High Protein Diet Has No Harmful Effects

Many people are under the impression that high protein diets are evil and cause all types of diseases, however a recent study says that notion is nonsense.

A study published in the Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism found that in resistance-trained men that consumed a high protein diet (~2.51–3.32 g/kg/d) for one year, there were no harmful effects on measures of blood lipids as well as liver and kidney function. In addition, despite the total increase in energy intake during the high protein phase, subjects did not experience an increase in fat mass.

A High Protein Diet Has No Harmful Effects: A One-Year Crossover Study in Resistance-Trained Males

Why We Need to Supplement

The word is out—it pays to take your vitamins.

In 2002, the American Medical Association (AMA) reversed its long-held anti-vitamin stance and began to encourage all adults to supplement daily with a multi-vitamin. A landmark review of 38 years of scientific evidence by Harvard researchers, Dr. Robert Fletcher and Dr. Kathleen Fairfield convinced the conservative Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to rewrite its policy guidelines regarding the use of vitamin supplements. In two reports, published in the June 19, 2002 edition of JAMA, the authors concluded that the current US diet, while sufficient to prevent acute vitamin deficiency diseases, such as scurvy and pellagra, is inadequate to support long-term health.

Insufficient vitamin intake is apparently a cause of chronic diseases. Recent evidence has shown that suboptimal levels of vitamins (below standard), even well avocet those causing deficiency syndromes, are risk factors for chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoporosis. A large portion of the general population is apparently at increased risk for this reason. — Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Fairfield

In the study, the authors examined several nutrients, including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, K, folic acid and several of the carotenoids (including alpha and beta carotene, cryptoxanthin, zeaxanthin, lycopene and lutein). Among their conclusions, they noted:

• folic acid, vitamin b6 and B12 are required for proper homocysteine metabolism, and low levels of these vitamins are associated with increased risk of heart disease (homocysteine is a sulphur-containing amino acid that, at high blood levels, can damage the cardiovascular system);
• inadequate folic acid status increases the risk of neural tube defects and some cancers (a neural tube defect is an incomplete closing of the spinal cord that occurs early in fetal development);
• vitamin E and lycopene (the red pigment found in ripe tomatoes) appears to decrease the risk of prostate cancer;
• vitamin D is associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and fracture when taken with calcium (osteoporosis is a hollowing out of the bones caused by the loss of calcium);
• inadequate vitamin B12 is associated with anaemia and neurological disorders (anaemia is a decrease in number of red blood cells or a lack of hemoglobin in the blood);
• low dietary levels of carotenoids, the brightly colored pigments in peppers, carrots and fruits, appear to increase the risk of breast, prostate and lung cancers (carotenoids belong to the family of nutrients called bioflavonoids);
• inadequate vitamin C is associated with increased cancer risk; and
• low levers of vitamin A are associated with vision disorders and impaired immune function

In a striking departure from JAMA’s long held anti-vitamin stance, the authors concluded that, given our modern diet, supplementation each day with a multi-vitamin is a prudent preventive measure against chronic disease. The researchers based their guidance on the fact that more than 80% of the American population does not consume anywhere near the five servings of fruits and vegetables required each day for optimal health.

JAMA’s previous comprehensive review of vitamins, conducted in the 1980’s, concluded that people of normal health do not need to take a multivitamin and can meet all their nutritional needs through diet alone. Since that time, nutritional science has compiled an impressive wealth of studies affirming the health benefits of supplementation as an adjunct to a healthy diet. The American Medical Association’s about-face in light of the Fairfield-Fletcher studies, and its public declaration that supplementation is now deemed important to your health, underscores the strength of the scientific evidence that now prevails.

The Case for Supplementation

We now have convincing evidence that the lifetime risk of cancer; heart disease; stroke; diabetes; neurological disorders, such as multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease); macular degeneration; osteoporosis; Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia can be reduced by providing the cells of the body with sufficient amount of the right nutrients.

One of the first human studies to substitute the benefits of vitamin supplements was announced in 1992 and showed that men who took 800 mg/day of vitamin C lived six years longer than those who consumed the US Food and Nutrition Board’s recommended daily allowance of 60 mg/day. Published in the journal Epidemiology, this ten year follow-up study showed that high vitamin C intake extended average lifespan and reduced mortality from both cardiovascular disease and cancer.

