Category Archives: Diet and Heart Disease

Dr. P’s Heart Nuts and The Flawed But Still Relevant PREDIMED Trial

The skeptical cardiologist was somewhat disheartened to read  the New York Times headline today that the  PREDIMED study was flawed. I frequently reference this landmark randomized trial of the mediterranean diet when I’m citing the cardiovascular benefits of nuts and EV olive oil.

Science mag summarizes the problem which prompted a re-analysis of the study:

A months-long inquiry by the Spanish researchers and NEJM staff uncovered that up to 1588 people in the trial hadn’t been properly randomized: Some were assigned to the same diet as someone else in their household (a common feature of diet studies, but not reported in the original paper). Others, who lived in a rural area, were assigned to different diets based on the clinic closest to them—for example, one group had to pick up a liter of olive oil each week. “The investigator realized he couldn’t get people to travel as far as they needed so he made his study ‘cluster randomized,’” by clinic rather than by individual, Drazen says.

The authors reanalyzed their data without those 1588 participants and found that despite the missteps, the conclusion held: Nuts, olive oil, and fatty fish remained a net positive on heart health, though the conclusions came with somewhat less statistical oomph than in the original paper.

Here’s what I wrote about nuts and the PREDIMED study when I first started distributing Dr. P’s Heart Nuts to my patients.

The skeptical cardiologist has finally prepared Dr. P’s Heart Nuts for distribution. IMG_8339The major stumbling block in preparing them was finding almonds which were raw (see here), but not gassed with proplyene oxide (see here), and which did not contain potentially toxic levels of cyanide (see here).

During this search I learned a lot about almonds and cyanide toxicity, and ended up using raw organic almonds from nuts.com, which come from Spain.

I’ll be giving out these packets (containing 15 grams of almonds, 15 grams of hazelnuts and 30 grams of walnuts) to my patients because there is really good scientific evidence that consuming 1/2 packet of these per day will reduce their risk of dying from heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

IMG_7965The exact components are based on the landmark randomized trial of the Mediterranean diet, enhanced by either extra-virgin olive oil or nuts (PREDIMED, in which participants in the two Mediterranean-diet groups received either extra-virgin olive oil (approximately 1 liter per week) or 30g of mixed nuts per day (15g of walnuts, 7.5g of hazelnuts, and 7.5g of almonds) at no cost, and those in the control group received small nonfood gifts).

After 5 years, those on the Mediterranean diet had about a 30% lower rate of heart attack, stroke or cardiovascular death than the control group.

It’s fantastic to have a randomized trial (the strongest form of scientific evidence) supporting nuts, as it buttresses consistent (weaker, but easier to obtain), observational data.

Despite the statistical flaws PREDIMED is still an important study demonstrating the benefits of nuts.  PREDIMED was the best randomized trial data we had for nuts but there are tons of observational data which are very consistent and show a strong association between increased nut consumption and reduced mortality..

Consequently, I made up a new batch of Dr. P’s Heart Nuts in honor of the survival of PREDIMED and will be distributing them to patients today.

Meditativeterraneanly Yours,

-ACP

Flaxseed: Plant-Based Omega 3 Super Food or Faux Fish Oil?

Ground flaxseed plus Trader’s Point Creamery full fat plain yoghurt. It’s not pretty but tastes pretty good.

The skeptical cardiologist has a confession to make: he’s been adding ground flaxseed to his typical late morning full fat yoghurt plus berries and almonds.

Adding flaxseed seems dangerously close to dietary behaviour I have been advising against: supplementing instead of eating real food.

Also, I am philosophically opposed to going out of my way to eat any edible that is consistently promoted as a “super food” or a “functional food.” To me, these are meaningless terms and marketing blather

When I began writing this post in 2017 I was getting my flaxseed from Stober Farms (Est. 1901) who had been producing “for over 100 years  the finest flax in the world.”  Stober Farms provided me with “organic Golden Flax Seed which has been Cold-Milled Processed.”

Stober Farms (who have since mysteriously gone into bankruptcy) also informed me:

Flax is digested most effectively when ground. Some grinding methods generate heat when milled, spurring early omega-3 oxidation. Stober Farms uses a unique cold-milled process, which gently grinds the seed without significantly raising the temperature. This proprietary method preserves the nutrients, flavor and extends the shelf life to 22 months.

Honestly, I don’t recall exactly why I began “flaxing” but I suspect I felt it was a good way to boost the fat content in my full fat yoghurt (yes, I am now spelling yoghurt with an h) and berries and perhaps sufficiently satiate me that it would be the only food I would need to consume until dinner or late afternoon.

Two tablespoon (14 grams) is what I typically  imprecisely add. These tablespoons provide 75 kcal of energy which comes from 3 grams of protein, 6 grams of fat, and 4 grams of carbs.  Three of the four carb grams are soluble fibre.

About half of the fat in flaxseed is in the form of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)(18:3) an omega-3 polyunsaturated (PUFA) fat.  Flaxseed oil contains five times more ALA than walnut oil or canola oil, which are the next highest sources of ALA.

Is Flaxseed A Super Functional Food?

Many seemingly authoritative sites on the internet proclaim that flaxseed is incredibly healthy. For example, Healthline.com’s “Authority Nutrition” (they must be authoritative as authority is in their name)  presents their 10 health benefits of eating flaxseed “backed by science”  and concludes:

They can be used to improve digestive health, lower blood pressure and bad cholesterol, reduce the risk of cancer and may benefit people with diabetes.

But typical of  Authority Nutrition’s overblown claims  these are not truly proven by science. The studies cited are weak; typically short-term tests of biomarkers or animal studies or human studies with very small numbers. Most importantly. these studies , which are often funded by flaxseed promoters are highly likely to be biased in favor of positive results.

Most websites tout the cardiovascular benefits of the omega-3 PUFA in flaxseed, the high percentage of soluble fibre and  the benefits of a chemical which cannot be named (due to a name which is too difficult to pronounce), SDG.

Omega-3 PUFAs and fibre I’ve touched on previously (and positively) but what about the mysterious and unpronounceable SDF. Per a 2010 review article

Flaxseed is the richest source of the lignan secoisolariciresinol diglucoside (SDG). After ingestion, SDG is converted to secoisolariciresinol, which is further metabolised to the mammalian lignans enterodiol and enterolactone. A growing body of evidence suggests that SDG metabolites may provide health benefits due to their weak oestrogenic or anti-oestrogenic effects, antioxidant activity, ability to induce phase 2 proteins and/or inhibit the activity of certain enzymes, or by mechanisms yet unidentified.

Like so many putative wonder phytochemicals, SDG has a “growing body of evidence” for lots of things but actual proof that it does anything worthwhile in humans is lacking and awaits  well done randomized clinical trials

Poorly researched articles on flaxseed are highly likely to tout its anti-inflammatory properties. These properties are seen in rats but unfortunately haven’t been proven in my favorite species, Homo Sapiens ,  Flaxseed doesn’t seem to decrease the inflammatory marker CRP in humans as reported in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

ALA and Cardiovascular Disease

As I’ve indicated in previous posts, evidence supports fatty fish consumption as beneficial in reducing cardiovascular disease presumably by increasing levels of marine omega-3 PUFAs in the body.

The value of fish oil supplementation, however, is not proven (see here).

How does ALA compare to the seafood omega 3s  in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD)?

