Category Archives: Lifestyle and Heart Disease

PURE Study Further Exonerates Dairy Fat: Undeterred, The AHA Persists In Vilifying All Saturated Fat

The skeptical cardiologist had been avoiding reader pleas to comment on a paper recently published in the Lancet from the PURE study which showed that full fat dairy consumption is associated with a lower risk of mortality and cardiovascular disease. It felt like beating a dead horse since  I’ve been writing for the last 5 years that the observational evidence nearly unanimously shows that full fat dairy is associated with less abdominal fat, lower risk of diabetes and lower risk of developing vascular complications such as stroke and heart attack. However, since bad nutritional advice in this area stubbornly persists and the PURE study is so powerful and universally applicable, I felt compelled to post my observations.

What Did the PURE Study Show?

The PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology)  study enrolled 136, 00 individuals aged 35–70 years from 21 countries in five continents. Dietary intakes of dairy products ( milk, yoghurt, and cheese) were recorded.. Food intake was stratified  into whole-fat and low-fat dairy. The primary outcome was the composite of mortality or major cardiovascular events.

Consumption of 2 servings of dairy per day versus none was associated with a 16% lower risk of the primary outcome. The high dairy consumers had an overall 17% lower risk of dying. They had a 34% lower risk of stroke.

People whose only dairy consumption consisted of  whole-fat products had a significantly lower risk of the composite primary endpoint (29%).

Here’s how one of the authors of the PURE study summarized his findings (quoted in a good summary at TCTMD)

“We are suggesting that dairy consumption should not be discouraged,” lead investigator Mahshid Dehghan, PhD (McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada), told TCTMD. “In fact, it should be encouraged in low-to-middle income countries, as well as in high-income countries among individuals who do not consume dairy. We have people in North America and Europe who are scared of dairy and we would tell them that three servings per day is OK. You can eat it, and there are beneficial effects. Moderation is the message of our study.”

 

Despite these recent  findings and the total lack of any previous data that indicates substituting low or no fat dairy for full fat dairy is beneficial,  the American Heart Association (AHA)and major nutritional organizations continue to recommend skim or low fat cheese, yogurt and milk over full fat , non-processed  dairy products.

The AHA Continues Its Misguided Vilification Of All Saturated Fat

Medpage today quoted an AHA spokesman as saying in response to the PURE study:

“Currently with the evidence that we have reviewed, we still believe that you should try to limit your saturated fat including fat that this is coming from dairy products,” commented Jo Ann Carson, PhD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“It is probably wise and beneficial to be sure you’re including dairy in that overall heart-healthy dietary pattern, but we would continue to recommend that you make lower fat selections in the dairy products,” Carson told MedPage Today regarding the study, with which she was not involved.

 

What is their rationale? A misguided focus on macronutrients. For decades these people have been preaching that saturated fat is bad and unsaturated fat is good. All saturated fat is bad. All unsaturated fat is good.

To deem even one product which contains a significant amount of saturated fat as acceptable would undermine the public’s confidence in the saturated fat dogma.

Bad Nutritional Advice From The AHA Is Not New

Of course, the AHA has been notoriously off base on its nutritional advice for decades. selling its “heart-check” seal of approval to sugar-laden cereals such as Trix, Cocoa Puffs, and Lucky Charms and promoting trans-fat laden margarine. These products could qualify as heart-healthy because they were low in cholesterol and saturated fat.

To this day, the AHA’s heart-check program continues to promote highly processed junk food as heart-healthy while raking in millions of dollars from food manufacturers.

The AHA’s heart-check program is still using low cholesterol as a criteria for heart-healthy food whereas the 2015 Dietary Guidelines concluded that dietary cholesterol intake was no longer of concern.

Why would anyone believe the AHA’s current nutritional advice is credible given the historical inaccuracy of the program?

I’ve noticed that the dairy industry has done nothing to counter the idea that Americans should be consuming skim or low fat dairy product and discussed this with a dairy farmer who only sells full fat products a few years ago.

I posted his comments on this in my blog In April, 2016 and thought I would repost that posting for newer readers below:

 

The Skim Milk Scam:Words of Wisom From a Doctor Dairy Farmer

 

Full fat dairy is associated with less abdominal fat, lower risk of diabetes and lower risk of developing vascular complications such as stroke and heart attack.
quart_whole_milk_yogurt-293x300I’ve been consuming  full fat yogurt and milk  from Trader’s Point Creamery in Zionsville, Indiana almost exclusively since visiting the farm and interviewing its owners a few years ago.