A compelling report that high-potency supplements extend human lifespan was published in August 1996, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The study involved 11,178 elderly people who participated in trial to establish the effects of vitamin supplements on mortality. Supplementation with vitamin E, alone, reduced the risk of overall mortality by 34% and reduced the risk of coronary disease mortality by 47%. However, when vitamin C and E were used together, overall mortality was reduced by 42% and coronary mortality dropped by 53%, demonstrating the synergistic effects of multiple vitamin therapy. What made these findings of even greater significance was that the study compared people who took low potency one-a-day multivitamins to those who took higher potency vitamin C and E supplements. Only those participants taking high-dose vitamin C and E supplements benefitted.

A 1997 study published by the British Medical Journal evaluated 1,605 healthy men with no evidence of pre-existing heart disease. Those men deficient in vitamin C were found to have a 350% increased incidence of sudden heart attacks compared to those who were not deficient in vitamin C. The authors concluded that vitamin C deficiency, as measure by low blood levels of ascorbate, is a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease.

A massive cohort study, published in 1998, investigated the risk for colon cancer in 88,756 nurses who took folic acid (a B-complex vitamin) as part of a daily multivitamin supplement.

The study found that intakes of 400 mg/day or more of folate, compared to intakes of 200 mg/day or less, were strongly related to lowered risk. While no significant protective effects were noted over shorter periods, an inverse relationship between folate intake and cancer risk became apparent after five years of use. After 15 years, a remarkable 75%reduction in the risk of colon cancer was noted among those women taking the supplements containing the B-complex vitamin. The authors concluded that longterm use of multivitamins might substantially reduce the risk for colon cancer, an effect likely related to the folic acid contained in these products.

In this same study, nurses who took multivitamins containing vitamin B6 also reduced their risk of heart attack by 30%. The evidence revealed that the more vitamin B6 they took, the lower the risk was of suffering a sudden cardiac event. These finding support those of another cohort study conducted in Norway that demonstrated a combination of folic acid and vitamin B6 can reduce homocysteine levels by up to 32% in healthy individuals. Homocysteine, a harmful amino acid at high blood levels, can markedly increase the level of inflammation and oxidative stress in blood vessels, which can precipitate both heart attack and stroke.

In 2005, an international coalition led by Canadian researchers at McMaster University, Ontario, provided evidence that a comprehensive ‘cocktail’ of nutritional supplements can significantly improve lifespan in animal models. The nutrient mixture, containing 31 nutrients common to many better quality broad-spectrum supplements available on the market, targeted key factors in the again process, including the proliferation of reactive oxygen species (ROS aka free radicals), inflammatory processes, insulin resistance and mitochondrial dysfunction. In the study, the treatment group of mice exhibited an 11% increase in lifespan compared to normal mice who did not receive the supplement cocktail. Previously, the same researcher established that the supplement cocktail completely abolished severe cognitive decline expressed by aging untreated mic. The results from these animal-model experiments demonstrate that broad-spectrum dietary supplements may be effective in ameliorating the effects of again and age-related pathologies where simpler formulation have generally failed.

The benefits of supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega-3 fats) after a heart attack are well documented. Omega-3 fatty acids, commonly found in cold-water fish, nuts and grains, dramatically reduce the risk of premature death in high-risk individuals. A 2008 study on post-myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients revealed a significantly lowered likelihood of dangerous cardiac arrhythmia and an 85% reduction in the risk of premature death by simply maintain an optimal level of omega-3 fats in the diet. Moreover, these protective effects are also seen in healthy populations. In healthy people with no evidence of heart disease, men and women appear to achieve the same level of protection against premature death by supplementing with omega-3 oils from fish and nuts. In a 2010 Norwegian study, elderly men with no evidence of overt heart disease who supplemented with fish oil experience a 47% reduction in the risk of premature death compared to those who did not supplement. Similarly, a large Australian study found that women with the highest levels of omega-3 consumption from nuts and fish had a 44% reduction in the risk of premature death from inflammatory disease. The protective effect was dose-related to the level of omega-3 intake. The ability of omega-3 fats to reduce the level of systemic inflammation through the production of anti-inflammatory prostaglandins (primitive cell signaling hormones) appears to be the source of their protective talents. 

A 19-year study of colorectal cancer rates found the relative risk in men with poor vitamin D status was almost triple that of men with sufficient vitamin D. In a meta-analysis conducted on research worldwide from 1966 to 2004, researchers from the University of California concluded that 1,000 IU/day of vitamin D lowers an individual’s risk of developing colorectal cancer by as much as 50%. A 2006 review of vitamin D status and cancer risk in the northeastern United States concluded that efforts to improve vitamin D status through vitamin D supplementation could markedly reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost and with few or no adverse effects. A 2008 review of current research findings on the cancer-protective effects of vitamin D concluded that intakes of between 1000 and 4000 IU per day protect against cancers of the breast, colon, prostate, ovary, lungs and pancreas. Lastly, a 2009 review on ultraviolet radiation, vitamin D and cancer concluded that circulating levels of vitamin D play an important role in determining the outcomes of several cancers. According to the authors of this review, support for the sunlight/vitamin D/cancer link is scientifically strong enough to warrant the use of vitamin D in cancer prevention and treatment protocols.

