I am starting to use Substack for blog posts. My Substack address is drjohngscott.substack.com. I will continue to post on this site also for the time being, but I will eventually switch over completely to Substack. Substack is more flexible (and also free!). Try it out.
FEB 11, 2026
New dietary guidelines were released in January by the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services titledDietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030. In this post I’m going to illustrate the clear deficiencies of the new guidelines by comparing them to two older versions of Dietary Guidelines for Americans. I will begin the description of each guideline with the visual diagram used to summarize the guideline.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans 1995. These guidelines introduced the image of the food pyramid. The pyramid suggests daily servings for each of the food groups. Serving size is defined in the full text of the guidelines. The most servings are at the base of thy pyramid (bread cereal rice and pasta group) and the least number of servings at the third level of the pyramid, which include dairy and proteins. Note that the very top of the pyramid, which includes fats, oils and sweets, does not include serving sizes but just advises to use sparingly.
Thanks for reading Dr John Scott’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The full version of the guidelines is 40 pages long and includes the names of a 12 member expert advisory committee. This committee included many famous experts in nutrition, especially Marion Nestle.
By 2020 a lot more information was available about foods that increased or decreased the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke. The image was changed from a food pyramid to an image of a healthy eating plate. The generic image did not include serving sizes except suggesting no more that 1-2 servings a day for dairy products.
The guidelines included a My Plate Plan calculator that makes calorie recommendations and serving sizes based on age, gender, height, weight and average activity level. Try out the calculator using the above My Plate Plan link. It’s fun to see how many calories you should eat and how they should be distributed.
Note the proportions of food groups on the Healthy Plate image. Vegetables (not including potatoes and french fries) and fruits make up half of the daily calories. Whole grains and protein make up the other half at roughly 1/4 each. Healthy protein emphasizes fish, poultry, beans and nuts with advice to limit red meat and cheese.
The guidelines also recommend eliminating processed meats like bacon and cold cuts. Limited quantities of healthy oils (both olive oil and vegetable oils) were recommended for salad and for cooking. It recommended avoiding trans fats
The full text of the 2020-2025 guidelines is 140 pages long. As with the previous guideline it lists the names of a 20 member advisory committee. It also includes a detailed description of how the guidelines were developed. Here is a particularly relevant quote from that description:
“The Guidelines must be grounded in the body of scientific and medical knowledge available at that time, not in individual studies or individual expert opinion.”
The new image for the 2025-2030 is an upside down version of the 1995 food pyramid. Things you should eat the most of are at the top and things to eat the least of are at the bottom. This image says nothing about actual quantities of the foods recommended. It has red meat (including an image of a steak), cheese and poultry at the top and whole grains at the bottom. This is the complete reverse of the 1995 pyramid, which had whole grains at the base of the pyramid with meat and poultry and dairy limited at the top. It is also almost the reverse of the 2020 Healthy Eating Plate. The 2025-2030 inverted pyramid does at least have vegetables at the top, but fruits are somewhere in the middle.
The full version of the new guidelines consists of only nine pages. there is no listing of an advisory committee or any scientific reviewers. The only authors listed are Robert F. Kennedy Jr (Secretary of HHS) and Brooke Rollins (Secretary of Agriculture).
The 2025-2030 guidelines have a little good advice (eat mostly unprocessed foods and avoid added sugar ), and a great deal of very questionable advice. See below
Fats
The 2026 guidelines advise eating (or drinking) full fat dairy (all saturated fat), They advise that healthy fats include beef tallow and the fat in red meat (all saturated fats). Here is a quote from the 2025-2030 guidelines:
“Healthy fats are plentiful in many whole foods, such as meats, poultry, eggs, omega-3–rich seafood, nuts, seeds, full-fat, dairy, olives, and avocados. When cooking with or adding fats to meals, prioritize oils with essential fatty acids, such as olive oil. Other options can include butter or beef tallow.”
Note that meats, poultry and eggs are listed before nuts, seeds olives and avocados and full fat dairy is mentioned in the middle of those much healthier polyunsaturated fats.
Another interesting quote from the 2025-2030 guidelines:
“More high-quality research is needed to determine which types of dietary fats best support long-term health.”
This is absolutely not true. There is plenty of research showing polyunsaturated oils and fats lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. I suspect this statement is a veiled reference to Kennedy’s completely unsubstantiated idea that seed oils, which are polyunsaturated oils are bad for you. Seed oils are polyunsaturated oils and have been shown to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. Even polyunsaturated fats should account for no more than 20-35% of daily calories.
The 2025-2030 guidelines do say that saturated fats should be limited to no more than 10% of total daily calories. This is the same as recommended in the 20020-2025 guidelines. It is not clear how you would do that by eating full fat dairy, using beef tallow for cooking, and eating red meat for protein. We know that eating too much saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease and stroke. The American Heart Association recommends limiting unsaturated fat to only 5-6% of total daily calories.
Protein
The 2026 guidelines suggest protein intake of 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. This is the amount of protein recommended for very active people (i.e. long distance runners and weight lifters. People who are more sedentary need only 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram and moderately active people only need about 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight.
The average American eats about 20% more than the recommended amount of protein (see this link from BBC Science Focus). Not only do we eat more protein than we need, two thirds of that protein comes from animals (Department of Agriculture Food Surveys Research Group).
Alcohol
Previous versions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have recommended a maximum of 1 drink a day for women and 2 drinks a day for men. A change to 1 drink per day for both men and women was proposed for the 2020-2025 guidelines, but any change in this recommendation was actively opposed by the alcohol industry so the advice remained unchanged.
The best current science shows that there is no totally safe level of alcohol intake. Alcohol at any level increases the risk of cancers of the GI tract, high blood pressure, cardiomyopathy, sleep disturbance, and dementia. The more alcohol consumed, the bigger the risk. Another problem is that “drink” means different things to different people
The UK national health service uses a measure called a “unit” of alcohol. A unit is 10 ml (about 1/3 oz) of pure alcohol. That is the amount that most people can metabolize in 1 hour. The NHS recommendation is that no more than 14 units per week is a low (not zero) risk level of alcohol consumption. Here is a chart showing what 14 units of alcohol is in common alcoholic drinks:
A shot of spirits is 25 ml (.8 oz) of 80 proof alcohol, which is equal to 1 unit.
The 2025-2030 guidelines recommendations just say “Consume less alcohol for better overall health.” This guidance is not very helpful.
Bottom Line
The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are poorly researched and contain much advice that is contrary to current nutritional science. I strongly recommend that you ignore them. The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans remain the most comprehensive and well researched nutritional advice and I would advise that everyone continue to use them.
Alcohol intake recommendations are not current in either guideline. Although there is no absolutely safe level of alcohol intake, the UK NHS alcohol guidelines using units of alcohol as the measure make the most sense.
I recently read a fascinating book by psychologist Paul Bloom called Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. In this post I will discuss this book in more detail as well as review other evidence about the difference between empathy, theory of mind, and compassion. I will also discuss how Bloom’s book has been misused by some right wing Christians.
Empathy
Definition of Empathy
Most definitions of empathy include vicariously feeling the same emotions as another person and understanding another person’s perspective. Psychologists separate these two things. Vicariously feeling another person’s emotions or pain is called emotional empathy. It is neurologically distinct from understanding another person’s perspective, which is called cognitive empathy or theory of mind. Bloom focuses his critique on emotional empathy, not theory of mind.
Emotional Empathy
Emotional empathy is hard wired into us. It is a mostly unconscious response to another person’s distress. It can motivate us to be kind and helpful to the person or people who elicit this response. It can also lead to harm and even violence. Much more about that later in this post. Emotional empathy is a system 1 response. I’ll explain what that means below.
System 1 and System 2 modes of thinking
System 1 and system two are descriptions of of two ways that our minds operate. It is a somewhat simplified model, but it is consistent with current neuroscientific research. The best accessible description of system 1 and system 2 is a book by Daniel Kahneman called Thinking, Fast and Slow. I highly recommend reading it.
