Changing the Paradigm of Failed Nutrition Guidelines

 A minimum of 50% carbohydrates.

A maximum of 35% of calories from fat, with less than 10% from saturated fat.

55g of protein per day for every adult.

A maximum of 6g of salt per day.

5 servings of fruit and vegetables per day.

Reduce the amount of red meat, sugar and alcohol that we eat.

These food guidelines have been in place for nearly 30 years. First proposed in 1982 and accepted as public policy here in the UK in 1984 following a report from the Committee On Medical Aspects of food (COMA). It is ironic that the acronym for this report is COMA because it seems as though we have been pulled into a food coma of declining health as a result of eating the food advised by the dietary guidelines we have been blindly following ever since. You may feel that this statement is unfounded, that I am being extreme in my opinions regarding national dietary guidelines. Yet there is strong evidence that this is the case. Why did the medical community create the guidelines for food in the first place? Is it their place? Surely their expertise lies in treating acute disease, illness and trauma? The medical establishment has struggled for many years to deal with the rising tide of chronic disorders such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, learning and behavioural disorders, irritable bowel and other digestive disorders. Despite huge financial investment to develop drugs and aggressive treatments many of the cures for these conditions still remain elusive. In 2002-3 the National Health Service worked with a budget of £55.8 billion which has continued to grow to £90.2 billion by 2008. This immense taxpayers bill is crippling the nation and not providing the solutions that as a nation we so desperately need. Official statistics for cardiovascular disease shows that death rates have been falling since the about 1974.

However, during the year ending 2007 there were 35,487 heart disease operations here in the UK, whilst in 1982 only 107 operations were performed for every million in the population, a total of 6027 operations. This means that there were 5.9 times as many heart related sugical procedures in 2007 as compared to 1982 when the guidelines for nutrition were first instituted.Whilst the overall death rates have still fallen the reason for the reduction has been significantly supported by surgical procedures. Also the use of daily doses of medications like statins, aimed at reducing blood cholesterol and reducing heart disease has become a significant factor. Out of 14 European countries the UK has the 3rd highest use of statins with over 437 million daily doses prescribed in 2000 with the average annual statin use increasing by 48% per year in the 3 years previous. This massive use of medication has also impacted on the reduction of cardiovascular deaths. Whilst it is certainly worth acknowledging the difference this is making to those who are suffering from cardiovascular disease it unfortunately disguises the minimal effect the current dietary guidelines are having on preventing further heart problems.

The average rate of obesity in 1983 was 7% of the total population. Cardiovascular deaths at the time exceeded 220,000 people. The change in dietary guidelines was very much focused on trying to reduce the impact cardiovascular disease was having on the population, they were not designed to prevent obesity, because obesity was not a national problem at the time. Since 1983 obesity levels have risen more than three fold and now average approximately 24% of the population. So how do we explain this paradoxical rise in obesity that appears to have come about since the national dietary guidelines have been introduced? An investigation into the changes in diet over the time period that national guidelines have been in place will provide some answers. Have we just ignored the guidance laid down by government and as such brought about this rapid rise on our waistlines?

The chart above is derived from the two largest dietary surveys for the UK as a whole. As can be clearly seen total calorie intake and total fat intake has decreased during this time period. Fat intake now averages pretty close to the recommended maximum of 35% and total calories eaten are actually lower than the recommended 2550kcals for males and 1950kcals for females. We can be fairly sure that the rise in obesity is not a result of eating too many calories or excess fat intake. As heretical as this may sound, national data simply does not support this theory. Protein intake has increased slightly, but the greatest increase has come from carbohydrates, particularly starchy sources like grains, bread, pasta and rice. Ironically this increase in carbohydrates was exactly what was intended when the national dietary guidelines were introduced in the early 80's. Maybe this increase in carbohydrates has played some role in the drop in heart disease, but we have swapped it for another problem, rising obesity and all the health problems that come along for the ride!

What do you think of the current guidelines on nutrition? Could they really be the cause of the obesity epidemic? Click bottom right to add a comment.