Category Archives: Lifestyle and Heart Disease

Which Exercise Is Best For Heart Health: Swimming or Walking?

Reader Pat asked the skeptical cardiologist the following question:

Which would be the better heart healthy choice? Walking briskly 3 x week or swimming for 45 minutes 2-3 x a week?

Swimming is an attractive alternative to walking or running for many of my patients with arthritis because it is a lot easier on the load-bearing joints of the lower extremities.

To my surprise there is at least one study (from Australia) comparing swimming and walking that was published in the journal Metabolism in 2010.

The investigators randomly assigned 116 sedentary women aged 50-70 years to swimming or walking. Participants completed 3 sessions per week of moderate-intensity exercise under supervision for 6 months then unsupervised for 6 months.

Compared with walking, swimming improved body weight, body fat distribution and insulin resistance in the short term (6 months).

At 12 months swimmers had lost 1.1 kg more than walkers and had lower bad cholesterol levels.

It should be noted that these differences barely reached significance .

Types of Activities And The Intensity of Exercise

My general recommendations on exercise (see here) give examples of different aerobic physical activities and intensities.

These activities are considered Moderate Intensity

  • Walking briskly (3 miles per hour or faster, but not race-walking)
  • Water aerobics
  • Bicycling slower than 10 miles per hour
  • Tennis (doubles)
  • Ballroom dancing
  • General gardening Vigorous Intensity

These types of exercise are considered Vigorous Exercise

  • Racewalking, jogging, or running
  • Swimming laps
  • Tennis (singles)
  • Aerobic dancing
  • Bicycling 10 miles per hour or faster
  • Jumping rope
  • Heavy gardening (continuous digging or hoeing, with heart rate increases)
  • Hiking uphill or with a heavy backpack

As a rule of thumb, consider 1 minute of vigorous exercise equivalent to 2 minutes of moderate exercise and shoot for 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise.

Of course one can swim laps at peak intensity or at a very slow, leisurely pace so swimming laps doesn’t always qualify as “vigorous” exercise. Likewise one can play singles tennis languorously and be at a moderate or lower intensity of exercise.

It is entirely possible that the swimmers were working at a higher intensity during their sessions than the walkers and that could be the explanation for the differences seen between the two groups.

Ultimately, the best type of  exercise for heart health is the one you can do and  (hopefully) enjoy on a regular basis.

Antilanguorously Yours,

-ACP

N.B. Speaking of swimming. A year ago I wrote about longevity and featured Eugene, a 98 year old who could swim the length of a swimming pool underwater. Eugene turns 100 in 2 days.

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

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

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

Should You Be Raking The Leaves of Autumn?

In University City, like much of the country these past two weeks, we’ve been enveloped in extreme unremitting cold but just a month ago I was writing about leaves. My goal was to discuss leaf blowers. What follows is what I wrote before becoming distracted.

The street on which my humble abode abides is heavily populated by large, beautiful trees. With autumn, Thoreau noted, their beauty is enhanced and  nature,

“like an athlete, begins to strip herself in earnest for her contest with her great antagonist Winter. In the bare trees and twigs what a display of muscle.”

Dendrophile that I am,  my heart quickened when I witnessed the glorious display of colors that issued forth from their branches a month ago. I was so inspired I took the picture below from my front doorstep.

IMG_0002
Remember when there were leaves on the trees and snow wasn’t eternally covering the ground?

Alas, I had forgotten that the vivid reds and yellows were a precursor to a constant deluge of dead and decaying dendrophitic detritus  upon my lawn.

Now the once beautiful leaves have become a nuisance-a funereal layer of death choking my lawn and once more I must grapple with how to handle them.

The first time I was presented with this problem I pondered just leaving the leaves. After watching my neighbors dutifully raking and blowing their leaves into the street  I concluded this was not acceptable. I purchased a rake or two and raked.

Today I raked thousands of leaves into the street from which they will soon be sucked up by the leaf-sucking trucks of University City .

Once more I pondered the wisdom of this approach. I wondered if I was somehow interfering in the cycle of nature on one hand and on another I considered buying a leaf blower.