These studies and their finding are but a few of the thousands of independent scientific reports confirming the efficacy of supplementation with high quality nutritional supplements as a prudent, preventative measure for optimal health and disease prevention.

The Other Side of the Coin

To be certain, the premise of life extension and disease prevention through supplementation does not have universal support amongst the scientific community. As is inevitably the case, in an evidence based discipline there will arise conflicting studies that cast doubt on the evidence. Many researchers argue that supplements provide a convenient and effective means for supplying the optimal intakes of essential nutrients required to support long-term health; others counter that there is no conclusive proof that supplements provide any real health benefits at all. 

Unfortunately, much of the debate is framed by a media more interested in selling newspapers than in ferreting out the truth. Sloppy reporting, distorted editorial sensationalism, and conflicts of interest by researchers and publishers have unnecessarily alarmed the public and have treated to destroy its trust in complementary health care. Health conscious consumers and medical practitioners alike have become frustrated at the mixed messages promulgated through the headlines: one day we are told something is good for us and the next day we are told it is bad for us. Why do so many recently published studies appear to refute the prevailing scientific evidence about the benefits of natural approaches to wellness? How can vitamin E be good for us one day and bad for us the next? For once, why can’t the experts just get it straight?

If it is of any consolation, it may be helpful to understand that science never progresses smoothly—there will always be new findings that appear to refute long established theories. Controversy is the crucible for change and paves the road that science must travel to arrive at a final truth. Unfortunately, media bias and conflicts of interest place unnecessary detours along the way.

Firstly, the consumer must understand that out of 100 clinical studies that investigate a particular effect, probability dictates that five of these studies—no matter how well designed—will show results that are not real. There will always be a statistical fluke in the bunch.

Secondly, about one-fifth of clinical trials investigating a particular effect will not have the needed number of subjects to show a statistically significant result. This occurs because in most clinical trials the probability of finding a real result, known as the power of a test, is set at a minimum of 80%. Consequently, there is up to a 20% chance of missing your mark and failing to find a different when one actually exists. This is merely the gremlin of probability at work.

Thirdly, some investigations are just bad science, improperly conducted, poorly reported and inadequately reviewed. Unfortunately, as has been the case in several recent studies, their findings attract an inordinate amount of attention from a media hungry for headlines.

Except from NutriSearch's Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements, 5th Professional Edition.

Questions Concerning Soy Safety

While there are those out there who continue to praise soy as some kind of miracle food, evidence continues to emerge which exposes its many faults and raises questions about its safety. 

Soy and other foods and herbs with estrogen-mimicking properties are often recommended to menopausal and post-menopausal women because high consumption may lead to amelioration of some of the symptoms associated with the natural decline in estrogen levels. They are also sometimes included in protocols designed to reduce the effects of excess estrogen in women with “estrogen dominance” and elevated levels of the estrogen fractions associated with higher rates of breast cancer. Phytoestrogens bind to estrogen receptors in the human body, thereby blocking the binding of the body’s natural estrogen. And since these plant estrogens have a much milder effect than true estrogen, they are believed to help with some of the symptoms associated with excess estrogen. Soy seems to play both sides of the coin: it has estrogenic effects, but can also be used to lessen estrogenic effects. Head spinning yet? Perhaps this is why the results of studies looking at soy and female health are so mixed.

Soy is also touted as a good source of protein, because it is one of the only complete proteins among plant foods (meaning it contains all the essential amino acids; although like all legumes, it is low in methionine). However, what is often not mentioned in the same sentence when soy is being touted as a plant-based protein source is that soy is also notorious for interfering with digestion of the very protein it provides. Soy contains trypsin inhibitors—compounds that reduce the efficacy of digestive enzymes—and these hardy anti-nutrientswithstand a high level of processing, so they’re still present in most commercial soy foods.

While Asian diets—commonly cited for being more health-promoting than Western diets—do contain soy products, they are usually prepared by traditional fermentation methods that reduce the potency of the digestive inhibitors and anti-nutrients. Moreover, soy sauce, miso, natto, and edamame are consumed in small quantities, and sometimes only as a garnish. Soy consumption in Asia is a world apart—no pun intended—from soy consumption in the modern United States, where vegetarians and vegans following plant-based diets can sometimes be better referred to as “soytarians.” They consume unprecedented amounts of soy, largely in the form of highly refined, puffed, extruded, and otherwise processed foods, such as soy milk, soy-based breakfast cereal, soy “chicken,” soy “cheese,” textured vegetable protein, and other soy-based foods marketed as imitation meat and dairy products.

