Article content continued

Here are some important facts from science. First, there are no essential carbohydrates. Our livers can produce all the glucose we need from fat and protein in the diet. There is no minimum amount that you must consume for good health. There are good carbohydrates — soluble and insoluble fibres — which have little impact on blood sugar or insulin. These are found in a range of non-starchy vegetables.

Second, fats — even saturated fats — are essential and are good for you. Avoiding fats means avoiding important nutrients. Saturated fats are fine, so long as they are not consumed with sugars and starches. Meats, even fatty meats, in moderation, are healthy foods and should not be avoided.

Third, sugar is not a benign source of calories. The fructose in sugar must be metabolized by the liver. When this happens it promotes fat formation, insulin resistance, inflammation, and impairs brain function. Sugar has the same effect whether it is “added” or not, or comes from fruit, cane, beets, maple trees, or honey: it all has the same negative consequences.

You might question why our government doesn’t heed this recent, robust nutrition science and embrace it in our public policy and nutrition guidelines, or why current dietary recommendations weren’t developed from well-controlled nutritional studies. Unfortunately, since this kind of research is very challenging and expensive, the current recommendations have been derived mainly from epidemiological or correlational studies. It is well understood that this kind of research produces conclusions that are, well … inconclusive and fraught with potential error. Most nutrition researchers and dieticians were educated at a time when low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets were thought to be healthy. They are heavily vested in this obsolete model and are reluctant to accept a new, scientifically validated model contrary to their beliefs. But this is what good science demands: the rejection of an existing model in the face of new, compelling evidence.