Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

(For my TL;DR'ers, the study in question is looking at population level genetic variation, with a focus on an insertion in the FADS2 gene that appears to have been under positive selection in traditionally vegetarian populations. The paper posits some potential functional consequences of this variant related to increased levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids that are implicated in several disease processes. It has nothing to with an individual's choice to be vegetarian in their own lifetime; it has to do with your ancestors' dietary decision and the genetic variants that you've inherited. Any potential risks associated with the variant likely depend on the amount of dietary precursor available for the enzyme to act on but further research is required from randomized controlled trials.) This week's annoyingly misleading headlines tout the 'harms' of a long term vegetarian diet; some outlets had better headlines than others, but after seeing enough mis...

A couple years ago I blogged about a study that found organic crops to be higher in 'antioxidants' and what that meant from a health perspective. Now, the same group of researchers have published data, in two separate papers (1,2), on the differences in nutritional profiles between organic vs conventional meats and dairy, mostly focusing on the fatty acid compositions. Naturally, the media has taken to promoting the hell out of this message: Should you be buying organic meat and dairy for the nutritional value? For my TL;DR folks, the on-average changes instilled by the organic systems produce low impact differences in the nutrient profiles, requiring excessive intakes of meat/dairy fats to get to meaningful doses known to impart a physiological effect. Furthermore, when you consider these differences in the context of the whole diet, changes in nutrients like short and long chain omega 3 fats still don't make organic meats and dairy competitive against other cost...

After some twitter and personal conversations of late, I thought I'd make a post, that I'll continually update, on resources that I use to stay up to date on what's happening in the many worlds I attempt to follow (food, nutrition, medicine, public health, agriculture, research). I don't want these recommendations to be a pure endorsement, and I would encourage you to look skeptically at all resources. These are all based on my opinions/biases, and not through the direct influence of anybody. I will take suggestions though if you have any and check them out and add them if I like them! I'm pretty new to the podcast world and these are just a few of the ones I've perused. Reference Textbooks: Biochemical, Physiological, and Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition Present Knowledge in Nutrition Nutrition Therapy and Pathophysiology Metabolic Regulation: A Human Perspective Nutritional Genomics Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine Robbins Basic ...

Anti-sugar/fructose researcher and diet book author Robert Lustig has a new trial published in Obesity claiming to have reduced fructose in the diet of kids, and isocalorically replaced it with starch, leading to improvements in metabolic health. This would be a big deal if conducted really well, since fructose has some unique properties to its metabolism relative to just boring old glucose. As of now, it appears that fructose's detrimental effects are due to overconsumption of calories (1). There is, however, a theoretical concern that insulin sensitive vs insulin resistant individuals (2) respond to fructose differently, as fructose, according to rodent studies (3), appears a particularly good substrate for de novo lipogenesis and contributes to excess liver fat. Sugar is postulated to be terrible for all sorts of people, but as I understand, it's been theorized that high fructose consumption, even under eucaloric conditions, can increasee hepatic liver fat in individuals w...

 The BMJ really seems to like its investigative reporting, but the quality of this reporting, as of late, leaves me uneasy; it frequently touches on popular concerns regarding industry's role in the scientific process, and their undoubted desire to support research that will shine well on their products. They had their sugar piece that attempted to paint actually legit researchers like Susan Jebb in a bad light. They gave voice to Nina Teicholz's perspective on th e dietary guidelines   - Ms Teicholz paints herself as someone who is concerned about the quality of evidence and bias that goes into the Dietary Guidelines, but from reading her work, she doesn't seem to have a universally applied ruler with which she measures the quality of research (#IIFYB). She attempts to sell to us that recommendations to replace saturated fats with PUFAs have been bought by the vegetable oil industry. Despite what I find to be weak arguments, she has the amazing ability to distract peopl...