The Dr. Hyman Show - Why The US Dietary Guidelines Don’t Apply to 90% Of Americans And How They Can with Nina Teicholz
Episode Date: December 16, 2020Why The US Dietary Guidelines Don’t Apply to 90% Of Americans And How They Can | This episode is brought to you by Tushy, Essentia, and Four Sigmatic The dietary guidelines laid out by the governmen...t are conflicting with good health in so many ways. For one, they are recommendations that would only work for someone who is already healthy, yet close to 90% of our population in the US is metabolically unhealthy. They also don’t take ethnicity and socioeconomic status into account, among many other factors. This is a big issue. Clearly, we should be providing Americans with guidelines that will actually serve their health. And research shows that whether we like it or not, as a society we’ve followed the guidelines over several decades and suffered the consequences of worsening health. Today’s guest has been a huge inspiration to me, as she’s challenged the conventional wisdom on nutrition and continues to expose the truth behind our guidelines and the food industry. Nina Teicholz is a science journalist and author of the New York Times bestseller, The Big Fat Surprise, which upended the conventional wisdom on dietary fat—especially saturated fat—and spurred a new conversation about whether these fats in fact cause heart disease. Named a Best Book of the Year by the Economist, Wall Street Journal, and Mother Jones, among others, it continues to be called a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the amazing story of how we came to believe fat is bad for our health—and what a better diet might look like. This episode is brought to you by Tushy, Essentia, and Four Sigmatic The Tushy bidet is a sleek attachment that clips onto your existing toilet and connects to the water supply behind your toilet to spray you with clean, fresh water. Right now Tushy is offering Doctor’s Farmacy listeners 10% off, just go to hellotushy.com/HYMAN. Essentia makes mattresses that go above and beyond the criteria to be non-toxic. Right now, Essentia is offering Doctor’s Farmacy listeners 25% off plus 2 Free Comfort pillows with your purchase of an Essentia Lifestyle, Performance, Wholebody Recovery, or Hybrid mattress at learn.myessentia.com/drmarkhyman. Four Sigmatic is now providing an exclusive offer for Doctor’s Farmacy listeners. Receive up to 40% off on their bestselling Lion’s Mane Coffee bundles. To get this deal, just go to foursigmatic.com/hyman. Here are more of the details from our interview: How we are all affected by the U.S. dietary guidelines, even if we think we aren’t (7:06) Why the guidelines don’t apply to the majority of Americans (12:01) 90% of scientific reviews that inform the U.S. dietary guidelines did not take race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status into account (17:43) Conflicts of interest among scientists on the U.S. dietary guidelines scientific committee (21:22) How the Office of Dietary Guidelines prohibits consideration of systematic reviews (31:21) Why the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Committee chose not to consider research on weight loss and low-carbohydrate diets (34:32) The ongoing confusion about saturated fat, cholesterol, and heart disease (42:05) What can the average person do to improve the U.S. dietary guidelines? (53:28) How to design guidelines that would help fix chronic disease (56:24) Learn more about Nina Teicholz at https://ninateicholz.com/ and follow her on Facebook @NinaTeicholz and on Twitter @bigfatsurprise. Learn more about The Nutrition Coalition at https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/. Read, “Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review” here: https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Coming up on this episode of The Doctor's Pharmacy.
The guidelines are supposed to be for prevention only,
only preventing chronic disease, right?
So that's only the healthy people
who haven't yet contracted disease, right?
So, but over time, America, as you say,
it's just become dramatically,
far greater proportion of us are unhealthy.
Hey everyone, it's Dr. Mark.
The holidays are coming up fast. And for most of us, that means busier schedules and less sleep.
But we don't just need high-quality rest to give us the energy to get through the day.
We need it to maintain and strengthen our immune systems and our minds,
something that's especially important during these times of COVID.
And when it comes to health and feeling our best, it really all starts in the bedroom.
We have to create an optimal environment for great sleep.
But most of us are sleeping on an old mattress that doesn't give us what we need.
I recently upgraded to an Essentia mattress, and I've got to say, it made such a difference
in how well I sleep.
It's made of high-quality natural memory foam that provides pressure relief, increases blood
circulation,
and eliminates numbness and soreness. I never wake up with a sleepy arm that's gone asleep at night.
I didn't realize how bad my old mattress was until I switched to Essentia and started falling
asleep faster, recovering from my workouts more effectively, and sleeping longer. And I love
knowing that choosing an Essentia mattress makes my home less toxic.
Most mattresses, even ones labeled organic, often have chemicals in them that off-gas into your
home. Essentia created their own Beyond Organic label to meet their strict quality standards.
And all Essentia products are produced in their certified global organic latex and global organic
textile standards factory.
Now with the holidays and cold and flu season approaching on top of the continuing pandemic,
our bodies need the best rest possible to stay resilient.
So give yourself the most important gift of better sleep this year
and upgrade your bedroom to an Essentia mattress.
Right now, you can get 25% off plus two free pillows, a $300 value at
learn.myessentia.com slash Dr. Mark Hyman. That's learn.myessentia, that's E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A.com
slash Dr. Mark Hyman. That's just D-R Mark Hyman. When the coronavirus hit the US,
one of the biggest complaints we heard from people trying to stock up their supplies at home was the lack of toilet paper on store shelves.
Obviously, we all want to feel clean and fresh after going to the bathroom, but you might be
surprised that we don't need toilet paper for that to happen. In many other parts of the world,
people primarily use bidets to clean themselves after using the bathroom, and then only a few
squares of toilet paper to dry off. And if you think about it, that makes a lot of sense. Water cleans better
than paper. So you might be wondering what using a bidet has to do with your health and wellness.
Well, I have a few good answers for you. When you use toilet paper, you're leaving a residue of stool
and bacteria no matter how much you wipe. The bacteria can spread and it can cause infection, not to mention that it can irritate some of the most sensitive skin on your body.
And for women, toilet paper can actually perpetuate bladder and yeast infections when used incorrectly
or insufficiently. Excessive wiping can also irritate or cause complications with hemorrhoids.
The likelihood of these problems increases with the use of wet wipes. Wet wipes actually tend to
strip away the natural oils from your skin and they're terrible for the environment. Using a bidet is an amazing solution
to all these problems. You can even turn your current toilet into one with the Tushy bidet
attachment. It just hooks up to your water supply and gives you the same spa-like experience right
in your own bathroom. I've been using a Tushy myself for a few years and I love it. It's really
affordable at just $79 and you can install it yourself without a plumber.
To check out the Tushy bidet attachment for yourself and get 10% off, head over to hellotushy.com
forward slash Hyman.
That's hellotushy, T-U-S-H-Y dot com forward slash Hyman.
That's a special deal for Doctors Pharmacy listeners, so don't wait too long.
