Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Masai and Atherosclerosis

I've been digging deeper into the health of the Masai lately. A commenter on Chris's blog pointed me to a 1972 paper showing that the Masai have atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. This interested me so I got my hands on the full text, along with a few others from the same time period. What I found is nothing short of fascinating.

First, some background. Traditional Masai in Kenya and Tanzania are pastoralists, subsisting on fermented cow's milk, meat and blood, as well as traded food in modern times. They rarely eat fresh vegetables. Contrary to popular belief, they are a genetically diverse population, due to the custom of abducting women from neighboring tribes. Many of these tribes are agriculturalists. From Mann et al: "The genetic argument is worthless". This will be important to keep in mind as we interpret the data.

At approximately 14 years old, Masai men are inducted into the warrior class, and are called Muran. For the next 15-20 years, tradition dictates that they eat a diet composed exclusively of cow's milk, meat and blood. Milk is the primary food. Masai cows are not like wimpy American cows, however. Their milk contains almost twice the fat of American cows, more protein, more cholesterol and less lactose. Thus, Muran eat an estimated 3,000 calories per day, 2/3 of which comes from fat. Here is the reference for all this. Milk fat is about 50% saturated. That means the Muran gets 33% of his calories from saturated fat. This population eats more saturated fat than any other I'm aware of.

How's their cholesterol? Remarkably low. Their total serum cholesterol is about half the average American's. I haven't found any studies that broke it down further than total cholesterol. Their blood pressure is also low, and hypertension is rare. Overweight is practically nonexistent. Their electrocardiogram readings show no signs of heart disease. They have exceptionally good endurance, but their grip strength is significantly weaker than Americans of African descent. Two groups undertook autopsies of male Masai to look for artery disease.

The first study, published in 1970, examined 10 males, 7 of which were over 40 years old. They found very little evidence of atherosclerosis, even in individuals over 60. The second study, which is often used as evidence against a high-fat diet, was much more thorough and far more interesting. Mann et al. autopsied 50 Masai men, aged 10 to 65. The single most represented age group was 50-59 years old, at 13 individuals. They found no evidence of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in any of the 50 hearts. What they did find, however, was coronary artery disease. Here's a figure showing the prevalence of "aortic fibrosis", a type of atherosclerotic lesion:


It looks almost binary, doesn't it? What could be causing the dramatic jump in atherosclerosis at age 40? Here's another figure, of total cholesterol (top) and "sudanophilia" (fatty streaks in the arteries, bottom). Note that the Muran period is superimposed (top).


There's clearly a pattern here. Either the Masai men are eating nothing but milk, meat and blood and they're nearly free from atherosclerosis, or they're eating however they please and they have as much atherosclerosis as the average American. There doesn't seem to be much in between.

Here's a quote from the paper that sums it up well:

We believe... that the Muran escapes some noxious dietary agent for a time. Obviously, this is neither animal fat nor cholesterol. The old and the young Masai do have access to such processed staples as flour, sugar, confections and shortenings through the Indian dukas scattered about Masailand. These foods could carry the hypothetical agent."

I know this blog is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again: you can eat a wide variety of foods and be healthy,
except industrial grain products (particularly wheat), sugar, industrial vegetable oil and other processed food. The Masai are just one more example of a group that's healthy when eating a traditional diet.

22 comments:

Debs said...

That's beautiful and succinct. What would the mainstream nutritionists try to find as an excuse? Less exercise when you've stopped being a warrior? Secret milk-skimming and carb-loading rituals that the Masai surely would have hidden from the anthropologists?

I especially like the point about the Masai being a genetically-diverse population. It gives one hope for reversing unhealthy trends in population health via nutrition over the course of a generation.

Peter said...

Great post,

Thanks,

Peter

Stephan said...

Debs,

Yes, I think the conclusion Mann comes to about the Masai diet is inescapable. It's ironic that this study is cited to show that high-fat diets cause atherosclerosis, when in fact it shows nothing of the sort. In my mind, this study alone is enough to obliterate the lipid hypothesis, because it is such an extreme case and the investigators were so thorough.

You can really get the wrong impression from this study if all you read is the abstract, because he doesn't discuss the dietary shift.

reid said...

