Media Rejects Atkins Editorial

I came across this on Jimmy Moore's site and then again on Regina Wilshire's site. It appears that the media outlets are determining what gets reported as healthful nutrition advice. Time, Newsweek, JAMA, and others rejected this response to Dr. Dean Ornish's complaints about the A to Z Study that showed his diet to be less effective than the Atkins Diet.

Here it is in its entirety from Dr. Vernon's blog:

As always, Dean Ornish and the media put aside science in favor of headlines and self-interest. The following editorial was rejected by NEWSWEEK, TIME, the Journal of the American Medical Association and others. However, Ornish was allowed exclusivity on the playing field. And who pays the price yet again? The American consumer and the millions suffering from obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Dear reader: write to your local media, the national media, phone, email and demand that Dr. Vernon and other experts who follow the trail of science be given a voice.

More Science and Less Zealotry, Please.

The controversy over which diet is best for all has again made headlines with the Dr_atkins_sitting publication of the Stanford University study in the Journal of the America Medical Association March 7, 2007. Since the results are favorable to the low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, the usual criticism can be expected to follow.

Predictably, Dean Ornish has launched a tirade in which he manipulates the study findings to find fault with the low-carb approach and to deflect criticism away from his ultra low-fat diet which did not perform well in the study. Unfortunately, this is an argument based on dogma and not on science. The science speaks for itself.

As scientists and clinicians, we believe that no one dietary approach is going to be ideal for everyone. There is no doubt that, for some, an ultra-low-fat approach may be appropriate. Unlike Dr. Ornish, we recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the enormously complex problem of obesity and related conditions. Unfortunately, other authoritative sources like the US dietary guidelines also recommend a single lowered fat high-carbohydrate diet approach and have been doing so over the decades that this epidemic has grown.

Gratuitous attacks on the Atkins diet that imply it involves abandonment of wholesome vegetables and fruit for “bacon and brie” are simply wrong. Even in the most restrictive phase it meets the recommended daily guidelines for vegetables and fruits. As one advances through the phases, low-glycemic fruits, more vegetables, legumes and even whole grains are introduced based on an individual’s metabolic tolerance for these foods. One survey found that people who follow the Atkins plan over the long term eat more vegetables than they did before. Another study found that rather than increase the intake of fat and protein to compensate when carbohydrates were reduced, people simply ate less.

The unfortunate reality of today is that too many Americans are eating potato chips and fries and drinking sugar-sweetened beverages. We support the idea that wholesome foods such as meat, fish, cheese and eggs along with vegetables and low glycemic fruits constitute a healthier diet than chips and fries and sodas.

While this study examined four popular dietary approaches, what is clear is that whatever approach one takes to healthy eating, success will depend on how well you can stick to it. In this case, and in many earlier studies, it is clear that the Atkins diet is the one most people can maintain. On the other hand, the extremely low-fat diet advocated by Dr. Ornish is very difficult to follow. In this study, the subjects who were supposed to reduce their fat intake to his recommended intake of 10% could not reach that target.

Another important aspect of this and earlier studies is the beneficial effect that reducing carbohydrates has on metabolic markers. In his criticism, Dr. Ornish states that the LDL-cholesterol level fell in response to his diet, but does not mention that none of the differences in LDL-C in this study were statistically significant. This is therefore not a scientifically valid criticism. On the other hand, it is widely recognized that elevating the HDL-C, the good cholesterol, is an important factor in reducing cardiovascular risk. In this study there was a highly significant 10% rise in HDL-C in the Atkins group but no such change among those who followed the very high-carbohydrate Ornish diet.

In the same vein, the Atkins group demonstrated a significant (both statistically and clinically) greater reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure than the other three diets. A difference in mean arterial pressure of 5 mm Hg is about the response we would expect to see with a first-line pharmaceutical in the clinical setting. Any objective observer would acknowledge this as a major beneficial effect of the Atkins diet.

Dr. Ornish suggests that the positive findings of research such as this that supports the Atkins diet will cause problems, and that “many people may go on a diet that harms them based on inaccurate information.” This is a wildly irresponsible statement, given the consistency with which a reduction in important metabolic and cardiovascular risks are achieved by lowering carbohydrate consumption. It is simply preposterous to suggest that an approach that leads to significant risk factor reduction is unhealthy.

The seriousness of the accelerating epidemic compels us to think outside the box to The_atkins_lifestyle_food_guide_pyr find new solutions where the status quo has failed. The only approach that will be successful is one that people can actually follow. This study adds to the mounting evidence that the Atkins diet is a healthy choice which should be supported as a viable way to lose weight and improve metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors.

The Real Atkins Lifestyle

Before there was research on the Atkins diet it was commonly criticized in the belief that it would elevate cholesterol, ruin one’s kidneys and bones and cause heart disease. None of this has been borne out by the research.

What is clear from this JAMA study, and others like it, is that cardiovascular risk factors actually improve when controlling carbs. The scientific studies of this approach have shown numerous times that a pattern of rising HDL-C and falling triglycerides is the hallmark of carb restriction and that this benefit occurs even in the absence of weight loss.

