Holford and Goldacre aside, one question it might be productive to ponder is this. How much money has been spent globally on AIDS pharmaceutical, and what has been the benefit. What public health projects might have been completed with that money to better benefit. Perhaps Holford isn’t the best target for Ben’s criticism. Perhaps he’s an easy target.

But the damage done by those who pass off poison as food is far less than that done by those who generation after generation convince people that food is poison”

Paul Goodman (1911-1972)

www.badscience.net/?p=362

.. his list of connections is an eye-opener. You might get the impression of a small circle of media-friendly / savvy nutri-gurus, peddling their pseudoscience via the “natural health” columns and TV shows for a credulous but ever-fatter population, and all puffing one another. How cosy.

the more pertinent post from Dr Briffa is here:

www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/02/23/its-not-so-much-nutritionists-but-dieticians-we-need-to-know-the-truth-about/

- how come all these ‘meeja nutritionists’ are considering Bens measured comments ‘open season’? Looks like its open season on dietitians as well.

ps – theres an interesting comment already posted. just in case it ‘disappears’ as in the usual Holfordesque comedy/ tradegy, i hope the author won’t mind it being noted for posterity below

allan collins says:
dear Dr Briffa
you seem to have problems understanding the literature on dietary advice and its potential to treat or modify illnesses. You appear to mock the concept that reducing total and LDL cholesterol reduces cardiovascular risk (refs 2 and 19), yet have missed the point completely by using references on the use of DRUG effectiveness to minimise risk – these were not studies of diet and disease prevention alone. There are around 500 papers on the latter. What a pity you missed them all.

Your low fat/ high carb recommendation for CVD prevention is about 10 years out of date. Perhaps you should read the recommendations which post-date this statement heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/91/suppl_5/v1. Even if you INSIST you are right, then your ‘high carb’ exhortations is nicely contradicted by your concerns about glycaemic index and glycaemic load on metabolic syndrome, diabetes management etc etc. If you check the free access PubMed on the subject you’ll find a lot more useful and more up to date research in this field.
finally, I see that you seem to think that the BDA have some ulterior motive in not informing you of their industry partners. Could you elaborate? Are you suggesting that the BDA give out dietary recommendations based on how much money they receive from companies? If thats your belief, I think you need to explain a bit further.

Oh, and also gives ‘lectures and seminars staged by nutritional supplement companies including BioCare, Nutri and Solgar’.

so says his CV – www.drbriffa.com/about

what a small, Holfordesque world we inhabit!!

According to Dr Briffa, Ben should be turning his attention to the British Dietetic Association! www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/02/14/why-chocolate-can-be-a-really-healthy-valentines-day-treat/ (see his last comment). Any comment Ben?

And I’m certainly not buying one to make sure!

Don’t forget the “Living Food Love Bar”, which listed “unconditional love and light” among its ingredients.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/healthy_eating/article474842.ece

That the director happens to be my teddy bear Bunky is completely irrelevant.

You people need to catch up with the world, now that the eminent world leader Robert Mugabe has lifted the ban on witchcraft, the rest of the world is sure to follow.

If a Witch (or crone in the case of McKeith) or Wizard (why am I thinking of Ron Wood rather than Harry Potter?) tells you that something is a cure, they’re probably right. They know magic, you don’t.

My research institute has conducted laboratory trials on the effect of vitamin C on cells.
Our conclusion is that if you pour enough kettle descaler on anything it will eventually kill it, which effectively backs up ‘Doctor’ Holfords results.

We really need better education on this subject.”

Alan- I can see what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure it’s education in nutrition that we need. Things like the food pyramid are pretty straightforward, and straightforward, evidence-based nutritional advice could easily fit on a page or two of A4 (eat your greens…eat appropriate amounts of protein and fat…if you’re gaining too much weight eat less or do more exercise, and vice versa if you’re losing too much weight…oh yeah, and get some exercise) Obviously there are other issues – but nothing that would make the average person need anything like a book in order to eat well.

I can see why education on how to cook ‘healthy’ meals might be useful, and I think that making good, fresh food easily and cheaply available, along with space and facilities for exercise, would be a good idea. Lots of people would no doubt still choose to eat loads of junk, do no exercise, smoke, drink too much alcohol, etc. – but, beyond a basic level, I don’t know that education would help combat this.