System 1 is what we use for most routine tasks in our lives. It is our fast, automatic, intuitive and emotional mode of thinking. It operates without conscious awareness and relies on mental shortcuts to make quick judgments and decisions. System 1 is essentially our brain’s “autopilot” mode, constantly monitoring our surroundings and making rapid assessments. It is essential to our lives, but , it’s also important to be aware of its limitations. It can sometimes lead to errors in judgment, particularly when dealing with complex or unfamiliar situations.
System 2 thinking is a deliberate, conscious, and effortful process used for complex tasks and decisions. It is characterized by logical reasoning, careful analysis, and consideration of multiple factors. Unlike System 1 (fast, intuitive thinking), System 2 requires focused attention and effort.
Emotional empathy as a system 1 mode of thinking
Emotional empathy happens without our conscious awareness. It is contextual. Bloom cites research that emotional empathy is influenced by what we think about the person we are empathizing with and how we judge the situation that person is in. In one study subjects were shown videos of people in pain said to be suffering from AIDS. Some of the people in the videos were described as having gotten AIDS from intravenous drug use and some were described as having gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion. Subjects showed much more empathy for the people who were described as having gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion than those described as having gotten AIDS from intravenous drug use.
Emotional empathy is also influenced by the group to which the other person belongs. Is it one of Us or one of Them? There was a study of a painful shock to the hand in European soccer fans. One person was shocked while others witnessed the person who was shocked. Subjects showed more empathy if the person was a fan of the subject’s team and much less empathy if the person was a fan of the opposing team. All of these responses were shown to be below the level of consciousness. When subjects were asked about the reason for the difference in their empathy scores, they denied that there was any bias.
Does high emotional empathy correlate with good behavior?
People do vary in how empathic they are. On one end of the spectrum are people who have a high emotional empathy response, and on the other end of the spectrum are people who have very little emotional empathy. We would expect that people with a high emotional empathy response would be more likely to take action to help. People with high emotional empathy feel peoples’ distress more strongly and this should motivate them to help if for no other reason than to reduce their own distress. Another way that they could reduce their distress, however, is to escape rather than help. We would also expect that people with very low emotional empathy would have more cruel or violent behavior.
It turns out that there is almost no correlation with empathy and good or bad behavior. A meta-analysis of all the studies showed that low empathy has no association with aggression, and high empathy has minimal to no effect on good behavior. To quote Bloom, “Being high in empathy doesn’t make one a good person and being low in empathy doesn’t make one a bad person.”
Emotional empathy as a spotlight
Emotional empathy acts like a spotlight. To quote Bloom again, “making visible the suffering of others making their troubles real, salient and concrete.” The spotlight effect is a weakness as well as a strength. When you point a spotlight at something, everything else is in darkness. What you see depends on where you point the spotlight. This focus effect makes you more vulnerable to bias. It also leads to something called “the identifiable victim effect.” This sets up a situation where one identifiable victim elicits more emotional empathy than than a thousand victims. Stalin once said “One death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistic.” We also see this effect in deaths from the COVID pandemic. Eighty percent of Americans do not know anyone who died from COVID, though over a million Americans died from the COVID pandemic. The people who died were disproportionately elderly, black or poor. For people outside of those groups there was no emotional empathy spotlight effect. That is likely why so many people were not convinced that COVID was a serious disease.
The dark side of emotional empathy
Emotional empathy where there is conflict between groups can exacerbate conflict, even wars. People on one side feel empathy for members of their group who feel they have been harmed by the other side. Empathy with your side leads to the desire to punish the perpetrators. Of course people in the group on the other side of the conflict feel emotional empathy for the people on their side and therefore want to punish the other group. In these kind of situations emotional empathy exacerbates rather than mediates conflict between groups.
Burnout
People in the helping professions (doctors, nurses, therapists) do not do well when they experience high emotional empathy with all their clients. Experiencing the pain and suffering of patients, even though empathic suffering is not as severe as the suffering of the patient, is not pleasant. Over time, symptoms of burnout can develop. These include fatigue, poor concentration, lack of energy and effectiveness, cynicism and detachment.
Manipulating emotional empathy
The emotional empathy response can be manipulated for good causes, but also for things that are morally suspect or wrong.
Charities
Charities understand that eliciting emotional empathy will increase donations. They do this by showing images of individual people or animals who are obviously in distress. Stories go with the images about the suffering of this individual person or animal. Since we have an increased emotional empathy response to children in distress, the charity ads often use images of children. The emotional empathy response is not a good way to decide which charities should get your donations. Some charities do much more good for a lot more people than others. All charities, both good and not so good use the same techniques to manipulate emotional empathy. There is a better way to decide which charities should get your donations. More about that later in this post.
Politicians
Politicians often highlight individual people to manipulate the emotional empathy response to recruit people to vote for them or to take one side or the other in political and policy battles. Once again, this is not a good way to choose which politician or which policies you want to support.
The Christian right
There have been several recent books by right wing Christian authors who have cherry picked Paul Bloom’s critique of emotional empathy. Essentially anything or anyone that elicits empathy that contradicts their view of Christianity is termed “toxic empathy.” This is just another manipulation of empathy in a negative sense that promotes a particular religious viewpoint.
Compassion
Definition of compassion
Psychologist Paul Gilbert defines compassion as basic kindness with a deep awareness of the suffering of oneself and of other living things coupled with the wish and the effort to relieve that suffering.
Compassion as system 2 thinking
Understanding (rather than feeling) the suffering of a person or group of people uses system 2 thinking. That understanding facilitates the desire to help in the most effective way possible. Determining the most effective way to help requires logical reasoning, analysis, and consideration of multiple factors. These are characteristics of system 2 thinking.
Awareness of the vast amount of suffering in the world does not mean that an individual person can help relieve the suffering of all sentient beings. Compassion involves choosing both how and whom one can help the most.
Compassion in the helping professions
As noted above, emotional empathy alone can lead to burnout. It can also lead to less than ideal doctor-patient relationships. Patients are not interested in doctors or nurses feeling their pain. They want compassionate competent care. Doctors, nurses and therapists must of necessity maintain a certain emotional distance from their patients in order to provide that compassionate care. Compassionate care clearly involves mostly system 2 thinking. Unlike emotional empathy, understanding and compassion lead to the opposite of burnout. Multiple studies have shown that compassionate care is good for both patients and their clinicians. Here is a link to a review of a book by Dr. Anthony Mazzarelli and Dr. Stephen Trzeciak: Wonder Drug: Scientific evidence that serving others is best medicine.
Compassion training
It is possible to enhance compassion through training. For over a thousand years buddhists have practiced a form of meditation on compassion called “loving kindness” meditation. It involves both compassion for self and then expanding to family, friends, and eventually all sentient beings. Here is a link to a website that describes this kind of meditation: Metta Meditation: A Complete Guide to Loving-Kindness. There are many other ways to enhance one’s ability to be compassionate including cognitively based compassion training, Stanford multidisciplinary research based training, as well as many others. They have all been shown to increase compassion, which in turn leads to helping others. Once again compassion for self and others is as good for the helper as it is for the one who is helped
Bottom Line
You cannot turn off emotional empathy, nor should you even try. It is an automatic system 1 response. When combined with understanding and compassion it is always a good thing. It makes suffering visible and salient. The important thing is to learn to recognize your emotional empathy system 1 response and then engage your system 2 understanding and compassion. Emotional empathy by itself is not good or bad, but can be either. Your capacity for understanding and compassion (which is essentially kindness) can be enhanced by training. We definitely need more kindness in our world today.
This is another post responding to misinformation promulgated by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. Misinformation seems to proliferate faster that true science-based information. Perhaps one way to combat this is for readers of these blog posts to share them as widely as possible to people they know.
Secretary Kennedy is opposed to adding fluoride to public water supplies. He maintains that adding fluoride to public water supplies causes lower IQ’s in children. Two states, Utah and now Florida have already banned fluoridation of public water supplies, mostly in response to his claims about the evils of water fluoridation. I will examine the evidence for these claims in this post
Positive effects of water fluoridation
The US Public Health Service recommends public water fluoridation at a level of 0.7 mg per liter. This level of fluoride in water reduces tooth decay in children by 25% even in children who do not brush or floss regularly. This therefore most benefits poor and marginalized populations for whom dental hygiene can be difficult. Public water fluoridation at this level is one of the most effective public health interventions. Tooth decay can lead to chronic inflammation, which can lead to many other diseases including heart disease.