Research also shows that rising HDL-C (good cholesterol) and falling triglycerides is correlated with larger LDL-C particles which are less likely to cause heart disease. Even the much touted statin drugs do not deliver this kind of improvement in LDL-C particle size. On the other hand, the research shows that eating a high-carb diet and cutting fat intake results in small dense LDL-C particles that are linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

Importance of Fat

There are other problems associated with extremely low fat diets, as well. Cutting fat intake can lead to deficiencies in fat soluble vitamins, depletion of essential fats such as EPA and DHA, and decreases in the absorption of nutrients. Studies also show that people with cholesterol levels that are too low become prone to depression, suicide and cancer and have higher overall death rates than those who have higher cholesterol levels.

When all is said and done, it behooves us to remember that the diet debate is not a horse race where there is only one winner. We know there is a great variability in metabolic and genetic factors that will determine what dietary approach is best for each individual person. Although, in this and many other studies the Atkins diet worked better for more people, it is also evident that other dietary approaches will work for some people as well. The most important thing we have learned from dietary research is that people need to find the approach that will deliver healthy outcomes for them individually. And, just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of a diet's effectiveness is whether it can sustain those benefits over the long haul. Hopefully, the weight of the evidence will now allow the Atkins diet to be recognized and supported as a legitimate option for people who want to improve their health through better nutrition.

On a final note, Dr. Ornish’s repugnant attempt to undermine Dr. Atkins’ credibility by perpetuating the myth that he had heart disease is unconscionable. It is unbecoming of any honorable person to make ad hominem attacks on those who are departed. Enough is enough. Dr. Atkins died of a head injury. He is no longer with us, but the line of scientific inquiry that he started continues to vindicate his dietary approach. And no amount of unfounded criticism will alter the fact that this study, and the 60 others before it, clearly demonstrate that what Dr. Atkins had been telling us all along was right.

* Jacqueline A. Eberstein, R.N. Co-author, Atkins Diabetes Revolution, President, Controlled Carbohydrate Nutrition
* Stephen D. Phinney, M.D. Ph.D Emeritus Professor, Department of Medicine, UC Davis, Elk Grove, Cal
* Mary C. Vernon, M.D., CMD, Co-author, Atkins Diabetes Revolution, President, American Society of Bariatric Physicians
* Eric C. Westman, M.D. M.H.S, Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center
* Jay Wortman, M.D, Department of Health Care & Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia

Statins for Kids?!?

Heart Association Recommends Statins for Kids with High Cholesterol

From the AHA comes this little gem:

When diet and exercise fail to lower cholesterol in children with high-risk lipid abnormalities, statins should be first-line drug therapy, declared the American Heart Association in a new scientific statement.

Yes, statins. For kids. I guess the pharmaceutical companies have turned enough adults into pill-popping zombies for life and are now turning their attention to kids over the age of 10. That's one way to make sure you have a customer for life. Why go for 65 year old folks with only 10-20 years to live when you can get a 12 year old with 60 years to live?

Note that this is treatment for high cholesterol, which hasn't been proven to be the dangerous element in heart disease. What would I recommend to ensure today's kids stay happy, healthy, and heart disease-free? Exercise, something that kids used to enjoy, and a diet based on food, rather than on food products: meat; vegetables; nuts; olive, coconut, and palm oils; fruits; sweet potatoes; and squashes. Exercise doesn't have to be weight lifting at a gym; just send them outside to shoot hoops or play tag or kick a rock like kids do. Don't let them eat bags of chips and drink soft drinks all day long just so they'll like you. Parents are responsible for doing what is in their children's best interests, not for being their children's friends. And believe me, as a child of a mother that ensured her children ate plenty of good stuff and only enough bad stuff to keep us normal, they will appreciate it one day. No child is going to grow up and say "Boy, I wish mom had let me drink more Cokes and eat a few more Swiss Cake Rolls."

And let's not forget the real killer: high blood sugar. So we have overweight kids feeding on sugar all day and we're treating them for cholesterol. Hah! It's a sad day in America when our doctors focus on drugs to treat kids rather than on letting kids maintain their health in the normal ways that kids do. I'm surprised they didn't advise a "healthful" low-fat diet too.

Five Worst Dietary Trangressions

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine told me that my "body hates me" because I don't generally eat pastured chicken. Because of the amount of food that I eat to support my body weight and activity level, it would be very expensive for me to eat $2/lb chicken everyday. So I grab antibiotic- and hormone-free chicken from the local grocery store at $.69-.99/lb on sale (wait until it's about a week from going out of date, then stock up the freezer). While the chickens are fed grains, they are not pumped up on hormones. I can shore up the poor omega-3:omega-6 ratio with some extra fish oil, which I do.

In light of that conversation, I want to touch on what I consider to be dietary indiscretions that will make your body hate you.

