More Evidence of Cardiovascular Benefits of Omega-3 Fatty Acids

Hey guys!  Listen up! US men are 3 times more likely to have calcified coronary arteries than Japanese men, even after adjusting for known cardiovascular risk factors (cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, high blood pressure, diabetes and blood cholesterol levels). Why? Sekikawa and colleagues attribute this observation to low omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA) intakes.
Japanese men consume ~3 times more omega-3 fatty acids [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)] than US men. In Japanese men, 2.36% and 5.88% of the blood (serum) LCPUFA were EPA and DHA vs 0.79% and 2.38% of the US men, respectively. The authors write that it takes about 1g daily to achieve the beneficial actions of omega-3 LCPUFA.
According to “What We Eat in America, NHANES 2009-2010”, the average US male > 20y typically consumes 160 mg marine omega-3 LCPUFA (EPA+DPA+DHA) with only 80 mg EPA and 40 mg DHA. It is lower for women. This is abysmal. The key message is: many men (and women) need to increase their consumption of EPA and DHA.
A limitation of interpreting serum omega-3 LCPUFA concentrations is that they reflect short term dietary fat intake and not reflect long-term status. This may explain inconsistent findings from findings from randomized control trials (RCTs). Or as suggested by Sekikawa and colleagues, intakes in some RCTs may have been too low to have observed a beneficial effect, e.g. SU.FOL.OM3.
Stratifying by a single baseline blood sample, Brasky et al (2013) published that men with high plasma phospholipids fatty acid concentrations of omega-3 LCPUFA had increased risk of prostate cancer. Total serum fatty acid percentages (EPA+DPA+DHA) ranged between 4.1 to 4.9%. The quartiles were <3.68, 3.68-4.41, 4.42-5.31, and > 5.31% fatty acids (Table 3). Although fatty acid percentages tend to be higher in plasma phospholipids than blood, it is important to put the paper by Brasky and colleagues in perspective.
Brasky et al (2013) report on men who volunteered for a prostate cancer RCT.  Experience from the Physicians’ Health Study shows that RCT volunteers have different lifestyles and disease risks. The analysis by Brasky and colleagues shows a study population with a narrow range of serum fatty acid concentrations at baseline yet the average (~4.5%) is higher than those of the US men (3.84%) and much lower than the Japanese men (8.5%) studied by Sekikawa and colleagues. There isn’t any evidence that having high omega-3 fatty acid status increases risk of prostate cancer in Japanese men. In fact, American men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than Japanese men. Yet Sekikawa et al (2014) report does find a vast difference in heart disease risk factors according to serum concentrations of long chain omega-3 fatty acids.
Bottom line. Outside of regions where people eat lots of fish, men, women and children have low intakes of DHA and EPA. People should be encouraged to consume more DHA and EPA. The benefits outweigh any apparent risks.
Main Citation
Sekikawa A, Miura K, Lee S, Fujiyoshi A, Edmundowicz D, Kadowaki T, Evans RW, Kadowaki S, Suttion-Tyrrell, Okamura T,  Bertolet M, Masaki KH, Nakamura Y, Barinas-Mitchell EJ, Willcox BJ, Kadota A, Seto TB, Maegawa H, Kuller LH, Ueshima H for the ERA JUMP Study Group. Long chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and incidence rate of coronary artery calcification in Japanese men in Japan and white men in the USA: population based prospective cohort study. 2014 Heart doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304421
Other Citations
Galan P, Kesse-Guyot E, Czernichow S, Briancon S, Blacher J, Hercberg S for the SU.FOL.OM3 Collaborative Group. Effects of B vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids on cardiovascular diseases: a randomized placebo controlled trial. 2010 Br Med J doi:10.1136/bmj.c6273
Brasky TM, Darke AK, Song X, Tangen CM, Goodman PJ, Thompson IM, Meyskens Jr FL, Goodman GE, Minasian LM, Parnes HL, Klein EA, Kristal AR. Plasma phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk in the SELECT Trial. JNCI doi:10.1093/jnci/djt174
Harris WS. The omega-3 index as a risk factor for coronary heart disease. 2008 Am J Clin Nutr 87:1997S-2002S
Sesso HD, Gaziano JM, VanDenburgh M, Hennekens CH, Glynn RJ, Buring JE. Comparison of baseline characteristics and mortality experience of participants and nonparticipants in a randomized clinical trial: the Physicians’ Health Study. 2002 Control Clin Trials doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(o2)00235-0
Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, Bray F. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. 2012 Eur Urol doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054

This entry was posted on Thu Mar 06 2014 and filed under Cancer and nutrition , Dietary supplements , Heart health , Michael McBurney and Nutrient assessment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the Atom feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 

By Michael McBurney

http://www.dsm.com/campaigns/talkingnutrition/en_US/talkingnutrition-dsm-com/2014/03/EPA_DHA_CVD_prostate_cancer.html  

Carotenes Improve the Quality of Semen

Carotenes, such as beta carotene, lutein, and lycopene, are fat-soluble antioxidants that protect multiple aspects of human health. A new study shows that beta carotene and lutein are associated with better sperm movement (quality). Lycopene intake is associated with better size and shape of the sperm (morphology). 
This study was conducted on university-age men, indicating that sperm quality in those who should have the best sperm quality is already in a state of decline even at a young age. This issue is even more important in older men, who most certainly have higher levels of sperm-related damage to DNA that can cause birth defects.
The quality of the epigenome of male sperm is vital to the future health of the child. Women have long recognized the need for important nutrients to ensure prenatal health. It is also important that men are in good health prior to conception. I have previously reported that folic acid and DHA are also linked to sperm health. 
Carotenes such as beta carotene and lycopene, when consumed as supplements, should always be from natural sources, which will clearly be stated on the label. Consumer beware, the great majority of beta carotene and lycopene in the market are chemically-derived synthetics. Natural-source carotenes contain many nutritional cofactors. High quality carotenes are actually easier to absorb than carotenes from the diet, as dietary carotenes must be digested from their fiber before they can be absorbed. While these are still good to have in your diet, supplemental natural carotenes are true superfoods.

 Byron J. Richards

The Children who are Vegetarians or Vegans have Memory and Learning Problems!!! Vegetarianism and Veganism a Threat for the Human Race!!!

Note to vegetarians and vegans: B12 is found ONLY in animal products

B12 is the only vitamin that contains a trace element (cobalt), which is why it’s called cobalamin. Cobalamin is produced in the gut of animals. It’s the only vitamin we can’t obtain from plants or sunlight. Plants don’t need B12 so they don’t store it.
A common myth amongst vegetarians and vegans is that it’s possible to get B12 from plant sources like seaweed, fermented soy, spirulina and brewers yeast. But plant foods said to contain B12 actually contain B12 analogs called cobamides that block intake of and increase the need for true B12.
This explains why studies consistently demonstrate that up to 50% of long-term vegetarians and 80% of vegans are deficient in B12.
The effects of B12 deficiency on kids are especially alarming. Studies have shown that kids raised until age 6 on a vegan diet are still B12 deficient even years after they start eating at least some animal products. In one study, the researchers found:

…a significant association between cobalamin [b12] status and performance on tests measuring fluid intelligence, spatial ability and short-term memory” with formerly vegan kids scoring lower than omnivorous kids in each case.