A prolonged surfing expedition led by Google led me to the following statement:

To treat leaves as trash is both environmentally foolish and financially ruinous. Currently, many municipalities encourage residents to rake leaves to the curb for collection, but before they are collected, heavy rains often wash the leaves into catch basins. There, they decompose and release phosphorus and nitrogen into streams and rivers that flow through the community. These excess nutrients contribute to algae blooms during the summer, which result in lower oxygen levels, making it difficult for fish and other aquatic species to survive.

Municipalities, both large and small, spend thousands, even millions, of dollars each year to collect, transport, and process autumn leaves, tying up resources that could be used elsewhere in our communities. If we all keep our leaves on our properties, we will improve our gardens, save money, and enhance the environment we all share.

University City Leaf Disposal and Mulching Operation

After encountering this sobering statement which implies that the leaf removal operation is wreaking all manner of havoc I posted it on a discussion regarding the leaf removal schedule on Next Door .

Fellow Ucitians informed me that UCity no longer disposes of the leaves themselves but has contracted with St. Louis Composting

St. Louis Compositing was” founded in 1992 by eco-enthusiast Patrick Geraty” and has “blossomed into the region’s largest compost producer. St. Louis Composting’s mission is to help make the world a little greener and reduce landfill waste by producing compost of the highest quality. Together, our six composting facilities process roughly 600,000 cubic yards of green material annually – more than one-third of all yard waste generated in St. Louis County.”

So, it seems it would be OK to blow or rakes leaves into the street. After much pondering, however, I decided to purchase a corded electric mower and perform the mulching myself.

 

Raking Leaves As Exercise

There is a cardiology connection to all this.

This  Consumer Reports article found:

Blowing is twice as fast as raking but the rake is superior in terms of personal fitness and earth friendliness:

“we burned more than twice as many calories raking as we did blowing, and no fossil fuels (barring those that went into the manufacturing of the rake). On the other hand, raking isn’t healthy if you spend the next day in bed with a pulled back.”

As your cardiologist I advise embracing the raking as a useful combination of aerobic exercise and upper body strength training!

Leaflessly Yours,

-ACP

Are You A Victim of Excessive Daytime Sleepiness?

The Skeptical Cardiologist has been analyzing the data on sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease, utilizing his spectacular skeptical skills.

Recent guidelines from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggest that 30 million adults in the US have OSA and that OSA is causing all manner of problems.

I note patient awareness of the possibility of OSA is rising exponentially and many of my patient’s are being subjected to sleep studies because their wives are bothered by their excessive snoring.

The AASM guidelines state that

Increased risk of moderate to severe OSA is indicated by the presence of excessive daytime sleepiness and at least two of the following three criteria: habitual loud snoring; witnessed apnea or gasping or choking; or diagnosed hypertension

Although I have no reason to suspect that I have sleep disordered breathing (SDB-I feel like this term is becoming popular as it avoids the stigma of apnea), I decided to determine my  Epworth Sleepiness Scale which is often utilized   to measure excessive daytime sleepiness.

Developed by Dr. Murray Johns, this scale has its own website where you will learn that:

Johns (2002) introduced the term somnificity to describe the effects of different postures and activities on sleep propensity.

The somnificity of any particular posture, activity and situation is a measure of its ability to facilitate or impede sleep onset in the majority of people. It is not a characteristic of individual people or their sleep disorders.

and (no doubt after years of intense sleepiness research) Dr. Johns has discovered that:

Simply to lie down rather than stand up increases one’s likelihood of falling asleep – the change of posture increases one’s sleep propensity at the time.

After stumbling up on this revelation I have decided to test my hypothesis that playing electric guitar while standing has extremely  low somnificity. (I also hope to use the word somnificity in a normal daily conversation without biting my tongue.)

This self-administered questionnaire asks you to rate how likely you are (on a scale of 0=never to 3=high chance of dozing)  to doze off or fall asleep in certain situations. What follows are the situations with my observations and my self-rated score.

