Do you actually know the truth?

Heart and circulatory disease is the UK’s biggest killer. In 2002, cardiovascular disease (CVD) caused 39% of deaths in the UK.

Eat a low fat diet and you will reduce your risk of heart disease, so convention tells us. Could one of the most popular assumptions about the correct diet to reduce risk of heart disease be a myth?

Dr Edward Pinckney, former co-editor of the highly respected Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), concludes “if you have come to believe that you can ward off death from heart disease by lowering the amount of cholesterol in your blood, you are following a regime that still has no basis in fact.

Rather, you as a consumer have been taken in by certain commercial interests and health groups who are more interested in your money than your life”.

Indeed the evidence is abundant that consumption of total fat is not linked to heart disease. The total amount of fats in our diet today is virtually the same as it was at the beginning of this century.

What has changed is the types of fats eaten.

At the turn of the century we ate mainly animal fats that are largely saturated and monounsaturated. Now we are tending to eat more polyunsaturated fats and trans-fats, with a much increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and sugar. Could this change in dietary pattern be the real culprit behind the ever-increasing incidence of heart disease? Take a look at the graphs below.

It is well known that cholesterol in the diet has little effect on cholesterol in the blood in humans. Attempts to prove that saturated fat consumption effects blood cholesterol have also failed, furthermore repeated attempts to establish a link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease with intervention trials have again failed.

Food for thought

? After the age of 50 low cholesterol levels are associated with a lower life expectancy.

? Large scale analysis has found that raised cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease among women.

? Every organ and cell in our bodies makes cholesterol, the more cholesterol we eat the less our bodies will manufacture, the less we eat the more our body will manufacture.

? Cholesterol is used to synthesise acetylcholine, the “memory” neurotransmitter; this is just one of it’s many vital functions in the body.

? Research, which is reported to find the use of statins (prescription drugs to reduce cholesterol) to be protective against heart disease, observed the effect even in individuals with normal cholesterol levels- and does not make clear whether this protection be conferred by a mechanism other than cholesterol reduction?

? The potential side effects of statins include liver and nerve damage, cognitive decline, memory loss and violent behaviour; muscle damage can also result due to depletion of the nutrient Coenzyme Q10, required for normal energy production.

? The massive US MR-FIT trial involved over 350,000 men at risk of heart disease. One group of these men reduced their intake of saturated fat by 28%, cholesterol by 42% and calories by 21%. The authors concluded: “the overall results do not show a beneficial effect on CVD or total mortality from this multifactor intervention”.

? The director of another massive study, the Framingham study, concluded: “the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol”, indeed these individuals “weighed the least and were the most physically active”.

? The theory that saturated fat intake is linked to heart disease has resulted in a huge increase in polyunsaturated fat consumption. These fats are found in plant matter, nuts and seeds; they are highly vulnerable to oxidation both inside and outside of the body; they are easily damaged by heat and light.

Such fats should be consumed as cold pressed oils or as a component of raw avocados, nuts and seeds; the modern diet however is rich in commercial vegetable oils, the consumption of which is linked to numerous chronic diseases.

? Vegetables oils that have been chemically modified, or hydrogenated, to become solid “trans-fats” have become relatively common in the average diet and are strongly associated with poor health and chronic disease. They are commonly used to make margarines and fast foods.

? The native tribes of Sumburu and Masai in Kenya largely subsist on meat, milk and blood; they are free from all modern diseases- until they move to cities and adopt modern eating patterns.

? Oxidised LDL cholesterol is of the primary concern as a risk factor for heart disease- this is far more consistent with the consumption of polyunsaturated than saturated fats.

Is it then time to re-examine the links between diet and heart disease? It would certainly seem so.

A great book in this area is – The Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, a must read for anyone thinking of taking cholesterol lowering drugs

I have discussed more than once that reviews of the literature found no evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. And it’s a shame (in my opinion, anyway), that this study got no mainstream publicity.

The same, appears to be true, of a recent report published in the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism [1]. You can read a complete version of this report here. The whole edition of this journal was dedicated to reporting an ‘Expert Consultation’ held jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the US. The consultation took a wide, sweeping look at the relationship between fats, physiology and health, and took place in late 2008. One of the things that was inevitably a focus of the consultation was the link between saturated fat and heart disease.

