Home / General / Government Food Guidelines

Government Food Guidelines


Nina Teicholz challenges government food guidelines as unscientific and unhealthy:

It’s no surprise that longstanding nutritional guidelines are now being challenged.

In 2013, government advice to reduce salt intake (which remains in the current report) was contradicted by an authoritative Institute of Medicine study. And several recent meta-analyses have cast serious doubt on whether saturated fats are linked to heart disease, as the dietary guidelines continue to assert.

Uncertain science should no longer guide our nutrition policy. Indeed, cutting fat and cholesterol, as Americans have conscientiously done, may have even worsened our health. In clearing our plates of meat, eggs and cheese (fat and protein), we ate more grains, pasta and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates). Over the past 50 years, we cut fat intake by 25 percent and increased carbohydrates by more than 30 percent, according to a new analysis of government data. Yet recent science has increasingly shown that a high-carb diet rich in sugar and refined grains increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — much more so than a diet high in fat and cholesterol.

It seems to me there are a couple of issues at play here. First is the question of whether the government should be setting food guidelines. The answer is that of course it should–after all, public health is a massively important part of society. That said, government funding for this type of science is not nearly as high as it should be so it’s not surprising that the guidelines might not be based on the best science. Second, science does change. It is not static, nor will it ever be. So the idea that the government is going to create eating guidelines that will then exist for all time is a myth. Third, social and cultural factors affect science and affect society, which will continue to lead then to different standards of health and different ideologies around food production and consumption. Fourth, Teicholz calls for us to eat more meat, more eggs, and more full fat dairy products. But there is also a massive environmental cost to Americans committing to eat more meat, a cost which she evidently considers irrelevant. It is indeed relevant and must be part of the conversation about food consumption. That doesn’t mean I’m thrilled with the eating habits of modern Americans, but people aren’t downing bags of Cheetos for lunch because the government has discouraged the consumption of fats.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • LeeEsq

    Another problem is that society isn’t static either. In an economy where most people did strenuous manual labor for a living, the amount of calories and diet needed are going to be different than an economy based on office work and very automated physical labor. People got more exercise through their jobs in the past.

    • Well, yes, that’s important. So is something else she never mentions: agricultural and food policy. When we subsidize production of sugar and of corn to such a degree that corn syrup is ubiquitous, you’re going to see health problems, even if you’re expending a lot of calories (though of course it’s worse when you’re sedentary).

      I think there’s a glaringly fallacious assumption in the piece: no, what the government recommends people eat is not the driving factor in dietary choices. I think it probably has a significant effect on dietary recommendations for people who’ve already experienced vascular problems, and with that population it probably makes things worse (and may be in the process of fading away, especially with the research suggesting it’s better to not worry about total fat as much as increasing the intake of fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables, legumes, and also focusing on the types of fats, in particular olive and similar vegetable oils, fish oils, and fats found in certain types of nuts and seeds). But is the average American, or the average American eating a diet that is probably unhealthy, doing so because of the government recommendations? Nah. They’re eating that diet for a ton of reasons related to ag policy, family policy, disparities in job requirements, commutes, advertising, other additives, and a bunch of reasons that are probably stronger factors than federal dietary recommendations.

      • ThrottleJockey

        But is the average American, or the average American eating a diet that is probably unhealthy, doing so because of the government recommendations? Nah.

        She does over state the point, but government recommendations don’t just influence school lunch menus. Fed recommendations drive a large part of the public health discussion. In my own case because my cholesterol is sky high (genetics) I’ve given up eggs–my 3rd favorite food–for 15 years now. When I saw the news last week that that recommendation was being rescinded I sent the article around to my friends along with a picture of me eating a heaping plate of eggs! They were all skeptical that I should start eating eggs again, and every single one of them is quite health conscious and more informed than the average person. Such is the strength of 30 years of government warnings about cholesterol.

        Hell, I myself have known for a decade that 90% of my sky high cholesterol was from my body’s own production and I didn’t even want to risk dietary sources of cholesterol. I’m not all bent out of shape about it, but if I was an egg farmer I might be.

        • Yeah, as I said, I think it’s more of a factor in treatment recommendations for people with vascular problems, or who are seen as at-risk for them. The recommendations aren’t without any influence, but on the rank-order of their effect on the dietary-related health problems of Americans, they’re not near the top.

