Going back to 2018, I’ve written articles about the Dietary Guidelines several times before.

Even back then, almost 8 years ago now, my message was simple:
“…you should not blindly trust what the government tells you when it comes to what to eat. There is a lot at play behind the scenes when any new guidelines or regulation is issued.

My recommendation is simple and is always the same: eat real food. By eating real food, as close to its natural state as possible, you're likely to be much healthier simply because you'll avoid a lot of processed foods. Unaltered foods contain all the nutrients your body needs, and in far more ideal ratios than even the best scientists and estimate.”

Back in June of 2025, I wrote that I hoped the new HHS and Dept of Health leadership would make sweeping changes. 

While not everything I hoped for changed, the new guidelines have more drastic changes than we have ever seen.

WHOLE FOODS

The new guidelines emphasis on whole foods is huge! The guidelines advise people to eat “whole foods” or “real food.” This is almost word for word what I have hoped for and I’m excited that this language is so prominent.  Virtually all nutrition experts agree that eating foods in which the ingredients are limited, recognizable and not highly processed is a good thing. Heavily processed foods have very little to no benefits.

Another interesting thing the guidelines emphasize is the introduction of allergens, like food containing peanuts, wheat, eggs and shellfish, in children’s diets at around 6 months old. The research on this is clear that it lowers the risk of developing food allergies later on.

PROTEIN

The previous recommended dietary allowance for protein was 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. The new guidelines suggest 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram (0.54 and 0.73 grams of protein per pound of body weight daily). While I still think this is low, it’s an improvement.

ADDED SUGAR

Previous guidelines suggested no added sugar in food for children under 2; the new guidelines extend this to age 10. Everyone that knows me knows how I feel about excess sugar in anyone’s diet, but it has bigger impacts on children. Kids that eat too much sugar will likely face a lifetime of health problems. This may be because early sugar exposure can affect children’s long-term taste preferences. American children currently consume a lot of added sugar.

SATURATED FATS

One of my main sticking points with the previous food pyramids and then MyPlate was that they all said to limit saturated fats. The recommendation to limit saturated fats remains intact in the newest guidelines, yet they also encourage people to eat foods higher in saturated fats, including full-fat dairy and red meat, and list butter and beef tallow as options for cooking with “healthy fats.”
The problem is that it would be nearly impossible for people to follow the guidelines’ suggestions on protein and dairy while staying under the 10% saturated fat limit it recommends.

The influence of health advocacy groups and medical societies can be seen still and is likely the reason for the contradicting recommendations on saturated fat.

Nina Teicholz, author of the 2014 book “The Big Fat Surprise” and head of the advocacy group Nutrition Coalition is someone that I have referenced many times on this site over the years. I trust her research and opinion on nutrition.

The positive messaging about butter, beef tallow, and red meat are “impossible to reconcile” with limitations on saturated fat, Teicholz said, suggesting that Kennedy and his advisers may have been reluctant to stick their necks out as the only country in the world without limits on saturated fat. They also may have been wary of challenging the nutritional establishment, she said.

LOW-CARB

A low-carbohydrate is included in a section called “Special Populations & Consideration” as a possible option for people with chronic disease (obesity, diabetes, other metabolic diseases). But as I mentioned already, achieving this low-carbohydrate diet, which will be higher in protein, will be nearly impossible with the continued 10% cap on saturated fats.

FOOD GROUP TIES

I’ve written in the past about the influence of lobbyists and those tied to the food industry on these guidelines.

Unfortunately, these ties still remain. Three of the nine members of the HHS panel that wrote these guidelines have received grants or done consulting work for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. One of those also received a research grant from and serves as an adviser to the National Pork Board. At least three members, including two of the same ones who have done work for red meat groups, have financial ties to dairy industry organizations, such as the National Dairy Council.

Overall, while they are not perfect, I’m very pleased with the direction these new guidelines have taken. That’s the first time I’ve ever been able to write that!

A study done a few year ago, published in Science, using data from 6,400 people across the world, ranging in age from 8 days to 95 years old, had some results that have changed how experts think about metabolism.
The shocking results of this study were made possible because they were able to use regression analysis to remove any excess body fat from each person. Not only did they find that there are no real differences between the metabolic rates of men and women after controlling for other factors, but the results also showed something that had never been identified - four distinct phases of human metabolism based on age.

The four phases of metabolism:

    Infancy (Up to 1 year): Metabolism is at its highest, burning calories at a rate about 50% higher than adults. Babies absorb everything. Everyone loves a fat baby, right?

    Adolescence (1 to 20 years): The metabolic rate gradually slows by about 3% each year until it reaches adult levels around age 20. Despite the teen years being a time of growth spurts, the researchers didn’t see any uptick in daily calorie needs in adolescence after they took body size into account.

    Adulthood (20 to 60 years): The metabolic rate remains stable, even through major hormonal changes like pregnancy and menopause. We are hardwired for our metabolism to be stable through the majority of our adult life. While several factors could explain the thickening waistlines that often emerge during our prime working years, the findings suggest that a changing metabolism isn’t one of them.

    Older Adulthood (After 60 years): The metabolic rate begins to decline, slowing by about 0.7% to 1% per year. This decline is likely linked to a general slowdown in organ function. Energy requirements of just the heart, liver, kidney and brain account for about 65% of your resting metabolic rate.  The slowing of your metabolism at age 60 is likely then linked to your organs not functioning as well as they should.  The authors go so far as to note that despite how ‘young’ a person looks in their 60’s, biologically their organs are likely not functioning nearly as well as they had previously. Getting old is just never going to be easy on your body!

