Diet, Lifestyle, and Heart Disease,

[Guest]

This is a topic that can quickly overwhelm others so I think it deserves it's own thread. I've found a lot of evidence in support of the approach: "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much" (quote from Michael Pollan) but contrasting views are welcome. I'll start off with the abstract of the study that really broke new ground, when Dr. Dean Ornish showed that diet and lifestyle changes could not only slow severe heart disease, but actually reverse it: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736(90)91656-U/abstract

In a prospective, randomised, controlled trial to determine whether comprehensive lifestyle changes affect coronary atherosclerosis after 1 year, 28 patients were assigned to an experimental group (low-fat vegetarian diet, stopping smoking, stress management training, and moderate exercise) and 20 to a usual-care control group. 195 coronary artery lesions were analysed by quantitative coronary angiography. The average percentage diameter stenosis regressed from 40·0 (SD 16·9)% to 37·8 (16·5)% in the experimental group yet progressed from 42·7 (15·5)% to 46·1 (18·5)% in the control group. When only lesions greater than 50% stenosed were analysed, the average percentage diameter stenosis regressed from 61·1 (8·8)% to 55·8 (11·0)% in the experimental group and progressed from 61·7 (9·5)% to 64·4 (16·3)% in the control group. Overall, 82% of experimental-group patients had an average change towards regression. Comprehensive lifestyle changes may be able to bring about regression of even severe coronary atherosclerosis after only 1 year, without use of lipid-lowering drugs.

Another approach to this subject is based on the observation that heart disease is rare among some populations. Much can be learned by looking closer at what these countries do differently. The China Study did this quite well but it's a long book, here's a short video outlining some studies on this:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/one-in-a-thousand-ending-the-heart-disease-epidemic/

 

[AZ Don]

In response to posts in another thread, regarding:

Heart surgeon speaks out on what really causes heart disease

In a quick search for studies supporting this Dr's position, I quickly came across this article on Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html. A quick search of the Arizona Medical Board and Dr. Lundell came up with a case summary containing the following:
"... the board hereby revokes License #6960 previously issued to Dwight C. Lundell for the practice of allopathic medicine in Arizona"
So much for Dr. Lundell - he is not even a licensed Dr.

The Greenland Eskimos study dispelled the myth about low fat diets a long time ago:

But here was a population with almost no heart disease and high blood levels of saturated fats, and very low blood levels of PUFA’s (omega-6).

http://www.docsopinion.com/2013/09/27/greenland-eskimos-fats-and-heart-disease/

itsme2...low carb is a healthier choice for keeping your arteries in good shape in the future.

I recall this study, but I also recall a recent rebuttal, which is described here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...udy-deeply-flawed-new-research-says-1.2637702
One of the key points of the scientific process is that others should be able to replicate the findings. That is one of the points of publishing the results. In fact what was found was that the original study was deeply flawed and a new study (linked in the article) found:

The 2014 study has found that Inuit do have similar rates of heart disease compared to non-Inuit populations, and that death rates due to stroke are "very high."

I'm not sure that anyone would say that processed carbs are healthy, but I have yet to see evidence showing that a low carb diet is healthy for your arteries. If someone knows of one please share. At one time I thought the Paleo diet was a good idea, but when I saw evidence to the contrary, I changed my mind.

I should add that at best my own diet is vegan-ish. I believe what we do regularly is more important than what we do occasionally. I've gotten pretty good at eating more fruits and vegetables, but could do better at eating less animal products and sweets.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

...In a quick search for studies supporting this Dr's position, I quickly came across this article on Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html. A quick search of the Arizona Medical Board and Dr. Lundell came up with a case summary containing the following:

now that's a site worth bookmarking and quite a "kak"

I should add that at best my own diet is vegan-ish. I believe what we do regularly is more important than what we do occasionally. I've gotten pretty good at

uhm, does this mean vegetarian-ish not vegan-ish? It would be strange to be 'vegan-ish' and eat meat / fish occasionally.

Myself I just eat. It turns out I eat about 100g of meat per day (on average, including red meats and chicken and fish). I don't particularly try to eat less meat or "to an amount" ... it just turns out that's what I like.

 

[MethodAir]

In response to posts in another thread, regarding:

In a quick search for studies supporting this Dr's position, I quickly came across this article on Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html. A quick search of the Arizona Medical Board and Dr. Lundell came up with a case summary containing the following:
"... the board hereby revokes License #6960 previously issued to Dwight C. Lundell for the practice of allopathic medicine in Arizona"
So much for Dr. Lundell - he is not even a licensed Dr.


I recall this study, but I also recall a recent rebuttal, which is described here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...says-1.2637702
One of the key points of the scientific process is that others should be able to replicate the findings. That is one of the points of publishing the results. In fact what was found was that the original study was deeply flawed and a new study (linked in the article) found:


I'm not sure that anyone would say that processed carbs are healthy, but I have yet to see evidence showing that a low carb diet is healthy for your arteries. If someone knows of one please share. At one time I thought the Paleo diet was a good idea, but when I saw evidence to the contrary, I changed my mind.