That's hellotushy.com forward slash Hyman.
And now let's get back to this week's episode of
The Doctor's Pharmacy. Welcome to The Doctor's Pharmacy. I'm Dr. Mark Hyman. That's pharmacy
with an F-A-R-M-A-C-Y, a place for conversations that matter. And if you care about what food you
should be eating, if you're confused about the dietary guidelines and
how our government messes with our food recommendations, well, this podcast is going
to be for you. It's with an incredible woman, a friend of mine, Nina Teicholz, who is a journalist.
Her book, The Big Fat Surprise, was a big inspiration to me when I wrote Eat Fat, Get Thin.
It's beautifully written. It's incredibly researched, and it's very provocative.
In fact, it was named Best Book of the Year by The Economist, Wall Street Journal, and
Mother Jones.
And she's basically upended the conventional wisdom on dietary fat, which is that fat makes
us fat and fat causes heart disease, which turned out not to be so true anymore.
And it's what got us into the problem that we have now.
And a lot of that information was in our dietary guidelines that told us to eat
eight to or six to 11 servings of bread, rice, serum, pasta a day and eat fat only sparingly.
And as soon as we got that advice, we turned into the fattest nation on the world
with over 88% of us now metabolically unhealthy and 75% overweight and 42% obese, which is terrifying, up from 5%
in 1960 when I was born. So it's a big problem. Nina is also the founder of the Nutrition
Coalition, which is a nonprofit group that works to ensure government nutrition policy
is transparent and is actually based on science. What a crazy idea that we should have
nutrition guidelines based on science. She's been asked to testify before the USDA and the
Canadian Senate. She's a graduate of Stanford and Oxford, lives in New York with her husband
and two sons. And welcome to The Doctor's Pharmacy, Nina. Thank you, Mark. It's so great
to talk to you and be here. Well, you know, your work is just so important.
You know, you are a rare breed, which is an investigative journalist.
You don't just report on stuff that other people report on, which is most of what news
is today.
You actually dig into the science and look at the original data and go back to the sources
and dig up what's true and not true and what we know and don't know.
And so I was very inspired by your book, The Big Fat Surprise,
and it led me to go on to write Eat Fat, Get Thin.
And I think your work really is not just focused on educating people about nutrition science,
but it's actually focused on changing the very policies that determine
the food that is recommended to Americans to eat,
what we call the dietary guidelines for Americans,
which is the policies that drive nutrition recommendations throughout our government
and has huge implications for every aspect of our society, including school lunches and WIC and many,
many other food programs that are feeding literally millions and millions and millions of Americans. So why are these the most influential policies, the dietary guidelines,
and the most powerful lever on our food supply?
And why is it so misguided?
Well, those are two separate questions, but let me take them one at a time.
I mean,
I think most people think they really aren't affected by the dietary guidelines. Who's even heard of them? But, you know, people know them as the food pyramid, or then now we have MyPlate.
But even if you don't think you're following the guidelines, they reach out and touch each and
every American. So through some of those nutrition assistance programs that you
mentioned, school lunches, school breakfast, feeding programs for the elderly, women and
infant children programs, food that Native Americans get, that's one in four Americans
every month eating the food that's based on the guidelines. But also, they're recommended by most
doctors and dieticians. So, if you go to a doctor, you're getting the guidelines. And in many cases,
doctors are not allowed to teach anything but what the guidelines say because the guidelines
are considered the gold standard. They impact the food label. You know, when you turn on,
you take a piece of food, sorry, you know, when you go to the supermarket and you swap, look at the back of the food package, all of that information
is based on the guidelines and what they think is good food and, or, you know, what are good
nutrients and bad nutrients.
I mean, the nutrition facts label.
Yeah.
The nutrition facts label.
Thank you.
And also, you know, the military food is based on the guidelines.
I mean, every one of our government agencies is basing their food recommendations on the dietary guidelines. So even though you don't go to the guidelines,
the guidelines pretty much reaches each and every American. And we follow them. I mean,
we follow them, right? I mean, when the pyramid came out, we did what the government said. We
eat six to 11 servings of bread, rice, cereal, and pasta, like muffins and bagels and pasta. These were health
foods. Yeah. Well, so they no longer recommend six to 11. Now it's down to six. But so, for instance,
they recommend three servings of refined grains every day. You asked me what's not good guidelines
about the guidelines. Three servings of refined grains every day and six servings of grains every
day is a lot of carbs, right? And up to 10% of your calories can be
sugar. And, you know, many people will say, well, who cares about the guidelines? They're just
guidelines and you don't have to follow them. But if you look at what Americans have actually done,
and there's great data on this from the government itself, the USDA, they show that since 1970,
which is when we,
that's when their starting point is, even though the guidelines started in 1980. But since 1970,
which is about when the American Heart Association started recommending this kind of diet as well,
Americans now eat 35% more vegetables, 20% more fruit, 28% less red meat, I think around 19% less saturated fats or butter. We drink 79% less
whole milk than we used to. I mean, and those aren't kind of cherry picked. I'm not just giving
like things that happen to work in the favor of an argument. Every single category of food that
you look at, everything that we're supposed to eat more of, we eat more of.
And everything we're supposed to consume less of, we consume less of.
We consume 87% more vegetable oils than we did in 1970.
We've also increased our carbohydrates by 30% since 1965.
And we've decreased our fat by 25% as a percentage of total calories.
Those are big changes.
Those are staggering changes. Those are staggering changes.
And one of the arguments that people like to make, and I think it's the prevailing wisdom
in the world of public health, is this idea that Americans really don't follow the guidelines
because the statistics that are released by the USDA is they say, look, here's our target
for vegetables and Americans aren't meeting it. But here's our target for vegetables and Americans aren't meeting it. But here's our target for fruit.
Americans aren't meeting it.
And that's true.
But that's because when they started recommending two cups of vegetables a day,
Americans weren't eating anywhere near that amount of vegetables.
Americans have increased dramatically the amount of vegetables they eat.
And by the way, that two cups a day went up to two and a half cups a day between 2005 and 2010.
So it's like,
Americans are eating in the direction of the guidelines, but we just can't get there,
you know, because those were, at the time, pretty dramatic recommendations for an American public that really didn't eat this way. So whether we like it or not, and whether we believe it or not,
the truth is that the dietary guidelines, even though they don't seem to apply to everybody or people don't actually think they're following them, that overall as a society, we have adhered
to the changes that they recommended.
And that's led to some serious adverse consequences that I want to get into in a minute.
But one of the things that I've learned that's so staggering to me is that the dietary guidelines really are dietary guidelines for healthy Americans, for healthy Americans.
So nine out of 10 Americans are unhealthy and those guidelines really don't apply to them.
And so maybe when we look at the guidelines, we need to be thinking about what we should be recommending for an unhealthy population that's metabolically unhealthy.
