When it comes to food and health, we are all our own experts on eating. This is as it should be. Being an expert on one’s own eating preferences though does not make one a nutrition expert.
You wouldn’t fly on a plane that was piloted by someone who got all their flying experience from their computer flying simulator. You wouldn’t cross a bridge over a deep chasm that was built by someone whose engineering experience was from playing with their Lego blocks. You wouldn’t allow yourself to be operated on by someone who read the Wikipedia entry on gallbladder removal and watched all the episodes of ER.
Yet move to the field of nutrition, and it is the wild west of ‘anything goes’. A world where expertise is measured by the ability of someone to repeat blog opinions and quote a few sentences from scientific papers that agree with their point of view. Where authority is directly proportional to the number of one’s Facebook and Twitter followers.
When a meteorologist gets the weather forecast wrong, you don’t then turn to a clairvoyant for your daily weather. When an economist gets a view on the future of interest rates wrong, you don’t then seek out a loan shark for financial advice.
Yet because nutrition is not a perfect science, and research and recommendations change over time, why do people then turn to chefs, lawyers and journalists as the speakers of true nutrition knowledge and take health advice from them?

The Dietary Guideline myth
In what would have to be the most pervasive piece of misinformation spread by the new wave of nutrition experts, promotion of a particular new way of eating is based on the premise that the Australian Dietary Guidelines are responsible for all our health ills and weight problems. Such new nutrition insights are typically anti-sugar, anti-grains, anti-dairy, and anti-science.
In what is the biggest smack down possible to the demonisation of the Dietary Guidelines, and shows why you should always be cautious of anyone proclaiming black-and-white insight into the world of nutrition science (especially when said people have never studied it), this US study shows just how few people actually follow such guidelines.
Warning: real scientific paper following that you may just have to look beyond the title at, but all you need do is take in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 shows what percentage of people do NOT meet the recommended amount of vegetables, fruits, starchy vegetables, and legumes – and it’s greater than 90% for almost all age categories.
Then look at Table 3 which is the percentage of people who EXCEED the maximum amount of discretionary foods (sugary drinks, cakes, take away food and so on) and the number is well above 95% for most age categories.
And the case in Australia is no different.
The just-released Australian Health Survey shows we’re eating less fruit and vegetables and over one-third of our daily kilojoules come from foods high in saturated fat and sugar such as cake, biscuits, alcohol, soft drink and chips – none of these foods are core recommendations in the Guidelines and appear as ‘Eat in small amounts’ in the Food Pyramid.
Only 6.8% of people are eating the recommended amount of servings of vegetables each day.
We’re ‘fat and sick’ as a population because we eat too much crap and not enough healthy food and almost no one follows the Guidelines.
Sure, they could be sexed up a bit and the promoters of them certainly could learn a thing or two from those promoting fad diets such as Paleo and products such as coconut oil, but anyone maintaining that it is the Guidelines fault for our weight and health problems is ignorant at best, and making the health of the population worse, not better, with the counter advice they give.
The Australian Dietary Guidelines were developed based on the best available scientific evidence, not opinions and blog articles. Over 55,000 scientific journal articles assessed by a team of nutrition and medical experts went into informing the recommendations. Members of the public were involved to ensure representation of consumer issues and choices. There were also two public consultation periods which allowed for further consumer input and comment.
Any call to replace these Guidelines with a person’s own particular views on nutrition, no matter how well meaning, is the same as replacing the pilot with the PS4 game freak. The engineer with the Lego builder. The meteorologist with the clairvoyant.
And what is lost in any activist campaign to change general advice on eating to the public is that these are Guidelines. They are not the 10 commandments. There is considerable flexibility in how they can be applied, as it should be. We all are experts in our food preferences and tastes.
Learning from the people who have nailed it
We can learn much from the world’s healthiest and longest live people, spread through different regions all around the world. People in these long-lived ‘hot spots’ have some very clear and consistent patterns. They nurture strong social networks, consume a mostly plant-based diet, and incorporate daily, natural physical activity into their lives. They also do not overeat, learning to stop eating before they feel full.
Long-lived people don’t avoid dairy foods or gluten. They don’t calculate the glycaemic index of their meals. They don’t ruminate on if the grains they are eating are stopping the absorption of other nutrients. They don’t live in a fantasy world and think that they’re eating and living like their Palaeolithic ancestors. They don’t take supplements. They eat. They move. They enjoy. They socially engage with their community in person. They live.
Yet even between the different long-lived communities, there is diversity in the foods they eat showing there is no one single ‘right’ way to eat, only flexible guidelines. Choosing mostly seasonal fruits and vegetables, and a variety of beans, nuts, seeds and grains is the cornerstone of their dietary pattern.
You could happily layer the Dietary Guidelines over any of these eating patterns and come out a winner.
Get the basics right and you can hit the snooze button on needing to ever again pay attention to anything you ever read or hear in the media or from populist diet book gurus.
