Nutrition is on everyone's lips, but on some issues it seems impossible to reach a consensus. Is intermittent fasting beneficial? Or are other options like the keto or paleo diet more recommendable? Can I live without milk and meat? What about carbohydrates? Should I consume less? These are some of the questions that dietitian-nutritionist and food technologist Aitor Sánchez has set out to answer in his latest book What happens with nutrition (Paidós).
Is the new fashion not to eat?
Yes. I think intermittent fasting has become popular because it is a simple technique. Many people who have tried it and it has worked for them prescribe it to other people, and that has also helped. It is not the first time that word of mouth has made a diet fashionable, as has already happened with low carbohydrates or Atkins. It also gives the feeling that this method can be trusted more because there is no one behind selling you something.
The nutritionist Julio Basulto affirms that intermittent fasting "is a stab in the back to our metabolism."
I usually agree in 99% of cases with Julio Basulto. I get along very well with him, but I don't agree with this statement. I don't think he's a backstab, but I agree that his goodness has been overstated. It depends on the use we give it.
So it's not dangerous?
I don't think so. Of course, sometimes it is an unnecessary practice, there are people who do it for no reason. I think we should put our efforts into explaining when it is justified and when it is not. Going through an hourly window without eating does not seem dangerous to me, there are much worse things. It is one more tool. The problem is giving it more importance than it deserves, you have to be rigorous when it comes to transmitting its benefits and drawbacks.
In the book he also refers to the five daily meals.
They are totally outdated. Moreover, we can say that they have never been justified. This recommendation was made because we wanted to prevent people from bingeing, but we never really had enough data to justify that it was better to eat five times a day than four or three. It is an example of how some nutrition approaches have been launched to the population without being validated.
Let's see if they clear up, say some.
In nutrition we can disagree for many reasons. It may be that there are conflicts of interest, ignorance... And then there may be discrepancies that are legal, that one has a focus and another believes that they should communicate in a different way. But we're not having those debates, I wish that were the case. There are people who on Instagram say that you have to eat apple cider vinegar before eating or that legumes are bad because they have antinutrients, statements that, in addition to being false, denote that there is no knowledge of these areas. Some people are giving advice and haven't spent five minutes reading science, and that's what's really worrying.
Why is apple cider vinegar so hyped?
Vinegar is satiating and we recommend it in nutrition for snacks, in the form of pickles, for example. But affirming that taking it on an empty stomach helps you lose weight is irresponsible. Consuming a lot of vinegar can cause you a slight digestive problem, but the worst thing is that these recommendations can lead you to have a bad relationship with food, and even be a prelude to an eating disorder.
Following the ketogenic diet, very low in carbohydrates, is it safe?
A healthy ketogenic diet can be designed. The problem is that this type of diet is being followed in some cases unjustifiably and we do not have long-term studies that tell us that it is risk-free. This plan restricts some foods that are protective factors, such as legumes, fruits and whole grains, and there are many ballots for it to become dangerous in the long term. Then there are many people who believe that it is the best on a physiological level, and the truth is that it does not present improvements compared to other types of diets.
Those who try it say they lose weight very quickly.
But that initial weight loss occurs because the moment you stop taking carbohydrates you begin to consume your glycogen stores, and you lose water. That is only a virtual weight, because tomorrow when you eat pasta, potatoes and other carbohydrates again, you will recover those kilos. In the end, what we should be interested in is not losing weight, but fat.
We become very obsessed with what the scale shows.
Having a scale at home does not seem to me a necessary or recommended practice. We should abandon any approach that revolves around weight. Fortunately, the dietitian-nutrition community has come a long way in this area in the last decade. The weight-centric and fat-phobic perspective is found in other health disciplines.
Write that in Spain we also have a problem with bread.
It is still not understood that it is a superfluous food, especially in adults. It is not as justified today as it was in the past. Our society is less active, and does not need as much energy. Bread occupies an important space that should be for fresh food. We must give priority to fruit and vegetables, there is no need to take it every day.
In addition, we must prioritize other carbohydrates, such as legumes, whole grains and fruit.
Some say that fruit has too much sugar.
We never refer to the sugar in the fruit when we say that it must be restricted. We are referring to sugar-free pastries and other products with little nutritional interest. There are no guidelines or public health messages that recommend limiting fruit intake. If not the opposite.
What should be banished from the diet?
Products that do not contribute anything, such as ultra-processed ones. But rather than banish them, they should be eaten as less as possible. To say that we should take them in moderation is a mistake, because we are not good at calculating what that amount is.
It has recently been questioned whether an additive widely used in the food industry is safe. I'm talking about erythritol.
Those studies tell us that the system works quite well and that the additives are under constant review. With this work we cannot draw conclusions. Today, erythritol is still safe and there is no reason to revise the consumption doses. What is true is that the additives are safe, but they are not innocuous in all cases. The same thing happens with sausages and alcohol, you can drink them, but you also pay a small toll when you consume them. They will not cause you any acute problems, but they can change some marker of your diet. That's why it's so important to use additives responsibly, even though there's no reason to fear them.
In his book he also refers to the Realfooding movement. What do you think about the range of ultra-processed products from Carlos Ríos?
They remain very energetically dense products, as well as superfluous. It is nothing new, it is exactly the same thing that the food industry did when it began to sell healthy ice creams and cookies. Personally, I think it's a mistake that they started selling cookies, muffins or croissants when they initially opted for healthy alternatives, such as guacamole or gazpacho. You have crossed a line that is quite questionable.
Has Realfooding done more harm than good?
It has taken some very unfortunate final paths, but on balance I think it has done more good than harm. Although it is difficult to measure the total contribution of the movement, it brought many young people closer to healthier eating. It is sad that it has become a digital marketing strategy and not a cool dissemination project.
Is it better to give priority to the foods included in the Mediterranean diet?
To many of them, yes. Fruits, vegetables, vegetables, nuts, legumes, seeds, olive oil... Although this diet may be different depending on the Mediterranean country to which we belong.
And the sausage sandwich or the glass of wine?
The Mediterranean diet has its defining elements, which are the ones I mentioned before, in addition to the stir-fry and fermented dairy products. The sausage and alcohol have never been part of this, they should not have taken center stage.
What about the meat?
It is not necessary, nor is it necessary to eat custard apples. It has defended itself indiscriminately and until very recently it seemed a crime not to eat it. Society has had to open up a lot to fit in, which is not essential. It hasn't happened before for social and cultural reasons, because the scientific evidence on meat is the same as it was 10 years ago.
We consume more protein than we need, but there are more and more super-enriched products.
And in most cases they are unjustified. First, because if a person wants to eat more protein, they have better, cheaper and healthier options to achieve it. Some of these products can be a tool to increase the intake of this nutrient, but it would be much better to take more legumes, fish or eggs. The problem is that protein is in fashion, it has gotten rid of that fear that existed before, when it seemed that taking large amounts could damage the kidneys and liver.
Would the world be better with a vegetarian and vegan majority?
It would certainly be better for public health, the environment and animals. There is an important scientific consensus and at this time the public health messages are moving in that direction, in reducing the intake of meat and increasing that of fruit and vegetables.
If an entity or a healthcare professional says otherwise, it is either out of date or has conflicts of interest.
What about a world without unhealthy ads aimed at children?
It would be a world in which children would eat less unhealthy food. I do not defend that this necessarily has to be the measure to choose, because more things can be done. But banning the advertising of these products aimed at children is known to have positive consequences. And it is also free of charge.
