Saturday, August 8, 2009

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Oxidized LDL, Part II

In the last post, I presented the evidence that oxidized LDL (oxLDL) is a dominant factor in the arterial disease known as atherosclerosis, although probably not the only factor. In this post, I'll describe some of the major contributors to oxLDL.

Polyunsaturated Fats Increase LDL Oxidation

The serum concentration of oxLDL is strongly influcenced by diet. One dietary determinant of oxLDL is dietary polyunsaturated fat (PUFA). PUFA are inherently susceptible to oxidative damage, compared to monounsaturated and saturated fats. The predominant PUFA in the modern diet is linoleic acid, found excessively in industrial seed oils like corn oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, cottonseed oil and soy oil. LDL is naturally rich in linoleic acid, even in cultures such as the Kitavans who have a very low dietary intake of it. However, LDL content of linoleic acid does correlate with dietary intake, and the Kitavans have a comparatively small amount of linoleic acid in their LDL, relative to industrial cultures.

There have been a number of media reports in the last few years proclaiming that monounsaturated fat reduces LDL oxidation compared to saturated and polyunsaturated fat. This is rather implausible on the surface, so let's take a closer look. There are two ways to measure oxLDL:
  1. Measure it directly from the blood
  2. Take normal LDL from the blood, expose it to copper in a test tube, and see how fast it oxidizes
The first reflects actual oxLDL in the blood, whereas the second reflects "susceptibility to oxidation" and has a dubious relationship with actual oxidized LDL in the bloodstream. This results in statements like the following (ref):
LDL resistance to copper-induced oxidation, expressed as lag time, was highest during the MUFA-rich diet (55.1±7.3 minutes) and lowest during the PUFA(n-3)– (45.3±7 minutes) and SFA- (45.3±6.4 minutes) rich diets.
This was published in a paper by P. Mata and colleagues in 1996. They fed 42 volunteers one of four different diets for 5 weeks each: one rich in saturated fat, one rich in monounsaturated fat, one rich in linoleic acid PUFA, and one rich in linoleic acid plus omega-3 PUFA. They emphasized the finding quoted above, as did the media. But there's an embarrassing piece of data buried in the paper that the authors, and the media, ignored (thanks to Chris Masterjohn for pointing this out). Here's what they saw when they looked directly at LDL oxidation in their volunteers:

Oops! LDL oxidation in the two PUFA groups was increased by more than 31%. The difference between the leftmost two groups and the rightmost two was statistically significant. As one would expect, oxidized LDL is proportional to the amount of PUFA in LDL, which is proportional to dietary PUFA. This somehow got left out of the abstract and media reports. The same investigators published a similar report a year later.

In another diet trial, participants were placed on one of two diets for 5 weeks: a low-fat, high PUFA diet low in vegetables; or a low-fat, high PUFA diet high in vegetables. The authors were forthright about their findings, so I'll let them summarize:
The median plasma OxLDL-EO6 increased by 27% (P less than 0.01) in response to the low-fat, low-vegetable diet and 19% (P less than 0.01) in response to the low-fat, high-vegetable diet. Also, the Lp(a) concentration was increased by 7% (P less than 0.01) and 9% (P=0.01), respectively.
This is the diet mainstream cardiologists have been prescribing to heart attack patients for 40 years. The trials I mentioned above are the only three I'm aware of in which fat quality was manipulated and oxLDL was directly measured (the first two were based on subsets of the same data). They all suggest that replacing saturated fat with PUFA increases oxLDL.

I suspect that the effect has less to do with the decrease in saturated fat and more to do with the increase in PUFA, although there's no way to know for sure. In the
Lyon Diet-Heart trial, which I believe was the most successful diet trial of all time, linoleic acid was reduced to 3.6% of calories, but saturated fat was also reduced. Another reason is that there are numerous low-fat, low PUFA, high-carbohydrate cultures that have low levels of atherosclerosis and heart attacks. The Kitavans, for example, don't seem to have heart attacks or strokes (although no autopsies have been done so we don't know how much atherosclerosis they have).

They get 69% of their calories from high-glycemic starchy tubers, and their 21% fat comes mostly from coconut so it's highly saturated. Their
blood lipids are low in omega-6 linoleic acid and very saturated. But there's a little surprise in the data: their lipids are full of palmitic acid (saturated), despite the fact that their diet contains very little of it. The reason is that their livers are turning all that carbohydrate into saturated fat, which is what happens when you eat more carbohydrate than you can burn immediately or store as glycogen. The moral of the story is that you don't need to eat saturated fat to have saturated LDL: a high-carbohydrate diet can accomplish the same thing, especially if it has a high glycemic index.

Fat-Soluble Antioxidants Decrease LDL Oxidation


LDL carries fat-soluble antioxidants, predominantly vitamin E and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). One form of vitamin E, alpha-tocopherol, slows atherosclerosis in most animal models but has shown equivocal results in human trials. There is even the
suggestion that it may increase LDL oxidation under some circumstances. I don't recommend supplementing with vitamin E. However, the first line of antioxidant defense in LDL is provided by CoQ10. CoQ10 unequivocally reduces LDL oxidation in human subjects, and potently reduces atherosclerosis in animal models.

CoQ10 has a special relationship with cardiovascular health. Levels are reduced in individuals with cardiovascular disease and high oxLDL. Whether this is cause or effect, it's difficult to say. However, supplementing with CoQ10 has been repeatedly shown to be effective for
high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. There has been one controlled trial of CoQ10 (120 mg/day) supplementation for the prevention of heart attacks, which reduced cardiac events including deaths by 45%, compared to a group receiving B vitamins. The CoQ10 group showed a large reduction in plasma lipid oxidation. This is a promising result and the experiment should be repeated.

CoQ10 is not an essential nutrient, although food does contribute a small portion of our total CoQ10 use. The large majority of CoQ10 is synthesized by the body itself, and this is dependent on a number of essential nutrients, including vitamin B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, vitamin C and folic acid. Thus, the body's synthesis of CoQ10 is dependent on overall nutritional status. Sub-clinical deficiency of any of these vitamins can hypothetically contribute to reduced CoQ10 production and thus oxLDL. This is potentially a big problem since modern Americans get more than half their calories from nutrient-poor refined foods.
Liver is the single best source of many of these vitamins, and also holds the title of Most Nutritious Food on the Planet. It's also rich in CoQ10.

CoQ10 synthesis declines with age and is reduced in people with disorders involving oxidative stress, like cardiovascular disease. It's also greatly reduced by the cholesterol-lowering drugs statins. I'm not generally in favor of supplements, but CoQ10 seems to have a lot of promise and nothing but positive side effects that I'm aware of.
CoQ10 deficiency may be a common theme in a number of modern disorders.

Excess Blood Sugar and Fructose Increase LDL Oxidation


Both
type I and type II diabetes are associated with higher levels of oxLDL, therefore, prolonged high blood glucose may contribute to LDL oxidation due to glycosylation of the LDL protein ApoB. Fructose consumption increases oxLDL relative to glucose. Fructose is a very powerful glycosylating agent (binds non-specifically to other molecules, causing damage). Although it isn't present at high levels in the general circulation, it does interact with blood lipids in the hepatic portal vein as it moves from the digestive tract to the liver to be turned into fat (palmitic acid). Peter at Hyperlipid has written extensively about the role of glycosylation in LDL oxidation.

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: The Verdict


The diet-heart hypothesis, the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raise blood cholesterol and thus increase heart attack risk, is a half-century embarrassment to the international scientific community. It requires willful ignorance of the fact that saturated fat
does not increase total cholesterol or LDL in humans, in the long term. It requires a simplistic view of blood lipids that ignores the potentially harmful effects of replacing animal fats with carbohydrate or industrial seed oils. Worst of all, it requires selective citation of the literature on diet modification trials.

I have to conclude that if dietary saturated fat and cholesterol play any role whatsoever in cardiovascular disease, it's a minor one that's trumped by other factors. Industrial seed oils and sugar are likely to play an important role in cardiovascular disease.

151 comments:

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

Congratulations, Stephan

Your best series of posts so far.

Jeremy Fox said...

Chris Masterjohn got me believing in these conclusions, but your precise writing style adds a lot of value. Thanks a lot.

Jeremy Fox said...

Are you going to revise your previous, mostly positive comments about omega 3's in light of the apparent fact that omega 3 PUFAs increase oxLDL and thus may contribute to heart disease?

Michael said...

Excellent commentary. I am so glad I found your blog, Stephan.

Adolfo David said...

Jeremy Fox: Omega 3's obviously can oxidize in the body. All advocates of Omega 3 like me know that polyunsaturated fats can oxidize in the body, its not new. So, you must take Omega 3's with for example extra virgin olive oil, rich in vitamin E, to obtain all Omega 3's benefits. Avoiding Omega 3's would be a very big mistake since they are most probably the most important single nutrient in reversing heart disease.

I essentially agree with your comments Stpehan, but saturated fats are not always 'all good', since saturated fats can increase inflammation
"Association between diet, lifestyle, metabolic cardiovascular risk factors, and plasma C-reactive protein levels", Metabolism 2004

Anyway, avoiding sugars and Omega 6 is much more important.

Bris said...

Fundamental chemistry tells us that the more saturated fat we eat/synthesise the less oxidised LDL we will have. It can't be any other way.

Bris said...

Adolfo

Jeremy Fox: Omega 3's obviously can oxidize in the body. All advocates of Omega 3 like me know that polyunsaturated fats can oxidize in the body, its not new. So, you must take Omega 3's with for example extra virgin olive oil, rich in vitamin E, to obtain all Omega 3's benefits.

Our HG ancestors on the African savannah didn't eat foods like virgin olive oil. The only foods they would have year round access to were animal foods. Plants are highly seasonal and fruits are only available a few months a year.

Jeff said...

Good read as always. Thanks.

jeff

Bris said...

Adolfo:
I essentially agree with your comments Stpehan, but saturated fats are not always 'all good', since saturated fats can increase inflammation
"Association between diet, lifestyle, metabolic cardiovascular risk factors, and plasma C-reactive protein levels", Metabolism 2004


Did you read the paper? It says the exact opposite!:

"When men and women were analyzed together, there were no significant associations between(CRP)...(and) saturated fat, ....."

"These observations suggest that CRP levels are only marginally associated with individual dietary and lifestyle factors."

"Surprisingly, a higher intake of fat tended to be associated with lower CRP values among women."

When researchers can provide a plausible biochemical mechanism to explain how saturated fat can cause inflammation I will take notice.

Venkat said...

Stephan,

Wonderful series of posts. It is very informative and interesting to read.

Please continue your service and educate the community.

Thanks

Venkat

Bris said...

Malcolm Kendrick has the correct idea - cholesterol is utterly irrelevant except in the case of Familial Hypocholesteriamia.

Bris said...

I will rephrase the comment- Kendrick suggests cholesterol is irrelevant. I suggest it utterly irrelevant.

Adolfo David said...

Bris: fruits and plants has so few fat soluble antioxidants. Our ancestors in Africa are NOT an example in absolutely all they did. I support a paleo diet in many senses, but anything ancestors did in nutrition is not always an example.

You are right about the paper, I took a very bad reference.
But saturated fats have a bad impact (of course, most probably not so so high) on insulin sensitivity. In this sense can be pro inflammatory.

Adolfo David said...

"Saturated fat intake and insulin resistance in men with coronary artery disease. The Stanford Coronary Risk Intervention Project Investigators and Staff", Circulation 1991

"CONCLUSIONS. These cross-sectional findings in nondiabetic men with coronary artery disease suggest that increased consumption of saturated fatty acids is associated independently with higher fasting insulin concentrations."

Many scientists who recommend an antiinflamatory diet like pioneer Barry Sears PhD ("The Antiinflammation Zone"), recommend a diet lowest as possible in Omega 6 and sugars, high in Omega 3 and monoinsaturated fats and low in saturated fats.

Adolfo David said...

So, Bris, negative effect of saturated fats on insulin metabolism is enough to say there is a so plausible explanation of how high saturated fat diet can cause inflammation. You can search and find more published researches about this issue. Best regards

TedHutchinson said...

Those people who think Saturated Fats are dangerous should, by now, be able to prove the route by which this occurs.
Here is a recent attempt to do so.
Saturated Fatty Acids Do Not Directly Stimulate Toll-Like Receptor Signaling.
As diets rich in SFAs are established to promote insulin resistance and atherosclerosis in mice, and because it has emerged that the innate immune receptors TLR2 and TLR4 play contributing roles in these diseases,it has been suggested that SFAs may promote these conditions via direct stimulation of TLR2- or TLR4 dependent signaling.
Indeed, several groups have reported that SFAs directly induce either TLR2- or TLR4-dependent signaling in cultured macrophages and transfected cells.


However they have to conclude Taken together, the findings of the present study suggest that
SFAs do not directly stimulate TLR-signaling and that the mechanisms linking high-fat diets with TLR-associated pathologies such as atherosclerosis and insulin resistance remain to be discovered.


Perhaps some with celiac disease may give them a clue

TedHutchinson said...

I meant to add that it may indeed be so called "heart healthy"
Omega-6 Fat Associated with Insulin Resistance and Metabolic Syndrome and atherosclerosis

Dave said...

@Adolpho David

Do you have any evidence of the mechanism by which saturated fat induces inflammation or insulin resistance? Or an evolutionary reason why this would occur?

Chandler said...

Adolfo David,

"So, Bris, negative effect of saturated fats on insulin metabolism..."

As TedHutchinson mentioned, we don't know the mechanism for this in humans. Moreover, the study you cited mentioned this as well:

"It is interesting to speculate on the mechanisms by which dietary saturated fatty acids might reduce insulin sensitivity."