In 2012, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing data on ALA and the risk of CVD..

Their introductory paragraph nicely lays out why ALA could be very important to public health:

A large body of evidence supports a potential protective effect of seafood omega-3 (n−3) fatty acids, particularly EPA (20:5n−3) and DHA (22:6n−3), on coronary heart disease (CHD. However, fewer studies have evaluated how the plant-derived omega-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid (ALA; 18:3n−3) relates to risk of CHD and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes, and the results have been inconsistent As an essential fatty acid that cannot be synthesized by humans, ALA is mainly consumed from plant sources, including soybeans, walnuts, and canola oil. Compared with seafood omega-3 fatty acids, ALA from plant sources is more affordable and widely available globally. Thus, whether ALA can reduce the risk of CVD is of considerable public health importance.

If plant-derived ALA can provide our omage-3 PUFA needs then perhaps we can stop stripping the ocean of all the menhaden.

In the Harvard analysis when all 27 studies were combined the authors found a significant risk reduction of 14% in CVD events with flaxseed.

There were lots of issues with the data which I won’t bore you with leading the authors to conclude that “ALA consumption may be beneficial “.  They emphasized the need for additional well-designed observational studies and randomized clinical trials in the area.

Since observational studies cannot prove causality, I await a good randomized clinical trial of ALA supplementation before I can recommend ALA supplementing to prevent heart disease.

After Performing This Review Is The Skeptical Cardiologist Still “Flaxing”?

I am. Because I’ve found that when I consume flaxseed I feel 20 years younger, full of vitality. and with a youthful golden sheen to my hair, nails and skin.

Actually, that last sentence is untrue.

I’m still adding ground flaxseed to my yoghurt but not with any expectation that it is reducing my risk of heart attack and definitely not because I perceive it as a super or functional food.

I like the taste, the convenience, and the extra (presumably healthy) calories it provides but I’m still an advocate of just eating real food rather than trying to identify specific nutrients, nutraceuticals or supplements and add them to your diet.

Flaxseedingly Yours,

-ACP

N.B. I did not touch on omega-6/omega-3 ratios in the diet. I’ve been examining that inflammatory (enjoy the pun) topic for years and once I come across a good study that adds to understanding in the area I will likely publish a post on it.

 

The Eggsoneration Continues: Why Does Anyone Eat Egg Whites?

The skeptical cardiologist pointed out in 2013 that there was no good evidence supporting limiting dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day.  I exulted, therefore, in 2016 , when this long-standing dietary recommendation came out of the US dietary guidelines.

Recognizing that dietary cholesterol doesn’t need to be limited means that eggs and egg yolks are fine.

Egg Whites: A Product of Nutritional Misinformation?

Why, then do egg whites continue to be created and consumed?

On a regular basis, patients tell me that they are eating egg white omelettes because they believe egg yolks are not heart healthy.

Old bad nutritional dogma takes a long time to reverse apparently. To this day, for example, the National Lipid Association still recommends limiting daily cholesterol consumption to <200 mg/ day

Therefore I find it necessary to highlight additional new studies that further eggsonerate eggs.

To wit, I shall briefly discuss two articles that were published earlier this month and brought to my attention by friends and readers who are aware of my rabid support for the egg.

Article One: The Wonderfully Acronymed DIABEGG Study

Entitled  “Effect of a high-egg diet on cardiometabolic risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes and Egg (DIABEGG) Study—randomized weight-loss and follow-up phase” our fist study was performed in Australia at the Sydney Medical School,

Investigators randomized 128 patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes (T2D) to a high egg or a low egg diet.

Throughout all study phases, including the 3-mo weight-loss phase, participants consuming the high-egg diet were instructed to eat 2 eggs/d at breakfast for 6 d/wk (12 eggs/wk). Those in the low-egg group were directed to consume <2 eggs/wk, and to match the protein intake that the high-egg group had consumed at breakfast with 10 g lean animal protein (meat, chicken, or sh) or other protein-rich alternatives, such as legumes and reduced-fat dairy products (also consumed at breakfast). Recommended egg-cooking methods were boiled or poached, but they could also be fried if a polyunsaturated cooking oil, such as olive oil, was used. The prescribed diets were energy and macronutrient matched, as reported previously

At the end of 12 months both groups had lost about 3 kg in weight.
The investigators measured everything they could to look at diabetic and cardiometabolic biomarkers which might suggest adverse effects of egg eating on the cardiovascular system but they could find no difference between the egg eaters and the non egg eaters.
High egg consumption had no adverse effects on the following factors that are felt to be important in the development of atherosclerosis:

-measures of systemic and vascular inflammation [high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), IL-6, soluble E-selectin (sE-selectin)],

-oxidative stress (F2-isoprostanes), the adipokine adiponectin (which also modulates insulin resistance), and

-glycemia [fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and a medium-term measure of glycemia, 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5AG)].

The authors suggested that nutritional guidelines stop worrying about limiting eggs.

Article Two: Half A Million Chinese Can’t Be Wrong

This observational study published in Heart found that egg consumption in a huge Chinese population was associated with less stroke, and major cardiac events (MCE):

Compared with non-consumers, daily egg consumption was associated with lower risk of CVD (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.92). Corresponding multivariate-adjusted HRs (95% CI) for IHD, MCE, haemorrhagic stroke and ischaemic stroke were 0.88 (0.84 to 0.93), 0.86 (0.76 to 0.97), 0.74 (0.67 to 0.82) and 0.90 (0.85 to 0.95), respectively. There were significant dose-response relationships of egg consumption with morbidity of all CVD endpoints (P for linear trend <0.05). Daily consumers also had an 18% lower risk of CVD death and a 28% lower risk of haemorrhagic stroke death compared to non-consumers.

The lower risk for stroke and cardiovascular death in egg eaters persisted after accounting for known CVD risk factors.

(And yes, I agree this is an observational study which we should take with huge grains of salt and pepper).

Are EGG Whites The Skim Milk Scam of The Egg Industry?

I’ve written about the scam that is skim milk but it occurs to me that egg white consumption is equally nonsensical.

What happens to the wonderfully nutritious yolk of the egg when it is brutally separated from its white? It is put in a container and sold as  liquid egg yolk. Makers of mayonnaise are big consumers of liquid egg yolk.

Thus, like dairy farmers who double their sales by selling skim milk and its dairy fat separately, egg producers are probably delighted that Americans are consuming egg whites , allowing them to get two products from a single egg.

As I wrote previously: not everyone is an egg lover and I’m fine with that. There is no evidence that you have to eat them. You could feel towards them as did Alfred Hitchcock :

“I’m frightened of eggs, worse than frightened, they revolt me. That white round thing without any holes … have you ever seen anything more revolting than an egg yolk breaking and spilling its yellow liquid? Blood is jolly, red. But egg yolk is yellow, revolting. I’ve never tasted it.”

For those that don’t find yellow revolting, however, avoiding egg yolk makes no nutritional sense.

Eggsplicatively Yours,

-ACP

Dear Dr. Gottlieb, Full Fat Dairy is “Healthy”. Why Are You Pushing Low-Fat Dairy?

By all accounts, Scott Gottlieb, the Trump appointed director of the FDA is doing a good job.

Vox points out, he has announced substantial FDA moves to reduce cigarette consumption and is committed to improving competition in generic drugs.