Dr. Peter(Fritz) Kunz, a plastic surgeon, and his wife Jane, began selling milk from their farm after researching methods for rotational grazing , a process which allows  the cows to be self-sustaining: the cows feed themselves by eating the grass and in turn help fertilize the fields,  . After a few years of making sure they had the right grasses and cows, the Kunz’s opened Traders Point Creamery in 2003.

Two more studies (summarized nicely on ConscienHealth, an obesity and health blog)  came out recently solidifying the extensive data supporting the health of dairy fat and challenging the nutritional dogma that all Americans should be consuming low-fat as opposed to full fat dairy.

The Dairy Industry’s Dirty Little Secret

Dr. Kunz opened my eyes to the dirty little secret of the dairy industry when i first talked to him: dairy farmers double their income by allowing milk to be split into its fat and non-fat portions therefore the industry has no motivation to promote full fat dairy over nonfat dairy.

Recently, I  presented him with a few follow-up questions to help me understand why we can’t reverse the bad nutritional advice to consume low-fat dairy.

Skeptical Cardiologist: “When we first spoke and I was beginning my investigation into dairy fat and cardiovascular disease you told me that most dairy producers are fine with the promotion of non fat or low fat dairy products because if consumers are choosing low fat or skim dairy this allows the dairy producer to profit from the skim milk production as well as the dairy fat that is separated and sold for butter, cheese or cream products.”
I  don’t have a clear idea of what the economics of this are. Do you think this, for example, doubles the profitability of a dairy?

Dr. Kunz: “Yes, clearly. Butter, sour cream, and ice cream are highly profitable products… All these processes leave a lot of skim milk to deal with, and the best opportunity to sell skim milk is to diet-conscious and heart-conscious people who believe fat is bad.”

Skeptical Cardiologist:” I’ve been baffled by public health recommendations to consume low fat dairy as the science would suggest the opposite. The only reason I can see that this persists is that the Dairy Industry Lobby , for the reason I pointed out above, actually has a vested interest from a profitability standpoint in lobbying for the low fat dairy consumption.. Do you agree that this is what is going on? ”

 
Dr. Kunz: “Yes, definitely. The obsession with low-fat as it relates to diet and cardiac health has been very cleverly marketed. Fat does NOT make you fat.

Skeptical Cardiologist: “Also, I have had trouble finding out the process of production of skim milk. I’ve come across sites claiming that the process involves injection of various chemical agents but I can’t seem to find a reliable reference source on this. Do you have any information/undestanding of this process and what the down sides might be? I would like to be able to portray skim milk as a “processed food” which, more and more, we seem to be recognizing as bad for us.”

 

Dr. Kunz: “The PMO pasteurized milk ordinance states that when you remove fat you have to replace the fat soluble vitamins A & D. Apparently the Vitamin A & D have to be stabilized with a chemical compound to keep them miscible in basically an aqueous solution. The compound apparently contains MSG!! We were shocked to find this out and it further confirmed that we did not want to do a reduced fat or skim milk product.”

Skeptical Cardiologist: ” Any thoughts on A2? Marion Nestle’, of Food Politics fame, was recently in Australia where there is a company promoting A2 milk as likely to cause GI upset. It has captured a significant share of the Aussie market.”

 

Dr. Kunz: “We have heard of this and have directed our farm to test and replace any A1 heterozygous or homozygous cows.  We believe that very few of our herd would have A1 genetics because of the advantage of using heritage breeds like Brown Swiss and Jersey instead of Holstein.  Because few people are actually tested for lactose intolerance and because of the marketing of A2, it’s imperative not to be left behind in this – whether or not it turns out to be a true and accurate cause of people’s GI upset.

Skeptical Cardiologist:” I like that your milk is nonhomogenized. Seems like the less “processing” the better for food.  I haven’t found any compelling scientific reasons to recommend it to my patients, however. Do  you have any?”

 

Dr. Kunz: The literature is fairly old on this subject, but xanthine oxidase apparently can become encapsulated in the fat globules and it can be absorbed into the vascular tree and cause vascular injury.  I will look for the articles.  Anyway, taking your milk and subjecting it to 3000-5000 psi (homogenization conditions) certainly causes damage to the delicate proteins and even the less delicate fat globules.  Also remember that dietary cholesterol is not bad but oxidized cholesterol is very bad for you. That’s why overcooking egg yolks and high pressure spray drying to make powder products can be very dangerous – like whey protein powders that may contain some fats.