The deficit in fluid intelligence is particularly troubling, the researchers said, because:

…it involves reasoning, the capacity to solve complex problems, abstract thinking ability and the ability to learn. Any defect in this area may have far-reaching consequences for individual functioning.

 http://chriskresser.com/b12-deficiency-a-silent-epidemic-with-serious-consequences

Daily multivitamin supplement may decrease cataract risk in men

Many medical doctors say that the use food supplements are not necessary or may be even harmful. In this blog I prove that food supplements are beneficial for your health. Let's see a new study that prove the value of food supplements for your health.
Long-term daily multivitamin supplement use may lower cataract risk by around 9%, according to a new trail of 15.000 men.
The findings published in the journal Ophthalmology.
Read:

 http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Daily-multivitamin-supplement-may-decrease-cataract-risk-in-men-RCT-data

Effects of Multivitamin Supplement on Cataract and Age-Related Macular Degeneration in a Randomized Trial of Male Physicians

• William G. Christen, ScD
,
• Robert J. Glynn, ScD
,
• JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH
,
• Jean MacFadyen, BA
,
• Vadim Bubes, PhD
,
• Miriam Schvartz, MD
,
• Julie E. Buring, ScD
,
• Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH
,
• J. Michael Gaziano, MD, MPH

Purpose

To test whether long-term multivitamin supplementation affects the incidence of cataract or age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in a large cohort of men.

Design

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Participants

A total of 14 641 US male physicians aged ≥50 years.

Intervention

Daily multivitamin or placebo.

Main Outcome Measures

Incident cataract and visually significant AMD responsible for a reduction in best-corrected visual acuity to 20/30 or worse based on self-reports confirmed by medical record review.

Results

During an average of 11.2 years of treatment and follow-up, a total of 1817 cases of cataract and 281 cases of visually significant AMD were confirmed. There were 872 cataracts in the multivitamin group and 945 cataracts in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–0.99; P = 0.04). For visually significant AMD, there were 152 cases in the multivitamin group and 129 cases in the placebo group (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94–1.50; P = 0.15).

Conclusions

These randomized trial data from a large cohort of middle-aged and older US male physicians indicate that long-term daily multivitamin use modestly and significantly decreased the risk of cataract but had no significant effect on visually significant AMD.

http://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2813%2900883-X/abstract

23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets – Time to Retire The Fad

Few things have been debated as much as “carbohydrates vs fat.”
Some believe that increased fat in the diet is a leading cause of all kinds of health problems, especially heart disease.
This is the position maintained by most mainstream health organizations.
These organizations generally recommend that people restrict dietary fat to less than 30% of total calories (a low-fat diet).
However… in the past 11 years, an increasing number of studies have been challenging the low-fat dietary approach.
Many health professionals now believe that a low-carb diet (higher in fat and protein) is a much better option to treat obesity and other chronic, Western diseases.
In this article, I have analyzed the data from 23 of these studies comparing low-carb and low-fat diets.
All of the studies are randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of science. All are published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

The Studies

Most of the studies are being conducted on people with health problems, including overweight/obesity, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome.
Keep in mind that these are the biggest health problems in the world.
The main outcomes measured are usually weight loss, as well as common risk factors like Total Cholesterol, LDL Cholesterol, HDL Cholesterol, Triglycerides and Blood Sugar levels.

---

1.Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003.
Details: 63 individuals were randomized to either a low-fat diet group, or a low-carb diet group. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. This study went on for 12 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight, 7.3% of total body weight, compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.5%. The difference was statistically significant at 3 and 6 months, but not 12 months.

Conclusion: There was more weight loss in the low-carb group, significant at 3 and 6 months, but not 12. The low-carb group had greater improvements in blood triglycerides and HDL, but other biomarkers were similar between groups.

---

2. Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003.
Details: 132 individuals with severe obesity (mean BMI of 43) were randomized to either a low-fat or a low-carb diet. Many of the subjects had metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes. The low-fat dieters were calorie restricted. Study duration was 6 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 5.8 kg (12.8 lbs) while the low-fat group lost only 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight (about 3 times as much). There was also a statistically significant difference in several biomarkers:

• Triglycerides went down by 38 mg/dL in the LC group, compared to 7 mg/dL in the LF group.
• Insulin sensitivity improved on LC, got slightly worse on LF.
• Fasting blood glucose levels went down by 26 mg/dL in the LC group, only 5 mg/dL in the LF group.
• Insulin levels went down by 27% in the LC group, but increased slightly in the LF group.

Overall, the low-carb diet had significantly more beneficial effects on weight and key biomarkers in this group of severely obese individuals.

---

3. Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. The Journal of Pediatrics, 2003.
Details: 30 overweight adolescents were randomized to two groups, a low-carb diet group and a low-fat diet group. This study went on for 12 weeks. Neither group was instructed to restrict calories.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 9.9 kg (21.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 4.1 kg (9 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more (2.3 times as much) weight and had significant decreases in Triglycerides and Non-HDL cholesterol. Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the low-fat group only.

---

4. Brehm BJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003.
Details: 53 healthy but obese females were randomized to either a low-fat diet, or a low-carb diet. Low-fat group was calorie restricted. The study went on for 6 months.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost an average og 8.5 kg (18.7 lbs), while the low-fat group lost an average of 3.9 kg (8.6 lbs). The difference was statistically significant at 6 months.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight (2.2 times as much) and had significant reductions in blood triglycerides. HDL improved slightly in both groups.

---

5. Aude YW, et al. The national cholesterol education program diet vs a diet lower in carbohydrates and higher in protein and monounsaturated fat. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2004.
Details: 60 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb diet high in monounsaturated fat, or a low-fat diet based on the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).
Both groups were calorie restricted and the study went on for 12 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 6.2 kg (13.6 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost 1.8 times as much weight. There were also several changes in biomarkers that are worth noting:

• Waist-to-hip ratio is a marker for abdominal fat. This marker improved slightly in the LC group, not in the LF group.
• Total cholesterol improved in both groups.
• Triglycerides went down by 42 mg/dL in the LC group, compared to 15.3 mg/dL in the LF group.
• LDL particle size increased by 4.8 nm and percentage of small, dense LDL decreased by 6.1% in the LC group, while there was no significant difference in the LF group.

Overall, the low-carb group lost more weight and had much greater improvements in several important risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

---

6. Yancy WS Jr, et al. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004.
Details: 120 overweight individuals with elevated blood lipids were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. Study went on for 24 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 9.4 kg (20.7 lbs) of their total body weight, compared to 4.8 kg (10.6 lbs) in the low-fat group.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight and had greater improvements in blood triglycerides and HDL cholesterol.