However, he gave a recent speech at the National Food Policy Conference  on “Reducing the Burden of Chronic Disease” which indicates he is misinformed on crucial aspects of nutritional science.

Gottlieb indicated he wanted the FDA to play a bigger role in guiding Americans to eat a healthier diet to reduce the burden of chronic disease.

To facilitate this he is looking to define what foods are “healthy”:

We’re keeping all these considerations in mind as we pursue rulemaking to update the definition of “healthy” so it’s based on nutrition criteria and food considerations that are more up-to-date than those being used for the current definition….

Once updating the definition, Gottlieb wants to label food as “healthy” In a way that makes it easier for consumers to understand:

To address this, we’ve had discussions about whether there should be a standard icon or symbol for the word “healthy” that everyone could use on food packages.

Gottlieb goes on to bemoan a focus on nutrients rather than foods but in the very  next sentence recommends a food, dairy, in a form that has one important nutrient stripped from it-fat.

Traditionally, we’ve focused primarily on the nutrients contained in food in considering what is healthy. But people eat foods, not nutrients.

This is why we’re asking the important question of whether a modernized definition of “healthy” should go beyond nutrients to better reflect dietary patterns and food groups, like whole grains, low fat dairy, fruits and vegetables and healthy oils?

Obviously, the first step in getting Americans to eat healthier is to make sure you are doling out the correct advise and in his speech Dr. Gottlieb indicates he has bought into  long-standing fundamental errors. I wrote him the following letter hoping to correct these errors.


Dear Dr. Gottlieb,

Congratulations on your recent appointment as FDA director and kudos for your fine work to date. I read your recent comments on developing an updated definition of “healthy” and the importance of  conveying that information to American consumers  I applaud your efforts in this area as well as your ongoing efforts to limit cigarette smoking and improve generic competition.

I am fine with guiding consumers to healthy foods but I beg of you, let this determination of what is healthy be guided by the actual science, not prior dogma.

In your recent speech you indicate that Americans are not consuming enough dairy and you recommend low-fat dairy which implies that you and the FDA believe that scientific studies have demonstrated that dairy fat is unhealthy.

Five years ago I, too , thought dairy fat was unhealthy and recommended my patients avoid butter, full-fat yogurt and cheese. However, when challenged on this belief, I reviewed the scientific literature on dairy fat and cardiovascular disease.

It turns out when objectively analyzed (as I have written about here and here ) there is no scientific evidence that supports the concept that dairy processed to remove dairy fat is healthier than the original unadulterated product.

In fact, evidence suggests full fat dairy reduces central obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis in general.

As a result of misguided recommendations to avoid dairy fat, it is virtually impossible in most grocery stores to find full fat yogurt or milk. The vast majority of the dairy aisle is devoted to various low or non fat concoctions which have had loads of sugar and chemicals added and are arguably worse than a Snickers bar.

Dr. Gottlieb ,I am not cherry-picking the data here or relying on out of date studies. I’ve reviewed everything I can find on this issue and reviewed it without bias. Evidence continues to accumulate supporting the healthiness of full fat dairy.

For example, here’s a 2018 review from researchers totally unaffiliated with the dairy industry which asks the question “Dairy Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: Do We Really Need to Be Concerned?”

After a exhaustive review they conclude the answer is no.

recent research and meta-analyses have demonstrated the benefits of full-fat dairy consumption, based on higher bioavailability of high-value nutrients and anti-inflammatory properties. … In general, evidence suggests that milk has a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes but fermented dairy products, such as yoghurt, kefir and cheese may have a positive or neutral effect.

Flawed Reasons for Low Fat Dairy Recommendations

As I have written previously, I believe there are three reasons for the failure of major nutritional recommendations such as the 2015  Dietary Guidelines For Americans  to correct previously  flawed advice to choose  non or low-fat dairy over full fat:

1. In  few randomized dietary studies showing benefits of a particular diet over another, non fat or low fat dairy was recommended along with a portfolio of other healthy dietary changes.

The overall benefit of the superior diet had nothing to do with lowering the dairy fat but was due to multiple other changes.

2. The dairy industry has no motivation to promote full fat dairy. In fact, they do better financially when they can take the fat out of milk and sell it for other purposes such as butter, cheese, and cream. (Please read my interview with a plastic surgeon dairy farmer on the skim milk scam here.)

3. Saturated fat is still mistakenly being treated as a monolithic nutritional element.  Although dairy fat is mostly saturated, the individual saturated fats vary widely in their effects on atherogenic lipids and atherosclerosis. In addition, the nature of the saturated fat changes depending on the diet of the cow.

4. Since authorities have been making this low fat dairy recommendation for so long they are extremely reluctant to reverse their advice. It lowers their credibility.

There Is No Scientific Consensus On What Constitutes A Healthy Oil

Finallly, Dr. Gottlieb, I would like to briefly point out that there is considerable ongoing scientific debate about what constitutes a “healthy oil.”

I summarized this last year on a post on coconut oil (which I fear you will also pronounce “unhealthy”).

In many respects, the vilification of coconut oil by federal dietary guidelines and the AHA resembles the inappropriate attack on dairy fat and is emblematic of the whole misguided war on dietary fat. In fact, the new AHA advisory  after singling out coconut oil goes on to cherry-pick the data on dairy fat and cardiovascular disease in order to  support their faulty recommendations for choosing low or nonfat dairy.

Canola and corn oil, the products of extensive factory processing techniques, contain mostly mono or polyunsaturated fats which have been deemed “heart-healthy” on the flimsiest of evidence.

The most recent data we have on replacing saturated fat in the diet with polyunsaturated fat comes from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment performed from 1968 to 1973, but published in 2016 in the BMJ.

Data from this study, which substituted liquid corn oil in place of the usual hospital cooking fats, replaced corn oil margarine for butter and added corn oil to numerous food items, showed no overall benefit in reducing mortality. In fact, individuals over age 65 were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease if they got the corn oil diet.

So, Dr. Gottlieb, please continue your efforts to make Americans healthier but make sure the current scientific evidence actually supports your recommendations. Keep in mind, the disastrous public health experiments of previous decades.


Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

N.B. Some of my posts on dairy fat are below.

Dairy Fat Makes You Thinner

The Skim Milk Scam

More Evidence That Diary Fat is associated with a lower risk of heart disease

What happens to cholesterol levels when you switch to low or non fat dairy?

Dietary Guidelines 2015: Why Lift Fat and cholesterol limits but still promote low fat dairy?

In defense of real cheese.


h/t to the always excellent Conscien Health for bringing Gottlieb’s speech to my attention.


Credit for the featured image of dairy cows from the wonderful Trader’s Point Creamery

The Skeptical Cardiologist Answers Good Questions: Retesting For Symptomatic Benign PVCs?

One of the many things I enjoy about writing this blog is the interesting comments and questions that readers post. Many of them stimulate me to better answer and inform my patients.

Here’s one such question (about premature ventricular contractions):

Wondering your opinion on retesting. I’ve had PVCs since I was 15 (63 now) and they have come and gone over the years, attributed to hormones, low potassium, stress, and dehydration/bad diet. Recently they started again and are driving me insane and none of the usual fixes are working. Two ER visits with normal EKGs and my cardiologist all say no worries. I’m thinking maybe I should have another ultrasound, buy MD doesn’t think it’s necessary. I had a perfectly normal cath in 2015 but no tests since. Your thoughts? Thank you.