          As for eggs, I eat more eggs now than I did years ago, when my cholesterol was much higher. It had gone over 250, it’s now under 150. I eat more eggs and as much meat as I used to. But I now drink far less Coke and eat way less sweets in general, I take fish oil and flax seed, E and B vitamins, and I almost never eat food that we didn’t cook ourselves. Other than the occasional bag of Fritos or Cheetos, small cans of Coke, and prepared staples like cheese or pasta, almost everything we eat we cook ourselves, from scratch. There are a lot of reasons why we do that, some of them because of options we have not available to a lot of people, but it’s not more expensive than eating processed food; it’s actually cheaper. But we eat a lot of eggs, drink 2% or whole dairy products, and have meat frequently (though not usually in large portions, and most of it is pasture-raised). For me, at least, I don’t think the problems are the intake of fat or cholesterol as much as the type/quality of fat, and the intake of other things like sugar, and the intake or absence of things like omega fatty acids. And I suspect I’m not a big outlier, that others have the same negative effects from eating what I used to eat, and the same positive effects I’ve had recently.

          • ThrottleJockey

            I’m glad you elaborated. I’d been kicking around taking Omega 3s and fish oils; sounds worth a try…So I go to the GNC today and ask about them. And within a couple of minutes the 26yo salesman is pushing multi-vitamins at me. Then he asks me my age. After I deliberately tell him I’m younger than I am, he goes on to say that I better take a supplement for prostate support! The day I talk to a 26yo stranger about my prostate will be a cold day in hell. And even with this Siberian Express today wasn’t the day!!

    • sparks

      Even office workers of the distant past (70-100 years ago) IME required more caloric intake due to being obliged to walk considerably more than now in the office itself (plus to/from buses or streetcars and restaurants, often not being able to cook because they lived in apartment or rooming houses without kitchens). That said, more calorie consumption is still necessary to this day in some lines of work though a lot fewer than in the past.

      • A 1915 study of calories for loggers in Maine I reference in my logging book notes that they ate about 4800 calories a day.

        • When I was 16 to about 20 I was eating over 5,000 calories per day. I had an out of control metabolism and was still growing after I graduated HS, plus I was running 60 hard miles a week, lifting weights, occasionally swimming, etc. A few years later I read a turn of the century ethnography of millworkers in Homestead, PA, and while I don’t remember if they calculated daily caloric intake, the detailed description of their daily meals looked like they were eating more than I had been eating at the peak of my caloric intake.

          But wrt Sparks’ point about office workers, the other thing back then was people prepared much more of their own food, plus prepared food they bought generally came in smaller servings. Think about Coke. The old bottles were something like 7 or 8 ounces. Cans took over in the 60’s or so, and they were 12 ounces. The 16 ounce bottles arrived in the 70’s, followed by 20 ounce bottles, one liter bottles and 32 ounce big gulps. When an office worker went out at noon to a lunch counter and ordered a Coke, she got a modest-sized glass. Now she gets a 20 oz out of a cooler at 7-11 or a bodega or a Subway or an office vending machine, or a constantly refilled big glass at a restaurant. (Also think about the difference between White Castle or the original McDonald’s burgers vs a restaurant burger, a Big Mac, etc). So while office workers probably need fewer calories, they’re being served more.

          • So I occasionally enjoy a bag of Fritos. Don’t judge me. I like the simplicity of them and I love salt. Anyway, I would do this once a month or so. The little bags in the local grocery were like 400 calories. Then Frito-Lay decided to make those bags bigger, to where they are like 700 calories. Of course, the serving size is the same but no one pays attention to that. So if I was to buy those now, I would probably eat the whole thing like everyone else. I don’t and I stopped eating them, but I’m sure I am an exception.

            • Exactly. Fortunately Coke now markets those little 7 oz cans, which I like for when I want a taste of fizzy coke with something but don’t want to suck down more, which I’d do if I had a larger can or bottle. But go in to a gas station on a highway, and good luck finding any drink in a can or bottle under 20 oz, or any bag of snack food in those little bags I used to get in my lunch when I was in elementary school.

              • BTW, while I’m ranting, screw everyone in any significant way responsible for the decline of drinking fountains.