Sitting and reading    (Principles of Nuclear Medicine=3, Brave New World=0)                          1

Watching TV   1

Sitting, inactive in a public place (theatre or a meeting)     1

As a passenger in a car for an hour without a break     2

Lying down to rest in the afternoon when circumstances permit 3

sitting and talking to someone               1

sitting quietly after a lunch without alcohol      1

In a car while stopped for a few minutes in the traffic   2

They don’t ask about falling asleep while driving which seems much more important than the other situations. I’ve done that a lot.

The biggest soporific situation for me is sitting in a barber’s chair. No matter what small talk the hairdresser throws at me, I am asleep within 5 minutes. My bobbing head requires the rare skill of trimming a moving target.

My total score was 12 which puts me solidly in the land of sleep disordered breathing. In the original study by Johns  the patient’s with sleep apnea  (OSA-line 3 in below chart) had an  average score of 11.7.

The AASM guidelines indicate that I could have gotten into some OSA studies with my score, especially if I add in that I have been caught snoring, gasping and choking (sometimes all three simultaneously!) and I have hypertension.

The Eternal fiancée got a respectable score of 7. Apparently she never falls asleep at traffic lights, watching TV/movie or sitting after lunch and believes these are masculine traits. However, I think she should get double points for taking long, intentional naps throughout the day.

Somnificitically Yours,

-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

Ignore The New York Times and The American Heart Association and Feel Free to Skip Breakfast

A friend recently sent the skeptical cardiologist  a link to a very disappointing NY Times article  entitled “The Case For A Breakfast Feast”

The writer, Roni Rabin (who has a degree in journalism from Columbia University)  struggles to support her sense that there is a “growing body of research” suggesting we should all modify our current dietary habits in order to eat a  breakfast and make breakfast the largest meal of the day.

Many of us grab coffee and a quick bite in the morning and eat more as the day goes on, with a medium-size lunch and the largest meal of the day in the evening. But a growing body of research on weight and health suggests we may be doing it all backward.

Rabin’s first  discussion is of an observational study of Seventh Day Adventists published in July which adds nothing to the evidence in this area because (as she points out):

The conclusions were limited, since the study was observational and involved members of a religious group who are unusually healthy, do not smoke, tend to abstain from alcohol and eat less meat than the general population (half in the study were vegetarian)

She then discusses experiments on mice from 2012 with a Dr. Panda, a short term feeding trial in women from 2013 and studies on feeding and circadian rhythm in a transgenic rat model from 2001.

There is nothing of significance in the NY Times piece that changes my previous analysis  that it is perfectly safe to skip breakfast and that it will neither make you obese nor give you heart disease.


In what follows I’ll repost my initial post on breakfast (Breakfast is Not The Most important Meal of the Day: Feel Free to Skip it) followed by a follow up post (Feel Free To Skip Breakfast Again) I wrote in 2015.

Finally, I’ll take a close look at a statment from the American Heart Association  from earlier this year which Rabin quotes and which many news outlets somehow interpreted as supporting the necessity of eating breakfast for heart health when, in fact, it confirmed the lack of science behind the recommendation.


Feel Free To Skip Breakfast

It always irritates me when a friend tells me that I should eat breakfast because it is “the most important meal of the day”. Many in the nutritional mainstream have propagated this concept along with the idea that skipping breakfast contributes to obesity. The mechanism proposed seems to be that when you skip breakfast you end up over eating later in the day because you are hungrier.

The skeptical cardiologist is puzzled.

Why would i eat breakfast if I am not hungry in order to lose weight?

What constitutes breakfast?

Is it the first meal you eat after sleeping? If so, wouldn’t any meal eaten after sleeping qualify even it is eaten in the afternoon?

Is eating a donut first thing in the morning really healthier than eating nothing?

Why would your first meal be more important than the last?

Isn’t it the content of what we eat that is important more than the timing?

