This last Wednesday, January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that will be used through the end of 2030. These guidelines are to not only to be used by citizens to plan their meals but are used by policymakers and federal nutrition programs (like school meals, military rations, WIC, SNAP). So, they have significant impact. https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf

According to the press release on the HHS website, the Guidelines emphasize simple, flexible guidance rooted in modern nutrition science:

• Prioritize protein at every meal
• Consume full-fat dairy with no added sugars
• Eat vegetables and fruits throughout the day, focusing on whole forms
• Incorporate healthy fats from whole foods such as meats, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados
• Focus on whole grains, while sharply reducing refined carbohydrates
• Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, and artificial additives
• Eat the right amount for you, based on age, sex, size, and activity level
• Choose water and unsweetened beverages to support hydration
• Limit alcohol consumption for better overall health

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!

There is without a doubt conventional wisdom about metabolism. It goes something like, “Most people gain weight each year no matter what because their metabolisms slow down, especially around middle age.”.
We’ve also been told that women have slower metabolisms than men. Menopause only makes things worse, slowing women’s metabolisms even more.
Turns out, none of this is true.

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. 

Every 5 years around June, I write an article about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This is because they are reviewed every five years to advise on what Americans should eat to prevent chronic disease. They were first released in 1980, yet the U.S. obesity rate has tripled since then.

The recommendations were designed primarily for healthy bodies, which most Americans don’t have. Not only are 74% of us overweight or obese, but about 40% are insulin-resistant or pre-diabetic. Only around 12% of Americans are metabolically healthy. The guidelines don’t account for the dysfunctional metabolic state of our bodies and frankly assume that people live a healthy lifestyle that consists of frequent exercise and minimal stress.

These Dietary Guidelines are used by professional associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Diabetes Association. They are used to determine what foods to feed our children (National School Lunch Program), what military rations consist of, and what foods are available on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and WIC (Special Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children). Feeding programs for the elderly are also based on the Dietary Guidelines. So even though most Americans may know very little about the actual Guidelines, they are used to sculpt advice from medical professionals and even what foods are available to anyone that is fed by a government program.

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.

Before we dig into it's safety, let's go back in time. Why is fluoride in our water anyway?

It all goes back over 120 years to 1901, when a young dental school graduate named Frederick McKay left the East Coast to open a dental practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. When he arrived, he found the people of Colorado Springs with brown stains on their teeth. To his surprise, the teeth afflicted by brown stains were somehow more resistant to decay than those he had seen back home.

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.

Under recommendations released two weeks ago, obesity would no longer be defined solely by BMI, a calculation of height and weight, but combined with other measurements, such as waist circumference, plus evidence of health problems tied to extra pounds.

IT IS ABOUT TIME!

The Body Mass Index (BMI) has been controversial for a long time and finally decision makers are taking note that there is a better way to identify people who are at risk for diseases caused by excess body fat. I’ve written about how antiquated this tool is multiple times. You can see those articles here and here.

Obesity is estimated to affect more than 1 billion people worldwide. In the U.S., about 40% of adults have obesity, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new recommendations came from a report published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology journal that included 58 international authors. They noted that the idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial. In addition, current BMI-based measures of obesity can both underestimate and overestimate adiposity (fattiness) and provide inadequate information about health at the individual level.

The report introduces two new diagnostic categories: clinical obesity and pre-clinical obesity.

People with clinical obesity would be those with a higher than normal BMI and other markers, such as evidence of organ, tissue or other problems caused by excess weight. That could include heart disease, high blood pressure, liver or kidney disease or chronic severe knee or hip pain. These people would be eligible for treatments, including diet and exercise interventions and obesity medications. Other people with any of the 18 medical conditions caused by obesity — 13 for children and adolescents — would also be eligible for medical treatment to improve their health and prevent serious injuries to organs. The conditions include breathlessness, heart failure, hip or knee pain, metabolic abnormalities and poorly functioning organs.