There are more than 80 co-authors on the study. They combined data from six different labs collected over 40 years. All of the research centers involved in the project were studying metabolic rates with a method considered the gold standard — doubly labeled water. It’s a urine test that involves having a person drink water in which the hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecules have been replaced with naturally occurring “heavy” forms and then measuring how quickly they’re flushed out. The investigators also had participants’ heights and weights and percentage body fat, which allowed them to ultimately factor in someone’s excess fat and muscle mass when it came to calculating their actual metabolism.

Many people still see their weight increase as they get older, despite their metabolism staying relatively the same throughout their life. This suggests that weight gain isn’t a result of slowing metabolism. Rather, it’s more likely to be due to eating more food than our body uses. What else contributes to weight gain?

Primary factors to weight gain as we age are:

Muscle loss (Sarcopenia): Starting around age 30, adults lose about 3–8% of muscle mass per decade. Muscle burns more calories at rest than fat, so less muscle mass means fewer calories are burned throughout the day.

Reduced physical activity: People tend to become less active as they get older, which lowers overall daily energy expenditure. They usually do not adjust food intake accordingly.

Poor sleep: Your body continues to perform essential functions overnight, requiring energy (45-55 calories per hour) to do so. This includes repairing cells, processing nutrients, and maintaining a core body temperature.

Fat storage: Excess body fat crushes our metabolism. The body's ability to burn fat for energy is reduced, while its capacity to store fat increases, creating a cycle that favors further weight gain

Medications: Some medications can promote weight gain.

Remember that all of these findings were after controlling for the amount of fat free mass people have - pretending people were all lean - and then comparing.  

The study shows that less fat that you have, regardless of age, the more energy you expend. 

Even the definition of science is vague at first glance, but if look carefully at the last few words, it becomes clear that you must test your theory against evidence before coming to a conclusion.

How one might go about the testing portion of the study is the most critical part. Getting science wrong has very real consequences. From vaccines, to climate change, to causes of autism, to alternative medicine and GMOs, the “science” is what we all must lean on to determine the truth. And to make decisions on how to live and what’s best for those that we care about.

Before I dig into how the scientific method is used, it’s important to distinguish where information on a topic comes from. Journal articles, the primary way science is communicated in higher education, are a different format than online news articles, social media posts or blogs and require a level of skill and are put under much more scrutiny.

A journal article is written by experts and published in an academic journal to share new research, theories, or findings with other professionals in a specific field. These articles are often reviewed by other experts before publication (peer review) and are considered a high-quality source of information.

The danger is that now that the world has search engines and AI, it’s not that difficult find a ”study” that shows the results that you believe or want to be true. For most people, that one study is enough proof for them. What constitutes enough proof? Unfortunately, spending hours in the research is the only way to truly get enough information to determine if the study you are referencing is legitimate.  

You might have tried to read scientific papers before and been frustrated by the dense, boring writing style and the unfamiliar words and terms. I felt this way years ago when I started digging deep into studies on fitness, nutrition and training techniques.  Reading and understanding research papers is a skill which every single doctor and scientist has had to learn during graduate school – my wife is in the middle of her clinical psychology doctoral program and can attest to this as well.  You can learn it too, but like any skill it takes patience and practice. Which most people are not willing to take on.

Reading a journal article or research paper is a completely different process than reading a summary on social media or in an article on a website from your trusted news source. It’s even different than reading a book. You will have to read the sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusions/Interpretations/Discussion) of the research in a different order than listed. You will likely have to read portions of it multiple times and even take notes like you are back in school studying for mid-term. I often go down rabbit holes looking up other papers that are referenced for some of the details. Does this sound like fun yet?

If you are still interested in learning how I suggest going about this, here are some things to consider before you read a journal article or research study:

• Who are the authors and what are their institutional affiliations.
• Some institutions (most universities) are well-respected. Others (The Discovery Institute or Center for American Progress for example) may sound like legitimate research institutions, but are actually agenda or financially-driven.
• Take note of the journal in which it’s published. Reputable (biomedical) journals will be found in Pubmed or on clarivate.com
• Note the date when the study was done. Knowing when the research was published helps you have an understanding of whether these are the most recent findings and how likely it is that further studies have taken place since.
• Determine who funded the study. Check the acknowledgments section of the paper for a specific funding statement. You can also look for grant numbers and use databases like NIH RePORTER to search for the funding agency. The biggest example was when the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to publish research that downplayed the link between sugar and heart disease, shifting the focus to saturated fat instead, a narrative that influenced dietary guidelines for decades. Tobacco companies also funded many studies concluding that second hand smoke was not harmful.

INTRODUCTION

Once you feel convinced that research is from a credible source, start by reading the Introduction. The abstract is listed first but won’t tell you the whole story and if you just read this, you could misinterpret what the actual findings were (I’ve been guilty of this). Abstracts are a summary and interpretation of the entire study. I’m not saying to ignore the abstract but read it after you have dug into the research.
The introduction will also describe what the purpose of the study was. Using the scientific method, this would be the exact question the researchers were trying to solve and should be very specific. Sometimes you will see a headline about “research finds…”, but if you read deeper, that might not be the answer to their question and should give you a pause.

METHODS

Next read the methods section. This will tell you exactly what the authors did as part of this experiment. An experiment is designed to test the hypothesis in a reproducible way, collecting relevant data and observations. The methods should be directly aligned with the question they set out to answer. If they or other researchers can’t reproduce the exact method that was used, the results should not be valid.
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is thought of as the “gold-standard” method of research. It is a scientific study where participants are randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group to test the effectiveness of an intervention. A RCT cannot always be used due to ethical concerns, logistical limitations, or when the intervention affects a whole population rather than individuals. Ethical issues arise when withholding an effective treatment from the control group is dangerous or when it's impossible to conduct a study without affecting the participants' lives. Logistical problems include situations where interventions target entire communities, and the control group can be contaminated by the intervention's effects.