That means high cholesterol, high blood sugar, high blood pressure.
That's 88% of Americans.
So we're sick, and the guidelines are for healthy people, which you may be able to tolerate
more carbohydrates if you're metabolically healthy.
You may be able to tolerate a wider range of foods.
But when you're unhealthy, and particularly from the perspective of food as medicine, you need to be guided to eat the
right things, which our policies really don't help us do. That is one of the most astonishing
things that I discovered about the guidelines when I started to dig into them. And I realized
what a mismatch they are for the American population. So they're supposed to be, according to the congressional statute,
they're supposed to be for the general public.
Well, when they began in 1980, the general public was healthy, more or less healthy.
And so the guidelines are supposed to be for prevention only,
only preventing chronic disease, right?
So that's only the healthy people who haven't yet contracted disease, right? So that's only the healthy people who haven't yet contracted disease, right? So, but over time, America, as you say, it's just become dramatically,
far greater proportion of us are unhealthy. We could go through many statistics, but, you know,
more than half are pre-diabetic or have diabetes. As you said, 42% or more have obesity.
And so now we have a policy that is applied to everyone, right? And think
especially about those kids, underprivileged kids receiving school breakfasts or in-school lunches.
Their rates of obesity and diabetes and hypertension are even higher. Think about that
kid who's being fed from the Women and Infant Children Program with a mother who's abused. I mean, and the guidelines, when we say that they're not for unhealthy people, what we mean is that the
expert committee that prepares the science for the guidelines, they do not even look at studies.
They do not look at studies on how to help people lose weight, how to help somebody to reverse
hypertension, how to help somebody to try to reverse diabetes. They do not look at that literature. So that's saying that they don't even
consider that literature because they consider that treatment. Treatment belongs to the medical
practices, you know, the specialty practices of doctors. They don't want to do treatment.
And all of that is totally understandable, but then the guidelines should not be applied to
all Americans, which they are. You know, when you go to your doctor and you say i'm pre-diabetic
and your doctor gives you the guidelines but they didn't look at how to reverse pre-diabetes or
diabetes so it's really this i mean actually our group one of the things that we're doing at the
nutrition coalition right now is just to say, when you come out with the guidelines,
which are coming out by the end of this year,
just to say, how about if we just put a warning label
on them just to say, look,
these are for healthy Americans only.
And really there are things that are questionable
about them, even for healthy people,
but please do not use this for treatment of people.
You know, for the 60% of Americans who are diagnosed
with a diet-related chronic disease, these guidelines don't apply to you.
That's right.
That would be a big step forward, I think.
Well, that's a big paradigm shift, Nina, because what it would imply is that dietary interventions are actually able to be used for treatment of chronic disease, which is not the current medical paradigm.
It's functional medicine. Food is medicine. So we do. That's correct. actually able to be used for treatment of chronic disease, which is not the current medical paradigm, right?
It's functional medicine.
It's food is medicine.
So we do.
That's correct.
But the truth is that the paradigm of do you use food to heal disease doesn't even exist in traditional circles.
And what's scary is that the emerging science that really upends a lot of our old ideas
that all calories are the same,
or that saturated fat is bad, or that we should all be eating more carbohydrates.
These have been completely debunked by the science, and yet they're still part of our
guidelines. Yeah. I think at least what you could do is to just have the guidelines
not apply to so many people, right?
Yeah.
I mean, it's going to be a long time until we get to a paradigm
where each and every medical society is using food as medicine,
as you suggest.
But at the moment, let's just stop giving the wrong advice to people.
Somebody with diabetes, telling them to eat six servings of grains a day
and up to 10% of their calories of sugar is really bad.
Definitely bad advice is definitely not Dr. Hyman approved advice for sure.
So let's just stop that. I mean, that's what I would, cause we're, there's really, you know, the dietary guidelines is a huge policy.
It's supported by massively by food industries. And, and it's very hard to change as we've discovered doing the work that,
you know, I've been doing for the past couple of years, but at least,
at least have them apply to not so many people I think would be a good
solution.
Yeah. And today it drives a hundred billion dollars in funding for USDA
nutrition assistant programs that are delivered to populations in need who
are actually the most vulnerable and actually the most sick and actually the ones who need
a healthier diet the most and to whom these guidelines apply the least.
Yeah, it's sort of a tragic mismatch, really.
I mean, and I've listened to, I hope nobody else has to do this, but I've listened to all
the Dietary Guideline Committee meetings and listened to all their conversations.
There's a lot of talk about how we need to tailor health recommendations depending on, you know, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, background, cultural needs.
But one of the analyses that came out about the guidelines is that 90% of their reviews where they ended up having, these are the
scientific reviews, 90% of them did not take into account race and ethnicity at all or
low socioeconomic status.
And they were predominantly on white populations.
In fact, when I looked at the reviews in more detail, I just couldn't get over it.
It's mainly, it's often all white populations, the data that we're using.
And a lot of it is like the Norwegians and the Swedes and all these people, they're so much healthier than we are.
These populations from overseas, sometimes they just barely include any Americans at all.
And I'm not saying that there isn't some basic biology that we don't all share. We do. And we all have in common, but there are really important differences
by race and ethnicity. And so that needs to also be taken into consideration.
You've written many criticisms of the dietary guidelines and pointed out many of the flaws.
And I think for most people, they don't understand how they get created. And they're created
essentially by a panel of experts selected by the government who are advising the government
on how they should create the dietary guidelines. The past, before George W. Bush was in office,
the guidelines were based on the actual recommendations of the scientists. Now, the recommendations get put forward to a political committee who then have to determine
which of those guidelines to include or not.
For example, in the last dietary guidelines, there were some considerations about environmental
impact, and those were just eliminated.
Now, you can debate whether they should be in there or not.
But the fact is, the scientists thought it was valuable, but the government was like,
no, that's too political.
We're not going to do it, even if it's the right thing for human and planetary health.
And what you did was to not just take the guidelines at face value, but you sort of just started to dig in and challenge some of the ideas that we haven't been challenging about why the guidelines say what they do, how they are created, and what the flaws are.
And if anybody thinks that one person can't make a big difference, then you should think about Nina,
because she basically went to Congress with the data, with the science, and lobbied as a one-person lobby group, essentially, and convinced Congress to appropriate a million dollars for a
report by the National Academy of Sciences to look at the
way in which we create the guidelines and if there's any conflicts of interest in any issues.
And I'd love you to share about what was found in that report and why it was so disturbing.
Yeah. So, I want to say it's super interesting what you say, the fact that it's a group of scientists who make decisions, and then it goes through the black box of the political process.
And then there's all kinds of lobbying that goes on in that process.
By the way, I don't call myself a lobbyist. I think of myself as an advocate because, you know, I really advocate for more rigor and better methodology and the guidelines.