I should add that at best my own diet is vegan-ish. I believe what we do regularly is more important than what we do occasionally. I've gotten pretty good at eating more fruits and vegetables, but could do better at eating less animal products and sweets.

A doctor attacking the very flawed premise on which an entire multi billion industry is built...it shouldn't come as any surprise that someone is trying to label him a quack. That alone warrants closer scrutiny. Whether he is still practicing or not, he had over 25 years of cardiac surgery experience and outlines logical reasons why carbohydrates play a major role in heart disease.

With regard to the modern Inuit population, refined carbs, sugars, alcohol and carbohydrates in general now permeate that society, making a comparison baseless.

Greenland Eskimos living in Denmark at that time had much higher cholesterol and triglyceride levels. The difference in dietary habits between Eskimos living in Greenland and those living in Denmark was substantial. Those living in Denmark had adapted to a Western diet typical of that time.

Again, are you saying that you would choose grain fed beef over grass fed beef?

Research spanning three decades supports the argument that grass-fed beef (on a g/g fat basis), has a more desirable SFA lipid profile (more C18:0 cholesterol neutral SFA and less C14:0 & C16:0 cholesterol elevating SFAs) as compared to grain-fed beef.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/

Of significance is the type of animal fat ingested, (grain fed being far less healthy).

Another study on the effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease in postmenopausal women (they concluded that it seems reasonable to question the wisdom of recommending that postmenopausal women consume low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/

 

[MethodAir]

The Paleo diet (and the use of fish oil) is also widely adopted in Crossfit (some of the fittest athletes on the planet).
'There is a widespread misunderstanding about saturated fat.
'In population studies, there is clearly no association of dietary saturated fat and heart disease, yet dietary guidelines continue to advocate restriction of saturated fat.

• - Food laden with saturated fat does not drive up levels of 'junk' nutrient in the blood, research suggests
• - Higher consumption of carbohydrates, not saturated fat, associated with changes linked to diabetes and heart disease
• - Discovery is against widely-held view of harmful effects of eating too much saturated fat

Food laden with saturated fat does not drive up levels of the 'junk' nutrient in the blood, contrary to popular opinion, research suggests.
Higher consumption of carbohydrates, not saturated fat, was associated with changes linked to diabetes and heart disease, scientists found.
The discovery turns on its head the widely-held view of the harmful effects of eating too much saturated fat.
Butter, cheese, fatty cuts of meat, processed meat products such as sausages and bacon, cakes and biscuits are all examples of 'unhealthy' foods high in saturated fat.
Starchy carbohydrates such as potatoes, bread, cereals, rice and pasta are considered important for health and should make up about a third of the diet, according to expert advice.
US lead scientist Professor Jeff Volek, from Ohio State University, said: 'There is a widespread misunderstanding about saturated fat.
'In population studies, there is clearly no association of dietary saturated fat and heart disease, yet dietary guidelines continue to advocate restriction of saturated fat.
'That's not scientific and not smart. But studies measuring saturated fat in the blood and risk for heart disease show there is an association.
'Having a lot of saturated fat in your body is not a good thing. The question is, what causes people to store more saturated fat in their blood, or membranes, or tissues?'
Prof Volek's team set out to answer this question by studying 16 adults, all of whom had metabolic syndrome - a condition marked by at least three risk factors that increase the chances of developing heart disease or diabetes.
All the participants were fed the same diet, which changed every three weeks for a total of 18 weeks as levels of carbohydrates were progressively increased and those of saturated fat reduced.
The diets started with 47 grams of carbohydrates and 84 grams of saturated fat per day, and ended with 346 grams of carbs and 32 grams of saturated fat.
Prior to the series of diets, everyone taking part in the study was put on the same reduced-carb 'baseline' diet for three weeks.
Each day's meals provided the same energy intake, adding up to 2,500 calories, and included about 130 grams of protein.
The highest carb level represented 55% of daily calories, roughly matching the daily percentage of energy supplied by carbohydrates in the average American diet.
By the end of the trial, participants had lost almost 22 pounds on average and experienced significant improvements in blood sugar and insulin levels, and blood pressure, that were similar across all the diets.
Throughout the study, blood levels of total saturated fat in the blood remained relatively stable in all the volunteers, and even fell at the start when baseline fat consumption was doubled, the research showed.
In contrast, blood levels of palmitoleic acid - a fatty acid associated with an unhealthy effect on carbohydrates that can promote disease - went up as carbohydrate intake increased and fat consumption fell.
Higher amounts of palmitoleic acid in the blood indicate that more carbohydrates are being converted to fat instead of being burned as fuel, Prof Volek pointed out.
He said: 'It's unusual for a marker to track so closely with carbohydrate intake, making this a unique and clinically significant finding. As you increase carbs, this marker predictably goes up.'
Reducing carbohydrate consumption and adding controlled amounts of fat to the diet ensured that the body burned saturated fat rather than storing it, he added.