This was the response I typed off the top of my head:

Good question. I consider retesting for patients who have not had documentation of “structurally normal heart” for some time and who have a significant change in their symptoms. You would qualify since no testing in 3 years and worsened symptoms.
Typically I would order a stress echocardiogram which allows a reassessment of both LV structure and function and for any blockage in the coronary arteries and I would consider some kind of monitor-a 24 hour Holter would be fine if you are having daily symptoms.
You might also consider acquiring an AliveCor device to monitor your rhythm with symptoms. I’ve written a lot about this elsewhere on this site. Unfortunately AliveCor does not identify PVCs but if you connect via KardiaPro with your physician your recordings can be viewed and interpreted by him/her.

The answer reflects my clinical practice, which is based on 30 years of experience taking care of patients with PVCs, in conjunction with regularly reading papers, reviews and guidelines in this area.

Periodically, both for specific patient problems and for blog questions, I will search the medical/scientific literature and review guideline publications to see if there is any new information that I am unaware of to ensure that my recommendations are scientifically grounded.

In this case, a more prolonged search of the literature did not yield precise guidance on the frequency of retesting of patients with benign PVCs.

This 2014 guideline comments briefly on the evaluation and treatment of PVCs without structural heart disease (SHD):

In the absence of SHD, the most common indication for treating PVCs remains the presence of symptoms that are not improved by explanation of their benign nature and reassurance from the physician.

In addition, some patients may require treatment for frequent asymptomatic PVCs if longitudinal imaging surveillance reveals an interval decline in LV systolic function or an increase in chamber volume.

For patients with  >10,000 PVCs/24 h, follow-up with repeat echocardiography and Holter monitoring should be considered.

In patients with fewer PVCs, further investigation is only necessary should symptoms increase.

It should also be recognized that PVC burden often fluctuates over time.

This initial testing approach corresponds closely to what I wrote in my post on benign PVCs here.

Retesting with echocardiography and Holter monitoring is advised for those few patients who have lots of PVCs, but the frequency of this retesting is not specified and cardiologists have to use their best judgement, balancing the cost (to patient and to society) and patient safety.  Most cardiologists will err on the side of more frequent repeat testing for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I will advise an annual echocardiogram to such patients since they are at a higher risk of developing a cardiomyopathy.

In the absence of really frequent PVCs (>10,000 per 24 hours is a nice round number, but the precise cut-off is debatable), we should probably only repeat testing if the patient recognizes a significant change in their symptoms.

The reader clearly fits into that category, and retesting in her will provide reassurance that all is still good with her heart. This, in turn, should help with managing symptoms and preventing recurrent ER visits.

The final question (and the toughest) that we could pose related to retesting is “What is the time interval that one should wait before retesting in a patient with worsened symptoms?”

For example, if the reader had a normal echocardiogram 6 months ago should we repeat it when symptoms worsen? My reflex answer would be no, but at some time interval depending on the individual characteristics of the case-patient risks for heart disease, patient anxiety levels, patient symptom severity and frequency, the answer would become yes.

Cardiologists have to answer dozens of questions like this daily.  There is no science to inform a precise answer, consequently the answers will vary wildly from one cardiologist to another depending on a variety of factors specific to the cardiologist.

Those cardiologist-specific factors are complex and sometimes controversial. Part of this makes up the art of medicine and part reflects the business of medicine. They are definitely worthy of another post when time permits.

Questioningly Yours,

-ACP

N.B. The Eternal Fiancee’ (my layperson surrogate) expressed surprise that one could have 10 000 PVCs per day. I told her that if your heart beats roughly once per second (6o beats per minute) since there are  60 x 60 x 24 = 86400 seconds in a day, your heart beats almost 90 000 times in 24 hours.

Thus, roughly  1 in 9 beats is a PVC.

Low-Fat Versus Low-Carb Diet: DIETFITS Show Both Can Work If They Are “Healthy”

In the ongoing nutritional war between adherents of low-fat and low-carb diets, the skeptical cardiologist has generally weighed in on the side of lower carbs for weight loss and cardiovascular health.

I’ve questioned the vilification of saturated fat and emphasized the dangers of added sugar. I’ve even dabbled in nutritional ketosis.

The science in  nutrition is gradually advancing and the DIETFITS study recently published in JAMA is a welcome addition.

DIETFITS is a  really well done study which provides important insights into three huge questions about optimal diet:

  1. Should we choose a low-fat or a  low-carb diet for  weight loss and cardiovascular health?
  2. Do baseline insulin dynamics predict who will respond to low-fat versus low-carb diet?
  3. Can we predict who will respond to low-fat versus low-carb by genetic testing?

The Details Of DIETFITS

Stanford investigators recruited 609 San Francisco area individuals between the ages of 18 to 50 years with BMI of 28 to 40  and randomized them to a “healthy” low-fat diet or a “healthy” low-carb diet.

During the first 8 weeks of the study, low-fat participants were instructed to reduce fat consumption to <20 gm/ day while the low carb participants were instructed to reduce digestible carbohydrate to <20 gms/day.

Then individuals were allowed to add back fats or carbs back to their diets in increments of 5 to 15 g/d per week until “they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be maintained indefinitely.”  Importantly no explicit instructions for energy restriction were given.

The “healthy” instructions for both groups were as follows

  1. maximize vegetable intake
  2. minimize intake of added sugar, refined flours and trans-fats
  3. focus on whole foods that are minimally processed, nutrient dense and prepared at home whenever possible

Dietfits Outcomes-Diet And Weight

Major findings

  1. Total energy intake was reduced by 500-600 kcal/d for both groups
  2. The low-fat vs the low-carb intake at 12 months was 48% versus 30% for carbs, 29 vs 43% for fat and 21 vs 23% for protein.
  3. Mean 12 months weight change was -5.3 kg for low-fat vs 6-6.0 kg for low-carb which was not significantly different
  4. There was no difference between groups in body fat percentage or waist circumference
  5. Both diets improved lipid profiles and lowered blood pressure, insulin and glucose levels
  6. LDL (bad cholesterol) declined more in the low-fat group whereas HDL (good cholesterol) increased more and triglycerides declined more in the low-carb group.

Thus both diets were successful for weight loss and both improved risk markers for cardiovascular disease after a year.

DIETFITS- Can Genes and Insulin resistance Predict Best Diet?

Surprisingly, the study found no significant diet-genotype interaction and no diet-insulin secretion interaction with weight loss.

This means that they could not predict (as many believed based on earlier studies) who will benefit from a low carb diet based on either currently available genetic testing or a generally accepted measure of insulin resistance.

As the authors point out, these findings “highlight the importance of conducting large, appropriately powered trials such as DIETFITS for validating early exploratory analyses.”

DIETFITS-Perspectives

As you can imagine this study has led to quite an uproar and backlash from dedicated combatants in the macronutrient wars.

A reasoned summary and response from Andreas Eenfeldt, a low carb proponent can be found on his excellent low carb/keto Diet Doctor site here.

Eenfeldt concludes

If I’m allowed to speculate, the reason that we did not see any major additional benefit from low carb in this study is that the groups ended up so similar when it came to bad carbs. The low-fat group ended up eating fewer carbs too (!) and significantly less sugar, while the low-carb group ended with a somewhat weak low-carb diet, reporting 130 grams of carbs per day.

