Olive Oil Can Tap Dance!

by Zoë Harcombe

  7) The one you could never guess.

  We now come to the article that inspired this article: (Link) The original journal article is here (Link).

  As I said in the introduction, I circulated this amongst the thinks.org academics and asked if they knew the game being played. Uffe Ravnskov knew the game only too well and I should have remembered that he used the same argument in reference to Alzheimer’s in his book Ignore the Awkward.

  Uffe shared a number of references showing that taking statins is associated with cancer incidence, low cholesterol is associated with cancer and confirming that all intuition and common sense is right – cholesterol’s primary role is to form the basis of, and to repair, cells and therefore cholesterol is of enormous benefit in the fight against cancer, as cells need to be protected and repaired.

  The Danish study was not a clinical trial – it was an epidemiological study – so it can only establish association. The researchers used the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group registry for dates between 1996 and 2003 to collect data on women in Denmark diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer. This amounted to 18,769 women. They then followed the progress of these women for an average of 6.8 years after diagnosis and observed that women on simvastatin (a particular brand of statin made by Merck) had approximately 10 fewer breast cancer recurrences per 100 women after 10 years of follow-up. Interestingly, women on statins called hydrophilic statins (more synthetic than simvastatin) were claimed to have “approximately the same risk of breast cancer recurrence as women not prescribed a statin over follow-up”. Looking at the numbers, however, the range of results is from -0.01 to 0.11. This means from a 1% lower risk to an 11% higher risk – that’s not insignificant!

  Anyway – how can taking any statin even be associated (forget causation) with reduced cancer risk?

  Uffe has the answer – when we think about someone ‘on statins’, we think lowered cholesterol and therefore our mind starts to make the connection between lower cholesterol and reduced cancer (which is what researchers want us to think and only thincs.org and real food fans would know this to be counter intuitive.) However – statins are given to people with high(er) cholesterol levels and therefore the people taking simvastatin had high(er) cholesterol levels. They could have still had higher cholesterol levels than those not taking statins at every stage of the follow up. We don’t have the information to determine this. Hence their high cholesterol levels could have protected them against breast cancer recurrence and, but for the statins being administered, they could have had even lower recurrence still! The women with naturally low cholesterol may have had naturally less protection against cancer recurrence. So they wouldn’t have been given statins and yet would have suffered more breast cancer recurrence.

  This last one alone beggars belief, let alone when you put it together with all the other games that can be played alongside.

  I hope that you now have all the ammunition you need to read the newspapers and health sites daily and to understand the games that people play.

  Kellogg’s Coco Pops Advert

  February 8, 2010

  Bit of a long blog this, but hopefully worth it!

  1) I subscribe to the Children’s Food Campaign newsletter and support their campaigns.

  The CFC got a great article in The Independent, which can be seen here.

  2) This was an extract from the Children’s Food Campaign January newsletter: “Ever thought of avoiding Coco Pops after school?”

  “A new advertising campaign from Kelloggs, suggesting to children “ever thought of Coco Pops after school?” has been eliciting outrage from parents on forums such as Netmums and Twitter. We think it’s shocking that Kelloggs, who are partners of the Government’s Change4Life health campaign, are encouraging children to eat more sugary cereals (Coco Pops are 35% sugar) when one of the key messages of the Change4Life campaign is “sugar swaps”, encouraging families to swap snacks with added sugar for low sugar or sugar-free alternatives. If you’d like to complain, you can email Kelloggs at corporateresponsibility@kellogg.com. You might also like to copy the Department of Health into your email to make them aware of your concerns: dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk.”

  3) So, of course, I emailed Kelloggs Corporate responsibility and the Department of Health as follows:

  Dear Department of Health and Kellogg’s (30/1/2010)

  I am writing to complain about the advert encouraging children to eat Coca Pops after school. It is bad enough that our young people start the day with a bowl of sugary cereal (coca pops being 34% sugar). It is even worse to think that children are being encouraged to have another bowl after school. We are fighting an obesity epidemic and any sugar (empty calories) either displaces other nutritional food, which adversely impacts health, or it is eaten on top of other nutritional needs, which adversely impacts weight. There is no room for sugar in a healthy diet – let alone this amount being pushed on parents and children alike as a fun thing to do with cartoon animation etc.