Implementing and managing a full RCT can be very costly and time-consuming, especially for interventions that are intended to be implemented over a long period. They may not be feasible for all research projects.

RESULTS

Next is the most important part in my opinion. The Results.
This is one or more paragraphs to summarize the results for each experiment. Usually, the results are summarized in the figures and tables (you know I love charts and graphs). Pay careful attention to these. 

The results can be hard to read. Especially if statistics are involved. They are usually way more complicated than that high school Statistics class we took. Even for those of us that took higher-level Stats in college, that was likely a long time ago and interpreting statistical results can be confusing.  Below are some things to pay attention to in the results section:

• Any time the words “significant” or “non-significant” are used. These have precise statistical meanings.
• A result is "statistically significant" when the observation is unlikely to have occurred by random chance, leading researchers to reject the null hypothesis (no relationship or effect) and accept the alternative hypothesis.
• A “non-significant” result does not mean there is no effect. It means the study failed to prove one with sufficient confidence. This could be due to a small sample size, for instance, which makes it difficult to detect a true effect.
• The sample size. Was the study conducted on 10, or 100,000 people? This is a big one for me. Depending on the subject of the study, a large sample size may be difficult, but if it’s something that is more common in society or has been around a while, I usually discredit small sample size studies.
• What do YOU think the results show? If you are still reading this post, you are likely a pretty smart person. Use your logical mind to interpret the results on your own. What conclusion do you think they show? Maybe once you read the researcher’s interpretation and conclusion, you will change your mind, but it’s a really good habit to start forming your own interpretations before you read those held by others – even the authors of the study.

CONCLUSION

Now read the Conclusion/Discussion/Interpretation section.

Do you agree with the conclusion the authors made? Do they call out any weaknesses in their own study? If not, that’s a red flag. You can always think of ways to do it better if you had the chance to start over. The researchers should tell you what they missed.

This is where it is important to remember the phrase “causation does not equal correlation”. Observing that two things change together (correlation) doesn't automatically mean one causes the other; a third, unobserved factor, random chance, or reverse causation could be responsible for the relationship. Mistaking correlation for causation can lead to incorrect conclusions and misguided decisions.

Some examples that help this make sense:

• Ice cream sales and drowning: Both increase in the summer, but a third factor (hot weather) causes people to buy more ice cream and go swimming more, leading to both increases.
• Firemen and damage: More firemen at a fire correlate with more damage, but the fire itself is the cause of both the damage and the larger number of firemen needed.
• Lighters and lung cancer: The number of people with lighters correlates with the number of people with lung cancer, but the real cause is smoking, which is correlated with both phenomena.

A research study could do everything correct, but draw a conclusion based incorrectly on ignoring or not exploring a possible third factor. Even top Scientists struggle with the difference between correlation and causation. And a few years back, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Drexel University collaborated with researchers in Sweden to study Autism. In the first part of a study, they compared children who had been exposed to Tylenol - which is a trade name for the drug acetaminophen - with children who had not been exposed while in the womb. And they did see a small statistical association linking Tylenol use to autism. But autism is a very hereditary condition, and association is not causation. So they tried to drill down on this question by comparing siblings. Specifically, they looked at cases where one child had been exposed to acetaminophen during pregnancy and the other had not.

When they did the sibling analysis, the association completely disappeared. In other words, the association was not a causal one, and it was most likely due to other factors like genetics, infections, fevers, or something else.  

So yes, there is a connection between autism and Tylenol use by the mother, but it appears to be a correlation and not the cause. At least in this particular study. This is an example of how it is easy to prioritize studies showing a correlation while giving insufficient weight to the more scientifically robust sibling-controlled analysis that demonstrated no causation. If you go into the research with the expectation of a certain result, you can easily convince yourself that you see that result.

As mentioned previously, the gold standard for science is the randomized controlled trial, and you can't exactly do this with pregnant women due to ethical concerns around the health of the mother and fetus.

This is not meant to be a political post, but I wanted to use a relevant and timely example of causation does not equal correlation.

ABSTRACT

Finally, go read the Abstract. Does it read like you thought it would based on the Methods, Results, and Conclusions?

Another good practice is to type the exact title of the Journal Article or Research Study title into a search engine to see what comes up. Sometimes you will come across someone (an expert in the field) else’s interpretation of the results or something that was missed in the methods that you may not have realized but someone else did.

I also like to search for a systematic review or meta-analysis on the subject or specific question being researched.
A systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of all available studies on a specific research question, while a meta-analysis is the combination of results from multiple studies to produce a more precise, combined estimate of an effect.

All meta-analyses are part of a systematic review, but not all systematic reviews include a meta-analysis. If there is a conclusion reached through the meta-analysis, I have a lot more confidence in the results than if it’s just one or even two studies reaching that conclusion.

Reading and interpreting a journal article is challenging because these papers are written for experts in the field, not the general public. If you want to put in the time and energy to become an expert in any field of study, the rewards are endless. However, I know that most people do not have the time or energy to do this, so I recommend you find a subject matter expert you can trust.

Someone can become a subject matter expert (SME) through a combination of specialized knowledge, experience, formal education, and establishing themselves as the go-to authority in a specific field. They demonstrate expertise by having a deep understanding of complex topics, providing actionable insights, and possessing strong problem-solving skills within their niche. Usually it someone that is very passionate about a subject and you can see that they have devoted a good portion of their life to it.

From the original food pyramid in 1992 to the introduction of MyPlate in 2011, the recommendations have included large portions of processed carbohydrates. Americans suffering from insulin resistance, obesity and diabetes need less carbohydrates in their diets. Excessive carbohydrate intake fuels high insulin levels, as insulin manages the rise in blood sugar caused by carbs. High carbohydrate consumption reduces the clearance of insulin from the body, which further increases blood lipid levels. A 2024 study found that insulin levels rose from 28% to 41% between 1998 and 2018.

