Category Archives: Saturated Fat

Is Trump’s USDA Making School Lunches Great Again?: Not Until They Stop Mandating Low Fat or Non Fat Milk

In 2010 President Obama signed into law the “Healthy, Hunger-free kids  act (HHKA) of 2010” which funded child nutrition programs and free school lunch programs in schools. New nutrition standards for schools were a point initiative of then First Lady Michelle Obama as part of her fight against childhood obesity and her “Let’s Move” initiative.

In May of 2017, President Trumps’s new secretary of agriculture, Scotty Perdue, issued a proclamation (Entitled Ag Secretary Perdue Moves To Make School Meals Great Again) which pledgee to loosen some of Obama’s school nutrition standards with respect to whole grains, salt and milk.

These changes have been finalized recently and have received considerable criticism. For example, Vox’s Julia Belluz wrote a piece entitled  “The Trump administration’s tone-deaf school lunch move” with a subtitle implying that the USDA’s loosening of standards would contribute to already soaring childhood obesity rates.

Belluz summarized the changes

That means 99,000 schools, feeding 30 million kids, can offer 1 percent chocolate and strawberry milk again, more refined white flour products, and, most importantly, freeze sodium levels in school lunches instead of reducing them further.

Criticism of the loosening implies that the original school lunch standards were appropriate and based on state of the art nutritional science, but were they?

The HHKA relied on guidance from the Institute of Medicine which established a committee to put together its report which was published in 2009 and was heavily based on the scientific guidance provided in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the IOM’s Dietary Reference Intake books”

Unfortunately, the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were not privy to  dramatic changes in our understanding of nutritional science which have occurred in the 13 years since they were written.

The IOM report copied the 2005 DGA in recommending the consumption of low fat or non fat dairy and defined low fat as 1%.

To achieve its aim of reducing saturated fat intake to <10% the IOM chose to force schools to only utilize low fat or skim milk.

 

The IOM and school lunch program recommended eliminating whole milk entirely and only allowing

-fat-free (plain or flavored) or

-plain low-fat (meaning 1%) milk

In 2018 it is very clear to anyone who examines the relevant data (see here, here and here) that dairy fat, despite being predominantly saturated fat is not associated with higher rates of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes or total mortality.

A 2013 editorial in JAMA Pediatrics from Ludwig and Willet challenged recommendations for children to consume 3 glasses of low fat or non fat milk daily and noted:

Remarkably few randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of reduced-fat milk (0% to 2% fat content) compared with whole milk on weight gain or other health outcomes. Lacking high-quality interventional data, beverage guidelines presume that the lower calo rie content of reduced-fat milk will decrease total calorie intake and excessive weight gain.. However, a primary focus on reducing fat intake does not facilitate weight loss compared with other dietary strategies, as shown in observational studies and clinical trials, perhaps because reduced-fat foods tend to have lower satiety value.

Therefore, one of the key components of the HHK is misguided and not science-based.  It has in effect committed all of our children to a vast experiment with unknown health consequences.

How Do New USDA Guidelines Effect Dairy?

The change the USDA recently announced is to allow flavoring in 1% milk. Perdue is quoted as saying:

Because milk is a critical component of school meals, and providing schools with the discretion to serve flavored, 1 percent fat milk provides more options for students selecting milk as part of their lunch or breakfast, I am directing USDA to begin the regulatory process to provide that discretion to schools.

Prior to the mandated changes, the IOM report noted that dairy intake in children was predominantly from milk with >1% dairy fat.

17 percent of the total milk intake was from unflavored 2 percent milk, 16 percent from unflavored whole milk, and 9 percent from flavored milk

The dairy industry basically demanded the right to flavor 1% milk because the mandate to force all school children to drink low fat or skim milk has resulted in less children drinking milk.

And the government’s solution to making unpalatable skim milk tastier to children is to add sugar, something we have learned in the last decade we should not be doing to our food.

As Ludwig and Willet noted:

Consumption of sugar-sweetened, flavored (eg, chocolate) milk warrants special attention. While limit ing whole milk, some healthy beverage guidelines con done, and many schools provide, sugar-sweetened milk, with the aim of achieving recommended levels of total milk consumption in children. Not surprisingly, children prefer sweetened to unsweetened milk when given the choice, leading to a marked increase in the proportion of sweetened milk consumption in recent years. This trend may reflect, to some degree, compensation for the lower palatability and satiety value of fat-reduced milk. However, the substitution of sweetened reduced-fat milk for unsweetened whole milk—which lowers saturated fat by 3 g but increases sugar by 13 g per cup—clearly undermines diet quality, especially in a population with excessive sugar consumption.

The bulk of the dairy industry actually prefers you and your children drink skim milk (see here) and they are happy to adulterate the tasteless, nutritionless beverage with anything that makes it more palatable.

Witness this quote from AgWeb:

This is great news, not only for dairy farmers and processors, but also for schoolkids across the U.S.,” says John Rettler, president of FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative. “This is a step in the right direction in ensuring that school cafeterias are able to provide valuable nutrition in options that appeal to growing children’s taste buds. Their good habits now have the potential to make them lifelong milk-drinkers.”

Adding sugar to mandated unpalatable low fat milk might increase consumption of the beverage but it is definitely not a  step forward for our kid’s health.

This unethical, unscientific experiment might be contributing already  to higher rates of childhood obesity and diabetes.

Making Skepticism Great Again,

-ACP

N.B. To help understand how skim milk despite having less calories than whole milk could actually worsen obesity Ludwig and Willet provide the following instructive  paragraph:

Suppose a child, who habitually consumes a cup of whole milk and two 60-kcal cookies for a snack, instead had nonfat milk. Energy intake with that snack would not decrease if that child felt less satiated and consequently ate just  extra cookie. Rather than weight loss, this substitution of refined starch and sugar (ie, high glycemic index carbohydrate) for fat might actually cause weight gain. Consumption of a low-fat, high glycemic index diet may not only increase hunger, but also adversely affect energy expenditure compared with diets with a higher proportion of fat. In an analysis of 3 major cohorts, high glycemic index carbohydrates, such as refined grains, sugary beverages, and sweet desserts, were positively associated with weight gain, whereas whole milk was not. Of particular relevance, prospective studies in young children, adolescents, and adults observed the same or greater rates of weight gain with consumption of reduced-fat compared with whole milk, suggesting that people compensate or overcompensate for the lower calorie content of reduced-fat milk by eating more of other foods.

full text available here.

A Heart Healthy Egg Nog Holiday Toast From Dr. and Mrs. Skeptical Cardiologist!

The skeptical cardiologist wrote a post extolling the virtues of egg nog back in 2013.

Today I’m reposting it and wishing all my readers and patients a great Christmas and a fantastic 2019.