Sources of natural fluoride
Fluoride occurs naturally in almost all water supplies through the erosion of rocks and soil containing fluoride. The levels of natural fluoride are usually too low to prevent tooth decay, but some water supplies have much higher levels of natural fluoride up to as much as 50 mg per liter in some mountainous and volcanic regions.
Adverse effects of high natural fluoride
Fluorosis
Fluorosis has two components. At fluoride levels greater than 1.5 mg/L children who have growing teeth can develop brown discoloration of teeth. This is called dental fluorosis and is mostly a cosmetic problem. Long term exposure to fluoride levels greater than 10 mg/L can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which is a much more serious condition. In skeletal fluorosis the bones are generally weaker than normal with stiffness and pain in the joints as the early symptoms. In severe cases, muscles are impaired and bones in the central skeleton are irregularly thickened.
Lower IQ in children
In January of 2025 JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) published an analysis of combined data from many international studies that showed lower IQ scores in children exposed to higher levels of fluoride from all sources: Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores. The study found that the higher the exposure to fluoride, the lower were the children’s IQ scores. This finding was statistically significant for levels above 1.5 mg/L but not at or below this level. None of these studies were done in the United States. The US Public Health recommendation of 0.7 mg/L is well below the threshold for association of lower IQ in children.
Other sources of fluoride
The most significant other sources of fluoride are supplements, toothpaste and oral rinses. For children who have fluoride at 0.7 mg\l in drinking water, fluoride containing supplements should not be given. Most toothpastes contain fluoride, so children with fluoride in the water supply should use only a pea sized amount of toothpaste per brushing and should be encouraged to spit out the toothpaste after brushing. If the water supply has not been fluoridated and contains only trace amounts of natural fluoride, then supplements should be given to children.
Bottom Line
Fluoridation of public water systems at the recommended concentration of 0.7 mg/L is safe and effective at markedly reducing tooth decay in children. There is no evidence that fluoride in water at this level has any adverse effects. There is some evidence that concentrations of higher than 1.5 mg/L are associated with modest decreased IQ in children. Elimination of fluoride from public water systems will increase tooth decay in the most vulnerable populations and will not have any benefit. Children who live in communities with fluoridated water should not take fluoride supplements, should use only small amounts of fluoridated toothpaste, and should be encouraged to spit out toothpaste after brushing and not swallow it. Communities who have high natural levels of fluoride in drinking water can reduce fluoride to safe levels by reverse osmosis or charcoal filter systems.
Measles (also called rubeola) is one of the most infectious diseases in the world. Infectiousness of a disease is measured by something called R0 (basic reproduction number). This is a measure of how many people will be infected by one person with the disease in an un-immunized population. For measles R0 ranges from 12-18. That means in an un-immunized population, 1 person with measles will on average infect 12 or more others. To put this in perspective The R0 for influenza is 0.9-2.1. The R0 for Ebola is 1.9. The R0 of COVID19 is 1.4-2.4. You can see that the infectivity of the measles virus is as much as ten times higher than other diseases that we consider very infectious.
Measles Vaccine
The recommended two doses of measles vaccine offers lifetime 97% protection against being infected with measles. The measles vaccine is a live vaccine. This means that it is a form of measles virus that has been weakened (attenuated) so that it will not cause infection in people with normal immune systems. It cannot be given, however to people with weak immune systems, such as people on chemotherapy for cancer. It also cannot be given to infants younger than 6 months because their immune systems are not developed enough for a live virus vaccine. 1 dose of MMR vaccine can be given to infants at least 6 months old if they are going to travel to a country where measles is still endemic. This offers some protection, but they still need two doses of the MMR vaccine after age 1. The recommended age for the first dose of the measles vaccine is 1 year. The second dose is usually given at age 5 or 6. Even the first dose gives 93% protection against being infected with measles.
People who cannot get the measles vaccine are protected by all those people who do get the vaccine. This is called herd immunity. If enough of the population has been vaccinated then there is no transmission of measles even to those people who can’t take the vaccine. Outbreaks of measles are unlikely to happen if at least 90% of the population has been vaccinated. The lower the vaccination rate below 90%, the more likely measles outbreaks will occur in unvaccinated people. In Gaines county, Texas, where the current measles outbreak started, the measles vaccination rate was 75%.
Is the measles vaccine safe?
The measles vaccine is given in combination with mumps and rubella (German measles) vaccines. Reactions are not common but some children get a sore arm and/or a mild fever. One in three thousand children will have a febrile seizure. Although a febrile seizure is very scary for parents, a febrile seizure is not life threatening and never happens again unless the child already has an underlying seizure disorder. An even smaller number of children have an allergic reaction to the MMR vaccine. An allergic reaction is a rare complication of any vaccine. About one in 40,000 children can get a low platelet count. This usually resolves on its own and rarely requires treatment.
How dangerous is measles?
Measles can cause pneumonia and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) particularly in un-immunized children under 5. About one in five children (or adults) with measles have to be hospitalized. Up to two children per thousand cases die from complications of measles. There is a rare but always fatal inflammation of the brain that can occur up to 7 years after having had measles. It is called subacute sclerosing pan encephalitis (SSPE). When immunization rates in the US were above 90% SSPE disappeared. Unfortunately with the current US outbreaks we may see it again.
In the 10 years before the measles vaccine was available nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years old. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Among reported measles cases each year, an estimated 175,000 developed pneumonia; 48,000 were hospitalized; 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain); 400 to 500 people died.
As of March 7 the current outbreak in Texas and New Mexico is up to 208 cases, 198 in Texas and 10 in New Mexico. Twenty-three children have been hospitalized. There have already been two deaths in this outbreak, one in Texas and one in New Mexico.
Recommendations
If you were born before 1957 then you have had measles and are already immune. You don’t need vaccination. If you were born after 1957 and you have never had measles vaccine, then you and your children (if they are also un-immunized) should go to your pharmacy or health department and get vaccinated immediately. The risk of measles infection is muchmuch higher than the rare adverse effects of the MMR vaccine. If your child has already had two doses of MMR vaccine after age 1 then he/she does not need to be re-vaccinated.
From 1963 until 1967 an inactivated measles vaccine was used in the US. This vaccine did not give long lasting immunity. If you were vaccinated between those years, you should get at least one MMR booster. From 1963 to 1989 only on MMR vaccine was recommended. If you were vaccinated between those years you should get a booster MMR if you live in an area with a low vaccination rate or if you are planning international travel. After 1989 two vaccinations were recommended. If you were vaccinated after 1989 you don’t need a booster.
Treatment of Measles
Once a child gets measles, there is no treatment other than supportive therapy. There are no antiviral drugs that work against the measles. Virus. Robert F Kennedy Jr, unfortunately now head of HHS, has stated that getting measles vaccine is a personal decision. While that is technically true, nothing else prevents or treats measles. Kennedy has suggested that vitamin A and Cod liver oil can be used to treat measles. There is absolutely no evidence for this and furthermore too much vitamin A can be toxic.
Bottom Line
Measles can be a deadly disease, especially for children under 5. The MMR vaccine is safe and serious reactions are very rare. Two doses of measles vaccine after age 1 gives lifetime 97% immunity to measles. There is no anti-viral medicine that treats measles. Vitamin A and cod liver oil do not work and too much vitamin A can be toxic.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has been nominated by Donald Trump to be the Secretary of HHS. If he is confirmed by the Senate he will be secretary of HHS for four years. He plans to “Make America Healthy Again.” It is true that the current American healthcare system is one of the worst in the developed world as far as health outcomes are concerned. But rather than improving that system, RFK Jr’s plan is not only naive, but very dangerous. In this post I’m going to write about the specifics of what he is advocating and has advocated in the past. He can’t “Make America Healthy Again” but he can do a lot of damage.
Views on Infectious Disease
AIDS
RFK Jr believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. He has argued that the initial signals of AIDS, Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), were both strongly linked to amyl nitrite — “poppers” — a popular drug among promiscuous gays. He thinks the wasting symptoms of AIDS were all caused by heavy drug use and lifestyle stressors. He believes that the afflictions that tortured and killed those AIDS patients were, in fact, a result of their drug use and “compulsive homosexual behavior.”