The ‘experts’ responsible for assessing this relationship looked at two lines of evidence: epidemiological studies and intervention studies. Let’s look at both in turn.

Epidemiological studies look at the relationship between factors (such as smoking and lung cancer, exercise and dementia, saturated fat and heart disease) in populations. These studies can only really tell us about associations between things, but can’t generally be used to inform us if one thing is causing another. Nevertheless, if saturated fat does truly cause heart disease (like we’ve been told for the last few decades), then the epidemiological evidence should show that higher levels of saturated fat are associated with a higher risk of heart disease (also known as ‘coronary heart disease’ or ‘CHD’ for short).

Well, according to the WHO/FAO report, there is no association. Here’s what the report states:

“Intake of SFA [saturated fatty acids] was not significantly associated with CHD mortality…”

and also

“SFA intake was not significantly associated CHD events [e.g. heart attacks]…”

And now on to intervention studies…

In such studies, individuals a subjected to some sort of intervention (such as a medication, increased exercise or dietary change). The relevant intervention in this area is to put people on a low saturated fat diet diet, and see how they fare compared to individuals who are not subjected to this change. Unlike epidemiological studies, intervention studies can prove ‘causal’ links between things. For example, if eating less saturated fat leads to a reduced risk of heart disease, then it’s a pretty good bet that saturated fat causes heart disease (all other things being equal).

So, what did the WHO/FAO report find with regard to relevant intervention studies? Here’s what:

“…fatal CHD was not reduced by…the low-fat diets…”

Just this week saw the publication of another huge study which assessed the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease [2]. This study was actually an amalgamation (meta-analysis) of 21 epidemiological studies. Taken all together, this review monitored almost 350,000 people over between 5 and 23 years. And here’s what it found:

1. No association between saturated fat and risk of heart disease

2. No association between saturated fat and risk of stroke

You know what this all means, don’t you? That there really is no evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease or cardiovascular disease generally.

Despite all this evidence to the contrary, I suspect the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease will perpetuate for some time. One reason for this has to do with cholesterol. There is some evidence that saturated fat puts cholesterol levels up, and we all know that cholesterol causes heart disease, right? So, if saturated fat puts cholesterol up, it must increased the risk of heart disease too. Well, this line of argument assumes that cholesterol causes heart disease, and actually the evidence shows this is far from assured. But even if it did, the logic is still faulty. We could use the same logic to claim that if something causes cholesterol to fall it must be good for heart health. So, if arsenic and cyanide reduce cholesterol, should we all be swigging these poisons down every day?

Anyway, while the ‘cholesterol causes heart disease’ paradigm is prevalent, I think saturated fat is going to be in the firing line. Shame, because at worst it appears an innocent bystander.

Another reason that saturated fat is likely to get a hard time for some time yet has to do with the fact that paradigms do tend to change very slowly. And at least some of this has to do with a reluctance some of us have to changing our minds about things we ‘know’. Some of us feel we ‘know’ saturated fat causes heart disease, because we’ve been told it so often and consistently we’re not even inclined to challenge this notion. And if we happen to be health professionals or academics who, at least in part, define ourselves by our ‘knowledge’ and ‘intelligence’, it can be mightily difficult to admit that we were wrong.

Not being a literary type, I’m not really a quote person either. But I do know at least one. It is British economist’s John Maynard Keynes’ assertion that “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” How I would like to see health professionals and Government departments take a leaf out of Keynes’ book, and make pronouncements regarding saturated fat and other dietary factors based on science fact (not fiction).

References:

1. Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2009; 55 (1-3).

2. Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease Am J Clin Nutr 13 January 2010

Why Organ Meats?

Compared with muscle meats, organ meats are richer in just about every nutrient, including minerals like phosphorus, iron, copper, magnesium and iodine, and in B vitamins including B₁, B₂, B₆, folic acid and especially vitamin B₁₂. Organ meats provide high levels of the all-important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K, especially if the animals live outside in the sunlight and eat green grass. Organ meats are also rich in beneficial fatty acids such as arachidonic acid, EPA and DHA. Organ meats even contain vitamin C—liver is richer in vitamin C than apples or carrots!