IMG_2051-1



It’s Christmas Eve and you are starting to make merry. Time to break out the egg nog? Or should you eschew this fascinating combination of eggs, dairy and (often) alcohol due to concerns about heart disease?

egg

    • Cardiac deaths

increase in frequency

    • in the days around Christmas.

Could this be related to excessive consumption of egg nog?

Egg nog is composed of eggs, cream, milk and booze. All of these ingredients have become associated with increased risk of heart disease in the mind of the public.
Nutritional guidelines advise us to limit egg consumption, especially the yolk, and use low-fat dairy to reduce our risk of heart disease

A close look at the science, however, suggests that egg nog may actually lower your risk of heart disease.

Eggs are high in cholesterol but as I’ve discussed in a previous post, cholesterol in the diet is not a major determinant of cholesterol in the blood and eggs have not been shown to increase heart disease risk.

Full fat dairy contains saturated fat, the fat that nutritional guidelines tell us increases bad cholesterol in the blood and increases risk of heart attacks. But some saturated fats improve your cholesterol profile and organic (grass-fed, see my previous post) milk contains significant amounts of omega-3 fatty acids which are felt to be protective from heart disease.
Milk and dairy products are associated with a lower risk of vascular disease!

Whether you mix rum, brandy, or whisky into your egg nog or you drink a glass of wine on the side you are probably lowering your chances of a heart attack compared to your abstemious relatives. Moderate alcohol consumption of any kind is associated with a lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to no alcohol consumption.

So, drink your egg nog without guilt this Holiday Season!
You’re actually engaging in heart healthy behavior.

Eggnoggingly Yours,

-ACP

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

Top Skeptical Cardiology Stories of 2017

Science continued to progress in the field of cardiology in 2017. Some cardiology interventions were proven to be more beneficial (TAVR) and some less (coronary stents). A class of cholesterol lowering drugs had a big winner and a big loser. A supplement that many thought, based on observational studies, was crucial to prevent heart disease, turned out to be unhelpful. More evidence emerged that saturated fat is not a dietary villain.

From the skeptical cardiologist’s viewpoint, the following were the major scientific studies relevant to cardiology:

1.  “Thousands of heart patients get stents that may do more harm than good”

Thus read the Vox headline for the ORBITA study which was published in November.

Indeed this was an earth-shattering study for interventional cardiologists, many of whom agreed with the NY Times headline “Unbelievable: Heart Stents Fail To Ease Chest Pain.”

Cardiologists have known for a decade (since the landmark  COURAGE study) that outside the setting of an acute heart attack (acute coronary syndrome or ACS), stents don’t save lives and that they don’t prevent heart attacks.

Current guidelines reflect this knowledge, and indicate that stents in stable patients with coronary artery disease should be placed only after a failure of  “guideline-directed medical therapy.”  Despite these recommendations, published in 2012, half of the thousands of stents implanted annually in the US continued to be employed in patients with either no symptoms or an inadequate trial of medical therapy.

Yes, lots of stents are placed in asymptomatic patients.  And lots of patients who have stents placed outside the setting of ACS are convinced that their stents saved their lives, prevented future heart attacks and “fixed” their coronary artery disease. It is very easy to make the case to the uneducated patient that a dramatic intervention to “cure” a blocked artery is going to be more beneficial than merely giving medications that dilate the artery or slow the heart’s pumping to reduce myocardial oxygen demands.

Stent procedures are costly  in the US (average charge around $30,000, range $11,000 to $40,000) and there are significant risks including death, stroke and heart attack. After placement, patients must take powerful antiplatelet drugs which increase their risk of bleeding. There should be compelling reasons to place stents if we are not saving lives.

I, along with the vast majority of cardiologists, still recommended stents for those patients with tightly blocked coronary arteries and stable symptoms, which were not sufficiently helped by medications. ORBITA calls into question even this indication for stenting.

The ORBITA study investigators recruited 230 patients to whom most American cardiologists would have recommended stenting. These patients appeared to have a single tightly blocked coronary artery and had chest pain (angina) that limited their physical activity.

They treated the patients for 6 weeks with aspirin/statins/ and medications that reduce anginal symptoms such as beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers or long-acting nitrates. At this point patients were randomized to receive either a stent or to undergo a catheteriation procedure which did not result in a stent, a so-called sham procedure.

The performance of a sham procedure was a courageous move that made the study truly double-blinded; neither the patients nor the investigators knew which patients had actually received a stent. Thus, the powerful placebo effects of having a procedure were neutralized.

Surprisingly, the study found that those patients receiving stents had no more improvement in their treadmill exercise time, angina severity or frequency or in their peak oxygen uptake on exercise.

ORBITA hopefully will cause more cardiologists to avoid the “oculo-stenotic” reflex wherein coronary artery blockages are stented without either sufficient evidence that the blockage is causing symptoms or that a medical trial has failed.

Although this was a small study with a very narrowly defined subset of patients, it raises substantial questions about the efficacy of coronary stenting. If ORBITA causes more patients and doctors to question the need for catheterization or stenting, this will be a  very good thing.

2. Vitamin D Supplementation Doesn’t Reduce Cardiovascular Disease (or fractures, or help anything really).

One of my recurring themes in this blog is the gullibility of Americans who keep buying and using useless vitamins, supplements and nutraceuticals, thereby feeding a $20 billion industry that provides no benefits to consumers (see here and here).

Vitamin D is a prime player in the useless supplement market based on observational studies suggesting low levels were associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular disease

Despite well done studies showing a lack of benefit of Vitamin D supplementation, the proportion of people taking more than 1,000 IU daily of Vitamin D surged from just 0.3 percent  in 1999-2000 to 18 percent in  2013-2014.

I’ve written previously (calcium supplements: would you rather a hip fracture or a heart attack) on the increased risk of heart attack with calcium supplementation.

Most recently a nicely done study showed that Vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease.

In a randomized clinical trial that included 5108 participants from the community, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular disease for a median follow-up period of 3.3 years was 11.8% among participants given 100 000 IU of vitamin D3 monthly, and 11.5% among those given placebo.

Aaron Carroll does a good job of summarizing the data showing Vitamin D is useless in multiple other areas in a JAMA forum piece:

Last October, JAMA Internal Medicine published a randomized, controlled trial of vitamin D examining its effects on musculoskeletal health. Postmenopausal women were given either the supplement or placebo for one year. Measurements included total fractional calcium absorption, bone mineral density, muscle mass, fitness tests, functional status, and physical activity. On almost no measures did vitamin D make a difference.

The accompanying editor’s note observed that the data provided no support for the use of any dose of vitamin D for bone or muscle health.

Last year, also in JAMA Internal Medicine, a randomized controlled trial examined whether exercise and vitamin D supplementation might reduce falls and falls resulting in injury among elderly women. Its robust factorial design allowed for the examination of the independent and joined effectiveness of these 2 interventions. Exercise reduced the rate of injuries, but vitamin D did nothing to reduce either falls or injuries from falls.