But in any case, this group of scientists themselves have all kinds of questions.
And so, you know, what you'd like to think is that the scientists come out with these pure, pristine recommendations. And so anything they say is golden. And we would all like to believe that and wish that were the case. is that there were a lot of conflicts of interest in terms of the members of this scientific
committee getting paid by getting money from the food and pharmaceutical industries.
And so what this National Academies of Medicine report did, this one that was, it was that
it looked, it was actually the first ever peer review of the dietary guidelines that
had ever happened.
And one of their recommendations is you need to be transparent
about the conflicts of interest among your scientists on the scientific committee, because
it's really important to know it's not always true. You know, scientists aren't always bought
off by taking money from the food or pharmaceutical industries, but it's important to know where their
biases might be, right? And to manage them. And you probably can
barely find a credible medical journal now in the world today, as you must know, that doesn't require
disclosure of conflicts of interest. And yet, and this is what the National Academy has said to
the USDA and HHS, which run the guidelines, they said, you have to disclose the conflicts of
interest on this scientific committee. And lo, they did not accept that recommendation.
And so we have no disclosure about, you know, who is actually sitting on this committee.
So we did some research on that, which is pretty interesting.
I mean, I'm happy to share some of that with you if you like.
What did you find about the people who are making our guidelines? So included in that group is the current medical
director of Nestle hit their Optifast weight loss program, which is like a formula that you take to
lose weight. Well, why is that a conflict of interest? Well, if you're looking for a food-based
solution for weight loss, that competes with the Optifast program, which tells you, you can lose weight better to
lose weight through a formula. Also on that committee is the former executive director of
Merck, which is the major, huge pharmaceutical company that makes all kinds of, um, devices and
drugs for chronic disease. Again, why is that a conflict of interest? Because if you think that
disease should be solved with drugs and devices, you might not be so interested in a food based solution.
Right. Also was the former global director of scientific affairs and obesity for Merck was also on the panel.
There is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of ConAgra, a huge, massive food and ag company, and the former president of the Danone Institute, which is
funded by the Danone Yogurt Company. There were also altogether five members who've been funded
or consulted with Nestle. Nestle is, I think, the biggest food company in the world.
Two of them had consulted for Pepsi, PepsiCo Research and
Development. And then two of them are on the board of trustees of ILSEA, which maybe some
of your listeners know about is the International Life Sciences Institute, which is really a group
that was put together by the former vice president of Coca-Cola and includes members like
Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mars, Cargill, Kellogg, the Hershey
company.
I mean, their goal is to get people to eat more junk food, it seems.
Yeah.
I mean, by the way, that group is fascinating because it seems like it's an independent
group, International Life Sciences Institute.
It sounds wonderful.
But this is a front group for the food industry.
And they put together a scientific paper that was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine,
essentially saying that our sugar recommendations were flawed.
There was no basis in science for reducing our sugar intake and that any association
between sugar and chronic disease really was not valid.
And when you look funded by the International Life Sciences Institute, and I'm like, oh
my goodness.
And you start to drill down on these conflicts of interest.
And it's no wonder why we're all confused, because we're getting information that's not filtered through pure science and understanding of the data, but based on various industry interests and not public health.
I want to say there is.
It was a 20-person committee, and five of the members really didn't seem to have many food or pharma ties. But the other 15 did, and quite a lot.
And I'll just mention one other thing, because people sort of, I think the general narrative
that people believe is that really it's the meat industry is the most powerful industry.
And they have, they're the one, the reason that we've had so many problems
with our guidelines.
And so there are two members of the panel
with a lot of ties to the meat, dairy, eggs,
you know, the kind of animal protein.
But there's another two people
with tremendous ties to the nut industry,
which is like incredibly active
and gives away tons of money.
So, and then, and by
far the majority of the people on the panel, their ties are really with the fast food, the junk food
industry, the industry that what they do not want you eating real food. They don't sell real food.
That's not what they sell. And so I think that one really has to, first of all, it seems sort of a no-brainer just to disclose these conflicts of interest as a matter of course.
But I think it's also, you know, it shows you that the scientific panel itself is, you know, is problematic in terms of what's going on with their interests.
Hey, everyone. It's Dr. Hyman here. Starting the morning right is such a key piece to feeling great
throughout the entire day and doing the things you love. Now I bet most of you can relate to
waking up and eating a cup of coffee before you feel fully functional and I've definitely been
there myself. But I started a new routine every morning and now it's something I can't wait to get out of bed for. Instead of regular coffee, I've been drinking Four Sigmatic's
Ground Mushroom Coffee with Lion's Mane and Chaga, and it gives me energy that is much longer lasting
along with a better sense of focus and calm. Instead of that jittery feeling and without
the late morning caffeine crash. Lately, I've been loving blending this up with some ice,
cacao powder, and coconut milk for a really tasty summer morning treat.ately, I've been loving blending this up with some ice, cacao powder, and coconut
milk for a really tasty summer morning treat. Now, I know you might have your doubt about the
taste of mushrooms, but I promise Four Sigmatic's ground mushroom coffee just tastes like a robust,
delicious cup of coffee, and you don't even know there are therapeutic mushrooms hiding inside.
Lion's Mane supports productivity and creativity, and Chaga, known as the king of mushrooms, has beneficial support for the immune system.
All Four Sigmatic's products are organic, vegan, and gluten-free. Every single batch is tested in
a third-party lab for heavy metals, allergens, bad bacteria, yeast molds, mycotoxins, pesticides,
and to check for purity and safety. And no worries if you don't love it.
Four Sigmatic has a 100% money-back guarantee.
I'm excited to share an exclusive offer from Four Sigmatic
that is just for Doctors Pharmacy listeners.
Receive up to 40% off on their best-selling Lion's Mane coffee bundles.
And to get this deal, all you have to do is go to foursigmatic.com
forward slash Hyman. This offer is only for doctors, pharmacy listeners. It's not available
on their regular website. So go to foursigmatic.com slash Hyman. That's F-O-U-R-S-I-G-M-A-T-I-C.com
slash Hyman. This is a really incredible deal. So it's the perfect time to branch out from
your regular morning cup of coffee and try Four Sigmatic's mushroom blend that can enhance your
brain power, energy, and your immune system throughout the whole day. Now let's get back
to this week's episode. You know, and a friend of mine who's a Harvard scientist,
very prominent researcher, and a friend of ours essentially challenged the whole idea that
we should be getting three glasses of milk a day in our recommendations. And when he spoke to
someone on the Dietary Guidelines panel years ago, he said, look, the data don't support this.
Whether it works or not, there's no evidence that this is something we should be recommending.
He's like, yeah, I know, but you know, the dairy council,
not an out and out. We had to support farmers.