Eenfeldt emphasizes that low-fat diets never “win” these macronutrient dietary skirmishes:

On the whole, this study adds to the 57 earlier studies (RCTs) comparing low carb and low fat for weight loss.

From a standing of 29 wins for low carb, zero for low fat and 28 draws, we now have 29 wins for low carb and 29 draws. The wins for low fat stay at zero.

Larry Husten at Cardiobrief.org in his analysis of the study quotes a number of experts including Gary Taubes, the low carb pioneering journalist

Taubes speculates “that the weight loss may have been similar not because any diet works if you stick with it and cut calories (one possible interpretation) but because of what these diets had in common — avoid sugar, refined grains, processed foods. Whether the low-carb arm would have done even better had Gardner kept their carbohydrates low is something this study can’t say. (And Ornish [low-fat diet proponent] would probably say the same thing about fat consumption.)”

The low-fat or vegan disciples seem to have had a muted response to this study. I can’t find anything from John McDougal , Dean Ornish, Caldwell Esselstyn or Joel Fuhrman.

Readers feel free to leave comments which  link to relevant analysis from the low-fat proponents.

Dietfits-Perspective Of The Participants

Julia Volluz at Vox wrote a fascinating piece recently which involved interviewing some of the participants in this study.

She points out that although the average DIETFITS participant lost over 10 pounds, “Some people lost more than 60 pounds, and others gained more than 20 during the year.”

LOW_FAT_LOW_CARBS_DIETS1__1_

She obtained permission from the lead author, Christopher Gardner  and interviewed  “Dawn, Denis, Elizabeth*, and Todd — two low-fat dieters and two low-carb dieters — about their experiences of succeeding or faltering in trying to slim down”

LOW_FAT_LOW_CARBS_DIETS1

I highly recommend reading the entire article for details but Volluz concludes

And that leads us to one of the burning mysteries of diets: how to explain why some people fail where others succeed — or the extreme variation in responses. Right now, science doesn’t have compelling answers, but the unifying theme from the four study participants should be instructive: The particulars of their diets — how many carbs or how much fat they were eating — were almost afterthoughts. Instead, it was their jobs, life circumstances, and where they lived that nudged them toward better health or crashing.

DIETFITS-Importance of “Healthy” Diet

Most likely the success of both of these diets is due to the instruction that both groups received on following a “healthy” diet. This guidance is remarkably similar to what I advocate and is something that combatants in the diet wars ranging from paleo to vegan can agree on.

The JAMA paper only provides the description I listed above but Volluz adds that participants were instructed to:

… focus on whole, real foods that were mostly prepared at home when possible, and specifically included as many vegetables as possible, every day … choose lean grass-fed and pasture-raised animal foods as well as sustainable fish ... eliminate, as much as possible, processed food products, including those with added sugars, refined white flour products, or trans-fats … prepare as much of their own food as possible. …

Indeed, if you want to see a very detailed description of the instructional process for participants check out the very detailed description of the methods here.

Yours in Health,

-ACP

N.B. I was searching for a reasoned response to this study from the low fat camp and to my surprise came across this fascinating video featuring the lead author of the study, Christopher Gardner, on (no fat/vegan) John McDougal’s YouTube site. Gardner is clearly on the side of sustainable, local , ethical food consumption but to his credit, his research , publications and comments on DIETFITS don’t reveal this.

The Bad Food Bible: A Well-Written, Sensible and Science-Based Approach To Diet

The skeptical cardiologist has been searching for some time for a book on diet that he can recommend to his patients. While I can find books which have a lot of useful content, usually the books mix in some totally unsubstantiated advice with which I disagree.

I recently discovered a food/diet/nutrition book which with I almost completely agree. The author is Aaron Carroll,  a pediatrician, blogger on health care research (The incidental Economist) and a Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Dean for Research Mentoring at Indiana University School of Medicine.

He writes a regular column for the New York Times and covers various topics in health care. His articles are interesting,  very well written and researched and he often challenges accepted dogma.

Like the skeptical cardiologist, he approaches his topics from an unbiased perspective and utilizes a good understanding of the scientific technique along with a research background to bring fresh perspective to health-related topics.

Last last year he wrote a column, within which I found the following:

Studies of diets show that many of them succeed at first. But results slow, and often reverse over time. No one diet substantially outperforms another. The evidence does not favor any one greatly over any other.

That has not slowed experts from declaring otherwise. Doctors, weight-loss gurus, personal trainers and bloggers all push radically different opinions about what we should be eating, and why. We should eat the way cave men did. We should avoid gluten completely. We should eat only organic. No dairy. No fats. No meat. These different waves of advice push us in one direction, then another. More often than not, we end up right where we started, but with thinner wallets and thicker waistlines.

I couldn’t agree more with this assessment and as I surveyed the top diet books on Amazon recently, I saw one gimmicky, pseudoscientific  diet after another. From the Whole30 approach (which illogically  completely eliminates any beans and legumes, dairy products,  alcohol, all grains, and starchy vegetables like potatoes (see how absurd this diet is here)) to Dr. Gundry’s Plant Paradox (aka lectin is the new gluten (see here for James Hambling’s wonderful Atlantic article on the huckster’s latest attempt to scare you into buying his useless supplements).

It turns out Carroll published a useful book recently, The Bad Food Bible which critically examines diet and I agree with the vast majority of what is in it.

The first three chapters are on butter, meat, eggs and salt. His conclusions on how we should approach these 4 are similar to ones I have reached and written about on this site (see here for dairy, here for meat, here for eggs and here for salt).  Essentially, the message is that the dangers of these four foods have been exaggerated or nonexistent, and that consuming them in moderation is fine.

The remaining chapters cover topics I have pondered extensively,  but have not written about: including gluten, GMOs, alcohol, coffee, diet-soda and non-organic foods.

I agree with his assessments on these topics. Below, I’ll present his viewpoint along with some of my own thoughts in these areas.

Gluten

Carroll does a good job of providing a scientific, but lay-person friendly background to understanding the infrequent (1 of 141 Americans), but quite serious gluten-related disorder, celiac disease.

However, surveys show that up to one-third of Americans, the vast majority of whom don’t have celiac disease, are seeking “gluten-free” foods, convinced that this is a healthier way of eating. Carroll points out that there is little scientific support for this; there are some individuals who are sensitive to wheat/gluten, but these are rare.

He concludes:

“If you have celiac disease, you need to be on a gluten-free diet. If you have a proven wheat allergy, you need to avoid wheat. But if you think you have gluten sensitivity? You’d probably be better off putting your energy and your dollars toward a different diet. Simply put, most people who think they have gluten sensitivity just don’t.

I do agree with him that the “gluten-free” explosion of foods (gluten-free sales have doubled from 2010 to 2014) is not justified.

However, I must point out that my 92 year old father has recently discovered that he has something that resembles gluten sensitivity. About a year ago, he noted that about one hour after eating a sandwich he would feel very weak and develop abdominal discomfort/bloating. He began suspecting these symptoms were due to the bread and experimented with different bread types without any symptom relief.

Finally, he tried gluten-free bread and the symptoms resolved.

If you have engaged in this type of observation and experimentation on your self, and noted improved symptoms when not consuming gluten, then I think you’re justified in diagnosing gluten sensitivity, and by all means consider minimizing/avoiding wheat.