In the same issue, a systematic review and meta-analysis looked at whether evidence supports the contention that vitamin D can improve hypertension. A total of 46 randomized, placebo controlled trials were included in the analysis. At the trial level, at the individual patient level, and even in subgroup analyses, vitamin D was ineffective in lowering blood pressure.

Finally, if the Vitamin D coffin needs any more nails, let us add the findings of this recent meta-analysis:

calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, and vitamin D supplementation alone were not significantly associated with a lower incidence of hip, nonvertebral, vertebral, or total fractures in community-dwelling older adults.

3. PCSK9 Inhibitors: Really low cholesterol levels are safe and reduce cardiac events

I reported the very positive results for evolocumab and disappointing results for bosocizumab on the physician social media site SERMO in March but never put this in my blog.

As a practicing cardiologist I’ve been struggling with how to utilize the two available PCSK9 inhibitors (Amgen’s Repatha (evolocumab) and Sanofi’s Praluent (alirocumab) in my clinical practice.  I would love to use them for my high risk statin-intolerant patients but the high cost and limited insurance coverage has resulted in only a few of my patients utilizing it.

The lack of outcomes data has also restrained my and most insurance companies enthusiasm for using them.

The opening session at this year’s American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions in DC I think has significantly changed the calculus in this area with two presentations: the first showing  Amgen’s “fully humanized” evolocumab significantly lowers CV risk in high risk patients on optimal statin therapy and the second showing that Pfizer’s “mostly humanized” bococizumab loses efficacy over time and will likely never reach the market.

The FOURIER study of evolocumab randomized  27, 564 high risk but stable patients who had LDL>70 with prior MI, prior stroke or symptomatic PAD to receive evolocumab or placebo on top of optimized lipid therapy. 69% of patients were recieving high intensity statin therapy and the baseline LDL was 92. LDL was reduced by 59% to average level of 30 in the treated patients. The reduction in LDL was consistent through the duration of the study.

IN 1/4 of the patients LDL was <20! These are unprecedented low levels of LDL.

Active treatment significantly reduced the primary endpoint by 15% and reduced the secondary endpoinf  of CV death, MI, stroke by 20%. absolute difference 2% by 3 years. 

There was no difference in adverse effects between placebo and Evo. 

The next presentation featured data using Pfizer’s candidate in the PCSK9 wars and the acronym SPIRE (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction in vascular Events (SPIRE) Bococizumab Development Program).

Paul Ridker presented the outcomes data for bococizumab which was actually similar to evolocumab data but given the declining efficacy and development of antibodies to the Pfizer drug over time these were very disappointing for Pfizer and I would presume their drug will never reach the market.

How will these results impact clinical practice?

I am now more inclined to prescribe evolocumab to my very high risk patients who have not achieved LDL< 70. I’m willing to do what I can to jump through insurance company hoops and try to make these drugs affordable to my patients.

I am less worried about extremely low LDL levels and have more faith in the LDL hypothesis: the lower the LDL the lower the risk of CV disease.

Cost is still going to be an issue for most of my patients I fear and the need for shared decision-making becomes even more important.

 

4. “Pure Shakes Up Nutritional Field: Finds High Fat Intake Beneficial.”

As one headline put it.

I recorded my full observations on this observational international study here

Here is a brief excerpt:

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, involved more than 200 investigators who collected data on more than 135000 individuals from 18 countries across five continents for over 7 years.

There were three high-income (Canada, Sweden, and United Arab Emirates), 11 middle-income (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iran, Malaysia, occupied Palestinian territory, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey) and four low-income countries (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe)

This was the largest prospective observational study to assess the association of nutrients (estimated by food frequency questionnaires) with cardiovascular disease and mortality in low-income and middle-income populations,

The PURE team reported that:

-Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality but not with CV disease or CV disease mortality.

This finding meshes well with one of my oft-repeated themes here, that added sugar is the major toxin in our diet (see here and here.)

I particular liked what the editorial for this paper wrote:

Initial PURE findings challenge conventional diet–disease tenets that are largely based on observational associations in European and North American populations, adding to the uncertainty about what constitutes a healthy diet. This uncertainty is likely to prevail until well designed randomised controlled trials are done. Until then, the best medicine for the nutrition field is a healthy dose of humility

I wish for all those following science-based medicine a healthy dose of humility. As science marches on, it’s always possible that a procedure we’ve been using might turn out to be useless (or at least much less beneficial than we thought), and it is highly likely that weak associations turn out to be causally nonsignificant. Such is the scientific process. We must continually pay attention, learn and evolve in the medical field.

Happy New Year to Be from the Skeptical Cardiologist the EFOSC!

The skeptical cardiologist and his Eternal Fiancee marveling at the total eclipse of the sun (very accurately predicted by science) in St. Genevieve, Missouri

-ACP

 

Does Eating Saturated Fat Lower Your Risk of Stroke and Dying?: Humility and Conscience in Nutritional Guidelines

A study presented at the European Society of Cardiology  meetings in Barcelona and simultaneously published in The Lancet earlier this month caught the attention of many of my readers. Media headlines trumpeted  “Huge New Study Casts Doubt On Conventional Wisdom About Fat And Carbs” and “Pure Shakes Up Nutritional Field: Finds High Fat Intake Beneficial.”

Since I’ve been casting as much doubt as possible on the  conventional nutritional wisdom  to cut saturated fat, they reasoned, I should be overjoyed to see such results.

What Did the PURE Study Find?

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, involved more than 200 investigators who collected data on more than 135000 individuals from 18 countries across five continents for over 7 years.

There were three high-income (Canada, Sweden, and United Arab Emirates), 11 middle-income (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iran, Malaysia, occupied Palestinian territory, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey) and four low-income countries (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe)

This was the largest prospective observational study to assess the association of nutrients (estimated by food frequency questionnaires) with cardiovascular disease and mortality in low-income and middle-income populations,

The PURE team reported that:

Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality but not with CV disease or CV disease mortality.

This finding meshes well with one of my oft-repeated themes here, that added sugar is the major toxin in our diet (see here and here.)

Higher fat intake was associated with lower risk of total mortality.

Each type of fat (saturated, unsaturated, mono unsaturated ) was associated with about the same lower risk of total mortality. 

 

These findings are consistent with my observations that it is becoming increasingly clear that cutting back on  fat and saturated fat as the AHA and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have been telling you to do for 30 years is not universally helpful (see here and  here ).

When you process the fat out of dairy and eliminate meat from your diet although your LDL (“bad”) cholesterol drops a little your overall cholesterol (atherogenic lipid) profile doesn’t improve (see here).