And it was really an industry driven decision,
not a science-based decision. And it's just,
it's really hard to trust what's coming out of these guidelines when they're
so conflicted.
But what's even more disturbing to me now is the fact that,
and I don't understand this as a doctor scientist is how you can say, we're only going to look at this evidence.
We're not going to look at all the evidence.
We're just going to look at the evidence we want to look at.
And what was really striking to me was in the last dietary guidelines under the Trump administration, there were rules on what you could look at and what you couldn't, including you couldn't look at the effective
ultra-processed foods or low-carbohydrate diets or any things that are emerging as real
contributors to chronic disease.
I mean, the Global Burden of Disease study said that 11 million people die every year
from eating too much ultra-processed food or not enough good foods.
That should be something we look at, right?
And it was completely ignored.
So can you talk about that?
What is allowed to be even looked at and how they measure the evidence?
And it had to actually be USDA research.
It couldn't be independent scientific research.
I was so confused by these sort of artificial guardrails that were put up on, or blinders
that were put up on the scientists as, well, yeah, this study may have shown that eating a low carb diet is curable is can cure diabetes,
but we can't look at that. And we won't recommend like, how does that even happen?
You know, it, it is such a strange and Byzantine process. And I will tell you that
it's, if you take a step back from the committee, there's this whole huge staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
that has been running the guidelines for some of them for decades in this group.
And they're sort of the office of the guidelines, and they set the rules.
In fact, not only do they set the rules, but they do some of the reviews themselves.
And then they sort of pretend that the committee did them. That happened with 11
of these reviews on pregnancy and birth and lactation. So, they are the ones who set the
rules as far as I can tell, although they will say that it's the committee itself that's setting
the rules. But just to give you an idea of like some of the craziness. Okay. So, one of their
rules is we're not going to look at any outside systematic reviews. Why is that? You know, because systematic
reviews are considered kind of at the apex, you know, if the pyramid of evidence is like this,
systematic reviews, especially of clinical trials is like right up here at the top is some of the
best evidence you can get, right? You have like animal model studies down here at the bottom. So they said you can't
look at any outside systematic reviews. Well, in the case of saturated fats, okay, saturated fats
is a very unique story, because all the really rigorous, big, large, important clinical trials
were done back in the 1960s and 70s. But then they were just kind of ignored for many, many years, really.
They didn't fit the paradigm, right?
They didn't fit the paradigm.
I was like, that couldn't be true.
Right. I mean, they're just crazy stories. They weren't published for years. Some of them,
they just weren't. They were ignored. And so, they were really never reviewed by any
dietary guideline committee ever. But now, due to, you know, my book and other people's work,
these people have realized these trials exist. And so they've gone back, they've gone back and
done systematic reviews of these trials. There are now almost 20 of these systematic reviews,
right? But the dietary guideline committee is not allowed to look at any of them. So they don't.
So this whole last decade of science, which has witnessed a real reconsideration of saturated
fats.
Let's say there's still some debate, but at least there's two sides to the story now.
The science is contradictory, I think it's fair to say.
But the Dietary Guideline Committee was not allowed to look at any of that past decade
of research.
So that's just kind of mind-boggling.
Like, there's supposed to be guidelines that reflect the science that is current at the time.
And now I'm literally quoting from the congressional statute, but that is not the
science that is, you know, if they can't look at the systematic reviews that kind of recapture this
old science. What's the rationale? Like, why is it off limits? limits well they didn't give one as what i can say but i i
i don't know really i could i could make an argument that some of the outside reviews are
like the ones that they used in the from the american heart association and american college
of cardiology previously were funded by a lot of corporate money and maybe they thought it was good
to keep that out of the system i don't I don't know really what the reason is.
And I'll tell you another amazing story, which, well,
there's two more mind boggling stories.
One is that the committee decided to not to include any studies on weight
loss, on obesity,
even though this is like,
you know,
chronic disease issue number one.
Losing weight is probably
the most effective way
to help fight diabetes.
It helps resolve
almost every medical issue.
Plus, it helps people
maintain a healthy weight.
And the Dietary Guidelines
have as one of their three goals
helping people to reach
and maintain a healthy weight.
But they said,
we're not going to look at
any studies on obesity.
And who's saying that?
Is it the committee?
Is it the government?
The committee just said, we're not going to look at them
because when you lose weight, that complicates other outcomes
because losing weight helps so much.
So they wanted to try to isolate the effects of diets without weight loss,
which is, I mean, we could argue.
Considering 75% of us are overweight.
Or obese.
Or obese, yeah.
So no studies on weight loss.
And then when it came to low- diets, well, in 2000, the last time around, 2015,
they did review low carb diets, but they decided not to publish it.
And there was a bunch of emails about this.
If anybody's interested, they can look at this Wall Street Journal article that I did
where I went and got Freedom of Information Act request on some of
those emails and found that there had been quite a bit of debate over not publishing this low
carbohydrate diet review, because it's as one person from Harvard said, this is a significant
amount of research. We should not be burying it. And what was the, what was the rationale?
What were the arguments for burying it? There was no email chain on that.
At that point, it just disappeared.
So this time around, they said, and this is, again, this is for the 2020 guidelines that
are going to be published at the end of this year.
They did review low-carbohydrate diets, but they couldn't find any studies except for
one that had been authored by a
member of the, the dietary guideline committee itself.
So this is like, they couldn't find them. It's like, I mean,
so this is so crazy because, you know, it depends on how you count them,
but there's, there's some,
there's somewhere around a hundred clinical trials now at least on low
carbohydrate diets and plus many other observational trials.
So there's literally hundreds of studies.
There's a massive amount of scientific literature.
I remember that the Harvard committee member in 2000 in 2015 was already saying this is a large amount of significant research. Um, so, and it's a little bit like you, you know, you, you're trying to put together a zoo
and you're looking for, uh, you know, giraffes and you say, we only want no neck giraffes.
So, you know, like you end up with no giraffes and you've got a zoo with no giraffes. Like
somebody should realize there's something wrong with their selection criteria and the way that
they're looking for low carbcarb studies, right?
I think I didn't explain that very well. Let me reverse that for a second. They didn't find any
low-carbohydrate studies because they set up their selection criteria basically to rule out
finding any of the studies. And when I mean their selection criteria, I mean they set up a bunch of
rules. Like, these are the trials that we want, they have to include this,
they have to include that they have to include a complete description of the diet, they have to
say what percentage of fat, protein and carbohydrate Well, you know, it turns out,
you know, most low carb studies only include the percent of carbohydrates that are in that they are
looking for, they don't include also information about the whole diet or protein
and fats. So that's kind of a little bit of an overly detailed explanation, but just like
setting up a criteria that you know, will exclude everything that you're looking for.
