So who is right?
I was taught while in school that our meals should consist of mainly grains. Remember the food pyramid. Fast forward 30 years a boom, I am fat and diabetic. I guess that's what I get for following the great government education I received..
Now my VA dietitian says oh no now we have my plate. Its all figured out for you.
Well color me skeptical.
OK, let me pick up a few points. Bit of a long post, so bear with me.
1) If I understand you right, you followed traditional food pyramid guidelines and ended up - in your own words - fat and diabetic. But this doesn't mean that the advice was wrong. Your fat levels and chance of diabetes are going to be determined by a whole bunch of factors, including your overall energy balance and your genetic predispositions. Nobody said the traditional food pyramid was a guarantee. There is also the possibility that without those guidelines, you could be in an even worse state.
2) I notice the comment about 'government education.' Just as an aside, I think the very biggest mistake anyone can make when researching diet-related issues is to go down the 'the government wants you to think this, the FDA told us that' line.
Lots of critics of the medical establishment use this, for two reasons (a) it really seels their idea well (b) it covers up a lack of actual evidence for their ideas.
The problem with this reasoning is that it totally misses the international nature of research. The US government and the FDA, starngely enough, do not control an international network of scientists.
3) Onto your meta-analysis study. This is very interesting, because here we've got a powerful looking bit of research. I googled one author, Robert Krauss, and he's the real deal in this area. He's not a journalist who writes about science (like Sally Fallon). And it's a peer-reviewed, highly regarded journal.
I said before that science proceeds not by the results of one research study, but by taking the results of lots. So now we have two reviews, one concluding 'no connection and one concluding 'connection'. I was about to start looking at the paper in detail to see if I could explain the discrepancies, when I came across this
. It's a symposium of 17 top researchers, including Robert Krauss. So this allows us to see a 'review of reviews'. As the title suggests, where does the evidence stand, as of 2010?
If you have time, and some patience, it's well worth wading through their conclusions in the link provided. The bottom line is that when all the available current evidence is taken into account, overall it still points to the benefits of lowering saturated fats, and to a so-called mediterrenean diet as being the healthiest:
Low on processed food
Lots of fresh veggies
Not much saturated fat
Relatively small amounts of red meat.
I guess that nine times out of ten, people believe whatever suits them best. Any critics that say you can eat bacon whenever you want are always going play well