+3


The British Heart Foundation says eating a Mediterranean style diet with fruits, vegetables and fish 'has been shown to be beneficial in preventing coronary heart disease'

'When you consume a very low-carb diet your body preferentially burns saturated fat,' Prof Volek said.
'We had people eat two times more saturated fat than they had been eating before entering the study, yet when we measured saturated fat in their blood, it went down in the majority of people. Other traditional risk markers improved, as well.'
The findings are published in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.
Although blood levels of palmitoleic acid increased in all participants as carbohydrate intake was raised, the amounts differed greatly between individuals.
This was consistent with the idea that people's carbohydrate tolerance varied widely, said Prof Volek.
He added: 'People believe 'you are what you eat,' but, in reality, you are what you save from what you eat.
'The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat that you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet.'
Palmitoleic acid could provide a potential way of tracking when the body is converting carbs to fat, thereby contributing to 'metabolic mayhem', he believed.
'There is no magical carb level, no cookie-cutter approach to diet, that works for everyone,' said Prof Volek.
'There's a lot of interest in personalised nutrition and using a dynamically changing biomarker could provide some index as to how the body is processing carbohydrates.'
ends
Raised levels of palmitoleic acid in the blood or fat tissue are known to be associated with 'a myriad of undesirable outcomes', said the researchers in their paper.
These included elevated triglycerides - a harmful type of blood fat - high blood sugar, inflammation, metabolic syndrome, Type-2 diabetes, heart disease, heart failure and aggressive prostate cancer.
Victoria Taylor, senior dietician at the British Heart Foundation, said: 'Only 16 people took part in this short term study which is not enough to be conclusive. More research is needed to understand the effects of different amounts of types of carbohydrates on our risk of coronary heart disease.
'In the UK it is recommended that saturated fat is reduced and instead we should be switching to getting fats from unsaturated sources, for example olive, rapeseed or sunflower oils, oily fish and nuts.
'This is because eating too much saturated fat is linked to an increase in LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol levels, a known risk factor for coronary heart disease.
'It's important to eat a healthy balanced diet and not focus on individual nutrients or foods. The Mediterranean style diet includes plenty of fruits and vegetables, pulses, fish, nuts and seeds and has been shown to be beneficial in preventing coronary heart disease.'

 

[AZ Don]

Whether he is still practicing or not is irrelevant.

I think it is relevant if the reason he is not practicing is because of multiple malpractice issues resulting in the medical board revoking his license. The way I look at it, his articles start by saying something like World Renown Dr ... Since the evidence shows that is a lie, I see no reason to keep reading. And even if he didn't have the malpractice and financial issues dogging him, to be a creditable source I would look for a published peer reviewed study supporting his claims, and preferably others replicating it. Course the Greenland study shows that peer reviewed study's can be unreliable. Still, I think peer reviewed study's are the best that we have, and we have to look at the preponderance of the evidence.

The issue with the Greenland Eskimo study was that they never actually measured the frequency of heart disease in the inuit. The study was deeply flawed, though I agree that diets may have changed over the past 30 years making comparisons questionable.

I agree that grass fed beef is preferable to grain fed beef, but my view is simply that it is less harmful. It looks like the first study merely says that grass fed is better than grain fed, which doesn't make it healthy. The link to the second study is incorrect so I googled the text in italics and found it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094889. Interesting study. It seems to say that there is evidence that low fat diets can lower LDL and decrease the risk of heart disease

Recommendations to decrease dietary intake of saturated fat are based on evidence that this will lower LDL-cholesterol concentration, thereby decreasing risk of IHD; a goal to be desired. The current results are not in conflict with this evidence.

and yet as quoted in the prior post it says that there is reason to question the wisdom of low fat diets. I'm not sure what to conclude from this other than that dietary effects on health can be complex and so results are not always black or white.

 

[MethodAir]

Since the evidence shows that is a lie, I see no reason to keep reading.

What evidence?

 

[AZ Don]

uhm, does this mean vegetarian-ish not vegan-ish? It would be strange to be 'vegan-ish' and eat meat / fish occasionally.

I guess I'm strange ;-) I am not clear on the drawbacks of eating meat vs. eating dairy. I think both are harmful. For a while I gave fish a pass, viewing it as superior to other meats but have had to question that notion based on subsequent research. In any case, where I eat or what's for dinner is not always my choice so I try not to worry about it too much. I focus on eating lots of fruits and vegetables (green smoothies!) and avoiding meat and dairy most of the time.

 

[MethodAir]

new research, published on Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, did not find that people who ate higher levels of saturated fat had more heart disease than those who ate less. Nor did it find less disease in those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including monounsaturated fat like olive oil or polyunsaturated fat like corn oil.

“It’s the high carbohydrate or sugary diet that should be the focus of dietary guidelines,” he said. “If anything is driving your low-density lipoproteins in a more adverse way, it’s carbohydrates.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0...ase-link/?_r=0

Many of us have long been told that saturated fat, the type found in meat, butter and cheese, causes heart disease. But a large and exhaustive new analysis by a team of international scientists found no evidence that eating saturated fat increased heart attacks and other cardiac events.