Adults who have made a deliberate decision to consume a lot of soy aren’t the only ones affected by soy’s potentially adverse effects. With 25% of infant formula in the U.S. being soy-based, developing babies can be unwitting participants in an experiment that may have negative consequences for their long-term health. 

A recent study sheds light on a possible connection between increased seizure rates in autistic children fed soy formula, as compared to those fed dairy formulas. The author also found an association between soy formula consumption and epilepsy. The study identified a comorbidity of autism and epilepsy of 1.6–3.8%, which is higher than in the general population. Within that, among soy-fed infants there was a 3.6% rate of epilepsy, which is over twice as high as the 1.7% among non-soy fed infants. These numbers might seem very small, but as the author points out, “These may be considered by some readers as small percentages in each group who had seizures, but the two-fold or greater differences between soy and non-soy diets are statistically significant. Pharmaceutical interventions that reduced the incidence of febrile seizures or epilepsy by 2-fold would be in demand.” 

It’s important to note that these were associations, and they do not necessarily imply causality. However, similar findings relate soy consumption to seizures in other populations, as shown in an animal model of neurological diseases. Nevertheless, although the study was small and retrospective, it raises concerns which, when combined with other studies that sound the alarm, suggest people should be more cautious when ingesting large amounts of soy products that may have adverse effects on the body’s endocrine and neurological functions—particularly in populations as vulnerable as developing infants.

For more information check out the Whole Soy Story

Calcium Supplements May Damage the Heart

After analyzing 10 years of medical tests on more than 2,700 people in a federally funded heart disease study, researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine and elsewhere conclude that taking calcium in the form of supplements may raise the risk of plaque buildup in arteries and heart damage, although a diet high in calcium-rich foods appears be protective.

In a report on the research, published Oct. 10 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers caution that their work only documents an association between calcium supplements and atherosclerosis, and does not prove cause and effect.

But they say the results add to growing scientific concerns about the potential harms of supplements, and they urge a consultation with a knowledgeable physician before using calcium supplements. An estimated 43 percent of American adult men and women take a supplement that includes calcium, according the National Institutes of Health.

“When it comes to using vitamin and mineral supplements, particularly calcium supplements being taken for bone health, many Americans think that more is always better,” says Erin Michos, M.D., M.H.S., associate director of preventive cardiology and associate professor of medicine at the Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “But our study adds to the body of evidence that excess calcium in the form of supplements may harm the heart and vascular system.”

The researchers were motivated to look at the effects of calcium on the heart and vascular system because studies already showed that “ingested calcium supplements — particularly in older people — don’t make it to the skeleton or get completely excreted in the urine, so they must be accumulating in the body’s soft tissues,” says nutritionist John Anderson, Ph.D., professor emeritus of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health and a co-author of the report. Scientists also knew that as a person ages, calcium-based plaque builds up in the body’s main blood vessel, the aorta and other arteries, impeding blood flow and increasing the risk of heart attack.

For more information be sure to look at the article on Johns Hopkins Medical site.

Getting the Most Out of Your Workout

Pre-workout supplements have never been more popular. They provide you with increased energy and endurance for your workout; however, there are several issues to consider when choosing the best approach for yourself or your patients.

One of the most important things to consider when evaluating your options is that many popular pre-workout supplements are loaded with stimulants. There is nothing wrong with a little caffeine, but most of the pre-workout products on the market contain as much caffeine as five cups of coffee. In addition, many also contain food dyes and artificial sweeteners, with most powders being sweetened with sucralose. While food manufacturing companies and global health authorities have deemed sucralose safe for consumption, most health care providers know that this is not the case. According to a recent study in theJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, sucralose is a biologically active compound that decreases the number and balance of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract; causes epithelial scarring, the depletion of goblet cells and glandular disorganization in the colon; and alters insulin, blood glucose, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) levels.1 

I started weight training 16 years ago and have been a competitive powerlifter for the past four years. I know the importance of nutrients for supporting focus, energy, and endurance. The challenge is finding good, health-promoting products that do not have excessive amounts of caffeine, while also being free of artificial sweeteners and food dyes.