The 2010 dietary guidelines state

eat a nutrient-dense breakfast. Not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight, especially among children and adolescents. Consuming breakfast also has been associated with weight loss and weight loss maintenance, as well as improved nutrient intake

The US Surgeon General website advises that we encourage kids to eat only when they are hungry but also states

Eating a healthy breakfast is a good way to start the day and may be important in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight

Biased  and Weak Studies on the Proposed Effect of Breakfast on Obesity (PEBO)

A recent study anayzes the data in support of the “proposed effect of breakfast on obesity” (PEBO) and found them lacking.
This is a fascinating paper that analyzes how scientific studies which are inconclusive can be subsequently distorted or spun by biased researchers to support their positions. It has relevance to how we should view all observational studies.

Observational studies abound in the world of nutritional research. The early studies by Ancel Keys establishing a relationship between fat consumption and heart disease are a classic example. These studies cannot establish causality. For example, we know that countries that consume large amounts of chocolate per capita have large numbers of Nobel Prize winners per capitaChocolate Consumption and Nobel Laureates

Common sense tells us that it is not the chocolate consumption causing the Nobel prizes or vice versa but likely some other factor or factors that is not measured.

Most of the studies on PEBO are observational studies and the few, small prospective randomized studies don’t clearly support the hypothesis.

Could the emphasis on eating breakfast come from the “breakfast food industry”?

I’m sure General Mills and Kellogg’s would sell a lot less of their highly-processed, sugar-laden breakfast cereals if people didn’t think that breakfast was the most important meal of the day.

My advice to overweight or obese patients:

-Eat when you’re hungry. Skip breakfast if you want.
-If you want to eat breakfast, feel free to eat eggs or full-fat dairy (including butter)
-These foods are nutrient-dense and do not increase your risk of heart disease, even if you have high cholesterol.
-You will be less hungry and can eat less throughout the day than if you were eating sugar-laden, highly processed food-like substances.


Breakfast Cereal

The “must eat breakfast” dogma reminds me of a quote  from Melanie Warner’s excellent analysis of the food industry, “Pandora’s Lunchbox.”

“Walk down a cereal aisle today or go onto a brand’s Web site, and you will quickly learn that breakfast cereal is one of the healthiest ways to start the day, chock full of nutrients and containing minimal fat. “Made with wholesome grains,” says Kellogg’s on its Web site. “Kellogg’s cereals help your family start the morning with energy by delivering a number of vital, take-on-the-day nutrients—nutrients that many of us, especially children, otherwise might miss.” It sounds fantastic. But what you don’t often hear is that most of these “take-on-the-day” nutrients are synthetic versions added to the product, often sprayed on after processing. It’s nearly impossible to find a box of cereal in the supermarket that doesn’t have an alphabet soup of manufactured vitamins and minerals, unless you’re in the natural section, where about half the boxes are fortified.”

The Kellogg’s and General Mills of the world strongly promoted the concept that you shouldn’t skip breakfast because they had developed products that stayed fresh on shelves for incredibly long periods of time. They could be mixed with easily accessible (low-fat, no doubt) milk to create inexpensive,  very quickly and easily made, ostensibly healthy breakfasts.

Unfortunately, the processing required to make these cereals last forever involved removing the healthy components.

As Warner writes about W.K. Kellogg:

“In 1905, he changed the Corn Flakes recipe in a critical way, eliminating the problematic corn germ, as well as the bran. He used only the starchy center, what he referred to as “the sweetheart of the corn,” personified on boxes by a farm girl clutching a freshly picked sheaf. This served to lengthen significantly the amount of time Corn Flakes could sit in warehouses or on grocers’ shelves but compromised the vitamins housed in the germ and the fiber residing in the bran”

This is a very familiar story in the world of food processing;  Warner covers, nicely, the same processes occurring with cheese and with milk, among other things.


The AHA (Always Horribly Awry) Weighs In

I pick on the American heart Association (AHA) a lot in this blog but the AHA scientific statement on “Meal Timing and Frequency: Implications for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention” published earlier this year in Circulation is for the most part a balanced summary of research in the field.