Note the word "speculate." The authors of this study go on to point out what should be obvious: that the study does nothing to show saturated fat caused the resistance.

"It is possible that the association between saturated fatty acid consumption and insulin resistance is mediated by another dietary component for which saturated fatty acids are only a marker."

The authors saw fit to measure types of fats, however, they didn't do the same thing for carbohydrates. Perhaps "another dietary component" is sucrose? Or fructose?

TedHutchinson said...

Dietary Fat Quality and Coronary Heart Disease Prevention:
A Unified Theory Based on Evolutionary, Historical, Global,and Modern Perspectives
Christopher E. Ramsden, MD
Keturah R. Faurot, PA, MPH
Pedro Carrera-Bastos, BA
Loren Cordain, PhD
Michel De Lorgeril, MD, PhD
Laurence S. Sperling, MD

When summarising the role of SFA they conclude Replacement of SFAs, especially palmitate, with MUFAs may provide moderate ardiometabolic beneits, and is unlikely to do harm. However, SFA reduction does not appear to be the most important dietary modification for CHD risk reduction.
Anyone surprised to see L Cordain putting his name to that statement?

Adolfo David said...

At now, we know the healthiest fats are Oleic Acid and Omega 3, and the unhealthiest are Omega 6 and Trans Fats. While we speculate about saturated fats, I choose to recommend eating two firsts and not eating the other two. For me its the most reasonable way to go on nowadays an anti inflammatory diet with regard to fats. I am also concerned that most of animal sources of saturated fats are not very healthy, just think in toxins and pollutants due to food chain, and soy, corn..as main food for cattle. Body fat is the main storage place of toxins in animals and humans.

About this, I tend to consume organic lean meat.

At the end, saturated fats for me continue to be a not so clear nutrient.

I like a lot all your comments! Regards from Mediterranean.

Jack Christopher said...

>>>"I am also concerned that most of animal sources of saturated fats are not very healthy, just think in toxins and pollutants due to food chain"

Adolfo,

n-3 has the same problem—toxins in fish fat—we can't ignore the source and quality of meats we're eating. And too much n-3s can't be good for the heart, since they oxidizes easier.

Adolfo David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adolfo David said...

Jack, for this reason I support strongly daily consume of a concentrate and purified Omega 3 EPA DHA with highest distillation levels (ZoneLabs, Life Extension and Nordic Naturals offer probably the best options). About fish, obviuosly there are option better than others.

High dose of Omega 3 and oxidation are not a concern. For example, Life Extension and Zone Labs brands offer in their Omega 3's sesame lignans which avoid fat-oxidation. People with very high levels of inflammation should consume very high levels of Omega 3 (even more than 10 grams daily some of them), in this case with some physician control.

Michelle said...

It's wonderful to see hard evidence presented against the outdated diet ideas still pervasive in our society, and that are still even on the American Heart Association website.

I'm a medical illustrator in training, and plan to do my master's project on cholesterol, fats, metabolic syndrome, or the like.

Thanks for the work you do!

Bris said...

There is absolutely no rational evolutionary reason why eating saturated fat would be harmful in any way.

Saturated fat is an an efficient oxidation-resistant means of energy storage in mammals.

The heart relies on saturated fat for fuel. All mammals store large amounts of saturated fat around the heart so that it has immediate access to this fuel.

Stephan Guyenet said...

Kurt,

Thanks.

Jeremy,

No, I still believe what I wrote about omega-3. oxLDL is part of atherosclerosis, but there's more to the story. Excessive inflammation is another piece of the puzzle; I'll be covering that in another post. Then there's the fact that atherosclerosis alone doesn't necessarily cause a heart attack. That probably requires vasospasm, fibrillation and/or thrombosis in most if not all cases, all of which omega-3 improves.

Ted,

Yeah it was interesting to see Cordain's name on that paper. I think he may be having a change of heart. Although if I understand correctly, he has never claimed that saturated fat is a dominant factor.

Adolfo,

At this point, I'm not convinced that saturated fat has anything to do with pathological insulin resistance. Short term, yes it does probably reduce insulin sensitivity a bit. But there's no way it causes the type of chronic, severe insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome that's so common.

My fasting insulin is very low (2.3 uIU/mL) despite eating a lot of saturated fat. Yes, I'm just one person and I'm sure there are many other factors involved, but it does show that a diet high in saturated fat can be compatible with good insulin sensitivity in the context of an otherwise healthy diet/lifestyle.

Michelle,

Cool, I always wondered who made those great illustrations in my textbooks!

Andy said...

First I have to say this is a brilliant blog. You have a very good overview of the literature and can deconstruct studies very well.

I'm a little confused about one thing, or perhaps I missed something. If high carbohydrate diets lower LDL cholesterol and so does LA, why is low LDL correlated with a lower heart attack risk at all? Shouldn't it be a marker of high carbohydrate consumption, therefore also sugar and wheat, and PUFA? PUFA increases oxLDL, which correlates with heart attack risk more strongly than LDL. How can this be?

Adolfo David said...

Interesting article from Dr Barry Sears

TRANS FATS ARENT THE WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE EVILS
"If you want processed foods to taste great, then maybe we should bring back lard since is virtually devoid of omega-6 fats and is the only saturated fat that doesn't raise total cholesterol levels."

http://www.drsears.com/tabId/399/itemId/10203/Trans-fats-arent-the-worst-of-all-possible-evils.aspx

gunther gatherer said...

Stephen, I'm still confused about the Kitavan Conundrum. How is it they don't have high blood sugar or high ox-LDLs with a diet which is mostly sugar? The lack of omega-6 in their diet doesn't seem to explain that. Or is it that starchy tubers don't become sugar in the body. Wouldn't the body just treat them like fruit, hence causing the same problems thereof?

And implied in all those tubers is a consumtion of a very high lectin diet, which has been associated with inflammation, hyperphasia and leptin interference. Yet the Kitavans don't seem affected by this at all. Do you believe lectins are a problem in the human body? Or is it they are only a problem in combination with high omega 6 and other SAD foods? HGs don't seem affected by this...

Thanks for all your hard work.

gunther gatherer said...

I wanted to add also that I've read your blog entries on the Kitavans and their lectin-defying feats. But your conclusion there seems to be that lectins are only responsible for diseases of civilisation when they come from grains. But the Japanese eat lots of rice and are one of the most long-lived populations in the world. Are there differences between lectins themselves? Is that why the Kitavans aren't affected by it?

Or is there something else in the Kitavan and/or Japanese diet that is saving them from lectin's consequences or blocking its activity? Hm...

Bris said...

You should eat an Inuit diet if you're an Inuit, a Kitavan diet if your a Kitavan and a Greek diet of you're Greek.

Nutrition studies rarely consider individual genetics. The Japanese have been eating grain for 5000 years and have obviously evolved a tolerance to lectins.

gunther gatherer said...

Bris, by that logic, the Western world could eat the SAD for the next 5000 years and develop the same robustness and longevity as the Inuit and the Japanese show now.

In other words, we could eat poison and our genes would only need about 200 generations to adapt to what is effectively man-made poison.

humans evolved to eat their diet over 1.5 million years, maybe longer. 200 generations is not enough time for mankind to genetically adapt to anything.

lightcan said...

Related to the trial that you referred to, what do you think about their discussion of the possible positive aspect of the intervention?
"Lp(a) binds the oxidized phospholipids that are being mobilized, which is reflected in the enhanced OxLDL-EO6 levels in plasma. Thus, it can be postulated that with respect to this parameter, both of these diets are beneficial, (...)."
Or this commentary:
Apparent Paradox of Low-Fat "Healthy" Diets Increasing Plasma Levels of Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein and Lipoprotein(a) http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/392
Are they just trying to find a reason to ignore it?

TedHutchinson said...

@ Bris "Nutrition studies rarely consider individual genetics.

Maybe it isn't just lectins.

Individuals who can produce equol may derive benefits from soy consumption this study, full text online, shows differences in ability to deal with consequences of ox-ldl

There are ethnical differences in isoflavone pharmacokinetic and bioavailability. This may influence health outcomes.

pearsandplums said...

excellent post! i just wrote one similar, but not as elaborate! very informative.

Thackray said...

@Adolfo David

Dr. Sears is right about interesterification but a little off on the omega 6 content of lard.

Here is the nutritional breakdown of three rendered fat products,

Beef Tallow:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/482/2
Mutton Tallow:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/581/2
Lard (Pig)
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/483/2

Lard is actually 10% Omega 6 with an Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio of 10:1
Beef Tallow is 3% Omega 6 with a 6:3 of about 5:1
Mutton Tallow is about 5% Omega 6 but with a 6:3 of about 2:1.

These percentages and ratios reflect essential genetic predisposition for polyunsaturate content (pigs high, beef low) and the fact that pigs and beef are fed grains whereas mutton is usually grass fed.

More about interesterification from Mary Enig PhD
http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/interesterification.html

Dr Sears is quite concerned about Arachidonic acid. Does anyone else share this concern? I know that Mary Enig does not.

Philip Thackray

Thackray said...

Blogger cut off the link above to Mary Enig’s article.
Hopefully this works:
westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/interesterification.html

Philip Thackray

Adolfo David said...

Thackray, i go on antiinflamatory Zone Diet of Dr Sears years ago. Really my almost only sources of fats are Omega 3 and 9 (oleic). I almost never consume sources of saturated fats or Omega 6 (Omega 3 eggs I suppose has saturated fats, but in protein I only consume fish, and lean turkey and chicken).

When consume meat its important I think they are organic and grass fed, because corn and soy fed animals has important Omega 6 content (see AntiCancer by Dr Davud Servan-Schreiber).

About arachidonic acid, some is necessary, but arachidonic acid is the father of all proinflamatory eicosanoids. An antiinflamatory diet focuses on Omega 3 fatty acids in part because they inhibit araquidonic acid and so inflammation.

Adolfo David said...

Exactly Dr Sears proposes a 1,5 AA/EPA (arachidonic/ecosapentanoic acids) ratio in plasmatic phospholipids as optimal.

"The eicosanoids derived from AA are generally powerful pro-inflammatory eicosanoids, whereas those derived from DGLA are powerful anti-inflammatory eicosanoids. Although those derived
from EPA are virtually neutral in their inflammatory actions, EPA can play an important role in modulating the balance of DGLA and AA, and thus the balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory eicosanoids derived from them.
The key step in this metabolism of eicosanoid precursors is ultimately controlled by one particular enzyme (delta-5 desaturase), which converts DGLA into AA, the precursor of the “bad” eicosanoids."
ANTIINFLAMATORY MEDICINE: DIETARY MODULATION OF EICOSANOIDS
http://www.drsears.com/portals/6/Documents/Inflammation%20Medical%20Brochure.pdf

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

Bris

You said:

"The Japanese have been eating grain for 5000 years and have obviously evolved a tolerance to lectins."

The japanese have been eating, for entirely accidental reasons of what grains grow well in that part of the world, a lot of rice. All plants have secondary compounds, including lectins for defense against predation, but white rice is probably the most lectin-free grain you can eat. It has no WGA or storage proteins that are anywhere near as immunogenic as gliadin proteins in wheat.

The japanese have high carb consumption (Neolithic) but have good O6:3 ratio from fish consumption (paleolithic) and little wheat consumption (paleolithic) - in that respect they are like the Kitavans - who also smoke a lot yet are resistant to heart disease.

That said, the Okinawans, who I understand have the highest animal product consumption, are actually the healthiest and longest lived among the japanese.

If we are not just looking for an excuse to justify continued high carb consumption, we must entertain the idea that both the Kitavans and Japanese could be even healthier on lower carb diets with more animal fats. The SAD is a low hurdle to clear, after all. The Kitavans and Japanese prove only that high carb consumption can be tolerable, not that is is necessary or optimal.

Robert Andrew Brown said...

Thackray.

Arachidonic acid.

I think yes.

But you need to look at people with low intakes of Omega 6 under 4% maybe to see effects.

See Stephans previous post citing Lands.

Do you have a link for Dr Enigs views?

Bris said...

gunther:
humans evolved to eat their diet over 1.5 million years, maybe longer. 200 generations is not enough time for mankind to genetically adapt to anything.

This simply isn't correct. How quickly a species evolves is dependent on the rate of beneficial mutations and how strong the evolutionary selection pressure. In Australia the myxoma virus killed 99% of rabbits when first released. It took only 10 generations before most rabbits were immune.

Here are some examples of very rapid and recent mutations in humans:

- blue eyes, red or blonde hair, reduced skin pigmentation and cystic fibrosis (protects against cholera) in Europeans.

- epicanthic eye folds and reduced body hair in Asians

- sickle-cell anaemia (protects against malaria) in Africans

- lactose tolerance in African European and Indian pastoralists.

- increased alcohol tolerance due to the presence of alcohol dehydrogenase in Caucasians

It is an absolute certainty that 200 generations of eating a SAD would result in a greatly increased tolerance of this diet. People of European origin already tolerate a SAD far better than Australian Aborigines or Polynesians who have only recently been introduced to refined foods.

Bris said...

Kurt:
That said, the Okinawans, who I understand have the highest animal product consumption, are actually the healthiest and longest lived among the japanese.

The original Okinawans weren't Japanese. They were proto-Polynesians from Taiwan. Their traditional diet was Polynesian - pork, fish and starchy tubers. Japan invaded Okinawa in 1609.

toddhargrove said...

Bris said:

"It is an absolute certainty that 200 generations of eating a SAD would result in a greatly increased tolerance of this diet."