---

7. JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. The men on the low-carb diet lost three times as much abdominal fat as the men on the low-fat diet.

---

8. Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:

• Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
• Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
• Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
• HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
• Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.

---

9. Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.

---

10. Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 2006.
Details: 102 patients with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 3 months. The low-fat group was instructed to reduce portion sizes.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 3.55 kg (7.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost only 0.92 kg (2 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight and had greater improvements in the Total cholesterol/HDL ratio. There was no difference in triglycerides, blood pressure or HbA1c (a marker for blood sugar levels) between groups.

---

11. McClernon FJ, et al. The effects of a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and a low-fat diet on mood, hunger, and other self-reported symptoms. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2007.
Details: 119 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb, ketogenic diet or a calorie restricted low-fat diet for 6 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 12.9 kg (28.4 lbs), while the low-fat group lost only 6.7 kg (14.7 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost almost twice the weight and experienced less hunger.

---

12. Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study. The Journal of The American Medical Association, 2007.
Details: 311 overweight/obese premenopausal women were randomized to 4 diets: A low-carb Atkins diet, a low-fat vegetarian Ornish diet, the Zone diet and the LEARN diet. Zone and LEARN were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The Atkins group lost the most weight at 12 months (4.7 kg – 10.3 lbs) compared to Ornish (2.2 kg – 4.9 lbs), Zone (1.6 kg – 3.5 lbs) and LEARN (2.6 kg – 5.7 lbs). However, the difference was not statistically significant at 12 months.

Conclusion: The Atkins group lost the most weight, although the difference was not statistically significant. The Atkins group had the greatest improvements in blood pressure, triglycerides and HDL. LEARN and Ornish (low-fat) had decreases in LDL at 2 months, but then the effects diminished.
This study was covered in detail here.

---

13. Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007.
Details: 93 overweight/obese individuals were randomized to either a low-carb, high-fat diet or a low-fat, high-carb diet for 8 weeks. Both groups were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.8 kg (17.2 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. Both groups had similar improvements in mood, but speed of processing (a measure of cognitive performance) improved further on the low-fat diet.

---

14. Dyson PA, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabetic Medicine, 2007.
Details: 13 diabetic and 13 non-diabetic individuals were randomized to a low-carb diet or a “healthy eating” diet that followed the Diabetes UK recommendations (a calorie restricted, low-fat diet). Study went on for 3 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 6.9 kg (15.2 lbs), compared to 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs) in the low-fat group.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight (about 3 times as much). There was no difference in any other marker between groups.

---

15. Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutrion & Metabolism (London), 2008.
Details: 84 individuals with obesity and type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb, ketogenic diet or a calorie restricted low-glycemic diet. The study went on for 24 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight (11.1 kg – 24.4 lbs) compared to the low-glycemic group (6.9 kg – 15.2 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight than the low-glycemic group. There were several other important differences:

• Hemoglobin A1c went down by 1.5% in the LC group, compared to 0.5% in the low-glycemic group.
• HDL cholesterol increased in the LC group only, by 5.6 mg/dL.
• Diabetes medications were either reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of the LC group, compared to 62% in the low-glycemic group.
• Many other health markers like blood pressure and triglycerides improved in both groups, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant.

---

16. Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. New England Journal of Medicine, 2008.
Details: 322 obese individuals were randomized to three diets: a low-carb diet, a calorie restricted low-fat diet and a calorie restricted Mediterranean diet. Study went on for 2 years.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 4.7 kg (10.4 lbs), the low-fat group lost 2.9 kg (6.4 lbs) and the Mediterranean diet group lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lbs).

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight than the low-fat group and had greater improvements in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

---

17. Keogh JB, et al. Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with abdominal obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2008.
Details: 107 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet. Both groups were calorie restricted and the study went on for 8 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.9% of body weight, compared to the low-fat group which lost 6.5% of body weight.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight and there was no difference between groups on Flow Mediated Dilation or any other markers of the function of the endothelium (the lining of blood vessels). There was also no difference in common risk factors between groups.

---

18. Tay J, et al. Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects. Journal of The American College of Cardiology, 2008.
Details: 88 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a very low-carb or a low-fat diet for 24 weeks. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 11.9 kg (26.2 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 10.1 kg (22.3 lbs). However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. Triglycerides, HDL, C-Reactive Protein, Insulin, Insulin Sensitivity and Blood Pressure improved in both groups. Total and LDL cholesterol improved in the low-fat group only.

---

19. Volek JS, et al. Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic syndrome than a low fat diet. Lipids, 2009.
Details: 40 subjects with elevated risk factors for cardiovascular disease were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 12 weeks. Both groups were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 10.1 kg (22.3), while the low-fat group lost 5.2 kg (11.5 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost almost twice the amount of weight as the low-fat group, despite eating the same amount of calories.
This study is particularly interesting because it matched calories between groups and measured so-called “advanced” lipid markers. Several things are worth noting:

• Triglycerides went down by 107 mg/dL on LC, but 36 mg/dL on the LF diet.
• HDL cholesterol increased by 4 mg/dL on LC, but went down by 1 mg/dL on LF.
• Apolipoprotein B went down by 11 points on LC, but only 2 points on LF.
• LDL size increased on LC, but stayed the same on LF.
• On the LC diet, the LDL particles partly shifted from small to large (good), while they partly shifted from large to small on LF (bad).

---

20. Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 months. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009.
Details: 118 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 1 year. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 14.5 kg (32 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 11.5 kg (25.3 lbs) but the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater decreases in triglycerides and greater increases in both HDL and LDL cholesterol, compared to the low-fat group.

---

21. Hernandez, et al. Lack of suppression of circulating free fatty acids and hypercholesterolemia during weight loss on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010.
Details: 32 obese adults were randomized to a low-carb or a calorie restricted, low-fat diet for 6 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 6.2 kg (13.7 lbs) while the low-fat group lost 6.0 kg (13.2 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater decreases in triglycerides (43.6 mg/dL) than the low-fat group (26.9 mg/dL). Both LDL and HDL decreased in the low-fat group only.

---

22. Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and safety of a high protein, low carbohydrate diet for weight loss in severely obese adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 2010.
Details: 46 individuals were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 36 weeks. Low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight and had greater decreases in BMI than the low-fat group.

Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater reductions in BMI. Various biomarkers improved in both groups, but there was no significant difference between groups.

---

23. Guldbrand, et al. In type 2 diabetes, randomization to advice to follow a low-carbohydrate diet transiently improves glycaemic control compared with advice to follow a low-fat diet producing a similar weight loss. Diabetologia, 2012.
Details: 61 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 2 years. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 3.1 kg (6.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 3.6 kg (7.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: There was no difference in weight loss or common risk factors between groups. There was significant improvement in glycemic control at 6 months for the low-carb group, but compliance was poor and the effects diminished at 24 months as individuals had increased their carb intake.