There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that when metabolically vulnerable people consume less carbohydrates, their insulin levels decrease. Yet until recently, doctors and scientists advocating low-carb diets were viewed skeptically by the nutrition and cardiology communities.

Processed carbohydrates, often sugar, are particularly damaging and not to be confused with healthy high-fiber carbohydrates in fruits and vegetables. Processed carbs are packed with energy and are absorbed rapidly into the bloodstream, adding to the metabolic chaos.

The current dietary guidelines recommend that 45% to 65% of daily calories come from carbs. That percentage is too high for the metabolically challenged bodies that have become the norm, especially since most people consume carbs in the ultra-processed form. The interior isles of grocery stores are full of cereals, soda, chips, pastas, candy, baked goods, bread, bagels, frozen pizza and other processed carbohydrates that crush our metabolic system.

While I still hear the “calories in versus calories out” theory when it comes to losing weight, that does not mean that your body doesn’t care what those calories consist of. Cutting calories from carbohydrates will lower insulin levels, which in turn helps mobilize fat from fat cells and burn that fat for fuel. Low-carbohydrate diets also keep people feeling full longer and prevent fluctuating feelings of hunger.

So back to the guidelines. In 1990, Congress passed the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act, which mandated that the Dietary Guidelines be published jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) every five years. They were last updated in 2020, so it’s time again.

If you pay attention to the news, you know that the new Secretary of HHS is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. He came out decently and said that he intends to revise Dietary Guidelines for Americans by the end of this summer.

Kennedy and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have voiced concerns that the previous guidelines were overly influenced by the food industry and not based on sound science.

Some organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) express concern that RFK Jr’s personal beliefs could override scientific evidence. CSPI argues that lack of adherence to the current 2020 guidelines, not the guidelines themselves, is the real issue. But data shows the increase in obesity and metabolic disease in this country has risen proportionally with the introduction and consumption of processed foods.

However, as I wrote in 2020, even at the time, those guidelines faced criticism regarding industry ties, exclusion of certain research, and lack of clarity on topics like sugar and alcohol intake.

So what might we see in the 2025 version? Kennedy said "We're going to have four-page dietary guidelines that tell people essentially, eat whole food, eat the food that's good for you.”

Kennedy also told lawmakers that HHS would study food additives and suggested food packaging should contain labels indicating the presence of some additives.

My hope is that the new guidelines not only recommend reduced processed carbohydrate consumption, but will talk about healthy fats. The 2020 MyPlate avoids fats altogether. This likely confirms some unfounded fears of fat and steers consumers toward low-fat, high-carbohydrate foods. Eating butter and healthy oils, like olive, avocado coconut in cooking, on salads, and at the table should be part of everyone’s diet. These healthy fats reduce harmful cholesterol and are good for the heart, and Americans don’t consume enough of them each day.

I would like to see the recommended daily portion of protein and type be increased. A hot dog is not the same as a good piece of salmon. The consensus from people I trust is between 0.8 and 1.2 grams of protein per pound of body weight daily.  There are variables that must be accounted for, such as a person’s activity level, age, any medical conditions they have, and their health goals. For reference, under these recommendations, someone who weighs 180 pounds would need between 144 grams and 216 grams per day.
Not all protein is created equal and the guidelines should emphasize protein from both animal-based (red meat, chicken, fish, eggs) and plant-based options.

The current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that protein make up 10-35% of your daily calories and the recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is just 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (this is only 0.36 grams per pound), which is roughly 65 grams for the 180 pound person I referenced. Nowhere near enough.

While you might consider it nit-picky, I would like to see the guidelines distinguish between types of vegetables. Americans are particularly deficient in their vegetable consumption—except for potatoes and french fries. Potatoes are chock full of rapidly digested starch, and they have the same effect on blood sugar as refined grains and sweets. Believe it or not, some people (and school lunch programs) consider eating deep fried onion rings a vegetable. Or a sweet potato with brown sugar and marshmallows as a healthy vegetable.

MyPlate recommends dairy at every meal, even though there is little if any evidence that high dairy intakes protect against osteoporosis, and there is considerable evidence that too-high intakes can be harmful. As for sugary drinks, MyPlate says 100% fruit juice counts as part of the Fruit Group. I would like to see the new guidelines talk about consuming mostly water with some coffee or tea (not your sugary Starbucks drink).

The new guidelines don’t have to be published until December 31, 2025, but I am hopeful that RFK Jr and his team at the HHS will make some improvements over the previous recommendations.

Years later, while studying this brown stains, McKay and Dr. Grover Kempf of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) traveled to Bauxite, Arkansas. This small town was home to Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), which mined the ore found in the ground there and built plants and mills to process this bauxite ore that is a key component in aluminum. In this town, the two men discovered that the same brown enamel disorder was prevalent among the children of Bauxite, but nonexistent in another town only five miles away.

McKay and Kempf published a report on their findings that reached the desk of ALCOA's chief chemist, H. V. Churchill. He then decided to conduct a test of the water in Bauxite, which found that the town's water had high levels of fluoride.

In January 1931, Churchill wrote a letter to McKay regarding his findings. In the letter, he advised McKay to collect water samples from other towns "where the peculiar dental trouble has been experienced. We trust that we have awakened your interest in this subject and that we may cooperate in an attempt to discover what part 'fluorine' may play in the matter."

McKay collected the samples. And, within months, he had the answer to his 30-year quest. High levels of water-borne fluoride indeed caused the discoloration of tooth enamel. It just so happened that fluoride was naturally present in the groundwater in all of these locations. It occurs due to the dissolution of fluoride-rich minerals in rocks and soil.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Add it to the tap water.