Stephan, I was just wondering what you thought of the "Calcium Hypothesis" as a factor linked to heart disease. In this article it's (briefly) mentioned older people have a lower calcium threshold.

Stephan said...

Reid,

Arteries do calcify in people with atherosclerosis, but it's not due to excess calcium intake. Milk is a very rich source of calcium yet the Muran did not have calcified arteries despite their huge intake.

People often simultaneously have calcification of the arteries and osteoporosis. It's not a matter of too much calcium, but where it's going. It may have something to do with vitamin D.

But I think it would be simplistic to think of it as a passive process, e.g. calcium sticks to the arteries because there's too much of it around. It's probably put there specifically by the body, and perhaps for a good reason.

randy said...

Thanks Stephan!

I did read your comments on your site and also obtained a copy of the full paper. I most strongly disagree with your conclusions. You present as certaintudes what neither the authors or the data indicate.

Stephan Wrote:
"You will see from the figures that the Masai men only develop atherosclerotic lesions after they stop eating a diet of exclusively milk, meat and blood."

Randy Writes:
No, this is not supported by the paper. Mann clearly states that this conclusion cannot be made.

From the paper:
"While there is a suggestion
of a decrease of sudanophilia with age from ages 10 through 30, this is not statistically supportable with the variance encountered
within these age groups. Neither was it possible to show an increase of sudanophilia
after age 30."

Your stating something as a certainly that neither the authors or data support.

What's especially noteworthy to me is the next line in the paper:

"It is remarkable, however, that
this degree of sudanophilia is found in a population where cholesteremia averages
125 mg per cent."

The authors are refering to the accept datum that low cholesterol levels (<150) are almost always associted with clean arteries, but in NOT with the Masia. In other words low cholesterol levels in high saturated fat diets break the rule, and CVD results. This is a crucial point that needs futher research. There's no doubt that low carb/high fat diets improve lipid levels, but if these levels do not reduce CVD(as they do in some high fiber high carb diets) then the low carb community is in for a big surprise. We really need imaging studies to settle this issue. The few imaging studies (admittedly not the best designs) I've seen do not bode well for high saturated fats diets.

The authors were so struck by this contradictory result that they remark latter in the paper in an even stronger way:

Mann Write:
"The most striking thing about the Masai data is the extent of arterial lesions in a
population with consistently low levels of cholesteremia."

Could the improved lipid numbers associated with high saturated fat low carb diets be a mirage?? It's an open question for me, but a question that this paper brings to the fore. We need imaging studies. Lets see whats going on inside peoples chest instead of just assuming that great numbers mean clean arteries. It certainly doesn't with the Masia and that's a conclusion that this paper does support.

You are partially correct that the authors do "muse" ("not conclude") that that some "noxious agent" absent from the murin period might be responsible the lack of occulsion and infarctions, but this one of several possibilities they consider along with exercise and life style. In no way do the authors present these as conclusions as you imply but as possibilities. They have no evidence that this guys were gorging in pastries fried in transfat.

As far as the protection form occlusions and infarcs the authors clearly give their view here:

"One obvious explanation for the Masai immunity to occlusive disease is the compensatory
increase of coronary vessel size
with age resulting in a net increase of lumen size despite a tripling of intimal thickness
during this time. This we attribute to high levels of exercise but we have no direct
proof. There are scattered bits of experimental evidence to support this thesis"

Finally when we compare the Masia data to the Bantu as regards CVD the Bantu win.

1. Masai- High Fat Low Carb diet. No heart disease, diseased arteries.

2.Bantu -High Carb/Fiber Low Fat No heart dieases, healthy arteries.

Seems like a no brainer for me.

Thanks for the discourse and glad I discovered your site. We share alot of common interests and I appreciate the generousity of sharing your time and knowledge.

Regards
Randy

Nick said...

Excellent post

Stephan said...

Hi Randy,

First of all, thank you for your polite attitude despite disagreeing; you are a gentleman.

There are two conclusions from the paper that I consider inescapable. First of all, that the Masai were eating a diet extremely high in saturated fat, possibly higher than any other population in the world, yet they found no evidence of myocardial infarction. None. Not so much as a minor occlusion in 50 hearts. Nor were they about to. Their ECGs were normal and they had low blood pressure. Without functional outcomes of heart disease such as MI, measuring atherosclerosis is nothing more than an academic excise.