The new findings are part of a growing body of research that has challenged the accepted wisdom that saturated fat is inherently bad for you and will continue the debate about what foods are best to eat.

For decades, health officials have urged the public to avoid saturated fat as much as possible, saying it should be replaced with the unsaturated fats in foods like nuts, fish, seeds and vegetable oils.

But the new research, published on Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, did not find that people who ate higher levels of saturated fat had more heart disease than those who ate less. Nor did it find less disease in those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including monounsaturated fat like olive oil or polyunsaturated fat like corn oil.

“My take on this would be that it’s not saturated fat that we should worry about” in our diets, said Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury, the lead author of the new study and a cardiovascular epidemiologist in the department of public health and primary care at Cambridge University.

But Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings should not be taken as “a green light” to eat more steak, butter and other foods rich in saturated fat. He said that looking at individual fats and other nutrient groups in isolation could be misleading, because when people cut down on fats they tend to eat more bread, cold cereal and other refined carbohydrates that can also be bad for cardiovascular health.

“The single macronutrient approach is outdated,” said Dr. Hu, who was not involved in the study. “I think future dietary guidelines will put more and more emphasis on real food rather than giving an absolute upper limit or cutoff point for certain macronutrients.”

He said people should try to eat foods that are typical of the Mediterranean diet, like nuts, fish, avocado, high-fiber grains and olive oil. A large clinical trial last year, which was not included in the current analysis, found that a Mediterranean diet with more nuts and extra virgin olive oil reduced heart attacks and strokes when compared with a lower fat diet with more starches.
Alice H. Lichtenstein, a nutritional biochemist at Tufts University, agreed that “it would be unfortunate if these results were interpreted to suggest that people can go back to eating butter and cheese with abandon,” citing evidence that replacing saturated fat with foods that are high in polyunsaturated fats – instead of simply eating more carbohydrates – reduces cardiovascular risk.
Dr. Lichtenstein, who was not involved in the latest study, was the lead author of the American Heart Association’s dietary guidelines, which recommend that people restrict saturated fat to as little as 5 percent of their daily calories, or roughly two tablespoons of butter or two ounces of Cheddar cheese for the typical person eating about 2,000 calories a day. The heart association states that restricting saturated fat and eating more unsaturated fat, beans and vegetablescan protect against heart disease by lowering low-density lipoprotein or so-called bad cholesterol.

In the new research, Dr. Chowdhury and his colleagues sought to evaluate the best evidence to date, drawing on nearly 80 studies involving more than a half million people. They looked not only at what people reportedly ate, but at more objective measures such as the composition of fatty acids in their bloodstreams and in their fat tissue. The scientists also reviewed evidence from 27 randomized controlled trials – the gold standard in scientific research – that assessed whether taking polyunsaturated fat supplements like fish oil promoted heart health.

The researchers did find a link between trans fats, the now widely maligned partially hydrogenated oils that had long been added to processed foods, and heart disease. But they found no evidence of dangers from saturated fat, or benefits from other kinds of fats.

The primary reason saturated fat has historically had a bad reputation is that it increases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or LDL, the kind that raises the risk for heart attacks. But the relationship between saturated fat and LDL is complex, said Dr. Chowdhury. In addition to raising LDL cholesterol, saturated fat also increases high-density lipoprotein, or HDL, the so-called good cholesterol. And the LDL that it raises is a subtype of big, fluffy particles that are generally benign. Doctors refer to a preponderance of these particles as LDL pattern A.

The smallest and densest form of LDL is more dangerous. These particles are easily oxidized and are more likely to set off inflammation and contribute to the buildup of artery-narrowing plaque. An LDL profile that consists mostly of these particles, known as pattern B, usually coincides with high triglycerides and low levels of HDL, both risk factors for heart attacks and stroke.
The smaller, more artery-clogging particles are increased not by saturated fat, but by sugary foods and an excess of carbohydrates, Dr. Chowdhury said. “It’s the high carbohydrate or sugary diet that should be the focus of dietary guidelines,” he said. “If anything is driving your low-density lipoproteins in a more adverse way, it’s carbohydrates.”
While the new research showed no relationship overall between saturated or polyunsaturated fat intake and cardiac events, there are numerous unique fatty acids within these two groups, and there was some indication that they are not all equal.
When the researchers looked at fatty acids in the bloodstream, for example, they found that margaric acid, a saturated fat in milk and dairy products, was associated with lower cardiovascular risk. Two types of omega-3 fatty acids, the polyunsaturated fats found in fish, were also protective. But a number of the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, commonly found in vegetable oils and processed foods, may pose risks, the findings suggested.

The researchers then looked at data from the randomized trials to see if taking supplements like fish oil produced any cardiovascular benefits. It did not.

