Food Reward Friday

This week's lucky winner... Cheesecake Factory carrot cake!!

Read more »

Is Meat Unhealthy? Part V

In this post, I'll examine the possible relationship between meat intake and type 2 diabetes.  Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes, and it is strongly linked to lifestyle factors.

Non-industrial cultures

Non-industrial cultures have an extremely low prevalence of diabetes, whether they are near-vegan or near-carnivorous.  This is supported by blood glucose measurements in a variety of cultures, from the sweet potato farmers of the New Guinea highlands to the arctic Inuit hunters.  Here is what Otto Schaefer, director of the Northern Medical Research Unit at Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton, Canada, had to say about the Inuit in the excellent book Western Diseases (Trowell and Burkitt, 1981):
Read more »

Food Reward Friday

This week's lucky "winner"... Pumpkin pie!!

Read more »

Food Reward Friday

This week's lucky "winner"... Pizza Hut Doritos Crunchy Crust Pizza!

Read more »

Is Meat Unhealthy? Part IV

In this post, I'll address the question: does eating meat contribute to weight gain?

Non-industrial cultures

I'll get right to the point: humans living in a non-industrialized setting tend to be lean, regardless of how much meat they eat.  This applies equally to hunter-gatherers, herders, and farmers.

One of the leanest populations I've encountered in my reading is the 1960s Papua New Guinea highland farmers of Tukisenta.  They ate a nearly vegan diet composed almost exclusively of sweet potatoes, occasionally punctuated by feasts including large amounts of pork.  On average, they ate very little animal food.  Visiting researchers noted that the residents of Tukisenta were "muscular and mostly very lean", and did not gain fat with age (1, Western Diseases, Trowell and Burkitt, 1981).

!Kung man gathering mongongo fruit/nuts.
From The !Kung San, by Richard B. Lee.

Another remarkably lean hunter-gatherer population is the !Kung San foragers of the Kalahari desert.  The !Kung San are so lean that many of them would be considered underweight on the standard body mass index scale (BMI less than 18.5).  Average BMI doesn't exceed 20 in any age category (The !Kung San, Richard Lee, 1979).  Is this simply because they're starving?  It is true that they don't always get as much food as they'd like, but on most days, they have the ability to gather more food than they need.  The fact that they are able to reproduce normally suggests that they aren't starving.  Richard Lee's detailed work with the !Kung San indicates that approximately 40 percent of their calories came from animal foods during his study period in the 1960s.  This was mostly meat, with occasional eggs when available.

Read more »

Recent Interviews

For those who don't follow my Twitter account (@whsource), here are links to my two most recent interviews.

Smash the Fat with Sam Feltham.  We discuss the eternally controversial question, "is a calorie a calorie"?  Like many other advocates of the low-carbohydrate diet, Feltham believes that the metabolic effects of food (particularly on insulin), rather than calorie intake per se, are the primary determinants of body fatness.  I explain the perspective that my field of research has provided on this question.  We also discussed why some lean people become diabetic.  Feltham was a gracious host.

Nourish, Balance, Thrive with Christopher Kelly.  Kelly is also an advocate of the low-carbohydrate diet for fat loss.  This interview covered a lot of ground, including the insulin-obesity hypothesis, regulation of body fatness by the leptin-brain axis, how food reward works to increase calorie intake, and the impact of the food environment on food intake.  I explain why I think proponents of the insulin-obesity hypothesis have mistaken association for causation, and what I believe the true relationship is between insulin biology and obesity.  Kelly was also a gracious host.  He provides a transcript if you'd rather read the interview in text form.

Is Meat Unhealthy? Part III

When we consider the health impacts of eating meat, cardiovascular disease is the first thing that comes to mind.  Popular diet advocates often hold diametrically opposed views on the role of meat in cardiovascular disease.  Even among researchers and public health officials, opinions vary.  In this post, I'll do my best to sort through the literature and determine what the weight of the evidence suggests.