Even if you add only small amounts of organ meats to your ground meat dishes, you are providing your family with super nutrition. . . in ways that everyone likes and are easy to consume.

About the Author

Sally Fallon is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (with Mary G. Enig, PhD), a well-researched, thought-provoking guide to traditional foods with a startling message: Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels. She joined forces with Enig again to write Eat Fat, Lose Fat, and has authored numerous articles on the subject of diet and health. The President of the Weston A. Price Foundation and founder of A Campaign for Real Milk, Sally is also a journalist, chef, nutrition researcher, homemaker, and community activist. Her four healthy children were raised on whole foods including butter, cream, eggs and meat.

But why stop there? Why not look and see what evidence there is for the other nutritional attributes of this ‘food’?

The major constituents of margarine are ‘vegetable’ oils, obtained from foods such as sunflower seeds, rapeseed or soya beans. These oils are usually extracted using the application of pressure and heat, and maybe the use of solvents too. This processing can damage the fats and impart some unhealthy properties on them. The oil obtained by this process is then treated with sodium hydroxide to ‘neutralise’ certain fats in the oil that are unstable and may cause spoilage. After this, the oil is then bleached, filtered and steam-treated to produce what is essentially a colourless, flavourless liquid.

To convert this into margarine, this oil is subjected to chemical processes such as interesterifcation or hydrogenation. Interestification involves the use of high temperature and pressure, along with enzymes or acids, to ‘harden’ the oil. In hydrogenation, hydrogen is bubbled through the oil at high temperature. The ‘partially-hydrogenated’ fats so produced can be tainted with trans fats that are strongly linked with heart disease. As a result, manufacturers now use interesterification as their preferred processing method. However, question marks remain regarding the health effects of these fats [1] – a situation that is essentially the same as the one when partially hydrogenated fats were introduced into the food supply and lauded as a healthy step forward.

After this, hydrogenation or interesterification, the solidified fat is generally blended with other fats, which can be of vegetable or animal origin. And then the product needs to be both coloured and flavoured. Then, what are known as ‘emulsifying agents’ are added to prevent the product from separating out. And finally, the end result is extruded into a plastic tub.

While margarine is passed off as something generally healthy, it is (in my view) a highly-processed, chemicalised food that does not really deserve the title of ‘food’ at all. It was originally sold to us on the basis that it is low in heart-stopping’ saturated fat, and therefore a healthy alternative to butter. However, hard as one looks, there is really no good evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease.

Oh, and then we have margarine’s cholesterol-reducing properties. Except that taking dietary steps to reduce cholesterol does not appear to have broad benefits for health.

And even if cholesterol-lowering did have apparently miraculous health benefits, does that mean that something that reduced cholesterol must be healthy. If a known poison was found to reduce cholesterol, would that somehow make it ‘healthy’? What is critically important is not the impact of a food (or anything else) on cholesterol levels, but it’s impact on health.

So, what does the science show in this regard?

One study in the scientific literature which examined the association between butter and margarine consumption and risk of heart disease in men [2]. This study found that butter consumption was not associated with heart disease risk. In other words, those men eating more butter were not at increased risk of suffering from heart disease. On the other hand, margarine consumption was associated with an increased risk of heart disease: in the long term, for each teaspoon of margarine consumed each day, risk of heart disease was found to be raised by 10 per cent.

In another study [3], this one in women, long-term margarine consumption was associated with a 67 per cent increased risk of heart disease. These studies are old, but I’m not able to find any newer ones. Some say these studies reflect what we know about trans fats, but now we have interesterified fats, there’s no cause for concern. However, as I pointed out above, the health effects of these fats are essentially unknown. In my opinion, we really are not in a position to declare these fats as healthy. They may not even be safe.

It appears as though there is no good evidence that margarine is healthier than butter. In fact, the evidence suggests butter is the preferred choice (it also tastes better, of course). The marketing of margarine to the masses seems distinctly unscientific and misleading to me, whatever the source of omega-3 fats it may contain.

