Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

Ugh, saturated fats. Talk about one of the most polarizing nutrients in the field of nutrition sciences. Observational data questions their link to CVD (1). Original meta-analyses of RCT data that substituted PUFAs for SFA didn't adequately isolate their effects, were accused of biased inclusion and further analyses that have corrected for biases saw beneficial effects disappear and some cause for concern, regarding n-6's (2, 3,4 ) - this has been critiqued as well here  and here . SFAs are just a scientific PITA. I don't personally fear consuming them - I prioritize some over others, sticking to plant varieties mostly. I personally take the perspective that if you're focusing a lot of your diet around plants, which are cardio-protective for a number of reasons (5,6), you're doing yourself some good. One topic of scientific discussion that's come up lately, and the reason for a lack of a link between saturated fat and CVD, is the way that LDL particle subcla...

I've mentioned before that I'm currently in the process of obtaining both my PhD and the Registered Dietitian (RD) credential. In my opinion, both are very complementary degrees that can inform/influence each other in a positive way, to make one both a better scientist and a clinician. However, at times, they clash - scientific idealism doesn't always align with clinical realism, and vice versa. My current internal monologue/debate really heated up these past couple weeks, with the release of these two seemingly contradictory articles: 1 . For the first report, see here . Dr Yoni Freedhoff, whose blog is a really great read, pointed out a number of somewhat troubling tweets from RD's at the F3K conference. The RD's took to the usual mantra of needing to work with the food industry, and tried to absolve the sins of processed foods. To quote one RD's twitter, "Healthy eating requires - balance of foods, right portions, & proper prep. Don't worry a...

It's really hard to talk nutrition with someone, especially when you stick to the science and they can throw out sentiment after sentiment - sentiment always sounds better than science! Here's a few common sentiments I get all the time that are so far from scientific: 1. "But so and so did it and lost a ton of weight!" - This one's from the people who never took a statistics course. 'Miley Cyrus went gluten-free and look how healthy she is!!' is known as an n=1 situation - one person's experiences don't say much, and nothing controls for confounding factors. If we took every anecdote of healthy people, whether they were olympic athletes or individuals who lost 400lbs, we'd get about 100+ diets out of it (go look at the diet section of your local book store - I'd say about a 100) . What one person did to stay healthy only shows the dietary plasticity of the human body - we can eat a variety of things, or not eat a variety of things, and b...

Seeing the words 'healthy' and 'carbohydrates' can be rare these days - depending on where you're getting your nutrition info. I see a lot of critiques of the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDRs), set by the Institute of Medicine. So let's take a look at those: AMDRs (1) : Carbohydrates , males/females, 9-70: 45-65% of total calories Fat, males/females, 19-70: 25-35% of total calories Protein , males/female, 19-70: 10-35% My challenge, to myself, is to incorporate a variety of carbohydrate sources. It's very easy to get stuck in a carbohydrate rut... one might say a carbohydrut (okay i'll stop). But seriously, it seems like you say carbohydrate and people automatically think, "grains"! There's so much more to carbohydrates and the reasons behind the AMDR values. Carbohydrates are pretty unique to plants - besides muscle glycogen and dairy sugars - and with plants come an array of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and...

If you didn't hear, there was a pretty controversial report in the Annals of Medicine put out claiming that consumers should stop wasting their money on Multivitamins (1). In my opinon, a more appropriate summary is to not expect anything that great from popping your daily. I've got a lot of thoughts on this issue so let's break it down: 1.  May the Odds be Ever in your Favor - tossing a bunch of vitamins and minerals into the intestines at once is a bit like the Hunger Games- you've got a bunch of competitors, some will beat out others (for absorption) and maybe one will win out (be highly bioavailable) at the end. if you've ever taken a course on micronutrient metabolism, you'll probably hear this report and think ..'duh?' Mineral bioavailability is dependent upon a number of factors, and is largely inhibited by the presence of other minerals. Think back to your high school chemistry days - what happens when you put a bunch of positive charged min...

As I've written before on my posts at the-sage.org, I'm not against the paleo diet - it's backed by a really shallow understanding of evolutionary theory and desperately needs a name change (Unprocessed/antigrain isn't very sexy, I guess), but overall, I don't see a huge worry for nutritional deficiencies - depending on the strictness/vigilance, an individual might be low in calcium, iodine, manganese and vitamin E. From a clinical perspective, I'm more concerned with those consuming standard American diets. From a scientific perspective, I'm mostly concerned with religious evangelization of a dietary mantra posing as science. I had a friend send me this link , claiming that gluten free diets are backed by 'real' science and asked me for my thoughts. For one, i'm familiar with Robb Wolfe, and generally like his and Matt LaLonde's call for a harder science approach to the Paleo movement. I am a big critic of the dietetics education standards...

I really applaud anyone who is trying to make positive changes to their lifestyle, especially by improving their nutrition but, few things annoy me more than massively disseminated misinformation. The most virulent case of this is linoleic acid, an omega 6 (n-6) fatty acid. Do one google search of "Omega 6's and Inflammation" and you'll find articles on every internet health site, written by MDs/RDs/etc etc, telling you that Omega 6's, like those found in vegetable oils, are virtually the cause of every modern day ailment, from heart disease, to acne and arthritis. They'll cite you information stating that the n-6:n-3 fatty acid ratio is all out of whack. There seem to be 2 reasons that people claim linoleic acid is pro-inflammatory. 1, because it is a precursor to inflammatory molecules in the body. 2, because it is subject to oxidation, and these oxidative endproducts (reactive carbonyl compounds, ketones, aldehydes) incite an immune response . 1. Lino...

One of the most common 'anti-nutrients'/organic compounds that alternative health/ancestral diet followers seem to talk about is phytic acid. The structure of phytic acid contains an inositol group (similar to B-vitamin structures) and 6 phosphate groups. Phytic acid exists in plant foods, particularly high in nuts, seeds, whole grains and legumes. Phytic acid is a particularly important reservoir of phosphorous and other mineral cations for a plant - plants contain the enzyme phytase, which can hydrolyze the bonds between phytic acid and its bound minerals (phytic acid:mineral complexes are known as phytates). Humans do not produce phytase, though some bacteria in the human small intestine may have phytase activity, allowing for the release of a small fraction of the bound mineral. The human GI tract's pH, also, does not facilitate the liberation of minerals from their phytate complexes. Phytic acid most commonly binds to non-heme iron, zinc, and calcium (1). From an evo...

Registered Dietitians get attacked by a lot of sub-groups in nutrition for not being one of a myriad of things, depending upon the dietary mantra of the group - low carb'ers accuse RDs of heresy for recommendations concerning the consumption of carbohydrates and allotting for some level of added sugars in the diet; paleo'ers attack RDs because they push whole grains and dairy, purporting that these are two of the major toxins in our food supply; vegetarians/vegans say that RDs are pushing cancer-causing animal products that harm the environment and cause unnecessary suffering. These are just a few of the major nutrition-minded groups that have asserted their dominant, superior nutrition viewpoint and attacked the current medical model of nutrition. But who is correct? Put any of these 3 major groups alone in a room together and everyone may very well not make it out alive, or at least without being covered in Red paint and/or being accused of ignoring your primal blueprint. ...