How is this year’s federal health care debate topic like last year’s federal energy topic? Our bodies benefit from clean and reliable energy sources, much as the economy does. But scientists and policy makers disagree about which energy sources are best for our bodies as well as for our homes, cars, farms and factories. Clean, affordable, reliable, energy should be the goal for body and mind inside, as well as for the outside economy.
Energy powers the American economy, from transportation to textiles, agriculture, and manufacturing, to information technologies, communications, and rocket launches. Matter and electrons are pushed one way and another, making and moving the everyday goods and services we take for granted in modern economies.
Critics of today’s energy choices advocate for a transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar, biofuels, and batteries: energy sources described as green, sustainable, and renewable (pushed in part to reduce carbon dioxide emissions).
Okay, that’s the outside energy. Many of the same people encourage green energy inside as well. They want nutrition switched over to greens, beans, whole grains, fruit, legumes and vegetable (seed) oils. They want people to reduce or stop eating polluting and fossil-fuel consuming, beef, pork, chicken. and dairy, and to stop cooking with saturated fats like butter and beef tallow.
The planet, they say, will run better, cleaner, and longer on green energy, and, they claim, our bodies will too, when powered by vegetable energy sources. If big powerful gorillas can thrive on greens, why can’t we? (Apart from the point that we are not gorillas.)
Critics say subsidizing intermittent green energy technologies like wind and solar makes electricity more expensive, less reliable, and less resilient under pressure. Much the same story inside: trying to power our bodies with intermittent energy (glucose) leads to blood glucose surges (requiring insulin spikes often followed by blood glucose falling too low).
Acheiving steady energy flows is a challenge for the human body as well as for regional electrical grids.
…this 47-page document envisions a “Great Food Transformation” which seeks to achieve an environmentally sustainable and optimally healthy diet for the world’s people by 2050. Its core recommendation is to minimize consumption of animal foods as much as possible, and replace them with whole grains, legumes, and nuts.
On nutrition and metabolic mental health (brain energy!), see research and resources on MetabolicMind.org.
Public Health Establishment Against Meat It’s not that everyone needs to eat meat to be healthy. (See this discussion with Lauren Kennedy West and Metabolic Mind’s Hannah Warren. Article here.) Instead, it is that protein and healthy fats are key for building and powering our bodies. Decades of claims that saturated fats and high cholesterol cause heart disease were just theories (many kinds of cholesterol, some healthy, others not so much).
The US and world public health establishment wants to transition the world to green energy for the economy and green energy for our bodies. Trust the science? Consider:
This report is disturbing on a number of fronts. Most importantly, its diet lacks the backing of any rigorous science. Indeed, it does not cite a single clinical trial to support the idea that a vegan/vegetarian diet promotes good health or fights disease. Instead EAT-Lancet relies entirely on a type of science that is weak and demonstrably unreliable, called epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.[1][2] One wouldn’t bet on a football team with such poor odds, so why bet on the public health this way?
Even the most recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which clearly favored a vegetarian diet and recommended it to the entire U.S. public, found, in their review of the scientific evidence, that the power of this diet to fight any nutrition-related disease was “limited”— the lowest rank given for available data.
Let’s research the science on both internal and external energy, on how best to power our cars, homes, and factories as well as power our bodies. Lets be skeptical and science-based not only in researching red meat and egg yolks, but also greens, beans, fruits, and grains.
For the federal health care debate, consider a basic standard of care reform, just explain to Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans patients how reducing carbohydrates (especially high calorie/low nutrient processed carbs and sugar) allows many chronic conditions to improve and often resolve (such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and others). This Standard of Care article explains. Here on NormalNutrition.
Consuming too many carbohydrates causes blood glucose surges signaling insulin release to sequester excess glucose to muscles, liver, and then fat cells. Surges are often followed and by too-low blood glucose and energy crashes. Lots of boom and bust damage to our internal energy grids…
Dr. David Unwin, a UK-based NHS physician, has demonstrated how low-carb and ketogenic interventions can lead to drug-free diabetes remission. His work has transformed patient outcomes and challenged conventional medical guidelines. In this interview, Dr. Unwin shares how he has helped over 150 patients achieve drug-free remission using a low-carb ketogenic approach….
Ideally, everyday people should be able to choose the health care and medical services they think best for them. They can spend their own money for health advice and services from direct primary providers, and have insurance for catastrophic events. People make mistakes, but so do public health officials and government regulators.
Ideally too, everyday people should be able to choose the energy sources they deem best for their homes, cars, and companies. Let innovation and entrepreneurship drive the race for better, safer, more economical energy as well as health care.