Fourteen years later, in 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first city in the world to purposely fluoridate its drinking water, at an amount high enough to reduce decay, but low enough to prevent the brown stains. The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General but was taken over by the NIDR (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research) shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, the caries rate (tooth decay) among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60%. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough.

Today, just about every toothpaste on the market contains fluoride as its active ingredient and approximately 73% of the U.S. population on community water systems receives fluoridated water.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But is it safe?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is now the Secretary of Human and Health Services in the United States. He is outspoken about the potential harms of fluoride. Earlier this year, he stated “Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.” These statements are getting a lot of press and so I wanted to dive into the issue.

There is a recent history of research leading to a universal change in fluoride in drinking water. In 2015, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) updated its recommendations for fluoride levels in community water systems.

The decision was based on several factors, including the widespread availability of fluoride in oral care products and other sources and the observation that children were experiencing dental fluorosis (white splotches on teeth) due to excessive fluoride exposure.

The new recommendation set a uniform concentration of 0.7 mg/L (or 0.7 ppm) of fluoride in drinking water. This change aimed to ensure that while cavity prevention benefits were maintained, the risk of dental fluorosis in children was also minimized.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But even if it protects your teeth, can fluoride be doing damage to other parts of your body?

There have been several studies over the last 30 years that found fluoride could cause brain damage, but only at extreme levels – much higher than we find in water. There was also a study just last year showing that higher levels of fluoride in pregnant women’s urine showed double the odds that their children have neuro-behavioral problems by age three. There were eight other studies that looked into this same phenomena and six of them found similar results. Other studies show that those that grew up with fluorinated water showed no significant differences in IQ from those that did not. The data is all over the place.

There is also a little evidence that fluorine can cause hyperthyroidism and increase risks of bone fractures, but nothing conclusive.

Based on what I can find, there is no strong evidence or Meta Analysis that definitively says that there are dangers to drinking water with fluoride.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But it’s still good for dental health, right?

There have been several cities that have removed fluoride from their drinking water and it is documented that kids that have grown up without fluorinated water will have around 10% more cavities. If you are already an adult, the benefits don’t appear to be as great. Permanent teeth have a thicker enamel and adults also tend to be better at brushing and flossing.

Outside of drinking water there are other sources of fluoride that we encounter. Black tea and coffee can be significant sources of fluoride. As well as seafood like crab, shrimp, and fish. Unfortunately, pesticides contain fluoride, so non-organic fruits and vegetables may also contain it. Could some of these other sources be contributing to the findings of the studies showing a link to neurological issues, hyperthyroidism and increased risks of bone fractures? Possibly.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So what's the conclusion? There is none.

Research on this topic needs to be continued and if someone is telling you the results are conclusive in one way or the other, they likely have an agenda.

As for me and my family, we stopped buying fluoride toothpaste for our home years ago, but I still drink tap water – which here in Louisville, typically contains an average of 0.6-0.7 ppm of fluoride according to the Louisville Water Company’s website. My rational is that we are exposed to enough fluoride already and we all visit the dentist regularly. If there is a link to any dangers around fluoride consumption, taking this one source away seemed to be worth it to me.

The new definition of obesity has already been endorsed by 76 health organizations around the world. If the guidelines are widely adopted in the United States, they could change doctors’ perceptions of who they need to talk to about their weight and who needs to be treated for obesity. A spokesman for the health insurance trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said “it’s too early at this point to gauge how plans will incorporate these criteria into coverage or other policies.”

BMI has long been considered a flawed measure that can over-diagnose or underdiagnose obesity, which is currently defined as a BMI of 30 or more. But people with excess body fat do not always have a BMI above 30, the report notes. And people with high muscle mass — football players or other athletes — may have a high BMI despite normal fat mass. For reference, my current BMI is around 26, but it has been as high as 30 when I was carrying a lot more muscle and I have never considered myself overweight or obese.

Under the new criteria, about 20% of people who used to be classified as obese would no longer meet the definition, preliminary analysis suggests. And about 20% of people with serious health effects but lower BMI would now be considered clinically obese, experts said.

A possible hurdle with the new definition will be that determining the difference between clinical and pre-clinical obesity would require a comprehensive health assessment and lab tests. In my opinion, these should be part of a routine physical examination or annual checkup already.

Overhauling the definition of obesity will take time, acknowledged Dr. Robert Kushner, an obesity expert at the Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine and a co-author of the report. “This is the first step in the process,” he said. “I think it’s going to begin the conversation.”

I agree that it will take time, and people will have to be on board. I get that being able to easily measure your height and weight and calculate your BMI is simple. People like simple. But nothing about your body or health is simple. There are just some things that we can’t be lazy about!

Let's hope this leads to some different conversations with people and their healthcare providers around their overall health and wellness.

Before getting into the details of the challenge, I feel like I should take a minute to remind everyone why sugar needs to be eliminated from your diet. Here are some of the things that sugar/sweeteners do:

• Promotes fat storage and weight gain
• Decreases your body’s production of leptin, a hormone critical for appetite regulation (i.e., it makes you not realize that you are full).
• It thickens the blood
• Compromises your immune system
• Fuels cancer cells (cancer LOVES sugar)
• Disrupts transfer of amino acids to muscles
• Triggers inflammation
• Causes Type 2 diabetes
• Causes nerve damage
• Causes Cardiovascular Disease
• Has addictive properties
• Causes tooth decay

If you want to know more about all of the horrible things that happen to your body when you consume sugar and/or artificial sweeteners, do a simple Google search.

