The National Health Scandal
This is an excerpt from Barry Groves upcoming book, The National Health Scandal, which will be published early next year.
We are told that we should eat ‘5 portions’ to prevent cancer and cardiovascular disease. If there really is a dose-response whereby 4 portions, say, aren’t good enough, then surely the size of the portion and the number of portions would be important. It is odd, therefore, that both the numbers of portions and their quantity vary widely across the Atlantic. Other scientists must have thought so as well, because over the last few years several studies into the 5-a-day claim have been conducted to test the advice - with disappointing results.
The prestigious CARDIO2000 study published its results in 2003.[i] This study was looking at intakes of fruit and vegetables specifically in relation to acute heart disease. They found that vegetables did reduce the risk of heart disease. But, significantly, it didn’t need ‘5 portions a day’ for the maximum effect. In their conclusions the researchers say:
‘Our findings support that even low consumption of fruits and vegetables (1-2 servings per week) is associated with about 45% lower coronary risk. Consumption of 2 or more servings per week is associated with about 70% reduction in relative risk.’
The Daily Mail reported the study’s results.[ii] The Mail interviewed Professor Sir Charles George, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, about the obvious conflict with the 5-a-day guidelines. Sir Charles answered ‘There is some argument about how much you need; I think five may be an arbitrary figure’ - and, by so doing, admitted that this was yet another example of dietary advice which was based on nothing more than guesswork or wishful thinking. So we don’t need to eat anything like 5 a day to derive benefits in terms of heart disease.
But is there a benefit in terms of cancer the other major disease it is aimed at? This was considered in another study of over 100,000 people published in 2004. This study, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, showed that, ‘Increased fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a modest although not statistically significant reduction in the development of major chronic disease’. They continued: ‘The benefits appeared to be primarily for cardiovascular disease and not for cancer.’ [iii] And concluded: ‘Consumption of five or more servings of fruits and vegetables has been recommended . . . but the protective effect of fruit and vegetable intake may have been overstated.’
Not surprisingly, supporters of the ‘5-a-day’ campaign were outraged by the findings, repeating their mantra that eating the recommended number of fruit and vegetables has numerous health benefits - without specifying what those benefits might be.
So you won’t be surprised to learn that a very large study found no benefit in breast cancer from eating ‘5 portions’. In this study, 20 named researchers investigated 7,377 incident invasive breast cancer cases and a wide variety of fruit and vegetable intakes among 351,825 women at 17 cancer research centres in the USA, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. They found no association for green leafy vegetables, 8 botanical groups, and 17 specific fruits and vegetables. They concluded:
“These results suggest that fruit and vegetable consumption during adulthood is not significantly associated with reduced breast cancer risk”.[iv]
Whenever studies such as these are reported, the diet police repeat their dogma that eating the recommended number of fruit and vegetables has numerous health benefits; they say that the evidence is ‘overwhelming’. But they never seem able to quote any of that evidence or to specify exactly what the benefits are. In view of the above studies, that will probably come as no real surprise. The point is that, just like almost all the health advice we have had forced down our throats and come to believe over the last few decades, there is practically no basis for ‘5 portions’ advice in science.
Dr Barnett Kramer, of the National Institutes of Health in the US, said of the healthy eatÂing message: ‘A lot of the public is completely unaware that the strength of the message is not matched by the strength of the evidence.’ That we are still kept unaware of it demonstrates just how strong an influence the diet dictocrats have on our minds and the news media.
References
[i]. Panagiotakos DB, Pitsavos C, Kokkinos P, et al. Consumption of fruits and vegetables in relation to the risk of developing acute coronary syndromes; the CARDIO2000 case-control study. Nutr J 2003; 2: 2.
[ii]. ‘Three fruit and veg are still healthy.’ Daily Mail, 2 September 2003, p 8.
[iii]. Hung H-C, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, et al. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Risk of Major Chronic Disease. J Nat Canc Inst 2004; 96: 1577-1584
[iv]. Smith-Warner SA, et al. Intake of Fruits and Vegetables and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Cohort Studies. JAMA 2001; 285: 769-776.
Barry Groves PhD
Author: Natural Health & Weight Loss
Co-producer: The perfect Weight Plan: Be Slim Without Dieting (DVD / Video)
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk
http://www.theperfectweight.com