But Dr. Chowdhury said there might be a good explanation for this discrepancy. The supplement trials mostly involved people who had pre-existing heart disease or were at high risk of developing it, while the other studies involved generally healthy populations.

So it is possible that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids lie in preventing heart disease, rather than treating or reversing it. At least two large clinical trials designed to see if this is the case are currently underway.

 

[MethodAir]

http://www.sott.net/article/242516-Heart-surgeon-speaks-out-on-what-really-causes-heart-disease

We physicians with all our training, knowledge and authority often acquire a rather large ego that tends to make it difficult to admit we are wrong. So, here it is. I freely admit to being wrong. As a heart surgeon with 25 years experience, having performed over 5,000 open-heart surgeries, today is my day to right the wrong with medical and scientific fact.

I trained for many years with other prominent physicians labelled "opinion makers." Bombarded with scientific literature, continually attending education seminars, we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.

It Is Not Working!

These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible. The discovery a few years ago that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ailments will be treated.

The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences.

Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.

Statistics from the American Heart Association show that 75 million Americans currently suffer from heart disease, 20 million have diabetes and 57 million have pre-diabetes. These disorders are affecting younger and younger people in greater numbers every year.

Simply stated, without inflammation being present in the body, there is no way that cholesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease and strokes. Without inflammation, cholesterol would move freely throughout the body as nature intended. It is inflammation that causes cholesterol to become trapped.

Inflammation is not complicated -- it is quite simply your body's natural defence to a foreign invader such as a bacteria, toxin or virus. The cycle of inflammation is perfect in how it protects your body from these bacterial and viral invaders. However, if we chronically expose the body to injury by toxins or foods the human body was never designed to process,a condition occurs called chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation is just as harmful as acute inflammation is beneficial.

What thoughtful person would willfully expose himself repeatedly to foods or other substances that are known to cause injury to the body? Well, smokers perhaps, but at least they made that choice willfully.

The rest of us have simply followed the recommended mainstream diet that is low in fat and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing repeated injury to our blood vessels. This repeated injury creates chronic inflammation leading to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.

Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.

What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the overload of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods.

Take a moment to visualize rubbing a stiff brush repeatedly over soft skin until it becomes quite red and nearly bleeding. you kept this up several times a day, every day for five years. If you could tolerate this painful brushing, you would have a bleeding, swollen infected area that became worse with each repeated injury. This is a good way to visualize the inflammatory process that could be going on in your body right now.

Regardless of where the inflammatory process occurs, externally or internally, it is the same. I have peered inside thousands upon thousands of arteries. A diseased artery looks as if someone took a brush and scrubbed repeatedly against its wall. Several times a day, every day, the foods we eat create small injuries compounding into more injuries, causing the body to respond continuously and appropriately with inflammation.

While we savor the tantalizing taste of a sweet roll, our bodies respond alarmingly as if a foreign invader arrived declaring war. Foods loaded with sugars and simple carbohydrates, or processed with omega-6 oils for long shelf life have been the mainstay of the American diet for six decades. These foods have been slowly poisoning everyone.

How does eating a simple sweet roll create a cascade of inflammation to make you sick?

Imagine spilling syrup on your keyboard and you have a visual of what occurs inside the cell. When we consume simple carbohydrates such as sugar, blood sugar rises rapidly. In response, your pancreas secretes insulin whose primary purpose is to drive sugar into each cell where it is stored for energy. If the cell is full and does not need glucose, it is rejected to avoid extra sugar gumming up the works.

When your full cells reject the extra glucose, blood sugar rises producing more insulin and the glucose converts to stored fat.

What does all this have to do with inflammation? Blood sugar is controlled in a very narrow range. Extra sugar molecules attach to a variety of proteins that in turn injure the blood vessel wall. This repeated injury to the blood vessel wall sets off inflammation. When you spike your blood sugar level several times a day, every day, it is exactly like taking sandpaper to the inside of your delicate blood vessels.

While you may not be able to see it, rest assured it is there. I saw it in over 5,000 surgical patients spanning 25 years who all shared one common denominator -- inflammation in their arteries.

Let's get back to the sweet roll. That innocent looking goody not only contains sugars, it is baked in one of many omega-6 oils such as soybean. Chips and fries are soaked in soybean oil; processed foods are manufactured with omega-6 oils for longer shelf life. While omega-6's are essential -they are part of every cell membrane controlling what goes in and out of the cell -- they must be in the correct balance with omega-3's.

If the balance shifts by consuming excessive omega-6, the cell membrane produces chemicals called cytokines that directly cause inflammation.

Today's mainstream American diet has produced an extreme imbalance of these two fats. The ratio of imbalance ranges from 15:1 to as high as 30:1 in favor of omega-6. That's a tremendous amount of cytokines causing inflammation. In today's food environment, a 3:1 ratio would be optimal and healthy.

To make matters worse, the excess weight you are carrying from eating these foods creates overloaded fat cells that pour out large quantities of pro-inflammatory chemicals that add to the injury caused by having high blood sugar. The process that began with a sweet roll turns into a vicious cycle over time that creates heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and finally, Alzheimer's disease, as the inflammatory process continues unabated.