He of course ignores the fact that the AIDS epidemic also affected people with hemophilia (through the blood products they had to use), children who were born to mothers with HIV, and health workers who had accidental needle sticks. At the peak of the epidemic in 2004, before we had any treatment other than AZT, AIDS killed 2.1 million people worldwide.
Lyme Disease
RFK Jr. believes that Lyme disease was created as a bioweapon by the American military in a Long Island laboratory in the 1950s.
West Nile Virus and RSV
Kennedy has said West Nile virus was created at Plum Island and that respiratory syncytial virus was purposely spread from apes to humans so pharmaceutical companies could profit off vaccines.
1918 Influenza Pandemic
Kennedy said at an online campaign event in June 2023. “We can go down a whole list of diseases, and there is good evidence that even the Spanish flu came from vaccine research.”
COVID
In an interview on Fox News, Kennedy said that many lives would have been saved if ivermectin and hydroycholoroquine had been more widely used. Well designed studies on both of these medicines showed they were no better than placebos for treating COVID.
Views on Vaccines
Measles Vaccine
During a November 2019 measles epidemic that killed 80 children in Samoa, Kennedy wrote to the country’s prime minister falsely claiming that the measles vaccine was probably causing the deaths
Vaccines and Autism
Kennedy believes that vaccine, particularly the MMR vaccine causes autism in children. As noted above, numerous very large well designed studies have disproven that any vaccines cause autism.
COVID vaccines
Mr. Kennedy filed a petition with the F.D.A. in May 2021 demanding that officials rescind authorization for the COVID vaccine and refrain from approving any Covid vaccine in the future.
Fluoridation of Water Supplies
Kennedy claims that fluoridation of water leads to decreased IQ scores in children. There is some evidence for this at very high fluoride levels that naturally occur at some places in the world. The level of fluoride added to water supplies in the US is far below this threshold. There is no evidence whatever that flouride added to drinking water has any ill effects. It has been shown to markedly decrease dental cavities in children, however. Kennedy says that fluoride in toothpaste is enough. The children most benefited by flouridation are minority and marginalized populations who do not or cannot brush their teeth regularly.
Chronic Disease
Kennedy wants the NIH to focus on chronic diseases. Of course many of the institutes of NIH already focus on chronic disease and fund research on them. This has been going on for many years. These include:
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI): Focuses on research, training, and education to prevent and treat heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders
National Institute on Aging (NIA): Focuses on research related to aging
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK): Focuses on research related to diabetes, digestion, and kidney disease
Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases (KUH):Focuses on research related to kidney disease, urinary tract disorders, and blood disorders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS):Focuses on research related to chronic disease epidemiology
Fogarty International Center (FIC): Focuses on global health research, including chronic diseases
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD): Focuses on research related to chronic disease disparities
The fact that Kennedy is not aware of the fact that NIH does a great deal of research on chronic diseases is more evidence of his unfitness for running HHS.
Nutrition
Kennedy wants to take on the big food industry and move people to eat less ultra-processed foods and eat more unprocessed foods. He thinks food additives cause cancer and gender dysphoria and wants additives removed from foods. Although there is zero evidence that food additives cause gender dysphoria, by and large these are laudable goals. How he is going to accomplish this remains unclear. Chronic disease is certainly related to food choice, lifestyle and poverty. We have known this for a long time, but it will take major societal change to make this happen. It certainly will not be in the power of the secretary of HHS to accomplish this.
Plans for firing employees
At an event in Arizona, Kennedy said he’d fire and replace 600 people from the National Institutes of Health. Kennedy also promised to eliminate the department of nutrition at the FDA.
Bottom Line
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a conspiracy theorist with no experience in running a large organization like HHS. He is absolutely unqualified for this role and furthermore constitutes a serious risk to the health of the US. I have written a letter to both my senators urging them to vote against his confirmation. I respectfully request that you do the same.
In the era before antibiotics were available one third of all deaths were from infectious disease. The introduction of antibiotics starting with penicillin represented a tremendous advance in the treatment of infectious diseases. We soon learned, however that overuse of antibiotics led quickly to the development of bacteria that became resistant to that antibiotic. Penicillin, for example can only be used for a small number of infectious diseases now including strep infections and syphilis. In this post I will write about both individual and societal harms of overuse of antibiotics and will also discuss conditions for which they should be and should not be used.
Harms of Antibiotics
Bacterial Resistance
Overuse of antibiotics can lead quickly to resistance. Unfortunately, resistance has eventually developed to nearly all currently available antibiotics. Some bacteria, called gram negative bacteria have developed resistance to almost all antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance in the United States kills approximately 23,000 patients a year and incurs over $20 billion in additional medical expenses.
Overuse of antibiotics
The information below comes from an excellent paper from the journal Pharmacy and Therapeutics: The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis.
in 2010, the last year that we have complete data, 22 doses of antibiotics were prescribed per person in the U.S. In many other countries, antibiotics are unregulated and available over the counter without a prescription. This lack of regulation results in antibiotics that are easily accessible, plentiful, and cheap, which promotes overuse.
Inappropriate Prescribing
Many studies have shown that antibiotic therapy is not necessary in 30% to 50% of cases! Even in intensive care units 30% to 60% of the antibiotics prescribed have been found to be unnecessary, inappropriate, or at inadequate doses.
Extensive Agricultural Use
In both the developed and developing world, antibiotics are widely used as growth supplements in livestock. About 80% of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in animals, to promote growth and to prevent infection. Molecular detection methods have shown that resistant bacteria in farm animals reach consumers through meat products. This happens through the following sequence of events:
1) Antibiotic use in food-producing animals kills or suppresses susceptible bacteria, allowing antibiotic-resistant bacteria to thrive
2) Resistant bacteria are transmitted to humans through the food supply
3) These bacteria can cause infections in humans that are resistant to most antibiotics
Consequences of Antibiotic Resistant Infections
A 2011 national survey of infectious-disease specialists found that more than 60% of the infectious disease doctors had seen a pan-resistant, untreatable bacterial infection within the previous year. Many public health organizations have described the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria as a “crisis” or “nightmare scenario” that could have “catastrophic consequences.”
Antibiotic Effects on Human Microbiome
It is well established that the gut microbiome plays an important role in health. It prevents disease causing bacterial colonization, regulates gut immunity, provides essential nutrients and metabolites, and is involved in control of energy. A healthy gut microbiome has lots of diversity. Broad‐spectrum antibiotics reduce gut bacterial diversity. While killing the disease causing bacteria of concern antibiotics can also kill beneficial bacteria.
Studies report changes in gut bacterial composition that last for up to 12 weeks after antibiotic treatment has ended with the incomplete restoration of bacterial composition and emergence of antibiotic‐resistant strains. In one study one short term course of clindamycin (7 days) resulted in significant disturbances in the gut bacterial community that remained for up to 2 years post‐treatment!
When Antibiotics Are Not Necessary
Viral Infections
The vast majority of infections are caused by viruses. Antibiotics do nothing to shorten viral infections or to relieve symptoms. Here are some examples.
Upper respiratory infections
Symptoms are typical cold symptoms, including runny nose, nasal congestion, sore throat and cough. There may or may not be fever. Fever, sometimes high fever is more common in children. Green or brown discharge from the nose is common with viral upper respiratory infections and does not indicate bacterial infection. Viral upper respiratory infections usually last about 10 days, but can persist for several weeks.
Bronchitis
In otherwise healthy people, bronchitis is another example of a viral infection. The only exception to this is people with chronic obstructive lung disease, in which bronchitis may be caused by bacteria. The main symptom of bronchitis is cough, which may be dry or may be productive of sputum. Yellow or green sputum can occur and does not mean that the bronchitis is bacterial. There is usually no fever. Viral bronchitis can last for weeks. RSV virus can cause a severe bronchitis in children and older adults. There is a vaccine for children and adults that prevents RSV virus infections.
