines, anti-depressants and a variety of other medical interventions. That fact, however, is not a good foundation for a blanket condemnation of sugar substitutes.

So as we head into another year, let's quit wasting everyone's time with speculative suggestions and make the changes we know will help us lose weight. There are certain foods that should be avoided generally, but Splenda probably isn't one of them. Unless someone wants to provide some better evidence.