Category Archives: Lifestyle and Heart Disease

Feel Free To Skip Breakfast Again And Again And Again

It seems like every 2 years the skeptical cardiologist has to defend skipping breakfast.

I first described how irritating and puzzling I find the concept that skipping breakfast causes obesity and heart disease in a 2013 post entitled “Breakfast is not the most important meal of the day: feel free to skip it.” When I’m irritated with a ridiculous concept I ask lots of questions:

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?

Most of the studies on the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity (PEBO), I pointed out, are observational studies which cannot prove causality and the few, small prospective randomized studies don’t clearly support the hypothesis.

I suggested that PEBO comes from the breakfast food and cereal industry and should be ignored.



Writing an update on my post in 2015 I referenced Melanie Warner’s excellent book on the methods of the food industry entitled “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”



In 2017 I felt compelled to revisit the topic when a New York Times piece made the case for making breakfast a 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

My post entitled  “Ignore The New York Times and The American Heart Association and Feel Free to Skip Breakfast” examined the weak evidence for benefits of “mindful” eating and harms of skipping breakfast.


A new study has popped up and, of course, been widely publicized as supporting eating breakfast. Fortunately, it caught the eye of Peter Attia thus saving me from having to read the article.

Below are some of his scathing comments, taken from one of his non-lame weekly emails:

You’ve probably heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. “What is less commonly mentioned,” writes Alex Mayyasi in The Atlantic, “is the origin of this ode to breakfast: a 1944 marketing campaign launched by General Foods, the manufacturer of Grape Nuts, to sell more cereal.”

Seventy-five years later, here’s the latest report from the April issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: “Taken together, these studies [showing a positive association between skipping breakfast and CVD and CVD risk factors] as well as our findings underscore the importance of eating breakfast as a simple way to promote cardiovascular health and prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.”
What were the findings? Let’s look at a few newspapers:

  • “Want to Lower Your Risk for Heart Disease? Eat Breakfast Every Morning” (Healthline)
  • “Eating breakfast? Skipping a morning meal has higher risk of heart-related death, study says” (USA TODAY)
  • “Study: Skipping breakfast increases risk of heart disease mortality by 87 percent (FOX)”

(You may notice that all three headlines imply causality.)

Looks like General Foods was right. Time to reach for the Lucky Charms? Perhaps it’s time to put on our critical thinking cap instead. The actual study, and the media coverage of it, is a part of the Groundhog Day that is observational epidemiology (for more on the limitations of this type of research, check out Studying Studies: Part II). This was a prospective cohort study pulling data from NHANES III, looking at people who reportedly eat breakfast every day to people who never eat breakfast, and then following up with them (about 19 years later on average), tallying up the deaths from CVD and deaths from all causes.

One question to ask about the population studied is: was eating breakfast or not eating breakfast the only difference between these two groups? In other words, were there any confounding factors (for more on confounding, see Studying Studies: Part IV)? The authors reported that, “participants who never consumed breakfast were more likely to be non-Hispanic black, former smokers, heavy drinkers, unmarried, physically inactive, and with less family income, lower total energy intake, and poorer dietary quality, when compared with those who regularly ate breakfast.” Not only that, “participants who never consumed breakfast were more likely to have obesity, and higher total blood cholesterol level than those who consumed breakfast regularly.” They also had a higher reported incidence of diabetes and dyslipidemia. Read that again, please.

While the study used statistical models to “adjust for” many of these potential confounders, it’s extremely difficult (actually, it’s impossible) to accurately and appropriately adjust for what amounts to fundamentally different people. The healthy user bias (or the inverse, an unhealthy user bias) is virtually impossible to tease out of these studies (the healthy user bias is covered in more depth in Studying Studies: Part I). Not only that, you never really know what you’re not looking for. This is typically referred to as residual confounding in the literature, where other factors may be playing a role that go unmeasured by the investigators.

I haven’t even yet mentioned the misleading nature of reporting relative risk — in this case, an associated 87% (reported in the study as a hazard ratio of 1.87) — without reporting absolute risk. The question you should always ask is, 87% greater than what? To get an idea of the associated absolute risk, the number of CVD deaths in the “every day” breakfast group were 415 out of a total of 3,862 people over 16.7 years (that’s an unadjusted rate of 10.7%) while the numbers for the “never” breakfast folks were 41 CVD deaths out of a total of 336 people over 16.7 years (unadjusted rate of 12.2%). That’s an absolute difference of 1.5% over almost 17 years (annually, this is an absolute difference of 0.09%). Granted, this is before adjustment of the myriad confounders (including the biggest “risk factor” for CVD death, age, in which the “never” breakfast group was younger on average at baseline), but it gives you an idea that we’re looking at small differences even over the course of a couple of decades. This looks a lot difference on paper than an associated 87% increased risk of CVD death. (For more on absolute risk and relative risk, see Studying Studies: Part I.)