1. Refined Sugar
Number one on my list is sugar. Sugar hits the body with unbelievable metabolic damage. The glucose surge, the corresponding insulin surge, insulin receptor damage leading to insulin resistance, insulin resistance leading to Type II Diabetes...the list goes on. Sugar is just flat-out bad stuff. Encompassed in "refined sugar" is plain white sugar, brown sugar, and the ubiquitous high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), possibly the worst food mankind has created. Fructose is the sugar found in fruit and also found in super-concentrated form (HFCS) in soft drinks and other junk (not "junk food", remember that there's no such thing. It is also the sugar that scientists use to induce insulin resistance (diabetes) in lab rats. Is there any question why America has become The Land of the Fat and Home of the Diabetic? High circulating glucose also damages arterial linings, which causes cholesterol to have to do its work to repair them (for which it gets the blame), and is a huge contributor to heart disease and stroke. While it is theoretically possible to screw yourself up with fruit, the average person is not going to eat enough fruit to really do so. Avoiding refined sugar is tied for #1 on my list of foods to avoid to improve your health. That doesn't mean you can never have a cookie or a slice of chocolate cake. It just means that sugar should be a treat, not a dietary staple.

An extension of this one is organic junk foods. The use of organic snack foods has also become a big thing these days. Whole Foods and Wild Oats are common household names and people assume that anything sold there must be healthful. Not so friends! Organic junk food is still junk food, albeit in a slightly more healthful wrapper. Replacing white sugar with an equivalent amount of honey or agave nectar does not decrease the sugar content, nor does it cause any considerable decrease in the effects on your blood sugar and insulin levels. Again, an occasional indulgence is fine and in that case, the organic or natural stuff is probably more healthful, in the same way that smoking one cigarette is more healthful than smoking five cigarettes. However, one should not assume that organic snack foods are dramatically better for you than nonorganic ones. Would you consider an organic Chips Ahoy to be a solid dietary addition?

1. Trans fats
I couldn't decide between sugar and trans fats for top billing as the worst foods in the American diet, so I made them both #1. How's that for indecision? Trans fats have been in the news a lot lately. They are a man-made fat that was intended to replace saturated fats, yet as with every other time man has tried to best Mother Nature, the cure ended up being far worse than the poison. Trans fats damage cell membrane rigidity, reducing their permeability to necessary nutrients, and damage arteries, contributing to atherosclerosis. Luckily, avoiding both refined sugars and trans fats is easy as they tend to come packaged together in the form of bakery items like cookies, cakes, muffins, and scones, and store-bought junk "food" like Twinkies and Pop Tarts. And you can't believe packaging that says "0g of trans fat". You have to check the package to see if the words "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated" appear in the ingredients. If they do, then the product contains trans fats and the manufacturers are using the "round down if below 0.5g" loop hole.

3. Too few fruits and vegetables
The average American eats very few fruits and vegetables. As this USDA link shows, 27% of vegetable consumption is in the form of fried potatoes (French fries, potato chips, etc). Fifteen-percent of our tomato consumption is in the form of ketchup. And 1/3 of all pickles consumed are eaten on fast food sandwiches or as relish, probably on a hot dog. My quick search didn't turn up any raw numbers on average fruit and vegetable consumption, but I'm willing to bet that the average would not be promising. In the summertime, I eat a huge salad, along with a heaping mounds of vegetables at my other meals. When I say huge salad, I mean a 10" round by 3-4" deep "family sized" serving bowl, heaped with greens (usually an entire head of lettuce or bunch of spinach), carrots, cucumbers, celery, radishes, hardboiled eggs, some form of meat, ground flax seeds, walnuts and pecans, and home made salad dressing with herbs and/or spices. Heaping mounds of vegetables might encompass an entire family-sized bag of frozen vegetables or some other form of steamed vegetables that require care not to have them falling all over the table and floor. And I eat fruit on top of that. When you're taking in that many phytonutrients, a multi-vitamin isn't even a necessity. In the winter, I'm quite a bit lower carb due to seasonal eating. Regardless, I don't consider eating a half-cup of broccoli or a few peas with dinner to be a serving of vegetables. And even at the paltry intake recommended by the USDA Food Pyramid, most people fall short. If people would shore up their fruit and vegetable intake, the antioxidant content would excuse many of their other dietary transgressions, the fiber would help keep them "regular," and the bulk would keep them from eating donuts after dinner. Let's not forget the some other benefits of a high vegetable intake: protection against an enlarged prostate, improved workout performance, and improved mental function.

4. Grain products (bread, pasta, cereals, etc)
Next up is processed carbohydrates, which are invariably grain-based products. Foods like bread, pasta, cereal, and rice are generally considered to be healthful because they are low in fat and high in complex carbohydrates. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. These foods are high in carbs and highly, but incorrectly, processed. I say incorrectly processed because grains require fermenting or sprouting to neutralize their phytic acid content. Phytic acid pulls calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron out of the body and can cause deficiencies. I include whole grains in this discussion too. While whole grain bread is better than white bread, it is still a highly processed food and one that doesn't fit into a hunter-gatherer diet. The body quickly breaks down all of these products into glucose, bringing up blood sugar quickly, and driving up insulin. As we've discussed before, insulin puts the body into fat storage mode and too much of it causes insulin receptor burnout and Type II Diabetes. I've also mentioned before that bread consumption and kidney cancer are linked. Furthermore, grains are very high in omega-6 fatty acids, which throws the omega-6:omega-3 ratio off drastically. So in the end, the order of preference with grains, we have "no grains", then "whole grains", then "white grain products". Oh, and don't forget to check the ingredient labels of most of the breads in the store to see the high fructose corn syrup and the vitamins that are added for "fortification" to improve the vitamin and mineral content of these deficient foods.