Weight Loss

Here is a graph that shows the difference in weight loss between studies. 21 of 23 studies reported weight loss numbers:

The majority of studies achieved statistically significant differences in weight loss (always in favor of low-carb). There are several other factors that are worth noting:

• The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference.
• In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted.
• When both groups restricted calories, the low-carb dieters still lost more weight (7, 13, 19), although it was not always significant (8, 18, 20).
• There was only one study where the low-fat group lost more weight (23) although the difference was small (0.5 kg – 1.1 lb) and not statistically significant.
• In several of the studies, weight loss was greatest in the beginning. Then people start regaining the weight over time as they abandon the diet.
• When the researchers looked at abdominal fat (the unhealthy visceral fat) directly, low-carb diets had a clear advantage (5, 7, 19).

LDL Cholesterol

Despite the concerns expressed by many people, low-carb diets generally do not raise Total and LDL cholesterol levels on average.
Low-fat diets do lower Total and LDL cholesterol, but it is usually only temporary. After 6 to 12 months, the difference is not statistically significant.
There have been some anecdotal reports by doctors who treat patients with low-carb diets, that they can lead to increases in LDL cholesterol and some advanced lipid markers for a small percentage of individuals.
However, none of the studies above noted such adverse effects. The few studies that looked at advanced lipid markers (5, 19) only showed improvements.

HDL Cholesterol

One of the best ways to raise HDL cholesterol levels is to eat more fat. For this reason, it is not surprising to see that low-carb diets (higher in fat) raise HDL significantly more than low-fat diets.
Having higher HDL levels is correlated with improved metabolic health and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. Having low HDL levels is one of the key symptoms of the metabolic syndrome.
18 of the 23 studies reported changes in HDL cholesterol levels:

You can see that low-carb diets generally raise HDL levels, while they don’t change as much on low-fat diets and in some cases go down.

Triglycerides

Triglycerides are an important cardiovascular risk factor and another key symptom of the metabolic syndrome.
The best way to reduce triglycerides is to eat less carbohydrates, especially sugar.
19 of 23 studies reported changes in blood triglyceride levels:

It is clear that both low-carb and low-fat diets lead to reductions in triglycerides, but the effect is much stronger in the low-carb groups.

Blood Sugar, Insulin Levels and Type II Diabetes

In non-diabetics, blood sugar and insulin levels improved on both low-carb and low-fat diets and the difference between groups was usually small.
3 studies compared low-carb and low-fat diets in Type 2 diabetic patients.
Only one of those studies had good compliance and managed to reduce carbohydrates sufficiently. This lead various improvements and a drastic reduction in HbA1c, a marker for blood sugar levels (15).
In this study, over 90% of the individuals in the low-carb group managed to reduce or eliminate their diabetes medications.
However, the difference was small or nonexistent in the other two studies, because compliance was poor and the individuals ended up eating carbs at about 30% of calories (10, 23).

Blood Pressure

When measured, blood pressure tended to decrease on both low-carb and low-fat diets.

How Many People Made it to The End?

A common problem in weight loss studies is that many people abandon the diet and drop out of the studies before they are completed.
I did an analysis of the percentage of people who made it to the end of the study in each group. 19 of the 23 studies reported this number:

The average percentage of people who made it to the end of the studies were:
Average for the low-carb groups: 79,51%
Average for the low-fat groups: 77,72%
Not a major difference, but it seems clear from these studies that low-carb diets are at the very least NOT harder to stick to than other diets.
The reason may be that low-carb diets appear to reduce hunger (9, 11) and participants are allowed to eat until fullness.
This is an important point, because low-fat diets are usually calorie restricted and require people to weigh their food and count calories.
Individuals also lose more weight, faster, on low-carb. This may improve motivation to continue on the diet.

Adverse Effects?

Despite the concerns expressed by many health experts in the past, there were zero reports of serious adverse effects that were attributable to either diet.
Overall, the low-carb diet was well tolerated and had an outstanding safety profile.

It is Time to Retire The Fad

Keep in mind that all of these studies are randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of science. All are published in respected, peer-reviewed medical journals.
These studies are scientific evidence, as good as it gets, that low-carb is much more effective than the low-fat diet that is still being recommended all over the world.
It is time to retire the low-fat fad!

by Kris Gunnars

 

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

10 Health Benefits Of A Low Carbohydrate Diet

Low-carb diets have been controversial for decades. They were originally demonized by fat-phobic health professionals and the media. People believed that these diets would raise cholesterol and cause heart disease because of the high fat content. However… times are changing.

Since the year 2002, over 20 human studies have been conducted on low-carb diets. In almost every one of those studies, low-carb diets come out ahead of the diets they are compared to. Not only does low-carb cause more weight loss, it also leads to major improvements in most risk factors… including cholesterol.

10 Health Benefits of a Low Carbohydrate Diet

1. Low-Carb Diets Kill Your Appetite (In a Good Way)

Hunger is the single worst side effect of dieting. It is one of the main reasons why many people feel miserable and eventually give up on their diets. One of the best things about eating low-carb is that it leads to an automatic reduction in appetite (1).
The studies consistently show that when people cut carbs and eat more protein and fat, they end up eating much fewer calories. In fact… when researchers are comparing low-carb and low-fat diets in studies, they need to actively restrict calories in the low-fat groups to make the results comparable (2).

Bottom Line: When people cut carbs, their appetite tends to go down and they often end up eating much fewer calories without trying.

2. Low-Carb Diets Lead to More Weight Loss

Cutting carbs is one of the simplest and most effective ways to lose weight. Studies show that people on low-carb diets lose more weight, faster, than people on low-fat diets… even when the low-fat dieters are actively restricting calories.
One of the reasons for this is that low-carb diets tend to get rid of excess water from the body. Because they lower insulin levels, the kidneys start shedding excess sodium, leading to rapid weight loss in the first week or two (3, 4).
In studies comparing low-carb and low-fat diets, the low-carbers sometimes lose 2-3 times as much weight, without being hungry (5, 6). Low-carb diets appear to be particularly effective for up to 6 months, but after that the weight starts creeping back up because people give up on the diet and start eating the same old stuff (7).
It is much more appropriate to think of low-carb as a lifestyle, NOT a diet. The only way to succeed in the long-term is to stick to it. However, some people may be able to add in healthy carbs after they have reached their goal weight.

Bottom Line: Almost without exception, low-carb diets lead to more weight loss than the diets they are compared to, especially in the first 6 months.

3. A Greater Proportion of The Fat Lost Comes From The Abdominal Cavity

Not all fat in the body is the same. It’s where that fat is stored that determines how it will affect our health and risk of disease. Most importantly, we have subcutaneous fat (under the skin) and then we have visceral fat (in the abdominal cavity).
Visceral fat is fat that tends to lodge around the organs. Having a lot of fat in that area can drive inflammation, insulin resistance and is believed to be a leading driver of the metabolic dysfunction that is so common in Western countries today (8).
Low-carb diets are very effective at reducing the harmful abdominal fat. Not only do they cause more fat loss than low-fat diets, an even greater proportion of that fat is coming from the abdominal cavity (9). Over time, this should lead to a drastically reduced risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

Bottom Line: A large percentage of the fat lost on low-carb diets tends to come from the harmful fat in the abdominal cavity that is known to cause serious metabolic problems.