Another paper from the PURE study shows this nicely and concluded:

Our data are at odds with current recommendations to reduce total fat and saturated fats. Reducing saturated fatty acid intake and replacing it with carbohydrate has an adverse effect on blood lipids. Substituting saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fats might improve some risk markers, but might worsen others. Simulations suggest that ApoB-to-ApoA1 ratio probably provides the best overall indication of the effect of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease risk among the markers tested. Focusing on a single lipid marker such as LDL cholesterol alone does not capture the net clinical effects of nutrients on cardiovascular risk.

Further findings from PURE:

-Higher saturated fat intake was associated with a lower risk of stroke

-There was no association between total fat or saturated fat or unsaturated fat with risk of heart attack or dying from heart disease.

Given that most people still believe that saturated fat causes heart disease and are instructed by most national dietary guidelines to cut out animal and dairy fat this does indeed suggest that

Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered …”

Amen!

Because the focus of dietary guidelines on reducing total and saturated fatty acid intake “is largely based on selective emphasis on some observation and clinical data despite the existence of several randomizesed trials and observational studies that do not support these conclusions.”

Pesky Confounding Factors

We cannot infer causality from PURE because like all obervational studies, the investigators do not have control over all the factors influencing outcomes. These confounding factors are legion in a study that is casting such a broad net across different countries with markedly different lifestyles and socioeconomic status.

The investigators did the best job they could taking into account household wealth and income, education, urban versus rural location and the effects of study centre on the outcomes.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher E Ramsden and Anthony F Domenichiello, prominent NIH researchers,  ask:

“Is PURE less confounded by conscientiousness than observational studies done in Europe and North American countries?

 

“Conscientiousness is among the best predictors of longevity. For example, in a Japanese population, highly and moderately conscientious individuals had 54% and 50% lower mortality, respectively, compared with the least conscientious tertile.”

“Conscientious individuals exhibit numerous health-related behaviours ranging from adherence to physicians’ recommendations and medication regimens, to better sleep habits, to less alcohol and substance misuse. Importantly, conscientious individuals tend to eat more recommended foods and fewer restricted foods.Since individuals in European and North American populations have, for many decades, received in influential diet recommendations, protective associations attributed to nutrients in studies of these populations are likely confounded by numerous other healthy behaviours. Because many of the populations included in PURE are less exposed to in influential diet recommendations, the present findings are perhaps less likely to be confounded by conscientiousness.”

It is this pesky conscientiousness factor (and other unmeasured confounding variables) which limit the confidence in any conclusions we can make from observational studies.

I agree wholeheartedly with the editorial’s conclusions:

Initial PURE findings challenge conventional diet–disease tenets that are largely based on observational associations in European and North American populations, adding to the uncertainty about what constitutes a healthy diet. This uncertainty is likely to prevail until well designed randomised controlled trials are done. Until then, the best medicine for the nutrition field is a healthy dose of humility.

 

Ah, if only the field of nutrition had been injected with a healthy dose of humility and a nagging conscience thirty years ago when its experts declared confidently that high dietary fat and cholesterol consumption was the cause of heart disease.!

Current nutritional experts and the guidelines they write will  benefit from a keen awareness of the unintended consequences of recommendations which they make based on weak and insufficient evidence  because such recommendations influence the food choices  (and thereby the quality of life and the mechanisms of death) of hundreds of millions of people.

PUREly Yours,

ACP

Why Are The Dutch So Heart Healthy and Happy (And Tall)? Part I: Is It Their Diet?

The Skeptical Cardiologist and his  eternal fiancee’ recently spent 5 days in the Netherlands trying to understand why the Dutch are so happy and heart healthy.

We were driven by Geo (former statin fence-sitter) from Bruges to Haarlem, a city of 150,000, which lies about 15 km west of Amsterdam and about 5 km east of the North Sea.

 

Haarlem is one of the most delightful towns I’ve ever stayed in.

 

 

I was struck by  the beauty of its architecture, its canals and the happiness, height and friendliness of its inhabitants.

I was lucky enough to have a bike at my disposal. One day I set off randomly, and after 20 minutes of riding on delightfully demarcated bike lanes, I scrambled up a sand dune and looked out at the North Sea.

Just down the road was the  beach resort of Zandvoort, where one can enjoy sunbathing, surfing or a fine meal while gazing at a glorious sunset.

 

 

 

 

Like Amsterdam, which is a 15 minute train ride away, bikes and biking abound in Haarlem, but unlike Amsterdamers, the Haarlemers were universally engaging, polite and friendly. Everything and everyone seemed clean, well-organized, relaxed and pretty…and, well, …happy.

The Dutch High Happiness Rating

The World Happiness Report 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released in March of this year at the United Nations at an event celebrating The International Day of Happiness.

The report notes that:

Increasingly, happiness is considered to be the proper measure of social progress and the goal of public policy

Norway was at the top of the happiness list but

All of the other countries in the top ten also have high values in all six of the key variables used to explain happiness differences among countries and through time – income, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on in times of trouble, generosity, freedom and trust, with the latter measured by the absence of corruption in business and government.

The top 4 were closely bunched with Finland in 5th place, followed by the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia and Sweden all tied for the 9th position.

Despite the immense wealth of Americans, the report notes:

The USA is a story of reduced happiness. In 2007 the USA ranked 3rd among the OECD countries; in 2016 it came 19th. The reasons are declining social support and increased corruption  and it is these same factors that explain why the Nordic countries do so much better.

Dutch children seem to be especially happy.

A UNICEF report from 2013 found that Dutch children were the happiest of the world’s 29 richest industrialized countries.  America ranked 26th, barely beating out Lithuania and Latvia.

Cardiovascular Disease in The Netherlands

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) deaths are due to blockages in the coronary arteries. Typically, this comes from the build up of atherosclerotic plaques in the arterial system and in most countries heart attacks from this process are the major cause of death.

The Netherlands has the third lowest rate of IHD deaths in developed countries, only slightly higher than France and less than half the rate of the USA.Screen Shot 2017-07-26 at 10.53.26 AM

In all developed countries over the last thirty years we have seen a marked drop in deaths due to IHD. In The Netherlands it has dropped 70% and the rate in 2013 was nearly as low as France’s rate.

In addition, the Netherlands has a very low rate of deaths from  hypertensive heart disease. This table from 2008 shows that they are second only to Japan and their mortality rate is a third of that in the US.

A recent update noted

The current Dutch age-standardised mortality from circulatory disease is 147 per 100,000, and only Spain and France have lower cardiovascular mortality rates (143 and 126 per 100,000, respectively). In all other European countries, including for instance Switzerland and Greece, cardiovascular mortality is higher [26].

What factors could be causing all this happiness and heart healthiness?

The Seemingly Horrid Dutch Diet

We have been programmed to believe that heart attack rates are related to saturated fat in our diets.

The fact that the French consume lots of saturated fat and rank so low in IHD deaths has been called the French Paradox as it seems to contradict the expected association.