Like I only want Americans from this one town who are five foot seven and a half with green eyes,
blonde hair, have never eaten a strawberry, and go to sleep on Sundays at three o'clock in
the afternoon every week. And essentially like good luck finding that person. Right.
And you're looking for that. That's your, that's your criteria. And you're looking at an all
African-American neighborhood. So like, you know, you're going to find that person.
Yeah. So that's what happened. So they came up with zero studies.
So how do we deal with this? Because it's so clear from the literature that the amount of refined carbohydrates and starches and sugars in our diet, which is about 60% of our calories,
is really driving this chronic disease pandemic, which is making us susceptible to the COVID
pandemic and which is driving all our healthcare costs and creating so much suffering where six out of 10 Americans
have a chronic disease, most of which are driven by our diet in one way or the other.
So how do we begin to kind of reconcile that there's no conversation about this and that
the government is ignoring this? I mean, it's just,
it's just inconscionable to me because I can't believe all these scientists
are, you know,
following some pernicious agenda that makes them want to not deal with this.
Is it just because the paradigm is so strong that they haven't kind of come
up to the 21st century of science of nutrition?
I think that there are, it is hard to reckon with, like,
why do people not care more? Why did like, why, you know, why should they not care that they
omitted the entire science and low carbohydrate diets? And I think that that's because on the
whole, the low carbohydrate diet is, is still considered sort of a taboo. And many people, mainstream scientists
are really not interested in it. And so they, I think another reason is that many of these
scientists are, you know, their entire careers have been devoted to promoting and believing in
one kind of diet, which is the dietary guidelines, which is, you know,
more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, fish, fatty fish, and, you know, less
meat, less and low fat dairy.
And they believe that.
And, and so, and many of them, as I also discovered, received many, many millions of dollars in
grants from USDA and HHS.
So, which is to say the government. So,
what is their incentive to then, you know, what is their incentive to go against the government?
What is their incentive to go against their entire profession, their entire field? I really
think that that is, it's very hard to find somebody who will kind of spur the conventional wisdom.
There's no reward for them.
Like, what is their actual reward to become?
You potentially lose your grant.
You lose the respect of your colleagues.
You may no longer be invited to conferences. I mean, these are things that I documented in my book about scientists who kind of step out of line with the
conventional wisdom. There are real and palpable losses to that. Yeah. And by the way, people who
are really interested in this whole saturated fat issue, which we're going to talk about in a minute,
you know, can listen to an earlier podcast. Nina was my second guest ever on The Doctor's Pharmacy,
so that was really awesome. I mean, we did go into it, but I, I want to come
back to, you know, we talked about the low carbohydrate issue, but it's also sort of
connected to the fat issue because as you decrease carbohydrates, you have to increase something else
in your diet, which should be fat. And of course a little bit of protein, but the, the guidelines
essentially still say we should be eating less than 10% of our calories as fat.
No, they don't say that.
No, the guidelines now advise between 31% and 33%. No, I mean a saturated fat.
Sorry, saturated fat.
Less than 10% of our diet is saturated fat.
I misspoke.
And yeah, they've actually removed the restriction on total fat, although
they did it in a sort of side note and they didn't announce it.
And it was sort of an embarrassed acknowledgement that, oh boy, we don't have to worry about
total fat in the diet because it's not related to weight gain or to heart disease, which
was a big shift in the 2015 dietary guidelines.
But they still recommended that we eat less than 10% of our calories as saturated fat
to reduce heart disease. Now, and if you have heart disease already, it should be less than 10% of our calories as saturated fat to reduce heart disease.
Now, and if you have heart disease already, it should be less than 5% of saturated fat,
which kind of is interesting because when you look at the literature, it doesn't quite
all add up.
And even just the joke I always make is that breast milk is 25% saturated fat.
So we should be restricting breast milk to babies because it's literally got five times the amount of saturated fat that we recommend in our dietary guidelines for people who have
heart disease. But what we know now is quite different about saturated fat. And there was an
incredible review paper that was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
in June of 2020, entitled Saturated Fats and Health, the Reassessment and Proposal for
Food-Based Recommendations, and with a state-of-the-art review by the Journal of the American College
of Cardiology.
And it essentially said a number of really interesting things I'd like to go into, but
sort of questioned the orthodoxy that all saturated fat is bad and it's bad for everybody.
So I'd love you to sort of talk about the impact of this paper, how you think it might
influence the dietary guidelines in 2020 or at all, and what we should really be thinking about as a take-homes around saturated fat in our diet, because people are still confused about it.
There's a lot of confusing messages about it, so I think people are right to be confused.
That paper said many things.
I want to say one of the most important things
about that paper was its authors. Its authors included three former members of previous dietary
guideline committees, including the chair of the committee in 2005. So these are basically
that expert committee that makes the guidelines saying, you know, we got it wrong on saturated fats, which is an extraordinary
thing. And the paper basically argued a number of things, which I think I should share just a few of
them. But one of them was that this fear of saturated fat and the argument that is still
held out against it is that it tends to raise your LDL cholesterol, which is known as your bad cholesterol.
It can be a transient rise, it can be a permanent rise. But what this paper points out is that
the rise in lowering your LDL cholesterol through diet in diet studies has never been shown to lead
to any impact on heart disease. It may happen that it works with drugs, you know, when you take statins, that's what statins are designed to do, in part, but it really has never been shown
to be reliably true when if you do that through diet, so and saturated fat raises a kind of
LDL cholesterol, it is called your large and void, there are different kinds of LDL cholesterol
becomes a complicated story, but it doesn't raise the type of LDL cholesterol or LDL particles that are considered the worst for heart disease. There's
small dense ones, saturated fat tends to raise the large buoyant ones. So that was a bit of one
important point of the paper. I think two other important points is that this paper reviewed those
clinical trials like everybody else did and said, no effect on cardiovascular mortality and no effect on total mortality. That was the result
of those paper, those clinical trials. And this paper said, I think really importantly,
we have to be careful of restricting saturated fats because of the foods in which we find them. And you potential harm if you restrict,
if you restrict these foods, like, you know, all kinds of meat and full fat dairy and cheese and,
you know, coconut oil or coconut butter, or dark chocolate is another example,
you are missing out on the nutrients needed nutrients in those foods and in fact one of the
things that's disturbing about the dietary guidelines is that they um they do not they
don't meet all our nutrient needs like if you follow them perfectly you will still come you'll
come up short on a few important nutrients including vitamin d which we now know is really
important for fighting covet and um choline and i think it's potassium, and maybe iron. I don't know this off the top of my head.
So it's very important not to restrict those foods, which is what the limits on saturated
fats do. And so their argument in this paper was, we need a food-based guidelines. We should not be
focusing on this micronutrient,
this saturated fat.