Sinusitis
Most sinus infections are viral and antibiotics are not helpful for these. Symptoms can include thick nasal discharge and some discomfort over the maxillary sinuses (underneath the eyes). Occasionally sinusitis can be bacterial and require antibiotics. I will discuss this later under conditions for which antibiotics are appropriate.
GI Viruses
There are other viruses that affect the gastrointestinal system. Symptoms are usually nausea and vomiting and/or diarrhea. Norovirus is the most common one. Staying hydrated is the only treatment for these viruses. Rotavirus affects children, but there is a an oral vaccine for infants that prevents this disease.
Ear Infections (Otitis Media)
Infections behind the ear drum are called otitis media. These occur almost exclusively in children and can be viral or bacterial. We used to treat all inner ear infections in children with antibiotics. We have now learned that most ear infections in children, even the bacterial kind get better without antibiotics. We now use antibiotics only for children with severe ear infections who more commonly have fever and/or severe pain.
When Antibiotics Should Be Used
Most bacterial infections require antibiotics to get better. It is not always possible for you to know whether you have a viral or bacterial infection. If you are concerned that you might have a bacterial infection you need to see your doctor who will decide whether you need antibiotics or not.
Strep Throat
Although many sore throats are viral, sore throat can also be caused by strep (streptococcus). Strep throat does not cause other symptoms like cough and runny nose. It is diagnosed by a rapid strep throat swab which your doctor can do in his/her office.
Bacterial Sinusitis
This usually happens after a viral upper respiratory infection. The most common sequence is that you start to feel better after a week or so and then get worse. Typically pain from bacterial sinusitis is one side, not both sides. The affected sinus becomes very tender to touch. Fever may or may not be present.
Infection in the ear canal (otitis externa)
This kind of infection is different from infections behind the ear. It can be painful and usually there is some pussy discharge from the ear. It usually responds to topical antibiotic ear drops, but when severe can require oral antibiotics
Pneumonia
Pneumonia can be viral, but it is not easy to tell that kind from the more serious bacterial pneumonia. All pneumonias should be treated with antibiotics. Symptoms of pneumonia are fever, sometimes high fever, cough (usually productive) and shortness of breath. A chest x-ray will show fluid in the air sacs in the lungs.
Urinary tract infection
Bladder infections are common, especially in women. The symptoms are frequent urination and pain or burning with urination. Your doctor will send a urine culture to make sure you are on the right antibiotic.
Kidney infections (also called pyelonephritis) are a more serious type of urinary tract infection. Symptoms can include fever, flank pain and feeling very ill. Sometimes kidney infections require getting IV antibiotics in the hospital.
Soft tissue infections (cellulitis)
A scrape or cut on the skin can sometimes get infected. Usually the area around the injury becomes red and painful. This kind of infection usually requires antibiotics. Again, this is a decision your doctor needs to make.
Sepsis
Sometimes a localized infection will spread through the blood stream and affect other organs. This is a medical emergency and requires hospitalization, IV antibiotics and fluids to maintain blood pressure.
Bottom Line
Overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics has led to bacterial infections that are increasingly resistant to many and sometimes all antibiotics. Antibiotics, even when used appropriately lead to long standing adverse effects on the gut microbiome. The vast majority of infections are viral and do not improve with antibiotics. Bacterial infections do often require antibiotics. Decision about whether antibiotics are appropriate should be made by your doctor. Requesting antibiotics from your doctor can sometimes lead to inappropriate prescribing.
Bird flu is a common name for avian influenza. Avian influenza has been around since the 1800’s and there have been sporadic outbreaks since then. The scientific name of the virus is AH5N1, but there are multiple subtypes of avian influenza virus and the virus continues to evolve over time. There have always been human cases, and some deaths but only related to contact with birds. The current avian influenza virus subtypes are extremely infectious to wild birds and poultry with a 60 to 100% mortality rate. Wild waterfowl, such as ducks and geese can spread the virus but usually do not get sick from it.
Infection in Cattle
In the last year avian influenza virus has mutated so that it has infected dairy cattle. Now there are several human cases in people who work with dairy cattle. Only about 10% of cattle with the virus have symptoms, but lactating cows are especially susceptible. There is evidence that cows can transmit the virus to other cattle. The virus has been found in raw milk, but not pasteurized milk. Drinking raw milk always has some risk of disease, but now that risk is much higher. There have been no human cases so far from drinking milk.
Infection in Other Mammals
Domestic cats are the most common other mammal that has been infected with A5HN1, but it has also been found in mink, foxes, raccoons, dogs, harbor seals, and most recently a dead polar bear. There have been no reported cases of human infection from contact with infected cats or dogs.
Potential for Human to Human Transmission
The AH5N1 virus has shown its potential to evolve rapidly, and this can happen in one animal. The influenza virus that caused the 1918 pandemic was an H1N1 virus that probably was initially a bird virus that mutated to infect humans. The current A5HN1 virus has shown no human to human transmission so far. The CDC currently rates the current public health risk of A5HN1 as low, but they are watching it carefully.
Human Symptoms of Avian Influenza
Most human cases have been mild, but severe illness and even death can occur.
Mild symptoms
eye redness and irritation (conjunctivitis)
mild fever (temperature of 100ºF [37.8ºC] or greater) or feeling feverish*,
cough
sore throat
runny or stuff nose
muscle or body aches
headaches
fatigue
Severe symptoms
high fever or other symptoms listed above that limit or prevent usual activity
shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
altered consciousness
seizures
Complications
pneumonia,
respiratory failure,
acute respiratory distress syndrome,
acute kidney injury
multi-organ failure (respiratory and kidney failure),
sepsis, septic shock
and inflammation of the brain (meningoencephalitis)
What you can do now to limit your risk
Do not touch or even get near dead birds
Do not drink raw milk
Keep cats inside and do not feed them raw milk or raw food
Stay away from any wild animals (raccoons, foxes) that appear ill
Keep up with current CDC bird flu recommendations at this website: Avian Influenza
Bottom Line
Avian influenza virus is able to mutate rapidly. In the last year it has become transmissible in dairy cattle. All human cases so far have been caused by contact with dead wild birds, poultry or dairy cattle. There has as yet been no human to human infection documented. The CDC reports that public health risk is currently low, but they are tracking animal and human cases carefully.
The Medicare enrollment period has started and ends December 7. TV and social media are filled with ads about Medicare Advantage plans, which I continue to call Medicare Disadvantage plans. At present more than 50% of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in one of these plans. Because of a government crackdown on these plans, many insurance companies no longer offer them, and if your plan has been canceled you have a one time opportunity to return to traditional Medicare with the ability to purchase a supplemental plan without underwriting (underwriting means the insurance company can consider your prior health conditions and can deny coverage or charge you a lot more). If you decide to switch back to traditional Medicare while your Medicare Advantage plan is still available, you will not be able to purchase a supplemental plan without underwriting. That can get very expensive! Medicare Advantage plans give you lots of extra benefits as long as you stay healthy. If you get sick you end up paying a lot more! I did a post some time ago about what I call Medicare Disadvantage plans. Nothing has changed since I wrote that post Here is a link to that post: MEDICARE DISADVANTAGE PLANS: LOOK FOR THE FINE PRINT. If you are considering changing your Medicare plan, it is worth reading again.
In my last post I wrote about energy balance and the complex control of appetite and metabolism. I also wrote about diets for weight loss and how well they work and how sustainable they are. In this post I’m going to write about what we can eat that is good for our individual health as well as for the health of the planet.
Traditional Cuisines
People across the world do not eat the same things. Nonetheless, all traditional cuisines (not including the ones that have been “westernized”) are associated with good health and low risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. This even includes the traditional Inuit cuisine, which is very high in meat (seal and other marine mammals), fat and fish.
What all these traditional cuisines have in common is that they are high in unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Meat is not a large part of any of the traditional cuisines, with a few exceptions, but it is not absent in most traditional cuisines.
Healthy Plant-based Foods
There are no particular vegetables, fruits, nuts or berries that you have to have in your diet in order to have a healthy plant-based diet. The trick is to eat a variety of plant-based foods. If you want to have an entirely plant-based diet, that can be very healthy but no one plant protein includes all the essential amino acids. In order to get all the essential amino acids you must be sure to include legumes, lentils and nuts in your diet as well as leafy vegetables and potatoes.