These are some nutrients that I have personally found to be effective and safe to take prior to training: 

Creatine has been heavily researched for the past 20 years and is ideal for people who are sensitive to stimulants. Creatine supplementation can increase tissue concentrations of this nutrient to a level that is unobtainable through the diet alone. However, it is important to use a creatine supplement in a stabilized, alkaline form so it does not raise creatinine (a metabolite of creatine). Many of the side effects of taking high-dose creatine supplementation are not from the creatine itself, but are actually from creatinine.

Acetyl L-carnitine is one of the most extensively researched brain nutrients with a proven ability to enhance mental energy. Most people associate acetyl L-carnitine with preventing age-related memory decline and slowing Alzheimer's; however, it is also very effective when used pre-workout for increasing mental focus and energy.

Glycerophosphocholine (GPC) is an activated form of choline that crosses the blood brain barrier. GPC is another brain nutrient commonly used for age-related brain conditions and brain recovery from stroke or trauma. GPC also has other benefits, such as enhancing growth hormone secretion. According to a study in Nutrition, plasma growth hormone secretion was increased significantly 60 minutes after taking GPC, whereas no significant change was observed with the placebo.2

L-Arginine is a non-essential amino acid that is important for many cellular functions. It is a precursor to nitric oxide, which increases blood flow, thereby raising the supply of oxygen and nutrients to muscles.

Medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) provide a great energy source for weight lifters. MCTs are quickly converted into energy, sparing amino acids from being used as fuel. This is essential for athletes restricting their carbohydrate intake, intermittent fasting, carb back-loading, or following the "warrior diet.”

Caffeine is definitely beneficial but not a lot is needed to get the job done. It also depends on the time of day that you are training. I prefer to mix coconut oil in tea (coffee may be preferable to many, but I myself do not drink coffee) prior to training. A good alternative is to use an MCT oil supplement containing coconut and palm oils.

Choosing the right supplements can have a large impact on what you are able to get out of your workouts, but sifting through the stimulants, dyes and unhealthy sweeteners can be discouraging. This list presents safe and beneficial nutrients that support athletic performance, as well as some brain nutrients that are often not thought of when formulating a pre-workout regimen, yet can be extremely helpful for focus and mental energy in athletes.  I can honestly say that I feel and see the difference in my workouts now.

by Michael Jurgelewicz, DC, DACBN, DCBCN

Fat is Good. Animal Fat is Best.

The most important fats which should be consumed daily and which should constitute the bulk of all fat consumption, are animal fats: fats in fresh meats, fats rendered from meats, dairy fats (butter, cream and ghee) and fats in egg yolks. Animal fats contain largely saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.

I’m sure you’re begging to ask the questions: What about the “deadly” saturated fats? Don’t they cause heart disease? Aren’t animal fats all saturated? Well, this is the result of the relentless efforts made by the food industry to fight their competition. What is their competition? The natural fats, of course. There is not much profit to be made from the natural fats, while processed oils and fats bring very good profits. So, it is in the food industry’s interest to convince everybody that natural fats are harmful for health, while their processed fats, hydrogenated and cooking oils are good for us. We have been subjected to this propaganda for almost a century, so it is little wonder that many of us have succumbed to it.

The saturated fats in particular were singled out by the food industry. How did this happen? Dr. Mary Enig, an international expert to lipid biochemistry, explains: “In the late 1950s, an American researcher, Ancel Keys, announced that the heart disease epidemic was being caused by the hydrogenated vegetable fats; previously this same person had introduced the idea that saturated fat was the culprit. The edible oil industry quickly responded to this perceived threat to their products by mounting a public relations campaign to promote the belief that it was only the saturated fatty acid component in the hydrogenated oils that was causing the problem … From that time on, the edible fats and oils industry promoted the twin idea that saturates (namely animal and dairy fats) were troublesome, and polyunsaturates (mainly corn oil and later soybean oil) were health-giving.”

The wealthy food giants spend billions on employing an army of “scientists” to provide them with “scientific proof” of their claims. In the meantime the real science was, and is, providing us with the truth. However, it is the food giants who have the money to advertise their “science” in all the popular media. Real science is too poor to spend money on that. As a result, the population only hears what the commercial powers want them to hear.

So let us dive into the truth that real science has provided us:

1. Processed fats, hydrogenated fats and cooking vegetable oils cause atherosclerosis, heart disease and cancer. This is a fact, proven overwhelmingly by real science.

2. Animal fasts have nothing to do with heart disease, atherosclerosis and cancer. Our human physiology needs these fats; they are important for us to eat on a daily basis.

3. Saturated fats are heart protective: they lower the Lp(a) in the blood (Lp(a) is a very harmful substance which initiates atherosclerosis in the blood vessels), reduce calcium deposition in the arteries and are the preferred source of energy for the heart muscle. Saturated fats enhance our immune system, protect us from infection and are essential for the body to be able to utilize the unsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. One of the most saturated fats that Nature has provided is coconut oil. It has been shown to be wonderfully healthy and therapeutic in most degenerative conditions.