There is no escaping the fact that the more we consume prepared and processed foods, the more we trip the inflammation switch little by little each day. The human body cannot process, nor was it designed to consume, foods packed with sugars and soaked in omega-6 oils.

There is but one answer to quieting inflammation, and that is returning to foods closer to their natural state. To build muscle, eat more protein. Choose carbohydrates that are very complex such as colorful fruits and vegetables. Cut down on or eliminate inflammation- causing omega-6 fats like corn and soybean oil and the processed foods that are made from them.

One tablespoon of corn oil contains 7,280 mg of omega-6; soybean contains 6,940 mg. Instead, use olive oil or butter from grass-fed beef.

Animal fats contain less than 20% omega-6 and are much less likely to cause inflammation than the supposedly healthy oils labelled polyunsaturated. Forget the "science" that has been drummed into your head for decades. The science that saturated fat alone causes heart disease is non-existent. The science that saturated fat raises blood cholesterol is also very weak. Since we now know that cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease, the concern about saturated fat is even more absurd today.

The cholesterol theory led to the no-fat, low-fat recommendations that in turn created the very foods now causing an epidemic of inflammation. Mainstream medicine made a terrible mistake when it advised people to avoid saturated fat in favor of foods high in omega-6 fats. We now have an epidemic of arterial inflammation leading to heart disease and other silent killers.

What you can do is choose whole foods your grandmother served and not those your mom turned to as grocery store aisles filled with manufactured foods. By eliminating inflammatory foods and adding essential nutrients from fresh unprocessed food, you will reverse years of damage in your arteries and throughout your body from consuming the typical American diet.

 

[AZ Don]

What evidence?

Well if he is not even a licensed Dr. I think it is a lie to call him a world renowned Dr. Here is the link to the case in which the board revoked his medical license: http://azmd.gov/GLSuiteWeb/Repository/0/0/1/4/97d47a09-71b9-4f30-8bfe-78428be876c4.pdf

 

[MethodAir]

Well if he is not even a licensed Dr. I think it is a lie to call him a world renowned Dr. Here is the link to the case in which the board revoked his medical license: http://azmd.gov/GLSuiteWeb/Repositor...428be876c4.pdf

Let's focus on the topic at hand, ie provide evidence that contradicts the findings of the cardiac surgeon (rather than attempting to deflect attention over to some legal side bar).

And let's not lose sight of the fact he has performed over 5,000 open-heart surgeries...

 

[AZ Don]

Ok, seriously, more from Dr. Lundell? Based on what I read about him I won't waste my time reading his articles. The medical board didn't take his license away for minor mistakes, at least 6 people died! And what evidence!!! He is just stating opinion. I have seen nothing supporting his statements and have good reason not to trust his opinion.

I took a look at the NY Times article and found this:
http://nutritionstudies.org/fallacio...saturated-fat/

Can you now see the folly of the NY Times article[1] and the research report being discussed?[2] The researchers published their findings by focusing their attention on single dietary (i.e., saturated fat and cholesterol) and clinical factors (i.e., serum total, HDL and LDL cholesterol) as causes of heart disease. This is reductionist experimentation that encourages the development of out-of-context remedies targeted to one risk factor or one causal event at a time, a recipe for failure. Reductionist experimentation is valuable for understanding nutrient structure and function, but it too often encourages endless speculation and confusion caused by highly subjective, personal preferences as to which factor to favor in research and to offer to the market.
Very simply, I am not aware of any serious evidence on function, which suggests that dietary saturated fat or cholesterol are causes of heart disease or cancer. Associations of these dietary factors with these diseases are nothing more than reflections of the consumption of animal-based foods and, by inference, inverse associations with whole plant-based foods (i.e., remember that animal-based foods tend to displace plant-based foods).
In the research report reviewed here,[2] I see no evidence that any of the 660,000 subjects in these compiled studies were using a WFPB diet that, unlike the standard American diet (SAD), which is relatively high in fat, protein and animal-based foods. As a consequence, disease rates already are mostly maximized, leaving little or no room for further diet responsiveness. In such a setting, trying to tease out a specific saturated fat or dietary cholesterol effect is foolhardy.

I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow but it reminds me of a review I read of a study (supported by the egg industry) indicating that eating eggs don't lead to increased cholesterol. The review took a close look at and found that both sample groups had high cholesterol and were eating what was described as a very unhealthy diet. The analogy was made that it was like throwing a match (an egg) onto a fire (the sample groups cholesterol) and saying that it meant something because the fire didn't get noticeably bigger. I think it is more meaningful to look at the groups that have a low incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc, and compare what they are doing to people that have high rates of these illnesses, rather than to look at two groups of people that have high rates of illness and try to attribute meaning to small differences.

 

[MethodAir]

Ok, seriously, more from Dr. Lundell? Based on what I read about him I won't waste my time reading his articles.

Your position would hold weight if you focused on attacking the science, rather than the man himself.