  That Kellogg’s does this is not a surprise – it’s a private company looking to maximise brand profitability for shareholders. That the Department of Health has Kellogg’s as a Change for Life ‘partner’ is a disgrace. Department of Health – you lose all credibility as an advisor to UK citizens having such blatant affiliations with the food manufacturers.

  I look forward to your response

  Kind regards – Zoe Harcombe , Obesity researcher

  4) You then get an auto reply from the Department of Health saying they will reply within 20 days, but I did get a letter back from Kellogg’s on 3/2/2010 – fair do’s – pretty speedy. Here is the response (I’ve put in my comments along side each ‘defence’):

  Dear Zoe

  Re: COMPLAINT TO KELLOGG’s ABOUT COCO POPS ADVERTISING

  I wanted to contact you following your recent email to Kellogg’s about us promoting our Coco Pops cereal as an after school snack.

  The reason for recommending Kellogg’s Coco Pops with milk as an after-school snack is no different from recommending it for breakfast – it’s a nutritionally sound product that is suitable as part of a healthy balanced diet.

  The fact is Kellogg’s Coco Pops is a low fat, low saturated fat food, containing just 175 calories per serving with semi-skimmed milk. It provides 25% of the RDA (recommended daily allowance) for six B vitamins and 17% of the RDA for iron and calcium, as well as encouraging the consumption of milk which is normally eaten with our products. In fact, 40% of milk consumed in Britain is with cereals. , and breakfast cereals are the leading source of iron in the diet of UK children . (Zoe comment: Coco Pops are low fat because they are a cereal and cereals are predominantly carbohydrate! Coco Pops have vitamins because they are ‘fortified ‘ because they would be nutritionally lacking if they weren’t and even more vitamins are added when people drink milk – so give your child a glass of milk when they get home).

  When it comes to sugar, one portion of Kellogg’s Coco Pops has just 10.5g – approximately two teaspoons. To put this into context: a portion of fruit yoghurt contains 20g of sugar and toast and jam has 13g . (Zoe comment: sugary yoghurts and jam are also full of sugar – this doesn’t make our product good, but we’ll compare it to other bad stuff to try to make it look good).

  Breakfast cereals provide only 5% of the adult daily intake of added sugars in the diet – compared to 37% from drinks, 32% from sugar, preserves and confectionary and 14% from other cereal products such as cakes . Breakfast cereals contribute 6% of the average daily intake of sugar in children yet up to 30% of some micronutrients such a B vitamins and iron. (Zoe comment: so let’s double the intake of sugar from cereals, by getting kids to eat them after school, as well as before school, as cereal manufacturers are missing out on their share of the ‘junk’ market. Check spelling of confectionEry also).

  Sugar adds to the enjoyment of food with no detrimental effect to health – there is no scientific evidence showing a link between sugar and obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabet
es, hyperactivity or cancer. (Zoe comment: I love this one! I didn’t actually suggest that sugar is behind the major killer diseases of the modern day, but, now you mention it… See Warburg, see Yudkin… what was my quote again? “If we have been eating food as nature intended for 24 hours then agriculture, which gave us large scale access to carbohydrates, started 4 minutes ago and our consumption of sugar has increased 20 fold in the past 5 seconds. I wonder which substance is more likelyto be responsible for obesity, diabetes, or indeed any modern disease…”)

  What I hope we can agree on is there’s an established link between excess calorie consumption and weight gain. So – given the obesity challenge we all face – it seems prudent to compare the amount of calories in Kellogg’s Coco Pops and milk to many typical post school snacks. A serving of Kellogg’s Coco Pops with milk contains around 10% of a child’s calorie GDA, a suitable amount for a snack. A typical milk chocolate bar is 255 calories; a 4 finger chocolate and wafer bar is 213 calories and a bag of chewy fruit flavoured sweets is 222 calories. Kellogg’s Coco Pops with milk have noticeably fewer calories and less sugar then most of these options and provide many positive nutrients the other snacks do not. (Zoe comment: No. We can’t agree on this. I actually don’t care about calories – they are just fuel. I care about empty calories – sugar – which deliver fuel with no nutrition. This is what an obese society cannot afford to consume).