GMOS

Carroll begins his chapter on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with a description of the droughts that plagued India in the 1960s and the efforts of Norman Borlaug to breed strains of wheat that were resistant to fungus and yielded more grain. By crossbreeding various strains of wheat he was able to develop a “semi-dwarf” strain that increased what was produced in Mexico by six-fold.

Despite the fact that numerous scientific and health organizations around the world have examined the evidence regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and found them to be completely safe, there remains a public controversy on this topic. In fact a Pew Poll found that while 88% of AAAS scientists believe that GMOs are safe for human consumption, only 37% of the public do – a 51% gap, the largest in the survey.

This gap is largely due to an aggressive anti-GMO propaganda campaign by certain environmental groups and the organic food industry, a competitor which stands to profit from anti-GMO sentiments. There is also a certain amount of generic discomfort with a new and complex technology involving our food.

The National Academy of Sciences analyzed in detail the health effects of GMOs in 2016. Their report concludes:

While recognizing the inherent difficulty of detecting subtle or long-term effects in health or the environment, the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engi-neered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops. GE crops have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers in early years of adoption, but enduring and widespread gains will depend on institutional support and access to profitable local and global markets, especially for resource-poor farmers

Carroll does a good job of looking at the GMO issue from all sides. He touches on environmental downsides related to herbicide-resistant GMO crops and the problems created by patenting GMO seeds, but asserts that “these are the result of imperfect farming and the laws that regular agribusiness, not of GMOS themselves.”

Ultimately, despite these concerns, I agree with Carroll’s conclusion that:

“Foods that contain GMOs aren’t inherently unhealthy, any more are  than foods that don’t contain them. The companies that are trying to see you foods by declaring them ‘GMO-free” are using the absence of GMOs to their advantage–not yours.”

Alcohol, Coffee, and Diet-Soda

Carroll does a good job of summarizing and analyzing the research for these three topics and reaches the same conclusions I have reached in regard to coffee, alcohol and diet-soda:

-alcohol in moderation lowers your risk of  dying, primarily by reducing cardiovascular death

-coffee, although widely perceived as unhealthy, is actually good for the vast majority of people

For those seeking more details a few quotes


on alcohol:

“Taken together, all of this evidence points to a few conclusions. First, the majority of the research suggests that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with decreased rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and death. Second, it also seems to be associated with increased rates of some cancers (especially breast cancer), cirrhosis, chronic pancreatitis, and accidents, although this negative impact from alcohol seems to be smaller than its positive impact on cardiovascular health. Indeed, the gains in cardiovascular disease seem to outweigh the losses in all the other diseases combined. The most recent report of the USDA Scientific Advisory Panel agrees that “moderate alcohol consumption can be incorporated into the calorie limits of most healthy eating patterns.”

Keep in mind that moderate consumption is up to one drink per day for women, and two drinks for men (my apologies to women in general and the Eternal Fiancee’ of the Skeptical Cardiologist in particular) and be aware of what constitutes “one drink.”

Also keep in mind that any alcohol consumption raises the risk of atrial fibrillation (see here) and that if you have a cardiomyopathy caused by alcohol you should avoid it altogether.


on coffee:

“It’s time people stopped viewing coffee as something to be limited or avoided. It’s a completely reasonable part of a healthy diet, and it appears to have more potential benefits than almost any other beverage we consume.
Coffee is more than my favorite breakfast drink; it’s usually my breakfast, period. And I feel better about that now than ever before. It’s time we started treating coffee as the wonderful elixir it is, not the witch’s brew that C. W. Post made it out to be.”

Strangely enough, coffee is usually my breakfast as well (although I recommend against adding titanium oxide to your morning java).  Why am I not compelled to consume food in the morning?  Because breakfast is not the most important meal of the day and I don’t eat until I’m hungry.


on diet-soda:

Carroll notes that many Americans are convinced that artificial sweeteners are highly toxic:

“no article I’ve written has been met with as much anger and vitriol as the first piece I wrote on this subject for the New York Times, in July 2015, in which I admitted, “My wife and I limit our children’s consumption of soda to around four to five times a week. When we let them have soda, it’s . . . almost always sugar-free.”

He notes, as I have done, that added sugar is the real public enemy number one in our diets. He reviews the scientific studies that look at toxicity of the various artificial sweeteners and finds that they don’t convincingly prove any significant health effects in humans.

Some believe that artificial sweeteners contribute to obesity, but the only evidence supporting this idea comes from observational studies. For many reasons, we should not highly value observational studies but one factor, “reverse causation,” is highly likely to be present in studies of diet sodas. If diet soda consumption is associated with obesity, is it the cause, or do those who are obese tend to drink diet soda. Observational studies cannot answer this question but randomized studies can.

Carroll points out that:

the randomized controlled trials (which are almost always better and can show causality) showed that diet drinks significantly reduced weight, BMI, fat, and waist circumference.”

Simple Rules For Healthy Eating

Carroll concludes with some overall advice for healthy eating:

-Get as much of your nutrition as possible from a variety of completely unprocessed foods

-Eat lightly processed foods less often

-Eat heavily processed foods even less often

-Eat as much home-cooked food as possible, preparing it according to rules 1, 2, and 3

-Use salt and fats, including butter and oil, as needed in food preparation

-When you do eat out, try to eat at restaurants that follow the same rules

-Drink mostly water, but some alcohol, coffee, and other beverages are fine

-Treat all calorie-containing beverages as you would alcohol

-Eat with other people, especially people you care about, as often as possible

These are solid, albeit not shocking or book-selling, rules that  correspond closely to what I have adopted in my own diet.

In comparison to the bizarre advice from nutrition books which dominate the best-selling diet books, I found The Bad Food Bible to be a consistent, well-written, extensively researched, scientifically-based, unbiased guide to diet and can highly recommend it to my readers and patients.

Semibiblically Yours,

-ACP

Still More Evidence That Fish Oil Supplements Do Not Prevent Cardiovascular Disease

Avid readers of the skeptical cardiologist know that he is not an advocate of fish oil supplements.

One of my first posts (1/2013) was devoted to taking down the mammoth OTC fish oil industry because recent scientific evidence was clearly showing no benefit for fish oil pills.

I concluded:

", the bottom line on fish oil supplements is that  the most 
recent scientific evidence does not support any role for them  inpreventing heart attack, stroke, or death. There are potential 
down sides to taking them, including contaminants and the impact on the marine ecosystem. I don’t take them and I advise my
patients to avoid them (unless they have triglyceride levels 
over 500.)"

Despite a lack of evidence supporting taking them, the fish oil business continues to grow,  buttressed by multiple internet sites promoting various types of fish oil (and more recently krill oil)  for any and all ailments and a belief in the power of “omega-3 fatty acids”.

Another Meta-Analysis Concludes No Benefit To Fish Oil Supplements

A publication this month evaluated the 10 randomized controlled trials involving 77 917 thousand individuals that have studied fish oil supplements in preventing heart disease. The writers concluded that fish oil supplements do not significantly prevent any cardiovascular outcomes under any scenario.

It was written by a group with the ominous title of “The Omega-3 Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.”

The Omega-3 Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration was established to conduct a collaborative meta-analysis based on aggregated study-level data obtained from the principal investigators of all large randomized clinical trials of omega-3 FA supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, using a prespecified protocol and analysis plan. The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess the associations of supplementation with omega-3 FAs on (1) fatal CHD, nonfatal MI, stroke, major vascular events, and all-cause mortality and (2) major vascular events in prespecified subgroups.