What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the overload of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods.

What does all this have to do with inflammation? Blood sugar is controlled in a very narrow range. Extra sugar molecules attach to a variety of proteins that in turn injure the blood vessel wall. This repeated injury to the blood vessel wall sets off inflammation. When you spike your blood sugar level several times a day, every day, it is exactly like taking sandpaper to the inside of your delicate blood vessels.

While you may not be able to see it, rest assured it is there. I saw it in over 5,000 surgical patients spanning 25 years who all shared one common denominator -- inflammation in their arteries.

If you read his article, you'd also see that he supports the idea that heart disease may be reversible:

What you can do is choose whole foods your grandmother served and not those your mom turned to as grocery store aisles filled with manufactured foods. By eliminating inflammatory foods and adding essential nutrients from fresh unprocessed food, you will reverse years of damage in your arteries and throughout your body from consuming the typical American diet.

 

[Paleowoman]

You see the reason I'm not entering the 'diet' debate, other than what I'm posting now and what I posted after it was mentioned in the other thread that lifestyle changes could reverse blockages, is that the whole thing is emotive. And it's emotive among the medical profession too. A lot of 'medical' organisations are funded in part by pharmacutical companies, a lot of research is funded by the food industries, there is vested interest everywhere, even in government.

Sceptical doctors and scientists stay outside of that but get classed as quacks. This has always been the way. Look what happened to Galileo when he said the Earth orbited around the Sun and that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. Look how long the germ theory of disease took to gain hold after it was first proposed and even shown by experiment over the miasma (bad air) cause of disease - nearly three hundred years ! Again, look what happened to the scientists who proposed that peptic ulcer was caused by bacteria ! They were shunned by the medical community. The Australian doctor Barry Marshall had to eventually infect himself with H Pylori to prove that ulcers were caused by the bacteria, previously he had been shunned too and all his papers and tests rejected by the medical community.

I have 'been there, done that' - I was vegetarian from age 4 to age 30 (my choice, not my family's). I then started to add chicken to my diet, but no red meat and no fish 'cos I didn't like it - I embraced the low fat/complex carb dietary advice of the 70s, made all my own wholemeal bread, all my own wholemeal pizzas, wholewheat pasta, brown rice and so on, though I did take notice of a sceptical doctor who wrote in 1979 that transfats in margarines were harmful - took many years for that to gain credance like it has now. Maybe my high carb diet , though never junk or processed carbs, is why I got Type 2 diabetes ? I've never been overweight. But I kept my eyes open - as I had when I read about transfats all those years ago. I changed to high fat/mod protein/low carb, which includes lots of fish and meat, eight years ago. Still keep my eyes open I hope.

 

[AZ Don]

Well you are right that people get emotional. But what would the world be like if Galileo had backed down. The same happened with smoking when it was discovered that it caused cancer. It took a long time for opinions about smoking to change, and yet many people still smoke, but at least now they know it's unhealthy. I see articles all the time promoting a dish as healthy, when it simply isn't. Sometimes I feel the need to speak up, just as you did in the prior thread. (There is an excellent nutrition video here that happens to talk about the challenges encountered when it was found that smoking caused cancer, starting at about 57:00: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-as-medicine)

Americans (and those in most developed countries) die of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes at a rate that just isn't seen in the developing World. This chart really brings it home for me:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archive...-food-consumption-vs-the-killer-diseases.html
It shows a clear inverse correlation between the quantity of unrefined plant foods (fruits and veggies) in the diet and the rate of death from heart disease and cancer. But we don't have to go live in a developing country to avoid these diseases. National Geographic did a search for the longest lived people on earth, and identified groups of these people in areas they called Blue Zones. There happens to be one here in the US, in Loma Linda, CA. It so happens that Loma Linda has a high population of 7th Day Adventists. It also happens that 7th Day Adventists follow a vegetarian diet. Here's a description of the findings: https://www.bluezones.com/2014/03/loma-linda-exploration-lessons/
It's more than just diet, but diet is key. FYI, I had a Great Aunt and Uncle that were 7th Day Adventists. They celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary together and both lived past 100. This is not theory or speculation. These people are living much longer than others and it's pretty clear what they are doing differently.

 

[MethodAir]

No response I see to the extensive scientific data linking carbohydrates (particularly the processed kind) to heart disease.

Well here's another book you may want to reference, by the cardiologist Dr. Sinatra (looks like they are all saying the same thing):

The Great Cholesterol Myth: Why Lowering Your Cholesterol Won't Prevent Heart Disease-and the Statin-Free Plan That Will

Heart disease is the #1 killer. However, traditional heart disease protocols--with their emphasis on lowering cholesterol--have it all wrong. Emerging science is showing that cholesterol levels are a poor predictor of heart disease and that standard prescriptions for lowering it, such as ineffective low-fat/high-carb diets and serious, side-effect-causing statin drugs, obscure the real causes of heart disease. Even doctors at leading institutions have been misled for years based on creative reporting of research results from pharmaceutical companies intent on supporting the $31-billion-a-year cholesterol-lowering drug industry.
The Great Cholesterol Myth reveals the real culprits of heart disease, including:
- Inflammation
- Fibrinogen
- Triglycerides
- Homocysteine
- Belly fat
- Triglyceride to HCL ratios
- High glycemic levels
Bestselling health authors Jonny Bowden, Ph.D., and Stephen Sinatra, M.D. give readers a 4-part strategy based on the latest studies and clinical findings for effectively preventing, managing, and reversing heart disease, focusing on diet, exercise, supplements, and stress and anger management.