Ancel Keys and the Seven Countries Study

Ancel Keys was one of the first researchers to contribute substantially to the study of the link between diet and cardiovascular disease.  Sadly, there is a lot of low-quality information circulating about Ancel Keys and his research (1).  The truth is that Keys was a pioneering researcher who conducted some of the most impressive nutritional science of his time.  The military "K ration" was designed by Keys, much of what we know about the physiology of starvation comes from his detailed studies during World War II, and he was the original Mediterranean Diet researcher.  Science marches on, and not all discoveries are buttressed by additional research, but Keys' work was among the best of his day and must be taken seriously.

One of Keys' earliest contributions to the study of diet and cardiovascular disease appeared in an obscure 1953 paper titled "Atherosclerosis: A Problem in Newer Public Health" (2).  This paper is worth reading if you get a chance (freely available online if you poke around a bit).  He presents a number of different arguments and supporting data, most of which are widely accepted today, but one graph in particular has remained controversial.  This graph shows the association between total fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries.  Keys collected the data from publicly available databases on global health and diet:

Read more »

Five New Health Concerns for Americans

There are urgent new health concerns for Americans and some of them may surprise you. Whether it is Ebola, Obamacare, the FDA tightening restrictions on natural remedies, or the domination of the pharmaceutical companies—-these new health concerns should be on your radar.

Obamacare

Obamacare should concern you. The health insurance system that underpins the entire American healthcare system has shifted enormously. Hospitals, clinics, and physicians are all trying to learn the many new rules and policies that have come online in a very short time. It does not matter if you love Obamacare or hate it, it is new and all new things cause some problems when they first crank up. Let’s look at it this way. Obamacare has added over 10 million newly insured people to the healthcare system but it has made no provisions to add a single new doctor or hospital. Those 10 million people are going to go somewhere …

Medical Privacy

HIPAA will start to worry you soon, if it has not already. Medical privacy got thrown out the window in one day when Ebola hit. But even before Ebola, there was another threat on your privacy. A not-too-much-talked-about provision of Obamacare requires all hospitals to make their records electronic. Sounds reasonable. Until you realize how vulnerable electronic records are to compromise. Think identity theft is scary? Your medical privacy is about as secure as your credit card now.

Ebola

Ebola has to concern you. The ebola virus (actually there are several) is actually not all that robust and not
extremely contagious; believe it or not, it can be contained using currently available techniques and
technology. The threat to us is the fact that these best-available techniques and technologies are not being practiced.
The Ebola crisis in poor and underdeveloped African nations is a tragedy; the Ebola crisis in the US is a story of incompetence that has to make you wonder. The same people who thought that you could care for an ebola patient with exposed skin around your neck are the people who are making other healthcare decisions for you!

FDA

The FDA and natural health ought to concern you. For many reasons, the FDA and natural health do not get along. The two systems are not so much flawed individually as they are antagonistic. The FDA is set up to regulate big medicine, meaning it is geared to work with large pharmaceutical companies that can shell out millions of dollars for drug development and approval because they can patent their products and recoup their investment. Natural health relies on natural things, which cannot be patented, so there is no financial incentive (or ability) to spend millions of dollars to gain approval for treatments that are already available. The FDA is set up for modern medicine, which treats sickness. Natural health tends to emphasize wellness. Look for more clashes until these two important entities figure out they’re not talking the same language.

Weight loss surgery 'highly effective for preventing type 2 diabetes'

OBesity is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes, which is accountable for around 90-95% of diabetes cases in the US. But a new study claims that for obese individuals, weight loss surgery may dramatically reduce this risk.The research team, including Prof. Martin Gulliford of King's College London in the UK, publish their findings in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Past studies have indicated that weight loss surgery, or bariatric surgery, may be an effective strategy to treat type 2 diabetes in obese patients. But Prof. Gulliford and colleagues note there have been very few studies looking at whether weight loss surgery can prevent the development ofdiabetes in obese patients. For their study, the team wanted to find out.

They analyzed health records from
the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and identified 2,167 obese adults without diabetes who had undergone one of three surgical procedures: gastric bypass, gastric banding or sleeve
gastrectomy.