4. Triglycerides Tend to Go Way Down

Triglycerides are fat molecules. It is well known that fasting triglycerides, how much we have of them in the blood after an overnight fast, are a strong heart disease risk factor (10). Perhaps counter intuitively, the main driver of elevated triglycerides is carbohydrate consumption, especially the simple sugar fructose (11, 12, 13).
When people cut carbs, they tend to have a very dramatic reduction in blood triglycerides (14, 15). Compare this to low-fat diets, which can cause triglycerides to go up in many cases (16, 17).

Bottom Line: Low-carb diets are very effective at lowering blood triglycerides, which are fat molecules in the blood and a well known risk factor for heart disease.

5. Increased Levels of HDL (the “good”) Cholesterol

High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) is often called the “good” cholesterol. It’s actually wrong to call it “cholesterol”… all cholesterol molecules are the same. HDL and LDL refer to the lipoproteins that carry cholesterol around in the blood.

Whereas LDL carries cholesterol from the liver and to the rest of the body, HDL carries cholesterol away from the body and to the liver, where it can be reused or excreted.
It is well known that the higher your levels of HDL, the lower your risk of heart disease will be (18, 19, 20). One of the best ways to increase HDL levels is to eat fat… and low-carb diets include a lot of fat (21, 22, 23). Therefore, it is not surprising to see that HDL levels increase dramatically on low-carb diets, while they tend to increase only moderately or even go down on low-fat diets (24, 25).
The triglyceride to HDL ratio is another very strong predictor of heart disease risk. The higher it is, the greater your risk of heart disease is (26, 27, 28). By lowering triglycerides and raising HDL levels, low-carb diets lead to a major improvement in this ratio.

Bottom Line: Low-carb diets tend to be high in fat, which leads to an impressive increase in blood levels of HDL, often referred to as the “good” cholesterol.

6. Reduced Blood Sugar and Insulin Levels, With a Major Improvement in Type 2 Diabetes

When we eat carbs, they are broken down into simple sugars (mostly glucose) in the digestive tract. From there, they enter the bloodstream and elevate blood sugar levels. Because high blood sugars are toxic, the body responds with a hormone called insulin, which tells the cells to bring the glucose into the cells and to start burning or storing it.
For people who are healthy, the quick insulin response tends to minimize the blood sugar “spike” in order to prevent it from harming us. However… many, many people have major problems with this system. They have what is called insulin resistance, which means that the cells don’t “see” the insulin and therefore it is harder for the body to bring the blood sugar into the cells (29).
This can lead to a disease called type 2 diabetes, when the body fails to secrete enough insulin to lower the blood sugar after meals. This disease is very common today, afflicting about 300 million people worldwide (30). There is actually a very simple solution to this problem… by cutting carbohydrates, you remove the need for all of that insulin. Both blood sugars and insulin go way down (31, 32).
According to Dr. Eric Westman, who has treated many diabetics using a low-carb approach, he needs to reduce their insulin dosage by 50% on the first day (33). In one study in type 2 diabetics, 95.2% had managed to reduce or eliminate their glucose-lowering medication within 6 months (34).
If you are currently on blood sugar lowering medication, then talk to your doctor before making changes to your carbohydrate intake, because your dosage may need to be adjusted in order to prevent hypoglycemia.

Bottom Line: The best way to lower blood sugar and insulin levels is to reduce carbohydrate consumption. This is also a very effective way to treat and possibly even reverse type II diabetes.

7. Blood Pressure Tends to Go Down

Having elevated blood pressure (hypertension) is an important risk factor for many diseases. This includes heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and many others. Low-carb diets are an effective way to reduce blood pressure, which should lead to a reduced risk of these diseases and help you live longer (34, 35).

Bottom Line: Studies show that reducing carbs leads to a significant reduction in blood pressure, which should lead to a reduced risk of many common diseases.

8. Low-Carb Diets Are The Most Effective Treatment Known Against Metabolic Syndrome

Metabolic syndrome is a medical condition that is highly associated with the risk of diabetes and heart disease.
It is actually a collection of symptoms:

• Abdominal obesity
• Elevated blood pressure
• Elevated fasting blood sugar levels
• High triglycerides
• Low HDL levels

The good news is… all five symptoms improve dramatically on a low-carb diet (36, 37).
Unfortunately, the government and major health organization still recommend a low-fat diet for this purpose, which is pretty much useless because it does nothing to address the underlying metabolic problem.

Bottom Line: Low-carb diets effectively reverse all 5 key symptoms of the metabolic syndrome, a serious condition known to predispose people to heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

9. Low-Carb Diets Improve The Pattern of LDL Cholesterol

Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) is often referred to as the “bad” cholesterol (again, it is actually a protein). It is known that people who have high LDL are much more likely to have heart attacks (38, 39). However… what scientists have now learned is that the type of LDL matters. Not all of them are equal.
In this regard, the size of the particles is important. People who have mostly small particles have a high risk of heart disease, while people who have mostly large particles have a low risk (40, 41, 42). It turns out that low-carb diets actually turn the LDL particles from small to large, while reducing the number of LDL particles floating around in the bloodstream (43).

Bottom Line: When you eat a low-carb diet, your LDL particles change from small (bad) LDL to large LDL – which is benign. Cutting carbs may also reduce the number of LDL particles floating around in the bloodstream.

10. Low-Carb Diets Are Therapeutic For Several Brain Disorders

It is often claimed that glucose is necessary for the brain… and it’s true. Some part of the brain can only burn glucose. That’s why the liver produces glucose out of protein if we don’t eat any carbs. But a large part of the brain can also burn ketones, which are formed during starvation or when carbohydrate intake is very low.
This is the mechanism behind the ketogenic diet, which has been used for decades to treat epilepsy in children who don’t respond to drug treatment (44). In many cases, this diet can cure children of epilepsy. In one study, over half of children on a ketogenic diet had a greater than 50% reduction in seizures. 16% of the children became seizure free (45).

Bottom Line: Very low-carb/ketogenic diets are now being studied for other brain disorders as well, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease (46).

 

by Kris Gunnars

 

http://healthylivinghowto.com/1/post/2014/03/10-health-benefits-of-a-low-carbohydrate-diet.html

Could low vitamin D levels be causing brain damage?

We know vitamin D plays important roles in immune function, bone health, and even the fight against cancer. Well, a recent study from the University of Kentucky indicates that vitamin d  plays an important role in brain health too, and deficiency could cause brain and other organ damage.
The study was published in Free Radical Biology and Medicine, and found that rats who were deficient in vitamin D developed free radical brain damage. In addition, they performed worse in cognition tests than rats not deficient in vitamin D. This is particularly significant because vitamin D deficiency is known to be a common and widespread problem.
The stud abstract concludes:

“…Together, these results suggest that dietary VitD deficiency contributes to significant nitrosative stress in brain and may promote cognitive decline in middle-aged and elderly adults.”