Sean Stecko says
Extremely well written article. I thoroughly endorse every word you say. After seven years full time study in this field I totally understand the large grey cloud of misinformation that hovers over nutrition. Some people just dont comprehend this article. There is no debate. Follow what they eat in the longevity hotspots of the world.
Sean Stecko Ba.Fu.Sci.Hu.Nut Ba.N&D
Registered Nutritionist
Accredited Nutritionist
Accredited Practicing Dietitian
Lou says
I don’t see how your argument is different from any other argument out there. Just adding to the noise of it all. To be frank, your tone is not getting more on side with your views, it’s just serving to divide even more. I think it is good people are trying different ways of eating to be healthy, something about the standard western lifestyle is certainly not working. Something needs to be done and people are empowering themselves by taking their health into their own hands. Bring it on.
Jane says
Over 2 years after this article was published this is still so relevant! I think your ideas on sexy-ing up the pyramid campaign (and calling out all the crap ‘advice’ from Google experts) is still required. I can see the satire commercial already ☺
Reem says
Agree with a lot of the comments – such a refreshing read amidst the abuse of information by celebs/health frauds. Definitely agree anyone jumping at the Paleo call-out is missing the point of the article.
The part I loved most was the way you described a healthy society to operate. It isn’t just about the food, it’s the relationship with food, and also how its shared / viewed individually and by the society.
Ruth Wallace says
Love this article Tim! I am sick and tired of the nonsense celebrity diets out there, and you have certainly given me some ammo when I get asked ‘what do you think about the Paleo/I quit sugar etc etc etc diet’.
David says
If only everyone would read this and get some ‘actual’ perspective. Love your no BS approach.
Tania Leishman says
Thank you Tim for a wonderful article. You were one of my lecturers at uni an I always loved your no bs approach. You once stated in a lecture ‘ just because you climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge doesn’t mean you can build a bridge’. I have always remembered that and often quoted it when clients ask me about the latest ‘celebrity diet’ …
I heard the very knowledgable Paul Taylor speak a couple of weeks ago an love his idea of recommending to clients the ‘low HI diet’ (low human intervention) …great way of explaining to clients to simply eat real food
Tania Leishman
Tim Crowe says
Always so good to hear from a past student Tania! Thank you for your great comment and observations.
Sally says
Fantastic article.
Anna says
I note with interest those who jump at the chance to defend the paleo diet, despite it getting two sentences in this article. Think you missed the point.
passionmeetlife says
Yes Anna! I agree whole heartedly – Quick to defend yet they missed the whole crux of the argument!
Gabe Covino says
Love your work Tim Crowe. Another balanced view of the current nutrition landscape. As an aside, I don’t think it’s just chefs, lawyers and journalists who are the issue here. Many dietitian recommendations are not based on the content you’ve posted here (a very recent post from a well-know dietitian suggested a Sanitarium Up and Go equivalent would be a good option for kids who don’t eat breakfast). While this continues, it dilutes the value of the messages of those who are supposedly ‘in the know’, fuelling those who are not qualified and looking for any opportunity to undermine dietary guidelines.
Stuprimal says
The reason people are turning their back on scientific journal articles on nutrition is because you do a bit of research of your own and realise most of them are sponsored by large food manufacturers.
If find it difficult to accept anything the Dietician Association of Australia recommends when their major sponsors are:
Dairy Australia
Grains and Legumes Nutrition Council
http://daa.asn.au/advertising-corporate-partners/associate-partners/
How about just eat non processed foods… Paleo etc is only considered a fad because it has a label. If it was just called – “eat the healthiest meat and fish possible, as much veg and nuts as you like and don’t eat anything processed” then maybe people wouldn’t be so scared of it.
Tim Crowe says
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I’ve read tens of thousands of nutrition research papers in my career and the minority, not the majority, of them have industry sponsorship by food manufacturers.
While I am not a supporter of food industry sponsorship of DAA, the two partners you referred to of Dairy Australia and Grains and Legumes Nutrition Council are associate partners, not major sponsors
I agree, Paleo as a label is a fad and while it certainly has many positives for its focus on healthier eating, it needlessly mandates people exclude certain foods. Because some people feel better when cutting out grains or dairy, doesn’t mean everyone should. It is no different to telling everyone not to eat peanuts because some people have severe allergic reactions to them.
Inhal says
I agree with the premise of this article but I baulk at you calling Paleo a fad. For some of us it suits our bodies. I eat a variety of vegetables, some meat, fish, moderate fruit, a variety of seeds & nuts & thrive on this. I don’t have dairy, sugar , grains or legumes because I react to these foods. I have no qualms for others adding these foods if they respond well to them. As long as food is real food then I support this. But blogs like yours miss the mark calling Paleo a fad. How about targeting the junk that purports to be food. Yours respectfully.