Gastric bypass, which involves redirecting the digestive system past the stomach, is the most common weight loss procedure. Gastric banding involves having an inflatable band placed around the top portion of the stomach, creating a smaller stomach, while sleeve gastrectomy involves removal of around 80% of the stomach.

To act as controls, the team also identified 2,167 obese individuals - matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and blood sugar levels - who had not undergone weight loss surgery or had any other obesity-related treatments. Participants were followed for up to 7 years.

Weight loss surgery reduced type 2 diabetes risk by 80%

The researchers found that 177 of the control participants developed type 2 diabetes during follow-up, compared with only 38 participants who had undergone weight loss surgery.

The team calculated that even after accounting for other factors that influence diabetes among obese individuals - such as smoking, hypertension and high cholesterol - weight loss surgery reduced participants' risk of type 2 diabetes by 80%.

Commenting on these findings, Prof. Gulliford says: 

"Our results suggest that bariatric surgery may be a highly effective method of preventing the onset of new diabetes in men and women with severe obesity.

We need to understand how weight loss surgery can be used, together with interventions to increase physical activity and promote healthy eating, as part of an overall diabetes prevention strategy."

The researchers point out that there are some limitations to their study. For example, they did not include patients who had undergone less common weight loss procedures, such as duodenal switch - surgery that combines gastric bypass and creation of a smaller stomach pouch. Therefore, it is unclear how such procedures would affect type 2 diabetes risk in obese patients.

Furthermore, the team says that patients who underwent weight loss surgery may have been more adherent to diabetes prevention advice - such as adopting a healthy diet and exercise - than control patients. "However," they add, "we noted that people who received surgery were more likely to be prescribed antihypertensive drugs or statins, which can sometimes be associated with diabetes."

In an editorial linked to the study, Dr. Jacques Himpens, of Saint Pierre University Hospital in Belgium, says that the findings from Prof. Gulliford and colleagues bring us closer to understanding the effects of bariatric surgery for prevention of type 2 diabetes. However, she notes that "many questions remain unanswered."

"More evidence is needed to convince endocrinologists about the nature of this effect," she adds.

In February of this year, Medical News Today reported on a study revealing that although most women who undergo weight loss surgery say they do not regret having the procedure, many of them feel it causes emotional problems.

Written by Honor Whiteman

What kinds of exercise can boost long-term memory?

Think that improving your memory is all brain training and omega-3 supplements? Think again. A new study from researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta suggests that working out at the gym for as little as 20 minutes can improve long-term memory.

Previous studies have shown that memory may be improved by several months of aerobic exercises, such as running, cycling or swimming. However, the findings of the new study - published in the journal Acta Psychologica - demonstrate that a similar memory boost can be achieved in a much shorter period.

"Our study indicates that people don't have to dedicate large amounts of time to give their brain a
boost," says Lisa Weinberg, the Georgia Tech graduate student who led the project.

As well as looking at aerobic exercise, Weinberg's team also examined how resistance exercise - weightlifting, push-ups and sit-ups - might affect memory.

The team recruited 46 participants (29 women and 17 men), who were randomly assigned into two groups. For the first part of the experiment, all participants viewed a series of 90 images on a computer screen.

These images were split evenly been photographs that had been classed "positive," "neutral," and "negative." These ranged from pictures of children playing on a waterslide, to photographs of clocks, to images of mutilated bodies. The participants were asked to try and remember as many of them as they could.

Next, the participants were randomized into "active" and "passive" groups and seated at leg extension resistance exercise machines.

The active group were told to extend and contract each leg 50 times, at their personal maximum effort. The passive group were told to simply sit in the chair and allow the machine to move their legs.

The blood pressure and heart rate of the participants were monitored, and saliva samples were collected.

'Active' group showed improved recall of images

Two days later, the participants were again shown the original 90 images they had seen previously, but this time they were mixed in with 90 new photos that the participants had not seen before.

The researchers found about 50% of the original photos were recalled by the passive group, while the active group remembered about 60% of the images.