                • Yep

                • Lee Rudolph

                  There are still (some) drinking fountains indoors in New England (for instance, at my last employer; but also in some supermarkets, etc.). I wonder whether in the South, when it was no longer possible to have separate White and Colored fountains, rather than integrate they just extirpated?

              • ThrottleJockey

                Some men battle alcohol. Some men battle cigarettes. Some men battle golf. I battle Coke. Six years ago I averaged 4 cans a day. I’m now down to 4 a week. But fuck is it hard to go asleep without kissing that can of brown bubbly goodnight.

                • I used to drink a 2 liter every day. Now I have 2-4 of those 7 oz cans per week. But I do drink a lot more tea, and the occasional Red Bull for caffeine.

            • rea

              Fritos??? :O

              • I feel some people may be taking some revenge on me over this admission.

                • If you guys allowed for posting photos I’d take a photo of the bag of Fritos currently on my desk. [Fortunately, with salty/crunchy things and unlike with sweets, I can stop after a small serving. My wife can not. So I put chips in the office so I don’t have to hear her complain that she ate too much crap and that it was my fault for bringing it in to the house.]

                • My method of getting that fix with less guilt is butterless popcorn. Satisfyingly crunchy, slightly salty, and can be used to mop up salad dressing and/or steak drippings.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Yeah, I’ve had a lot of success buying bags of popcorn these past few months. If I recall correctly, 3.5 cups = 160 calories. In my recent efforts to reduce weight, salty popcorn has played a small but instrumental role.

            • When I was a kid, back in the caveman days, we would sometimes go to McDonalds to get a dino-burger.

              This was so far back they didn’t even have inside seating, you had to eat in your car.

              You’d get a little hamburger, a very small bag of fries and an 8 oz coke. I don’t know if you can even get a serving of fries that small any more.

              • PhoenixRising

                You can get that very “meal” at Sonic drive-ups. It’s the children’s meal, and every time my wife orders one for me, they ask whether I’m a boy or a girl.

                Recently I figured out that has to do with the extruded plastic ‘toy’ on the tray.

                It’s the only way I eat fast food, and the portions are perfect: It’s all gone before the greased, salted saturation point hits. So each of the 25 bites total is enjoyable.

          • Hogan

            Pepsi Cola hits the spot!
            Twelve full ounces, that’s a lot!

            Damn, I’m old.

            • Twelve full ounces

              It is objectionable when the soda-water purveyor puts his thumb on the scale.

  • endaround

    “Food science is terrible! Except for the food science that agrees with the book I am selling!”

    • + 1

    • ThrottleJockey

      My ‘beef’ with food science is that its a Merry Go Round, probably, in fact, because so many books are written about it. Wait long enough and what was old will be fashionable again. I remember when Atkins was the rage and then bad, and then the rage again. I remember when trans fats were introduced to save us (McDonald French Fry eaters!) from animal fats. Now trans fat are liked to brain cancer and hairy heart appendicitis funzuculus (look it up, but beware the pictures). And, now, fuck me, dietary cholesterol ain’t even linked to coronary disease. Of all the scientific spheres its the one least likely to go in a vaguely linear direction.

      Food science mocks Thomas Kuhn every fucking day!

      • People who say the problem with health science research is mostly the reporting of it aren’t entirely wrong. But I remember when I took social psychology in college and the professor would regularly have asides mocking the methodology of the most recent big medical study that was then in the press. Sadly, a lot of those studies remain really shoddy.

  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    I’m highly dubious that the change in American diets from high meat/fat to high sugar/processed carbs was due to dietary guidelines / finger wagging.

    This is for 2 reasons:
    1) the real price of sugars and simple carbs has fallen through the floor the past 20-30 years (while the real price of produce has roughly tripled) – they’re the cheapest easiest calorie source around, inequality, real wage stagnation, etc
    2) dietary finger wagging almost never works

    As for why guidelines get changed, there’s a “X to Z” problem, as Campos has identified wrt to obesity: data supports “X leads to Y” and “Y leads to Z” but the belief “X leads to Z” which is used to set policy is not supported. Medical science believe eating saturated fat raised cholesterol, cholesterol builds atherosclerotic plaques, so…stop eating saturated fat. Now we know more about trans fats, good & bad cholesterol, and the effect diabetes has. A cardiologist recently presented on how diabetes is more dangerous to someone with atherosclerotic disease than any form of cholesterol, and if you can get their blood sugar controlled, their lipid profile will usually get back into a decent range without any additional intervention.