The authors conclusions:

. Randomization to omega-3 fatty acid supplementation (eicosapentaenoic acid dose range, 226-1800 mg/d) had no significant associations with coronary heart disease death (rate ratio [RR], 0.93; 99% CI, 0.83-1.03; P = .05), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 0.97; 99% CI, 0.87-1.08; P = .43) or any coronary heart disease events (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .12). Neither did randomization to omega-3 fatty acid supplementation have any significant associations with major vascular events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .10), overall or in any subgroups, including subgroups composed of persons with prior coronary heart disease, diabetes, lipid levels greater than a given cutoff level, or statin use.

Nothing. Nada. No benefit.

There is clearly no reason to take fish oil supplements to prevent cardiovascular disease!

American Heart Association Sheepishly Recommends Fish Oil Supplements

If the science was conclusive on this in 2013 why did the American Heart Association (AHA) issue an “advisory” in 2017  suggesting that the use of omega-3 FAs for prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is probably justified in individuals with prior CHD and those with heart failure and reduced ejection fractions?

The AHA advisory is clearly misguided and relies heavily in its discussion on a 2012 meta-analysis from Rizos, et al. published in 2012.

Oddly, this is the study that prompted me to write my first fish oil post in 2013

The AHA advisory totally distorts the completely negative conclusions of the Rizos meta-analysis, writing:

A meta-analysis published in 2012 examined the effects of omega-3 PUFA supplementation and dietary intake in 20 RCTs that enrolled patients at high CVD risk or prevalent CHD and patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (total n=68 680). That meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in CHD death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.98), possibly as the result of a lower risk of SCD (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75–1.01).11

Strangely enough, if you look at the conclusions of Rizos, et al. they are

No statistically significant association was observed with all-cause mortality (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02; risk reduction [RD] -0.004, 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02), cardiac death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.98; RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.00), sudden death (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; RD, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.012 to 0.006), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04; RD, -0.002; 95% CI, -0.007 to 0.002), and stroke (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.18; RD, 0.001; 95% CI, -0.002 to 0.004) when all supplement studies were considered.

Nothing. Nada. No significant benefit!

The AHA was so confused by their own advisory that in the AHA news release on the article they quote Dr. Robert Eckel, a past AHA president as saying he remains “underwhelmed” by the current clinical trials.

“In the present environment of evidence-based risk reduction, I don’t think the data really indicate that fish oil supplementation is needed under most  circumstances.”

The end of the AHA news article goes on to quote Eckel as indicating he doesn’t prescribe fish oil supplements and the science advisory won’t change his practice:

Eckel said he doesn’t prescribe fish oil supplements to people who have had coronary events, and the new science advisory won’t change that. “It’s reasonable, but reasonable isn’t a solid take-home message that you should do it,” he said.

AHA: Wrong On Coconut Oil and Fish Oil

It’s hard for me to understand why the AHA gets so many things wrong in their scientific advisories. In the case of the recent misguided attack on coconut oil , their ongoing vilification of all saturated fats, and their support for fish oil supplements I don’t see evidence for industry influence. The authors of the fish oil supplement advisory do not report any financial conflicts of interest.

There is, however, one bias that is very hard to measure which could be playing a role: that is the bias to agree with what one has previously recommended.  The AHA issued an advisory in 2002 recommending that people take fish oil. Changing that recommendation would mean admitting that they were wrong and that they had contributed to the growth of a 12 billion dollar industry serving no purpose.

Personally, I am aware of this kind of bias in my own writing and strive to be open to new data and publications that challenge what I personally believe or have publicly recommended.

In the case of fish oil supplements for preventing cardiovascular disease, however, the most recent data supports strongly what I wrote in 2013:

Don’t take fish oil supplements to prevent heart disease.

Americans want a “magic-bullet” type pill to take to ward off aging and the diseases associated with it. There isn’t one. Instead of buying pills and foods manipulated and processed by the food industry which promise better health, eat real food (including fish) eat a lot of plants and don’t eat too much.

Piscinely Yours,

-ACP

N.B. I have no patients on the two prescription fish oil supplements available, Lovaza and Vascepa. I wrote about Vascepa here

Below is an excerpt:

Like the first prescription fish oil available in the US, Lovaza, VASCEPA is only approved by the FDA for treatment of very high triglycerides (>500 mg/dl).

This is a very small market compared to the millions of individuals taking fish oil thinking that  it is preventing heart disease.

The company that makes Vascepa (Amrin;$AMRN)would also like to have physicians prescribe it to their patients who have mildly or moderatelyelevated triglycerides between 200 and 500 which some estimate as up to 1/3 of the population.

The company has a study that shows that Vascepa lowers triglycerides in patients with such mildly to moderately elevated triglycerides but the FDA did not approve it for that indication.

Given the huge numbers of patients with trigs slightly above normal, before approving an expensive new drug, the FDA thought, it would be nice to know that the drug is actually helping prevent heart attacks and strokes or prolonging life.

After all, we don’t really care about high triglycerides unless they are causing problems and we don’t care about lowering them unless we can show we are reducing the frequency of those problems.

Data do not exist to say that lowering triglycerides in the mild to moderate range  by any drug lowers heart attack risk.

In the past if a company promoted their drug for off-label usage they could be fined by the FDA but Amarin went to court and obtained the right to promote Vascepa to physicians for triglycerides between 200 and 500.

Consequently, you may find your doctor prescribing this drug to you. If you do, I suggest you ask him if he recently had a free lunch or dinner provided by Amarin, has stock in the company (Vascepa is the sole drug made by Amrin and its stock price fluctuates wildly depending on sales and news about Vascepa) or gives talks for Amarin.

If he answers no to all of the above then, hopefully, your triglycerides are over 500.

.

 

 

 

 

Tom Brady Lost The Super Bowl: Can We Now Dismiss His Ridiculous, Pseudoscientific “Alkaline” Diet?

I think Tom Brady is the best professional quarterback of all time (IMBO Baker Mayfield of the Oklahoma Sooners is the best all-time college QB).

However, I think he has succeeded despite, not due to, the silly diet he follows as outlined in his best selling book, TB12.

Although he set a Super Bowl record for passing a few days ago his team lost and I’m really hoping that this will tamp down the unjustified enthusiasm in his lifestyle.

Tom Brady being “strip-sacked”. by Philly defensive end Brandon Graham. Clearly Brady’s diet is responsible for this and should be abandoned by all adherents.

Brady, according to reports, attempts to follow a diet that is 80% alkaline and 20% acidic. As Business Insider points out:

His extreme diet is a key part of what he refers to as the TB12 Method, an approach consisting of 12 fitness principles that Brady outlines in his book, called “The TB12 Method: How to Achieve a Lifetime of Sustained Peak Performance”. He also sells a selection of rather expensive products and supplements designed to help adherents live according to his fitness gospel.

For an outstanding take down of the nonsensical pH balancing diet (free of any TB references strangely enough) please read Harriet Hall’s typically outstanding article at skeptic.com entitled “PH Mythology: Separating pHacts from pHiction.”

She concludes correctly that:

“systematic analyses of all the published scientific studies have determined that the evidence does not support the acid/alkaline theory of disease, so it should be dismissed as pseudoscience.”