Is a plant-based diet better for the environment than one that includes meat?
The answer to this question is complicated. Some people choose vegan diets because they don’t believe in killing animals for food. Growing vegetables, fruits and nuts results in killing lots of animals and insects however. Most vegetables, fruits and nuts are grown in monocultures. Monoculture attracts large numbers of animals and insects that eat those crops. Farmers use insecticides and rodent poison to kill insects, including beneficial insects, mice and rats. Farmers are allowed to shoot deer that are eating their crops. Even farmers who grow organic vegetables use things like BT and neem oil to kill insects. People who think no animals die when they eat a vegan diet are mistaken. Soybeans in particular are grown in large monocultures and the USDA has a hard time policing soy that is supposed to be organic, but is not.
The use of manufactured fertilizer is another problem. Synthetic fertilizers, especially the nitrogen component are made from natural gas (which is mostly methane). Phosphate and potassium have to be mined.
Many food crops are genetically modified for insect and herbicide resistance. Food and fiber plants that are resistant to glyphosphate (Roundup) have resulted in detectable glyphosphate levels in all animals including humans. Corn that has been genetically modified to include BT has been harmful to honey bees.
So the answer to whether a vegan diet is good for the planet depends on how those vegetables, fruits berries and nuts are grown. Growing your own or getting vegetables from known small farm sources can be very good for the environment. Truck farming in large monocultures is not so good for the planet.
Is eating meat healthy and is it bad for the planet?
The current way that most meat animals are raised is not only cruel to the animals, but bad for the environment. Most meat animals (at least in wealthy western countries) are raised in CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). There is an alternative way to raise meat animals that is not bad for the planet. I will write about that shortly, but first I want to show you some examples of CAFO’s. Most meat eaters buy meat in the grocery store, neatly packaged. Since most people do not live on farms anymore, we are separated from and do not witness the killing of the animals whose meat we eat. I’m about to show you some disturbing photographs of how animals are treated in CAFO’s. After that I will write about how it is possible to eat meat from animals who are treated well up until the day they are killed.
This is a typical photograph of how our meat chickens are raised. This is a broiler CAFO
This is caged CAFO egg production. These chicken live their whole lives in these cages
This is a CAFO beef cattle feed lot. These animals are fed grain to fatten them up before they are sent to the slaughterhouse.
This if a pig CAFO. The animals hardly have room to turn around.
If you buy meat in a grocery store and you don’t know the source of the meat, it likely comes from a CAFO like these. Another problem with animal feeding operations like these is that they are fed grain that could be used for human consumption. It takes 6 pounds of grain for every pound of meat for cattle. Chickens require a little less and pigs a little more.
Farmed fish are raised in CAFO’s also. Here are two images of salmon raised in pens. Many of them fail to thrive and die. The dead fish that have been autopsied show very high levels of stress hormones.
Other fish that are farmed in CAFO’s include tilapia, catfish and shrimp.
How to eat meat and fish ethically without harming the planet
The first thing we can do is to simply eat less meat. The US and Australia are the biggest meat eaters in the world, and every country that can afford it is also increasing the amount of meat they eat. This is simply not sustainable. Cattle from feed lots and chickens from CAFO’s add carbon to the atmosphere and make global warming worse. We need to follow journalist Michael Pollan’s succinct advice about diet: “Eat food (food is anything your grandmother would have recognized as food), mostly plants, not too much.”
Ungulates
Ungulates (cattle, sheep and goats) eat grass, which we can’t eat or digest, and turn it into meat, which we can eat. Although ungulates do burp some methane, they also store carbon from grass in their muscles. Eating grass fed beef (or lamb or goat) does not add new carbon to the atmosphere, especially if meat only makes up a small part of our diet. Grass fed beef and lamb can usually be found at farmer’s markets. Specialty grocery stores are beginning to carry grass fed beef and lamb, and it can also sometimes be found at health food stores.
Chickens
Pasture raised chickens eat plants, worms and insects for most of their diet. They are often supplemented with some organic feed. Again they are part of the carbon cycle and do not add new carbon to the atmosphere. Many of the stores that sell grass fed beef also sell pasture raised chickens. Beware of terms like “free range” and “natural”. Chickens can be called free range if the door to the chicken house is open for part of the day. Free range says nothing about the density of chickens in the chicken house. Once they are raised in high density they don’t go outside even though they technically can. Organic chicken is better than nothing because no antibiotics can be used and they have no added chemicals. Organic chickens can be raised at the same density as CAFO’s however.
Eggs
Cage free eggs means chickens are free to roam inside a building, but it does not mean they get to go outside. The density of the chickens can still be unacceptably high. Cage free is certainly better than CAFO caged egg production, but is still not ideal. Pasture raised egg production is best, but this is not a term that is regulated by the FDA. If the egg carton says pasture raised, look for a stamp that says “Certified Humane” and/or “Animal Welfare Approved.” These are third party organizations that certify that eggs come from pasture raised chickens.
Pigs
Pigs are not ungulates, so they do not eat grass, but they do eat plants, insects and nuts. This diet can be supplemented with silage and grain, but pigs will also eat table scraps, so like grass fed beef and lamb, pigs can turn something we normally throw away into nutritious meat. Pasture raised pigs get to behave like pigs, which includes rooting and digging as well as running. Their meat is therefore less fat and more nutritious. Pasture raised pork is a little harder to find than grass fed beef and pasture raised chickens. Farmers markets are probably the best source.
Cornucopia
There is an excellent non-profit organization called Cornucopia. They rank sources of both animals and plants for ethical standards. They have scorecards for beef chicken, eggs, dairy, yogurt, cereal and others. They also include where to obtain each type of food. Here is a link to their website: Cornucopia.org.
Fish
There is no question that eating fish is good for your health. although children and pregnant women need to be careful because some ocean fish has a substantial amount of mercury. The fish with the highest levels of mercury are shark, swordfish, fresh tuna marlin, king mackerel, tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, and northern pike. These species should probably be avoided by children and pregnant women.
Some type of fish are farmed sustainably and others are not. Wild caught fish is usually better, but not always. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has a rating service that is based on science and what is known about fish stocks Their service is called Seafood Watch. The service has the following ratings:
BEST CHOICEBuy first. Green rated seafood is well managed and caught or farmed in an environmentally responsible manner. It poses a low environmental risk.
CERTIFIEDBuy the certified products listed on our website.
GOOD ALTERNATIVEBuy if a Best Choice option is not available. This seafood poses a moderate environmental risk.
AVOIDTake a pass on this red rated seafood for now because it poses a high risk to the environment. They’re overfished, lack strong management, or are caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment
They also have a super green list of seafood no-brainers. The database includes almost all edible fish with ratings for each one. Here is a link to their website: Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.
Bottom Line
Traditional cuisines, which include many types of foods and that have not been westernized are all healthy and decrease your risk of heart disease compared to the standard American Diet.
Whether you are a vegan, vegetarian or include meat in your diet, the sources of your food have the most to do with how healthy what you eat is for you and for the planet.
The current level of meat that western countries eat is not sustainable for the planet. Meat should not be the main part of your diet. If you are a meat eater you should eat grass fed beef and lamb, pastured chicken and eggs, pastured pork and sustainable fish – wild caught or farmed responsibly.
CAFO’s are cruel to animals and harmful to the environment. We should not include meat or fish from them in our food budgets. Meat from pasture raised animals costs substantially more than meat from CAFO’s. Since we should be eating less meat anyway the extra cost should be sustainable for most people.
We are inundated from social media and other sources about diets and how well they work. In this post I’m going to describe the current most popular diets and how safe and effective they are at producing weight loss. I’m also going to write about the physiology of appetite, what controls appetite, and the mechanisms involved in weight regain after dieting. I will also discuss the ways people have discovered to maintain their weight loss. I am not going to discuss medicines for weight loss or bariatric surgery in this post. Those are subjects for another day. I did do a previous post on GLP1 agonists for weight loss. If you are interested you can link to that post here.