All of the participants were better at recalling the positive and negative images than the neutral images, but this was even more true for the active participants. The researchers suggest that this is because people are more likely to remember emotional experiences following short-term stress.

The team believes their results are consistent with previous research in a rodent model that found stress responses result in releases of norepinephrine - a hormone that may improve memory.

Analyzing the saliva from the participants, the team found that the active group showed increased levels of alpha amylase in their saliva - a marker of norepinephrine.

Audrey Duarte, an associate professor in the School of Psychology at Georgia Tech, describes the results:

"Even without doing expensive fMRI scans, our results give us an idea of what areas of the brain might be supporting these exercise-induced memory benefits. The findings are encouraging because they are consistent with rodent literature that pinpoints exactly the parts of the brain that play a role in stress-induced memory benefits caused by exercise."

Important how cells copy chromosomes for fighting cancer

As we find out more and more about what goes wrong inside cells, the better we become at killing cancer without harming the rest of the body. Now, scientists have discovered a key step in how cells copy their 

chromosomes when they divide that promises to be very useful for cancer research.

Karim Labib, a professor in life sciences at the University of Dundee in Scotland, and colleagues report how they solved an important mystery in cell biology in the journal Science.

Life depends on cells being able to multiply, a key part of which is copying chromosomes, the tightly packed bundles of DNA that carry the genetic blueprint of the individual.

The chromosome copying process has to copy the genetic information perfectly for new cells to grow and carry out their function normally. The more mistakes that are made, the more likely that cells will behave abnormally and triggercancer.

We do not know enough about how chromosome copying works

The researchers say one of the fundamental biological processes that go wrong in cancer is that the chromosome copying machinery has not worked properly. Their new study sheds light on this process.

Prof. Labib says ever since Watson and Crick first revealed the structure of DNA, scientists have been fascinated by how cells copy chromosomes, yet "we are still quite a way from having a complete picture of how it works."

He and his colleagues focused on the stage when the cells finish copying their chromosomes. Scientists already know something about this; it is vital that this happens correctly for the genetic blueprint to be passed on to the next generation of cells.

"We already knew that 11 proteins in the cell combine to build a molecular 'machine' called the DNA helicase, which plays a vital role in copying the double helix of DNA that is at the heart of each chromosome," Prof. Labib adds.

He explains that the DNA helicase unwinds the two strands of the double helix of DNA, so they can each be copied, and that:

"It is vital that the helicase is only built once during the life of each cell, and then is taken apart or disassembled once it has done its job, so that cells just make one single copy of each chromosome."

Understanding disassembly of the DNA helicase is important for cancer research

Until now, scientists did not know how the helicase disassembled. This is what the team at Dundee discovered. They found, because of a process called "ubiquitylation," one of the 11 components of the helicase falls out when chromosome copying is complete.

Because this one component falls out, the other proteins are unable to stick together, and the DNA helicase falls apart.

"It turns out that this is a very good thing," says Prof. Labib, "as genetic studies show that if the helicase does not come apart but instead remains glued to the chromosomes, then this leads to major problems."

He says this is one of the fundamental biological processes that go wrong in cancer, "almost any time that we see cancer developing, one of the things that has gone wrong early in the process is that the chromosome copying machinery has not worked properly."

The research was funded by the Medical Reseach Council, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust.

Meanwhile, in another area of cancer research, Medical News Today recently learned that researchers have found a molecule that helps cancer cells evade the immune system.

Written by Catharine Paddock PhD

Sleeping with more than 20 women in a lifetime linked to lower prostate cancer

Around 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime.

 But a new study - which is likely to be welcomed by many men - claims that having more than 20 female sexual partners in a lifetime may significantly reduce the risk of developing the disease. 

Sleeping with more than 20 men in a lifetime, however, is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.


The research team, from the University of Montreal's School of Public Health in Canada, publish their findings in the journal Cancer Epidemiology.

