Five Worst Dietary Trangressions
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine told me that my “body hates me” because I don’t generally eat pastured chicken. Because of the amount of food that I eat to support my body weight and activity level, it would be very expensive for me to eat $2/lb chicken everyday. So I grab antibiotic- and hormone-free chicken from the local grocery store at $.69-.99/lb on sale (wait until it’s about a week from going out of date, then stock up the freezer). While the chickens are fed grains, they are not pumped up on hormones. I can shore up the poor omega-3:omega-6 ratio with some extra fish oil, which I do.
In light of that conversation, I want to touch on what I consider to be dietary indiscretions that will make your body hate you.
1. Refined Sugar
Number one on my list is sugar. Sugar hits the body with unbelievable metabolic damage. The glucose surge, the corresponding insulin surge, insulin receptor damage leading to insulin resistance, insulin resistance leading to Type II Diabetes…the list goes on. Sugar is just flat-out bad stuff. Encompassed in “refined sugar” is plain white sugar, brown sugar, and the ubiquitous high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), possibly the worst food mankind has created. Fructose is the sugar found in fruit and also found in super-concentrated form (HFCS) in soft drinks and other junk (not “junk food”, remember that there’s no such thing. It is also the sugar that scientists use to induce insulin resistance (diabetes) in lab rats. Is there any question why America has become The Land of the Fat and Home of the Diabetic? High circulating glucose also damages arterial linings, which causes cholesterol to have to do its work to repair them (for which it gets the blame), and is a huge contributor to heart disease and stroke. While it is theoretically possible to screw yourself up with fruit, the average person is not going to eat enough fruit to really do so. Avoiding refined sugar is tied for #1 on my list of foods to avoid to improve your health. That doesn’t mean you can never have a cookie or a slice of chocolate cake. It just means that sugar should be a treat, not a dietary staple.
An extension of this one is organic junk foods. The use of organic snack foods has also become a big thing these days. Whole Foods and Wild Oats are common household names and people assume that anything sold there must be healthful. Not so friends! Organic junk food is still junk food, albeit in a slightly more healthful wrapper. Replacing white sugar with an equivalent amount of honey or agave nectar does not decrease the sugar content, nor does it cause any considerable decrease in the effects on your blood sugar and insulin levels. Again, an occasional indulgence is fine and in that case, the organic or natural stuff is probably more healthful, in the same way that smoking one cigarette is more healthful than smoking five cigarettes. However, one should not assume that organic snack foods are dramatically better for you than nonorganic ones. Would you consider an organic Chips Ahoy to be a solid dietary addition?
1. Trans fats
I couldn’t decide between sugar and trans fats for top billing as the worst foods in the American diet, so I made them both #1. How’s that for indecision? Trans fats have been in the news a lot lately. They are a man-made fat that was intended to replace saturated fats, yet as with every other time man has tried to best Mother Nature, the cure ended up being far worse than the poison. Trans fats damage cell membrane rigidity, reducing their permeability to necessary nutrients, and damage arteries, contributing to atherosclerosis. Luckily, avoiding both refined sugars and trans fats is easy as they tend to come packaged together in the form of bakery items like cookies, cakes, muffins, and scones, and store-bought junk “food” like Twinkies and Pop Tarts. And you can’t believe packaging that says “0g of trans fat”. You have to check the package to see if the words “hydrogenated” or “partially hydrogenated” appear in the ingredients. If they do, then the product contains trans fats and the manufacturers are using the “round down if below 0.5g” loop hole.