Energy Balance
Neither humans nor any other animal can survive without food. Our bodies convert food into the energy we need to keep our bodies intact and to be able to move about. The measure of the available energy in food is calories. A calorie is the amount of heat energy required to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. This is a very small amount of energy, so the unit we usually use is 1000 calories or kilocalories. When you see the number of calories on a food label, it is always means kilocalories even though it says “calories” on the label.
If on average we eat more calories than we use, our bodies store the extra energy as fat and we gain weight. If on average we use more energy than we get from our food, our bodies use the stored energy from fat and we lose weight. If on average we eat as many calories as we use, our weight is stable. We are in energy balance. We can also gain weight by increasing our muscle mass, but in this post I’m going to write about weight gain and loss as changes in body fat. This is an immutable law. Diet claims that calories don’t matter for weight loss are simply wrong. Calories in versus calories out sounds simple, but energy balance in our bodies is not simple at all.
Our intake of calories is controlled by our appetite and the control of appetite involves multiple hormones and neurotransmitters at multiple places in the brain and in the body. Control of appetite is very complex. I will write more about this later in this post.
Energy we use is of two types. A certain amount of energy is needed just to keep our bodies functioning. This is called the basal metabolic rate. It is also called resting energy expenditure (REE). It varies with weight. The average REE is 1 kilocalorie per hour per Kg (2.2 pounds) of body weight. That means that for a person who weighs 70 Kg (154 pounds) the REE would be 1680 kilocalories per 24 hours, just sitting on the couch. To calculate your own REE, divide your body weight in pounds by 2.2 and multiply that by 24. That will give you the number of calories you use in 24 hours just sitting on the couch during the day and sleeping at night. In general it is going to be in the neighborhood of 1500 to 2000 kilocalories per day.
The other type of energy we use is the energy required to move our bodies. These are called active calories. Active calories also based on body weight. For a 154 pound person, walking briskly burns 280 calories per hour. More vigorous activity burns more calories. Here is an extensive table from the Department of Health Services of Wisconsin that shows kilocalories burned for various activities at different body weights: CALORIES BURNED PER HOUR.
So what would it take for you to be in energy balance if you weigh 70 Kg (154 pounds) and do brisk walking for 30 minutes 5 days a week? Brisk walking uses 280 kilocalories per hour, so 140 kilocalories for each exercise session. That would be 700 kilocalories per week or an average of 100 kilocalories per day. Regular household activities burn about the same amount per hour as walking, so if you do household chores for 4 hours per day including weekends, that would be another 1,120 kilocalories per day. Your REE is 1680 kilocalories per day. You would be burning on average 100 active kilocalories per day for your walking and another 1,120 kilocalories a day for household chores for a total of 2900 kilocalories per day. That number will be a little higher if you weigh more that 154 pounds and a little less if you weigh less than 154 pounds. To be in energy balance you would need to eat no more than 2900 kilocalories per day. If you exercise more, you can eat more and stay in energy balance, but you would need to add a lot more exercise.
Fortunately, you don’t have to do all these calculations. In a normal weight person your body stays in energy balance automatically. Obviously, people who are overweight or obese either are not now, or at some point have not been in energy balance. It doesn’t take being out of energy balance much per day to cause significant weight gain. Lets suppose you take in 100 more calories per day than you use. It takes about 3500 extra kilocalories to gain a pound of fat. That would equal weight gain of fat at a rate of a pound every 35 days, or 10 pounds per year.
Being overweight or obese has serious health consequences that escalate with the degree of obesity. In order for overweight or obese people to avoid these consequences, they need to make a conscious effort to lose weight. That is where diets come in. Exercise is important too, but more for maintaining weight loss than losing weight. Of course exercise is good for you whether you lose weight or not.
Diets
I will write about the most extreme diets first, and then discuss the more moderate ones.
Keto (ketogenic) Diet
The brain is the second most active organ in the body after the liver. The brain normally uses glucose for energy but when glucose is not available and all the glycogen in the liver (which can be converted to glucose) is used up, the body starts to break down fat into something called ketones. The brain can use ketones for energy although it cannot use fat directly. The purpose of the ketogenic diet is to switch the whole body to the use of ketones for energy instead of glucose. This is accomplished by a high fat, very low carbohydrate and low protein diet. Protein has to be low because it can be broken down in the liver to form glucose. Carbohydrate is reduced to less than 50 grams per day which is less than the amount in a medium bagel. Protein is restricted to less than 1 gram per pound of body weight per day.
The ketogenic diet works because it decreases appetite, so despite eating calorie dense fat, total calories consumed are markedly decreased. It does lead to significant and fairly rapid weight loss. It is, however a markedly nutrient deficient diet. People who are on this diet must take supplemental multivitamins and minerals. Doing so keeps people from getting gross vitamin deficiency, but there is also a loss of micronutrients found in complex carbohydrates and it is unclear what the effects of this deficiency are. The ketogenic diet is very low in fiber, which alters the gut microbiome adversely. It decreases triglycerides and increases HDL, which are good, but it also increases LDL, which is bad. On the other hand, it decreases hypertension and has an anti-inflammatory effect. It is not clear whether the positive effects are outweighed by the LDL increase effects. So far, there is no evidence that ketogenic diets increase the risk of heart disease.
The main drawback of the ketogenic diet besides the nutritional deficiencies is that it is virtually impossible to stick to for more than a few weeks or months. Ketogenic diets do reduce insulin secretion since there is much less glucose for insulin to carry into the cells. The ketogenic diet may be useful in type 2 diabetics to reduce insulin resistance and decrease weight, particularly for diabetics in poor control. It is not a diet that can be maintained long term.
Very Low Calorie Diets
These diets restrict calories to 800 calories per day or less using proprietary liquid formulas that contain electrolytes and high protein to prevent muscle loss. VLCD diets lead to rapid and significant weight loss and are used primarily for people with severe obesity or medical complications of obesity. Such a diet should not be used without supervision of a physician. Again, like the ketogenic diet, VLCD diets should not be maintained long term.
Intermittent Fasting
Intermittent fasting is going without food for some period. Non-caloric drinks such as water or coffee are encouraged during fasting times. The simplest is restricted time eating. This involves skipping one or two meals per day and only eating during a restricted time. Whole day fasts can be once or twice a week or even every other day. One might think that a person would eat twice as many calories on a non-fasting day and so would not experience weight loss. This rarely happens. Intermittent fasting does reduce average calorie intake, and so people on any of the intermittent fasting regimens lose weight. People who start an intermittent fasting diet get very hungry at first on fasting days, but this hunger tends to decrease over time. It takes discipline to maintain intermittent fasting over a long period, but people who have the discipline to stick to the intermittent fasting regimen can stay on it long term. If the food they eat on non-fasting days is healthy (more on this later) then this can be a successful long term eating plan to maintain energy balance at a lower weight.
Paleo Diet
This is supposedly the type of diet that humans ate in the paleolithic period prior to agriculture when all humans were hunter gatherers. Of course people on the paleo diet do not become hunter gatherers. According to the Mayo Clinic a modern paleo diet includes fruits, vegetables, lean meats -especially game meats, fish, eggs, nuts and seeds. These are foods that in the past people could get by hunting and gathering. It doesn’t include foods that became more common when small-scale farming began about 10,000 years ago. These foods include grains, legumes and dairy products.
People on a version of the paleo diet do lose weight for exactly the same reason as weight loss on other diets. The average calorie intake on the paleo diet is substantially less than the standard American diet. It is not clear that excluding grains, legumes and dairy products is a good thing. Whole grains, legumes and dairy products supply high quality nutrients that may be missing in the paleo diet. The paleo diet is also more expensive and may be out of reach for lower income people. There are no long term studies of the health effects of the paleo diet.
Whole30 Diet
This is similar to the paleo diet but is recommended for 30 days. Foods to avoid are alcohol, sugar, dairy products and legumes and grains. There is a list of foods you can eat and all of these are unprocessed foods. The idea is that you reset your metabolism, and then you gradually add back the avoided foods and see how they make you feel. There is no evidence about the claimed long term good health effects of the Whole30 Diet. Like other diets that lead to fewer calories consumed, people do lose weight on this diet.