Well, this goes back to the whole idea of nutritionism,
which is the reductionist approach
to the individual nutrients in food
as a way of helping food companies
to modulate those nutrients
and still provide crappy food.
So if you reduce saturated fat,
or you reduce salt, reduce sugar,
these are things that food companies
can manipulate in their formulations.
But if you say eat whole foods, what are they going to do, right?
Yeah. So the limits on saturated fats are a way to kind of keep down or to limit consumption of
these whole natural foods, which provide nutrients. And it's really important that
we get nutrients in there because eating nutrients in foods is, you know this,
but I mean, it's far more what we call bioavailable, which means that your body is
able to digest and absorb them, right? So, we say you can get your iron from fortified,
you know, Kellogg's Krispies or whatever, but and because they fortify those grains with, um, with iron, but you will absorb
it much better if you get that iron from say meat. Um, and that's sort of all nutrients. It's better
to absorb them and eat them in the natural form in which they're found. And that was the argument
of this paper. So what was the effect? We're going to put the link to this paper in the show notes
because it's very important. And I think what really struck me from looking at the paper was, you know, there was kind of a bunch of points
that were really important. First, you sort of highlighted that despite the current recommendation
around saturated fat, there was mounting evidence that basically didn't show that saturated fats
or reducing cause heart disease or reducing saturated fats lowered the risk of heart disease
and this is from a review of all the data and actually increasing saturated fats may protect
against stroke right i forgot to mention that the set the second thing that was really interesting
was you mentioned this thing about the particle size and that matters because if you're creating
the small dense particles which by the way comes from eating carbohydrates and sugar and starch not
fat uh you're actually more likely to
get heart attacks than eating saturated fat, which is creating these large, buoyant cholesterol
particles for most people. I think there's some genetic variations. But they're also said that
it matters what you eat them with. And in my book, Eat Fat, Get Thin, I made a huge point of this,
that if you eat saturated fat in the context of a low starch and sugar diet, it's okay. But if you start sticking to saturated fat in carbohydrate-rich diets,
that creates a problem because then you get the double effect of insulin, inflammation,
and the saturated fats, and then it can become a problem. So I would warn people to say that,
you know, you don't get to eat cookies and ice cream and cake, which have saturated fat and carbohydrates. You should be eating, you know, butter on your
broccoli, not on your bread. And that, and that, that actually makes a huge difference.
The other thing they said, which is really interesting to me is that they, they, um,
have to look at the, the actual data on these whole foods and whole fat dairy, unprocessed meat, dark chocolate, all of saturated
fats, but they're in this complex, rich nutrient dense food. And none of them were associated with
heart disease. In fact, it may be the opposite. And there was no data to really suggest that we
should limit these foods, which is pretty amazing. And if they recommend that we eliminate all these
population wide upper limits on saturated fat in the United States because it won't reduce the risk of heart attack or death.
That's a pretty dramatic statement.
And to be published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, right?
It is.
That's a god.
This is not some left-wing radical journal that wants to upend the orthodoxy.
This is the journal of the American
Heart Association. And cardiologists are considered some of the most conservative groups
on saturated fats. So, I think it was really significant. I mean, these authors literally
concluded that caps and saturated fats are no longer warranted. They're no longer needed. And it was such an
incredibly prestigious group of people who really were knowledgeable about the field. And again,
had themselves passed nationwide population wide limits on saturated fat, but we're saying
we were wrong to do that. So it's an extraordinary, it's an extraordinary paper. It's extraordinary that it got published in that journal.
But I have to say I'm disappointed by the results.
I mean, I don't think that one newspaper covered it,
or I have seen almost no news coverage of it at all.
And, you know, I think just recently the BMJ did a news piece on this group of scientists and this paper.
And in fact, this group of scientists went beyond the paper.
They actually wrote a letter to the secretaries of USDA and HHS saying it is urgent for you to really rethink these guidelines.
And they also wrote a letter to Congress.
And throughout the process, they submitted numerous public, you know, you can submit
public comments to USDA during the process.
And they submitted all this literature, this scientific literature to the Dietary Guideline
Committee, and all of that's just been ignored.
So it's really, it's an extraordinary story. I mean, the ability to just not see anything but what you want to see is, I think, or the vested interests that are involved here are too powerful to overcome.
So let me ask you this.
You've been working on this for a long time to try to update and improve and make the dietary guidelines more evidence-based.
And there's a lot of challenges to that.
But, you know, it seems that a congressional oversight committee gave a million dollars
to the National Academy of Sciences, created a very independent, objective report, which
made a series of recommendations, all of which were pretty much ignored. And the question is, in the context of
the average person, what we can do, how does this process change? Do we need to call our congressmen?
Do we need to create a massive movement to have a different secretary of agriculture? I mean,
who are the people that are going to make these determinations? Is it the secretary of agriculture. I mean, who are the people that are going to make these determinations?
Is it the secretary of agriculture?
Is it the head of HHS who's working with the Health and Human Services Department,
working with the Dietary Guidelines Committee as well?
I mean, who's in charge that's causing these roadblocks to actually implementing
an evidence-based approach to a dietary guidelines?
Well, that is a magical question.
I'm sorry.
Because there's somebody who's picking the people on the committee, right?
There's somebody who's doing that.
Yeah.
Well, that's, it is the question.
I think that, I think that one would have more luck with Congress than with USDA and
HHS because those agencies, now who knows what will happen with the
Biden administration, but I think those agencies are deeply invested in this policy, and it would
be very difficult for them to dramatically, drastically change course. Remember, there's
an office at USDA where these people have been working on these guidelines for decades. And,
you know, one of them stood up at the beginning of this whole process and said,
if everybody just followed our guidelines, you would all be healthy. I mean, they,
these are their baby. And I think it's very hard to believe it. Yeah. So, I think it's,
I've sort of come to the conclusion that it probably takes members of Congress,
kind of a congressional oversight. I mean, it's offensive that they
spent a million dollars on this report by the National Academy of Sciences, and then it was
just ignored. It sits on a shelf getting dusty. And the agencies, the governmental agencies that
were supposed to implement it just didn't. And so, I mean, our group urges people, you can go
to the nutritioncoalition.us, which is our website, and there's a urges people that you can go to the nutrition coalition.us and,
um, which is our website.
And there's a take action budget where you can go and contact your member of Congress.
And we, at this point, we are just simply asking for what we talked about at the beginning
of the podcast was we're just simply asking for the dietary guidelines to be limited to
the people that it actually addresses.
Just be limited to healthy people, not to over
12% to 12% of Americans, 12% of Americans, the rest of you just ignore this because it's going
to make you sick. In fact, well, I mean, I mean, like if you aren't reviewing the science on people
with these disease states, then please like, do not try it. do not try to pretend that you're for all
Americans because you're not. That's, I think, the very best that anybody could hope for,
which is to have a policy that doesn't overreach. Maybe we just change the title,
Dietary Guidelines for Healthy Americans. That would work. But that speaks to the next issue, which is how do we design guidelines for
an unhealthy America to fix chronic disease? Because that's really the main question.
