News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 New CSIRO heart diet cuts beef intake 

New CSIRO heart diet cuts beef intake

29 Sep, 2008 10:19 AM
The new CSIRO diet aimed at reducing heart disease has halved the amount of red meat suggested in its popular Total Wellbeing Diet, which nutritionists previously slammed for being too high in animal protein.

The CSIRO Healthy Heart Program sets out a 12-week eating regimen it says will reduce cholesterol and blood pressure and stem cardiovascular disease in people over 40.

Heart disease accounts for more than one-third of all Australian deaths.

With 90pc of Australians exhibiting at least one risk factor for heart disease and stroke, the CSIRO's latest diet book is expected to match the success of its Total Wellbeing Diet book, which has sold more than 1million copies since its release three years ago.

That diet was criticised for including up to one kilogram of red meat a week, despite National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines recommending up to 100grams just three to four times a week.

Nutritionists wrote to former Prime Minister John Howard warning of the diet's perceived health risks.

A dietitian and cardiologist who saw advance copies of the Healthy Heart Program said they noticed big changes from the previous diet with less beef and lamb on the menu, and more fish, vegetables and legumes.

"The issues that were raised with the first book by nutritionists and dietitians appear to be addressed by increasing non-meat protein sources like beans, and increasing the content of fish," said Catherine Itsiopoulos, a research dietitian from Melbourne University.

"The focus of this diet is a higher content in soluble fibre from cereal and beans which target cholesterol … I like the fact there are beans [for] protein and fish three times a week."

Meat portions have been reduced from 200grams to between 100 and 150grams. The new diet recommends up to four serves a week and includes chicken and pork.

Diet co-author Manny Noakes denied the changes were in response to criticism.

"What we have done is perhaps provide a bit more diversity in eating styles," Dr Noakes said.

"Not everybody needs to lose weight or to have a lot of protein; by providing high-carbohydrate and high-protein options it gives people the ability to find the style of meal that suits them.

"If they are struggling to lose weight then a high-protein diet option would work best, but if they don't have that as a problem, more starchy foods as part of their main meals is a good option."

Cardiologist Professor David Hare from Austin Health in Melbourne said the book was suitable for people who needed a regimented diet.

"It controls what you buy, the way you prepare food, and for a lot of people who have tried other things and failed, it's sometimes an advantage … there is some red meat but [if you have] small portions only a couple of times a week, that's quite all right."

Dr Itsiopoulos also recommended a diet rich in oily fish such as salmon, mackerel and sardines.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Pardon my cynicism, but was the research behind this new version funded by Meat & Livestock Australia and Dairy Australia just like the first one? I reckon that the original diet book was more about the "total wellbeing" of the meat and dairy industries and a golden opportunity to raise megabucks for CSIRO. Sad and concerning that research seems to be dictated so heavily by industry $$$$, and I suspect that many credible researchers would agree.
Posted by Food4thought, 30/09/2008 12:09:41 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you believe there is a discernable difference in food quality between organic and non-organic farm produce?

Organic is superior
(55.7%)

There is no difference
(32.4%)

Conventional produce is superior
(11.8%)

Total Votes: 861
Poll Date: 29 September, 2008

Most popular articles




The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...