According to the researchers, the link between sexual activity and prostate cancer risk remains
controversial. Some studies have associated high sexual activity with a greater risk of the disease,
while others have suggested the opposite.

In this study, the team set out to determine whether the number of sexual partners men have throughout their lifetime influences their risk of prostate cancer.

They analyzed 3,208 men who were part of the Prostate Cancer & Environment Study (PROtEuS) in Montreal, Canada. Of these, 1,590 were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2009, while the remaining 1,618 men were free of the disease.

As part of this study, all men were required to complete a questionnaire that asked about their sexual activity, as well as sociodemographic, environmental and lifestyle factors.

28% lower prostate cancer risk among men who slept with more than 20 women

The team was not surprised to find that men who had a relative with prostate cancer were twice as likely to have the disease themselves. A family history of prostate cancer is a well-established risk factor.

However, the researchers found that a man's prostate cancer risk also appeared to be influenced by the number of sexual partners he had in his lifetime.

Men who reported never having a sexual partner were twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than those who reported having sexual partners.

However, the team found that men who had slept with more than 20 women in their lives had a 28% lower risk of developing all types of prostate cancer and a 19% lower risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer, compared with those who had slept with fewer than 20 women.

"It is possible that having many female sexual partners results in a higher frequency of ejaculations, whose protective effect against prostate cancer has been previously observed in cohort studies."

The researchers explain that some studies have suggested that the more a man ejaculates, the lower the concentrations of cancer-causing substances in his prostatic fluid. Other studies have indicated that a higher frequency of ejaculations may also reduce the production of intraluminal crystalloids in the prostate, which have been linked to higher risk of cancer.

The number of sexually transmitted infections (STI) participants contracted in their lifetime did not appear to influence the risk of prostate cancer, the researchers say, noting that only 12% of men reported having at least one STI in their lives.

In addition, the team found no association between the age at which the men first had sexual intercourse and prostate cancer risk.

Men with more than 20 male sexual partners twice as likely to develop prostate cancer

It was not good news for men who had slept with more than 20 male partners in their lifetime, however.

The team found that these men were twice as likely to develop all types of prostate cancer, compared with men who had never had a sexual partner. Furthermore, men who had slept with more than 20 male partners had a 500% increased risk of developing a less aggressive prostate cancer, compared with those who had only slept with one man.

The researchers are unable to accurately identify the reasons behind these findings, but they speculate that it could be a result of higher exposure to STIs among this group. Furthermore, they note that physical trauma to the prostate may be caused by anal intercourse, which could raise the risk of prostate cancer.

Commenting on their overall results, the researchers say:

"Our findings are in support of a role for the number of sexual partners in prostate cancer development. The gender of sexual partners should be taken into account in future studies investigating this association."

Medical News Today recently reported on a study suggesting that men with a specific baldness pattern may be at higher risk of prostate cancer.

Written by Honor Whiteman

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission.

Is Meat Unhealthy? Part II

Over time, animals adapt to the foods they regularly consume.  This is how archaeologists can, for example, determine that Triceratops was an herbivore and Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore just by looking at the structure of the skeleton.  Adaptations to diet extend beyond skeletal structure, into digestion, metabolism, the brain, musculature, and other aspects of physical function.  What is our evolutionary history with meat?

Human Evolutionary History with Meat: 200 to 2.6 Million Years Ago

Mammals evolved from ancestral "mammal-like reptiles" (therapsids, then cynodonts) approximately 220 million years ago (Richard Klein. The Human Career. 2009).  Roughly 100 million years ago, placental mammals emerged.  The earliest placental mammals are thought to have been nocturnal shrew-like beasts that subsisted primarily on insects, similar to modern shrews and moles.  Mammalian teeth continued to show features specialized for insect consumption until the rise of the primates.

65 million years ago, coinciding with the evolution of the first fruiting plants, our ancestors took to the trees and became primates.  For most of the time between then and now, our ancestors likely ate the prototypical primate diet of fruit, seeds, leaves/stems, and insects (1).  Some primates also hunt smaller animals and thus eat the flesh of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish in addition to insects.  However, the contribution of non-insect meat to the diet is usually small.

