Kat Morgan, MPH’s Post

What could possibly go wrong... 🤔 This makes me SO sad (and angry). I wonder if this could explain the questionable (disastrous) dietary guidelines. Most dietitians' and nutritionists' curricula are influenced by the guidelines, and the 'guidelines' are reiterated at every opportunity... It also influences what your kid is fed in nursery or school, what you might be fed in a hospital or a care home, what prisoners are served and what our military and all other public sector workers such as the Police, NHS and Fire Servce are provided. This is something I first discovered over a decade ago and it... Blew. My. Mind. 🤯 The crux of the issue: At least 11 of the 17 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have ties to companies such as Nestle and Unilever, the world’s largest ice cream producer. One member, a retired senior scientist from Unilever, has done consultancy work for Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Coca-Cola, and Cargill. Other members include sponsors like Pepsi, Cadburys and General Mills. Additionally, 6 out of those 11 members had ties to baby formula manufacturers 🫣. Wow. Remember, any information/advice provided that is not aligned with the 'guidelines' (such as carbohydrates are not essential or seed oils are likely not doing you any good) is termed quackery/misinformation or 'nutri-babble', as our friends at ZOE and Huel would say 👀. Instead, rely on the registered dietitians 'evidence'. Is anyone spotting the circular logic here? Link to BMJ article in comments below ⬇️. If this blows your mind as much as it does mine, please do repost ♻️.

I was discussing this and the ridiculous food pyramid with a client of mine and figured I should share it on linkedin, just in case people still believe in it 😅🤣 I truly loved serving my country but the Government has really got to stop manipulating it's people, it's absolutely absurd. lyonsdenpa.com The concept of a 2,000-calorie diet originated from guidelines established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the early 1990s. The FDA introduced the "2,000-calorie" benchmark as part of its effort to create standardized food labels that would help consumers make healthier choices. The 2,000-calorie reference was not based on a specific scientific or medical determination for an ideal daily caloric intake. Instead, it was chosen as an average number that would make nutrition information relatable and practical for the general population. Surveys from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that adults generally consumed between 1,800 to 2,200 calories per day, so 2,000 calories became a convenient, round number. It’s worth noting that individual caloric needs vary depending on factors such as age, sex, body composition, and activity level, so the 2,000-calorie guideline serves as a reference point rather than a universal recommendation.

Is your toddler getting the best food to thrive? If it’s from prepackaged foods, research suggests they may not…. - 60% of infant and toddler foods fail to meet nutritional recommendations (based on 651 different food products). - 70% did not contain enough protein and 44% contained excess sugar. - Many also used misleading marketing, on average products displayed 4 prohibited claims like ‘Non GM’ 70%, ‘No BPA’ (37%), ‘Organic’ 59%. - Dubious practises were also found in general labelling, with references to fruits or vegetables in the product name, despite primarily being made of flour. - Childhood obesity is on the rise, and their early period of life is vital for later health – but awareness of these issues enables us make better choices! https://lnkd.in/e6TuMcbs

Did you have a chance to check out the recent study on ultra processed foods (UPFs) in the British Medical Journal? This analysis captures outcomes from more than 9 million people. For starters, UPFs “encompass a broad range of ready to eat products, including packaged snacks, carbonated soft drinks, instant noodles, and ready-made meals…characterised as industrial formulations primarily composed of chemically modified substances extracted from foods, along with additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods.” UPFs have been shown to have strong associations with: - An increased risk of anxiety, depression, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and certain cancers - The brain’s reward system (fueling cravings) - Negative impacts on mental health - Reduction in performance on memory and learning tests This is a BIG deal. We've always believed real foods > UPFs. Do you think this study is enough to push big food towards healthier food outcomes? Will profit always trump public health? #upfs #ultraprocessedfood #cpg #youarewhatyoueat #smallbusiness #entrepreneurship https://lnkd.in/eq-7xjqd

https://lnkd.in/gnwmMYU8 Anyone who follows the work of Robert Lustig knows he has been talking about the health issues related to processed food for years. Just enter “Robert Lustig” and “Processed Food” into your search engine and you will find many references to his advocacy efforts in this area of metabolic health and nutrition. Is processed food an experiment that failed? This will give you a more broad view of the impact of #ultraprocessedfood

I want to read this book! I've heard Denise speak before - she is equal parts HILARIOUS and BRILLIANT. Death by Food Pyramid : How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health http://amzn.to/1goLE3R (affiliate link) About the book: The phrase Death by Food Pyramid isn't shock-value sensationalism, but the tragic consequence of simply doing what we have been told to do by our own government - and giant food profiteers - in pursuit of health. Shoddy science, sketchy politics and shady special interests have shaped American dietary recommendations-and destroyed our nation's health-over recent decades. Regardless of whether you're an omnivore or vegan, research junkie or science-phobe, health novice or seasoned dieter, Death by Food Pyramid will reframe your understanding of nutrition science, and inspire you to take your health, and future, into your own hands.

Please read this article in depth: "Toward a science-based classification of processed foods to support meaningful research and effective health policies" #processedfood https://lnkd.in/d8Rum_yq

When headlines harm: In this new insight authored by Chris Bryant we look at the dangers of misreporting health studies. Recent headlines from the DailyMail.com and the Newyork Post on #plantbased #meats and #heart #health have stirred controversy, and rightly so. A study published in The Lancet actually found that ultra-processed foods, not specifically plant-based meats, were linked to increased heart disease risk. Yet, some media outlets jumped to conclusions that could have serious consequences for public health. https://lnkd.in/d9hXnTGc The misrepresentation of research findings not only misleads but also jeopardises public health outcomes - Imagine if that misinformation discourages people from making healthier dietary choices, like opting for plant-based alternatives that can actually reduce heart disease risk. Criticism from experts like Evangeline Mantzioris PhD APD AccSD and Brian Kateman highlights the disparity between what the study actually said and how it was reported. Mantzioris clarifies that plant-based meats constituted a minuscule portion of the study's focus compared to other ultra-processed foods, such as sugary snacks and beverages. This incident underscores the importance of rigorous journalism and responsible reporting in health matters. Misinformation, whether born out of negligence or influence, can have tangible and harmful effects on public health. What we need is accurate reporting to promote healthier lifestyles and reduce the burden of heart disease. The Conversation UK Fast Company British Nutrition Foundation Bezos Earth Fund Imperial College London Rebecca Whittaker Kate Pickles Reda Wigle Plant Based News Faunalytics Sentient #HealthReporting #PublicHealth #PlantBased #HeartHealth #JournalismEthics

The misreporting of the recent Lancet study about ultra-processed foods by the New York Post and the Daily Mail was so wrong that it is likely to have increased heart deaths. These outlets reported - incorrectly - that plant-based meat had been linked with heart health issues. A new review finds that plant-based meat is actually BETTER for heart health than meat from animals. How did these outlets get it so wrong? A combination of puzzling press office decisions, confirmation bias, and at least half a decade of meat industry propaganda. Check out our new Insight here 👇

Little bit different kind of content than my usual one. But since I am getting into health metrics tracking with my Makros app, I thought I’d share this one. We need to be careful about absolute statements like “ultra-processed foods are bad for you”. They are not generally true. Notice the generally here. For example: whey protein doesn’t grow on trees yet we can agree it’s likely the best protein suplement we can get. Another example: I’ve never seen a creatine tree, have any of you? Probably not. There is decades of very strong scientific research to prove the benefits of both of the above. So just be careful with what you believe from the “stories” that are published online.