Skeptical Cardiologist: I spend a fair amount of time traveling in Europe and am always amazed that their milk is ultrapasteurized and sits unrefrigerated on the shelves. any thoughts on that process versus regular pasteurization and on pasteurization in general and its effects on nutritional value of dairy.

Dr. Kunz :“Absolutely crazy bad and nutritionally empty.. don’t know why anyone would buy it. The procedure is known as aseptic pasteurization and is how Nestle makes its wonderful Nesquik. If they made a full fat version of an aseptically pasteurized product it may have more oxidized cholesterol and be more harmful than no fat!!”
So there you have it, Straight from the  doctor dairy farmer’s mouth:
Skimming the healthy dairy fat out of  milk is a highly profitable process. Somehow, without a shred of scientific support,  the dairy industry, in cahoots with misguided and close-minded nutritionists, has convinced the populace that this ultra-processed skim milk pumped full of factory-produced synthetic vitamins is healthier than the original product.
Lactosingly Yours
-ACP
The two  recent articles (mentioned in this post) supporting full fat dairy are:

Circulating Biomarkers of Dairy Fat and Risk of Incident Diabetes Mellitus Among US Men and Women in Two Large Prospective Cohorts

which concluded ‘In two prospective cohorts, higher plasma dairy fatty acid concentrations were associated with lower incident diabetes. Results were similar for erythrocyte 17:0. Our findings highlight need to better understand potential health effects of dairy fat; and dietary and metabolic determinants of these fatty acids

and from Brazilian researchers

Total and Full-Fat, but Not Low-Fat, Dairy Product Intakes are Inversely Associated with Metabolic Syndrome in Adults1

Heart Healthy Breakfast Choices?: Cheerios, Honey-Nut Cheerios and Soluble Fiber Revisited

A reader commenting on my Plant Paradox post questioned nutritional  recommendations to consume fiber. This has prompted me to revisit a post I wrote in 2014 on Cheerios and Soluble Fiber.

I mentioned at that time that Honey-Nut Cheerios was the #1 selling ready-to-eat breakfast cereal and Cheerios #4. This update Screen Shot 2018-07-15 at 7.22.55 AMindicates little has changed in the rankings or consumption of breakfast cereal since then despite a more widespread recognition that added sugar is the major toxin in our diet and that these food items are basically a vehicle for sugar.

Apparently, Americans believe honey is not sugar. But Honey Nut Cheerios contain 9 times as much sugar as cheerios. Here are the top ingredients:

Whole Grain Oats, Sugar, Oat Bran, Corn Starch, Honey, Brown Sugar Syrup, Salt, Tripotassium Phosphate, Rice Bran Oil and/or Canola Oil,

General Mills tries to emphasize the healthiness of Honey Nut Cheerios, focusing on their close relationship with bees and the natural goodness of honey in its advertising along with other factors that we now know are not important (low fat, 12 vitamins and minerals, source of iron).Screen Shot 2018-07-15 at 7.56.32 AM

Little has changed with respect to the science supporting fiber consumption to reduce cardiovascular disease since 2014.  It is still weak and based on observational studies and surrogate biomarkers.

Between the lines below is my original post with current annotations in red.


The skeptical cardiologist usually eschews the breakfast offerings in the Doctor’s lounge. I’m not really interested in consuming donuts, muffins, or bagels with their high carbohydrate load. As I’ve ranted out about previously, the only yogurt available is Yoplait low fat , highly sugared-up yogurt which is arguably worse than starting the day with a candy bar.

A selection of breakfast cereals is available including Cheerios, Raisin Bran, and Frosted Flakes. Occasionally, when I have neglected to bring in my own full-faty yogurt, granola and/or fruit I will open up one of the Cheerios containers and consume a bowl mixed with 2% milk (full-fat, organic milk which I passionately advocate here and here is not available) (2018 update, I have said “cheerio” to all breakfast cereals and no longer eat Cheerios in the doctor’s lounge). 

Pondering the Cheerios packaging and the cute little O’s made me wonder whether this highly processed and packaged food with a seemingly endless shelf life was truly a healthy choice.

The “Ready-To-Eat”  And Allegedly Heart-Healthy Cereal

Cheerios and Honey-nut cheerios were  the #4 and #1 breakfast cereals in the US in 2013, generating almost a billion dollars in sales. Both of these General Mills blockbusters undoubtedly have reached their popularity by heavily promoting the concept that they are heart healthy.

The Cheerios label is all about the heart. The little O’s sit in a heart-shaped bowl. A prominent red heart with a check inside it attests to the AHA having certified Cheerios as part of its checkmark.heart.org program. Additional text states “low  in Saturated fat and cholesterol” and “diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease.”