Read more »

Food Reward Friday

This week's lucky "winner"... the pumpkin spice latte!!

Read more »

Is Meat Unhealthy? Part I

Introduction

At Dr. McDougall's Advanced Study Weekend, I had the opportunity to hear a number of researchers and advocates make the case for a "plant-based diet", which is a diet containing little or no animal foods.  Many of them voiced the opinion that animal foods contribute substantially to the primary killers in the US, such as heart disease and cancer.  Some of the evidence they presented was provocative and compelling, so it stimulated me to take a deeper look and come to my own conclusions.

No matter what the health implications of meat eating turn out to be, I respect vegetarians and vegans.  Most of them are conscientious, responsible people who make daily personal sacrifices to try to make the world a better place for all of us.

My Experience with Vegetarian and Vegan Diets

Read more »

Obesity → Diabetes

A new study adds to the evidence that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rapidly increasing in the US, and our national weight problem is largely to blame.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) currently estimates that a jaw-dropping 33 percent of US men, and 39 percent of US women, will develop diabetes at some point in their lives (1).  Roughly one out of three people in this country will develop diabetes, and those who don't manage it effectively will suffer debilitating health consequences.  Has the risk of developing diabetes always been so high, and if not, why is it increasing?

In the same issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine as the low-carb vs. low-fat study, appears another study that aims to partially address this question (2).

Read more »

Food Reward Friday

This week's lucky "winner"... profiteroles!!

Read more »

Metabolic Effects of a Traditional Asian High-carbohydrate Diet

A recent study supports the notion that an 'ancestral diet' focused around high-starch agricultural foods can cultivate leanness and metabolic health.

John McDougall gave Christopher Gardner a hard time at the McDougall Advanced Study Weekend.  Dr. Gardner conducts high-profile randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at Stanford to compare the effectiveness of a variety of diets for weight loss, cardiovascular and metabolic health.  The "A to Z Study", in which Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets were pitted against one another for one year, is one of his best-known trials (1).

Dr. McDougall asked a simple question: why haven't these trials evaluated the diet that has sustained the large majority of the world's population for the last several thousand years?  This is an agriculturalist or horticulturalist diet based around starchy foods such as grains, tubers, legumes, and plantains, and containing little fat or animal foods.  Researchers have studied a number of cultures eating this way, and have usually found them to be lean, with good cardiovascular and metabolic health.  Why not devote resources to studying this time-tested ancestral diet?  I think it's a fair question.

Read more »

Help Advance Diabetes Research

A University of Virginia researcher named Hannah Menefee contacted me recently to ask for our help.  She and her colleagues are conducting a study on how people with type 2 diabetes use Facebook to manage their health, and how that technology can be leveraged to support effective health communication.

If you have type 2 diabetes, and you'd like to participate in the study, please join their Diabetes Management Study Facebook group.  There, you'll receive more information about the study, you'll receive a short survey, and you may be invited into one of the study phases.

Food Reward Friday

Today's lucky "winner"... waffles!!!

Read more »

My AHS14 Talk on Leptin Resistance is Posted

The Ancestral Health Society just posted a video of my recent talk "What Causes Leptin Resistance?"  Follow the link below to access it.  Enjoy!

What Causes Leptin Resistance?

USING WATER AS A MEDICINE : DRINKING WATER ON EMPTY STOMACH

A current trend in Japan today is drinking water immediately after getting out of bed. Scientific tests have confirmed the medical value of this practice. This water treatment has been confirmed by Japanese medical authorities to completely cure certain diseases, whether they are more serious or simply mild afflictions. A list of these diseases follows.

Headaches, Body aches, Arthritis, Heart problems, Epilepsy, Obesity, Tuberculosis, Meningitis, Kidney diseases, Vomiting, Gastritis, Diabetes, Constipation, Uterine diseases, Ear and throat diseases

The Method

1) When you wake up, before doing anything, drink four 6 ounce glasses of water, or 160 milliliters. (If for any reason you cannot drink this much water at one time, you may start with as much water as you can drink, then gradually increase the amount.)