5. Artificial sweeteners
Instead of eliminating bad habits, many people just switch one bad habit for another. One huge bad habit is a constant daily infusion of artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame K, and Splenda. I see several problems with swapping your six-cans-a-day Coke habit for a six-cans-a-day Diet Coke habit. First, I'm not convinced that these artificial sweeteners are healthful in the long-term. Saccharine has already shown itself to be a carcinogen and humans don't have a promising track record of trying to best Mother Nature (see also: trans fats and Olestra). Second, while you may be avoiding the calories, you are not avoiding the sweet stimulation. Many people, including me, can go long periods of time without something sweet. But as soon as those taste buds are stimulated, watch out. The tongue doesn't recognize that artificial sweeteners are artificial. If it did, they wouldn't serve their purpose. The goal of a proper nutrition plan should be to reduce and eliminate the craving for sweets, not fool the tongue. Note that the tongue does more than simply taste food - it also alerts the body to what is coming down the pipe. When it senses "sweet," it alerts the body to prepare for "sweet". This preparation takes place whether the calories show up or not and likely involve some insulin secretion. If it is an occasional indulgence, the artificial sweetener is probably a better option. If artificial sweeteners are part of your daily intake, however, it is probably time to reevaluate your goals.


The Last Word
You'll notice that my list of what I consider the five most offending foods does not include grain-fed meats nor fruits and vegetables raised inorganically. The first step is getting someone to focus on meat, vegetables, nuts, oils, fruits, tubers, and squashes. It would be wonderful if everyone could afford grass-fed meats and organic produce. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of our food production system. I would rather see someone consume grain-fed meats (even those with antibiotics and hormones) than sugar and trans fats. If you're lucky, you can find organic or antibiotic- and hormone-free meats at your local supermarket for a reasonable price, which is a better choice than the standard commercially raised stuff. Obviously the best choice is grass-fed and grass-finished meats and poultry, but don't just throw up your hands and say "Too expensive," and then go back to gnoshing on Oreos. The same goes with produce. Organic is best, but I'd rather see someone eat truckloads of inorganic vegetables than no vegetables. I'm trying to balance what's best (organic produce and grass-fed meats) with what is reasonable for most people.

The beautiful thing is that taking care of the first four issues is pretty simple. Eliminating sugar and trans fats is first and foremost in any dietary change. Luckily, they usually come together in the same package, along with some form of processed grains. How's that for killing three birds with one stone? Cut out the pastries, donuts, Twinkies, Pop Tarts, and muffins and replace them with fruits and vegetables. See how easy it was to take care of numbers 1, 3, and probably 50% of 4? Of course, removing grains requires more than just cutting out junk, but it's a huge step in the right direction. You can cut out the breakfast cereals by going back to an old school breakfast of bacon (hopefully nitrate-free) and eggs or some of last night's leftover meat and vegetables. There is no rule that breakfast has to be made up of different foods than lunch and dinner.

If you have those five areas taken care of, a few other areas to focus on are reduction of polyunsaturated oils due to their knack for immunosuppression and their high omega-6 content, elimination of soy, and getting plenty of sleep. Soy has permeated the nation's food supply and is found in nearly all packaged foods. Luckily, you're aiming for a whole-foods based hunter-gatherer diet, which doesn't include packaged foods. Just like that, most of your soy and polyunsaturated oil intake is gone. Replace your vegetable cooking oils with olive, palm, and coconut oils. Sleep is one of the most important aspects of health, but I didn't include it in the list because it isn't a food.

If you respect your evolutionary roots, focusing on a forager's diet, you'll have no problem with losing fat, gaining muscle, feeling energetic, and being healthy. Meat, vegetables, nuts, oils (olive, palm, and coconut), fruits, tubers, and squashes.

High Blood Sugar Linked to Cancer Risk

Swedish Study Shows More Cancer in People With Higher Blood Sugar, Regardless of Diabetes

But when researchers looked at specific types of cancer, they found that both men and women with the highest blood sugar levels were more likely to have pancreatic cancer, urinary tract cancer, and malignant melanoma (the most deadly type of skin cancer) than those with the lowest blood sugar levels.
....
Also, the study didn't track all possible cancer influences. For instance, researchers didn't know the participants' diet, exercise habits, or family history of cancer.

Unfortunately, as the last part of this quote shows, the study doesn't actually prove anything, it just throws a bit of a question towards high blood sugar. However, while correlation doesn't prove causation, we have to consider if the link makes sense. A diet that promotes high blood sugar also promotes high insulin levels. Insulin is a very potent growth stimulator, which is why most people that have high blood sugar and high insulin also have high body fat. Insulin's purpose is to shuttle the nutrients you eat into muscle, liver, and fat storage areas. Insulin also has the ability to stimulate even more potent growth factors, known as insulin-like growth factors (IGFs). Studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of IGFs have a higher risk of developing cancer. Along with that, the preferred fuel of cancer is glucose, which the Standard American Diet supplies in abundance.