Although  Brady eats a lot of fresh, organic vegetables he avoids those in the nightshade family because Brady  and his wife, Gisele Bündchen’s personal chef, Allen Campbell, believes they cause inflammation (according to a 2016 The Boston Globe’interview, )

The nightshade family includes vegetables which nutritionists believe are very good for you like tomatoes, peppers, mushrooms, and  eggplants.  In fact there are more putative anti-inflammatory chemicals in these plants than inflammatory.

You should no more base your diet on Tom Brady’s success than  you should on the manner in which Nathan Pritikin or Robert Atkins died.

If Tom Brady is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer tomorrow will you conclude that it was due to the absence of the health-promoting phytochemical, lycopene, from his diet due to avoiding tomatoes?

Following the latest trends in diet or exercise based on anecdotes from celebrities is a fool’s game. Those celebrities that cash in on their good fortune to promote pseudoscientific quackery like Brady and Gwyneth Paltrow (aka GOOP) should be ashamed that they are contributing to this idiocy.

Nightshadily Yours,

-ACP

N.B. Perhaps Phlly fans should start following some of the “sci-fi” training tools that Brandon Graham’s trainer utilizes:

  • When the workout is finished, Graham is fitted with something called an ECP (External Counterpulsation), a medical device that’s used for cardiac patients. They lay him down, put the ECP on his legs and hook him up to an EKG machine to monitor his heart. When his heart is in the relaxation phase, the device will compress, which apparently “enhances oxygenated blood flow through the coronary arteries to the heart muscle” and, according to Barwis, promotes quicker healing.

 

What Is A Plant-Based Diet (And Should I Be On One)?

The phrase “plant-based diet” is being tossed around a lot these days. The skeptical cardiologist never knows what people mean when they use it and so must assume that most of the world is also puzzled by this trendy term.

Is A Plant-Based Diet Code For Veganism?

For some, a “plant-based diet” (PBD) is what vegans eat.

Veganism combines a diet free of animal products, plus a moral philosophy that reject the “commodity status of animals.” Vegans are the strictest of vegetarians, eschewing milk, fish and eggs.

One PBD advocate in the introduction to a Special Issue of the Journal of Geriatric Cardiology,  defines it as follows:

“a plant-based diet consists of all minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, herbs, and spices and excludes all animal products, including red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products.”

You will notice that this cardiologist “excludes all animal products”  and that the qualifying phrase “minimally processed” has crept into the definition.

Forks Over Knives-Whole-food, plant-based diet

The “documentary” Forks Over Knives brought the phrase “whole food, plant-based diet” to national prominence. The movie focused on the diets espoused by Caldwell Esselstyn and T. Colin Campbell. Since its release in 2011 a whole industry based on the Forks Over Knives (FON) brand has been launched. FON uses the following definition:

 “A whole-food, plant-based diet is centered on whole, unrefined, or minimally refined plants. It’s a diet based on fruits, vegetables, tubers, whole grains, and legumes; and it excludes or minimizes meat (including chicken and fish), dairy products, and eggs, as well as highly refined foods like bleached flour, refined sugar, and oil.”

I’ve written detailed posts on the Esselstyn diet here and here. I think it is needlessly restrictive and not supported by scientific evidence. (Esselstyn’s website and book state unequivocally “you may not eat anything with a mother or a face (no meat, poultry, or fish” and “you cannot eat dairy products” which differs from the FON definition.)

The key new terms in the FON approach to note are:

Whole Food. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines whole food as “food  that has been processed or refined as little as possible and is free from additives or other artificial substances.”

Unrefined or minimally refined. The OED defines refined as:

“With impurities or unwanted elements having been removed by processing.”

The FON definition for a PBD then is similar to our first definition-minimally processed vegan-but allows (at least theoretically)  minimal meat, dairy and eggs. The FON Esselstyn/Campbell diets choose to define vegetable oil, including olive oil, as highly refined foods and do not allow any oils.

U.S. News and World Report Definition Of Plant-Based Diets

U.S. News and World Report publishes an annual rating of diets based on the opinion of a panel of nationally recognized experts in diet, nutrition, obesity, food psychology, diabetes and heart disease.

US News defines a plant-based diet as “an approach that emphasizes minimally processed foods from plants, with modest amounts of fish, lean meat and low-fat dairy, and red meat only sparingly.”

This definition is radically different from the first two. Notice now that you can have “modest amounts” of meat and dairy, foods which are anathema to vegans. Also, note that “low-fat dairy” is being recommended, a food which (in my opinion) is highly processed and that lean meat is to be preferred and red meat avoided.

I was happy to see that for the first time, the Mediterranean Diet ranked as  Best Diet Overall, but shocked to find that the Mediterranean diet came out on top of the US News list of “Best Plant-Based Diets.”

Readers will recognize that this is the diet I recommend and follow (with slight modifications). On this diet I regularly consume hamburgers, steak, fish and whole egg omelettes.

The plant-based diet of vegans or of Forks Over Knives is drastically different from the Mediterranean Diet.

For example, olive oil consumption is emphasized in the Mediterranean Diet, whereas the Esselstyn diet featured in FON forbids any oil consumption.

The FON/Esselstyn diets are very low in any fats, typically <10%, whereas the Mediterranean Diet is typically 30-35% fat.

Esselstyn really doesn’t want you to eat nuts and avocados because he thinks the oil in them is bad for you. This is nuts! I’m handing out nuts to my patients just as they were given to the participants in the PREDIMED randomized trial showing the benefits of the Med diet.

Dr. Pearson’s Plant-Based Diet

Since the term “plant-based diet” apparently means whatever a writer would like it to mean, I have come up with my own definition.

With the  Dr. P Plant-Based Diet© your primary focus in meal planning is to make sure that you are regularly consuming a large and diverse amount of healthy foods that come from plants.

If you don’t make it your focus, it is too easy to succumb to all the cookies, donuts, pies, cakes, pretzels, chips, French fries,  breakfast bars and other  calorie-dense but nutrient-light products that are cheap and readily available.

In Dr. P’s Plant-Based Diet© meat, eggs, and full fat dairy are on the table. They are consumed in moderation and they don’t come from plants (i.e. factory farms).

I, like the PBD  definers of yore, have taken the liberty of including many vague terms in my definition. Let me see if I can be more precise:

Regularly = at least daily.

Large amount = 3 to 4 servings daily.

Healthy = a highly contentious term and one, like “plant-based” that one can twist to mean whatever one likes. My take on “healthy” can be seen on this blog. I’m not a fan of plant-based margarines, added sugar, whether from a plant or not, should be avoided, and the best way to avoid added sugar is to avoid ultra-processed foods.

Ultra-processed foods (formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavours, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product).

Ultra-processed foods account for 58% of all calories in the US diet, and contribute nearly 90% of all added sugars.

I do like the food writer Michael Pollan’s simple rules to “Eat Food. Mostly Plants. Not Too Much.” and this NY Times piece summarizes much of what is in his short, funny and helpful Food Rules book:

you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

On Dr. P’s Plant-Based Diet© you can add butter to your leeks and green onions.You can add eggs to your onions, tomatoes and peppersAnd you can eat salads full of lots of cool different plants for lunch.

To answer my titular question-if you are using Dr. P’s definition of a plant-based diet then you definitely should be on one.

Viva La Plant!

-ACP