2) Brush your teeth and perform basic oral hygiene, then wait 45 minutes before eating or drinking anything.

3) After the 45 minute waiting period you may eat and drink normally.
4) Once a meal is completed, do not eat or drink anything for 2 hours.

Specific Diseases

Using the above method, the research indicates the number of days the regimen must be followed to cure each disease.

• High blood pressure – 30 days
• Gastric problems – 10 days
• Diabetes – 30 days
• Constipation – 10 days
• Cancer – 180 days
• Tuberculosis – 90 days
• Arthritis – use the method for only 3 days the first week, then return to the regular daily regimenUsing this treatment method has no side effects other than increased urination at the beginning of the program. Drinking water and staying healthy and active are ways that will better out lives. Including this water drinking regimen will also help you to stay healthy.
  Both the Chinese and Japanese drink hot tea with their meals instead of cold water. Cold water slows down the digestive process and solidifies the oily foods you have just eaten. Once these solidified oils react with the stomach acid, it is absorbed more quickly by the intestine and lines the intestinal wall. The long term accumulation of these digested oils can lead to cancer. Perhaps Western cultures should adopt this practice, as there is everything to gain and nothing to lose.
  About Heart Attacks
  Women should be aware that pain in the left arm is not the only a sign of a heart attack
  A heart attack may occur even without a chest pain
  Other symptoms of a heart attack are nausea and intense sweating
  About 60 percent of people who have a heart attack while sleeping do not wake up
  Be aware of any pain that is in the jaw. You may be awaken from a sound sleep by this type of pain. It could be a sign of a heart attack.
  Let us be careful and notice the possible symptoms of a heart attack. One cardiologist says that if we are willing to send this to everyone we know, and they do the same, at least one life will be saved.
  Please be a true friend and send this article to all your friends you care about. THANKS TO  : BANOOSH.COM
  
  

Thoughts on the McDougall Advanced Study Weekend

For those of you who aren't familiar with him, Dr. John McDougall is a doctor and diet/health advocate who recommends a very low fat, high starch, whole food vegan diet to control weight and avoid chronic disease.  He's been at it for a long time, and he's a major figure in the "plant-based diet" community (i.e., a diet including little or no animal foods).

Dr. McDougall invited me to participate in his 3-day Advanced Study Weekend retreat in Santa Rosa, CA.  My job was to give my talk on insulin and obesity, and participate in a panel discussion/debate with Dr. McDougall in which we sorted through issues related to low-carb, Paleo, and the health implications of eating animal foods.  I was glad to receive the invitation, because I don't see myself as a diet partisan, and I believe that my evidence-based information is applicable to a variety of diet styles.  I saw the Weekend as an opportunity to extend my thoughts to a new community, challenge myself, and maybe even learn a thing or two.  It was particularly interesting to compare and contrast the Advanced Study Weekend with the Ancestral Health Symposium, which is more Paleo- and low-carb-friendly.

General Observations

The attendees were a lot older than AHS attendees.  I estimate that most of them were in their 60s, although there were some young people in attendance.

I don't place too much emphasis on peoples' personal appearance at conferences like this.  You don't know what a person's background, genetics, or personal struggles may be, you don't know how closely they adhere to the program, and you don't know to what degree a group of people might be self-selected for particular traits*.  But I will note that Dr. McDougall, his family, and many of the other starch-based/plant-based diet advocates tended to be extremely lean with low fat and muscle mass.  They also tended to have a healthy and energetic appearance and demeanor.  As I would expect, decades of exceptionally high starch intake hasn't made them obese or obviously ill.

Read more »

What about the Other Weight Loss Diet Study??

The same day the low-fat vs low-carb study by Bazzano and colleagues was published, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a meta-analysis that compared the effectiveness of "named diet programs".  Many people have interpreted this study as demonstrating that low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets are both effective for weight loss, and that we simply need to pick a diet and stick with it, but that's not really what the study showed.  Let's take a closer look.