“Celebrity nutritionists brainwash people into eating better and buying their products
Food companies brainwash people into eating processed junk food to make them a profit. ”

Again, I can see what you’re getting at. I’m not at all keen on large food companies, supermarkets, etc. However, it’s worth remembering that Holford and McKeith *do* both advocate dangerous and useless procedues (e.g. chelation therapy and colonic irrigation, respectively). Some of what they flog *is* also pretty much junk food – e.g. McKeith sells pretty calorific ‘living food’ bars that contain a load of fructose and a little bit of ‘good’ fat and protein.

At his workshop it is obvious he is there to promote different books and products, and I have never eaten so many Nairns oatcackes in all my life. But he is very convincing.

One thing it seems that the Celebrity Nutritionist is able to use to their marketing advantage is that information given to the public by government bodies is confusing and inaccurate. The various food industries provide information that promotes their products, dairy, fish, poultry, etc. and there are obviously protecting their interests and doing so with government suppport. (Just like the tobacco industry did)
The food pyramid, food labelling and information also confuse people.
I’m not saying they are wrong, just that they dont give people the information they need. So when Patrick or the Poo Lady come along and tell people what foods are good for them and what eating habbits are bad, the see these peole as their saviours.

We really need better education on this subject.
Celebrity nutritionists brainwash people into eating better and buying their products
Food companies brainwash people into eating processed junk food to make them a profit.

quite possible, I’m sure

“I don’t know why people buy writing by him on this, as there’s plenty of public domain info on the science behind these ideas.”

Laziness? Celebrity worship?

You say “Patrick is presenting selective information from other scientists to promote his own interests, his followers should read what the scientists have to say for themselves.” I certainly agree with that – he’s also written on GI/GL, and I don’t know why people buy writing by him on this, as there’s plenty of public domain info on the science behind these ideas.

of course Patricks ‘Health Weekends’ appear useful:

1. You’ve paid for it, so immediately it has more ‘value’ than a ‘free’ consultation with your GP/ hospital clinician/ dietitian/ physio etc

2. Patrick has a bona fide degree in experimental psychology. It is his only bona fide qualification in a sciencey subject. He is a psychologist. So if he didn’t give you weekend payers a good, persuasive going-over to his beliefs one would be surprised.

3. But of course, unless he’s changed the format, you then have to buy the ‘Optimum Nutrition Bible’ to find out the tantalising summary that he just runs out of time to discuss (ker-ching!!!). And if you have a real medical condition, the other books are always there on sale at the back of the hall to buy – say NO to cancer (ker-ching!!), say NO to arthritis (ker-ching!!!).
Plus ‘personalised’ recommendations regarding the quality of your supplements – do make sure its the Biocare or Natures Health range, the Equazen fish oil capsules, and a Yorktest TM ‘intolerance’ test, for all you with symptoms that don’t fit the simple approach to diet. Oh, and remember to snack on Nairns oatcakes for a Holford Low GL TM snack.
common theme emerging? Patrick has tie-ins and promotions with all the above.

4. So what you are getting is a smidge of good healthy eating, a load of inaccurate hyperbole (Whats YOUR ‘H’ value? actually, who cares? Predicts your risk but doesn’t influence outcome if lowered), and you go away thinking that diet is omnipotent in treating all disease (Food is better Medicine Than Drugs – kerching!!!!). A very dangerous approach to nutrition, as many dietitians who are trained and well versed in clinical therapeutic dietetics would attest.

Patrick continues to persuade the masses with his ‘Bible’. I wonder if there’s a Qu’ran version for his African mission? Doubt it. Even Patrick lacks the chutzpah to insult a more assertive religious community than his current WASP audience of believers.

the key messages though are still, eat less salt and saturated fat, eat your greens, and if you add in “run about a bit” that is it. It is NOT rocket science, or indeed anything to do with “optimum nutrition” which focusses less on the simple messages and more on the sales of esoteric (and expensive) supplements, and trying to blind people with pseudoscience, whereas the plain science message is straightforward.

If no-one from Patrick Holford’s organisation is trying to get anyone to give up on conventional medicine, why is he pushing a book called “Food is better Medicine Than Drugs” and why is he vociferoulsy stating that Vitamin C is more effective against HIV/AIDS than AZT. That is not just scientifically wrong, but morally reprehensible, and hardly “based on good principles”