The Changing Picture on Food Health

Food has crazy effects on me sometimes. I’ve never been one of those picky types who only eats certain things. Sure when I was a kid there were foods I didn’t like, mostly vegetables like carrots and asparagus. I grew out of that though and I love to try new things. I like spicy stuff but I need to take it easy because it doesn’t process as easy as it used to. Suddenly though a lot of what I eat makes me queasy. I can’t tell what though since I eat a lot of different types of food. The thought of having to cut out whole food groups because of stomach irritation is too depressing to comprehend.

I like the summers because double up on the amount of fruit. Strawberries and watermelon are only good in the summer so I buy a lot of them. I take a container to work every day. As for vegetables I do the same but reluctantly. I eat them because they’re good for me not because I like the taste. I started doing this about 3 years ago, taking fruit and vegetables to work. If nothing else it keeps me from filling up on chips and cookies. And I still get the benefits of balance, which if the ‘pyramid’ is correct, is essential to a healthy diet.

I say “if the pyramid is correct” because new information about food seems to trickle out daily. In the past couple of years ‘sacred cows’ of nutrition have been tipped over in the fields of scientific discovery. My favorite example is the “How much salt is too much?” debate. For over 200 years the link between high salt intake and high blood pressure was taken as doctrine. Today it might be changing. Some nutritionists are arguing for taking more of it. Mostly though it seems some of the early research suggesting high intakes of sodium (more than 2.5 grams per day) caused hypertension. Turns out it isn’t so simple.

Research by the Framingham Offspring Study (2017) showed participants who keep their sodium intake to less than 2.5 milligrams per day showed higher blood pressure rates than those that consumed higher quantities.  Although the research expected to show a link low sodium intake and high blood pressure, the ones who increased both sodium and potassium showed the lowest blood pressure. The opposite was true for the low sodium low potassium group. We don’t know what the rates might have been without the potassium, but the study covered 16 years and included over 2500 people who had regular (healthy) blood pressure rates at the beginning. None of this suggests more salt alone is good for you, but it does show that other factors come into play.  

Another sacred cow to get tipped over is the ‘proof’ that saturated fats lead to clogged arteries and an increase in bad cholesterol. Most people take it as doctrine that too much dairy and red meat increase the risk of heart disease due to the high fat content. Some early trials (done in the 1970s) showed that countries with high saturated fat diets also had high rates of heart disease. It was assumed that fat raised cholesterol and cholesterol in the blood clogged arteries and raised risks for heart disease. Most of current research shows mixed information on saturated fats, but failed to show that it clogs arteries.  

If nothing else this shows how little studies that aim to prove something specific run into problems. Sometimes the data is misinterpreted and sometimes the methodology is flawed. A popular Finish study showed a “50% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality” to patients that had once been on a high intake of saturated fats. Once they switched to a lower fat diet they improved. But the study had major control problems, over half the participants left before it completed. The myth of saturated fats and heart disease persisted though.

I glanced at a quick summary (of current research) done by the nutrition coalition because their conclusions surprised me.

“Regarding the observational evidence, meta-analyses of this data consistently find no association between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, there is a substantial observational finding that low consumption of saturated fats is associated with higher mortality and higher rates of stroke.

At the very least it’s fair to say we don’t know as much as we thought we did. Could saturated fat cause heart disease? Sure, but it isn’t definitive and if scientific studies can’t be replicated how ‘scientific’ are they really?

 It’s because of endless research, claims, counter research and counter claims that I don’t follow strict eating habits. Moderation is probably the best approach to eating, so far at least, no one thinks exercise is bad. I’ll admit to discounting things I don’t agree with though. Call it selection bias for the consumer. If I hear that coffee is great for the heart I think “I knew it! Perfect, Yes I will take a to-go cup” It doesn’t matter what the specifics of the research. I love coffee so naturally I agree. Studies that suggest negative effects of coffee on the central nervous system are “total nonsense!” and I stop reading.  

So what’s going on with all the studies, counter-studies and different interpretations? One possibility is this, small dietary changes have big consequences; the human body is more complex than we realize, changes in diet are tough to draw grand conclusions about. Also, in the same way that microscopes become more complex every couple of years and are able to see more detail, scientific research gets more specific with better information.

Even when controlling for certain factors like age, ethnicity, and lifestyle factors, bodies process foods differently. Some are sensitive to gluten and dairy, others don’t function well without a lot of a lot of water. To say nothing of the huge impact that heredity has on each body. Each person may go through changes in diet during their lifetimes Physiological makeups are altered with better or worse food choices. I drink twice as much water on a daily basis as I did 10 years ago. How has this affected other functions, organs, metabolism, and blood pressure? Probably.

With big health research projects, like the ones from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, the goal is to study a particular subset, like hypertension and sodium. It reminds me of what economists do when they try to influence a particular subset of the economy. If they need banks to start loaning on a larger scale they have the Fed buy bonds to increase the amount of cash on hand for lending. It works but there all always consequences to tweaking the money supply. Prices for things like groceries and electronics rise but credit is easier to get. One problem gets targeted while others are ignored. Increasing sodium or fat or potassium might show better overall health in one person, while worse health in another.  

Testing whether or not some health issue was better understood because of the study is tricky because changing even small portions of a person’s diet can affect the whole body. Its complex physiology (like the economy) is dependent on an array of processes that work in tandem, only a few of which are food related.

I realize that medical studies are the best process we have for researching effects of food and health; they represent a statistical average of the population at a given time. But public policy is written in response to current research that could change in a few years. For this reason I’m skeptical about sweeping changes to laws that require specific levels of salt, corn syrup, gluten, saturated fat, and trans fats that manufactures must adhere to. Besides, it isn’t the business of lawmakers lay out recipes for producers to follow.  

Individuals should make decisions based on whatever foods they enjoy or don’t.

 Speaking of which, I have a half gallon of peanut butter cup ice cream in the freezer calling my name. Later.