Johnston and colleagues sifted through PubMed for studies that evaluated "named diet programs", such as Ornish, Atkins, LEARN, Weight Watchers, etc (1).  In addition, the methods state that they included any study as low-carbohydrate that recommended less than 40% of calories from carbohydrate, was funded by the Atkins foundation, or was "Atkins-like".  These criteria weren't extended to the low-fat diet: only studies of name-brand low-fat diets like the Ornish diet were included, while the meta-analysis excluded low-fat diet studies whose guidelines were based on recommendations from government and academic sources, even though the latter group represents the majority of the evidence we have for low-fat diets.  The inclusion criteria were therefore extremely asymmetrical in how they represented low-carb and low-fat diets.  This fact explains the unusual findings of the paper.

The abstract immediately activated my skeptic alarm, because it states that at the one-year mark, low-carbohydrate diets and low-fat diets both led to a sustained weight loss of about 16 pounds (7.3 kg).  Based on my understanding of the weight loss literature, that number seems far too high for the low-fat diet, and also too high for the low-carbohydrate diet.

Read more »

Low-carbohydrate vs. Low-fat diets for Weight Loss: New Evidence

A new high-profile study compared the weight loss and cardiovascular effects of a low-carbohydrate diet vs. a low-fat diet.  Although many studies have done this before, this one is novel enough to add to our current understanding of diet and health.  Unlike most other studies of this nature, diet adherence was fairly good, and carbohydrate restriction produced greater weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor improvements than fat restriction at the one-year mark.  Yet like previous studies, neither diet produced very impressive results.

The Study

Lydia A. Bazzano and colleagues at Tulane University randomly assigned 148 obese men and women without cardiovascular disease into two groups (1):

1. Received instructions to eat less than 40 grams of carbohydrate per day, plus one low-carbohydrate meal replacement per day.  No specific advice to alter calorie intake.  Met regularly with dietitians to explain the dietary changes and maintain motivation.
2. Received instructions to eat less than 30 percent of calories from fat, less than 7 percent of calories as saturated fat, and 55 percent of calories from carbohydrate, plus one low-fat meal replacement per day.  No specific advice to alter calorie intake.  This is based on NCEP guidelines, which are actually designed for cardiovascular risk reduction and not weight loss.  Met regularly with dietitians to explain the dietary changes and maintain motivation.

Participants were followed up for one year, with data reported for 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month timepoints.  This study actually measured body fat percentage, but unfortunately did so using bioelectrical impedance (like on some bathroom scales), which is essentially meaningless in this context.

Results

Read more »

Less Sleep in Teen Years Tied to More Pounds at 21

THURSDAY, Aug. 28, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- Lack of sleep not only puts teens at risk for poor grades, it also puts them at increased risk for obesity, researchers warn.

The study authors analyzed data collected from more than 10,000 Americans when they were aged 16 and 21. Nearly one-fifth of them got less than six hours of sleep a night when they were age 16, and this group was 20 percent more likely to be obese at age 21 than those who got more than eight hours of sleep per night at age 16, the investigators found.

Although lack of exercise and too much time spent watching television were also risk factors for obesity, these behaviors did not account for the link between lack of sleep and obesity, according to the study published online recently in the Journal of Pediatrics.

"Lack of sleep in your teenage years can stack the deck against you for obesity later in life. Once you're an obese adult, it is much harder to lose weight and keep it off. And the longer you are obese, the greater your risk for health problems like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer," study author Shakira Suglia, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York City, said in a university news release.

"The message for parents is to make sure their teenagers get more than eight hours a night. A good night's sleep does more than help them stay alert in school. It helps them grow into healthy adults," Suglia added.

Teens should get nine to 10 hours of sleep a night, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It's known that daytime sleepiness and fatigue affect what and how people eat by triggering cravings and altering appetite. For example, sleep-deprived people find it easier to buy calorie-laden fast food rather than preparing a healthy meal.

SOURCE: Columbia University, news release, August 2014