I agree to some extent and feel that that many paleo diet advocates tend to overstate the "nothing's changed in 10k years" argument. Of course a gene pool will change fairly slowly through creating new genes, but it can change fairly quickly by simply weeding out old ones that are no longer desirable under the new environment. We all know that many people will get very sick on the SAD but that others will live long and healthy lives. Presumably the difference is genetic. If we were to increase selection pressure by removing modern medicine or by letting the sick ones die and breeding together the healthy ones, we could very quickly create a gene pool that will do far better on the SAD. This would occur without any fortuitous "new" mutated genes at all, just getting rid of the old ones which are a particular problem for the SAD.

(Pardon the cruelty of the thought experiment I'm just trying to illustrate a point. Presumably similarly difficult selection pressures were exerted in the last ten k years.)

Robert Andrew Brown said...

Toddhargrove.

SAD = modern diet ?

Maybe tolerate, but probably devolve at the same time.

Adolfo David said...

Robert Andrew,

SAD means Standard American Diet

Regards from Mediterranean :D

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

Bris

You are the one making the genetic argument, not me.
the genetics of the okinawans and japanese is not he explanation for their disease rates. I've never seen any evidence of this.

Please describe your proposed mechanism for evolution to select for adaptation to the SAD. Especially as fecundity is higher among those who eat a worse diet, for social reasons, and most metabolic effects of the SAD do not kick in until after reproductive years.

Evolutionary adaptation does not just happen with time. To adapt in the way you suggest requires differential reproductive fitness, not better or worse heath in the context of a social welfare state that supports people's crummy diets and in no way prevents them from reproducing.

toddhargrove said...

Robert,

Yes, SAD = standard American diet. And yes I'm sure that no one has adapted so much that they would flourish on the SAD, just tolerate better it than others.

Bris said...

Kurt most of the aspects of the SAD Diet have been around for 10,000 years. The Egyptians were basically eating a SAD diet 5000 years ago. The diets of rich Europeans even 500 years ago was laden with sugar and refined carbohydrates. In Britain even the poor were eating white bread, sugar and drinking vast amounts of alcohol 150 years ago. It was only considerable physical activity that kept them reasonably healthy. So their has already been a very substantial selection for SAD-type diets.

The reality is that most westerners are already quite well adapted to a SAD Diet as long as they are reasonably active and don't overeat. People were still slim in the 1940s when the SAD was becoming widespread.

Most middle class Australians now eat a diet that is far more nutritious than they were 50 years ago. In fact the modern middle class Australian diet is probably at least as healthy as the Okinawan Diet. Despite this Australia has one of the highest levels of obesity in the world.

There are also many lifestyle-induced induced fertility problems such as polycystic ovary syndrome that requite medical intervention to allow pregnancy.

The extremly obese have far fewer children than average.

gunther gatherer said...

Bris, you said:

"It is an absolute certainty that 200 generations of eating a SAD would result in a greatly increased tolerance of this diet. People of European origin already tolerate a SAD far better than Australian Aborigines or Polynesians who have only recently been introduced to refined foods"

Why have humans only become more sick over the last 5000 years of eating wheat and sugar then? Are North Africans, who first developed agriculture, healthier than the rest of us today? By your logic, they should be, since they've had more time to adapt. This statement is an inaccurate cop-out and only gives in to the old genetic argument as to why some people are fitter than others. ie. "It's your fault that you're fat and sick."

And Europeans don't tolerate the SAD better than Aborigines or Polynesians. When HGs enter the Western world and adopt their foods, all of their health markers and statistics just get as bad as ours. That's not the same thing as Europeans "tolerating far better" the SAD. In other words, HGs are just like us and have the exact same reaction to poisonous food as we have now. There was no adaption on our part, since both HGs and us get exactly the same diseases.

LeenaS said...

Bris:

Does not SAD mean both the sugars (i.e. fructose) and the LA-laden, purified (or poorified) vegetable oils/fats? Or actually these two combined with foodstuff that is nutritient-poor or with nutritients that are very hard for our digestive tracts to utilise?

If so, the combination has not been tried before. Which means no population have had the time for adaptation - as of yet.

Anand Srivastava said...

Thanks Stephan, for a very enlightening article.

@Adolfo
I believe that MUFA and SFA are both acceptable fuel sources. I would think SFA is better than MUFA, because it is more stable. But the margin is very slim. I just go with SFA, because it is much cheaper than the olive oil.

I think O3:O6 should be 1:1, but it is better to have more O3 than O6. Canola may be an acceptable oil but it still contains too much PUFA, and must be avoided.

If we take it all together, your diet is quite good. You will find that people having a similar diet with MUFA replaced with SFA will also do quite well.

The fact that our body converts the glucose into SFA is quite telling. I would think that our body knows the best. Nutrition must be understood in the light of Evolution, otherwise it will lead to junk. All traditional foods are high in SFA and MUFA. The PUFA are always very low.

So take care to keep your total PUFA very low.

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

Bris

"Kurt most of the aspects of the SAD Diet have been around for 10,000 years."

Definitely not - only the wheat. Substantial quantities of refined sugar is 200 years old, the linoleic acid about 50.

"The reality is that most westerners are already quite well adapted to a SAD Diet as long as they are reasonably active and don't overeat. People were still slim in the 1940s when the SAD was becoming widespread."

As a physician with 20 years experience this is totally at odds with my observations. Westerners had at least an order of magnitude more cancer than the Inuit and other modern primitives long before the obesity epidemic. The fact that the Pima are particularly intolerant of carbs does not make excess carbs healthy for those more tolerant. Infection is not a genetic disease just become some are more resistant genetically than others. Celiac disease (with IGA) can only occur in 30% of the population, but it is caused by wheat. If you don't eat wheat, you don't get it, regardless of your genes.

"Most middle class Australians now eat a diet that is far more nutritious than they were 50 years ago. In fact the modern middle class Australian diet is probably at least as healthy as the Okinawan Diet. Despite this Australia has one of the highest levels of obesity in the world."

This is absurd on its face. You believe the inactivity trope? Define nutritious.

"There are also many lifestyle-induced induced fertility problems such as polycystic ovary syndrome that requite medical intervention to allow pregnancy."

PCOD is caused by chronic hyperinsulinemia from high fructose and carb consumption. It disappears on low carb eating, directly refuting your "genetics" theory. PCOD is not common enough in the obese to affect fertility rates in lower socioeconomic strata. Ask any OB-Gyn how many of the mothers are thin.

"The extremely obese have far fewer children than average."

I do not believe this to be true at all (unless you are being facetious and talking about BMIs of 50 or so) and if it were it in no way refutes my assertion that there is no net reproductive selection pressure against the population eating the SAD.

You have a peculiar form of confirmation bias going on here - you are sold on the unsupportable theory that differences in health are all genetic, and we can rapidly adapt to metabolically radical shifts in diet over trivially short timescales. Yet the facts you quote to support these theories are not even true, and you don't even have an understanding of natural selection that allows you to give a valid mechanism for the selection pressure you assert wihout evidence exists.

The fact that celiac disease, which can easily make you sick enough to affect fertility is still common in IRAN where they have been eating wheat the longest, makes your speculations about the SAD in the future groundless.

Your entire metabolism would have to change for 9% of calories from linoleic acid to become healthy - you are changing the very structure of your cell walls from what it has been over many millions of years in mammalian ancestors. Whole new enzyme pathways would have to come into being to adapt to 6:3 ratios of 15:1 that have never been experienced by hominids ever before.

The changes of the SAD are much more profound than lactose intolerance or even susceptibility to fructose induced insulin sensitivity. You do not understand molecular evolution well enough or you would not cling to the genetic trope.

Melchior Meijer said...

Gunther,

I think there is some evidence that western Europeans and north Americans are better adapted to the SAD than recent hunter gatherers. When Dutch colonists invaded Indonesia, the 'privileged' Indonesians who adopted the Dutch diet, quickly developed diabetes and CHD, to a larger extend than the Dutch. This was and is of course blamed on the 'high' amounts of saturated fat, dairy and meat in the rich Dutch diet, while in fact their declining health was probably due to the relatively massive amounts of wheat and sugar (they had no vegetable oil back then, as far as I know).

A more recent example is Nauru. Thirty years ago, the Nauru were perfectly healthy hunter-gatherers (fishermen). Almost overnight they became very 'wealthy', because of extensive mining. They started eating 'Australian'. Within a decade or so, half of the 30-year olds were diabetic. The island turned from paradise into hell. Local doctors are now specialized in amputations. They have a constant lack of dialysis capacity.

The current Nauru diet is bad for us and even worse for the Nauru, is the only conclusion I can take. It's probably a gliding scale, but we all would do best on a reasonably nutritious diet without fysiologically crazy amounts of fructose, n-6 and gluten/WGA.

By the way, the disruption of the typical HG-social structure which almost always accompanies the introduction of a 'western' diet, is a confounder that no one ever looks at. There is a direct and biologically hard relationship between social dislocation and coronary heart disease. Prolongued social stress leads to a dysfunctional HPA-axis, leads to subclinical Cushing's disease, leads to metabolic syndrome, leads to CHD. Primates can kill each other with their brains and humans are champions in this nasty game.

Robert Andrew Brown said...

Kurt G Harris MD said

"Your entire metabolism would have to change for 9% of calories from linoleic acid to become healthy - you are changing the very structure of your cell walls from what it has been over many millions of years in mammalian ancestors."

To paraphrase from memory Crawford and Marsh fats come hand in hand with oxygen in evolutionary terms. DHA is central to the very existence of the brain and nervous system.

Omega 6 in a different way is equally fundamental.

gunther gatherer said...

I have to agree with Kurt above about Bris's assertions. They are based in a lot of semi-understandings of complex mechanisms.

Stephen, please don't be sidetracked by this "non-argument" about evolution and/or adaptation. I'd be grateful to hear any ideas you have about why the Kitavans and other HGs are not affected by high lectin intake.

Is it the kind of lectin that matters? The form ingested? The preparation? Or perhaps the Kitavans actually are affected but there is another protective factor in their lifestyle?

Melchior Meijer said...

Gunther Gatherer, the Kitavans don't eat wheat, don't get our massive amounts of fructose and don't get our massive amounts of linoleic acid.

All 'western' diseases follow the introducton of wheat. Gluten/WGA are the plant compounds most closely associated with molecular mimmickry. The Kitavans don't eat them.

I think it's too easy to rudely dismiss Bris' ideas about adaptation. In fact, Staffan Lindeberg offers the tantalizing theory that our relative immunity to hyperinsulinaemia and diabetes type 2 (I say relative immunity) has to do with our recently evolved capacity to digest lactose.

Andrew Dunbar said...

Gunther:

I'm an Australian. I can assure you from first hand experience that Westerners have vastly better tolerance of a SAD than Aborigines and Polynesians.

There are tens of thousands of Poylnesians in Australia from all over the Pacific - at least 80% of males are (morbidly) obese and 90% of females are (morbidly) obese.

Aborigines have a life expectancy 20 years less than Europeans and have far higher rates of every lifestyle disease including diabetes, kidney disease, CVD, and obesity than Europeans. Most aborigines are city dwellers who live a virtually identical lifestyle to Europeans.

gunther gatherer said...

Melchior, I agree that in the context of the Kitavan's otherwise healthy diet and daily activity levels, lectins will affect them much less.

Any assertions about possible adaptation to modern foods in the last 200 generations are still not grounded in any fact, however. They are just sounding like heresay, opinion, anecdotes and malinterpretations of badly-controlled studies by those who have a specific agenda or want to sell books.

I also agree with you about social factors and stress and also environmental toxins being a confounding factor. It's hard to compare health between humans leading such vastly different ways of life. Maybe isolating lectins as a cause for anything isn't so useful in that context, but since we're all here and committed to learning more about this, I'll say I'm still curious and the question is still interesting.

Bris said...

Kurt:

I have a postgraduate research degree in biotechnology, a Master's in exercise science (an MSc degree in Australia is a higher qualification than a US MS degree). I also have 20 years experience as a food scientist. I have at least as much (and probably far more) understanding of genetics, nutrition and exercise physiology than you. However I don't consider everyone who has a different opinion to be an ignorant moron.

I have never claimed that all differences are due to genetics. However they are very important. An Inuit is going to have far more health problems than an Okinawan on a high carbohydrate grain-based diet.

Middle class Australians typically eat a hybrid diet with very strong elements of both Mediterranean and Asian cuisines. The diet is high in fibre, contains a great deal of fresh vegetables, whole grains and fruit. This diet contains far less carbohydrates, far more protein, more animal fats and probably more vitamins and minerals than a traditional Okinawan diet. The main problem is a fairly low omega 3 content. Australians work the longest hours of any western country and we are chronically sleep-deprived and mostly sedentary.

You are obviously completely unaware of the thousands of scientific papers showing that physical activity prevents or substantially reduces virtually all lifestyles diseases.

Celiac Disease isn't common in Iran at all. The incidence is less than 1/7th that of northern Europe.
Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2008 July; 14(3): 135–138.
Prevalence of Celiac Disease in Shiraz, Southern Iran
doi: 10.4103/1319-3767.41732.

Iranians are of Indo-European not Middle Eastern origin so they are very likely less adapted to grain based diet than their neighbours.

In fact there is ample evidence of mammals that have adapted to a radically different diet to their closest relatives. Polar Bears are a subspecies of Brown Bear that have only existed for 200,00 years. Gelada baboons are purely grass eaters that have virtually identical physiology and anatomy to all other frugo-instectivore baboons.

Melchior Meijer said...

Gunther,

Thanks for explaining your point. I do think your question regarding different lectins is highly relevant, but the available evidence seems to point out wheat toxins as especially noxious. From reading Lindeberg, Guyenet, Peter, et al ;-) I get the strong impression that wheat should be one of the main suspects in many diseases. Fructose, n-6, lack of vitamin D, chronic stress and maybe even lactose can all accomplish their own metabolic evils, but, to parafrase Walter Willet, when it comes to diseases of civilization, wheat seems to be present as a spider in the web.