People with pre-clinical obesity are at risk for those conditions based on BMI, but have no ongoing illness, the report says.

The commission said that people who had a BMI over 25 and too much fat, but who are otherwise healthy, should pretty much be left alone. They should be monitored and counseled not to gain any more weight and possibly to lose some.

The simplest way for doctors to see whether someone has excess body fat is to wrap a tape measure around a person’s waist, the group said. If a woman’s waist is more than 34.6 inches, she most likely has too much fat. For a man, a waist the threshold would be at least 40 inches. Other tools for health professionals include waist-to-hip ratios, waist-to-height ratios or DEXA scans, a type of X-ray.

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.

Leaves are turning and the temperature is dropping. That means it’s time for “No Sugar November”! Can you go from November 1^st until Thanksgiving (November 28th) with no sugar? It might seem like a monumental task, but take a few minutes to read the rest of this post and I’ll guide you through the four weeks that will hopefully change your life.

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!

I’ve always been curious about how society views alcohol. There are many mixed messages out there around what amount of alcohol consumption is unhealthy or if some amount is even healthy! I often think that people look for excuses to continue doing what they have always done and tell themselves they are doing something good. In fairness, there were several studies out over the last few decades with conclusions that lead to headlines around increased longevity with some amount of alcohol daily. However, if you were to read the full study, several of them ultimately state that light-to-moderate drinking does not improve health (not the same as longevity) and should not be used as motivation to start drinking if one does not drink alcoholic beverages.

This seems contradictory to me. If there is a study that tells you a certain food is correlated with increased longevity, but then also tells you that you should not start eating that food if you are not already, wouldn’t that make you wonder?

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”.

I’ve heard nutritionists and diet “experts” give the advice to only eat a few bites of something. While there is evidence that you can satiate your cravings through just two or three bites and that after that you are no longer getting that dopamine release that gives you the pleasure you seek through sugary foods – it’s not as simple as just stopping yourself.

Why is that? Why do we find ourselves eating a whole bag of candy or the whole bowl of chips? Three words…The Bliss Point.

The term was coined by a US market researcher and psychoanalyst, Howard Moskowitz, known for his work in creating soft drinks and pasta sauces. The bliss point refers to the point at which sugar, fat or salt are blended to delicious perfection. In other words, it's when the ratio of sweetness, saltiness or richness is most irresistible.

Foods that are created around bliss points have the power to override the body’s natural 'stop' signal in the brain that tells us when we're full and satisfied. As you would expect, foods like donuts, cakes, ice cream and candy are all created around a bliss point. But it’s more than just these obvious foods. Tomato sauce, soup, sliced bread, dressings and cereal bars are all products that contain that longed-for trio of salt, sugar, and fat that keeps us coming back for more and promotes future cravings.

Big food companies pay their scientists and chefs huge salaries to understand how we're attracted to food and how they can make their foods attractive to us. None of it is by accident. There’s as much math and science and analysis done at Nestle as there is at NASA. There are billions of dollars at stake. Getting the consumer to buy their products over the competitor's is their only job and finding that perfect amount of salt, sugar and fat that will get their products off the shelves and into our homes is all that matters.

With processed foods, it’s a balance though. Many ingredients in processed food have nothing to do with taste. They're there to reproduce a certain texture, to control the moisture level, to keep the various ingredients from separating and spoiling during the months that they will sit on the shelves or in your pantry. To mask the bitterness or sourness that the formulations can cause, the food industry uses flavor enhancers to trick the brain into tasting something that isn't there, and not tasting something that is there.

Just look at the ingredients list of must “flavored” packaged products and you won’t see the actual flavor they are creating anywhere on the list. How can a strawberry flavored Fruit Roll Up not have any strawberries or even strawberry extract in the ingredients? Simple, a Chemical Engineer came up with a concoction that tastes very close to strawberries. There's tremendous amounts of money spent on creating tastes and smells that feel real but in reality are completely artificial, but that keep you wanting more.