One thing is clear-the Dutch are not following a whole foods, plant-based diet. They are among the world leaders in consumption of both fat and sugar as the graph below indicates.

While in The Netherlands I sought out raw herring,  a dish which Rick Steves and others indicate is a Dutch obsession.

Since there is evidence that fish consumption, especially fatty ones like herring and mackerel, is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease, perhaps this was protecting the Dutch.

I didn’t see much herring consumption in Haarlem (a native Haarlemer informs me that the Dutch raw herring consumption might be confined to older generations or tourists).

It turns out that the Dutch aren’t meeting their own nutritional guidelines for healthy food .

The recommendation to eat fish at least twice a week, of which at least once fatty fish such as salmon, herring or mackerel, is followed by a mere 14 percent of the population. Less than 25% of them meet the recommended daily amount of fish, fruit, and vegetable consumption.

Screen Shot 2017-07-26 at 11.58.57 AM
purple bar=women yellow bar=men orange bar= total

They do catch and export a lot of fish and shellfish and are in the top 10 of seafood exporting countries (99% of all those mussels consumed in Belgium come from The Netherlands).

And, to my great surprise, they eat lots of French, or as I have started calling them, Flanders fries.

 

I personally witnessed  massive amounts of cheese and butter consumption.

In fact, the Dutch average 15% of calories from saturated fat, which is far above the 10% recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

A recent analysis of Dutch fat consumption found:

The mean baseline intake of total saturated fatty acids (SFAs)  in the population was 15.0% of energy. More than 97% of the population exceeded the upper intake limit of 10% of energy/d as recommended by the Health Council of the Netherlands.

The Dutch weren’t eating so-called healthy fats as “The main food sources of SFAs were cheese (17.4%), milk and milk products (16.6%), meat (17.5%), hard and solid fats (8.6%), and butter (7.3%).”

Surprisingly, the more saturated fat the Dutch consumed, the LOWER their risk of death from IHD:

After multivariable adjustment for lifestyle and dietary factors (model 4), a higher intake of energy from SFAs was significantly associated with a 17% lower IHD risk (HR per 5% of energy: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.93)

The Dutch Paradox

Data shows that  the Dutch are eating lots of saturated fat from dairy and meat, but it appears to be lowering their risk for heart attacks

Yes, despite 40 years of high saturated fat consumption, the Dutch have seen a 70% drop in mortality from heart attacks. Their rate of dying from ischemic heart disease is lower than the US and only slightly higher than the French.

Thus, rather than talk about a French paradox, we should be talking about the Dutch paradox.

For the French paradox many theories, both fanciful and serious,  have been proposed

The one most laypeople remember (due to a 60 Minutes episode in 1991) is that the French are protected by their high red wine consumption. Although this theory proved a great boon to the red wine industry (sales rose 40% the year after Morley Safer made his presentation on 60 Minutes), it has never had any serious scientific credibility.  Current thinking is that all forms of alcohol in moderation are equally protective.

Others have proposed garlic or onion or faux gras consumption. My own theory for the French is that it is fine cheese and chocolate consumption that protects them.

In subsequent posts I’ll lay out the evidence for my startling new theory to explain the Dutch paradox.

 

 

Are Plant-Based “Milks” The Margarine of the 21st Century?

Full fat dairy doesn’t make you fat or give you heart disease. But nutritional guidelines still continue to recommend the substitution of non-fat or low-fat dairy for full fat, something that flies in the face of an overall movement to consume less processed foods.

The rise of plant-based milks resembles in many ways the rise of margarine as a substitute for butter. In both cases, industry and misguided scientists collaborated to produce an industrial product to substitute for a natural food, based on an unproven projection of health benefits. Subsequent studies have shown that this was an unmitigated health disaster, as the trans fats created in the production of margarine substantially increase the risk of heart disease.

Anti-Dairy Propaganda

Vegan/vegetarian sources of nutritional information like one green planet make unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of plant-based milks and the dangers of traditional milk:

the consumption of dairy products has been linked to everything from increased risk of ovarian and prostate cancers to ear infections and diabetes. Fortunately, plant-based milks provide a convenient and healthful alternative to cow’s milk. And if you are currently making the transition to a dairy-free diet, you will find that going dairy-free has never been easier. Soy, almond, hemp, coconut, and rice milks, among others, are taking over the dairy case—and claiming supermarket aisles all their own.

Growth of Plant-Based “Milks”

In response to consumers desire for healthier alternatives to dairy, non-dairy liquid milk-like substitutes  have been thriving. Almond milk, the current darling of plant-based milks (PMB) , sales have grown 250% in the last 5 years during which time,  the total milk market has shrunk by more  than $1 billion.

In western Europe, sales of almond, coconut, rice and oat milks doubled in the five years to 2014; in Australia they rose threefold, and in North America sales shot up ninefold, according to Euromonitor.

Big global beverage food and drinks companies have been entering the PBM market recognizing that American consumers have become aware of the unhealthiness of sugar-sweetened beverages.

Coca-Cola, for example, recently purchased Unilever’s AdeS soya brand. and believes that PBM consumption will grow faster than any other segment of the beverage industry over the next 5 to 10 years. Coca-Cola also recently purchased the China Green brand of plant-based protein drinks.

What’s in Soy Milk and Why It’s Not Real Food

The plant-based milks are a mixed bag of highly processed liquids. Let’s look at soy milk which has been widely promoted as a healthy substitute for dairy. Empowered Sustenance points out that there is reason to be concerned about all the added ingredients found in Silk, a popular soy milk.

Soymilk (Filtered Water, Whole Soybeans), Cane Sugar, Sea Salt, Carrageenan, Natural Flavor, Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D2, Riboflavin (B2), Vitamin B12.

The long list of ingredients give you an idea of how much processing is needed to approximate the nutritional components of real dairy. Whether adding back synthetic Vitamin D2, synthetic Vitamin A and calcium carbonate simulates the nutritional benefits of the naturally occurring vitamins in a naturally fatty milieu, is anyone’s guess.

Variable Nutritional  Content of Plant-Based “Milks”

Bestfoodfacts.org asked 3 academic nutritional PhD’s how they would advise consumers on substituting nondairy “milk:”

Dr. Macrina: Plant-based milks are quite variable in what they contain while cow’s milk is pretty standard. We know where cow’s milk comes from. Plant-based milks are manufactured and can have a variety of additives. I urge consumers to read the label to determine what’s best for them.

Dr. Savaiano: Yes, consumers should read the label very carefully. Plant-based drinks certainly can be a healthy choice depending on how they’re formulated.

Dr. Weaver: The plant-based beverages all cost a good deal more than cow’s milk. So, one needs to determine how much they want to pay for the nutrients and determine which nutrients you need to get from other foods. A main nutrient expected from milk is calcium. Only soy milk has been tested for calcium bioavailability (by my lab) which was determined to be as good as from cow’s milk. But none of the other plant beverages have been tested and they should be.