I also agree that we should probably not use genetics as an explanation for everything. In this respect I disagree with Bris (or I misunderstood him). As I said, there’s probably a gliding scale regarding disease susceptibility, but what ’s detrimental to an aboriginee is almost certainly neither good for us.

Bris said...

Melchior:
By the way, the disruption of the typical HG-social structure which almost always accompanies the introduction of a 'western' diet, is a confounder that no one ever looks at.

I agree 100%. The only Kitavin ever to get to get CHD was the one who left the island.

Malcolm Kendrick has always argued that stress is a far greater factor in heart attacks than diet.

The Mediterranean Diet no longer seems to provide protection against heart disease for urban Greeks. This is presumably because it was the low-stress and physically active rural life that protected against heart disease not the diet.

I few years ago I lived in a suburb of Brisbane Australia comprised mostly of elderly Greek migrants who had migrated in the 1950-60s. There were very few old men and the women were all quite fat. This is despite an abundance of cheap traditional Greek foods in the shops. Many people grew traditional Greek vegetables.

The subtropical Brisbane climate is even sunnier than Greece so there was no shortage of vitamin D.

I suspect that these Greek migrants had suffered quite severe psychosocial stress which had killed of the old Greek men.

Even more interesting was that their Australian born children and grandchildren looked far healthier despite a supposedly inferior diet. The Australian born Greeks were much taller and none had the bowed legs which were common in the people born in Greece.

Young Japanese also have far better physiques and much better teeth than their supposedly "healthier" grandparents. However the modern Japanese lifestyle is vastly more stressful than a traditional lifestyle.

Melchior Meijer said...

Bris,

Thanks for your interesting observations and for mentioning Malcolm Kendrick. I have translated Malcolm’s book into Dutch, so I am awfully biased regarding the stress hypothesis. Everytime I read him again, I think: ‘Yes, that’s the mechanism! Why look any further than the Autonomic Nervous System?’ I am utterly, utterly, utterly convinced that prolongued psychosocial stress, via HPA-axis dysfunction and hypercortisolaemia, directly leads to metabolic syndrome and heart disease. To deny this clear cut physiological cascade (read the book folks!), would be just plain stupid. His mechanism explains CHD-mortality in time and place and has predictive power. It’s simply true. Prolongued psychosocial stress (being subordinate) is sufficient to cause heart disease. But it might not be the whole story. All the things Stephan describes here, are extremely plausible too.

So, I’m as confused as ever ;-).

Bris said...

Kurt:

If exercise doesn't largely counteract a SAD diet how did virtually every elite athlete in the 70s and 80s manage? Nearly all athletes were then on 70-80% carbohydrate grain-based diets. Many of the best performers were vegetarians including Carl Lewis and Martina Navritilova. They were all living on high GI pasta, bread, potatoes, fruit and n-6 laden margarine. Meat, fish, and dairy were barely eaten.

MICHAEL PHELPS' DIET: (he won 14 gold and 2 bronze Olympic medals on it)
10,000 calories of the SADest diet imaginable.

Breakfast: Three fried egg sandwiches; cheese; tomatoes; lettuce; fried onions; mayonnaise; three chocolate-chip pancakes; five-egg omelette; three sugar-coated slices of French toast; bowl of grits; two cups of coffee

Lunch: Half-kilogram (one pound) of enriched pasta; two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayonnaise on white bread; energy drinks

Dinner: Half-kilogram of pasta, with carbonara sauce; large pizza; energy drinks


In the Tour de France cyclists still consume around 12,000 Cal/day. Their diet is 90% carbohydrates mostly in the form of liquid glucose drinks and high GI starchy foods. Outside competition thy still maintain a similar diet. They still manage resting heart rates ~40bpm, <8% body fat and a BMI of around 18.

Adam Smith mentioned the exceptional beauty of the Irish peasant women and superb physiques of the Irish peasant men who ate almost nothing except boiled potatoes and bread.

Dr RL Cleave observed that rural Zulu cane cutters had few health problems on a 90% carbohydrate diet containing large amounts of of sugar cane juice.

The I9th century Zulu warriors were the most formidable fighting force in Africa despite eating little but starchy grain porridges and watery beer. They would run 50 miles(80km) in a day and fight a battle before running home again. However once the Zulu men were no longer warriors they quickly became very fat and many of the relatively sedentary Zulu women were extraordinarily obese.

Thackray said...

@Robert Andrew Brown

Mary Enig and Arachidonic acid. Here are two links:

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/tripping.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/smartfats.html

Or search “Arachidonic” at the Weston A Price website.

She is clearly no fan of Dr. Sears.

Philip Thackray

Thackray said...

@Robert Andrew Brown
Blogger is killing my links:
www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/tripping.html
www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/smartfats.html

Philip Thackray

Bris said...

Melchior:

Why look any further than the Autonomic Nervous System?’ I am utterly, utterly, utterly convinced that prolonged psychosocial stress, via HPA-axis dysfunction and hypercortisolaemia, directly leads to metabolic syndrome and heart disease.

When I was about five years old I had some pet mice. One day I was playing with one of the mice. My labrador dog came up to me and I held the mouse in front of the dog. To my shock the mouse immediately died even the the dog didn't touch it. The stress must have been so overwhelming that the poor mouse suffered either an arrhythmia or possibly a stroke.

I have read research that shows obese poor people actually consume similar amounts of calories and similar amounts of protein, fat and carbohydrate to wealthier people of average weight. The poor of course suffer much more stress.

It is also obvious that ambitious men with aggressive personalities are frequently obese and have high rates of heart disease.

Bris said...

Thackray:
She is clearly no fan of Dr. Sears.

One of many I suspect.

LeenaS said...

@Bris, on athletes

There is a marked difference if you compare a highly selected set of naturally talented excercirers (which became sports athletes) or if you look at whole nations. We are still talking about statistical issues - and a "tolerant" sugar metabolism may be quite essential for a westener to get to that career.

Besides, if Ive seen right, quite a few of the former mitoconrdiatic geniuses have not aged that well. At least not here...

Dave said...

It seems likely that there has been some degree of genetic adaptation since the advent of agriculture. The problem is, it still doesn't appear to be enough to counteract the effects of grains, sugars, etc; and I suspect that modern medicine will forestall much further adaptation given its ability to prolong reproductive fitness even in the face of significant biological insults.

We should also remember that elite athletes are probably "elite" because of their lucky genetic draw.

I think if you consider underlying hormomal effects and overall metabolic regulation, you can gain a more unified view of why apparently different phenomona (stress, exercise, diet) can have similar physiological effect.

@Bris, do you think whole grains are healthy? And if so, why?

Dave said...

BTW, here's an example showing exercise isn't the whole answer:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/08/05/guest-post-exercise-bologna/

Seth said...

Bris,
in that paper about CD word "incidence" isn't mentioned at all. I just hope you know the difference between incidence and prevalence. :)

As to exercise - you're talking about extremes. Elite athletes, Zulu warriors, tough-working peasants - all of them do/did extraodinary amount of exercise. Such amounts can and do work (your heart, joints and ligaments are going to complain once older though), there's no dispute there. What Kurt meant (or at least I interpreted it in that way) is that lack of exercise is not the cause of SAD-related syndromes/problems/diseases. As a counterexample most obese/overweight people in Central Europe are those with higher than normal physical activity levels (they mostly live in villages - they have large gardens, raise livestock, work as woodcutters, miners, etc.). Their staples are wheat, sugar, pork and sunflower oil. Their exercise isn't helping them much it seems given the fact that our region has very high diabetes prevalence and has one of the highest cardiovascular mortality rates in Europe.

What I do agree with Kurt is that we did not evolve tolerance to a high LA diet. Unlike mutations such as blue eyes, lactose tolerance, sickle-cell anemia, etc. which most of the time involve one single-nucleotide mutation or one gene duplication event, evolving metabolic pathways to handle large amounts for us evidently toxic LA is a completely different thing altogether. LA works at multiple levels and changing all of the involved pathways could not have happened in just a few generations (maybe only in a few lucky individuals and I doubt even that).

Melchior Meijer said...

Bris,

Being the typical testosteron driven type A male is actually protective as long as you are part of the leaders of the pack, according to giants like Kendrick, Marmot (the famous Whitehall Studies, author of ‘The Status Syndrome’) and Sapolsky (‘Why Zebra’s Don’t Get Ulcers’). It’s not ambition and work stress that kills us, but being ‘low rank’, having no real influence, being scoffed at, being discriminated, not feeling at home, etc. I hope Stephan (as a neuroscientist!) will post on this some nice day!

That said, I hope I have made it clear that I think wheat, linoleic acid, fructose, or any circumstance that induces insulin resistance, frequent bouts of hyperglycaemia/-insuliaemia etc, are probably highly problematic in the long run, regardless of HPA-axis function. Maybe these factors even partly play havoc by f*** up our nervous system. Have you carefully read the bible (I mean Gary Taubes’ masterpiece)?

About coeliac disease being rare in Iran: don't you think CD could be just the top of the iceberg? What if gluten don't destroy your gut wall, but in stead trigger an auto immune reaction in your arteries (Frostegard et al)? I say: no thanks. Again, look at the ancient Egyptians. No sugar, no plant oil, plenty of wheat and massive atherosclerosis and documented cases of sudden death.

toddhargrove said...

Bris,

Given your experience in studying the effects of exercise on health, what kind of exercise regime do you think is optimal? Resistance training, long slow aerobic training, short fast high intensity intervals, or a combination of all three?

Ashu said...

@ Melchior, interesting how you mention the Egyptians, their omega ratio shouldn't have been out of whack yet they were still experiencing atherosclerosis on a large scale.

Perhaps, Wheat could contribute to this, or possibly stress?

Lets not forget the French who consume a hefty amount of wheat but have a low CHD mortality however.

Stephan Guyenet said...

Andy,

There are a number of factors involved in atherosclerosis. LDL particle number is one factor, probably insofar as there are more particles floating around to be oxidized. LDL cholesterol is basically a crude measure of particle number, which is confounded by particle size. Yes, there is a correlation between LDL cholesterol and heart attack risk. But does carbohydrate lower LDL? Maybe, modestly if it replaces saturated fat (while also lowering HDL), but that hasn't always been consistent between studies. Fructose definitely increases LDL when consumed in excess. And there are probably other factors as well. So I don't see that as a challenge to the theory.

Gunther,

The Kitavans eat a diet that's high in starch. It's not sugar in the same sense as table sugar, which is half fructose. If you have a well-functioning pancreas and insulin-sensitive tissues, starch is no problem and probably does not lead to vascular damage, insulin resistance, etc.

About the lectin issue. Every food contains lectins, even animal foods. Your own tissues are full of natural lectins. The question is, what are the types and amounts of lectins? Starchy tubers are generally low in lectins after cooking and they have types of lectins that we co-evolved with. A lectin like gluten is dangerous because it's abundant, heat-resistant, digestion-resistant and immunogenic. White rice is a low-lectin food.

Bris, Kurt, Melchior, etc.

This has generated quite a discussion! Here's my two cents about the conversation. Many factors probably contribute to the incidence of infarction.

My feeling is that diet is a dominant factor, and I think there's a lot of evidence to support that view. But I think there's also good evidence to support a role for exercise.

As for psychological stress, it wouldn't surprise me if it contributed but it seems so hard to prove. I think Dr. Lindeberg tried to briefly address the stress issue in the Kitava study by remarking that the Kitavans were gripped by a constant fear of sorcery (true of many non-industrial cultures). But what that means exactly is hard to say.

The Tokelau Island Migrant study actually was half about psychosocial changes and the relationship with health etc. I skimmed that part, but I do remember seeing one graph that I believe correlated cortisol level with migration. Migrants had a higher level, but again, it's hard to interpret. Anthony Colpo had a chapter on stress in "The Great Cholesterol Con". I thought he made a pretty weak case. Not that it's not a factor, it's just that it seems very difficult to get any proof of it.

As far as genetics are concerned, you can see it either as irrelevant or very important, depending on your perspective. If you were to take 100 Americans and put them on the exact same poor-quality modern diet with no exercise, there would probably be a big difference in disease incidence between individuals, attributable to genetics. However, if you were to put those same 100 people on a pre-agricultural type of diet and give them plenty of exercise, there would probably be very little disease and thus no variation attributable to genetics.

This is illustrated by one of the "paleo" diet trials, in which insulin sensitivity changed from highly variable at the beginning of the trial, to very similar among all participants by the end. The standard deviation of insulin sensitivity decreased 9-fold.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/02/paleolithic-diet-clinical-trials-part.html

Genetics determines the degree of sensitivity to the harmful effects of the modern diet/lifestyle, and yes, people who have been exposed to some of those factors for thousands of years are probably partially adapted. But genetics goes out the window in the context of a healthy diet/lifestyle.

Dave said...

I would guess that susceptibility to oxidation is strongly related to the total surface are of LDL particles in the blood, since oxidation seems most likely to occur at the surface of the molecule.

Suppose we're comparing two particle sizes, and assume they're spherical. If the large particle has diameter which is X times larger than the small, then for the same total volume, the smaller particles have a total surface area X times larger than that of the large particles.

What are the relative sizes of small and large (I know it's a continuum, just wondering how they're classified).

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

Bris

"I have at least as much (and probably far more) understanding of genetics, nutrition and exercise physiology than you."

In the realm of genetics, evolutionary biology and nutrition your assertions make me doubt this. They are simply not grounded. My disagreement with you is based on your assertions and has nothing to do with whatever training you have.

"An Inuit is going to have far more health problems than an Okinawan on a high carbohydrate grain-based diet."

Don't you see the fallacy here? I am saying that most of the variance is not genetic, not that none of it is. Whether there is some difference in susceptibility if 70% of the variance in health paramaeters is environmental does not negate the greater importance of diet.