References:

1. Karupaiah T, et al. Effects of stereospecific positioning of fatty acids in triacylglycerol structures in native and randomized fats: a review of their nutritional implications. Nutrition & Metabolism 2007;4:16

2. Gillman MW, et al. Margarine intake and subsequent coronary heart disease in men. Epidemiology. 1997;8(2):144-149

3. Willett WC, et al. Intake of trans fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease among women. Lancet. 1993;341(8845):581-5

Doctors like statins because they reduce cholesterol levels in your blood – and they work quickly and easily. But, as they say, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, statins reduce cholesterol levels – but at what cost to other functions in your body?

Certainly, they are expensive in monetary terms, and they continue to make big pharma companies lots of it – but I’m really talking about the physical toll these drugs can take on the body. We know some of the obvious side effects they cause in some people, like memory problems, muscle damage, liver damage, sexual dysfunction, and peripheral neuropathy. But now a new study shows that statins can also have more subtle effects on the body – ones that can trigger a whole cascade of health problems down the road.

Do statins’ results justify their collateral damage?

In this Finnish study, doctors researched the effects of the statin drug simvastatin (Zocor) and dietary changes on 120 men between the ages of 35 and 64. All of the men had high cholesterol (fasting serum concentrations between 232 and 309) that had previously been untreated. The men were randomly divided into two equal groups: one group was advised to continue following their usual diet, while the other group was advised to follow a Mediterranean-style diet. Specifically, the dietary intervention included keeping saturated fat intake below 10 percent of total calories, cholesterol intake below 250 mg a day, and increasing the intake of omega-3 fatty acids, fruits, vegetables, and soluble fiber.

Then each group was further divided into two subgroups that took either 20 mg of simvastatin each day or a placebo. They followed this protocol for 12 weeks, and then each subgroup “crossed over” to the other treatment. At baseline and at the end of each 12-week treatment period, the researchers assessed each participant’s blood pressure, weight, and exercise frequency, as well as blood levels of cholesterol, insulin, and antioxidants.

There’s no denying that simvastatin was effective at reducing cholesterol levels. On average, the drug brought total cholesterol levels down 20.8 percent. In contrast, dietary intervention alone decreased total cholesterol by only 7.6 percent.

Statin drug’s surprising side effects lead down a dangerous road.

But here’s a revealing finding: simvastatin treatment also INCREASED fasting serum insulin levels by 13 percent, and DECREASED serum concentrations of important antioxidant vitamins by as much as 22 percent.

Among participants in the dietary intervention group, blood tests revealed significantly lower serum levels of critical nutrients like alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene, and co-enzyme Q-10 while taking the statin drug, compared to the period when they took the placebo. At the same time, glucose levels were not affected, suggesting a decrease in insulin sensitivity.

We know that decreased insulin sensitivity leads us down a dangerous road: insulin resistance, which leads to Type II diabetes, and finally all the disease’s associated conditions like kidney disease, heart disease, even blindness.

But not getting the antioxidants you need could be equally troubling. We’ve learned so much over the past decade about antioxidants’ critical role in good health; these nutrients help protect us from atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease – even cancer.

You could argue that statin drugs protect us, too – by reducing cholesterol levels and reducing the risk of heart disease. But it seems like a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Ok, so your cholesterol level comes down – but your insulin levels could go up and your body could be robbed of essential nutrients. Considering all of that, is the net effect of statins positive, negative – or just a very expensive wash?

You have to make that decision for yourself, after weighing the options with your doctor. But consider that there are safe, natural ways to lower your cholesterol WITHOUT running the risk of insulin resistance, nutrient loss, or other dangerous side effects.

If you have high cholesterol, give diet, exercise, and natural remedies a try before resorting to statins. You may have to be a little more patient; you may not see results as quickly and dramatically as you might by taking the drugs. But in the end, you’ll know for sure that you’re netting positive results for your heart – and for your overall health.