Unfortunately, the media grossly distorted the statement and we ended up with assertive headlines such as this one from Reuters:

Eating Breakfast and Eating Mindfully May Help The Heart

Reuters went on to say (red added by me for emphasis):

“Planning meals and snacks in advance and eating breakfast every day may help lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, new guidelines from U.S. doctors say.”

however, the AHA statement says nothing close to that.

This is the summary that was actually in the AHA paper:

“In summary, the limited evidence of breakfast consumption as an important factor in combined weight and cardiometabolic risk management is suggestive of a minimal impact. There is increasing evidence that advice related to breakfast consumption does not improve weight loss, likely because of compensatory behaviors during the day. …… Additional, longer-term studies are needed in this field because most metabolic studies have been either single-day studies or of very short duration”

The lead author of the paper, Marie-Pierre St-Onge, (Ph.D., associate professor, nutritional medicine, Columbia University, New York City) apparently very clearly told Reuters in an email:

“We know from population studies that eating breakfast is related to lower weight and healthier diet, along with lower risk of cardiovascular disease,” .

“However, interventions to increase breakfast consumption in those who typically skip breakfast do not support a strong causal role of this meal for weight management, in particular,” St-Onge cautioned. “Adding breakfast, for some, leads to an additional meal and weight gain.”

“The evidence, St-Onge said, is just not clear enough to make specific recommendations on breakfast.”

Health New Review published a  nice summary of news reports on the AHA statement with a discussion on the overall problem of making broad public policy dietary recommendations from very weak evidence.

New York Times Gets It Right

The New York Times does have writers who can put together good articles on health. One of them, Aaron Carroll wrote a piece in 2016 entitled “Sorry, There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast” which does a great job of sorting through weak evidence in the field.

Carroll is a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine and writes excellent articles on The New Health Care blog for the Times.

His conclusions are identical to mine from 2013:

“The bottom line is that the evidence of breakfast is something of a mess. If you’re hungry, eat it. But don’t feel bad if you’d rather skip, and don’t listen to those who lecture you. Breakfast has no mystical powers.”

Mindful and Intentional Eating

If you read the AHA statement completely you come across a lot of mumbo-jumbo on intermittent fasting, meal frequency and “mindful” eating.  The abstract’s last sentence is

Intentional eating with mindful attention to the timing and frequency of eating occasions could lead to healthier lifestyle and cardiometabolic risk factor management.

and they reference this table:

 Yikes! I have no idea what they are talking about.
For those of us who need to get to work early in the morning, breakfast is likely to be the worst time for “mindful” eating.
I have a cup of coffee first thing upon arising and only eat much later in the day when I feel very hungry.
Dinner, on the other hand we can plan for, prepare with loved ones and consume  in  a very mindful and leisurely fashion with a glass of heart healthy wine or beer while enjoying good conversation.
So, ignore what apparently authoritative sources like the New York Times, Reuters, and  the AHA tell you about eating breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper, mindfully or otherwise.
After all, in the Middle Ages, kings likely didn’t eat breakfast as the Catholic church frowned on it. Per Wikipedia:
Breakfast was under Catholic theological criticism. The influential 13th-century Dominican priest Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologica (1265–1274) that breakfast committed “praepropere,” or the sin of eating too soon, which was associated with gluttony.[2]Overindulgences and gluttony were frowned upon and were considered boorish by the Catholic Church, as they presumed that if one ate breakfast, it was because one had other lusty appetites as well, such as ale or wine.
Gluttonously Yours,
-ACP
 Image of king and pauper eating from the New York Times article created by Natalya Balnova.

 

Quackery Promotion By Mainstream Media: Part I, Reader’s Digest and Naturopathy

As the skeptical cardiologist surveys the heart health information available to his patients and the lay public, he sees two broad categories of misinformation.

First we have the quacks and snake oil salesman. These are primarily characterized by a goal of selling more of their useless stuff online.

I’ve described this as the #1 red flag of quackery. Usually I’m inspired to investigate these charlatans because a patient asks me about one of their useless supplements.

The second category is more insidious: the magazine or internet news site seems to have as its legitimate goal, promoting the health of its readers. There is no clear connection to a product.