"The diet is high in fibre, contains a great deal of fresh vegetables, whole grains and fruit."

This is of course what the reigning paradigm tells us is healthy, but consider that it may not be. Read Taubes, for starters.

"You are obviously completely unaware of the thousands of scientific papers showing that physical activity prevents or substantially reduces virtually all lifestyles diseases."

I am completely unaware of such literature because there is none. It is very impressive how little effect exercise has on cancer, heart disease and longevity. The effect sizes in observational studies are tiny. There are no effect sizes in randomized trials because no intervention trial shows reduced deaths due to cancer or heart disease with exercise.

Do you think a 40% lifetime risk of cancer is our normal phenotypic expression? Are you actually claiming exercise prevents cancer? Please give references if you have them.

There is no doubt extreme levels of physical activity can mitigate high carb consumption and elements of metabolic syndrome. There is also no doubt that the same health parameters (HBA1c and fasting insulin) can be improved even more with zero exercise and a proper diet. I've seen no evidence that exercise mitigates cancer, gluten enteropathy, autoimmune disorders, alzheimers or any of the effects of increasing LA consumption from 1.5 to 9% of calories.

"Celiac Disease isn't common in Iran at all. The incidence is less than 1/7th that of northern Europe"

I'll use your very own reference - a prevalence rate of 0.5% as stated in this article is one half the rate of europe and the US. That is a rate of one person in 200 - that is still a very high rate. The authors even state that this is a low rate for Iran.

Here is a another study on Iranian celiac disease:

Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Nov;18(11):1181-6.

This study concluded with: "The minimum prevalence of gluten sensitivity among the general population of northern and southern Iran is 1:104."

So 1% prevalence, which is the same as europe and north america, for a disease that may affect fecundity as it is quite serious.

When you say things like "1/7th the prevalence of northern europe" , when the rate is actually the same or perhaps regionally 1/2, I feel justified in saying you do not understand what you are talking about, regardless of your training.

Another study says the following:

"It has been until relatively recently hypothesised that wheat consumption exerted a negative selective pressure on genes predisposing to coeliac disease, eventually leading to higher coeliac disease frequency in Northeastern Europe because of lack of exposure to cereals. This theory is at variance with recent studies showing that coeliac disease is as common in Middle Eastern countries as in Europe."

Dig Liver Dis. 2004 Oct;36(10):694-7.


You said:

"In fact there is ample evidence of mammals that have adapted to a radically different diet to their closest relatives. Polar Bears are a subspecies of Brown Bear that have only existed for 200,00 years. "
Good grief! 5000 years is 2.5% of the amount of time to evolve as allowed by 200,000 years.

200,000 - long time to evolve

5,000 - not a long time

Ashu said...

IMO Cardiorespiratory Fitness is probably the biggest factor for Heart Disease regardless of diet.

Adolfo David said...

Stephan, you said you dont recommend supplement alpha tocopherol, but I think risk people should supplement gamma tocopherol.

Fitness unhealthy?!

Ed said...

Wow, lots of comments.

I'd like to boil this down to a couple of points for my friends & family. I'm going to summarize in a few words, I'd really appreciate feedback from Stephan and the commenters here on this. This is targeted at a 6th-8th grade audience (aka the general public or a semi-interested co-worker at lunch.)

Here goes.

Everyone "knows" that LDL causes heart disease, right? Here's how it actually works. Some LDL particles can get oxidized. When they're oxidized, they are damaged, and the damaged cells can then damage your arteries. Also, your immune system kicks in to try and clean up the oxidized LDL particle. When an immune system worker eats an oxidized LDL particle, it like explodes into a foam particle that then coats your arteries and this is the arterial plaque we all know about.

So obviously oxidized LDL is really bad, right? What causes LDL particles to oxidize?

First of all, if the LDL is made up of more polyunsaturated fats, then it is more likely to oxidize. Saturated fats can't oxidize, they're "safe." Poly-unsaturated fats are the worst, they are very unstable and easy to oxidize. So if your LDL is made up of a lot of poly-unsaturated fats, then they're more likely to oxidize and damage your heart.

Eating more poly-unsaturated fat makes your LDLs more poly-unsaturated. So there's a direct mechanical link between eating vegetable oils -- soy, corn, safflower, sunflower -- and cardio damage. Those oils are 50% polyunsaturated. You should try to keep polyunsaturated fats down to 2 grams/day or less. Think of it this way. Frito-Lays potato chips, 1 ounce, has 10 grams of fat. They are made with corn or sunflower oil. That means 1 ounce of those potato chips has 5 grams of polyunsaturated fats. So you can eat one bag every 2.5 days or so to keep your polyunsaturated fat at 2 grams/day, if you don't eat ANYTHING else that has vegetable oils in them. Restaurants fry almost all of their food in vegetable oils -- ask them, they're proud of the fact. So fried food from restaurants is out. Restaurants also usually use mass-produced salad dressings made of -- you guessed it -- vegetable oils. So they're out, along with 95% of the salad dressings you can buy off the shelf at the supermarket. The oils that have the least polyunsaturated fat are canola and olive oil. Ask your waiter if their salad dressing is made with one or both of those.

So we know that vegetable oils causes your LDL particles to be susceptible to oxidizing. The other half is, what causes them to oxidize. Fructose is a huge player here. Fructose is half of sugar. I don't know how exactly, but if you eat too much fructose, it does a bunch of nasty things in your body. Basically, 20 grams of fructose/day seems to be OK, above that and the problems increase somewhat proportionally to how much you eat. More is worse. Less is better.

To put that into perspective, one "small" Coca Cola Classic at Burger King has 41 grams of sugar. Remember fructose is 50% of sugar. So you can drink one small coke a day from Burger King to get your 20 grams of fructose, and absolutely zero sugar from anything else.

A medium apple is 16 grams sugar, or about 8 grams fructose. 2.5 apples a day is your limit!

An "Original size" Orange Berry Blitz from Jamba Juice is 93 grams sugar, or 46 grams fructose. Yikes!

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that sugar and vegetable oils are things we've only been consuming very much of in the last couple of hundred years. We had been eating lots of animal fats and vegetables, and a limited amount of fruit (we couldn't ship them from Argentina all year round). So this really makes sense as to why the modern diet is killing us. Even more ironic that the "prudent" diet which emphasizes vegetable oils is really a step in what kills you.

Adolfo David said...

Ed, Omega 3 are also PUFA and even more then 2 grams/day of W3 are good for heart with a minimum lipid-antioxidant intake. I dislike to consider all PUFA the same because they clearly dont.

Bris said...

AGE
Volume 28, Number 4 / December, 2006
Genetic determinants of exceptional human longevity: insights from the Okinawa Centenarian Study

Genetic studies on the Okinawan population suggest that Okinawans are a genetically distinct group that has several characteristics of a founder population, including less genetic diversity, and clustering of specific gene variants, some of which may be related to longevity.

Chandler said...

Adolfo David,

"Omega 3 are also PUFA and even more then 2 grams/day of W3 are good for heart with a minimum lipid-antioxidant intake."

Omega-3 are good when the diet contains a large amount of Omega-6s, however this is more a result of flooding the system to compete for uptake. Additionally, I'm not aware of any research on the effects of adding w3s to a diet that is already low in w6 (and high in sat-fat) regarding CVD/cancer/etc.

If you know of any please respond.

Adolfo David said...

Chandler,

Omega 3 fats work better when Low Omega 6 is present

http://omega-6-omega-3-balance.omegaoptimize.com/2009/03/06/capping-omega6-fat-helps-effectivness-of-omega3-supplements.aspx

Also, Omega 3 DHA is critical for cognitive function, independent of your intake of Omega 6. Everybody should consider an Omega 3 EPA DHA supplement from childhood, but it's true higher Omega 6 or higher carbs intake demand more Omega 3 intake.

Bris said...

Kurt:
Good grief! 5000 years is 2.5% of the amount of time to evolve as allowed by 200,000 years.

200,000 - long time to evolve

5,000 - not a long time


This comment shows you total inability to understand even the most basic underlying principles of genetics. Have you ever heard of Puntuated Equilibria? What counts isn't timebut the selection pressure and the rate of mutation.

Extreme selection pressures cause a very rapid changes in the underlying population genetics. It took only 20 generations for every rabbit in Australia to become totally immune to the myxoma virus. The initial mortality rate was >98% but the surviving rabbits simply created a new myxoma immume population. The high fecundity of rabbits meant that their were just as many rabbit as before in 20 years.

It didn't take 200,000 years for Polar Bears to evolve. It required nothing more than a single mutation to change them from brown to white opening up a whole new ecological niche as ice hunters. So we went from brown bear to a proto-Polar bear in one generation. It took nothing more than a handful of other random mutations to create the modern polar bear. The extremely powerful selection pressure ensured that any advantageous mutation became common very quickly.

Each isolated human population such as the Okinawans and Kitavans is descended from no more more than a handful of people. The entire Maori population of New Zealand can be traced to 42 individuals who arrived there 1000 years ago. So all populations are to an extent quite genetically unique.

Adolfo David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adolfo David said...

Also, Omega 3 improves insulin sensitivity independent from your Omega 6 intake.

Omega 3 is an essential nutrient for the body, although you never consume almost Omega 6 (but you need some Omega 6 at least for making eicodanoids). Its surprising for me most of all you know a lot about saturated fats but have a little odd ideas about Omega 3.

Omega 3 improves bone health because they avoid calcium lost and Omega 3 DHA is essential for your eyes independent from your Omega 6 intake

www.omega-research.com

I recommend you to read for example

The RxOmega Zone by Dr Sears
or
Fish Oil, the natural anti inflammatory by Dr Maroon

Adolfo David said...

http://www.amazon.com/Omega-Rx-Zone-Miracle-High-Dose/dp/0060741864/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250038556&sr=1-1

Chandler said...

Stephan,

"Genetics determines the degree of sensitivity to the harmful effects of the modern diet/lifestyle, and yes, people who have been exposed to some of those factors for thousands of years are probably partially adapted. But genetics goes out the window in the context of a healthy diet/lifestyle."

It seems to me that adaptation towards fructose/gluten/PUFA (or any other poison-du-jour) is only relevant if the population is at a halfway point to where there exists no ideal diet/lifestyle to fall back on (i.e., the partial adaptation resulted in an inability to partake in the species' ideal "template").

When looking at the macro-nutrient profile of a (randomly chosen by me) muscle meat, for example, it's 1:1:1 saturated, monunsaturated, and protein. This brings up a question in my mind, namely: what happens to protein once the essential amino acids are accounted for? Is the excess mostly broken down into glucose?

Relating back to the topic of genetic susceptibility/malleability, how would we classify the Kitivans--are they be an example of humans having been isolated long enough to adapt to whatever's available, or are they simply thriving on a meat analogue?

Bris said...

AGE
Volume 28, Number 4 / December, 2006
Centenarians and other Exceptional Survivors as Models for Research on Aging

Do personality characteristics predict longevity? Findings from the Tokyo Centenarian Study

These results suggest that high scores in the specific personality traits conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness, are associated with longevity. We speculate that these personality traits contribute to longevity through health-related behavior, stress reduction, and adaptation to the challenging problems of the “oldest old”.


AGE
Volume 28, Number 4 / December, 2006
Personality and longevity: findings from the Georgia Centenarian Study

Among Centenarians, the personality configuration of low Neuroticism, high Competence, and high Extraversion traits is over-represented relative to chance. The results confirm that centenarians show several unique single traits, but that a special combination of traits (i.e., low levels of Neuroticism, high Competence, and high Extraversion) are also notable in this group of exceptional survivors.

Bris said...

Adolpho:
This brings up a question in my mind, namely: what happens to protein once the essential amino acids are accounted for? Is the excess mostly broken down into glucose?

Some of the protein is converted to glucose. Some amino acids are used to produce and repair cells and some are directly used as fuel. The rest are broken down to nitrogen-rich compounds and expelled in the urine.

Ammonia is a toxic byproduct of gluconeogenesis. This is why HG diets have only about 20% protein.

Chandler said...

Adolfo David,

"Omega 3 is an essential nutrient for the body, although you never consume almost Omega 6 (but you need some Omega 6 at least for making eicodanoids). Its surprising for me most of all you know a lot about saturated fats but have a little odd ideas about Omega 3."

I'm not questioning that w3s are essential; I'm just not confident as to whether supplementation is necessary in otherwise healthy individuals.

Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, after glancing through the omega-research link you provided (it will take me longer to actually digest the information properly), the following comes to mind:

Link Was the enriched formula iso-caloric? What is the composition of standard EN formula? What was the w6 dietary composition in the months leading up to the study? Etc.

Link Rat study; if melatonin operates via similar or identical pathways, what advantage does w3 supplementation provide?

Link Rat study; "DHA appears to act by reducing leukocytosis..." so DHA reduces the white-blood cell count: promising for patients dealing with leukocytosis, but what about those of us not dealing with dangerously overactive immune systems?

Link This one had the winning quotes "...ambiguity over the safety of n-3 PUFAs..." and "...it appears that n-3 PUFAs may be of use..." ("appears" & "may" don't exactly inspire confidence).

Again, it will take me some time to absorb/process the information you provided on w3s, however, my current stance is that in the absence of abnormal inflammation, w3 supplementation doesn't seem to have any particularly compelling benefits (and, in light of its immuno-modulatory & oxidative tendencies, it doesn't seem to be a benign additive).

Chandler said...

Also,

This link that you provided only confirms that Omega 3s compete with Omega 6s for uptake into the body (which I'm not questioning). Although the summary mentions asthma research, study doesn't really address what effect w3 has on health brought about by supplementation.

Bris,

"...The rest are broken down to nitrogen-rich compounds and expelled in the urine..."