Low levels of vitamin D have previously been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, indicating this isn’t the first research to draw a connection between the “sunshine vitamin” and brain health.

“Given that vitamin D deficiency is especially widespread among the elderly, we investigated how, during aging from middle-age to old-age, low vitamin D affected the oxidative status of the brain,” explained Professor Allan Butterfield. “Adequate vitamin D serum levels are necessary to prevent free radical damage in brain and subsequent deleterious consequences.”

Read: 7 Great Natural Sources of Vitamin D
It’s been suggested that vitamin D deficiency is a problem in the modern world because we simply aren’t outside enough. Also, the campaign to get everyone under a constant coating of sunscreen blocks those rays that deliver the vitamin, making it even more difficult for people to get as much as they need.
The solution: get some sunlight. Ten to fifteen minutes a day is a good start. No need to burn yourself outside in an effort to get enough vitamin D, but you need sunshine for optimal health.
Research on vitamin D supplements is mixed. Some indicate they are useful in combating deficiencies, but that those with too much vitamin D could actually contribute to atherosclerosis and an increased risk of heart disease.

“Healthy people have been popping these pills, but they should not continue taking vitamin D supplements unchecked. At a certain point, more vitamin D no longer confers any survival benefit, so taking these expensive supplements is at best a waste of money,” said Dr. Muhammad Amer in a previous study.

The best source of this vitamin remains the sun and dietary sources. Go for an afternoon walk or read a book on your patio. Do it for your health.

by Elizabeth Renter

http://naturalsociety.com/low-vitamin-d-levels-hurting-brain/

New trial finds a diet high in fish does not improve vitamin D status in Nordic people. Vitamin D supplementation is necessary

This new study proves why dieticians who believe that people should take their vitamins only from food and not from supplements are wrong. Vitamin D from fish did not increase the vitamin D level of Nordic people who do not have exposure to sun due to north latitude. Read the study:

New research published in the European Journal of Nutrition has found that a Nordic diet high in fish consumption does not improve vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D deficiency is common among populations living at northern latitudes. This is because in northern regions, for most of the time during the year, the angle of the sun doesn’t allow for much ultraviolet-B radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. Ultraviolet-B radiation is needed for vitamin D production in human skin.
This means that for the majority of the year, people living in northern latitudes must rely on other sources for vitamin D.
Researchers recently conducted a randomized trial to see if a healthy diet based on Nordic nutrition recommendations (NNR) could be an adequate source of vitamin D. The NNR is a publication produced every year which establishes recommended intakes of nutrients in Nordic countries.
They recruited 213 people with metabolic syndrome from the SYSDIET study cohort. The SYSDIET study consists of multiple research projects based on a multi-center cohort designed to see how changing the Nordic diet can improve health and prevent metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and other diseases.
The participants were randomized to receive either a healthy Nordic diet or a control diet for 18-24 weeks. The Nordic diet consisted of a high intake of fatty fish, which is a known dietary source of vitamin D, as well as whole-grain products, fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products.
The researchers found that the Nordic diet, when compared with the control diet, did not change the participants’ vitamin D levels.
“Consuming a healthy Nordic diet based on NNR increased vitamin D intake but not plasma 25(OH)D concentration,” the researchers stated.
Supplementing with vitamin D is the best option when sun exposure isn’t possible. While some foods do contain vitamin D, it is not enough to rely on diet alone to obtain healthy levels.
Source
Brader, L. Effects of a healthy Nordic diet on plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration in subjects with metabolic syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (SYSDIET). European Journal of Nutrition, 2014.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitamin-d-news/new-trial-finds-a-diet-high-in-fish-does-not-improve-vitamin-d-status-in-those-with-metabolic-syndrome/
 

The lies of dieticians and medical doctors about what is ''healthy'' nutrition.

11 Graphs That Show Everything That is Wrong With The Modern Diet

The modern diet is the main reason why people all over the world are fatter and sicker than ever before.
Everywhere modern processed foods go, chronic diseases like obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease soon follow.

The studies are clear on this… when people abandon their traditional foods in favor of modern processed foods high in sugar, refined flour and vegetable oils, they get sick (1, 2, 3).
Of course, there are many things that can contribute to these health problems, but changes in the diet are the most important factor.
Here are 11 graphs that show everything that is wrong with the modern diet.

1. Total Sugar Intake Has Skyrocketed in The Past 160 Years

Source: Johnson RJ, et al. Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007.
People in Western countries are consuming massive amounts of refined sugars, reaching about 150 lbs (67 kg) per year in some countries. This amounts to over 500 calories of sugar per day.
The sources vary on the exact figures, but it is very clear that we are consuming way more sugar than our bodies are equipped to handle (4).
Controlled human studies show that large amounts of sugar can lead to severe metabolic problems, including insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, elevated cholesterol and triglycerides – to name a few (5, 6).
Added sugar is believed to be one of the main drivers of diseases like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and even cancer (7, 8, 9, 10).

2. Consumption of Soda and Fruit Juice Has Increased Dramatically

Photo Source.
Of all the sugar sources in the diet, sugar-sweetened beverages are the worst.
Fruit juice is actually no better… it contains a similar amount of sugar as most soft drinks (11).
Getting sugar in liquid form is particularly harmful. The studies show that the brain doesn’t “register” liquid sugar calories the in the same way as calories from solid foods, which dramatically increases total calorie intake (12, 13).
One study found that in children, each daily serving of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to a 60% increased risk of obesity (14).

3. Calorie Intake Has Gone up by Around 400 Calories Per Day

Source: Dr. Stephan Guyenet. The American Diet. 2012.
Although sources vary on the exact figures, it is clear that calorie intake has increased dramatically in the past few decades (15).
There are many complicated reasons for this, including increased processed food and sugar consumption, increased food availability, more aggressive marketing towards children, etc (16).

4. People Have Abandoned Traditional Fats in Favor of Processed Vegetable Oils

Source: Dr. Stephan Guyenet. The American Diet. 2012.
When health professionals started blaming saturated fat for heart disease, people abandoned traditional fats like butter, lard and coconut oil in favor of processed vegetable oils.
These oils are very high in Omega-6 fatty acids, which can contribute to inflammation and various problems when consumed in excess (17, 18).
These oils are often hydrogenated, which makes them high in trans fats. Many studies have shown that these fats and oils actually increase the risk of heart disease, even if they aren’t hydrogenated (19, 20, 21).
Therefore, the misguided advice to avoid saturated fat and choose vegetable oils instead may have actually fueled the heart disease epidemic.

5. People Replaced Heart-Healthy Butter With Trans-Fat Laden Margarine

Another side effect of the “war” on saturated fat was an increase in margarine consumption.
Margarine was traditionally made with hydrogenated oils, which are high in trans fats. Many studies show that trans fats increase the risk of heart disease (22, 23).
Grass-fed butter actually contains nutrients that are protective against heart disease (like Vitamin K2), therefore the advice to replace heart-healthy butter with trans-fat laden margarine may have done a lot of damage (24).