We can also consider this from the evolutionary standpoint of nutrition. High carb diets were not possible until the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago or so. Until that point, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, eating animals and plant matter. Large quantities of grains were not available, so the staple carbs were roots, fruits, and vegetables. Fast forward to the 20th century when the industrial complex took over our food production and began churning out grocery stores full of cheap, high sugar products. Given that cancer is primarily a 20th century disease, along with so many others that are tied together (obesity, diabetes, etc), the logic fits.

Considering all of the other deleterious effects of a high sugar diet, it seems prudent to keep your blood sugar low by limiting yourself to a whole foods-based diet with carbs coming from fruits, vegetables, tubers, and squashes, rather than grain products like bread and pasta. Here is a short list of the effects of a high-carb diet:
- Higher Cholesterol, for those that worry about such things
- Diabetes and Double Diabetes
- An increased risk of heart attack and stroke
- Higher risk of pancreatic cancer from soft drinks, a staple of the high-carb diet.

And let's not forget that another carb-heavy staple, bread, has been linked to kidney cancer.

More Saturated Fat Nonsense

An article that looked so promising, yet still throws in politically correct tripe: Nutrition Researchers Provide The Skinny On Trans Fats. This article is a brief rundown of what a trans fat is, why it's bad, and the alternatives. Unfortunately, in the section about alternatives, they state the following:

To replace trans fats, many food producers are reaching for saturated fats, such as palm oil, coconut oil and cocoa butter. Unfortunately, saturated fats don't offer much of a health benefit over trans fats, if any. The USDA lumps trans fats and saturated fats together; both types raise LDL and are considered unhealthful.
....
More promising alternatives to trans fats are at various stages of development.[emphasis added]

So saturated fats are as bad as trans fats, according to the USDA. Note that this is the same USDA that has given us a Food Pyramid based on processed grains rather than on natural foods such as fruits and vegetables. But instead of an ad hominem on the USDA, I am going to throw out some logic. The premise that saturated fats are nearly as bad as trans fats is based on the bunk cholesterol hypothesis. If that theory is bunk, as the preponderance of evidence - along with logical analysis - shows it to be, then it follows that any argument based on that theory must also be bunk. The pharmaceutical companies won't give you the full story. They also aren't giving doctors the full story, so you have to look to your own research. Read Anthony Colpo's The Great Cholesterol Con and you will be amazed at the truth.

Anyway, moving along, the very saturated fats that the USDA claims are so bad, namely palm and coconut oils, are the very fats that tropical hunter-gatherer tribes consume with abandon. In fact, if you remove the US from the equation (where soybean oil is the main oil), palm oil is THE #1 most widely consumed oil in the world. And somehow people living a traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle aren't dropping dead from heart disease. Butter, lard, full-fat meat from grass-fed animals, coconut oil, and palm oil have all been consumed for generations upon generations, yet only in the past half-century has the incidence of heart disease shot through the roof. Perhaps it's the high intake of polyunsaturated oils which are highly prone to rancidity (and also powerfully immunosuppressive). There is evidence that a high carb consumption is the cause of high cholesterol. Whatever it is, it isn't the saturated fats.

Notice that I highlighted the word "development" in the quote above. Those saturated fats that I listed aren't "developed". They aren't synthesized, hydrogenated, or mixed. They are pure and natural fats, put here by Mother Nature (or your deity of choice), to be consumed by the animals of the planet. Food scientists have been trying for ages to top Mother Nature and have yet to succeed. Here is a short list of questionable developments: Olestra, aspartame, MSG, saccharin, hydrogenated vegetable oils. I'm sure there are more that haven't popped into my head at this moment. The point is that natural foods that require no processing are healthful additions to your nutrition plan. Foods that require processing are not and that includes any unnatural, man-made fats. Polyunsaturated vegetable oils require processing to be shelf-stable; saturated oils do not, having all of their stability naturally built-in. Mother Nature didn't provide mass sources of polyunsaturated oils. It takes loads of corn to make a single bottle of corn oil. Give the saturates a try and see if you don't have more energy. My intake of coconut and palm oils has improved my previously dry skin and even improved my ability to tolerate the sun without burning. As a red-headed German-Irish boy, that's never a bad thing.

Shane Ellison Interviews Anthony Colpo

The Interview

Here is an interview between Shane Ellison and Anthony Colpo, of The Great Cholesterol Con fame. Anthony describes his personal journey to investigate, and ultimately write a scathing book about, the cholesterol hypothesis that prevails today. He also describes his methods of training and the type of diet he advises for his trainees. This is an excellent read as is his book. Get it at Amazon.

Carbs and Cholesterol

Carbs and Cholesterol

South Asians ate the most carbohydrate and had the lowest HDL cholesterol levels, while Chinese individuals ate the least carbohydrate and had the highest levels of the beneficial blood fat, Dr. Anwar T. Merchant of the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ontario and colleagues found.

Each additional 100 gram per day of carbohydrates was tied to a 0.15 mmol/L drop in HDL cholesterol. Triacylglycerol levels also rose in tandem with carbohydrate intake.

The researchers also found that consuming more sugar-sweetened soft drinks, juices and snacks was tied to a lower HDL level.