 

[AZ Don]

No response I see to the extensive scientific data linking carbohydrates (particularly the processed kind) to heart disease.

I commented on the scientific study you posted. Most everything else looked like opinion. Please point out the peer reviewed scientific studies that I missed. I see the latest post references a book said to be based on studies, but you did not reference them. I did not see your response to the studies that I posted either.

FYI, there are (food industry funded) studies that show no correlation between saturated fat and health/cholesterol. That is because of individual variablility. If you and I ate the exact same diet we could still have noticeably different cholesterol levels, but then if we both moved to a lower saturated fat diet we would both see fairly comparable changes in our cholesterol levels. So studies can take advantage of this and argue against the low saturated fat diet recommended by medical authorities, such as the American Heart Association: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...ated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp#.Vi8MhLerTIU

See a discussion of the Saturated Fat studies here (it's only a few minutes long): http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/

The Framingham Heart Study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748236/) conducted over 26 years clearly show a link between Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Disease risk. In fact this chart from that study shows an increase in CVD risk with a rise in cholesterol (and the prior video shows a link between saturated fat and cholesterol):


In fact in many cultures, when total cholesterol is 90 to 150, heart disease is virtually unheard of:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-even-heart-disease/
See especially the graphic shown starting at 1:15. This one is only a few minutes long as well.

I have yet to hear of a culture that is living longer from a low carbohydrate diet. I can cite numerous examples of cultures living longer with low rates of heart disease from a low saturated fat diet.

FWIW, our arguments are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The video just above basically makes the case that a low fat diet, that is not low fat enough still carries risk for heart disease. I'm no fan of statin drugs, they nearly killed my father in law, and as I said earlier I don't know anyone that promotes processed carbs as healthy. So I can believe that limiting processed carbs could be beneficial. It's the saturated fats and the animal products they come from that I am against.

 

[MethodAir]

I commented on the scientific study you posted. Most everything else looked like opinion. Please point out the peer reviewed scientific studies that I missed.

You don't need 'peer reviewed' studies to understand the science linking carbohydrates to heart disease.

To quote Andrew Weil, MD:

High triglyceride levels can be genetic, and may be related to obesity or untreated diabetes, but dietary influences are strong. Carbohydrates in the diet are the main factor affecting their levels in the blood, especially quick-digesting (high glycemic load) carbs. In many people, these foods elevate insulin levels, and insulin affects triglyceride synthesis and the storage of fat. High triglyceride levels usually accompany low HDL (good) cholesterol and often travel with tendencies toward high blood pressure and central (abdominal) obesity. These are the markers of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance, very common disorders that increase risks of heart and adult-onset diabetes.

This is in line with the same mechanisms outlined by both the cardiologist and the cardiac surgeon:

What does all this have to do with inflammation? This repeated injury to the blood vessel wall sets off inflammation. When you spike your blood sugar level several times a day, every day, it is exactly like taking sandpaper to the inside of your delicate blood vessels.

Would you disagree that a high carbohydrate diet is a major contributor to Type II diabetes in the Western world? Would you also disagree that diabetes is a major risk factor for heart disease? What kind of diet is recommended to lower risk factors for diabetics? Which diet is widely considered the most effective for fat loss? Low carb.

Even your so called 'rebuttal' of the NY Times article was saying the same thing 'The original hypothesis that dietary fat, especially saturated fat, is chiefly responsible for heart disease began with laboratory studies over a century ago[10] and the findings ere, at best, uncertain'

With regard to the 'Framingham Study' you cite, Dr. Castelli (the Director of the study) said: "In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active."

Furthermore (to quote Andrew Weil again):

The latest wrinkle is a study from Tulane University published this year (2014) showing that people who went on a low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight in one year than did those in a group who followed a low-fat diet for the same amount of time. More importantly, the study showed that the people on the low-carbohydrate diet ended up with fewer cardiovascular risk factors.

Low-carbohydrate diets have been criticized by some health authorities who argue that cutting back on carbs and eating more foods that contain saturated fat will lead to increases in cholesterol, which in turn would lead to cardiovascular problems. That didn't happen in this study, and some earlier investigations have shown that consuming fewer carbohydrates and more dietary fat can reduce the risk of heart disease.

----------------

 

[McCbon]

Does any of this apply to BAVrs who have no concomitant Coronary Artery Disease but slowly progressing aortic valve stenosis?
McCbon