Food has three principal nutrients, called Macronutrients.
They are: Fat, Protein and Carbohydrate, hereafter sometimes referred to as
“carbs.” All of the energy derived
from food comes from these three components.
Foods also have non-caloric nutrients, namely vitamins and
minerals, or Micronutrients, as well as water and ash. In addition, foods have essential
but not yet well understood (or discovered) Phytochemicals, such as antioxidants.
The energy content of either a gram of protein or a gram of carbohydrate
is four (4) calories. The energy of a gram of fat is nine (9) calories, making
it thus more than twice as “dense” in calories as either protein or carbs. A
gram of ethyl alcohol in an alcoholic beverage has seven (7) calories but, alas,
no nutrient value, hence “empty” calories.
Most “sugar-free” candies and “energy bars” contain “sugar
alcohol,” which does not elevate
blood sugar levels, making them
tempting to diabetics. They do, however, raise blood insulin levels, because the body senses sweet.
The total available energy of a food is therefore the sum of
the products of the weight (in grams) times the calories per gram of each of its
macronutrients. If you wanted to do the math (or use a software program) you
could calculate how many calories of each macronutrient, and the total percentage
energy in calories, are contained in each portion of food. But for this primer,
it is only necessary to establish an understanding of the basic science.
If you are interested in healthy eating and a long life, you
should be informed about the macronutrient distribution and balance of your
diet. It was not so in the Paleolithic Era, referenced in the 1st
installment. It was then just about survival. It was through “survival of the
fittest” and that we learned what to eat to be healthy and evolve.
Almost half a century ago in the U. S., some big-government
advocates thought that heuristic learning (by trial and error) was fraught with
too much risk. That’s when politicians and public health officials decided to
get involved in establishing Dietary Goals (1977), and later Dietary Guidelines
(1980) for Americans. The HHS/FDA created these standards and later the “Nutrition
Facts” panel that is on all manufactured and processed food.
This is known today as the “Standard American Diet,” or SAD,
for short, prophetically. It contains a “% daily value” (previously the “Recommended
Daily Allowance”) for carbs, for an adult woman, of 300 grams (x 4 calories per
gram = 1,200 calories, or a whopping 60% of a 2,000-calorie diet). The “daily value”
for protein is 50g (x 4 = 200 calories or 10% of 2,000 kcal). And the “daily value”
for fat is 65g (x 9 = 585 calories or +/- 30% of a 2,000 kcal. diet.
This means that our government currently, to this day, recommends that an American woman eat a
diet comprised of 60% carbs, all of which
break down to “sugars” in the blood. Simultaneously, beginning in 1980, most
of us have become fatter, and many of us have become Type II diabetics (like
me). Does anyone see a correlation here? Does anyone think maybe this is a vast
public health experiment gone wrong? Many people now agree. It was a mistake.
But I don’t blame our doctors. For more than 50 years –
longer than the entire time that virtually any doctor still in practice has
been working – the prevailing wisdom passed down from the powers-that-be has
wavered but little. The sources of information that the medical practitioner
has relied on are, writ large, our public health officials and, derivatively,
the practitioner’s medical community, through their specialty practice
standards, medical journals and conventions, and the ubiquitous pharmaceutical
salesperson. For the most part, practicing physicians were not trained much (if
at all) in nutrition, except for basic biochemistry; they have had little time
to “bone up” on an area that isn’t being pushed by big pharma because there is
no money to be made in nutrition. So, I do not blame the clinician for treating
symptoms of disease by prescribing medications. I sympathize with (most of)
them. They are stuck in the status quo
of the mainstream mantra and, and the dictates of government regulations, insurance,
and reimbursement policies. They are unable to turn around in the face of these
compelling drivers.
This suggests to me that it may be time for the patient to assume some responsibility
and take charge of his (or her) own health. What you eat is up to you. It’s in your hands. You can do it, if you take the trouble to “bone up.”
No comments:
Post a Comment