6. Soybean Oil Has Become a Major Source of Calories

The most commonly consumed vegetable oil in the U.S. is soybean oil.
Soybean oil actually provided 7% of calories in the U.S. diet in the year 1999, which is huge (25)!
However, most people don’t have a clue they’re eating this much soybean oil. They’re actually getting most of it from processed foods, which often have soybean oil added to them because it is cheap.
The best way to avoid soybean oil (and other nasty ingredients) is to avoid processed foods.

7. Modern Wheat is Less Nutritious Than Older Varieties of Wheat

Source: Fan MS, et al. Evidence of decreasing mineral density in wheat grain over the last 160 years. Journal of trace elements in medicine and biology.
There is evidence that modern wheat, which was introduced around the year 1960, is less nutritious than older varieties of wheat.
The graph above is from an experiment that has been run since the year 1843. In it, scientists have grown different wheat strains and measured the amount of nutrients.
You can see that the mineral content starts declining around 1960, which coincides with the introduction of modern wheat.
Today’s wheat has about 19-28% less of important minerals like Magnesium, Iron, Zinc and Copper, compared to the wheat our grandparents grew up with.
There is also evidence that modern wheat is much more harmful to celiac patients and people with gluten sensitivity, compared to the older varieties (26, 27, 28).
Whereas wheat may have been relatively healthy back in the day, the same is not true of modern dwarf wheat, which is what most people are consuming.

8. Egg Consumption Has Gone Down

Photo Source.
Eggs are among the most nutritious foods on the planet.
Despite being high in cholesterol, eggs don’t raise the bad cholesterol in the blood (29).
For some reason, the health authorities have recommended that we cut back on eggs, even though there is no evidence that they contribute to heart disease (30).
Since the year 1950, we have decreased our consumption of this highly nutritious food from 375 to 250 eggs per year, a decrease of 33%.
This has contributed to a deficiency in important nutrients like Choline, which about 90% of Americans aren’t getting enough of (31).

9. People Are Eating More Processed Foods Than Ever Before

Source: Dr. Stephan Guyenet. Fast Food, Weight Gain and Insulin Resistance. Whole Health Source.
This graph shows how consumption of fast foods has increased in the past few decades.
Keep in mind that even though it looks like people are still eating most of their foods “at home” – this does not take into account the fact that most people are also eating processed foods at home.

10. The Increased Vegetable Oil Consumption Has Changed The Fatty Acid Composition of Our Bodies

Source: Dr. Stephan Guyenet. Seed Oils and Body Fatness- A Problematic Revisit. Whole Health Source.
Most of the Omega-6 fats that people are eating is a fatty acid called linoleic acid.
Studies show that this fatty acid actually gets incorporated into our cell membranes and body fat stores. These fats are prone to oxidation, which damages molecules (like DNA) in the body and may be increasing our risk of cancer (32, 33, 34, 35, 36).
In other words, the increased consumption of processed vegetable oils has lead to actual harmful structural changes in our bodies. That’s a scary thought.

11. The Low-Fat Dietary Guidelines Were Published Around The Same Time The Obesity Epidemic Started

Source: National Center for Health Statistics (US). Health, United States, 2008: With Special Feature on the Health of Young Adults. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics (US); 2009 Mar. Chartbook.
The first dietary guidelines for Americans were published in the year 1977, almost at the exact same time the obesity epidemic started.
Of course, this doesn’t prove anything (correlation does not equal causation), but it makes sense that this could be more than just a mere coincidence.
The anti-fat message essentially put the blame on saturated fat and cholesterol (harmless), while giving sugar and refined carbs (very unhealthy) a free pass.
Since the guidelines were published, many massive studies have been conducted on the low-fat diet. It is no better at preventing heart disease, obesity or cancer than the standard Western diet, which is as unhealthy as a diet can get (37, 38, 39, 40).
For some very strange reason, we are still being advised to follow this type of diet, despite the studies showing it to be completely ineffective.

by Kris Gunnars

http://authoritynutrition.com/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet/#ixzz2up7ZkqgN
 

8 Ridiculous Myths About Meat Consumption and Health

There is a lot of nonsense in nutrition.
One of the worst examples is the constant propaganda against meat consumption.
Here are 8 ridiculous myths about meat consumption and health.

1. Meat Rots in Your Colon

Some people claim that meat doesn’t get digested properly and “rots” in your colon.
This is absolute nonsense, probably invented by dishonest vegans in order to scare people away from eating meat.
What happens when we eat meat, is that it gets broken down by stomach acid and digestive enzymes.
In the small intestine, the proteins are broken down into amino acids and the fats are broken down into fatty acids.
After that, they get absorbed over the digestive wall and into the bloodstream. There’s nothing left to “rot” in your colon.
If you want to know what really “rots” in your colon, it’s indigestible plant matter (fiber)… from vegetables, fruits, grains and legumes.
The human digestive system doesn’t have the enzymes necessary to break down fiber, which is why it travels all the way to the colon.
There, it gets fermented (rots) by the friendly bacteria in the intestine, which turn it into nutrients and beneficial compounds like the short-chain fatty acid butyrate (1).
This is what keeps the friendly bacteria alive and many studies are showing that feeding these bacteria properly is incredibly important for optimal health (2, 3).
So, meat doesn’t rot in the colon. Plants do… and this is actually a good thing.

Bottom Line: The nutrients in meat are broken down and absorbed way before they reach the colon. However, fiber from plants does ferment (“rot”) in the colon, which is actually a good thing as it feeds the friendly bacteria.

2. Meat Is High in Harmful Saturated Fat and Cholesterol

One of the main arguments against meat, is that it tends to be high in both saturated fat and cholesterol.

But this really isn’t a cause for concern, because new science has shown both of them to be harmless.
Despite being seen as something to be feared, cholesterol is actually a vital molecule in the body.
It is found in every cell membrane and used to make hormones. The liver produces large amounts of it to make sure we always have enough.
When we get a lot of cholesterol from the diet, the liver just produces less of it instead, so the total amount doesn’t change much (4, 5).
In fact, in about 70% of people, cholesterol in the diet has negligible effects on cholesterol in the blood (6).
In the other 30% (termed hyper-responders), there is a mild elevation in LDL cholesterol, but HDL (which is protective) also goes up (7, 8).
The same is true with saturated fat, it also raises HDL (the “good”) cholesterol (9, 10).
But even when saturated fat and/or cholesterol cause mild increases in LDL, this is not a problem because they change the LDL particles from small, dense LDL (very bad) to Large LDL, which is protective (11, 12).
Studies show that people who have mostly large LDL particles have a much lower risk of heart disease (13, 14).
Therefore, it is not surprising to see that in population studies that include hundreds of thousands of people, saturated fat and cholesterol are not associated with an increased risk of heart disease (15, 16).
In fact, some studies show that saturated fat is linked to a reduced risk of stroke, another very common cause of death and disability (17).
When they put this to the test in actual human experiments, making people cut saturated fat and replacing it with “heart healthy” vegetable oils (which happen to lower cholesterol), it actually increases the risk of death (18).