  As a mum of two I understand the need for kids to have a quick snack when they got home hungry from school. But, we don’t see any evidence that encouraging Kellogg’s Coco Pops as an after school snack prevents children from snacking on fruit. (Zoe comment: Are they eating both?! Not much room left for a good dinner eh?)

  Independent research shows 90% of mums give their children a snack after school, therefore we are not encouraging an eating occasion that would not normally happen. The top six foods eaten being crisps, fruit, sweets, yoghurt, chocolate and biscuits. Those who said that they would choose Kellogg’s Coco Pops with milk as an alternative said it would replace (in descending order) crisps, chocolate, sweets and biscuits – not fruit or yoghurt. (Zoe comment: So parents who give their kids junk now have another option. The parents that give fruit will still do so. This is the argument used by cigarette manufacturers – we don’t increase the size of the market – we just encourage people to swap brands).

  Therefore, having Kellogg’s Coco Pops with milk as an after school snack does not discourage the selection of fresh fruit, and also encourages the consumption of milk and provides essential micronutrients – an accepted dietary recommendation.

  It’s for these reasons we don’t see promoting Coco Pops as an after school snack as being counter to our involvement with Change4Life. (Zoe comment: see what else Kellogg’s sponsor below…)

  I’d like to assure you that at Kellogg’s we ensure all of our marketing and advertising is rigorously reviewed so that it complies with the relevant CAP broadcast and non-broadcast advertising codes. (Zoe comment: None of this matters much because we comply with the advertising standards code, so we can do what we want!) I’d also like to advise you the current Coco Pops outdoor advertising campaign comes to its natural end this Friday.

  I appreciate dialogue via a letter isn’t always the most productive. So, I or a member of my team of nutritionists would be more than happy to meet with you and discuss your concerns in person.

  Yours sincerely

  (Zoe: I’ve left out the name and contact numbers for privacy, but after the job title is “State Registered Dietitian”) (Zoe comment: why am I not surprised?! The Kellogg’s Senior Manager for nutrition is a dietitian. The head of the Sugar Bureau is a dietitian. The British Dietetic Association (BDA) is “delighted” (their word) to be ‘in bed with’ the sugar and flour organisations. Kellogg’s are the sponsors of the British Dietetic Association’s annual conference on obesity. The American Dietetic Association is sponsored by Mars, PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, Unilever, General Mills and Coco-Cola. The BDA won’t tell me their sponsors – can’t think why. And then the dietitian primary slogan is “Trust a dietitian to know about nutrition”. Not when every dietitian I have met defends sugar I won’t!)

  Finally – check out the Children’s Food Campaign competition for a new Coco Pops slogan - great fun! x

  Kellogg’s Special K Mini Breaks

  February 22, 2010

  I saw a full page advert in a Sunday supplement magazine yesterday for Special K Mini Breaks – Chocolate variety. Described as “Mmmmmmmmmm”; “crunch”; “delish”; “biscuit”‘; “chocolate”; “crispy”; “choccy”; “biscuity”‘; “crunch”; “moreish”; “99 calories a bag”; “crunchy, delicious, biscuity bites”.

  How to get every word possible to tempt a dieter to eat stuff that they should be avoiding?! And, of course, as people who eat Special K are Queens of calorie counting, the 99 calories a bag is going to appeal. 99 calories of what, however? This is the full ingredients list from the Kellogg’s web site:

  Cereals (Rice, Wheat Flour, Whole Oats, Wholewheat, Rice Flour), Sugar, Vegetable Oil, Chocolate (5%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Powder), Wheat Gluten, Glucose Syrup, Defatted Wheatgerm, Dried Skimmed Milk, Partially Inverted Sugar Syrup, Salt, Oat Fibre, Barley Malt Flavouring, Raising Agents (E500, E450a), Flavourings, Emulsifier (Soy Lecithin), Antioxidant (E320), Vitamin C, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

  Ignore the vitamins added to give this product a false impression of containing nutrients and you have sugar in the form of sugar (twice), glucose syrup, partially inverted sugar syrup and the flavourings are no doubt sweet ones. Then you have wheat flour, whole wheat, wheat gluten and defatted wheat germ. Ever wondered how we end up eating more sugar and wheat than any other ingredients out there?!

