Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

I've discussed the nutritional epigenetics work done in Gambia before here . New work following up on the previous Gambian study from Robert Waterland and colleagues was recently published (1) that expanded upon their previous findings, looking at newly established metastable epialleles. As a quick reminder before I get into the study findings, rural Gambia is characterized by a rainy and dry season that leads to variation in nutrient availability and workload/physical activity. The rainy season occurs from July to November, during which pregnant mothers in rural areas gain 400-500g/mo less than weight gain during the dry season, and birth weight is, on average, 90g lower in the rainy than dry season. Seasonal patterns of maternal weight gain closely parallel the rate of Small for Gestational Age (SGA) births; LBW parallels with increases in agricultural labor and malarial infections (2). The original hypothesis in the last Gambian study stated that there should be higher percent

The newest study making the rounds (1) comes from the International Society for Sports Nutrition. The conclusion of the study states that "Consuming 5.5 times the RDA of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat" . The language in the discussion only gets stronger:  "The results of the current investigation do not support the notion that consuming protein in excess of purported needs results in a gain in fat mass. Certainly, this dispels the notion that ‘a calorie is just a calorie" . Anytime someone starts throwing around the 'a calorie isn't a calorie' mantra, I get a bit skeptical. Even if you think that manipulating macronutrient composition can lead to different effects on weight gain, this is usually explainable by changes

Every alternative health practitioner is pushing for the absolution of saturated fat nowadays. "The science doesn't support saturated fat as being the causative agent of Cardiovascular disease." Even the Wall Street Journal had an article on it today - see here . The article is full of bias, and written by a woman who has a new book that is supported by the idea that saturated fat is null. Even worse, it starts to demonize carbohydrates - as if beans and sugar are the same. Are we really trying to move from one reductionist viewpoint to another? I'm in full agreement that there isn't evidence to scientifically claim Saturated Fat causes heart disease. But the way that this issue is being presented is far from scientific, and often concludes things that are not valid. A few points to consider: 1. The Science of Fatty Acids - we' re seeing interesting paradigm shifts in the field, as we move beyond just "high LDL, high risk". This was the origi