Build UP Catch UP - 5/19/23
Sense about Sensitivity Tests, Not so Sweet(eners), Ad Hominem Attacks, Book Nook Pick, Get Your Free CPE's
Food Sensitivity Tests
From Alcat and MRT to Everlywell etc. it seems like everyone is selling food sensitivity tests in their offices, on their websites, or referring patients to on-line testing.
We were asked, ‘How do you know if these tests are bogus?’
For starters, the idea that you can diagnose a food sensitivity or sensitivities with a food sensitivity panel is a myth. At this time, these tests, whether at a provider’s office, DIY at home or mail-in, are not considered evidence-based.
Besides the cost, the worst part of these food sensitivity panels is that the vulnerable patient, dealing with health issues and symptoms, now has a long list of foods to fear and avoid. Often these patients end up over-restricting their diet and this may cause anxiety and trigger or exacerbate disordered eating. Canadian dietitian Wendy Busse devised a graphic showing how this harms clients/patients.
Additional Resources:
“Are Food Sensitivity Tests Accurate? Here’s the Truth from an Immunologist”
From the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: “Are Food Sensitivity Tests Accurate?”
Podcast Pick: Unbiased Science with guest, pediatric allergist, Dr. Dave Stukus.
Bottom Line: Food sensitivity tests and panels are bogus. Keeping a food diary and noting symptoms like gas, bloating and fatigue may help identify foods that are poorly tolerated or digested. If a food allergy has been ruled out; seeing a dietitian who can advise on an elimination diet protocol may also help determine foods that cause symptoms of sensitivity/intolerance.
Dietitians may want to consider joining the Build Up Dietitians GASTRO group
The WHO says “NO!” to Non-Sugar Sweeteners
Headlines this week have been about the World Health Organization’s (WHO) announcement condemning non-sugar sweeteners (NNS)…or was it artificial sweeteners?…or was it about not using non-caloric sweeteners for weight control….but they were ok if you had diabetes? (so confusing!)
Here were some of the headlines:
NY Times: “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners”
The Guardian: “Replacing sugar with sweeteners does not affect weight control in long term, WHO says”
Washington Post: “Don’t use sugar substitutes to lose weight, WHO says”
As you may imagine, this announcement lit up social media and in the feeding frenzy the entirety of the WHO comments got lost:
Here’s the actual portion of the WHO recommendation: “Replacing free sugars with NSS (non-sugar sweeteners) does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages…"
While headlines often interpret this as a condemnation of “artificial sweeteners”, the list provided by the WHO includes: “…acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, sucralose, stevia and stevia derivatives.” and yet exempts “…low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols), which are sugars or sugar derivatives containing calories and are therefore not considered NSS.” (The presence of stevia on this list may come as a surprise to some.)
The statement from the WHO actually contained some disclaimers: “Because the link observed in the evidence between NSS and disease outcomes might be confounded by baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as conditional…”
The opinions of these nutrition experts may be worth a read:
Prof Tom Sanders, Professor emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King’s College London: “This guidance by WHO is based on a systematic review of trials/prospective cohort studies which show that artificial sweeteners per se neither result in weight loss nor weight gain. It is to be noted that quality of evidence was rated as low for any disease relationships.”
Dr Duane Mellor, Registered Dietitian and Senior Lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University: “The report could be criticised as it focuses heavily on the observational studies which can only show an association between non-sugar sweeteners and a health outcome, in this case largely weight control, rather than clinical trials which are better at showing causal links.”
Bottom Line: This announcement is much less groundbreaking than the headlines seem. Since the majority of non-sugar sweeteners (aka non-nutritive sweeteners or artificial sweeteners) are primarily used for beverages and particularly (diet) sodas, is this just a thinly veiled attempt to discourage consumption of diet sodas and perhaps some highly/ultra-processed foods?
Dietitians may want to consider joining Build Up Dietitians Public Health group
Logical Fallacy of the Week - Ad Hominem
Here’s an example of an Ad Hominem attack we’ve seen deployed on our Facebook page:
Person comments: ‘What do you know, you’re just a dietitian who’s been taught to preach the Food Guide Pyramid…you’ve been bought by Big Food!’
Personal attacks are often a way of that a person can try and distract from the fact that they have no proof or resources to support their argument. Don’t get drawn into defending yourself. Stick with the key points, address the message, don’t attack the messenger and don’t get defensive and engage in a retaliatory ad hominem attack.
#SponsoredContent-Continuing Professional Education (CPE)
A group dietitians may want to join: Build Up Dietitians Continuing Ed
Book Nook - “Good and Cheap: Eat Well on $4/Day” - Leanne Brown
Although this cookbook came out in 2015 (before “plant-based” became a thing); it stands the test of time featuring economical and “non-fussy” recipes like “Half-Veggie Burgers” (that actually feature vegetables like lentils/beans and other vegetables), “Ideas with Oatmeal” and even a pierogi how-to. Leanne designed these recipes with SNAP recipients in mind, and also gives shopping tips and ways to use leftovers.
A group dietitians may want to join: Build Up Dietitians Food Service & Culinary