    So…sugar’s bad, Americans are consuming vastly more sweeteners than before (all types not just the bogeyman HFCS), sweeteners are working their way into more and more processed foods (David Kessler’s book talks about this in some detail), and a tax on commercial sweeteners (which many jurisdictions are considering) may be a good idea.

    • It’s also the type of high-carb diet. Soft drinks or fruit juice, highly processed grains, soft muffins, fat-laden pastries, tons of rice or cereal or soft bread, all that stuff is a lot worse than a high carb diet that’s primarily raw fruits, fresh vegetables, legumes, whole grains, etc. The latter has weaknesses, but it’s still a hell of a lot better than the type of high-carb diet most people eat.

    • The place where finger wagging works is when it changes the food supply. So the sugar/fat balance of a lot of processed foods did shift. (Everything’s low fat!!!)

      That being said, I agree with your overall analysis. Cost of ingredients and food science cleverness seems to be the largest factors.

    • sparks

      Diabetes, (notably Type 2) is becoming a familiar issue. I’ve been seeing a lot of people I know develop it in middle age (my mother even got it at age 75!), and they often do not change their diet or lifestyle. Since my mom is diligent and changed her diet, it has not got worse for her (no atherosclerosis even at her current age), but my friends/acquaintances often do not even test their blood sugar regularly let alone change what they eat.

      The two friends I knew with Type 1 are remarkably ascetic, always diligent, and surprisingly have lived into their late 50s in comparatively good health with insulin-dependent Type 1.

    • DrDick

      This is pretty much my take as well. The real major shifts are not so much in dietary regimes as in the degree of inequality which is forcing more people into the high fat-high carb diet that the poor have always eaten, along with the rise of fast food of dubious nutritional value.

    • Lee Rudolph

      2) dietary finger wagging almost never works

      Hey! Some days finger wagging is the only exercise I get!!!

      • Just make sure to stretch first. And a day off every once in a while gives your body time to recover.

      • You’re on the intertubes. Surely you can indulge in some dick-waving as well.

        • Hob

          On the Internet, no one can tell whether it’s your dick or your finger.

    • StellaB

      Teicholz and Taubes have books to sell and you have to have a magic hook for that. Teicholz uses the same obscure references in her book that Taubes used in his and misinterprets them the same way.

      A couple of weeks ago there was a story here about kids not being allowed to walk to school in Montgomery County, Maryland. In the 1960-70s, I walked to school in Montgomery County because that was the only way to get there. Then we played outside, well out of sight of the mostly stay at home mothers who were busy cooking dinner. My affluent parents had to buy a second car after we moved to Maryland because it was so sprawling. My dad was in the restaurant business so my parents ate out at least monthly, far more than most people. All of those societal changes have had a lot more influence on weight than the dietary guidelines that no one has followed anyway.

    • efgoldman

      sweeteners are working their way into more and more processed foods

      Hell, even for something as simple as tomato/pasta sauce, you have to search the store shelf for one without HFCS or another kind of added sugar.
      And salt! OK, I’m hypertensive, with sodium sensitivity. But it’s not just avoiding Fritos/Cheetos/chips. The amount of salt added to fast food – and most restaurant food, for that matter – is ridiculous. Hell, a damned medium shake at BK has 430 mg of sodium.

      • ThrottleJockey

        I’m not sure why shakes have so much sodium. The NY Times had a good article on this a few years ago. Sodium is hard to get out of the food supply because of the need for a preservative, and because it improves mouth feel…About the only way to reasonably restrict salt intake at this point is to make it yourself.

    • ThrottleJockey

      1) the real price of sugars and simple carbs has fallen through the floor the past 20-30 years (while the real price of produce has roughly tripled) – they’re the cheapest easiest calorie source around, inequality, real wage stagnation, etc

      The real price of sweeteners has virtually no impact on consuming more HFCS/sweeteners because sweetener has been a small percentage of the price of those goods…The real price rise of produce explains a shit load more of the effect.