“The potential adverse effects of the entire class of these widely used drugs are particularly worrying considering that the new guidelines for treating high cholesterol, recently published by the US National Cholesterol Education Program, recommend treatment with cholesterol lowering drugs for a considerable portion of mankind,” states Uffe Ravnskov, MD, author of The Cholesterol Myths (New Trends, 2000).

However, there is currently no indication that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be following Europe’s lead and look into the safety of the entire Statin class, despite the fact that they have been petitioned to do so by the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, among others.

“These drugs may cause muscle damage by interfering with the body”s production and metabolism of Coenzyme Q10 (ubiquinone),” says Stephen Byrnes, PhD, author of Diet & Heart Disease : It’s Not What You Think (Whitman, 2001). “This substance is crucial for the proper functioning of muscle tissue, which includes the heart.”

The statins that are most commonly available are Lipitor (atorvastatin), Zocor (simvastatin), Pravachol (pravastatin), Mevacor (lovastatin), and Lescol (fluvastatin). Have a think before you pop the pill, speak with your doctor & try natural methods first.

Slaying the Cholesterol Lowering Demon

By Kimberly Hartke | Published: September 10, 2009

The Devil is in the Absence of Details

photo credit: craigCloutier

Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit, claims cholesterol is misunderstood. It plays a key role in body chemistry, hormone balance, longevity. But if that is the case, why are we not told? Unfortunately, because the health information released through the media to the public often has a marketing objective. The objective is to sell more drugs.

Cholesterol lowering drugs (know as statins) have serious side effects. They suppress the immune system, they cause cancer, they cause muscle wasting. The pharmaceutical companies promote statins to doctors doing organ transplants, because they know these drugs have immuno-suppressant affects. One should think long and hard about going on them. There are even lifestyle changes that can dramatically improve ones blood lipid profile. But, it is also important to know all the facts. Cholesterol is a valuable and healing substance, it is a vital part of your immune system. If the public knew the whole truth, they would only lower their cholesterol as a last resort.

There is one organization setting out to slay the big fat demon who wants to lower everybody’s cholesterol.

Learn the Health Benefits of Cholesterol

The nutrition education non-profit, Weston A. Price Foundation is an important source of science based facts about the nutritional qualities and health benefits of cholesterol. Here is an excellent article on our website, Cholesterol, Friend or Foe? This article details how our cells are comprised of 50% cholesterol. Our nervous system needs cholesterol. Our digestion and source of vitamin D depends on cholesterol. Turns out, cholesterol is our friend, and we have been misled into believing otherwise.

Here is an excerpt from our recent press release:

WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2009–September is National Cholesterol Education Month, when government officials will stress cholesterol reduction as a top priority, claiming that “high levels of cholesterol significantly increase the risk of heart disease.” However, the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit nutrition education organization, urges citizens to celebrate September by learning about the vital roles of cholesterol in the body chemistry and by embracing nutrient-dense, cholesterol-rich foods.

“Cholesterol is deemed a deadly poison. Most people are afraid of eating foods containing cholesterol and of receiving a diagnosis of ‘high’ cholesterol,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation. “Yet, having adequate cholesterol levels in the body is key to good health. The notion that cholesterol is a villain in the diet is a myth, based on flimsy evidence and opposed by many honest scientists, including prominent lipids researcher, Dr. Mary Enig. But, this theory was promoted by the food processing industry to demonize animal fats, which are competitors to vegetable oils and by the pharmaceutical industry to create a market for the sales of cholesterol-lowering drugs.”

See the entire news release here: Nutrition Activists Celebrate Cholesterol.

Will Parents Accept the Truth About Cholesterol?

A scientist who received our press release, wonders if parents will reject the science which says cholesterol is vital to human health.  Here is her question, and the Foundation President’s answer.

Meet the Cholesterol Lowering Skeptics

Here is a link to an excellent article by a medical doctor and scientist,  Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, The Benefits of High Cholesterol.  He is also the chairman of the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics. This is a website worth investigating if you want to know the concerns a number of prominent medical professionals have about cholesterol lowering.

If media reporting on medical issues were truly balanced, every time you’d see a report about cholesterol, one of the cholesterol skeptics would be there to explain the other side of the story. But, where in the devil are