Interesting findings, but not all that surprising for those that don't believe in the "high fat equals high cholesterol" dogma. As I've mentioned before, cholesterol is not the danger, but it may signal that the body is trying to protect itself from something. In this case, a higher intake of carbohydrates results in a higher output of insulin and higher blood sugar. Both of these things damage arteries, resulting in a need for cholesterol to patch the holes. Cholesterol is the ambulance at the scene of a crash, taking the blame for the carnage.

The Value of Health Studies

Health Studies Are Worthless to Those Who Care About Health

This is a great article about why we should ignore (or rather take with a grain of salt) health studies. Steve Pavlina points out four basic truths: 1) Everyone has an agenda, 2) you never hear the whole truth, 3) you're unique, and 4) the underlying paradigm is wrong. I disagree with him that health studies are worthless, but many people put WAY too much value into them. They can provide a guide for areas of experimentation in your own health journey, but just because something works in a lab setting or someone dredged data to find some barely-there correlation (which doesn't equal causation), doesn't mean it's going to work for you.

A Trans Fat By Any Other Name

New fat, same old problem with an added twist?

Study shows a new fat replacement for trans fat raises blood sugar in humans

One day we may learn that we cannot best that which Mother Nature has provided us. Whether through divine intervention, evolution, or some combination of the above, that which is found in nature is the proper food for the human animal. We tried the replacement fat thing with trans fats over the last two decades; it didn't work. We tried the indigestible fat, Olestra; it didn't work. Now we have a new trans fat that has different problems. It suppressed insulin and raises blood glucose, both forerunners of Type II diabetes. The plain truth is this: "If man made it, don't eat it" (I believe that was Jack LaLanne). Stick to meat, vegetables, oils, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables. The best oils are the two saturated tropical oils, coconut and palm, and olive oil. Yes, that's right. Saturated oils are very good for you. They are resistant to the rancidity that plagues the polyunsaturated fats that are pushed on us and do not require processing to make them shelf-stable. Get some at Tropical Traditions for all your cooking needs. They are very flavorful and full of healthful vitamins, minerals, and fats. And for your own sake, avoid anything that is a man-made fat. We don't have a good track record and that doesn't appear to be changing soon.

Book Review: The Great Cholesterol Con

Originally posted 7-28-2006

“About almost any subject, there are the facts ‘everyone knows’ and then there are the real ones.” – Ernest G. Ross

This quote pretty much sums up everything about The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo. After finishing this book, readers will realize that the vendetta against cholesterol and saturated fat is misguided and has diverted important resources away from finding the real causes of heart disease. Granted, I was skeptical about the cholesterol hypothesis before reading this book, but Colpo’s book could turn a believer of the “lower is better” cholesterol theory into a disbeliever, assuming that individual is capable of thinking past everything that they already “know” and examining with an open mind.

In The Great Cholesterol Con, Mr. Colpo pores through every study examining the cholesterol-heart disease links to show that very few of them have shown even a weak association. In fact, some have shown higher cholesterol levels to be beneficial when it comes to overall mortality. Naturally, our media never tells us about these studies and the pharmaceutical companies, with billions at stake on cholesterol-lowering statins, are very adept at keeping these studies from seeing the light of day. Researchers that have tried to bring forth non-cholesterol hypotheses as the causes of heart disease are ridiculed and shut down. Rest assured, the pharmaceutical companies are doing everything they can to protect their “magic bullets” (statins), which, according to Colpo, have failed to lower the incidence of coronary heart disease one iota.

So who is this Colpo guy? He’s a personal trainer that lives in Australia. WHAT?!?!!!? You mean he’s not a doctor?!? How can I believe a word he says?” Contrary to popular belief, doctors are not the most well-versed in all aspects of health. Further, doctors have an interest in staying with the status quo. To paraphrase Colpo, any doctor straying from the flock is risking his livelihood. Along with that, very few doctors are out there performing research. Most are too busy performing surgeries and routine checkups to even read all of the available research. In fact, I’d view his lack of medical schooling as a benefit rather than a hindrance. He hasn’t been indoctrinated into the “medical world” where 99% of doctors think alike and exhibit a “follow the herd” mentality. Colpo questions everything he reads and implores you to do the same (he even tells you to go to a library and read the same studies he has rather than just taking his word for it).

Colpo reads all of the available research with an incredible eye for detail (I wonder if he does anything other than read medical journals…just kidding Anthony). I’m sure you’re thinking about how boring it must be to read about cholesterol, but Colpo somehow keeps that from becoming mundane. It doesn’t read like a medical journal, a testament to his excellent, accessible writing style, with a bit of humor to boot. Once I was able to sit down and read the book, it took me about 4 days to pore through it. It is really an enjoyable read and one that doesn’t feel like a workout. Now, I haven’t read any other books about cholesterol, so I can’t compare it in terms of readability, but I do know that the average reader won’t have trouble with this book.

The Great Cholesterol Con explores the real reasons for coronary heart disease: stress, inflammation, high blood sugar (high-carb, low-fat anyone?), lack of dietary fruits and vegetables (and consequently lack of antioxidants), high polyunsaturated fat intake, and a handful of others. He even breaks down the proper nutrients needed for heart health and gives a “good-better-best” of which foods to find them in…now that’s service with a smile! Colpo analyses and critiques every study to date that has tried to link saturated fat to coronary heart disease. However, only 4 of 26 studies have shown any link, and those links are weak at best (and a few are illogical). Why haven’t we heard about the 22 studies that don’t show a link? I’m sure it’s not because they’ve been overlooked.