Thanks; I think I need to read up on what regulates and drives the conversion of fats/proteins/sugars within the body, as well as what the known byproducts (and inputs) are for these mechanisms.

Bris said...

Chandler:
Relating back to the topic of genetic susceptibility/malleability, how would we classify the Kitivans--are they be an example of humans having been isolated long enough to adapt to whatever's available, or are they simply thriving on a meat analogue?

Both.

Humans are omnivores. They need nutrients not foods. As long as they get all the required basic nutrients they will survive. The body can produce most of it's basic needs such as saturated fats, non-essential amino acids and glucose. For example a diet of just milk and potatoes will provide all essential nutrients if eaten in large quantities.

Over a long period there will be a significant genetic adaptation in isolated populations to whatever food sources are available.

Isolated populations of animals often adapt to eating otherwise toxic plants or a different type of food. North Ronaldsay sheep from the Orkney Islands in Scotland live almost entirely on seaweed.

Bris said...

Ed:

Journal of Comparative Physiology B: Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology
Volume 179, Number 1 / January, 2009

Lessons from comparative physiology: could uric acid represent a physiologic alarm signal gone awry in western society?

In this paper, we present the hypothesis that uric acid has a key role in the foraging response associated with starvation and fasting. We further suggest that there is a complex interplay between fructose, uric acid and vitamin C, with fructose and uric acid stimulating the foraging response and vitamin C countering this response.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c30p121lk16p6016/fulltext.pdf

Ashu said...

Bris,

Fructose is the devil.

That is all.

Melchior Meijer said...

Stephan,

Your ability to disentangle and wrap up complicated stuff is amazing. Thanks.

Ashu,

Thanks for pointing to the conundrum of the wheat eating French, which is torturing me too, at least in times when my gluten/WGA bias is very strong. If wheat is an important factor in CHD, then I see two possible explanations.

1. Wheat may be not such a big part of the French diet, because they eat many different high quality foods (especially animal products high in saturated fat) and because their fluffy bread is very light and contains relatively little flour per volume. From what I've seen, it serves mainly as a carrier for their irresistable cheeses.

2. Coronary Heart Disease is by no means uncommon in France. Although CHD-mortality is relatively low, the disease is endemic there too. The question is: would CHD disappear if they would eliminate wheat? We will never know. As far as I have seen, the few populations that were documented CHD-free, were wheat free as well.

Another interesting paradox in this respect are the north American Pima. They are massively insulin resistant, they are plagued by diabetes, but their CHD rate is about one third that of the rest of the USA. Malcolm Kendrick says it's because of their relatively healthy Autonimc Nervous System (low stress levels) as confirmed by Heart Rate Variability measusres (HRV is a very accurate mirror of autonomic function and one of the best predictors of impending doom, especially coronary disasters and nasty arrythmia's). Very plausible, but I would like to know if the Pima still mainly live on non gluten containing) corn, like they did before.

Regarding the ancient Egyptians: I have been digging a bit lately and found out that they probably did eat vegetable oils and sugar (glucose/fructose). They pressed oil seeds and cultivated honey. So they probably had the 'ideal' diet that the AHA and ADA promote today to keep in business ;-).

gunther gatherer said...

To everyone still interested in tubers vs. fat in Kitavans:

Peter at Hyperlipid has just put up a post with a novel idea that could explain why Kitavans eating mostly starch don't get obese or insulin-related ailments.

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/

Though in no way whatsoever am I advocating smoking as a cure-all...

Robert Andrew Brown said...

Chandler

You said in ref to Omega 3s "immuno-modulatory & oxidative tendencies"

The role of Omega three in the immune system is much more complex than simply the eicosanoids cascades.

If you have more Omega 3s in the system the oxidation of them is going to trigger the production of a greater number of Omega three anti-inflammatory chemicals like the resolvins and protectins.

On intake levels this is a very useful paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16841858

Omega 3 Fatty Acids in Clinical NUtrition Heller Stehr and Koch is highly thought provoking.

this is a quote from the summary in their book " Supplementation with Omega 3 FA improves survival and accessories recovery. These substantial effects were shown in different diseases to a variable extent. According to the most recent recommendations we found Omega 3 FA any to be a valuable nutritional additive to improve outcome in patients with peritonitis trauma abdominal SIRS and sepsis but also to reduce infections and complication rates in post-operative patients."

Bris said...

Melchior. The ancient Egyptians produced sugar from beets and ate vegetable oils and lots of wheat. They had very poor health.

Adolfo David said...

Thanks Robert. Everybody should supplement Omega 3.

Very interesting:
www.coolinginflammation.blogspot.com

Ashu said...

Melch,

you said:

"The question is: would CHD disappear if they would eliminate wheat? We will never know."

A far better question is: would CHD disappear if they stopped smoking and increased their activity rates?

you said:

"As far as I have seen, the few populations that were documented CHD-free, were wheat free as well."

Correlation does not imply causation, simply because populations that are CHD free are wheat free doesn't mean wheat causes heart disease.

Those populations were also free of vegetable oils screwing up their omega 6/3 ratio, which has far more scientific literature backing up it's potentially harmful effects rather than wheat consumption.

Let's not forget the regular exercise they most definitely got in.

Melchior Meijer said...

Ashu,

Ehh... yeah, thanks. That is kind of clear to me. All these wonderful discussions are actually about trying to isolate causative factors in the mess of associatons.

CHD would definitely not disappear if they stopped smoking, nor would it go away if they all would participate in the Tour de France.

Ashu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ashu said...

Melchor,

You can say with your own sense of certainty that CHD would not disappear if they stopped smoking and increased their activity rates, yet you wonder if wheat was eliminated would they be free of CHD?

How delusional.

Adolfo David said...

Greek population has lower Coronary Heart Disease than French people and Greeks eat more monounsaturated and Omega 3 fats and less saturated fats than Frenchs.

I am reading latest Dr Michael Murray book, 'What the drug companies wont tell you and your doctor doesnt know' (possible the best book i have read this year), in chapter 7, EXPLOITING THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH he criticizes a lot the myth of cholesterol lowering drugs. But in his final recommendations he recommends Omega 3 and monounsaturated fats while reducing trans fats and saturated fats (he proposes more plants and less animals).

Anyway, this book is terrific (also recommended by Dr Andrew Weil) about drug lies and natural self healing.

Ashu said...

Adolfo,

Do you have any citations for the claims that Greeks currently eat more omega 3 and monounsaturated fat, and less saturated fat than the French and have a lower rate of CHD?

LeenaS said...

@Adolfo David:

I wonder if the ones referring to greeks (Sears included) remember, that the land there has always been able to support sheep, even if cow's pastures were scarce?

So, no wonder that the Greeks have traditionally been huge consumers of full fat cheese. Thanks to this, even now they are among the biggest butterfat consumers in the world, although still championed by the French. (Alas, the sickly Finns have fallen in that list, trying to get well with canola and rye...)

As to Dr Sears, I respect him much for introducing carb restrictions to myself and my fammily 9 years ago. However, our present style of eating (high in milkfat, egg yolks and broths) is even better for my imflamation-prone genes.

Regards,
LeenaS

Bris said...

Peter at Hyperlipid has just put up a post with a novel idea that could explain why Kitavans eating mostly starch don't get obese or insulin-related ailments.

The Kitivans are almost certainly eating mostly low GI resistant-starch such as cassava and plantains which don't greatly effect blood glucose.

Kitivans would also have a a probiotic-rich gut flora which greatly reduces inflammation and some genetic adaptations to a high starch diet. The gut flora also provides energy as volatile fatty acids not glucose.

Kitivans are probably breast fed for 3-5 years. This is highly protective against many diseases and reduces adult obesity.

Kitivans probably eat most food of their food in one evening meal and fast 12-16 hours during the day. This greatly reduces the problems of a high carbohydrate diet as most of the glucose is stored as fat at night. Fat is then mobilised during the day for energy

Melchior Meijer said...

Ashu,

Thanks for your kind comment. It illustrates nicely what I meant with primates being champions in disrupting each others HPA-axes.

I'm affraid you are misunderstanding my point and I suspect you haven't read all the discussions before you fired. Smoking is definitively a bad idea if you have a western lifestyle. It is highly associated with almost every ailment in the medical encyclopedia, except Parkinson's disease (for which it is protective). However, the available observations (Kitava, Japan) strongly suggest that smoking is not enough to produce CHD -or, with great respect for Sir Richard Doll, even lung cancer - on a large scale. Smoking only seems to be a strong risk factor for these diseases in populations who simultaneously have a high intake of linoleic acid, sugar, wheat and the Lord knows what we are not aware of yet.

The same is true for exercise. Of course exercise is protective. If done right, it increases insulin sensitivity, improves endothelial function, etc, etc. But unfortunately, exercise is not enough to prevent CHD. Athletes and people doing havy fysical labour still suffer myocardial infarctions and sudden cardiac death, even if they do everything 'right'.

I am not saying that wheat consumption is the cause of CHD. I am observing that wheat consumption is one of the few factors that seems to be always present when CHD is endemic, while it seems to be always absent in populations without endemic CHD. It's a dog that isn't barking and therefore it hasn't been researched. Find me a non wheat consuming population that is riddled with CHD and you have effectively shattered my hypothesis. It is highly possible that you find one, but until then I consider wheat a serious suspect.

Seth said...

Bris,
everything you said is quite unfounded save for genetics.

Judging by their high levels of 16:0 in blood lipids yet eating virtually none (see Peter's blog for ref) they are probably eating a very high GI diet. Resistant starch makes at most 10% of the starch content as far as I know (if wrong feel free to correct me). I do not know if that is clinically significant.

Are they really breastfed for 3-5 years? Is a long breastfeeding period protective for Kitavans?

Do they really have a probiotic-rich gutflora? If so, is this clinically significant? Does such gutflora really reduce whole-body inflammation on a consistent basis?

Genetics - sure, maybe. As for eating frequency I read somewhere (I really do not remember where) that Kitavans most of the time eat 3 squares a day. Maybe someone might shed some light into this?

Bris said...

Seth:

Are they really breastfed for 3-5 years? Is a long breastfeeding period protective for Kitavans?

This is the norm in the region. Breast feeding is highly protective against later developing many lifestyle diseases .

Resistant starch makes at most 10% of the starch content as far as I know (if wrong feel free to correct me). I do not know if that is clinically significant.

Cassava is a staple food of Melanesia and is over 75% resistant starch. So they probably have very few glucose spikes. Sweet potatoes, plantains and green bananas - all very popular foods in the region also have very high levels of resistant starch and dietary fibre.

Do they really have a probiotic-rich gutflora? If so, is this clinically significant? Does such gutflora really reduce whole-body inflammation on a consistent basis?

They would have extremely high levels of colonic fermentation and probiotic bacteria (and massive flatus) due to very high intake of resistant starch and soluble fibre. A significant amount of highly beneficial volatile fatty acids would be derived from this fermetation.

The gut is the largest immune organ and the gut flora has a huge influence on inflammation and general health.

Bris said...

Given your experience in studying the effects of exercise on health, what kind of exercise regime do you think is optimal? Resistance training, long slow aerobic training, short fast high intensity intervals, or a combination of all three?

All three. Something like the programme below would be ideal. I don't believe in a lot of training - it doesn't provide any extra health benefits (especially as you get older) and greatly increases injuries.

Suggestion:

- 60-90 minutes total each day moderate intensity (eg brisk walking). Several sessions of 15-30 minutes are also effective.

- One 15-30 minutes a week resistance training session.

- One 10-30 minutes high intensity or interval training a week (eg a 3km run as fast as possible or intervals on an exercise bike or crosstrainer)

Body by Science by Doug McGuff MD is an outstanding book but it is very heavy on scientific terminology. His training sessions take only 12 minutes a week. I do a similar routine with extremely good results.

Melchior Meijer said...

Bris,

I have read ‘Body by Science’ and I am impressed, but I have a hard time giving up my addiction to running, swimming and cycling. I need it to be able to function behind my desk. Instead, I added some of the excruciating weight exercises. Do you think daily endurance really is as bad in the long run as Doug McGuff says? Wouldn’t you feel lowsy before damage occurs?

Low-Joe said...

First of all, i'm german. So please forgive my awful english.

Bris

I can`t really imagine, that you still got an academic graduation.

You can still enumerate a lot of food with relatively high contents of resistant starch, but the Kitava didn't ate (& eat) them. They eat middle to high glycemic food, for example Yams and sweet potatoes. They prepare their food and didn't eat it raw (and they surely didn`t eat green bananas). So the content of resistant starch isn`t that high. Please show me the source for your comment, that the Kitava only eat one meal per day! That’s not true and I bet you couldn`t show a trustable source for that comment.

In your eyes, white rice (Japan) is surely a low glycemic food too? And of course (in your eyes) the Japanese also eat only one meal per day, right? You make the world to yourself like she fits you, but what`s with reality? That dosen`t matter?

If it is true, that the Kitava breastfed their children (babys) for 3-5 years, then they also get a higher content of carbohydrate in the first years too. The content of carbohydrate and fatty acids is determined by the food, and the Kitava eat a lot of carbohydrate! So what would you show with your statement?

On Peters Blog, where still everybody believes that low carb diets are the best choice, you can post what ever you want, but here count facts!

Low-Joe said...