There’s more:

  • What were the participants actually eating for breakfast? We don’t know. The investigators didn’t have information about what foods and beverages they consumed.
  • Did participants change their breakfast eating (or abstaining) habits over the course of almost 20 years? We don’t know. Information on breakfast eating was only collected at baseline.
  • Could there be errors in the classification of the causes of death in the participants? It’s possible.
  • What constitutes skipping breakfast? Was it the timing of the first meal of the day? We don’t know. Participants were asked, “How often do you eat breakfast?” but there was no definition of what that means, exactly.

What’s more likely: reported skipping breakfast was a marker for a lifestyle and environment that may have predisposed these people to a higher risk of CVD death or that skipping breakfast itself causes CVD death?

Go ahead and skip all the breakfasts you want. And please forward this to the next 10 people who tell you it’s unhealthy to do so.

And ditto for this post.

Breakfastingly Yours,

-ACP

Are You Doing Enough Push Ups To Save Your Life?

The skeptical cardiologist has always had a fondness for push-ups. Therefore I read with interest a recent study published in JAMAOpen which looked at how many push-ups a group of 30 and 40-something male firefighters from Indiana could do and how that related to cardiovascular outcomes over the next ten years.

The article was published in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA Network Open, and is freely available to access online.

The British National Health Service pointed out that “The UK media has rather over exaggerated these findings:”

Both the Metro and the Daily Mirror highlighted the result of 40 push-ups being “the magic number” for preventing heart disease, but in fact being able to do 10 or more push-ups was also associated with lower heart disease risk.

What Was Studied?

The study involved 1,104 male firefighters (average age 39.6) from 10 fire departments in Indiana who underwent regular medical checks between 2000 and 2010. 

At baseline the participants underwent a physical fitness assessment which included push-up capacity (hereafter referred to as the push-up number (PUN))and treadmill exercise tolerance tests conducted per standardized protocols.

For push-ups, the firefighter was instructed to begin push-ups in time with a metronome set at 80 beats per minute. Clinic staff counted the number of push-ups completed until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped owing to exhaustion or other symptoms (dizziness, lightheadedness, chest pain, or shortness of breath). Numbers of push-ups were arbitrarily divided into 5 categories in increments of 10 push-ups for each category. Exercise tolerance tests were performed on a treadmill using a modified Bruce protocol until participants reached at least 85% of their maximal predicted heart rates, requested early termination, or experienced a clinical indication for early termination according to the American College of Sports Medicine Guidelines (maximum oxygen consumption [V̇ O2max]).

The main outcomes assessed were new diagnoses of heart disease from enrollment up to 2010. 

Cardiovascular events were verified by periodic examinations at the same clinic or by clinically verified return-to-work forms. Cardiovascular disease–related events (CVD) were defined as incident diagnosis of coronary artery disease or other major CVD event (eg, heart failure, sudden cardiac death)

Here’s the graph of the probability of being free of a CVD event on the y-axis with time on x-axis.

The black line represents those 75 firefighters who couldn’t make it into double digits, the green those 155 who did more than 40 pushups.

Participants able to complete more than 40 push-ups had a significant 96% lower rate of CVD events compared with those completing fewer than 10 push-ups.

It is surprising that the push up number seemed a better predictor of outcomes than the exercise test, This should be taken with a grain of salt because although the investigators report out “VO2 max” the stress tests were not maximal tests.

The firefighters with lower push up numbers were fatter, more likely to smoke and had higher blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol levels.

What useful information can one take from this study?

You definitely cannot say that being able to do more than 40 pushups will somehow prevent heart disease. The PUN is neither causing nor preventing anything.

The PUN is a marker for the overall physical shape of these firefighters. It’s a marker for how these men were taking care of themselves. If you are a 39 year old fireman from Indiana and can’t do 11 push-ups you are in very sorry condition and it is likely evident in numerous other ways.

The <11 PUN crew were a bunch of fat, diabetic, insulin resistant, hyperlipidemic, out-of-shape hypertensives who were heart attacks in the waiting.

Push-ups Are A Great Exercise

Despite the meaningless of this study you should consider adding push-ups to your exercise routine. Doing them won’t save your life but it will contribute to mitigating the weakness and frailty of aging. Don’t obsess about your PUN.