The second point is that the atherosclerosis was vastly elevated in vessels of post-Muran Masai as compared to Muran. The data do not follow a gradual slope, they are practically binary. Not just one measure, but three: fibrosis, sudanophilia and total cholesterol. Compare the sudanophilia between 35 yo and 45 yo. It more than doubles. Furthermore, it declines steadily from 15 to 35 years old, exactly the period during which they are Muran. The cholesterol result is undoubtedly statistically significant because the numbers are large. It rises in a very abrupt fashion after the Masai stop eating a diet of pure milk, meat and blood.

You compare the Masai to Bantu, but even the rural Bantu have a fourfold higher rate of obesity than the Masai, 12%! They also have higher blood pressure, lower HDL and higher trigs than the Masai. Not exactly the archetype of health if you ask me. The reference for that is the paper that started this conversation (Mbalilaki et al).

Now I am certainly willing to believe that the Bantu once were free from cardiovascular trouble and overweight, before they ate significant amounts of industrially processed food. As a matter of fact, I'm interested in the paper you mentioned where they performed autopsies. Would you mind sending the reference my way? It must have been decades before this 2008 study.

I disagree with your interpretation of the discussion section of the paper. Mann lists three possible explanations for why the Muran have low levels of atherosclerosis: 1) they're excluding a noxious dietary agent. 2) their lesions develop fibrous caps that prevent their spread. 3) activity level. He then says "we believe the first is a probable explanation". There's no other way to interpret that statement. Furthermore, in reference to the cause of atherosclerosis AFTER muranhood, Mann states "obviously this is neither animal fat nor cholesterol". I would say that's pretty unequivocal.

The issue of lumen volume is a separate one. He does think exercise protects them from artery narrowing, once they get atherosclerosis after the Muran period is over. That's the key. They don't need the protection from exercise until after they eat things besides milk, meat and blood.

The reason this interpretation sits so easily with me is I've seen it before in other cultures. This is not a fluke study or a bizarre genetic exception. The Alaskan Inuit are another example. They traditionally ate up to 66% fat by calories (much of it from sea mammals so there was plenty of saturated fat), and no appreciable carbohydrate. Virtually no plant foods whatsoever. On this diet, they were healthy and slim.

Switching to a lower-fat Western-style industrially processed diet has caused them to become obese, diabetic, hypercholesterolemic and hypertensive. Here are two references:

Murphy NJ et al. J Am Diet Assoc. 95(6):676-82. 1995.

Draper HH. American Anthropologist. 79(2):309-316. 1977.

Dr. B G said...

Hi!

Very interesting conclusion from you and the authors. Fascinating change in the presence of fatty streaks and scar tissue/fibrosis as young as 10 yrs old (!!) and the 50s. I guess the appease a midlife crisis and for respect, more wheat flour and goodies! Thanks for sharing this hard to access article!

-G

Stephan said...

Hi Dr. B.G.,

Welcome to the blog! I really enjoyed sharing that article because it was being cited by low-fat advocates in support of the lipid hypothesis!

Mike OD - IF Life said...

Good post on the Masai tribe...I came across their info a while back when doing a post on the Inuit.

I think the simple message is that meat and fat don't lead to heart disease....but in the presence of inflammation (caused by sugar/processed carbs and the developing insulin resistance and obesity) then thats when illness starts and increases most all risks of diseases.

Stephan said...

Thanks Mike, I think that's a good hypothesis. I am going to try to find your post on the Inuit. I plan on posting about them as well at some point. I'm reading Vilhjalmur Stefansson's "Cancer, Disease of Civilization" right now. Cheers,

Stephan

G said...

I think the key takeaway here is that there was no sign of myocardial infarction. NONE.

This clearly points to questioning the assumption that plaque build up in the arteries causes heart attacks.

Perhaps atherosclerosis is a sign of strength in the arteries and not a sign of heart disease.

Stephan said...