This takes us back to the bliss point. When we eat foods regularly that hit the bliss point, it disrupts the signals that our brain sends to our body when we're full. This makes us less sensitive to the dopamine rush from these foods, meaning we need to eat more and more to get the same satisfaction. It's a game food companies are playing with consumers...and we are losing!

So what can we do to combat the bliss point (other than just eating whole, natural foods)?

Pay attention to how much you are eating. – Pick and choose times to have your junk food. Plan out your week around a dinner or event where you know you want to indulge and then limit the amount that you have access to. Then stay away from it the rest of the time.

Eat more satiating foods. Having meals that leave you satisfied will reduce the risk of junk food cravings in between meals. Include fresh vegetables with meat or fish in your meals. Processed carbohydrates like pasta and bread will leave you not feeling full and have you reaching for that dessert.

Be aware of bliss-point foods. Just like when you are participating in The Holistic Hundred or No Sugar November, you have to read labels. There are unexpected foods that we use every day (like tomato sauce and salad dressing) that have also been engineered to have a bliss point. Try experimenting with making your food to replace store-bought ones. There are many online resources for these recipes.

Sleep and Stress. The more sleep-deprived we are, the hungrier we feel and the more we crave sugar, and fat-filled foods as opposed to healthy snacks. Getting 8-9 hours of sleep, compared to 6-7 hours, can massively reduce the risk of junk food cravings. Stress can also lead to binge eating. Cortisol increases hunger because the body craves energy to combat whatever stressors we may be facing.

The bottom line is that we must be advocates for ourselves and our health. The food companies are out to profit off of you and the pleasure you get from eating their foods. We should never trust them when it comes to providing healthy choices for us. We need to take responsibility for our own health, make informed decisions about the foods we eat, while allowing ourselves to enjoy food fully. By being aware of the bliss point and the way it works in our brains, we can make healthier choices that will improve our short-term and long-term health.

The liver, located on the upper-right side of the abdomen, is the largest internal organ of the human body. The main functions of the liver are to remove toxins and process food nutrients. Blood from the digestive system filters through the liver before traveling anywhere else in the body.

A meta-analysis was released in May of this year explored non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in adults. The goal of analysis was to ascertain the contribution of ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption to the risk of developing NAFLD.

NAFLD represents a disease spectrum ranging from liver fat accumulation through to end-stage liver disease with fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. NAFLD is associated with related diseases such as type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. There is strong evidence that NAFLD is associated with an approximate twofold higher risk of developing T2D, irrespective of obesity and other common metabolic risk factors.

NAFLD is similar to a type of liver disease caused by alcohol consumption. Most people may not know they have it because doctors don't routinely screen for it and it can develop without symptoms until it reaches an advanced stage, when liver damage occurs.

NAFLD was recognized in the early 1950s but only in 1980 was it pointed out as a possible cause of cirrhosis of the liver.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are industrial formulations of cheap ingredients from high yield crops (such as refined sugar, starch, oil, protein isolates) and remnants of intense animal agriculture that are highly energy-dense due to total fat, saturated fat and trans-fat contributions, combined with low fiber and poor micronutrient profiles.

They can be differentiated from processed foods due to additional chemical enhancement using preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners aiming to increase shelf life and palatability. They include such food items as confectionary sweets, high-sugar drinks and ‘microwave ready-meals’, constituting around half of daily energy intake in Western populations. Their cheap production cost, contrasting with the higher relative cost of minimally processed foods, drives a high UPF consumption rate globally; particularly in low-income households.

In this meta-analysis, a total of 5454 records were screened, and 112 records underwent full text review. From these, 9 studies analyzing 60,961 individuals were included in the meta-anaylsis.

A factor that the researchers came across was that the manufacturing process behind UPFs is metabolically damaging to the food as well. Through chemical modification, cosmetic additives and artificial packaging. Common cosmetic additives to UPF, such as monosodium glutamate and artificial sweeteners, have been associated with NAFLD.