So is it a conspiracy? That’s hard to say. It is clear that the food and drug companies make billions of dollars selling low-fat, fat-free, and “heart-healthy” foods, along with drugs that fix the ailments high fat intake is purported to cause. It is also clear that the influence and money from these companies go all the way to the top of the National Institute of Health and the FDA. However, I am loathe to say that most of our doctors are in on it. I think most doctors truly care about our health, but unfortunately, the people passing on the information are giving them the wrong stuff (purposely or not). And doctors are only human; every person on this planet finds it hard to unlearn something and learn something new, especially something so important to one’s livelihood. Since most doctors aren’t performing the research, they are relying on the findings of those that are, who the drug and food companies make sure to pass a few (hundred thousand) bucks to.

What The Great Cholesterol Con boils down to is that the cholesterol hypothesis is too simple a solution for a very complicated disease. Every substance in the body has an optimal range; low blood sugar is harmful as is high blood sugar, too much iron is damaging as is too little iron. Cholesterol is no different, but the companies hawking statins are pushing for lower and lower recommendations for cholesterol, even when these lower levels of cholesterol are associated with higher rates of mortality. That’s right – in certain populations (such as the elderly), cholesterol seems to be protective against diseases such as cancer. Who wants to be protected from heart disease, only to die of something else? Colpo will show you how, once again, it boils down to lifestyle factors – diet, exercise, and stress – which can cause arterial inflammation and damage. He even shows you how to put together a healthy diet and exercise plan to decrease the likelihood of heart disease without resorting to statins and all of their accompanying side effects (such as joint and muscle pain, temporary memory loss, and rhabdomyolysis).

The Great Cholesterol Con contains a ton of other useful information, such as detailed discussion of why saturated fat is not only not bad for you, but actually a nutrient essential to proper health. And of course, Colpo examines the much-maligned low-carb diet to show that, even though the media won’t showcase these studies, it is continually proven to be a healthy and safe way to manage both weight and health – much healthier than a low-fat diet will ever be. There’s a reason for that; certain amino acids (protein) and fatty acids are essential. They are even called essential amino acids and essential fatty acids. There’s no such thing as an essential carbohydrate (nice to have, yes; essential, no).

I hope that one day, The Great Cholesterol Con is required reading for medical school students. I hope that Anthony Colpo keeps researching and keeps writing; we need more books that explore all sides of a story rather than just the side the moneymaking stakeholders want you to get. It is going to take a long time, but hopefully with people like Anthony Colpo leading the charge (with backup from the great thinkers at The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics), we can get some attention focused on real health issues. In the meantime, Colpo is going to face the ire of the companies that stake their profits on the falsity of cholesterol and low-fat. Unfortunately, Mr. Colpo’s website, The Omnivore, has been taken down due to personal reasons. This website was one of the best free resources on the net for finding information on cholesterol, saturated fat, low carb diets, soy, and any number of other health topics. We can only hope that the articles Colpo has already written return.

So read the book. You can pick it up at Amazon or Lulu for an excellent price, especially considering the time and effort that had to go into reading all of those medical journals and putting this work together. Whether you decide to believe what Colpo has written or not is up to you, but at least you’ll have considered both sides of the story and be armed
with all of the available research.

The Cholesterol Hype

Originally posted 6-13-2006

We are constantly told that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol intake are the causes of high lipid (blood) cholesterol and that high cholesterol is the cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease. Of course, this means that we should subsist on a diet relatively devoid of animal fat and possibly replace some of your protein intake with soy for a “good low fat choice.” You also have to cut down on eggs, eat lots of grains for starch and fiber, and replace that “nutritional devil” saturated fat with some mono- and polyunsaturated fats.

So if we assume that the premise that saturated fats and dietary cholesterol are bad and lots of grains and polyunsaturated fats are good, is the War on Cholesterol justified? Does lowering the level of lipid cholesterol reduce the prevalence of heart disease and atherosclerosis? Should we seek to lower lipid cholesterol levels to the lowest level possible? Is there really such a thing as “bad” and “good” cholesterol? Hmmm. What if the establishment has been inadvertently wrong or possibly advertently misleading?

Oops, I guess I gave away the premise right there at the end of the second paragraph. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics is a group of doctors and scientists that seeks to set the record straight regarding the role of animal fat and high lipid cholesterol in heart disease. One of these doctors is Uffe Ravnskov, author of The Cholesterol Myths. Dr. Ravnskov makes the point that high cholesterol doesn’t contribute to the hardening of arteries because studies show that people with low cholesterol are just as atherosclerotic as people with high cholesterol.

In fact, it appears that there may be benefits to having high cholesterol levels. Dr. Ravnskov asks us to “consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol.” In fact, low cholesterol increases one’s risk of all-cause mortality; numerous studies show that high cholesterol protects against infection. Plain and simple, cholesterol is the building block of many structures in the body, including all steroid hormones and cell membranes, and plays a key role in regulating blood sugar, building strong bones and muscles, and repairing tissue damage.