Is There Scientific Evidence To Support Replacing Milk and Dairy Products with Plant-based Drinks?

A recent review paper from Danish researchers attempted to answer the question:

Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence. 

They concluded:

The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent. Finally, consumption of milk and dairy products was not associated with all-cause mortality.

They went on to examine the question: Is there scientific evidence to substantiate that replacing milk and dairy products with plant-based drinks will improve health?

They noted the marked variation in nutritional content of the plant-based milks:

the nutrient density of plant-based milk substitutes varies considerably between and within types, and their nutritional properties depend on the raw material used, the processing, the fortification with vitamins and minerals, and the addition of other ingredients such as sugar and oil. Soy drink is the only plant-based milk substitute that approximates the protein content of cow’s milk, whereas the protein contents of the drinks based on oat, rice, and almonds are extremely low,

and their similarity to sugar-sweetened beverages:

Despite the fact that most of the plant-based drinks are low in saturated fat and cholesterol, some of these products have higher energy contents than whole milk due to a high content of oil and added sugar.

Some plant-based drinks have a sugar content equal to that of sugar-sweetened beverages, which have been linked to obesity, reduced insulin sensitivity , increased liver, muscle, and visceral fat content as well as increased blood pressure, and increased concentrations of triglyceride and cholesterol in the blood

PBM and real milk also differ with respect to important electrolytes and elements:

Analyses of several commercially available plant-based drinks carried out at the Technical University of Denmark showed a generally higher energy content and lower contents of iodine, potassium, phosphorus, and selenium in the plant-based drinks compared to semi-skimmed milk

and some PBM contain potentially dangerous components:

Also, rice drinks are known to have a high content of inorganic arsenic, and soy drinks are known to contain isoflavones with oestrogen-like effects. Consequently, The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration concluded that the plant-based drinks cannot be recommended as full worthy alternatives to cow’s milk which is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the Swedish National Food Agency

Finally, the authors emphasize the importance of the health effects of whole foods rather than individual nutrients. Plant-based milks are not whole or real foods:

The importance of studying whole foods instead of single nutrients is becoming clear as potential nutrient–nutrient interactions may affect the metabolic response to the whole food compared to its isolated nutrients. As the plant-based drinks have undergone processing and fortification, any health effects of natural soy, rice, oats, and almonds cannot be directly transferred to the drinks, but need to be studied directly.

The Skeptical Cardiologist Recommendation

Consumers should be very cautious in their consumption of plant-based milks. Eerily reminiscent of the push to switch from butter to margarine in the past, these drinks cannot be considered as healthier than dairy products.

They are creations of industry, promoted and produced by large companies like Coca-Cola and Unilever, whose goal is profit, not consumer’s health.

The PBMs are not true whole or real foods and their nutritional content varies wildly. Some resemble sugar-sweetened beverages like Coca-Cola.

If one of the synthetic ingredients added to these beverages turns out to have the markedly negative health effect that trans fats had, the analogy to margarine will be complete.

My  Eternal Fiancee’ has true lactose intolerance and has baristas substitute almond or soy milk when ordering a latte’.  I understand that but I’ve been trying to convince her (with increasing success lately!)  to drink my Chemex pour-over coffee and adulterate it with nothing, butter, cream or coconut oil.

Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

Featured image courtesy of One Green Planet.

For your enjoyment I present a mind-bogglingly complicated table listing the various nutrients in a mind-bogglingly long list of different plant-based milks (including hemp milk!):

 

 

 

Beware Of More Misinformation From The American Heart Association On Coconut Oil and Saturated Fats

In a “presidential advisory” to the American Heart Association (AHA)  a panel of experts last week  strongly endorsed the heart healthy benefits of replacing any and all saturated fats in our diet with vegetable oils (like corn , soy, and canola oil) which contain predominantly poly  or mono unsaturated fats.

Examining the metrics of this article it appears that the vast majority of news media reporting on it have lead with a headline that reads:

  Coconut oil isn’t actually good for you, the American Heart Association says     

Given this brazen attempt by the AHA to smear coconut oil’s reputation I felt compelled to revisit my analysis of coconut oil from a year ago. I’ve included new discussion on a key paper referenced by the AHA advisory and some words of wisdom from Gary Taubes.

Coconut Oil: Poster Child for Dietary Fat Confusion

Coconut oil (CO) is a microcosm of the dietary confusion present in the U.S. On one hand a CO Google search yields a plethora of glowing testimonials to diverse benefits: Wellness Mama lists “101 Uses for Coconut Oil,” Authority Nutrition lists “10 Proven Health Benefits.”

On the other hand, the  American Heart Association (AHA) and the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines For Americans warn us to avoid consuming coconut oil  because it contains about 90% saturated fat (SFA) which is a higher percentage than butter (about 64% saturated fat), beef fat (40%), or even lard (also 40%)

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..

The AHAs simple message to replace all saturated fats in your diet with poly unsaturated fats (PUFAs) or monounsaturated fats (MUFAs) is flawed because:

  1. All saturated fats are not created equal :the kinds of saturated fats in coconut oil differs markedly from both dairy SFAs and beef SFAs . Some  SFAs may have beneficial effects on blood lipids, weight, and cardiovascular health.

  2. The types of nonSFAs in vegetable oils differ markedly and may have differential effects on cardiovascular health.

All Saturated Fats Are Not Created Equal!

Saturated fats are divided into various types based on the number of carbon atoms in the molecule. Depending on length, they differ markedly in their metabolism, absorption and effects on lipid profiles.

The major SFA in coconut oil, lauric acid, has a 12 carbon chain and is thus considered a medium chain fatty acid (MCFA).

The AHA advisory makes a cursory attempt to address the huge hole in their logic primarily relying on a meta-regression analysis published in 2003 by Mensink, et al., and concludes:

The Mensink meta-regression analysis determined the effects on blood lipids of replacing carbohydrates with the individual saturated fatty acids that are in common foods, including lauric, myristic, palmitic, and stearic ac- ids. Lauric, myristic, and palmitic acids all had similar effects in increasing LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol and decreasing triglycerides when replacing carbohydrates

In summary, the common individual saturated fats raise LDL cholesterol. Their replacement with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats lowers LDL cholesterol. Differences in the effects of the individual fatty acids are small and should not affect dietary recommendations to lower saturated fat intake.

But if we examine what the actual paper by Mensink et al (available in full here) we find their conclusions are the exact opposite of the AHA:

Lauric acid greatly increased total cholesterol, but much of its effect was on HDL cholesterol. Consequently, oils rich in lauric acid decreased the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol. Myristic and palmitic acids had little effect on the ratio, and stearic acid reduced the ratio slightly.