They also discovered that timing of eating impacts metabolic outcomes. with high consumption of low-quality carbohydrates, such as those found in UPFs, being more harmful when consumed during evening meals.

NASH (or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) is a type of NAFLD that can damage the liver. NASH occurs when the fat buildup in the liver leads to inflammation (hepatitis) and scarring.

Conclusion:

Both moderate (vs. low) and high (vs. low) intake of UPF significantly increased the risk of NAFLD. Consumption of UPF is associated with NAFLD with a dose–response effect.

These results provide valuable evidence to support public health policies in respect to dietary advice in this increasingly prevalent disease. We would advocate global efforts to minimize consumption of UPFs, in exchange for fresh and minimally processed foods, with promotion of physical activity to tackle the societal burden of this disease.

In its early stages, NAFLD generally does not cause symptoms. In fact, many people—and their doctors—are unaware they have NAFLD. However, it can lead to liver damage over time in some people.

Fortunately, screening techniques such as blood levels of liver enzymes, ultrasound, and imaging techniques for assessing liver stiffness can help detect NAFLD, and the condition can often be reversed in its early stages with dietary and lifestyle changes.

About 100 million individuals in the United States are estimated to have Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD).

NAFLD in children has more than doubled over the past 20 years!

Bottom line – cut out processed foods! Don’t be lazy and eat whatever you can find in a pinch or is simple. Your body and long-term health are worth you taking the time to eat real food (meat, fish, vegetables and fruits).

The FDA has now approved multiple medicines for weight loss.

The drug company Novo Nordisk, headquartered in Denmark has created two injection-type drugs. The first is known as Wegovy. It is given as a once-weekly injection. The other is known as Ozempic and contains the same key ingredient as Wegovy, called semaglutide.

Eli Lilly’s injectable drug named Mounjaro has also been approved for Type 2 diabetes but is being used off-label for general weight loss.

Another Lilly drug, Orforglipron, is part of a new group of experimental medicines that goes after the same target, GLP-1, but in a daily pill form.

Novo Nordisk reported results last month showing that a pill version of semaglutide yielded 15% weight loss over 68 weeks, similar to the injectable Wegovy’s results.

But that drug, which is approved as Rybelsus for Type 2 diabetes, can be complicated to take, doctors say, with strict requirements about not eating or drinking within 30 minutes of taking it.

Pfizer has joined the race for the “magic weight loss pill” as well with two oral GLP-1 drugs in development, publishing data last month on one of them in people with type 2 diabetes; it also led to weight loss over 16 weeks that researchers said was comparable to other drugs in the class. The experimental medicines from Pfizer and Lilly are designed to be able to be taken with or without food.

The medicines still need to complete larger-scale testing in phase 3 trials, which means they are months to years from reaching the market.

So is this it? Have the drug companies finally created the “easy button” for weight loss? No more having to eat healthy? No more counting calories or macros? No more exercising needed to try and stay lean?

You know better than that, right?

Right out of the gate, there are several reason why you should be cautious about taking these weight loss medications.

• If you lose weight with new drugs, you likely will need to keep taking the medications forever to keep the weight off. People who stop taking Wegovy and Ozempic often gain weight back relatively quickly. Some have experienced addition gain from where they started.

• The drugs are expensive, and in general, insurance plans don’t cover them for weight loss (although they often do for people with diabetes). You could be looking at $15,000 to $17,000 a year for these drugs.

• The popularity of the new drugs has led to some shortages. So you could start taking it and then not be able to get it, leading to weight gain.

• The drugs can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal side effects (see below for details).

• A small percentage of people who take the drugs can suffer from a diabetes eye complication called retinopathy. Along with consulting with your primary care provider or endocrinologist, you should also see your eye doctor.

• The drugs tend to suppress a person’s appetite but to lose weight, you’ll still need to reduce your intake of desserts, sugar-sweetened beverages, and fatty foods. And, of course, exercise is important to keep your body healthy.