Web MD, which I wrote about here, is an example of this second type.  Hard copy versions of these types of media frequently make it into doctor’s waiting rooms: not because doctor’s have read and approved what is in them. These companies send their useless and misleading magazines for free to doctor’s offices, and the staff believe it to be legitimate.

How does glaringly inaccurate and often dangerous information get into media that ostensibly has as its goal promoting its readers health? Most likely, it is a result of media’s need  to constantly produce new and interesting ways for readers to improve their health.

Clearly, readers will not continue subscribing, clicking and reading such sources of information if there isn’t something new and exciting that might prolong their lives: gimmicks, miracles cures, and “natural” remedies are more alluring than the well-known advice to exercise more, watch your weight, stop smoking and get a good night’s sleep.

Reader’s Digest and Stealth Quackery

A patient recently brought in a printout of Reader’s Digest’s “40 things cardiologists do to protect their heart” which is typical of the second category.

Reader’s Digest was a staple of my childhood. My parents subscribed to it consistently and I would read parts of it. It was small and enticing. Allegedly its articles were crafted so that they could be read in their entirety during a session in the bathroom.

To this day it has a wide circulation. Per Wikipedia”

The magazine was founded in 1920, by DeWitt Wallace and Lila Bell Wallace. For many years, Reader’s Digest was the best-selling consumer magazine in the United States; it lost the distinction in 2009 to Better Homes and Gardens. According to Mediamark Research (2006), Reader’s Digest reaches more readers with household incomes of $100,000+ than Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Inc. combined.[2]

Global editions of Reader’s Digest reach an additional 40 million people in more than 70 countries, via 49 editions in 21 languages. The periodical has a global circulation of 10.5 million, making it the largest paid circulation magazine in the world.

Reader’s Digest used to run a recurring educational feature on the various body parts and organs of Joe and Jane which intrigued me.

Here’s the first paragraph of “I am Joe’s heart:”

I am certainly no beauty. I weigh 340 grams, am red-brown in color and have an unimpressive shape. I am the dedicated slave of Joe. I am Joe’s heart.

The health information in this series was generally accurate but the presentation lacks the kind of sizzle that apparently attracts today’s readers.

The article my patient brought to my attention is typical of the mix of good and bad information and fluff that mainstream media can produce to attract followers:

Not So Bad But Not Clearly True Medical Advice

#1. I keep a gratitude journal. An internist “at NYU” is quoted as saying: “Studies have recently shown that expressing gratitude may have a significant positive impact on heart health.”

Fact Check: following the links provided provides no evidence to support this claim.

#2  I get 8 hours of sleep a night, every night.  This cardiologist seems to have been misquoted, because her comment is actually “getting a good night sleep is essential. I make a point of getting seven to eight hours of sleep every night…Poor sleep is linked to higher blood pressure.”

Fact Check. One review noted that:

Too little or too much sleep are associated with adverse health outcomes, including total mortality, type 2 diabetes, hypertensionand respiratory disorders, obesity in both children and adults, and poor self-rated health.

Another broke down mortality according to number of hours of sleep.

A J-shaped association between sleep duration and all-cause mortality was present: compared with 7 h of sleep (reference for 24-h sleep duration), both shortened and prolonged sleep durations were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (4 h: relative risk [RR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02–1.07; 5 h: RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03–1.09; 6 h: RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.06; 8 h: RR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.02–1.05; 9 h: RR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.10–1.16; 10 h: RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.22–1.28; 11 h: RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.33–1.44; n = 29; P < 0.01 for non-linear test)

Thus, in comparison to those who sleep 7 hours, those who sleep 5 hours have a 5% increase in mortality and those who sleep 11 hours have a 38% increase in mortality.

These data are based entirely on observational studies so it is impossible to know if the shortened sleep is responsible for the increased mortality or if some other (confounding) factor is causing both.

My advice: Some people do fine with 6 hours and 45 minutes of sleep. Some require 8 hours 15 minutes for optimal function. Rather than obsessing about getting a specific amount of sleep time, it makes more sense to find our through your own careful observations what sleep time works best for you and adjust your schedule and night time patterns accordingly.