I suffered seven years from crohns disease. Than I started a low carb diet with an extremely PUFA restriction (only 2-3% of calories, that`s relatively low for a high-fat-diet) for over two years. My fat-sources were butter and coconut oil. I eat organ meats, bone broth and gelatine, so that my tryptophan intake wasn’t that high. To the beginning everything was perfect, but with the years I noticed other problems on a high-fat, low-carb-diet. Crohns disease cured in that time. It is about a half a year ago, that I decided to eat C. Masterjohns way (low carb). In that period old symptoms (crohns disease) inflamed again. I was still on low carb but I reduced my fish intake (before I only eat lean fish but more often) and I eat 2-3 egg yolks a day (for the Vitamin A). So low carb wasn’t the key, it was the content of fatty acids in my diet, especially AA, Omega3 and Omega 6 (ratio). I’m gluten-free since 3 years and I suggest that’s also an important factor for the healing.

Nowadays (since the inflammation returned on low carb, which I believed was the perfect human diet) I’m eating potatoes, white rice, organ meats (especially liver), gelatine, a ½ tsp. cod liver oil (per day), lean fish (for example shrimps) butter and coconut oil and so on. My carb intake is about 35% of calories and the inflammation reduced to zero, so that I’m completely free of crohns disease.

At the end of low carb I suffered from other problems, but now they are gone. Low carb was my religion for over two years. I’m still eating a lot of saturated fat (only a minimum PUFA, with a good O3:O6 ratio) but also a higher carb content and everything is fine. Low carb alone couldn’t heal crohns disease, so it isn’t the key to reduce only the carbohydrate to an absolute minimum. Surely that counts for sugar and gluten but not for gluten-free carbs and so not for all carbs!

Bris said...

Low Joe:

I will state this very clearly. What the Okinawans, Kitivans and Cretans eats is essentially irrelevant. They are simply less susceptible to CHD and diabetes due to genetics, sunlight, low stress and physical activity.

What is very obvious is that traditional Greeks and Okinawans were much shorter than their modern counterparts. Okinawans had very poor teeth and very little muscle. This strongly suggests that both the traditional Okinawan and Cretan diets were actually quite poor quality and very deficient in protein.

Northern Europeans are indisputably more strongly genetically predisposed to heart disease, diabetes and a wide range of psychiatric illnesses than most other people. The fact that they don't exercise, eat wheat, don't get enough sunlight and are highly stressed simply increases the risk.

Eating a Mediterranean Diet won't stop a Finn or Scot from having a heart attack. It barely even protects New York Greeks from heart attacks. A Mediterranean Diet only works in a traditional Greek rural setting. This means that it is other lifestyle factors preventing heart disease - sun, physical activity and low stress.

We already have very powerful scientific evidence that physical activity, vitamin D and low stress levels greatly reduce diabetes, heart disease, mental illness and obesity.

Michael Phelps has won 16 Olympic medals on a 10,000 calorie/day diet of salt, sugar, n-6 and trans-fat laden junk food including pizza, cookies, high-sugar sports drinks and white bread. This again shows that high levels of physical activity massively reduces or eliminates the effects of a SAD.

Heart attacks became common around 100 years ago because people started doing far less physical activity.

No villager in Crete or Okinawa had a car 50 years ago. No Kitivan has a car today. Kitiva, Okinawa and Crete are sunny with low-stress lifestyles. That is why they didn't have heart attacks, diabetes or obesity. Okinawans and Cretans now have cars and stress. They now also have heart attacks, diabetes and obesity.

In fact it is blatantly obvious you can eat just about anything, do no exercise and not have a heart attack if you have the right genes.

TL Cleave said that rural Zulu cane cutters in South Africa had virtually no health problems despite eating a 90% carbohydrate diet and a lot of sugar cane. Sedentary city Zulus on a 81% carbohydrate diet (and probably less sunlight) had many health problems. The common factors here again are low stress, physical activity and sunshine.

The Masai have extremely severe atherosclerosis but don't have heart attacks. The common factor is again sunshine, physical activity and low stress levels.


The Traditional Inuits don't get much sun but they eat a lot of fat so they got a reasonable amount of vitamin D. They also avoided stress. Inuits also had a very physically active lifestyle except in winter.

So if you don't want a heart attack, diabetes or obesity you should avoid stress, choose your parents very carefully, be physically active and get lot's of vitamin D and don't be too concerned about your diet.

Adolfo David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TedHutchinson said...

@ Low-Joe
As you understand the inflammatory nature of Crohn’s disease I'm sure you will also have considered the anti-inflammatory role of Vitamin D3 but as this wasn't mentioned specifically may I draw your attention to
Crohn's disease: the hot hypothesis. that comes to the conclusion regular vitamin d supplementation, combined with sun (uvb) exposure and sun
vacations, may prove useful for people with Crohn’s disease.

Rather than take this thread further off topic I'll post a summary of the above HYPOTHESIS on my blog later this evening.

Bris said...

Low Joe:

I have Crohn's too. However I can't tolerate more than 20g/day of carbohydrate.

Crohn's Disease is now widely regarded as being due to a bacterial infection. Sheep and cattle suffer an almost identical disease called Johne's Disease caused by Mycobacterium paratuberculosis which can be spread by cow's milk. Antibiotic treatment is available but a cure is very difficult.

Gut 1992;33:890-896; doi:10.1136/gut.33.7.890
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis DNA in Crohn's disease tissue.

Dr Wolfgang Lutz treated 400 patients with Crohn's and ulcerative colitis using a low carbohydrate diet. He had a 96% success rate. However Crohn's symptoms nearly always eventually returned when more carbohydrate was introduced into the diet.

Omega 3 doesn't cure Crohn's Disease. Like prednisone fish oil simply reduces painful inflammation. It is the low carbohydrate diet that controls the infection. Increasing carbohydrate will most likely cause the symptoms to eventually reappear.

Bris said...

Ted:

I have Crohn's and live in one of the sunniest places in the world - Queensland Australia. High sun exposure reduces my symptoms slightly but nothing more.

Bris said...

Do you think daily endurance really is as bad in the long run as Doug McGuff says? Wouldn’t you feel lowsy before damage occurs?

I agree totally with McGuff.

The trouble is that endorphins mask the pain caused by running until irreversible and usually very painful damage has been done. I know a former triathlete and exercise fanatic aged about 40. He has worse arthritis than many 80 year old men.

A female friend trains twice a day at the gym and runs regularly. Other women I know who only train once or twice a week are just as fit, have better figures and are probably healthier. She also has knee damage and severe postural problems due to muscle imbalances.

TedHutchinson said...

@ Bris
Sun exposure does not always equate with high 25(OH)D status.
YouTube - Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma a section of this video discusses the problem of the OZONE LIP surrounding the antarctic ozone hole that prevents UVB penetration to ground level. Sun exposure in Australia is probably counterproductive. With the ozone lip together with widespread sunscreen use, Vitamin D deficiency is as rife in Australia as everywhere else, but particularly so amongst Australian Dermatologists.
Only when you've had a 25(OH)D test to confirm your status is above 50ng/mL can you be certain your body has stored D3 sufficient to deal with inflammation.

Low-Joe said...

Bris

Surely, all the points you've mentioned are very important but their are more. So Nutrition, which is the greatetest part.

I'm so sorry to hear that you suffer from crohns diseas. I know what that means. But I also know, that nutrition is the most important factor for health.

Since I can imagine, I’ve played football. So I’ m outside (sun) every day since my childhood. I’m very active, with body fat content of about 11%. At that time when crohn was diagnosed, I also run marathons (additional to my football training and matches). All these factors doesn’t protect me from crohn and so they won`t protect other people. At that time I had a very high calorie requirement. I ate also a lot of white bread and sugar (like phelps does). Phelps is so young, who knows what will be in a few years. I was also very fit but I developed a bad disease.

All studys, which Stephan discussed, show different results and the most important factor which makes the difference was (is) the nutrition.

A short example: A study which Stephan discussed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1502263 (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/skin-texture-cancer-and-dietary-fat.html) The same mice (gene), different diets and different results.
I know that this study has nothing to do with humans, but it shows, that the nutrition is a more important factor then you mentioned.

I’ve read a lot of books about nutrition, and my first one was Lutz (“Leben ohne Brot”). After reading this book I started low carb. But I didn’t followed all of his recommendations. As I said before, I reduced the PUFA intake and I took regard about the O3:O6 ratio. Although I’ve tried to reduce the intake of AA (beside the carb content) to an absolutely minimum. When I was low carb, I ate 500g butter (especially on training days) per day, because I’ve tried to stay active and therefore I needed a lot of calories. But that couldn’t protect me from a massive muscle loss. So it was a low carb diet without eggs, but it helped me to heal. When I started adding egg yolks back in my diet, all the inflammation came back. That was an absolute shock for me, but it opened my eyes. Lutz doesn’t imagine the whole role of fatty acids and the importance of the carb sources and so doesn’t Kwasniewski. For both, all carbs are the devil. But from my own experiences I can say, that this isn’t the truth!


@ TedHutchinson

I know about the important role of Vitamin D but I also know about the marshall protocol. In my eyes, Vitamin D is absolutely important, but that alone couldn’t protect me at all. In the winter months, I regularly consult a solarium (whit high UVB). Additional I always take a little cod liver oil (but truly a little, because I also eat fish) every day. So I would say, that you’re (and of course Bris, Stephan and many others) absolutely right about the chief role of Vitamin D (my own experiences stand against what the marshall protocol says). But it is only one part of the game.

Adolfo David said...

Low-Joe

solariums? UV rays age skin and they can cause melanome and carcinome. American Association of Dermatology recommends NO to obtain vitamin D from UV rays, outside or in solariums.

The healthies vitamin D sources are natural foods and vitamin D3 supplements (probably 1000 to 2000 IU daily ).

Ashu said...

Bris,

Can you show me the evidence where wheat consumption puts one at a higher risk of CHD?

Can you also explain how that would work?

Thanks.

Low-Joe said...

@ Adolfo David

I know about UV rays and the risk of melanomas. The risk is higher at high UVA rays , especially without enough UVB. So I’ve searched a long time for a solarium with a higher part of UVB rays. I went 1-2 the (only in winter) month on a low density solarium for about 10-12 minutes. Germany isn’t that sunny in the winter months, so I decided to take a little extra sun.

You are absolutely right, natural foods are the best choice.

Adolfo David said...

I live in Spain and I avoid always sun exposure, I use at summer a SPF 50 UVA UVB sunscreen with so high UVA protection (we in Europe have the best antiUVA ingredients, both Tinosorb M and S and both Mexoryl SX and XL). I take daily 1000 to 2000 IU of vitamina D3 , be well! :D

Stephan Guyenet said...

I'd like to clarify that the Kitavan diet has a high glycemic index and they do not fast for the majority of the day. The GI theory does not explain the health of the Kitavans, Africans, Asians or any other healthy high-carbohydrate culture. Genetics is also a poor explanation, which I'll be posting on soon.

The high glycemic index and glucose spikes are confirmed by the fact that their cholesterol esters are full of palmitic acid, despite the fact that their diet is low in palmitate. If their blood glucose was steady all day, they wouldn't have so much palmitate in their cholesterol esters.

Robert Andrew Brown said...

Low-Joe

Industrial eggs are high in Omega 6 AA and have an 10-20:1 Omega 3 :6 imbalance or worse eg Omega 3 81 mg. Omega 6 1500mg

"Healthy intakes of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids; estimations of worldwide diversity" looks at Omega 3:6 balances.

Ed said...

Bris,

Okinawans had very poor teeth and very little muscle. This strongly suggests that both the traditional Okinawan and Cretan diets were actually quite poor quality and very deficient in protein.

Poor teeth and bone structure suggests lack of fat soluble vitamins A D and K, and/or mineral deficiency (possibly due to phytates), per W. Price.

We already have very powerful scientific evidence that physical activity, vitamin D and low stress levels greatly reduce diabetes, heart disease, mental illness and obesity.

Clearly health is multi-variate. However, if your goal is optimal health, or extra buffer for hard times, you would consider all components which help. I think you will be unsuccessful in convincing regular readers of this blog that diet is irrelevant.

Michael Phelps has won 16 Olympic medals on a 10,000 calorie/day diet of salt, sugar, n-6 and trans-fat laden junk food including pizza, cookies, high-sugar sports drinks and white bread. This again shows that high levels of physical activity massively reduces or eliminates the effects of a SAD.

It is unclear to me how Michael Phelps' achievements are proof that exercise counteracts the SAD. Perhaps we'll get anecdotal data one day if he gets cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Or not. *shrug* Mark Sisson firmly believes that high-end athletes are substantially more prone to debilitating disease than the average population. He says: "World class athletes tend to die significantly younger than you would predict from heart disease, cancer, diabetes and early-onset dementia." Part two of that page is very interesting.

Cordain co-wrote a Paleo diet book for athletes, which many have said has improved their performance. *shrug*

Heart attacks became common around 100 years ago because people started doing far less physical activity.

I believe there is data which suggests otherwise, some of it presented here.

The Masai have extremely severe atherosclerosis but don't have heart attacks. The common factor is again sunshine, physical activity and low stress levels.

I believe there are additional common factors, beyond the ones you stated.

Low-Joe said...

Robert Andrew Brown

Thank you for your comment. That was one of the reasons why I didn’t eat any egg for over two years. After one and a half year the last fistula health completely. But then I decided to eat egg yolks (because of their Vitamin A & D content and cholesterol). After 1 month, all fistulas were inflamed again. I’ve tried eggs a little time later again, to be sure that they are the reason. The result was exactly the same.

I don’t want to say that everybody should avoid eggs, they are of course nutritious, but for someone (especially with inflammations) it might be a good idea. Today I avoid gluten completely but not carbohydrates at all. My PUFA intake is very low and O3 & O6 are well balanced. I eat a lot of saturated fat, but not low carb. My digestion is fine and so my health.

@ Bris

Lutz wrote in his book, that fistulas sometimes health spontaneous. I don’t know if you have any fistula at all but if you have some, you could do something against them and that’s the right nutrition. If I could cure crohn`s disease only by nutrition then everybody could do this too.