So if you want to join me in the challenge, here’s what you do:

Starting now, look at the labels of everything that you eat. If the word “sugar” (in any form) is listed in the ingredients, don’t eat it. But it’s not that simple. Sugar can come in many forms. It can be very tricky to find hidden sugar in foods that you don’t even think of as being sweet. It’s obvious that candy bars and donuts are off limits, but would you ever think that pasta sauce, peanut butter and yogurt have added sugar? Even simply drinking a glass of sweet tea can trigger the release of huge amounts of dopamine into the brain. It’s the same chemical that causes people to become addicted to gambling, alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.. So when your brain gets this release from even a small amount of sugar, it makes you want it more. The only way to keep from getting cravings is to cut it out completely.

Here's a list of common names for added sugars and sweeteners you may find on food labels:

Common Sugars

1. Sucrose
2. Fructose
3. Glucose
4. Dextrose
5. Maltose
6. Lactose
7. Galactose

Syrups and Other Sweeteners

1. High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
2. Corn Syrup
3. Rice Syrup
4. Maple Syrup
5. Molasses
6. Agave Nectar
7. Honey
8. Brown Rice Syrup

Sugars Ending in “-ose”

1. Dextrose
2. Fructose
3. Glucose
4. Maltose
5. Sucrose
6. Galactose

Natural Sweeteners

1. Cane Sugar
2. Coconut Sugar
3. Date Sugar
4. Fruit Juice Concentrates
5. Caramel
6. Barley Malt
7. Muscovado Sugar
8. Evaporated Cane Juice

Artificial and Alternative Sweeteners

1. Aspartame
2. Saccharin
3. Acesulfame K (Ace-K)
4. Sucralose
5. Steviol Glycosides (Stevia)
6. Monk Fruit Extract
7. Sugar Alcohols (e.g., Sorbitol, Xylitol, Mannitol, Erythritol)

Other Names

1. Invert Sugar
2. Turbinado Sugar
3. Raw Sugar
4. Brown Sugar
5. Golden Syrup
6. Evaporated Cane Juice

All of these are off limits. Even though the artificial sweeteners don’t have the calories of their natural counterparts, they are toxic to your body and send mixed signals to your brain. Artificial sweeteners cause you to actually eat more because they break the connection between a sweet sensation and a high-calorie food, thereby changing your body’s ability to regulate calorie intake naturally.

What about eating in a restaurant?

So what about when you are not buying your food from the grocery and you are out to eat (or Door Dashing) at a restaurant? When you are not preparing the food, it’s a little more difficult to find the hidden sugars. I usually try and order a salad with oil and vinegar instead of the dressings listed on the menu. Nearly every salad dressing out there has added sugar. Many salads also have caramelized nuts, so look to avoid those or just pick them off. Ketchup and BBQ sauces will always contain sugar. Often, sandwich meats at fast food restaurants are treated or injected with a sugar solution to add to the flavor. It’s not easy, but it can be done if you take the time to look at the menu and ask the server questions. Things can be left off or put on the side very easily if you just ask.

Are you up for the challenge?

So if you are up for it, join me in going cold-turkey on sugar (and artificial sweeteners) from now until Thanksgiving. I’ve gone without sugar for weeks at a time before and while the first week or so is tough, it’s amazing how the body transforms and you no longer care about sweets. After going a few weeks without sugar, you will be able to walk by that vending machine or that plate of cookies without the slightest urge. If you slip up and have a soda on day three, don’t quit – just start over from that point. In order for this to work, you cannot have “cheat” days. Once you introduce that sugar again, the cravings will come back and it will be harder to get sugar off of the brain. It literally starts to control your thoughts and you will start thinking about that next sweet treat.

Hold yourself accountable

If you want some accountability, share this post on Facebook or X and let everyone know that you are going to give it a try. Use hashtag #NoSugarNovember. We also have a Private Facebook group. If you would like to join, just send me a friend request. If your family members, friends and co-workers all know that you are avoiding sugar, you are more likely to stick with it. You must also remove all sources of sugar from your home and replace them with real, unprocessed foods. Out of sight – out of mind. If you have a craving during the first few days, eat some berries or a banana. If your immediate family is not on-board this could be a big test for your will power.

If you are still on the fence about cutting out sugar, here are some additional benefits that you may not realize will come once you eliminate it:

• Clearer Skin – A study published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2006 showed that those participants who had a high-sucrose diet also had a higher level of systemic inflammation than those who had an overall decrease in sucrose consumption. Sugar spikes insulin levels—and more insulin and inflammation means more acne.
• More Energy – You may think that without sugar, your energy levels will drop. Fact is, after a few days, your body will recognize that you are not going to pump sugar in every few hours like usual and it will start to switch to burning fat as fuel. This results in sustained energy, instead of a roller-coaster throughout the day as your blood sugar spikes and drops. You will notice this particularly in the afternoon when most people usually get an energy slump between 2pm-4pm that calls for a candy bar, soda or another cup of coffee to get them through the rest of the afternoon.
• Motivation – Once you start reading labels and being mindful of sugar intake, you will find yourself making better choices in other areas of health and fitness. You will be motivated to eat the salad at lunch instead of the sandwich. You will want to exercise as you get more energy and see the pounds coming off!
• Better Sleep – Sugar triggers the release of the hormone cortisol, which interferes with sleep. By giving up sugar, you should be more awake and alert during the day, and also better prepared to fall asleep at bedtime.
• Clearer Thinking – Keep forgetting things? Sugar could be the culprit. A study at UCLA found that a diet high in sugar hinders learning and memory. Over time, eating sugar may actually damage communication among your brain’s cells, the study showed.

I hope you will give No Sugar November a try this year. Get your spouse or partner on board and make it a challenge. If you slip up, start again. Let’s take this journey together and see how much better it makes you feel. And you can still enjoy that pumpkin pie and sweet potato casserole on Thanksgiving!

Another popular study that led to headlines of extended life expectancy included ex-drinkers in the category of “abstainers,” which meant they were failing to account for the possibility that some people had stopped drinking specifically because of illness. The moderate drinkers looked healthy by comparison, creating the illusion that a moderate amount of alcohol was beneficial. The devil is always in the details.

