Tag Archives: bacon

Dear Kaldi’s, Please Stop Serving Candied Bacon: It Is A Health And Gastronomic Abomination

The skeptical cardiologist enjoys bacon (in moderation), often with quiche, despite the fact that The Who (World Health Organization, not the band that John Entwhistle played for) classifies it as a carcinogen.

Enjoying bacon has become more difficult these days due to the development of a most disturbing fad: the adulteration of bacon  with sugar in some way, shape, or form.

The Eternal Fiancee’ recently ordered a bacon, egg and cheddar on croissant sandwich at my favorite St. Louis coffee spot, Kaldi’s when to our horror, candied bacon was served.

An inquiry at the serving counter  revealed that Kaldi’s only serves candied bacon; you can’t get any that hasn’t been turned into a monstrosity!

I find candied bacon to be an abomination.  All I can taste is sugar and any subtleties of the bacon or its preparation are eclipsed by the saccharine bulk of the sugar.

If this graphic (from my fitness pal.org) is to be believed, the three slices in her sandwich added 40 grams of sugar. This is the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar and the amount of sugar in a bottle of Coke.

 

 

 

 

Readers of this blog know that I consider sugar, not fat, as the major toxin in our diet, contributing to obesity, diabetes and ultimately heart attack and stroke. I’ve also pointed out that huge amounts of added sugar are hidden in smoothiescoffee drinks, and non fat yogurt.

The massive amount of sugar in this candied bacon is not exactly stealth: you can tell it from the first bite. However, there is nothing in the description of the croissant sandwich that alerts you to the fact that your bacon will be transmogrified into candy.

Serving only candied bacon in my opinion is the equivalent of only serving coffee that has had sugar added to it and Kaldi’s should know better.

Kaldi’s is proud of their community commitment which includes support for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. What about supporting healthier food choices (with no added sugar)  for kids so they are less likely to get diabetes and if they have diabetes will be  less likely to be poorly controlled?

I implore Kaldi’s to stop this madness.

Antisucroporcinely Yours,

-ACP

N.B. The Eternal Fiancee’ just tried to order a smoothie at the Clayton Kaldi’s and discovered to her horror that their peanut butter contains hydrogenated oils and added sugar. Yikes!

The Skeptical Cardiologist Gives Dietary Thanks

IMG_5566
Something I’m not thankful for:Vitamin Water. It consists of water, 32 grams of sugar and lots of useless vitamins. People, stop buying this stuff. You are only helping Coca-Cola fill Americans with TOO MUCH SUGAR!

On this fourth Thursday of November, 2015 the skeptical cardiologist would like to record some Thanksgiving thanks.

  • I’m thankful I’m not a turkey today.

I hear Americans consume 45 million turkeys on Thanksgiving, one sixth of the total during the year.

Americans have embraced turkeys nutritionally because they are low in saturated fat and provide lots of protein. Most nutritional advice suggests avoiding the dark meat and the skin, but I prefer to seek those portions out because they taste better and as I pointed out here last Thanksgiving, Up To Date, the major medical reference for physicians, now says “Don’t Worry About Saturated Fat Consumption.”

  • I’m thankful that dairy fat is good for you.
IMG_6510
The Eternal Fiancee’ (For whose presence in my life I am eternally grateful) Cutting Tomatoes for Crabmeat Ravigote, a traditional cajun dish full of cholesterol from eggs and crustaceans

The eternal fiancee’ and I took a cooking class in New Orleans (New Orleans School of Cooking) recently, and butter seemed to be the basis for every dish we cooked: from dark roux in our gator sauce piquante’, to the blonde roux in the Louisiana meat pies.

When the  teacher of the class, chef Austin, asked the students to introduce themselves, I told him I was the skeptical cardiologist and I was there to evaluate New Orleans dishes for my patients.

Chef Austin didn’t think I would be recommending the dishes to my patients, but I heartily endorsed them ( See here and here).

  • I’m thankful that cholesterol is no longer considered by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee (DGAC) a nutrient of concern.

All may eat eggs and crustaceans without fear now.

However, there is a backlash from the vegans on this revelation: the weirdly named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM’s goal seems to be elimination of all animal testing and consumption, not responsible medicine) has erected billboards in Texas targeting the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee (K Michael Conoway (R-TX)).

The final guidelines have yet to be issued, but I’m betting on the egg industry over the vegans on this one, despite the billboards.

  • I’m thankful that studies continue to come out showing coffee is not bad for you.

This study, for example, followed 90 thousand Japanese for 19 years and found that the more coffee you drink, the lower your risk of dying-from cardiac, respiratory and cerebrovascular disease. Those consuming 3-4 cups/day were 25% less likely to die than those who never drank coffee.

-I’m thankful that correlation does not equal causation.

This means that I don’t have to stop eating bacon or beef brisket (assuming I am insensitive to global sustainability concerns). On the other hand, that association between higher coffee consumption  and lower risk of dying over 19 years doesn’t mean that drinking more coffee is actually lowering the risk; but it’s certainly not increasing it.