#3. I do CrossFit.

Fact Check. There is nothing to support CrossFit as more heart healthy than regular aerobic exercise (which the vast majority of cardiologists recommend and perform).

#4. I meditate. “Negative thoughts and feelings of sadness can be detrimental to the heart. Stress can cause catecholamine release that can lead to heart failure and heart attacks.”

Fact Check. There is a general consensus that stress has adverse consequences for the cardiovascular system. Evidence of meditation improving cardiovascular outcomes is very weak.

A recent review

Participation in meditation practices has been shown to reduce depression, anxiety, and negative mood and thus may have an indirect positive effect on CV health and well-being. This possibility has led the American Heart Association to classify TM as a class IIb, level of evidence B alternative approach to lowering BP.32

Non randomized, non blinded studies with small numbers of participants have suggested a reduction in CV death in those performing regular TM.

However, we need better and larger studies before concluding there is a definite benefit compared to optimal medical therapy.

Thus far, the recommendations have been pretty mundane: exercise, stress reduction and a good night’s sleep is good advice for all, thus boring.

Seriously Bad Advice From Quacks Mixed In With Reasonable Advice

In order to keep reader’s interest (and reach 45 things) Reader’s Digest is going to need to add seriously bad advice.

My patient had circled #34. “I mix magnesium powder into my water. If sufficient magnesium is present in the body, cholesterol will not be produced in excess.”

This bizarre and totally unsubstantiated practice was recommended by Carolyn Dean MD, ND.

What do we know about Dr. Dean?

-She was declared unfit to practice medicine and her registration revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 1995. From quackwatch.org :

  • After being notified in 1993 that a disciplinary hearing would be held, Dean relocated to New York and did not contest the charges against her.
  • Dean had used unscientific methods of testing such as hair analysis, Vega and Interro testing, iridology and reflexology as well as treatment not medically indicated and of unproven value, such as homeopathy, colonic irrigations, coffee enemas, and rotation diets.

-The initials after her name (ND, doctor of naturopathy) should be considered the second red flag of quackery. See quackwatch.org (here) and rational wiki (here) and the confessions of a former naturopath  (here ) for discussions of naturopathy. As noted at science-based medicine:

Naturopathy is a cornucopia of almost every quackery you can think of. Be it homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine, it’s hard to think of a single form of pseudoscientific medicine and quackery that naturopathy doesn’t embrace or at least tolerate.

-She has a website (Dr. Carolyn Dean, MD,ND, The Doctor of The Future) where she incessantly promotes magnesium as the cure for all ills.

-She has written a book called “The Magnesium Miracle” (hmm. wonder what that’s about).

-She sells her own (really special!) type of magnesium (see red flag #1 of quackery).

-She writes for the Huffington Post (I’m considering making this a red flag of quackery).

-She is on the medical advisory board of the Nutritional Magnesium Association (an organization devoted to hyping magnesium as the cure for all ills and featuring all manner of magnesium quacks).

Prevention Magazine 

Reader’s Digest is not alone in allowing the advice of pseudoscience practitioners to stand side by side with legitimate sources.

For example, Prevention Magazine in its August 2017 issue highlights “35 All-Time Favorite Natural Remedies” with the subheading

“Go ahead, try them at home: Experts swear by these nondrug cures for back pain, nausea, hot flashes, and other common ailments.”

Who are these “experts”? Let the reader beware because the first quote comes from “Amy Rothenberg, past president of the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors.”

Finding The Truth

It’s getting harder and harder for the lay public to sort out real from fake health stories and advice.

When seemingly legitimate news media and widely followed sources like Reader’s Digest and Prevention Magazine  either consciously or inadvertently promote quackery, the truth becomes even more illusive.

Readers should avoid any source of information which

  1. Profits from selling vitamins and supplements.
  2. Utilizes or promotes  naturopaths or other obvious quacks as experts in health advice.

IamJoesfootingly Yours,

-ACP