3. Too few fruits and vegetables
The average American eats very few fruits and vegetables. As this USDA link shows, 27% of vegetable consumption is in the form of fried potatoes (French fries, potato chips, etc). Fifteen-percent of our tomato consumption is in the form of ketchup. And 1/3 of all pickles consumed are eaten on fast food sandwiches or as relish, probably on a hot dog. My quick search didn’t turn up any raw numbers on average fruit and vegetable consumption, but I’m willing to bet that the average would not be promising. In the summertime, I eat a huge salad, along with a heaping mounds of vegetables at my other meals. When I say huge salad, I mean a 10″ round by 3-4″ deep “family sized” serving bowl, heaped with greens (usually an entire head of lettuce or bunch of spinach), carrots, cucumbers, celery, radishes, hardboiled eggs, some form of meat, ground flax seeds, walnuts and pecans, and home made salad dressing with herbs and/or spices. Heaping mounds of vegetables might encompass an entire family-sized bag of frozen vegetables or some other form of steamed vegetables that require care not to have them falling all over the table and floor. And I eat fruit on top of that. When you’re taking in that many phytonutrients, a multi-vitamin isn’t even a necessity. In the winter, I’m quite a bit lower carb due to seasonal eating. Regardless, I don’t consider eating a half-cup of broccoli or a few peas with dinner to be a serving of vegetables. And even at the paltry intake recommended by the USDA Food Pyramid, most people fall short. If people would shore up their fruit and vegetable intake, the antioxidant content would excuse many of their other dietary transgressions, the fiber would help keep them “regular,” and the bulk would keep them from eating donuts after dinner. Let’s not forget the some other benefits of a high vegetable intake: protection against an enlarged prostate, improved workout performance, and improved mental function.
4. Grain products (bread, pasta, cereals, etc)
Next up is processed carbohydrates, which are invariably grain-based products. Foods like bread, pasta, cereal, and rice are generally considered to be healthful because they are low in fat and high in complex carbohydrates. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. These foods are high in carbs and highly, but incorrectly, processed. I say incorrectly processed because grains require fermenting or sprouting to neutralize their phytic acid content. Phytic acid pulls calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron out of the body and can cause deficiencies. I include whole grains in this discussion too. While whole grain bread is better than white bread, it is still a highly processed food and one that doesn’t fit into a hunter-gatherer diet. The body quickly breaks down all of these products into glucose, bringing up blood sugar quickly, and driving up insulin. As we’ve discussed before, insulin puts the body into fat storage mode and too much of it causes insulin receptor burnout and Type II Diabetes. I’ve also mentioned before that bread consumption and kidney cancer are linked. Furthermore, grains are very high in omega-6 fatty acids, which throws the omega-6:omega-3 ratio off drastically. So in the end, the order of preference with grains, we have “no grains”, then “whole grains”, then “white grain products”. Oh, and don’t forget to check the ingredient labels of most of the breads in the store to see the high fructose corn syrup and the vitamins that are added for “fortification” to improve the vitamin and mineral content of these deficient foods.
5. Artificial sweeteners
Instead of eliminating bad habits, many people just switch one bad habit for another. One huge bad habit is a constant daily infusion of artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame K, and Splenda. I see several problems with swapping your six-cans-a-day Coke habit for a six-cans-a-day Diet Coke habit. First, I’m not convinced that these artificial sweeteners are healthful in the long-term. Saccharine has already shown itself to be a carcinogen and humans don’t have a promising track record of trying to best Mother Nature (see also: trans fats and Olestra). Second, while you may be avoiding the calories, you are not avoiding the sweet stimulation. Many people, including me, can go long periods of time without something sweet. But as soon as those taste buds are stimulated, watch out. The tongue doesn’t recognize that artificial sweeteners are artificial. If it did, they wouldn’t serve their purpose. The goal of a proper nutrition plan should be to reduce and eliminate the craving for sweets, not fool the tongue. Note that the tongue does more than simply taste food - it also alerts the body to what is coming down the pipe. When it senses “sweet,” it alerts the body to prepare for “sweet”. This preparation takes place whether the calories show up or not and likely involve some insulin secretion. If it is an occasional indulgence, the artificial sweetener is probably a better option. If artificial sweeteners are part of your daily intake, however, it is probably time to reevaluate your goals.