Is The Fiber In Cheerios “Heart-Healthy” ?

Beta-glucan is a soluble fiber primarily located in the endosperm cell wall of oats. Early studies showed that oats and beta-glucan soluble fiber could reduce total and LDL (bad cholesterol) levels. The mechanism isn’t really known. (see the end of post for possible mechanisms). The Quaker oats web site oversimplifies the mechanism thusly :

“In your digestive tract, it acts as a sponge, soaking up cholesterol and carrying it out of the body”

This narrative fits with the oversimplified and now discredited descriptions of atherosclerosis which attribute it directly to consumption of cholesterol and fatty acids. See here if you’d like to appreciate how complex the process truly is.

The FDA Sanctions Oats As Heart Healthy

In 1997, the FDA reviewed 33 studies (21 showing benefit and 12 not) and decided to allow a health claim for foods that contain oats and soluble fiber. A minimum dose of 3 grams/day of oat beta-glucan was suggested for a beneficial reduction in blood cholesterol and (presumably, although never documented) a subsequent decline in coronary heart disease.

In 1998 Johnson, et al, published the results of a study funded by a grant from General Mills that showed that  inclusion of whole grain oat ready to eat cereal providing 3 grams of beta-glucan as part of a low fat diet reduced  LDL cholesterol by 4% after 6 weeks. HDL was unchanged. Patients in this study consumed 45 grams (1.5 oz) of cheerios at breakfast and then again in the evening. There was a total of 3 grams of soluble fibre in this amount of Cheerios. A control group consumed corn flakes in a similar fashion without change in LDL.

General Mills took this weak data and ran with it and began posting on Cheerios the following statements

 “Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is … clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.”

Although the FDA had approved verbiage indicating oats may reduce heart disease “when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol” the agency objected to General Mills claiming that Cheerios lowers cholesterol “when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol”.

The FDA  issued a warning letter to General Mills in 2009 in which the agency alleged “serious violations” of the FDC Act in the label and labeling of Cheerios cereal.

Based on claims made on your product’s label, we have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

Lowering Cholesterol Is Not The Same As Preventing Heart Disease

The FDA was telling General Mills that it was OK to say that Cheerios may reduce heart disease but not that it can reduce cholesterol because that made it a drug. It makes no sense.

The only thing that had been demonstrated for oat soluble fiber and Cheerios in particular was a reduction in cholesterol. There has never been a study with oats showing a reduction in heart disease..

It’s the heart disease, the atherosclerosis clogging our arteries and causing heart attacks and strokes that we want to prevent. We could care less about lowering cholesterol if it doesn’t prevent atherosclerosis.

A recent review of studies since the FDA ruling shows that 70% of studies show some reduction in LDL with beta-glucan. Interstingly, the studies which added beta-glucan to liquids were generally positive whereas addition to solids such as muffins usually did not show benefit.

I’m going to accept as evidence-based the claim that whole oats can lower your LDL about 7% if you consume a very large amount of them on a daily basis.

However, the critical question for any drug or dietary intervention is does it prevent atherosclerosis, the root cause of heart attacks and strokes. There has been in the past an assumption that lowering cholesterol by any means would result in lowering of atherosclerosis.

This theory has been disproven by recent studies showing that ezetimibe and niacin which significantly lower LDL do not reduce surrogate markers of atherosclerosis or cardiovascular events any more than placebo when added on to statin drugs. (There is now weak evidence that ezetimibe does lower cardiovascular events ). The recently revised cholesterol guidelines endorse the concept of treating risk of atherosclerosis rather than cholesterol levels.


 

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.

If you follow Pollan’s dictum you will get plenty of fiber, soluble or otherwise and you will avoid the necessity to obsess over the macronutrients in your diet, fiber or otherwise. Throw in some Cheerios and oatmeal every once in a while if you like them;  in their unadulterated state they are a heart-healthy food choice.

Cheerio,

-ACP

Why You Should Ignore “The Plant Paradox” by Steven Gundry

The skeptical cardiologist first encountered the blather of Dr. Steven Gundry while researching and writing a post entitled  The #1 Red Flag of Quackery.

Gundry came across my quack radar screen due to the popularity of his useless supplements and his pseudoscientific justifications. He is also widely described as a cardiologist but he is not, He is (or was) a cardiac surgeon (like, strangely enough, the celebrity prince of quackery, Dr. Oz)

Gundry is also a Goop doctor, which means Gwyneth Paltrow, the  celebrity queen of weird quackery endorses him.

I’ve been meaning to write specifically about his most popular useless supplement, Vital Reds.