• Some people have complained about looking older due to “Wegovy or Ozempic face.” While many people taking weight loss drugs are pleased to shed some pounds, some say they’re dropping weight in the wrong place: their face. Some have complained of looking old and gaunt due to fat loss in the face.

While a sedentary lifestyle and increased consumption of empty-calorie, processed foods most certainly have boosted obesity rates in the U.S. and around the world, researchers have learned much more in recent years about genetic causes for weight gain. Some people’s bodies may, in fact, want them to pack on fat.

That being understood, there may be a small portion of the population that could benefit from a drug that reduces appetite and helps people lose significant pounds, leading to better overall health.

___________________________________________________________________________

How do they work?

Wegovy and Ozempic mimic a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1, which targets areas of the brain that regulate appetite, according to the FDA authorization.

The drugs decrease appetite and slow down emptying of the stomach, so people feel less hungry and eat less. They can cause some unpleasant gastrointestinal side effects.

What the pharmaceutical companies have done is taken this hormone that is naturally occurring and restructured it into a drug. So, it's not a surprise that when people stop taking the medicine, they start to feel hungrier.

Normal hormone balance can be hard to get back. Some patients that stopped taking the drug reported that their appetite had increased. They no longer feels satisfied with small meals, struggle maintaining energy and gain weight.

Who is eligible? 

Under the FDA authorization, Wegovy is supposed to be used for people who are obese or overweight. Those who have a body mass index (or BMI) of 30 or greater are eligible along with those who have a BMI of 27 or greater who also have other health problems such as high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol that make weight loss important. For reference, for a woman that is 5’4”, a weight of 175 pounds puts you at a BMI of 30. A 5’9” male has a BMI of 30 if he is 203 pounds.

They are also approved for people with Type 2 Diabetes.

If you don’t meet those criteria, you would be using the medications “off-label,” or not as the FDA has approved them. Your healthcare provider may or may not be ok prescribing a drug to you off-label.

What are the most common side effects?

Gastrointestinal problems are the most common side effects since Wegovy can slow down people’s digestive systems. During clinical trials, some participants experienced nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, headache, fatigue, indigestion, dizziness, bloating and gas.

People who have uncontrolled diabetes can get retinopathy, a complication that involves damage to blood vessels in the eyes, and can result in vision loss or blindness.

During the clinical trials for Ozempic, there was an almost three-fold increase in the rate of people getting retinopathy when they were placed on Ozempic as compared to those who were not receiving Ozempic.  

People may be at increased risk for pancreatitis, which is inflammation of the pancreas often caused by gall stones, alcohol use or high triglycerides.

The drug does carry a black box warning because in rodent studies it caused thyroid tumors. Because of this, Doctors may screen patients to find out if they have a family history of a specific kind of thyroid carcinoma, or another rare condition called multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2 (MEN 2).

If you take Wegovy or Ozempic to lose weight, will you need to keep taking the drugs indefinitely?

Yes. As with many chronic conditions, most people who use the drugs for diabetes or weight loss will need to keep taking them to keep benefiting from them.

You have to inject yourself with these drugs. As in stick yourself with a needle once a week.

These medications currently come as injectables, although as mention in the opening, there are pill forms being tested.

So what is the bottom line? Are they safe?

Just like any prescription or over the counter drugs, you always have to weigh the benefits and risks. In general, I’m not in favor of anything that seems to be the easy way out and involves messing with your body’s hormones for the rest of your life. However, if you are currently obese and are struggling with losing weight through a controlled diet, you are already at increased risk for many diseases. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., and obesity and weight-related conditions are top risk factors.

As you would expect me to say, a clean diet (reduce sugar, grains and vegetable oils) and exercise should always be the first strategies to try and lose weight. But given that about 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, nearly half of adults in the U.S. have hypertension and more than 1 in 3 have pre-diabetes, these drugs may have their place.

You should learn the facts, talk to a trusted medical professional and make an informed decision.