The Last Word
You’ll notice that my list of what I consider the five most offending foods does not include grain-fed meats nor fruits and vegetables raised inorganically. The first step is getting someone to focus on meat, vegetables, nuts, oils, fruits, tubers, and squashes. It would be wonderful if everyone could afford grass-fed meats and organic produce. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of our food production system. I would rather see someone consume grain-fed meats (even those with antibiotics and hormones) than sugar and trans fats. If you’re lucky, you can find organic or antibiotic- and hormone-free meats at your local supermarket for a reasonable price, which is a better choice than the standard commercially raised stuff. Obviously the best choice is grass-fed and grass-finished meats and poultry, but don’t just throw up your hands and say “Too expensive,” and then go back to gnoshing on Oreos. The same goes with produce. Organic is best, but I’d rather see someone eat truckloads of inorganic vegetables than no vegetables. I’m trying to balance what’s best (organic produce and grass-fed meats) with what is reasonable for most people.
The beautiful thing is that taking care of the first four issues is pretty simple. Eliminating sugar and trans fats is first and foremost in any dietary change. Luckily, they usually come together in the same package, along with some form of processed grains. How’s that for killing three birds with one stone? Cut out the pastries, donuts, Twinkies, Pop Tarts, and muffins and replace them with fruits and vegetables. See how easy it was to take care of numbers 1, 3, and probably 50% of 4? Of course, removing grains requires more than just cutting out junk, but it’s a huge step in the right direction. You can cut out the breakfast cereals by going back to an old school breakfast of bacon (hopefully nitrate-free) and eggs or some of last night’s leftover meat and vegetables. There is no rule that breakfast has to be made up of different foods than lunch and dinner.
If you have those five areas taken care of, a few other areas to focus on are reduction of polyunsaturated oils due to their knack for immunosuppression and their high omega-6 content, elimination of soy, and getting plenty of sleep. Soy has permeated the nation’s food supply and is found in nearly all packaged foods. Luckily, you’re aiming for a whole-foods based hunter-gatherer diet, which doesn’t include packaged foods. Just like that, most of your soy and polyunsaturated oil intake is gone. Replace your vegetable cooking oils with olive, palm, and coconut oils. Sleep is one of the most important aspects of health, but I didn’t include it in the list because it isn’t a food.
If you respect your evolutionary roots, focusing on a forager’s diet, you’ll have no problem with losing fat, gaining muscle, feeling energetic, and being healthy. Meat, vegetables, nuts, oils (olive, palm, and coconut), fruits, tubers, and squashes.
If you enjoyed this post, share it on StumbleUpon or Health Ranker (or both!)
- Other Stuff You'll Enjoy:
- Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain
- It’s Always Best to Start at the Beginning
- Stevia
- Seattle Store Bans High-Fructose Corn Syrup
- Six Reasons We’re Not Eating Healthier
Print This Post
Filed in Living Well, Eating Well 8 Comments so far
Subscribe


Anonymous on 12 Mar 2007 at 2:03 am #
I have two comments on what you have written here. I will start by saying that neither of my comments in any way negates your defining of the five worst dietary transgressions; I completely agree with you. My wife and I have been working to bring our diets into a line that pretty much agrees with yours, and also she is training at Crossfit and is very pleased with the approach.
One comment is kind of a quibble, and the other is more of a big picture comment.
First the quibble: I agree that artificial sweeteners are bad for you in many ways. However, the specific link you cite as an example, between saccharine and cancer, turns out not to have been demonstrated. In the major study that was thought to have shown that link, the saccharine dose was administered in a matrix of another chemical that was assumed at the time to be GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Since then, that matrix chemical has been shown to be mildly carcinogenic with results that happen to be almost exactly the same as seen in the saccharin study. This does not prove that saccharin is genuinely safe, but if it is carcinogenic, it is almost certainly less so than the other chemical used in that study.
The larger comment: We need to be a bit careful in extolling the paleo diet as an ideal without fully examining the really long term effects. Natural selection operates strictly through reproductive success. There are many species that trade away longevity in favor of vitality during childbearing and childrearing years; this is actually more the rule than the exception. So for humans, we can say with confidence that the paleo diet is the optimum diet for being as strong and fit as possible up to about age 40, but after that is less certain. This same diet *may* also be optimum for longevity and continued health, but it may not. Diet-related health problems that don’t show up before age 40 will not be naturally selected against. I’m not saying that the paleo diet is bad; just that attention and study should be directed to determine whether it really is optimum for a *long* healthy life, or whether some modifications may be needed to achieve the additional modern goal of living well past 40.