Hi G,

That's a good point. It certainly makes you wonder about the role of atherosclerosis in heart attacks. The authors speculate that exercise kept their lumens wide despite the lesions. It makes sense, but again it's just speculation.

Stephanie said...

Hi Stephan,

Do we know if smoking was a factor in any of this? Was there any talk about tobacco use among the Masai in any of these studies?

I'm just curious as perhaps this may also be a contributing factor (in addition to sugar) in the sharp spike in atherosclerosis...?

Stephan said...

Hi Stephanie,

I don't know if they were smoking or not. I personally don't think smoking by itself is enough to cause major health problems in the absence of other damaging lifestyle factors.

I know that's a bold statement, but check this out: the Kitavans (who I'll be posting on at some point) have no trace of heart problems (no one has done autopsies that I'm aware of but they aren't having heart attacks), no diabetes, no overweight. They live long lives. They eat mostly root vegetables, fish and coconut. No grains, no industrially processed food. They also smoke like chimneys. I'm not aware of any data on their cancer rates.

French smokers also suffer from fewer health problems that American smokers (including cancer), reinforcing the idea that damage from smoking is modulated by the overall lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think smoking is good for health. I do think that our bodies can withstand some pretty big insults if the lifestyle is good overall.

Stephanie said...

Stephan,

Yes, I read that about French smokers as well, in fact, there was a great 2-part series on the CBC recently that discussed these very findings (it was called "Sick People, Sick Societies"). I've always been such a strong proponent of strong anti-tobacco legislation and I now shudder to think that maybe I've been fighting the wrong battle (although I have no regrets about big tobacco profiting less). I actually have heart disease myself and have really been struggling to try to find the right "heart healthy" diet, if there is such a thing. Do you think a lot of it depends on your ethnicity and what region of the world you live in?

Stephan said...

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for the info on the CBC documentary, sounds interesting.

I believe the basic principles of health are the same for every genetic background. I don't think genes are totally irrelevant but for the average person they aren't worth worrying about. The only exception I believe in is the fact that dark-skinned people tend to be more vitamin D deficient because their skins make less vitamin D. That probably plays a major role in health disparities.

The region of the world you live in definitely influences health, but I think it's due to specific cultural practices rather than simply the location.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say the larger amount of fat-soluble vitamins in the French diet from quality animal fat (esp butter) play a big role in their relative health. Check out my posts on K2 for more info on this.

To me, the most valuable information doesn't come from epidemiological studies comparing sick Americans to sicker Americans, but from studies of cultures that are/were truly healthy. No modern, industrialized cultures fall into this category, but I've written about a few of them under the "native diets" tag. I highly recommend reading "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" if you want to learn how to eat from cultures that did not suffer from chronic disease.

Good luck finding what you're looking for.

Chris said...

Stephan

you might want to check Dr Briffa:

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/07/25/do-exercise-really-explain-how-it-can-be-that-those-eating-a-high-animal-fat-diet-can-be-at-low-risk-of-heart-disease/

Stephan said...

Thanks Chris, I saw that post. Sounds like we came to the same conclusion!

Andrew Dunbar said...

The answer is extremely simple. Muran are warriors and herdsmen walking and running at least 20 km every day. At about age 35 Masai men get married and become much less active. Atherosclerosis then begins to occur.

Traditional young Masai men examined in the 1964 Masai Health Study had aerobic fitness levels approaching that of Olympic marathoners

Their is almost no association (r=0.31) between serum cholesterol levels and atherosclerosis. The greatest negative predictor of fatal hearty attacks is cardiorespiratory (aerobic) fitness (r=-0.8). In other words the very fit are much less likely to have a fatal heart attack regardless of diet or genetics.

Experiments on monkeys have shown that moderate levels of physical activity significantly reduce atherosclerosis even on a diet very high in saturated fat.

Andrew (20 years as a food scientist)

Andrew Dunbar said...

I suggest you all read 'The Cholesterol Myths' by Dr Uffe Ravnskov. This is a very scholarly and very heavily referenced but easy to read book. It shows very effectively that there is no relationship at all between fat intake, cholesterol and heart disease. Ravnskov shows that high cholesterol levels are actually beneficial and why saturated fat is in fact very healthy.

Andrew (20 years as a food scientist).