  • Code Name Cain

    I’d also like to say while the healthiness of a food is not directly tied to whether it is ethical to eat it, encouraging people to eat more meat without even an acknowledgment of the atrocious conditions in which animals are turned into meat is indefensible.

    Teicholz is definitely not alone in ignoring this issue but doing so is infuriating nonetheless.

    • the atrocious conditions in which animals are turned into meat is indefensible.

      Broad generalization that unless your position is all killing of any animal is wrong, is often but far from universally true.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Not universally true, but, in fact, generally true. Factory farmed animals — especially turkeys, chicken, and pigs — live pretty horrible lives.

        • Which conflicts with what I wrote how?

          • Joe_JP

            Broad generalization

            It isn’t really that “broad” since most animal products do really arise from atrocious conditions. It is at best a generalization & a pretty fair one, since by percentage, the factory farm produces a vast majority of the products here. I also assume the person is talking about our country.

            Also, “killing any” animal is not a necessary position even to be against raising animals for food. A person, e.g., can be okay with killing them for some sorts of medical testing or environmental reasons but think even a small amount of harm for “trivial” reasons like diet is “atrocious.”

            • We don’t have victims of racism in this country. After all, the vast majority of Americans are white.

              • Joe_JP

                A quick search determines 77% of the population is white. I would be surprised if 23% of the animals products came from any sort of half-way humane sources. And, even that remainder probably wouldn’t satisfy many vegans as not “atrocious” given the “trivial” use of them for diet.

                And, that only answers the “broad generalization” part anyway, not the “all uses” part.

                • I put the “killing any animal” clause to limit my point to those who accept eating meat so as to avoid a vegan doing that thing that some vegans do that actually hurts their cause. I’m not sure it worked.

              • Code Name Cain

                Probably too late to be seen but…

                Joe_JP and Incontinentia were right in that I was referring to America, though I should have said as much. I will, however, say I’m not taking an absolutist position as all calorie consumption will involve some killing and suffering.

                I also didn’t say “all animals”, and am sorry if that was implied, but speaking in generalities about this topic isn’t crazy given about 10-11 billion or so land animals are killed in the U.S. every year, 8.5 billion or so of which are chickens. Over 98% of the red meat is from commercial farms (see pg 7) and (edit: repeated myself) most chickens are raised in factory farms in battery cages which have been outlawed for some time in the EU. The numbers are harder to come by here (it appears the USDA stopped keeping track) but every recent estimate I’ve seen is above 90%.

                To put it lightly, the conditions in the overwhelming majority of such factory farms are extremely unpleasant. This is particularly true for chickens which often spend their entire lives in wire cages with 5-10 other chickens who each have a living space smaller than a standard 8 by 11 sheet of paper.

                • ProgressiveLiberal

                  It is ironic that every time this issue comes up, so do the laughable arguments that wouldn’t be put forth towards virtually any other topic the readers here care about. IE, we point out bad arguments when others make them (pretty much the whole point of this blog from what I can tell), but make them ourselves when it’s our ox being gored.

                  I’ll be damned if I let some hippy dippy granola cruncher get in the way of a good steak or good dog fight. Thems is just good ol fun! (Remember, 2% of dogs win fights without getting hurt at all.*)

                  *not an actual statistic but obviously stats don’t matter, cause NOMNOMNOM.

                • Uh, “commerical farm” means what?

                  Look, I’ve been to a CAFO. I’m the grandson of four people who grew up on farms, I eat mostly pasture-raised meat and dairy and free-range poultry, or wild game. I did ag policy in the Michigan legislature. I worked for a member of Congress who voted against the farm bills not because they subsidized ag, but because they did it in ways that were awful to the environment and to consumers. My wife teaches the ethics of food. I get all this. But using terms like “commercial farm” doesn’t help anything. I mean, what farm isn’t a commercial farm? Something that isn’t a farm. Likewise with the term “corporate farm.” Almost every farm today is incorporated. But that’s not the same as industrialized farms, or factory farms, or unethical shitholes that treat the animals horribly.