4. Animal fats contain a variety of different acids, not just saturated ones. Pork fat is 45% monounsaturated, 11% polyunsaturated and 44% saturated. Lamb fat is 38% monounsaturated, 2% polyunsaturated and 58% saturated. Beef fat is 47% monounsaturated, 4% polyunsaturated and 49% saturated. Butter is 30% monounsaturated, 4% polyunsaturated and 52% saturated. This is the natural composition of animal fats and our bodies use every bit. Including the saturated part. If you want to understand how important every bit of the animal fat is for us let us have a look at the composition of human breast milk. The fat portion of the breast milk is 33% monounsaturated, 16% polyunsaturated and 48% saturated. Our babies thrive beautifully on this composition of fats and the largest part of it is saturated.

5. We need all the natural fats in natural foods, and saturated and monounsaturated fats need to be the largest part of our fat intake.

6. The simplistic idea that eating fat makes you fat is completely wrong. Consuming processed carbohydrates causes obesity. Dietary fats got into the structure of your body: your brain, bones, muscles, immune system, etc. -- every cell in the body is made out of fats to a large degree.

These are the facts which real science has provided. Unfortunately, as already mentioned, most of us do not hear about the discoveries of real science. Spreading any information in this world costs money. So, the population at large mostly gets information that serves somebody with a fat wallet. In order to get the real, true information on any subject, we have to search for it, rather than relying on news reports of “scientific breakthroughs” unleashed on us by the popular media.

Directing our attention back to the fat composition of human breast milk again we remember it is 33% monounsaturated, 16% polyunsaturated and 48% saturated. Mother Nature does not do anything without good reason. Human breast milk is the best and the only suitable food for a human baby. Human physiology does not change as babies grow, so our requirements for a particular fat composition in food stay about the same throughout our lives: 33% monounsaturated, 16% polyunsaturated and 48% saturated. This is what we need as it is what Mother Nature intended. The only foods with this composition of fats are animal products: meats, eggs and dairy; and these are the foods that should provide us with the bulk of all fats we consume.

Fats which plants contain have a very different fatty acid composition, they are largely polyunsaturated. Polyunsaturated fatty acids are very fragile, they are easily damaged by heat, light and oxygen. That is why Mother Nature has locked them up and protected them very well in the complex cellular structure of seeds and nuts. When we eat seeds and nuts in their whole natural state we get the fatty acids in their natural state, unchanged and beneficial to health. When we extract oils from seeds and nuts in our big factories, we damage fragile polyunsaturated fatty acids and make them harmful to health. But the most important point is this: when we consume whole natural seeds and nuts, we get their polyunsaturated oils in small amounts, amounts which are compatible with our human physiology. We do not need a lot of polyunsaturated fats, the bulk of our fat consumption should be saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. When we consume vegetable and cooking oils, we consume their polyunsaturated fatty acids in excess, far too much for healthy human physiology. It is excessive omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids from vegetable and cooking oils that are to a large degree causing an epidemic of inflammatory degenerative conditions in our modern world, from heart disease and various autoimmune problems to cancer.

Except from Gut and Psychology Syndrome

The Importance of Branched-Chain Amino Acids

Food Manufacturers Are Fooling You

By Mike Sheridan

Fact: The unhealthiest foods you could possibly eat often have the most health claims on the label. Ironic, isn't it? Think about most breakfast cereals. You're basically eating a bowl of sugar and flour. But the front of the box is packed with health claims:

• Low fat!
• Heart healthy!
• High fiber!
• Gluten-free!
• Reduced sodium!
• Made with whole grains!

Flip that box around like a smart grown-up and take a look at the ingredient list: sugar, flour, sugar in another form, sugar in a different color, sugar with a pretty name, etc. It's Type-2 diabetes in a bright box featuring a cartoon character selling love handles and loneliness.

And now they have a new marketing angle: a clever blend of childhood nostalgia and "fat acceptance." They tell us to eat what we want and love our body no matter what it looks like. Presumably, this is because they've finally recognized that the only people still eating cereal for breakfast have already given up on their health and body composition.

Funny thing is, when looking at the evidence, it's clear that there were never really health benefits in the first place to back up all these "healthy" labels. Here's how many of them originated and why they're wrong.