The differences in the effects of the individual fatty acids are not small they are quite significant if we look at the totality of the effects on lipids relevant to cardiovascular disease. In their discussion, Mensink, et al go on to say:

Our results emphasize the risk of relying on cholesterol alone as a marker of CAD risk. Replacement of carbohydrates with tropical oils markedly raises total cholesterol, which is unfavorable, but the picture changes if effects on HDL and apo B are taken into account.

What’s more :

The picture may change again once we know how to interpret the effects of diet on postprandial lipemia, thrombogenic factors, and other, newer markers. However, as long as information directly linking the consumption of certain fats and oils with CAD is lacking, we can never be sure what such fats and oils do to CAD risk.

This graph from Mensink, et al. shows what would happen to the total/HDL cholesterol ratio if we substituted various foods in place of 10% mixed fat. Theoretically a lower ratio is more heart healthy. Look at the drastic differences between palm oil, coconut oil and butter, all of which are condemned by the AHA

 

Misguided Dietary Fat Recommendations

The  AHA experts have doubled down on their recommendation to use cooking oils that have less saturated fat such as canola and corn oil. They advise, in general, to “choose oils with less than 4 grams of saturated fat per tablespoon.”

Screen Shot 2016-05-07 at 12.28.40 PMCanola 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, and corn oil margarine in place of 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.

Cherry-Picking Data

The new AHA presidential advisory doesn’t include this study or  data from the Sydney Heart Study, another study with negative results for substituting PUFAs for SFAs.

As Gary Taubes pointed out in a post for Larry Husten’s cardiobrief.org blog, the AHA experts cherry-picked four “core trials” that  agreed with their hypothesis and excluded the ones that don’t agree:

They do this for every trial but the four, including among the rejections the largest trials ever done: the Minnesota Coronary Survey, the Sydney Heart Study, and, most notably, the Women’s Health Initiative, which was the single largest and most expensive clinical trial ever done. All of these resulted in evidence that refuted the hypothesis. All are rejected from the analysis. And the AHA experts have good reasons for all of these decisions, but when other organizations – most notably the Cochrane Collaboration – did this exercise correctly, deciding on a strict methodology in advance that would determine which studies to use and which not, without knowing the results, these trials were typically included.

Coconut Oil: The Bottom Line

After all is said and done, it would appear that coconut oil, despite coming from a vegetable, resembles dairy fat in many ways.

It is more likely than not that coconut oil, like dairy fat, reduces your chances of obesity and heart disease, especially when compared to the typical American diet of highly processed and high carbohydrate foods.

Although containing lots of saturated fat, the SFAs in coconut oil are drastically different from other dietary sources of SFA.  The medium chain fatty acids like lauric acid which make up the coconut are absorbed and metabolized differently from long chain fatty acids found in animal fat.

The only explanation for dietary guidelines advising against coconut oil and dairy fat is the need to stay “on message” and simplify food choices for consumers, thus continuing the vilification of all saturated fats.

Substituting corn oil (or other vegetable oils with lots of linoleic acid) for foods containing saturated fats does not lower risk of heart disease and may promote atherosclerotic outcomes like heart attack and stroke.

Finally, I agree with Taubes that we deserve good scientific studies proving without a doubt that these drastic changes in diet are truly helping:

“telling people to eat something new to the environment — an unnatural factor, à la virtually any vegetable oil (other than olive oil if your ancestor happen to come from the Mediterranean or mid-East), …..is an entirely different proposition. Now you’re assuming that this unnatural factor is protective, just like we assume a drug can be protective say by lowering our blood pressure or cholesterol. And so the situation is little different than it would be if these AHA authorities were concluding that we should all take statins prophylactically or beta blockers. The point is that no one would ever accept such a proposal for a drug without large-scale clinical trials demonstrating that the benefits far outweigh the risks. So even if the AHA hypothesis is as reasonable and compelling as the AHA authors clearly believe it is, it has to be tested. They are literally saying (not figuratively, literally) that vegetable oils — soy, canola, etc — are as beneficial as statins and so we should all consume them. Maybe so, but before we do (or at least before I do), they have a moral and ethical obligation to rigorously test that hypothesis, just as they would if they were advising us all to take a drug.”

Cocovorically Yours,

-ACP

For those seeking more information.

This graph is from the BMJ paper which also included a meta-analysis of all randomized studies substituting linoleic acid for saturated fat.  The data do not favor substituting corn oil for saturated fat

F7.large

 

 

 

Coconut Oil: Greasing the Skids to Wellville or Clogging the Arteries To the Heart

While the skeptical cardiologist was wandering around in ketoland, he acquired a large jar of extra virgin coconut oil for the purpose of boosting his fat consumption. He stirred spoonfuls of the solid waxy substance into his coffee and applied it to various and sundry skin rashes.

Coconut oil (CO) is a microcosm of the dietary confusion present in the U.S. On one hand a CO Google search yields a plethora of glowing testimonials to diverse benefits: Wellness Mama lists “101 Uses for Coconut Oil,” Authority Nutrition lists “10 Proven Health Benefits.”

On the other hand, the  American Heart Association (AHA) and the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines For Americans warn us to avoid consuming coconut oil  because it contains about 90% saturated fat (SFA) which is a higher percentage than butter (about 64% saturated fat), beef fat (40%), or even lard (also 40%) and thus contributes to heart disease.

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.

The problem with this simplistic message is that the kind of saturated fat in CO differs markedly from both dairy SFAs and beef SFAs and, like dairy fat, appears to have a beneficial effect on blood lipids, weight, and cardiovascular health.

Misguided Dietary Fat Recommendations

The AHA guidelines, for example, recommend cooking oils that have less saturated fat such as canola and corn oil. They advise, in general, to “choose oils with less than 4 grams of saturated fat per tablespoon.”

Screen Shot 2016-05-07 at 12.28.40 PMCanola 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 last month in the BMJ, (don’t get me started on why these data were “buried” for decades).

Data from this study, which substituted liquid corn in place of the usual hospital cooking fats, and corn oil margarine in place of 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.

Very Brief (But Seemingly Unavoidable) Digression Into Organic Chemistry Featuring Obscure But Intriguing Chemical Names and Numbers to 5.0 Significant Digits

Saturated fats are divided into various types based on the number of carbon atoms in the molecule. Depending on length, they differ markedly in their metabolism, absorption and effects on lipid profiles.