                  I’m not sanguine about food production in the US, or overseas for the US market. But I don’t think it’s helpful to be imprecise, or to ignore the real developments that are happening in livestock and dairy production. I don’t believe we’re going to feed the world on burgers and chicken tenders every night, and I don’t think we’re going to feed the world on organic pasture-raised dairy six times a day and an organic pasture-raised steak every night. But there’s a significant trend, even if it’s still small, toward more sustainable and ethical food production, especially livestock production, and when it’s done right, it’s also done with the ethical treatment of human labor in mind as well. My point, glibly conveyed maybe, is that I don’t think it’s helpful to depict all livestock agriculture and food processing as pigs spending their entire lives unable to move as they stand on top of grates over steaming cauldrons of shit slurry. We don’t need to run around telling everyone there are alternatives, but if we’re going to talk about livestock agriculture in the US, we shouldn’t talk about it as if it’s only genetic freaks standing in shit in a CAFO, that it will never change.

  • Incontinentia Buttocks

    I went to high school with Nina Teicholz, who is, or at least was, a very nice person, though I’ve fallen almost entirely out of touch with her for the last three decades or so. This somehow makes her fifteen minutes of fame (of which I’m suspicious for many of the reasons in the OP and upthread) feel kinda bizarre to me.

  • Joe_JP

    This is curious comment:

    we would be wise to return to what worked better for previous generations: a diet that included fewer grains, less sugar and more animal foods like meat, full-fat dairy and eggs.

    Fewer grains and more meat, dairy and eggs? Really?

    I forgive you for your Fritos.


  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    Well, I went and read the piece and…wow. The first sentence (“FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health.”) is in all likelihood wrong and certainly unprovable. And it gets worse from there [para]:
    * “…even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation.” – (FFS this is just wrong, and to know why all you have to do is Google Koch’s postulates, or just you know, talk to one person with an MPH…)
    * “[para] Big observational studies BAD!!!…[next paragraph]…meta-analysis GOOD!”
    * Failing to distinguish between different kinds of fats. Her suggestion to resume eating Brie and butter in mass quantities is one pretty much no cardiologist would endorse. A switch to olive oil, avocado, salmon, etc is more advisable, but she seems intent on selling some sort of tribalistic political argument, so her argument is ironically just as ignorant and retrograde as the old advice from the ’80s.
    * “Fewer protein choices will likely encourage Americans to eat even more carbs.” The conservative bank shot bogeyman rears his ugly head again. also #notallcarbs…


    • Area Man


      I recently searched through PubMed concerning saturated fat for some reason, and the evidence clearly shows that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat reduces CVD. Replacing it with carbohydrate does not (though there is insufficient evidence for low glycemic carbs), so while replacing fat with carbs is bad advice, so too is telling people to eat more bacon and cheese.

      Also, the evidence concerning salt intake is pretty clear: average consumption is too high and promotes hypertension and a host of other health problems. I don’t know what govt. recommendations or Institute of Medicine study she’s talking about, but if she’s accusing govt. guidelines of causing people to eat too little salt, she’s reached a wildly wrong conclusion.

  • ScarsdaleVibe

    I can’t stand the low fat/no fat craze. It’s ridiculous. Fat, in moderation as with all things, is not bad for you and does not make you fat.

    Plus, fat is satiating-I always end up eating less when the food is full fat. It’s hard though, at my local grocery store I can’t find a single goddamn yogurt that isn’t low/no fat. It’s all loaded with sugar too to make up for the lack of flavor. I’ve also been drinking whole milk for years, and I’m still pretty thin. Low fat is bullshit, at least in my anecdotal experience.

    • ThrottleJockey

      What if you blend the yogurt with ricotta, or mascarpone, or cottage cheese?

    • Katya

      There’s hope, though–I usually get my yogurt from a local market, but the Safeways around here have started to carry Liberte and Noosa, both of which are full-fat (and yummy).

  • cpinva

    if ms. teicholz’s book is as poorly sourced and logically strained as her op/ed, let’s hope it doesn’t sell. it could, conceivably, set public health back decades all by itself. yes, too much of pretty much anything is probably not going to be good for you. yes, there has been established a cause/effect relationship between excess levels of sodium, and high blood pressure. yes, there has been established a cause/effect relationship between too much bad cholesterol, and arterial blockage, and that some types of fats are the primary sources of the bad cholesterol. I could go on, but the point is made; reading ms. teicholz, book or column, may well be bad for your health.

It is main inner container footer text