Yeah. I mean, I think that you and I would agree on a lot of the things that,
I mean, I think that the very first thing you should do is to stop giving people the wrong
advice, right? So that would be wonderful to just level the playing field so that there is no longer, you're no longer
giving unhealthy people the wrong advice, you're no longer telling the person with diabetes to have
six servings of grains a day. And then after that, I think there's, you know, there's, there's a whole
literature on low carbohydrate diets that show them to be effective, I think, probably most convincingly for the reversal of a type 2 diabetes diagnosis or reversing that process.
And that's why the American Diabetes Association has now in their guidelines is mentions not only of low-carb but of the keto diet as good viable options and the best diet for glycemic control which means controlling your
blood sugar which is the most important thing you can possibly do in diabetes and also by the way
and this is an important kind of like uh ancillary to what we're talking about which is
in the literature on um how to avoid the worst outcomes for the coronavirus.
One of the, what they,
a study recently found that what most tightly associates with and what is
most associated with poor outcomes was high blood sugars upon admission to
the hospital.
So keeping your glycemic control in control is super important.
It's so important. Yeah.
So, I mean, I think that literature, you know, as a start, reversing diabetes in America, which is, you know, It's so important. Yeah. and safe and there's long-term enough data. I mean, I'm talking multiple, nine trials that are
at least two years, which is considered long enough to see any negative side effects.
Yeah.
And one trial that's gone now five years. Okay. So that's not what we would, a real long-term
trial would last 10 years, long enough to hang around and get data on mortality.
Outcomes.
Yeah. Right. But we know that it's it's safe so you know and it improves
the vast majority of inflammatory factors and cardiovascular risk factors so like that's a good
place to start much research needs to be done but that research can't happen while everybody's
convinced that there's just one size fits all diet for everyone. Like it has to, it has to loosen up a
bit to, so there is an allowance of a conversation that at least starts saying, look, we need to have
a diversity of options for people in, you know, in different states of metabolic health. Like we
can't assume that everybody is going to respond to this one size fits all dietary guideline diet.
Yeah. And that's so important. And I think, you know, hopefully with a new administration, although I'm pretty cynical, you know,
things might open up. I think there's in fact, Shelly Pingree was being recommended as one of
the potential candidates for the USDA Secretary of Agriculture, who's an organic regenerative
farmer from Maine, who's a congresswoman who understands these issues. So
there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. I think eventually we'll get there. But
we really have a moment where, honestly, we could be addressing this pandemic of COVID differently by
not having a mask mandate, but having a let's get healthy America mandate to become pandemic
resistant through improving our diet. And like you said,
if the number one risk factor for getting really sick and dying is high blood sugar,
which affects 88% of Americans at some level or another, right? Not necessarily diabetes,
but at some level. And one in two have prediabetes or type two diabetes. I mean, it's half of
Americans. You'd think this would be a massive public health message, but nobody's talking about
it. I mean, I am, but nobody's talking about, but so I think we have a lot of work to do.
Yeah. I mean, I wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about exactly that. I said,
you know, it's not about the masks we put over our mouth, but the food that goes in them.
Yeah. Yes.
And why don't we make ourselves more resistant to the virus so that we have better outcomes?
And why do we think that some countries have done so well and we've done so poorly?
Part of the reason surely must be that we have such high rates of obesity and diabetes and hypertension, all those things which correlate very highly with higher rates of hospitalization and death from the coronavirus.
I mean, where China was the epicenter of coronavirus, now it's very little.
But they also have three million.
That many fat people.
Well, they do have some, but it's not as much.
I know.
It's more and more, but they have so many people.
But there's three deaths for every million population.
Here we have 500 deaths for every million population.. We have 500 deaths for every million population in China.
The obesity rates 2.6% here.
It's 42%.
Just saying it might be related.
So anyway, Nina,
thank you for amazing work that you're doing with the nutrition coalition to
raise awareness about dietary guidelines.
It's not a sexy job, but it needs to be done.
And it's important that you are looking at the science
because so few are.
And I think that I'm really impressed with the fact
that you've been able to highlight some of these issues
to raise awareness, to drive public support.
And I think people listening can start to pay attention
and look at the Nutrition Coalition's
educational information on the dietary guidelines,
learn about them, learn why they're important and learn why it's important for you to be active
in having a voice about this because your congressman and senators listen.
I mean, if 10,000 people wrote or emailed or called to their senators or
congressmen, they pay attention.
And I think we hopefully will be able to have a voice for this in the future
as we begin to really face down the real crisis that we're facing around food
and health and chronic disease
and COVID and how it's all connected. So thank you for your work, Nina. Thank you for being on
the doctor's pharmacy podcast. It's been great to have you. Thank you very much for having me.
Check out her book, the big fat surprise, check out the nutrition coalition website,
which is nutrition coalitionition.us.
And you can also, if you want to get active, you can go to nutritioncoalition.us forward slash take dash action, which I encourage you to do because we all need to be active in making a
difference because we can. And if you love this podcast, please share it with your friends and
family on social media, leave a comment. We'd love to hear from you and we'll subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts and we'll see you next time on The Doctor's Pharmacy.
Hey everybody, it's Dr. Hyman. Thanks for tuning into The Doctor's Pharmacy. I hope you're loving
this podcast. It's one of my favorite things to do and introducing you all the experts that I know
and I love and that I've learned so much from. And I want to tell you about something else I'm doing, which is called Mark's Picks. It's my
weekly newsletter. And in it, I share my favorite stuff from foods to supplements to gadgets to
tools to enhance your health. It's all the cool stuff that I use and that my team uses to optimize
and enhance our health. And I'd love you to sign up for the weekly newsletter. I'll only send it to you once a week on Fridays, nothing else, I promise. And all you do is go to
drhyman.com forward slash PICS to sign up. That's drhyman.com forward slash PICS, P-I-C-K-S,
and sign up for the newsletter. And I'll share with you my favorite stuff that I use to enhance
my health and get healthier and better and live younger, longer.
Now back to this week's episode.
Hi, everyone.
I hope you enjoyed this week's episode.
Just a reminder that this podcast is for educational purposes only.
This podcast is not a substitute for professional care by a doctor or other qualified medical
professional.
This podcast is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute medical or other professional advice or services. If you're looking for help in your
journey, seek out a qualified medical practitioner. If you're looking for a functional medicine
practitioner, you can visit ifm.org and search their find a practitioner database. It's important
that you have someone in your corner who's trained, who's a licensed healthcare practitioner,
and can help you make changes, especially when it comes to your health.