Plant based Diet
A plant based diet is exactly what it says. It is derived entirely from plants and eliminates all animal products including dairy products and eggs. The sources of protein are legumes, nuts, seeds, soy and lentils. Sources of fat are nuts, avocados, olive oil and vegetable oils. Plant based diets tend to focus on unprocessed foods. Unlike the other diets mentioned in this post, there is a lot of evidence that plant-based diets decrease the risk of developing diabetes (and also treat type 2 diabetes), decrease the risk of high blood pressure, heart disease and autoimmune diseases. Plant based diets have an anti-inflammatory effect, which probably is responsible for many of the benefits of plant based diets.
Unprocessed plant based food is more expensive than ultra processed foods and requires substantially more preparation time. People who live in poor neighborhoods often live in a “food desert” and unprocessed plant foods may not be available or be too expensive to buy. People who have low end jobs often have neither the time nor the equipment for food preparation. Although plant based diets have multiple health benefits, they are out of reach for a substantial part of the US population.
GOLO Diet
The GOLO diet is a proprietary diet plan you have to pay for. It is essentially a Mediterranean type diet that includes a supplement. The supplement has a lot of minerals and vitamins and there is no evidence that any supplement helps with weight loss. It is currently heavily advertised on television and social media. The research cited in all of these ads is research funded by the GOLO company. I will write about the benefits of the Mediterranean type diet next, but GOLO uses a standard dietary plan and a worthless supplement to make money. Don’t waste your money on this diet.
Mediterranean Diet
The original Mediterranean diet was the traditional diet of Crete, Greece and southern Italy in the 1960’s. Italians and Greeks no longer necessarily eat like this, but their original diet had lots of whole grains, vegetables and fish and used lots of olive oil. This type of diet has been studied more than any other and has very similar benefits to the plant-based diet. It reduces the risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. Here is the Mediterranean diet food pyramid from Wikipedia. It was developed by Oldways Trust, Harvard and the World Health Organization.
The things at the base of the pyramid are the things you eat the most and the things at the top of the pyramid you eat the least. Notice that red meat and butter are at the top of the pyramid. You don’t eliminate any class of food entirely in this diet, you just don’t eat the things at the top very often. Once again the diet includes mostly unprocessed foods and requires considerable food preparation.
The Standard American Diet (Also called the Western pattern diet)
It is no wonder that we have an epidemic of obesity! The standard American diet is almost the exact opposite of the Mediterranean diet and plant-based diets. It is very high calorie and high in ultra-processed foods. That is why all of the diets I described above cause weight loss. Almost anything is better than the standard American diet!
Weight Regain After Weight Loss
With any diet (other than the very low calorie diets) weight loss stabilizes after a while and then there is very frequently some weight regain. Why does this happen? During the evolution of the human species, obesity was very rare. Hunter gatherers, even the few modern ones that remain in remote parts of the world are not fat. In evolutionary terms, weight loss meant that there was not enough to eat, so metabolic strategies to conserve calories during times of starvation had high survival value. The result is that when we lose a significant amount of weight, the body thinks we are starving. Several things happen to conserve energy. The first thing is that the basal metabolic rate or resting energy expenditure (REE) decreases an average of 50 kilocalories per day, but people who are obese to start with and lose a significant amount of weight can have decreases of REE as much as 700 kilocalories per day. Another body adaptation to weight loss is that the muscles become more efficient and use less fuel. This means that the calories you burn per hour with exercise decreases as you lose weight.
Appetite
As I mentioned before, the control of appetite is complex. Almost all control of appetite is unconscious. Appetite can be consciously controlled only for a short time, just as we can consciously control our breathing for a short time, but most breathing is (fortunately) unconscious. The part of the brain that controls our appetite and food intake is the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus secretes some hormones on its own and controls other hormones and/or peptides that both increase and decrease appetite. One hormone that increases appetite is Ghrelin. It is secreted by the stomach, small intestine, pancreas and brain and has multiple effects. It increases appetite and food intake and promotes fat storage. Hormones that makes you feel full or satiated are Leptin and GLP1. Control of appetite is actually a lot more complicated than this. Below is a table taken from a review article about hormonal control of appetite. Here is a link to the full article. It is not for the faint hearted. Hormonal Regulators of Appetite
The table summarizes what we know about the hormones and peptides that increase appetite and stimulate feeding and those that make us feel full and inhibit feeding. As you can see, control of hunger and satiety is very complicated. All of this takes place outside of our conscious awareness.
Hunger
Hormone
Primary location of production
Receptors
Action
Hypothalamus
NPY
Medial arcuate nucleus (also widespread in CNS
Y1, Y5
Stimulating feeding and atagonizing satiety
AgRP
Medial arcuate nucleus
MC3R and MC4R antagonist
Stimulating feeding
Peripheral Peptides
Ghrelin
Stomach
GHS-R1a
Stimulating feeding by increasing NPY/AgRP and antagonizing Leptin effects
Satiety
Hypothalamus
POMC/a–MSH
Arcuate nucleus
NC3R and MC4R
Inhibiting feeding, stimulating basal metabolic rate and altering nutrient partitioning
CART
Arcuate nucleus
Inhibiting feeding
Peripheral peptides
Cholecystokinin
Duodenum, jejunum
CCK-A
Inhibiting feeding and stimulating gall bladder contraction, intestinal motility, and inhibition of gastric motility
PYY
Ileum, colon, rectum
Y2
Inhibiting feeding by inhibition of NPY and stimulation of POMC
Glucose-dependent insulin secretion, induction of beta cell proliferation, promotion of energy storage, enhancement of bone formation
Insulin
Pancreas
Insulin receptor
Inhibiting feeding
Leptin
Fat cells
Leptin receptor, Ob-Rb
Inhibiting NPY and AgRP and stimulating POMC and CART
Adiponectin
Fat cells
Adipo R1, R2
Inhibiting feeding
With significant weight loss (10% or more) the hormones that control appetite shift toward the hormones that make us hungry. Those includes Ghrelin, NPY and AGrP. The hormones that make us feel full, including leptin and others decrease.
The result of all this is that even if we are sure we are staying on the same foods, we are unconsciously eating more of them. The result is weight regain. The bad news is that 80% of people who lose weight on diets regain a substantial portion if not all of the weight they lost within 1-5 years. The good news is that 20% of people maintain most of the weight loss they achieved even after 5 years. How do those 20% of people who lost 10% or more of their body weight keep from regaining weight? We actually know a lot about how they do it.
National Weight Control Registry
Here is the introductory paragraph from the National Weight Control Registry website:
The National Weight Control Registry (NWCR), established in 1994 by Rena Wing, Ph.D. from Brown Medical School, and James O. Hill, Ph.D.from the University of Colorado, is the largest prospective investigation of long-term successful weight loss maintenance. Given the prevailing belief that few individuals succeed at long-term weight loss, the NWCR was developed to identify and investigate the characteristics of individuals who have succeeded at long-term weight loss. The NWCR is tracking over10,000 individuals who have lost significant amounts of weight and kept it off for long periods of time. Detailed questionnaires and annual follow-up surveys are used to examine the behavioral and psychological characteristics of weight maintainers, as well as the strategies they use to maintaining their weight losses.
The extensive research on the 10,000 people in the registry who have maintained weight loss show the following things that they do. This list is again from the registry website.
98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight.
94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
What all this research means is that it is possible to maintain weight loss despite the cascade of hormonal mechanisms that kick in to conserve calories when weight loss happens that work to get us back to the weight that we were. It is possible, but not easy. It takes continual effort, although people in the registry do report that it gets somewhat easier over time.
Bottom Line
All diets when adhered to result in weight loss
Some eating plans are sustainable and are not nutrient deficient. These include intermittent fasting, plant-based diets and the Mediterranean diet.
More extreme diets such as the Keto diet, VLCD diets and Paleo diet are not sustainable and have various nutrient deficiencies.
Substantial weight loss triggers hormonal changes in the body that conserve calories. These changes are responsible for the fact that weight loss plateaus on almost any diet and significant weight regain even often back to the original weight occurs in 80% of people who lose a substantial amount of weight.
It is possible to maintain weight loss over many years, but it is not easy. Findings from the National Weight Control Registry suggest the following strategies to maintain weight loss