I’ve always liked push-ups and highly recommend them. They require no special equipment or preparation. It’s a quick exercise that builds upper body muscle strength, adds to my core strength and gets my heart rate up a bit. For some reason my office in O’Fallon is always cold so several times during the day when I’m there I’ll do 100 jumping jacks and drop on the carpet and do some push-ups in an effort to get warm.

I don’t do them every day but the last time I tried I could do 50 in less than a minute and that has me convinced I will live forever!

Calisthenically Yours,

-ACP

N.B. In my post on mitigating sarcopenia in the elderly I talked about the importance of resistance exercise:

Americans spend billions on useless supplements and vitamins in their search for better health but exercise is a superior drug, being free  and without drug-related side effects

I’ve spent a lot of time on this blog emphasizing the importance of aerobic exercise for cardiovascular health but I also am a believer in strength and flexibility training for overall health and longevity.

As we age we suffer more and more from sarcopenia-a gradual decrease in muscle mass.

Scientific reviews note that loss of muscle mass and muscle strengh is quite common in individuals over age 65 and is associated with increased dependence, frailty and mortality

Push-ups are a great resistance exercise. For a description of the perfect form for a push up see here.

Science Confirms-Eating Chicken Is Not Healthier Than Eating Red Meat

Most Americans take it for granted that if they want to lower their risk of heart disease they should switch from eating red meat to eating chicken. As a result, US and world-wide poultry consumption has tripled since 1980 and surpassed beef consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The switch from beef and pork to chicken has been driven in large part by  widespread  recommendations to consume less saturated fat and cholesterol.

For example the American Heart Association (AHA) (in its typically misguided) way says:

In general, red meats (beef, pork and lamb) have more cholesterol and saturated (bad) fat than chicken, fish and vegetable proteins such as beans. Cholesterol and saturated fat can raise your blood cholesterol and make heart disease worse. Chicken and fish have less saturated fat than most red meat.

Instead of listing any facts or studies relevant to your cardiovascular health the AHA choses to repeat the meaningless first sentence again in the last sentence (beef, pork and lamb have more cholesterol and saturated fat than chicken, fish and… beans becomes chicken and fish have less saturated fat than most red meat.)

In between these redundant sentences the AHA lays out the mostly discredited dogma  -“cholesterol and saturated fat…make heart disease worse.”  In the AHA’s opinion all saturated fats, no matter the source are dangerous (see here.) Despite the fact that the Dietary Guidelines of American no longer consider cholesterol a macronutrient of interest, the AHA still wants to focus on it.

At LIvestrong the claim is repeated that by choosing skinless chicken breasts over red meat your bad cholesterol (and risk of heart disease) will be lowered. Furthermore, Livestrong repeats the unsubstantiated trope that you will better manage your weight by eating low fat food.

A chicken breast is relatively low in saturated fat compared to many protein alternatives, especially when the skin is removed. By substituting chicken for higher-fat cuts of meat, you will lower your risk of developing heart disease by reducing your LDL, or “bad” cholesterol. Eating lower-fat alternatives will also help you maintain a healthy weight. Grilling, broiling and baking are great cooking methods to keep the fat content at its lowest.

When we carefully examine the evidence, however, there is no scientific support for either of these claims-switching to chicken from beef has never been shown to reduce your risk of heart disease. In fact, more recent studies show the switch won’t improve biomarkers that predict long-term risk of cardiovascular disease.

And switching to chicken from beef does not improve weight management.

Studies Show No Change in BioMarkers

This 2012 meta-analysis found

Changes in the fasting lipid profile were not significantly different with beef consumption compared with those with poultry and/or fish consumption. Inclusion of lean beef in the diet increases the variety of available food choices, which may improve long-term adherence with dietary recommendations for lipid management.

and this 2017 meta-anaysis of randomized trials

support that the consumption of ≥0.5 compared with <0.5 servings of total red meat/d does not influence blood lipids, lipoproteins, and/or blood pressures, which are clinically relevant CVD risk factors. These results are generalizable across a variety of populations, dietary patterns, and types of red meat.

Eating Fat Doesn’t Make You Fat

Once again I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here but it bears repeating- the concept that switching from a high fat food item to a low fat item will cause weight loss is totally false.

There are actually numerous studies showing that there is no difference between chicken and beef consumption on weight or body fat:

1. Melanson et al. conducted a 12-week randomised, controlled trial of  overweight women on  an energy restricted diet with either lean beef or chicken as the major protein source along with moderate exercise. There was no difference in weight loss or % body fat or blood lipid profiles between the patients on the beef or chicken diet.