If you look at more recent research, it debunks the idea that moderate drinking is good for you. Last year, a major meta-analysis that re-examined 107 studies over 40 years and came to the conclusion that no amount of alcohol improves health; and in 2022, a well-designed study found that consuming even a small amount brought some risk to heart health. That same year, Nature published research stating that consuming as little as one or two drinks a day (even less for women) was associated with shrinkage in the brain — a phenomenon normally associated with aging.

A recent Huberman Lab podcast (regularly ranked as the #1 health podcast in the world) recently discussed the impact of alcohol on health, including the connection between alcohol consumption and increased cancer risk. He shared that alcohol could cause changes in DNA gene expression, which can lead to various types of cancer, particularly breast cancer.

Huberman mentioned a study that found a 4 to 13% increase in the risk of breast cancer for every 10 grams of alcohol consumed, roughly equivalent to one beer.

Regular alcohol consumption, even as infrequent as once per week, can lead to changes in brain neural circuits related to habitual and impulsive behavior, which also extend to times when one is not drinking. Additionally, chronic consumption of alcohol can result in brain atrophy. There is a near linear relationship between the amount of alcohol consumed regularly and brain atrophy, going as far as to compare alcohol's damage to that caused by smoking cigarettes.

Some counties outside of the US have started to put cancer warnings on alcohol or even revised their guidelines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that alcohol-related deaths in the United States each year have increased. They compared data from 2020-21 with data from 2016-17 and found a rise of 29.3 percent, which they largely attribute to increased drinking during the pandemic.

I can’t write about alcohol without mentioning the social aspects of drinking. Alcohol consumption is a socially and culturally ingrained phenomenon that has been a part of human history for centuries. Social norms and ideas around drinking have shaped the history of many societies. Social capital theory suggests that social networks and connections influence health. Individuals who have higher levels of social support and community cohesion generally are thought to be healthier. In many countries, alcoholic beverages are closely tied to socialization and are seen as an essential part of celebrations and events. In other cultures, drinking is more heavily associated with particular social gatherings, such as sporting events, concerts, or festivals. This makes it more challenging to make reasonable decisions around its consumption. Most people understand the downsides of drinking outside of long-term health risks and addiction. Drinking and driving, mixing with medication, altered behavior, falls, hangovers, etc.. However, alcohol is unusual in that its upside, for most people, is pleasure.

Alcohol is unique in that its consumption also poses a direct risk to others. A person who has three glasses of wine with friends or who has a few beers on a night out may be more likely than someone sober to do harm to those around them. Or more likely to make a split-second decision to turn in front of a car speeding toward them; or not be able to react quick enough to an emergency involving their children once home; or to have unprotected sex.

My goal is not to make anyone feel guilty about their alcohol consumption, but to give you the knowledge to make better decisions around it. Giving up alcohol completely is becoming more popular and it is now more socially acceptable to order a non alcoholic beer or mocktail when out with friends or at a concert or game.

Drink on your own terms and feel good about why you decide to consume alcohol. Just know that no amount of alcohol is “healthy”, “good for you” or will “extend life expectancy”.

This topic came up recently during a meeting I attend monthly with professional peers (not a group directly in the health and wellness space). One of the other members asked me if I had heard of grounding and wanted to know what I thought about it. To those withing earshot, it definitely sounded strange as I described taking off your shoes and socks and allowing your feet to make direct contact with the dirt, grass, or sand. But it’s something I’ve been doing for over a decade and there’s plenty of evidence that this simple practice of getting your feet dirty can be greatly beneficial for health by lowering free radical damage, reducing stress, inflammation and pain.

If you think back to prehistoric man, or even Indigenous cultures, they were naturally earthing.  But since the invention of the rubber soled shoe in 1882, most humans in first-world countries have been purposely keeping their feet from making direct contact with the ground. Foot coverings before this were made from materials such as leather and other animal skins. These materials serve as a conduit, enabling the flow of electrons to one's body from the ground up. Rubber and plastic are insulators, materials in which an electrical charge can't flow through, so once we started wearing rubber and plastic-soled shoes, the connection with the earth stopped.

The idea of earthing or grounding is that the Earth is a source of negative energy (which is good in this case) that we can connect with to offset the positive charge we build up from our typical modern lifestyle that usually does not include our skin being in direct contact with the earth.

You can find lots of information out there on the how behind earthing. To simplify it, like any other electrically conductive object, a human body can store electric charge if insulated. The body prefers to be neutral, but the build up of free radicals - produced either from normal cell metabolisms or from external sources (pollution, cigarette smoke, radiation, medications), lead to a positive charge in the body. The human body requires a constant source of negatively charged electrons in order to get back to neutral and prevent an excessive build-up of these positively charged free radicals. Without a regular supply of electrons, the cells in our body are unable to balance the positive charge. Too much positive charge starts to create free radical damage, oxidative stress and inflammation. Free radicals damage contributes to the etiology of many chronic health problems such as cardiovascular and inflammatory disease, cataracts, and cancer.

Fortunately, the Earth is continuously being charged with electrons, which mainly occurs through the hundreds of thousands of lightning strikes that take place around the world every hour. Your body is naturally able to absorb the Earth’s negative electrical charges since your skin acts like a “conductor.” Your feet, specifically certain points in the balls of your feet, are believed to be especially good at receiving the earth’s electricity.

Although direct contact with the ground outside is the best source, you can also practice grounding/earthing indoors. Indoor earthing can be realized with earthing mats, sheets, or bands. These products have a grounding wire designed to plug in to the ground port of your wall outlet or a grounding rod, which is meant to connect you to the earth through your home or building’s grounding wire. A grounding wire is a safety measure used to prevent a house fire or an electric shock if there is excess electricity in the wiring system. Ground wires run parallel to other wires in order to safely discharge excess electricity into the ground. So by plugging in a grounding mat or band, you are able to connect directly with the earth through this wire.