@ STEPHAN

THANK YOU very much for your work and your blog. I know some german guys who are although fans of your blog and they read all of your posts too.

You have very very very very well educated and competent readers and they all have interesting ideas. So your blog is absolutely great!

Greetings from Germany

Stephan Guyenet said...

Low-Joe,

Thanks, it's nice to have international readers. I've noticed I have a fair number of readers in Western and Northern Europe.

Bris said...

Ed:

Phelp's physical activity is unequivocally preventing the onset of diet related disease. He would suffer obesity and other health problems in a matter of months if he stopped training and maintained the same diet.

Elite athletes invariably have genetic mutations which give them a performance advantage. Some of these mutations may also reduce longevity. Elite athletes have higher rates of ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) than the general populace. Athletes typically exercise at far higher intensities and durations than any other people. This causes increased oxidative stress and sustained catecholamine elevation.

Virtually all elite athletes use performance enhancing drugs including anabolic steroids and EPO which cause major health problems.

The paper you mention actually shows that obesity increased with exercise 1992-2006. Exercise also increases appetite. Only very heavy exercisers, such as professional athletes, can control weight without deliberate calorie restriction. Anyone who seriously believes that physical activity hasn't massively reduced over the last 100 years is smoking crack.

Of course there are additional factors explaining the Masai Paradox.

Bris said...

Adolpho:

Adequate sun exposure provides 10,000 iu per day which is far higher than from dietary sources.

Sunscreens prevent sunburn. There is no solid evidence they prevent skin cancers.

Bris said...

ashu:

I didn't say that wheat causes heart disease. However wheat is highly inflammatory which may cause problems in genetically acceptable people.

Andy said...

Bris,

You said:

"I will state this very clearly. What the Okinawans, Kitivans and Cretans eats is essentially irrelevant. They are simply less susceptible to CHD and diabetes due to genetics, sunlight, low stress and physical activity."

Arguing that Europeans are more susceptible to CHD and diabetes is badly missing the point. Perhaps it is true, but the major cause is still diet.

Stephen discussed here about trials of the paleolithic diet.
He says:

"Every participant with insulin resistance at the beginning of the study ended up with basically normal insulin sensitivity after 10 days."

When discussing another study in part 2 of the paleolithic studies post, he said about the Lindeberg's trial:

"the 14 people in the paleolithic group, 2 of which had moderately elevated fasting blood glucose and 10 of which had diabetic fasting glucose, all ended up with normal fasting glucose after 12 weeks."

As you can see, diet can fix the overwhelming portion of diabetics. While Europeans might be genetically more susceptible to it than some other cultures, as I said, you are missing the point that the majority is still caused by diet.

"Eating a Mediterranean Diet won't stop a Finn or Scot from having a heart attack. It barely even protects New York Greeks from heart attacks. A Mediterranean Diet only works in a traditional Greek rural setting. This means that it is other lifestyle factors preventing heart disease - sun, physical activity and low stress."

If what you say is true, how do you explain that in the Lyon study, discussed here, the so called Mediterranean diet reduced total deaths by 70% and cardiovascular deaths by 76%?

Again, you might argue that some groups have more heart attacks than others, but you are missing the point that the majority in Western countries are still caused by diet.

Melchior Meijer said...

Bris,

I would like to add to Andy’s comment that Europeans are not more susceptible to insulin resistance and diabetes type 2 than people with a more recent HG-past, as you say. To the contrary, Europeans are relatively immune to diabetes type 2. We've gone through a genetic shift towards protection from highly insulinotrophic foods (probably via lactose tolerance) . This is well established. Several high profile scientists have tried to figure out the cause.

Why do you advise me to not do daily streneous exercise, when you also say that Michael Phelps is protecting himself from modern ailments by exercising so much?

You say you agree with everything what Doug McGuff says. I assume this is regarding exercise? Doug McGuff firmly believes diet is one of the most important tools to maintain or restore health. He writes about his ideas extensivley in 'Body by Science'.

Ed said...

Bris,

I see a contradiction here:

I will state this very clearly. What the Okinawans, Kitivans and Cretans eats is essentially irrelevant. They are simply less susceptible to CHD and diabetes due to genetics, sunlight, low stress and physical activity.

vs.

Phelp's physical activity is unequivocally preventing the onset of diet related disease. He would suffer obesity and other health problems in a matter of months if he stopped training and maintained the same diet.

I think what has confused me (and others I think) is your apparent position that diet is unimportant, but at the same time, it is important.

I guess I'm just not sure what your overall position is.

joannagoodwin123 said...

One thing I was wondering is how much fruit traditional tropical groups ate. Are there any studies besides the Kitavans? Were fruit readily available year-round, as it is in the tropics, one would imagine it would be preferable to starches both to cultivate and consume.

Is the fructose - from fruit - demonization unfair? Any thoughts on why Ray Peat, who advocates a kind of tropical diet, albeit with the addition of (emphasised) dairy, might make fruit preferable to non-wheat starches? Why not eat low-toxin fruits as your major carbohydrate/energy source? I've been doing this for a while now, and my digestion and energy seem better than when using potatoes. But perhaps I am rusting myself with oxidation since I also eat plenty of saturated fat and cholesterol.
e
Second question - oxidized cholesterol. Where does it come in? What is the relationship between dietary oxidized cholesterol and atherosclerosis? That the Masai on their traditional diet have extensive atherosclerosis is surely relevant, since we are most of us, I imagine, exposed to the environmental stressors they were not.

Refrigeration is frequently overlooked in these discussions. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Wouldn't most cholesterol of animal origin have been oxidized to a significant extent before consumption before the 20th century? And if so, so what?

Sometimes I think that Dean Ornish might be right exactly because his diet is one that has never been eaten before now..

jacob

Andy said...

I was wondering, since we know that omega 6 decreases LDL, which decreases heart attack risk, but increases oxLDL, which increases risk, then if we add both of those together, what would be the overall risk change caused by omega 6?

I realize that from traditional hunter-gatherers and other very convincing evidence we can conclude too much omega 6 is bad. Mainstream nutrition experts however are very obsessed that it lowers LDL and therefore heart attack risk. It would be nice if someone could do a little math and calculate the overall risk factor taking oxLDL into account.

Stephan Guyenet said...

Andy,

It's hard to say. I think the body probably tries to keep oxidized lipids in the blood at a tolerable level, which is why it reduces LDL when you eat excess omega-6.

The harmful effects of omega-6 probably have less to do with its effect on lipoproteins and more to do with its effect on inflammatory signaling in the vasculature, and fibrillation in the heart. This is mostly speculation but it's the direction my thinking has been going lately.

I don't think you can go into a bunch of different observational studies, pull out relative risk for different markers and figure out what's more important. Although you can compare data within studies. When you do that, the oxLDL status generally comes out as a very good marker, certainly better than LDL cholesterol.

Lars Pergou said...

I'm a little late to it, but this review probably worth reading:

Fritsche KL. Too much linoleic acid promotes inflammation - doesn't it?
Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2008 Sep-Nov;79(3-5):173-5.

"The data indicate that high LA in the diet or circulation is not associated with higher in vivo or ex vivo pro-inflammatory responses. Surprisingly, several studies showed that those individuals consuming the highest level of LA had the lowest inflammatory status. Recent findings suggest that LA and AA are involved in both pro- and anti-inflammatory signaling pathways. Thus, within the ranges of intake that are achievable for most human populations, the evidence do not support reducing LA intake below current consumption levels."

I haven't read the full paper; no time at the moment.

Ed said...

Lars,

"The tissue is the issue!"

From http://efaeducation.nih.gov/sig/food.html, "20th Century EFA Availability"

If the Fritsche study didn't control for tissue HUFA, AND if the cohort didn't have sufficient VARIANCE (key point from Stephan at some point in the past...) in % HUFA status, then I would think the studies findings aren't particularly useful.

(I say that without having read the study. I'm so impressed by the work done by Hibbeln & Lands that I sort-of reflexively dismiss any work that doesn't obviously take their work into account.)

trinkwasser said...

"It is an absolute certainty that 200 generations of eating a SAD would result in a greatly increased tolerance of this diet. People of European origin already tolerate a SAD far better than Australian Aborigines or Polynesians who have only recently been introduced to refined foods. "

We're going to find out, and soon!

Seen this?

http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E79832.pdf

http://www.diabetes.org/about-us/coalitions-and-collaborations.html

They're ganging up on us, oh yes they are! I suspect the motivation behind all this stuff is to actively manipulate the genetics of the world population and remove carbohydrate intolerant individuals, leaving only those who can survive on a high carbohydrate low fat profitable diet.

Time will tell whether it works.

Robert said...

A comment on Oxidized LDL and prevention:

Five years ago, at age 65, I went through a battery of cardiac tests including having my heart photographed through a Gamma Ray camera. What it revealed was clear arteries, no blockages. I was totally surprised, since my total cholesterol levels going back as far as I can remember were between 250 and 300 and my Triglycerides always very high. At the time I was experiencing some chest pains and very low pulse rates, which later on I discovered were related to other causes. In any case, I was expecting very different results. In fact, I couldn’t understand the results and when I inquired to the cardiologist, he was unable to provide an answer. I’ve always exercised aerobically and taken many nutritional supplements. After researching the subject I came across research on oxidized LDL and that’s when I realized why my heart was in such great shape. In 1993 I started taking a product called Pycnogenol, which contained a very powerful antioxidant, Oligimeric Proanthocyandidins (OPC). Within a few years I had switched over to a new form of OPC, Grapeseed Extract. Originally I viewed this product as an anti-cancer supplement, but have since found that it has many positive health properties including its’ ability to help prevent oxLDL. OPC’s are available through most fruits, which I now eat regularly, but for the past 18 years I’ve been on Grapeseed Extract and that consistency I believe has protected my heart.

Fredrick Stevens said...

Oh god, you guys are killing me! What should I be eating? It's SOOOO confusing! My mother's side of the family (including my my mother who died of heart failure) died of heart disease almost to a person, and they ate fatty, salty and sugary food.

I use plenty of EVOO, and try to get plenty of Omega-3 in my diet through eating wild salmon. I avoid saturated fats as much as possible (I still love cheese though) and no longer eat meat -- apart from the salmon.

But now I see all this oxidation stuff, and that this thing or that thing can be good for you, but it can also be bad for you. I'm ready to just lay down and die because I don't know which way to go, I swear.

Please someone sum up what I need to be eating, or come to some kind of consensus about how I should be eating.

LDL cholesterol was always bad, but now some of you are saying it can be good as well as saturated fats. I don't know if that's what killed my family, but I guarantee their diets were loaded with both. So I'm just totally confused now.

So please, just tell me what to eat! Should I just give in and go back to eating fast food, snack foods and ice cream, or should I keep trying to eat "healthy"? HELP!!!

Jay Miller said...

Fredrick,

A 2004 Cochrane meta-analysis showed that there was no cardiovascular benefit from fish oil, and it has never been proven that more than one gram of fish oil is needed, even in chronic heart failure and arrhythmia patients. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15495044 )

It is a well-known fact that lipid researchers say to eat 1.5% of your caloric intake in omega-3's and 2.5% in omega-6's (mostly Arachidonic Acid and EPA)

The oxidation issue is huge, as LDL particle number have been shown to be crap ( http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/majority-of-hospitalized-heart-75668.aspx )

LDL receptor activity may also play a role in oxidation according to Chris Masterjohn.

Make sure you get plenty of magnesium, D3, B-vitamins (B6, B9, B12 especially), Ubiquinol (100mg should do), vitamin K2, and add in some extra zinc, ChromeMate, and with your doctor's approval, 81mg (baby) aspirin.

D3 should probably be in the 5-6,000IU range.

As for Adolfo saying vitamin E prevents oxidation? There are plenty of studies showing that vitamin E does little to prevent oxidation INSIDE the body. And abusing fish oil can lead to rather unwanted side effects ( http://chriskresser.com/when-it-comes-to-fish-oil-more-is-not-better )

So my suggestions?

1. Keep polyunsaturates at 4% of diet (including the one gram of fish oil you may or may not take)
2. Get your high sensitivity C-Reative Protein, HbA1c, Homocysteine, Serum Ferritin, and fasting insulin checked yearly.
3. Keep your triglyceride/HDL ratio at 1 or below
4. This is my personal recommendation, I'm sure someone will contradict me: Eat a high fat/moderate carb/moderate protein diet (I like the 65/20/15 fat/carb/protein that the Jaminet's use)
5. Don't stress, stay at your ideal weight

Any further questions will probably be addressed, or I will have been too late and someone would've contacted you offsite without commenting here like me. lul.

Jay Miller said...

Fredrick,

This got cut out of my original copy, but here are some figures (some are old, but still show how twisted the rec's are for saturated fat):

14% of caloric intake in saturated fat- Austria
15.1% of caloric intake in saturated fat- Netherlands
15.3% of caloric intake in saturated fat- Switzerland
15.5% of caloric intake in saturated fat- France
66% of caloric intake in saturated fat- Masai
75% of caloric intake in saturated fat- Inuit

And to make this not just a number-crunching post:

here is a graph from Malcolm Kendrick showing how cholesterol is actually negatively correlated with heart disease:

http://oi51.tinypic.com/2yy4nb8.jpg

Granted that cholesterol above 300 is probably due to T3 underproduction/rT3 malfunction, it's safe to say that cholesterol has bugger-all to do with CHD.

Don't be afraid of meat; every population I know of minus some outliers have a meat source, whether it be pork, beef, or poultry.

As for my view on SFAs, I'd say they're the safest fats, followed by MUFAs (or CLA perhaps). HDL is a surrogate of SFA metabolism, and the little that does get made has very sturdy LDL structure.

(sorry for so many posts, Stephan, not trying to spam you)