Phil Boncer
Scott Kustes on 12 Mar 2007 at 6:57 am #
Phil,
Thanks for stopping by! That is interesting about saccharine. I didn’t cite a specific study, mainly going off of the fact that it is listed as a potential carcinogen to humans. My issue with artificial sweeteners is that ingesting things that the body can’t recognize simply to avoid calories is probably not the best long-term idea.
As for your comment regarding the Paleo diet, I agree with you there and do not advocate such a diet for the sake of being idealistic. I have experimented with many diets and a diet based on meat and vegetables with plenty of grass-fed fat, nuts, and oils and a smattering of fruit, sweet potatoes, and squashes to be the one that keeps me feeling and performing my best. The issue with talking about “diet-related health problems that don’t show up before age 40″ is that few of these problems simply “appear” after age 40. I would venture a guess that a vast majority only become clinical after age 40, but the changes in the body would have been observable if anyone were to have thought to check. In fact, Dr. Cordain has pointed out that comparing age-matched individuals from modern and hunter-gatherer societies reveals that the technologically primitive folks do not have the markers of oncoming disease that the modern folks do.
I would love to see a long-term study of the effects of a hunter-gatherer style diet over time, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. All of the competing interests are scared about what would be turned up about their diets…I don’t think Dr. Ornish will be putting his diet up against a healthful, whole foods-based omnivorous diet. In the meantime, the logic dictates that a diet based on foods that need no processing to be consumable is optimal.
Anonymous on 12 Mar 2007 at 7:21 pm #
Agreed on the choice of avoiding saccharin; I don’t like it and think it’s likely to be bad for you in multiple ways. I just thought your argument would be stronger if you picked an example that was verifiably scientifically true.
The government listing of saccharin as carcinogenic was primarily based on one large study, which has since been thrown into doubt. But as usual, government is far more efficient at making mistakes than in correcting them. In general, I would be very wary of basing any scientific or factual claims on government lists or statistics. Actual scientists may be consulted by the government when crafting regulations, but too often the scientists consulted are chosen for political reasons, or selected to support the pre-determined opinions of the regulators. And the regulations themselves are always actually made and voted on by non-scientists, who rarely have a clear understanding of the real issues, and who are subject to all of the political influences out there. Better to cite scientific studies more directly (not that they can’t be improperly influenced either, but [a] the influences are usually easier to find, and [b] bad science generally gets found out and corrected by subsequent work, in a way that bad government generally doesn’t).
As for the point of reducing the sweet taste as a goal, I agree. We were having a somewhat simliar conversation recently with a vegetarian friend, about how so many vegetarian restaurants feature (and products are) artificial meat subsitutes. They are mostly soy based and highly processed, and probably not at all good for you. If you’re going to be a vegetarian, especially if you believe that it’s the best health alternative, it would be best to reduce the cravings for meat rather than relying on artificial meateners.
I fully agree that a less-processed diet, based on the paleo concept, is more healthful in pretty much every way than the typical American diet. I’m just saying that it may be that an even more healthful diet may be possible, with proper attention.
For example, problems that do typically “appear” after age 40 include strokes and many kinds of cancer. Yes, proper examinations can detect some signs of these impending before they happen, but unless those signs appear earlier as symptoms that significantly reduce survival or parenting fitness, they will not be selcted against evolutionarily. The average paleo hunter-gatherer (or farmer even more so) was physically worn down from hardship well before what we would consider old age, and so many of these “modern conditions” simply didn’t have time to appear. A large part of the increase in death by cancers in modern society is “caused” by the drastic reduction in earlier deaths by other causes, such as infectious diseases and envirinmental dangers. Well into the 17th century in Europe, for example, the second leading cause of death was wolves.
Another example: cooking. It is well-established that cooking meat produces carcinogens. In a primitive society without refrigeration and sanitation, those carcinogens are [a] unlikely to kill you while you are still young and active, and [b] much less dangerous than the parasites and germs that proper cooking can kill. However, in a modern society where it may be technologically possible to create a meat supply that is safe to eat raw, we may find that doing so would result in lower cancer and better health and nutrition, especially into old age.
