Old and Busted: Fat is Bad. New Hotness: Sugar is bad.

Remember in the 70’s, eggs were “The Incredible Edible Egg?” Then we learned about cholesterol and eggs were identified as a high-risk food during the 80’s. Then we found that eggs weren’t so bad after all in the 90’s. My point is that we have had nutritional, dietary and food experts for many decades. The message is clear but the conclusions are… well, wrong, virtually every time.

American waist sizes are at an all-time high. Obesity is now called an epidemic in America. Experts are constantly announcing new taboo foods while redefining understanding of current foods and their impact on human physiology. And they are wrong: Empirically, observationally, any American can simply look at our fellows and see for themselves: Despite our “best efforts,” we are getting fatter.

So the guardians of perennially bad advice are at it again. You see, Americans cut their intake of evil artery-clogging waist-building fat, just like we were supposed to. Problem is, it didn’t help. Dr Robert Lustig put the results of lowering fat intake succinctly:

“And we did. And guess what? Heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing.”

Color me shocked. It’s almost as if these people don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, and are just making stuff up now. But remember the science was settled!

So our unapologetic experts who don’t seem to be experts have identified another evil substance out to kill you: Sugar. Yes, seriously. Follow their logic: Fat is tasty. Removing fat makes food taste like cardboard and the only cure is sugar. Therefore sugar must be the problem. See, it’s so simple! They don’t mention cane sugar or beet sugar or corn sugar, or granulated sugar or powdered sugar, or processing or metabolism… but boy is sugar going to screw you up if you don’t quit!

Winning line:

It will never occur to them to think, “Gee, if the science wasn’t really settled about heart disease, could the science really be settled about, say, global warming?”

And the article continues:

Glenn Reynolds recently pointed out in the New York Post that conservatives are no more distrustful of science than liberals and progressives, despite the conceit of liberals and progressives that they represent the “evidence-based” school of thought in contrast to creationists, global-warming deniers and other assorted Neanderthals. Conservative distrust, Mr. Reynolds suggests, stems from “the increasing use of science as ammunition for big-government schemes.”

Indeed.