So it appears that high cholesterol isn’t really a risk factor for much of anything. However, high cholesterol may be indicative of a situation that is a risk factor. For instance, high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women or old people, but is for young and middle-aged men. Now that sounds like an odd hypothesis.

To quote this summary of Dr. Ravnskov’s book:
“If we were to believe that a correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease proved that cholesterol causes heart disease, using the data from the major studies used to support this idea, we would have to believe:
•cholesterol causes heart disease in men, but not in women
•cholesterol causes heart disease in Americans, but not in Canadians, and protects against heart disease in Russians
•cholesterol causes heart disease if you are between the ages of 30 and 47, but stops causing heart disease once you turn 48”

Essentially, cholesterol is dangerous, but only if you have a Y chromosome and are a certain age. Logic dictates that it isn’t the high cholesterol levels in these young and middle-aged men that is causing their problems since high cholesterol levels in all other populations are protective. Remember folks, correlation does not prove causation. Basically, high cholesterol could be a symptom of something risky or it may just be an innocent bystander, flexing its protective muscle in your blood system. Dr. Thomas Cowan found that a woman that was a lifetime golfer had high cholesterol. Once put on statins, her cholesterol dropped and she started showing symptoms of toxicity from the pesticides on the golf course, so it looks like the cholesterol was allowing her body to detoxify the large amount of pesticides she was taking in.

Oh and don’t be so concerned about that “bad” LDL either. I’ll leave you with that thought and move onto the role of diet in this farce. So now let’s assume that high cholesterol is something to worry about and look at how we should go about “fixing” that.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick will tell you that neither dietary cholesterol nor dietary saturated fat intake causes any change in lipid cholesterol levels (as he provides further systematic dismantling of the cholesterol hypothesis). To summarize: saturated fat is NEVER turned into cholesterol. The liver makes cholesterol and it doesn’t make cholesterol from fat, saturated or not. In fact, it has been shown that saturated fat is protective against arterial narrowing, while (drumroll!) grains and polyunsaturated fats have been found to be harmful. Now that makes sense! Before the cholesterol can attach to form a plaque, the artery needs to be damaged. High levels of circulating glucose and insulin damage the lining of arteries. And polyunsaturated fats are highly susceptible to oxidation, while saturated fats are nearly impervious, with mono’s falling somewhere in the middle.

Quick primer on oxidation: when it happens to iron it’s called rusting, when it happens to fruit it’s called ripening, when it happens to our bodies it’s called aging. Oxidation is a bad thing, hence why ANTI-oxidants are such a good thing. So cooking should be done with saturated fats such as palm and coconut oils, rather than with polyunsaturated fats like corn and peanut oils, since heat increases oxidation in fats.

Given the multitude of studies showing that cholesterol isn’t a risk factor for heart disease, and may even be beneficial in the protection against other infections, why isn’t it common knowledge? That one’s simple. You don’t have to be the CEO of Pfizer to recognize that statins, the only truly effective way to lower cholesterol, are a multi-billion dollar “wonder drug.” The more diseases that can be pinned on cholesterol, and the more doctors purchased, the more profits the pharmaceutical giants stand to rake in. Late last year, cholesterol was “linked” to Alzheimer’s – chalk up another disease that can be treated with statins. Unfortunately for the cholesterol hypothesis, it appears that insulin resistance (Type II diabetes) is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s, not cholesterol. Don’t worry, Big Pharma won’t let a little thing like truth keep them from pumping millions more Americans full of statins. They will keep pushing for new lower limits of “healthy” cholesterol and doctors in the know will continue to oppose them, to no avail.

The part that I find exceptionally ironic is that when most people take their car to the mechanic, a $500 repair raises eyebrows. “Hey, is this guy taking me to the cleaners?” A doctor tells them they have high cholesterol and are going to be taking statins for the rest of their life. “Oh…ok.” And statins are going to cost upwards of $1000 per year. So people are more than willing to take drugs that can cause birth defects, pancreatic disorders, Coenzyme Q10 depletion (extremely ironic considering CoQ10 is necessary for proper heart function), and a whole host of other known issues, yet they question a guy that wants to put new brakes on their car. Even better, statins cause depression in many people. How’s that for a double-whammy for the pharmaceutical companies? They can put you on lifetime statins and lifetime depression meds.

So putting it all together, it appears that neither saturated fat intake nor cholesterol intake have a measurable effect on lipid cholesterol. Further, it appears that lipid cholesterol may have the opposite effect of what we’re told. That is, high cholesterol seems to be protective rather than detrimental. So if you go to the doctor and he tells you that you have “high cholesterol”, rest assured that you’re probably ok. Or at the very least, it isn’t the cholesterol that you need to be worried about, it’s whatever underlying issue your body is trying to protect itself against by producing cholesterol. Eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, full-fat grassfed meats, and wild-caught fish, and low in polyunsaturated fats and grains. And don’t take statins.

Other Links:
Much more reading courtesy of Cholesterol and Health.com
Cholesterol levels not linked to cardiovascular disease
Potential side effects of statins
More on carbohydrates and atherosclerotic progression
Lack of scientific evidence for saturated fat connection to cholesterol