Likewise, when pasteurization was introduced for dairy products, it was a huge safety advance, and well worth the loss of nutrition at the time. Nowadays, there are mnay raw milk advocates, who have a fair bit of evidence in their favor. But to be worth while, they must be able to create, store, and transport raw dairy products safe from contamination, which capability was not available to our paleo forebears.
So, again, I’m not opposed to your approach at all; just raising some additional questions and thoughts.
Phil Boncer
Bill on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:34 pm #
I noticed you are advocating palm and coconut oils (along with olive oil). I thought that canola was the present oil of choice (after olive). And, I remember not so long ago being told to avoid palm and coconut oils and that they were only used because they were so cheap.
Scott Kustes on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:09 pm #
Hey Bill,
Great question! I definitely do advocate these two vilified oils. Here is an old post that I wrote about the reasons I choose palm and coconut oils. In this post I also talk about my use of (horror of horrors!) beef tallow. I don’t find palm and coconut oils to be all that cheap if you order them from a reputable supplier like Tropical Traditions. I would bet that they are used in baking so often because they are highly stable due to their saturation, which isn’t bad for you (cell membranes have a good bit of saturated fat to make them stable), and because for vegetable oils to be stable, they have to be hydrogenated ( i.e., trans fats). As I say in that first link there, the saturated oils are so stable that they don’t require processing and removal of every vitamin and mineral. One problem with canola is its high omega-3:omega-6 ratio (a problem with all vegetable oils). And I would bet it’s not a highly stable fat at high temperature either.
Palm and coconut oils have been eaten for many millenia by tribal cultures that haven’t been keeling over from heart disease. They are only taboo in our culture because everyone “knows” that saturated fat will kill you. Polyunsaturated fats are the media darling, but they are unnatural and unhealthful.
Cheers
Scott
Colin Chambers on 21 May 2008 at 4:56 am #
HI Scott,
I always learn something useful from your posts and the concept that high ldl’s or cholesterol as a whole may be an indicator of heart disease rather than a precursor is a nice twist which may have the potential to be true in the end. Nice point.
One thing I’d like to add is that I feel it’s better to balance your health efforts across food (providing fuel and resources), activity (providing as stimulus to build and maintaining your body) and rest (providing time and space to repair and recover from daily stresses).
In that vein, I find it easier to eat the best I can, trying to eat as much fruit and veg etc as possible knowing that emphasising the good stuff will mainly compensate for the bad stuff I eat ‘cos I just gotta have it’ . To add to this though I like to keep active and get enough rest. Without both of these I can eat perfectly and my body will still fall apart.
I’ve written a short article in my blog about how exercise both helps make the body more sensitive to insulin and thus glucose and in turn reduces risk of diabetes. http://colchambers.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-insulin-allows-entry-of-glucose.html
I welcome any comments.
Scott Kustes on 21 May 2008 at 9:55 am #
Colin, for sure rest (de-stressing) and activity are very important. But I find that diet is the one driver that is most important to health. As they say about the results you see in the gym, diet is 75% (or more depending on who you ask). We all know the people that eat like crap and workout a lot, but never make progress.
One thing I’ve noticed is that my “gotta have it” foods have drastically reduced the more dialed in my diet is. I still have some alcohol (probably too much at times :-D), but most of my sweets are very dark chocolate (85% cocoa Lindt bars) or perhaps some tortilla chips and salsa.
Good article, not much I can add to what you said. For insulin resistant people, it’s important to follow a low-carb diet along with getting some level of exercise to use up the fuel stored in the muscles and help open them up. I imagine that the use of glucose in the muscles causes some expression of insulin sensitive receptors to help reload for the next go-round.
Cheers
Scott
Five Worst Diet Sins — CrossFit Coastal: Wilmington, NC on 30 Oct 2008 at 8:21 am #
[...] An extension of this one is organic junk foods. The use of organic snack foods has also become a big thing these days. Whole Foods and Wild Oats are common household names and people assume that anything sold there must be healthful. Not so friends! Organic junk food is still junk food, albeit in a slightly more healthful wrapper… read more [...]