Screenshot 2015-11-26 11.50.04Finally, I’m thankful that moderate alcohol consumption is good for your heart and I raise a toast of gratitude to patient patients, readers and correspondents.

-ACP

 

Is Bacon A Carcinogen Like Cigarette Smoking?

There is a lot of media angst being generated by the World Health Organization announcing today that they are classifying processed meat as a carcinogen and red meat as a probable carcinogen.

Since the skeptical cardiologist has in previous posts waxed poetic on Jambon Iberico and beef brisket, I feel compelled to comment on this report.

We’ve been through this before and this announcement is not based on any new and striking data.

It is based on reviewing a lot of observational studies from the past decades. It is very important to understand that observational studies do not establish cause and effect, they only look at associations.

GaryTaubes has written eloquently on this in 2012:

“It’s this compliance effect that makes these observational studies the equivalent of conventional wisdom-confirmation machines. Our public health authorities were doling out pretty much the same dietary advice  in the 1970s and 1980s, when these observational studies were starting up, as they are now. The conventional health-conscious wisdom of the era had it that we should eat less fat and saturated fat, and so less red meat, which also was supposed to cause colon cancer, less processed meat (those damn nitrates) and more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, etc. And so the people who are studied in the cohorts could be divided into two groups: those who complied with this advice — the Girl Scouts, as Avorn put it — and those who didn’t.
Now when we’re looking at the subjects who avoided red meat and processed meat and comparing them to the subjects who ate them in quantity, we can think of it as  effectively comparing the Girl Scouts to the non-Girl Scouts, the compliers to the conventional wisdom to the non-compliers. And the compliance effect tells us right there that we should see an association — that the Girl Scouts should appear to be healthier. Significantly healthier. Actually they should be even healthier than Willet et al. are now reporting, which suggests that there’s something else working against them (not eating enough red meat?). In other words, the people who avoided red meat and processed meats were the ones who fundamentally cared about their health and had the energy (and maybe the health) to act on it. And the people who ate a lot of red meat and processed meat in the 1980s and 1990s were the ones who didn’t.
Here’s another way to look at it: let’s say we wanted to identify markers of people who were too poor or too ignorant to behave in a health conscious manner in the 1980s and 1990s or just didn’t, if you’ll pardon the scatological terminology, give a sh*t. Well, we might look at people who continued to eat a lot of bacon and red meat after Time magazine ran this cover image in 1984 — “Cholesterol, and now the bad news”. I’m going to use myself as an example here, realizing it’s always dangerous and I’m probably an extreme case. But I lived in LA in the 1990s where health conscious behavior was and is the norm, and I’d bet that I didn’t have more than half a dozen servings of bacon or more than two steaks a year through the 1990s. It was all skinless chicken breasts and fish and way too much pasta and cereal (oatmeal or some other non-fat grain) and thousands upon thousands of egg whites without the yolks. Because that’s what I thought was healthy.
So when we compare people who ate a lot of meat and processed meat in this period to those who were effectively vegetarians, we’re comparing people who are inherently incomparable. We’re comparing health conscious compliers to non-compliers; people who cared about their health and had the income and energy to do something about it and people who didn’t.  And the compliers will almost always appear to be healthier in these cohorts because of the compliance effect if nothing else. No amount of “correcting” for BMI and blood pressure, smoking status, etc. can correct for this compliance effect, which is the product of all these health conscious behaviors that can’t be measured, or just haven’t been measured. “

For more discussion on the weakness of observational epidemiology  upon which this WHO pronouncement rests see here

Even if we were to accept the concept that red meat is a carcinogen, this does not mean everyone should end red meat consumption.

For perspective I would suggest reading this post from cancer researchUK. Although the WHO classifies both smoking and processed red meat  as carcinogens they are not in the same ball park in terms of overall cancers and deaths caused as this infographic demonstrates.

151026-Tobacco-vs-Meat-UPDATE

A one pack a day cigarette smoker has 20 times the risk of developing small cell lung cancer as a non-smoker.

A high frequency meat eater, on the other hand has a 1.17  time increased risk as the lowest frequency meat eater.

As cancerUK put it:

“We know that, out of every 1000 people in the UK, about 61 will develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives. Those who eat the lowest amount of processed meat are likely to have a lower lifetime risk than the rest of the population (about 56 cases per 1000 low meat-eaters).
If this is correct, the WCRF’s analysis suggests that, among 1000 people who eat the most processed meat, you’d expect 66 to develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives – 10 more than the group who eat the least processed meat.”

So keep in mind

  1. Weak associations between red meat and processed red meat and cancer or heart disease do not establish that one causes the other. Such studies are good for generating hypotheses that then need to be tested.
  2. If processed meats are a carcinogen they are a far, far less important one than cigarette smoking.

-ACP

NB.From the press release:

“Red meat refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.
Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.
Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.
A summary of the final evaluations is available online in The Lancet Oncology, and the detailed assessments will be published as Volume 114 of the IARC Monographs.”