Bottom Line: It is true that meat tends to be high in saturated fat and cholesterol, but this is not a cause for concern because they do not have adverse effects on blood cholesterol or increase the risk of heart disease.

3. Meat Causes Heart Disease and Type 2 Diabetes

Strangely enough, meat is often blamed for Western diseases like heart disease and type 2 Diabetes.
Heart disease didn’t become a problem until the early 20th century and type 2 diabetes only a few decades ago.
These diseases are new… but meat is an old food. Humans and pre-humans have been eating meat for millions of years (19).
Blaming an old food for new health problems makes absolutely no sense.
Fortunately, we do have two very large, very thorough studies that can put our minds at ease.
In a massive study published in the year 2010, researchers pooled data from 20 studies that included a total of 1,218,380 individuals. They found no link between consumption of unprocessed red meat and heart disease or diabetes (20).
Another major study from Europe that included 448,568 individuals found no link between unprocessed red meat and these diseases (21).
However, both of these studies found a strong increase in risk for people who ate processed meat.
For this reason, it is very important to make a distinction between the different types of meat.
Many studies apparently showing that “red meat” is harmful didn’t adequately make the distinction between processed and unprocessed meat.
Processed foods in general are pretty awful… this isn’t just true of meat.

Bottom Line: Many massive studies have examined the relationship between meat consumption, heart disease and diabetes. They found a strong link for processed meat, but no effect for unprocessed red meat.

4. Red Meat Causes Cancer

One common belief is that meat, especially red meat, causes cancer.
This is where things get a bit more complicated.
It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer (22).
But when it comes to unprocessed red meat, things aren’t as clear.
Although several studies suggest that even unprocessed red meat can raise the risk of cancer, review studies that pool the data from many studies at a time show a different picture.
Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women (23, 24).
However… it does appear that the way meat is cooked can have a major effect on its health effects.
Several studies show that when meat is overcooked, it can form compounds like Heterocyclic Amines and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, which have been shown to cause cancer in test animals (25).
There are several ways to prevent this from happening… such as choosing gentler cooking methods and always cutting away burned or charred pieces.
So the answer is not to avoid red meat, but to make sure not to burn it.
Keep in mind that overheating can cause harmful compounds to form in many other foods. This is NOT exclusive to meat (26).

Bottom Line: The link between unprocessed red meat and cancer is very weak in men and nonexistent in women. This may depend on the way meat is cooked, because overheating can form carcinogens.

5. Humans Are Naturally Herbivores and Not “Designed” For Meat Consumption

Some vegans claim that humans aren’t “designed” to eat meat.
They say that humans are naturally herbivores like our primate ancestors.
However… this is completely false. Humans and pre-humans have been eating meat for a very long time and our bodies are well adapted to meat consumption (27, 28).
Our digestive systems really don’t resemble those of herbivores at all.
We have short colons, long small intestines and lots of hydrochloric acid in the stomach to help break down animal protein (29).
The length of different parts of our digestive system is somewhere in between the lengths typical for both carnivores and herbivores, indicating that humans are “designed” to be omnivores (30).
It is also believed that our consumption of animal foods helped drive the evolution of our large brains, which set us apart from any other animal on earth (31).
Humans function best eating both animals and plants. Period.

Bottom Line: Humans are well equipped to make full use of the nutrients found in meat. Our digestive system reflects a genetic adaptation to an omnivorous diet, with animal foods as a major source of calories.

6. Meat is Bad For Your Bones

Many people seem to believe that protein is bad for the bones and can lead to osteoporosis.

The theory goes like this… we eat protein, which increases the acid load of the body, then the body moves calcium from the bones and into the bloodstream to neutralize the acid.
There are in fact some short-term studies to support this. Increasing protein does lead to increased calcium loss from the body (32).
However, this short term effect does not appear to persist because the long-term studies show that protein actually has beneficial effects on bone health (33).
There is overwhelming evidence that a high protein diet is linked to improved bone density and a lower risk of osteoporosis and fractures in old age (34, 35, 36).
This is a great example of where blindly following the conventional wisdom in nutrition will lead to the exact opposite result.

Bottom Line: Despite protein causing increased calcium loss in the short term, the long-term studies show that a high protein intake is linked to improved bone density and a lower risk of osteoporosis and fractures.

7. Meat is Unnecessary

It is often claimed that meat is unnecessary for health.
This is actually kind of true… most of the nutrients in it can be found in other animal foods.
But just because we can survive without it, it doesn’t mean that we should… quality meat has many nutrients that are good for us.
This includes quality protein, vitamin B12, creatine, carnosine and various important fat-soluble vitamins, which vegans and vegetarians are often lacking in.
Whole foods like meat contain way more than just the standard vitamins and minerals that we’re all familiar with it. There are literally thousands of trace nutrients in there… some of which science has yet to identify.
The fact is, humans evolved eating meat and evolution designed our bodies with these nutrients in mind. They are an essential part of the immensely complex biological puzzle.
Can we live without meat? Sure… but we won’t reach optimal health, making use of all the beneficial nutrients that nature has provided us with.
Although we can survive without meat, the same could be said of most other food groups… including vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, eggs, etc. We just eat more of something else instead.
Quality meat is pretty close to being the perfect food for humans. It contains most of the nutrients we need.
There is even a study in the literature where two guys ate nothing but meat and organs for a year and remained in excellent health (37).
Of course, not all meat is the same. The best meat comes from animals raised on pasture, fed the types of foods they would eat in nature.
Unprocessed meat from properly raised, properly fed animals (like grass-fed beef) has a much better nutrient profile (38, 39).

Bottom Line: Some claim that meat is unnecessary. Although it is true that we can survive without it, there are still many nutrients in there that are important for optimal health.

8. Meat Makes You Fat

Meat is often believed to be fattening.
This seems to make sense on the surface because most meat is pretty high in fat and calories.

However, meat also happens to be one of the best sources of highly bioavailable protein. Protein is the most weight loss friendly macronutrient, by far.
Studies show that a high protein diet can boost metabolism by up to 80 to 100 calories per day (40, 41).
There are also studies showing that if you increase your protein intake, you automatically start eating less of other foods instead (42).
Several studies have found that by increasing the amount of protein in the diet, people automatically cut calorie intake by several hundred calories per day, putting weight loss on “autopilot” (43).
Eating more protein also tends to favour increased muscle mass. Muscle is metabolically active and burns a small amount of calories around the clock (44).
Also, let’s not forget that low-carb and paleo diets, which tend to be high in meat, lead to significantly more weight loss than diets that are lower in meat (45, 46).
If anything, the more you eat of high quality meat (and less of other foods instead), the easier it should be for you to lose weight.

by Kris Gunnars

http://authoritynutrition.com/8-ridiculous-myths-about-meat-and-health/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AuthorityNutrition+%28Authority+Nutrition%29