1 – Low Fat

It's taken over 40 years to officially call BS on the fraudulent claims about fat. The fear of dietary fat started in the 60's and 70's and immediately moved breakfast cereal into the "healthy" category. Hey, sugar is fat free! Bacon, eggs, and butter were out. Low-fat indigestible roughage was in because the research of the time was suggesting that saturated fat was clogging our arteries and increasing our risk of heart disease.

And despite the various top-notch review studies disproving this myth today, the cereal killers, sugar-water sellers, and big pharma phonies continue to lobby government officials, pay off medical and fitness professionals, and fund bogus research studies to keep it alive.

A low-fat diet isn't a benefit because eating fat doesn't cause disease. NOT eating it probably does, and we now know the body even needs some saturated fat to function optimally.

2 – High Fiber

Once you understand the origins of the low-fat guidelines it's easy to see how the advice to eat more fiber came about.

Denis Burkitt was the man behind the 1970's research linking high-fiber diets to lower rates of disease (colorectal cancer specifically). Just like Ancel Keys (the fat fraud), his evidence was awful. He basically claimed that African tribesman were healthier than Westerners because they ate their grains whole (with the fibrous outer shell). He conveniently failed to include a number of disease-free tribes thriving on starch-less diets high in saturated fat and animal protein, like the Masai.

Nonetheless, the bran we were throwing in the garbage became a prized possession, Burkitt wrote a best-selling book, and the "high-fiber" stamp fit perfectly next to the "low-fat" one on our breakfast bowl of blood sugar and body fat. It remains there today, right along with the misconception that whole grains are healthier than refined grains and that more fiber is a good thing, regardless of the source.

Meanwhile, the only study looking at the long-term impact of eating a high-fiber diet (DART, 1989) found an INCREASED risk of heart disease (23%) and mortality (27%). Those studies looking at colorectal cancer saw no benefit to upping our fiber intake:

"Our data do not support the existence of an important protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal cancer or adenoma." (Fuchs CS et al. NEJM, 1999)

"In this large pooled analysis... high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer." (Park Y et al. JAMA, 2005.)

3 – Cholesterol

The "lipid hypothesis" suggests that elevated cholesterol is associated with heart disease. And when we add it to what high-fiber, low-fat fanatics tell us, it's no wonder we think the way we do and fall for bogus health claims.

Right around the time all this low-fat, high-fiber evidence was surfacing, doctors and scientists were convinced they'd found the underlying cause of atherosclerosis – the narrowing and hardening of arteries. Nearly every doctor was on board with the theory. In the early 80's the National Institute of Health gathered 14 experts who voted unanimously that, "Lowering elevated blood cholesterol levels will reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by coronary heart disease."

They did so despite the fact that a causal relationship was never established, there's a library of evidence disproving it, and the original experiments used rabbits (herbivores that can't process dietary cholesterol) and a chemically prepared bare-cholesterol, which tends to oxidize.

But along came the prescription statins, and all of a sudden the questions and doctors aggressively opposing the theory disappeared. This created an environment where we dish out damaging side effects to more than 32 million Americans to lower the thing that's NOT associated with heart disease and does nothing to prevent it.

If cholesterol were associated with heart disease, there would be fewer heart attacks in those on statins and those with lower cholesterol, but there aren't. And there would be more heart attacks in those not on statins with higher cholesterol, but there aren't. The two variables aren't even related.

What we do see is statins causing mitochondrial and hormonal dysfunction, and lower cholesterol levels associated with cognitive and neurological impairment (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, depression). This shouldn't come as a surprise when you understand that cholesterol is a building block for cell membranes, precursor to steroid hormones and essential nutrients, and fuel provider to neurons who can't generate it on their own.

"Our finding that low plasma cholesterol is associated with depressive symptoms in elderly men is compatible with observations that a very low total cholesterol may be related to suicide and violent death." (Morgan RE, et al. 1993, Lancet.)

Cereal fiber's ability to lower cholesterol is more of a detriment than a benefit. And realistically, the people getting heart attacks are the ones with elevated triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, and excess small-dense (oxidizable) LDL particles – the same thing eating less saturated fat, more high-glycemic carbs, and vegetable oil-filled boxes of stuff claiming to "lower cholesterol" provides.

4 – Sodium

Heard the one about the obese, pre-diabetic guy with high triglycerides? Doc told him to eat less salt!

That's a joke. Or at least it should be. Salt doesn't make you fat and it's probably the last thing the average person needs to be worrying about when it comes to health.

High blood pressure is the fourth and final phase that turns Syndrome X into the Deadly Quartet. When you have metabolic syndrome, eating less salt won't do anything to solve the real problem.