In the meantime, Gundry has  come out with a best-selling.  book entitled  “The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in Healthy Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain”.

This book claims to reveal to its readers the great dietary “secret” that is causing almost all chronic diseases. Of course, Gundry is the only person with the brilliance and insight to have recognized this. Only those who are willing to plunk down the money to buy his book will learn this secret and the (mostly gobbledook) science behind it.

This  technique of convincing the naive that only you are aware of the “hidden” factor which is  the cause of their various maladies can probably be considered the #2 Red Flag of Quackery.

The Plant Paradox would have you believe that lectins are the major danger in our diet.

I’ve come across two well-researched pieces which destroy any validity to the concepts put forth by Gundry in The Plant Paradox.

Campbell: Is It Possible Gundry Is Out To Make A Quick Buck?

The first is from T. Colin Campbell of China Study fame. While I don’t agree with his overall dietary philosophy (see here) in his article he has taken the time to read Gundry’s book in detail and address in great detail the multiple bogus claims and the lack of scientific support. Campbell begins:

The claims come fast and furious in this book, stated with a degree of certainty, without nuance, that undoubtedly appeals to many readers. But the referencing is so lacking and sloppy that Dr. Gundry should be embarrassed. The references that are cited in this book do a poor job of trying to justify its claims. And the bulk of the author’s wild claims lack references at all, with several examples of easily verifiable falsehoods. Because his claims are quite profound and novel, referencing of the findings of others and his own results are especially important. This is especially troubling for an author who touts his own research experience.

After debunking Gundry’s lectin claims , Campbell suggests that Gundry’s major goal is selling more useless supplements, including one that will protect readers from the dreaded lectin:

In conclusion, there are many people who desire good health and deserve good information and we resent that they must suffer such poor quality and confusing information under the assumption that it is good science. Is it possible that Dr. Gundry is just out to make a quick buck? He admits that his patients give up to a dozen vials of blood for testing every couple of months at his clinic. Overtesting is common practice in supplement-driven clinics. This extensive testing, (which are another topic), is almost always used to demonstrate some type of nutritional pathology, which of course can only be corrected by taking the suggested supplements. And of course, Dr. Gundry sells supplements, including “Lectin Shield” for about $80 a month. According to his website, “This groundbreaking new formula was created to offset the discomforting effects of lectins (proteins commonly found in plants that make them harder to digest). Lectin Shield works to protect your body from a pile-up of lectins and to promote full-body comfort.”

Are Lectins The Next Gluten?

The second article I highly recommend was written for The Atlantic last year by one of my favorite medical writers, James Hamblin, MD.

Entitled, “Lectins Could Become the Next Gluten“, the article combines a tongue–in-cheek commentary with interviews with scientists who debunk Gundry’s claims. Hamblin also interviews Gundry which is particularly revelatory as to Gundry’s lack of credibility.

Although Gundry claims his writing is not motivated by money, Hambling notes:

Yes, he also sells supplements he recommends. The last 20 or so minutes of his infomercial is a string of claims about how supplies are running low, and it’s important that you act immediately, and that if you do manage to get through to a customer representative you should order as much as you have room to store—the shelf life is great, etc. And the necessity of supplements is the crucial argument of the book. He writes, “Getting all of the nutrients you need simply cannot be done without supplements.”

The GundryMD line of products includes something he invented called vitamin G6. Another is a “lectin shield” that’s “designed to neutralize the effects of lectins.” These are available on his website for $79.99. There you can also get six jars of Vital Reds for $254.70.

Fake Dietary Science Undermines Valid Dietary Recommendations

Hambling closes his piece by noting that book publishers have no accountability for publishing dietary/health misinformation as they are incentivized to publish and profit from the most outrageous claims.

This is a problem much bigger than any plant protein. Cycles of fad dieting and insidious misinformation undermine both public health and understanding of how science works, giving way to a sense of chaos. It seems that every doctor has their own opinion about how to protect your body from calamity, and all are equally valid, because nothing is ever truly known.

Lectiophilically

-ACP

N.B. Gwyneth Paltrow (GOOP) deserves a prominent place in the Quackery Hall of Shame.

Julia Belluz of Vox has a typically spot-on piece about GOOP which begins:

Gwyneth Paltrow has made a career out of selling pseudoscience on her lifestyle website, Goop. Over the years, the actress has proclaimed women should steam their vaginas, that water has feelings, and that your body holds secret organs. Mixed into these absurd assertions is her bogus detox diet and cleansing advice, all of it in service of promoting Goop’s beauty and wellness products

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