2., Mahon et al.  compared consumption of lean beef or chicken as the primary protein source over 12 weeks  in a hypocaloric diet in 61 obese females. There was no difference between the chicken or beef eaters in the amount of weight loss, fat loss or drop in LDL (bad) cholesterol.

Finally, here’s a 2014  RCT study of 49 obese adults who were randomly assigned to consume up to 1 kg/week of pork, chicken or beef, in an otherwise unrestricted diet for three months, followed by two further three month periods consuming each of the alternative meat options.

There was no difference in BMI or any other marker of adiposity between consumption of pork, beef and chicken diets. Similarly there were no differences in energy or nutrient intakes between diets

Vegetarians Uniformly Condemn Chickens As Unhealthy

It’s interesting that a Google search for the healthiness of chicken versus beef yields the standard dietary dogma from mainstream nutritional sources like the AHA or the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics but also a large number of sites that want to convince you of how unhealthy chicken is.

These sites are vegan or vegetarian sites such as plantbasednews.org which lists these six “shocking” reasons why you should stop eating chicken:

At least one of the reasons is clearly documented:

-As Consumer Reports reported in 2014, 97% of 300 raw chicken breasts purchased at stores across the U.S. contained  potentially harmful bacteria .

Several of the reasons are more ethical/moral in nature and I leave it up to my readers to decide how important these are to them.

-“The poultry industry has a devastating impact on the environment” related to pollution from factory farms.

-“chickens are intelligent animals”

-“The slaughter of birds is horrifying”

The Guardian.com has a good article on the horror  of  factory farm chicken raising entitled “If consumers knew how farmed chickens were raised they might never eat their meat again” which I recommend to those who are not already familiar with the conditions in which 99.9% of broilers are raised.

One “shocking reason” listed by plantbasednews appears untrue-“chickens are stuffed with cancer-causing arsenic”  The FDA in 2017 indicates that the animal drug which raised arsenic levels in chicken livers (3-Nitro) had been withdrawn from the market.

Bottom Line-No Universal Health Reason To Switch From Red Meat To Chicken

There are many other factors which go into the overall effect of beef and chicken on our bodies. For one thing, how the meat is prepared and what accompanies it will have a much greater influence on health than whether it is chicken or red meat.

It’s time to rid  America of the idea that chicken is healthier than beef-it is not and has never been supported by good scientific studies.

If you’ve been diagnosed with heart disease don’t assume you can only eat skinless chicken breasts as meat for the rest of your life.

The change from beef to chicken definitely won’t help you lose weight.

And it won’t reduce your risk of heart attack or stroke.

Beef in moderation can definitely be part of a heart healthy diet and a weight loss diet. Just be sure to eat plenty of fresh vegetables, nuts, fresh fruit,  legumes,  and fish along with your red meat. and minimize processed foods, added sugars and empty carbs.

Omnivorously Yours,

-ACP

What Can You Really Learn From Celebrity Bob Harper’s Heart Attack And Near Sudden Death?

Until recently I had never heard of Bob Harper (The Biggest Loser) but apparently he is a celebrity personal trainer and had a heart attack and nearly died.  He  is known “for his contagious energy, ruthless training tactics, and ability to transform contestants’ bodies on The Biggest Loser” (a show I’ve never seen.)

When celebrities die suddenly (see Garry Sanders, Carrie Fischer) or have a heart attack at a youngish age despite an apparent healthy lifestyle this get’s people’s attention.

The media typically pounce on the story which combines the seductive allure of both health and celebrity reporting.

It turns out Harper inherited a high Lipoprotein (a) (see here) which put him at high risk for coronary atherosclerosis (CAD) which ultimately caused the heart attack (MI)  that caused his cardiac arrest.

To his credit, Harper has talked about Lipoprotein (a) and made the public and physicians more aware of this risk factor which does not show up in standard cholesterol testing.

Since his heart attack, Mr. Harper of “The Biggest Loser” has embarked on a newfound mission to raise awareness about heart disease and to urge people to get tested for lp(a).

Harper As Brilinta Shill

Unfortunately , he has also become a shill for Brilinta, an expensive brand name anti platelet drug often prescribed in patients after heart attacks or stents.

At the end of the TV commercial he says “If you’ve had a heart attack ask your doctor if Brilinta is right for you. My heart is worth Brilinta.”

At least this video is clearly an advertisement but patients and physicians are inundated  by infomercials for expensive, profit-driving drugs like Brilinta.

This Healthline article pretends to be a legitimate piece of journalism but is a stealth ad for Brilinta combined with lots of real ads for Brilinta.

Harper As Lifestyle Coach.