The major SFA in coconut oil, lauric acid, has a 12 carbon chain and is thus considered a medium chain fatty acid (MCFA). Take a look at the complex mixture of saturated fatty acids present in virgin coconut oil and note lauric acid (green) and palmitic acid (red):

Fatty acid profile Concentration (%)
C6 Caproic 2.215
C8 Caprylic 12.984
C10 Capric 6.806
C11 Undecanoic 0.028
C12 Lauric 47.280
C13 Tridecanoic 0.030
C14 Myristic 15.803
C15 Pentadecanoic 0.006
C16 Palmitic 6.688
C16 : 1 Heptadecanoic 0.011
C17 Stearic 0.011
C18 Oleic 1.481
C18 : 1n9c Elaidic 5.073
C18 : 1n9t Linoleic 0.231
C18 :  2n6c Linolelaidic 1.168
C18 : 2n6t γ-Linolenic 0.045
C18 : 3n6g α-Linolenic 0.007
C18 : 3n3a Arachidic 0.013
C20 Cis-11-Eicosenoic 0.039
C20 : 1n9 Behenic 0.039
C22 Cis-13,16-Docisadienoic 0.006
C24 Lignoceric 0.020

Palmitic acid, a long chain FA with 16 carbon atoms, makes  up only  7% of coconut oil, but is the major SFA in dairy and beef fat. When consumed in isolation, it raises the LDL or bad cholesterol and the ration of LDL to HDL, and thus has been labeled as unhealthy. Of course, as pointed out here we don’t consume either palmitic acid or lauric acid in isolation; we consume them in the complex milieu of other fats, antioxidants, proteins and carbohydrates that we call food.

Medium chain fatty acids, and especially lauric acid, do a really good job of raising the good HDL cholesterol and lowering the ratio of LDL to HDL, changes which should boost heart health.

Detailed Explanation of Differential Long and Medium Chain Fatty Acid Absorption and Metabolism (Feel Free to Skip)

Looking closely at the metabolism of MCSFAs we find:

” MCFAs are rapidly absorbed in the intestines even without catalyzation by the pancreatic lipase enzyme. LCFAs, on the other hand, required pancreatic lipase for absorption. They are carried by the lymph to the systemic circulation in chylomicrons and eventually reach the liver where they either undergo beta oxidation, biosynthesis to cholesterol, or are repackaged as triglycerides. MCFAs are carried by the portal vein to the liver where they are rapidly oxidized to energy. Unlike LCFAs, MCFAs do not enter the cholesterol cycle and they are not deposited in fat depots.”

Benefits of Coconut Oil, Cardiovascular and Otherwise

If you’d like to read a lot of hype and mumbo-jumbo about the benefits of coconut oil, I suggest you start at coconutoil.com and take a look at this graphic:Coconut-Oil-Health-Benefits

 

After a little reading, you will be ready to smear coconut oil all over your body and consume heaping spoonfuls thrice daily.

pastedgraphic-3_custom-0c04b15858d6b64ecbb597e1a17940ae72e34449-s400-c85
August Engelhardt stands underneath a palm tree with Berlin concert pianist Max Lützow at his feet. Lützow went to Kabakon to join Engelhardt’s sun-worshipping cocovore cult, The Order of the Sun. He died there, as did several other followers.

Be careful, though, you may end up like German nudist August Englehard who believed “that since the coconut grew high up in the tree, closest to God and closest to the sun, it was godlike, And since it had hair and looked like a human head, he thought it came closest to being a man. According to his rather crackpot theory, to be a cocovore was to be a theophage — or eater of God.”

My favorite article on the potentially atherogenic effects of coconut oil is entitled “Atherogenic of Not? (What therefore causes atherosclerosis?)  published in the Philippine Journal of Cardiology in 2003:
Screen Shot 2016-05-07 at 12.07.41 PM
The author, a prominent Phillipino cardiologist inserted the Phillipines (note my big red arrow) data into the famous Ancel Keys graph which plots heart disease mortality rate versus percent calories from fat.

The data point of the Phillipines, where coconut oil is the predominant cooking oil, totally disrupts the relationship between dietary fat and heart disease.

Of course, scientists now know that these kinds of correlations prove nothing, but they were the basis for guiding Americans to low fat, high carbohydrate manufactured monstrosities.

Coconut Oil: The Bottom Line

After all is said and done, it would appear that coconut oil, despite coming from a vegetable, resembles dairy fat in many ways.

It is more likely than not that coconut oil, like dairy fat, reduces your chances of obesity and heart disease, especially when compared to the typical American diet of highly processed and high carbohydrate foods.

Although containing lots of saturated fat, the SFAs in coconut oil are drastically different from other dietary sources of SFA.  The medium chain fatty acids like lauric acid which make up the coconut are absorbed and metabolized differently from long chain fatty acids found in animal fat.

The only explanation for dietary guidelines advising against coconut oil and dairy fat is the need to stay “on message” and simplify food choices for consumers, thus continuing the vilification of all saturated fats.

Substituting corn oil (or other vegetable oils with lots of linoleic acid) for foods containing saturated fats does not lower risk of heart disease and may promote atherosclerotic outcomes like heart attack and stroke.

I doubt that few if any of the miraculous  CO benefits hyped at coconutoil.com and elsewhere are real but if it helps your skin or your scalp, your digestion or your taste buds, feel free to consume ad lib and don’t worry about any adverse effects on your coronary arteries or your heart.

Cocovorically Yours,

-ACP

For those seeking more information.

This graph is from the BMJ paper which also included a meta-analysis of all randomized studies substituting linoleic acid for saturated fat.  The data do not favor substituting corn oil for saturated fat

F7.large

 

 

 

Here is a primer on SFA sources and effects on cholesterol from a recent review on dairy fat and cardiovascular disease.

/After absorption, the predominant dairy SFA palmitic acid (C16:0), but also myristic acid (C14:0) and lauric acid (C12:0) are preferentially directed to TG formation rather than to phospholipid acylation. These three long-chain fatty acids raise total cholesterol, but their effects on LDL:HDL ratios are different. Palmitic acid is the major SFA in the diet and also in milk fat with a content of about 30%. Palmitic acid raises the LDL cholesterol more than it raises HDL cholesterol (27). Myristic acid represents 11% of the dairy fatty acids and increase total cholesterol as much as palmitic acid, but does not affect total cholesterol:HDL ratio (128). Lauric acid is the most potent fatty acid in raising plasma total cholesterol, but dairy content is only 3.3%. The increase in HDL cholesterol induced by lauric acid is higher than the increase in LDL and thus the total cholesterol:HDL ratio was decreased when lauric acid was used to replace carbohydrates (1). Stearic acid represents 12% of the dairy fatty acids and improves the plasma cholesterol profile by decreasing total/HDL cholesterol ratio compared to other SFAs. But compared to polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), stearic acid increases LDL and decreases HDL and increase total/ HDL ratio. (29). Other SFAs are short- and medium-chain length and are mainly considered to be cholesterol neutral. At a certain amount of SFA intake, an increase in both LDL and HDL cholesterol can be seen, especially if the intake of unsaturated fatty acids is low (3031). In a recent meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studies, intake of SFA and risk of CVD was studied (32). Six studies found a significant positive association between SFA intake and CVD, and 10 studies found no significant association.