The conclusion of this study states that emerging evidence shows that contact with the Earth—whether being outside barefoot or indoors connected to grounded conductive systems—may be a simple, natural, and yet profoundly effective environmental strategy against chronic stress, ANS dysfunction, inflammation, pain, poor sleep, disturbed HRV, hypercoagulable blood, and many common health disorders, including cardiovascular disease. The research done to date supports the concept that grounding or earthing the human body may be an essential element in the health equation along with sunshine, clean air and water, nutritious food, and physical activity.

Bottom line is that earthing or grounding is free and with no side effects other than getting dirt on your feet, the potential benefits make it a no brainer. So take off your shoes and socks and get outside!

So what? Does it matter? Do you NEED arches? The truth is that most people with flat feet live with no pain or other problems.

Some adults with flat feet may experience tired or achy feet after long periods of standing or playing sports. Some may also have pain on the outside of the ankle.

I’m one of those cases where my arches never formed. I’ve had flat feet as long as I can remember. My parents may recall otherwise, but I don’t recall even having any pain associated with my foot deformity.

I wore normal shoes as a kid – I had some Larry Bird Converse, Nikes, Kangaroos…you know, all the classics. But once I started running, I was told that because I had no arches, I would have to have running shoes with arch supports to prevent foot pain and injury. Not only that, but I would need inserts (orthotics) in my shoes to provide additional stability and balance, align my body and further prevent the pain that I wasn’t even experiencing.

For a while, I had over the counter (they make prescription ones) orthotics in my running shoes - like the ones pictured below. They were uncomfortable and actually caused me pain in my arches – the opposite of what they were supposed to do. I was told that I would get used to them and the pain would subside.

Being in my early 20’s, I was not the greatest advocate for myself and instead of doing some more research on my own, the foot pain forced me to just stop running. I thought maybe my feet were just not made for me to be a runner.

After several years of lifting weights on doing other things to stay in shape, I signed up for a triathlon and therefore needed to start running again. This time, I decided to forego the insoles, but still took the advice given to me at the shoe store and wore running shoes with a lot of support to offset my flat feet and overpronation.

As I started to train for longer distance races in the subsequent years, I developed plantar fasciitis, patellar tendonitis, and IT Band Syndrome. I have no idea if all or none of these were related to my flat feet, but I was frustrated and started on a quest to learn more about how to prevent running injures.

Around 2011, I read Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run. He believes that modern cushioned running shoes are a major cause of running injury, pointing to the thin sandals worn by Tarahumara runners in the Mexican Copper Canyons, and the explosion of running-related injuries since the introduction of modern running shoes in 1972. This book sent me down many rabbit holes into other barefoot running books and podcasts.

I then learned that it was possible to build, develop and then strengthen arches in flat feet. This was not something that anyone had ever told me I could do. The thought of being able to run injury free AND reduce muscle fatigue in my feet and legs was exciting to me, so I developed a plan!

It started with getting some running shoes with minimal cushion and minimal drop (The 'drop' of a running shoe is essentially the difference between the height/thickness of the midsole under the heel compared to the same measure under the ball of the foot). I would rotate these shoes in for shorter runs, still wearing my more “supportive” shoes on longer runs.

After 6-9 months of running in these more minimalist shoes, I started to incorporate barefoot running into my warmups. Yes, I would actually take off my shoes and socks and run barefoot on the grass. I would jog a mile barefoot on the grass inside the track before my speed workouts. This was once or twice a week.

Next step was to assess all of my footwear. I tossed out my dress shoes for those with no heel. The flat shoes forced my feet to adapt. The constant support of shoes with built-in arches and heels prevented those muscles and tendons from getting stronger. I bought some minimalist shoes to just wear out and about in the evenings and weekends.

I also made it a point to go barefoot around the house and even outside when possible. The more time I could spend without shoes, the better.

I even started doing my weightlifting sessions without shoes. I would just wear socks when lifting to not only improve foot and ankle strength, but my balance and stability.

While still doing all of these things, somewhere around 2017, I transitioned to a standing desk at work. I remove my shoes while standing at my desk and do lower leg strengthening exercises such as arch lifts, calf raises, towel curls, golf ball rolls and toe raises.

The final touch was to start wearing toe spreaders for an hour or so each night before bed. After a lifetime of wearing shoes that smashed my toes together, I needed to return the big toe to its normal anatomical position; that is, separated from the second toe and in line with its metatarsal bone instead of being turned in. Getting my toes splayed would provide the foundation to maintain a strong arch.

It is important to note that I didn’t incorporate all of these techniques and routines at once. In fact, I've been adding something new once a year or so for a long time. Jumping into all of these at once would have undoubtedly led to more injuries. Like anything else, the best way to make change is gradually.

While my ultimate goal was to be injury free – and I have been for a long time now despite doing some pretty intense races and events for the last 14 years – I also set out to grow my arches. While I hadn’t thought about that aspect of it in a long time, it has actually worked.

Just two weeks ago, I was spraying some dog vomit off of our deck (don’t act like you haven’t had to do that before) and was barefoot. After getting it all cleaned off, I was gathering up the hose and my feet got wet. As I walked back across the dry portion of the deck, I was making footprints with my wet feet. My wife Jessica looked down and said “hey…look at your footprint…there’s an arch!”. She was right; sure enough, my feet had been developing arches all this time and the proof was right there in my wet footprint.

Over time, I have been able to build a beautiful foot arch that functions the way nature intended. I’m looking forward to the benefits of having arches, such as improved balance, fewer back problems as I get older, improved posture and fewer leg and foot injuries as I continue to run into my late 40’s!