Harper also changed his fitness and diet regimens after his MI reasoning that something must have been wrong with his lifestyle and it needed modification.  For the most part he talks about more “balance” in his life which is good advice for everyone. His fitness regimens pre-MI were incredibly intense and have been toned down subsequently.

After his heart attack, Bob abandoned the Paleo lifestyle for the Mediterranean diet, as it’s been proven to improve heart health and reduce the risk of a heart attack, stroke, and heart-disease-related death by about 30 percent. But recently, he’s moved closer to a vegetarian regimen.

Of course, vegans and vegetarians have seized on this change in his diet as somehow proving the superiority of their chosen diets as in this vegan propaganda video:

Unfortunately there is no evidence that changing to a vegan or vegetarian diet will lower his risk of repeat MI.  Those who promote the Esselstyn, Pritikin or Ornish type diets claim to “reverse heart disease” and to be science-based but, as I’ve pointed  out (see here) the science behind these studies is really bad.

In fact, we know that neither diet nor exercise influence lipoprotein(a) levels which Bob inherited.  Some individuals just inherit the risk and must learn to deal with the cardiovascular cards they’ve been dealt.

What Can We Really Learn From Bob Harper’s Experience?

  1. Lipoprotein (a) is a significant risk marker for early CAD/MI/sudden cardiac death. Consider having it measured if you have a a) strong family history of premature deaths/heart attack (b) if you have developed premature subclinical atherosclerosis (see here) or clinical atherosclerosis (heart attack, stroke, peripheral vascular disease) or (c) a family member has been diagnosed with it.
  2. Everyone should learn how to do CPR and how to utilize an AED. (see here for my rant on these two incredibly important 3-letter words). Harper was working out in the gym when he collapsed. Fortunately a nearby medical student had the wherewithal to do CPR on him until he could be defibrillated back to a normal rhythm and transported to a hospital to stop his MI.
  3. Dropping dead suddenly is often the first indicator that you have advanced CAD. If you have a strong family history of sudden death or early CAD consider getting a coronary artery calcium scan to better assess your risk.

Focus on celebrities with heart disease helps bring awareness to the public about important issues but we can only learn so much about best lifestyle or medications from the experience of one individual, no matter how famous.

Brilliantly Yours,

-ACP

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 Wisdom 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 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 a  cardiothoracic  surgeon.

He wrote a book published in 2009 entitled Dr. Gundry’s Diet Evolution in which he states:

“Until six years ago, I primarily flexed my survival muscles as a heart surgeon and researcher on how to keep heart cells alive under stress”.

Indeed up until 2004 Gundry was a well-respected cardiac surgeon but since then he has been selling diet books and supplements on his website, gundrymd.com.

Gundry is also a Goop doctor.

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

In the meantime, Gundry has  come out with another 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 is a standard come-on in the world of pseudoscience.

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

I’ve come across three  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.

Are Lectins As Toxic As Oxygen?

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, FACLM, who has way too many letters after his name wrote “Do We Dare Eat Lectins?” and concluded that Gundry’s idea that “the binding of lectins from plant foods to our cells is a major cause of ill health, and thus we must all fear and avoid lectins” is “utter nonsense.”

The answer to- “should you fear lectins now?” is- yes, if and only if you do the same for oxygen.

As I recently noted to a colleague, oxygen is not a theoretical toxin with theoretical harms in people; it is a known toxic with established harms. The atmosphere of our planet is thus highly analogous to the dietary sources of lectins: both contain compounds with potentially toxic effects, but net benefit is overwhelming both from eating plants, and breathing.

Eat Your Beans But Skip Reading The Plant Paradox

Finally, I’ve updated this post with a skewering of Gundry’s latest book “The Longevity Paradox” written by Joel Kahn, MD

In the Longevity Paradox Gundry comes up with his own unique and totally unsubstantiated theory of atherosclerosis (the build up of plaque in our arteries which causes heart attacks). Kahn points out that there is nothing in the scientific literature to support this theory:

“On pages 97–101, Dr. Gundry provides a theory of atherosclerosis that he provides to support the central role of avoiding lectins for health, the thesis of his The Plant Paradox. He provides ideas about molecules called Neu5Gc and Neu5Ac and how the differences amongst species. As humans do not make Neu5Gc, or so he asserts, eating lectins, and particularly grain lectins, bind to our tissues which “lays the groundwork for heart and autoimmune diseases in spades”. How many references to scientific studies are provided in these 5 pages to support this novel and bold assertion? Zero! I was intrigued enough to do my own literature search and can confirm zero exist. This is another example of hypothesis or fiction presented as an established fact because Dr. Gundry has a white beard like Santa and a medical degree. Shame, shame.”

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.