  – 100g of this product is 72g of carbohydrate and 414 calories.

  – 100g of pork chop is 0g of carbohydrate and 123 calories!

  – 100 of apple is 14g of carbohydrate and 52 calories.

  – 100g of porridge oats (dry oats, no water) is 69g carbohydrate and 379 calories.

  Even if you care about calories – there are far better ways to consume calories than to eat 100g of this frightening selection of ingredients.

  I had an eating disorder once, so I know what it is like to binge and starve and be horrible to oneself. I truly believe that putting this product in your mouth is being horrible to yourself. Be nice to yourself and eat real food! Nature makes the healthiest food – not Kellogg’s.

  Olive Oil can Tap Dance!

  April 21, 2010

  Time to set the record straight on olive oil, or it won’t be long before we see the title of this thread as the next Daily Mail article!

  Here is the Daily Mail article from 19 April 2010. Olive oil can now apparently switch off genes and previous articles have told us that olive oil cures depression, saves lives and makes people live to over 100 and dance around tables in adverts for margarine.

  Now for some common sense – olive oil is oil squeezed out of mashed olives (we do the same with avocados and make avocado oil – avocados must have a different PR Agency). Olive oil with acid levels below 1% can be called “extra virgin” and 1-3% acid levels can be called “virgin” (I have no idea what virginity has to do with any of this!) Non virgin olive oil is more acidic than this. And that is it!

  In terms of composition, olive oil is pure fat (water and fat can’t mix so oil is always 100% fat). In 100g of olive oil there are 75g of mono unsaturated fat, 14g of saturated fat and 11g of polyunsaturated fat. In 100g of pork chop (the USDA example called “Pork chop boneless, raw, lean AND FAT” – I deliberately chose a piece of meat with no bone and still with fat on), there are 75g of water, 21g of protein and 4g of fat (slightly under 4g actually). Of this fat – 1.5g is saturated, 1.8g is mono unsaturated and 0.5g is poly unsaturated. So 60% of our ‘lethal/red meat pork chop” is the unsaturated fat, which apparently is going to save the world! (And remember how low the fat is in
the first place).

  This is how I can say olive oil has 6 times the saturated fat of pork – in this example it actually has 9 times (14g per 100g vs 1.5g per 100g). In another super extra fatty pork example, olive oil still has 6 times the saturated fat – I try to be fair!

  So let’s look at the nutritional content of olive oil. There are 2 very useful measures of nutrition and the US Department of Agriculture has some really useful analysis of food products against these:

  1) is the amino acid score. Anything over 100 indicates a “complete” food from an amino acid perspective i.e. it delivers all the 22 standard amino acids used by a human;

  2) is an overall nutrition score weighing up vitamins, minerals etc delivered in the product. This one is measured out of 100 – where 100 is the ‘perfect’ nutritious food – can’t find any with 100!

  Sugar scores zero on both measures – no protein, so no amino acids and no nutrients, so no score.

  Our Pork chop with 4g of fat above scores 151 on the amino acid score. I keep a database of real food and I have nothing higher than this on my list of 50 standard products. The same pork chop scores 39 on the nutrition scale. The maximum is 100 and the highest I have on my list is broccoli at 92 (there will be a nutrient density thing in the calculation, so broccoli has huge nutritional value to energy/calorie level).

  Olive oil (get ready) scores 0 on the amino acid score – it has no protein so it cannot score anything other than zero. It then scores 5 on the nutrient scale (5 out of 100). Olives themselves score 25 on the nutrient scale – so we’re better off eating olives (of course we are – we are always better off eating food in nature’s most natural form).

  A whole egg, by the way, scores 136 on amino acids and 50 on nutrition. Egg yolk on its own scores 146 on amino acids and 50 on nutrition – so that’s where the nutrition is in the egg – the bit that Californians throw away!