• 2 weeks – insulin resistance (hyperinsulinemia)
• 2 months – elevated triglycerides (hyperlipidemia)
• 6 months – obesity (high bodyfat)
• 12 months – high blood pressure (hypertension)

People with high blood pressure don't need to eat less salt. They need to stop drinking liquid fructose and start driving-past instead of driving-thru.

More importantly, trying to abide by the FDA and AHA's recommendations to keep salt intake below 2400 mg per day (1tsp) increases cardiovascular disease risk and mortality from a heart attack or stroke. Ironically, this appears to be the result of elevated triglycerides and reductions in insulin sensitivity – the same thing driving the high blood pressure in the first place.

"The inverse association of sodium to CVD mortality seen here raises questions regarding the likelihood of a survival advantage accompanying a lower sodium diet." (Cohen HW, et al. AJM, 2006)

Therefore, one could say that your low-salt food is a double-whammy since you're consuming the food that's elevating the cause of high blood pressure and opting for the "lowers blood pressure" variety that's making it worse.

5 – Gluten

The gliadin proteins in wheat can be damaging to many people because of those proteins' ability to induce inflammation and increase intestinal permeability. Wheat itself may also cause cravings and interfere with your appetite-regulating mechanisms.

However, this doesn't mean all products with a "gluten-free" stamp of approval are suddenly health foods. Pizza is still pizza, pancakes are still pancakes, and a slab of pound cake beside your coffee is and always will be a bad choice... gluten-free or not. This should be common sense, but millions are willingly fooled every day because it's pretty easy to convince us that a delicious junk food is fine when it has an official-looking health claim on the box.

Just like we were tricked into selecting low-fat and low-sodium packaged products because of their apparent health benefit, food marketers have simply found another way to convince you that their bag or box of garbage is healthy.

Gluten-free cereal may be better than gluten-filled cereal, but it's still cereal. And you'd be better off leaving both for the birds.

References

1. La Berg AF. 2008. How the Ideology of Low Fat Conquered America. J Hist Med Allied Sci 63(2):139-177.
2. Siri-Tarino PW, et al. 2010. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 91(3):535-46.
3. Skeaff CM and Miller J. 2009. Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: summary of evidence from prospective cohort and randomised controlled trials. Ann Nutr Metab 55(1-3):173-201.
4. Yamagishi K, et al. 2010. Dietary intake of saturated fatty acids and mortality from cardiovascular disease in Japanese: the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk (JACC) Study. Am J Clin Nutr 92(4):759-65.
5. Mente A, et al. 2009. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 169(7):659-69.
6. Limb M. 2014. Tougher action is needed to address "alarming" levels of overweight and obesity, says England's chief medical officer. BMJ 348:g2438.
7. Burkitt DP. 1971. Epidemiology of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 28(1):3-13.
8. Mann GV, et al. 1971. Atherosclerosis in the Masai. Am J Epidemiol 95 (1): 26-37.
9. Burr ML, et al. 1989. Diet and reinfarction trial (DART): design, recruitment, and compliance. Eur Heart J 10(6):558-67.
10. Fuch CS, et al. 1999. Dietary fiber and the risk of colorectal cancer and adenoma in women. N Engl J Med 340(3):169-76.
11. Park Y, et al. 2005. Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. JAMA 294(22):2849-2857.
12. Steinberg D. 2006. Thematic review series: the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part V: the discovery of the statins and the end of the controversy. J Lipid Res 47(7):1339-51.
13. Kellner A. 1952. Lipid Metabolism and Atherosclerosis: The Ludwig Kast Lecture. Bull N Y Acad Med 28(1):11-27.
14. Stehbens WE. 2001. Coronary heart disease, hypercholesterolemia, and atherosclerosis. I. False premises. Exp Mol Pathol 70(2):103-19.
15. Golomb BA and Evans MA. 2008. Statin adverse effects : a review of the literature and evidence for a mitochondrial mechanism. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 8(6):373-418.
16. Krumholz HM, et al. 1994. Lack of Association Between Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality and Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality in Persons Older Than 70 Years. JAMA 272(17):1335-1340.
17. Braunwald E. 1997. Cardiovascular Medicine at the Turn of the Millennium: Triumphs, Concerns, and Opportunities. N Engl J Med 337:1360-1369.
18. Prior IA. 1981. Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau island studies. Am J Clin Nutr 34(8):1552-61.
19. Superko HR, et al. 2002. Small LDL and its clinical importance as a new CAD risk factor: a female case study. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 17(4):167-73.
20. Kendrick M. 2007. The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It. John Blake.
21. Corona G, et al. 2010. The effect of statin therapy on testosterone levels in subjects consulting for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 7(4 Pt 1):1547-56.
22. West R, et al. 2008. Better memory functioning associated with higher total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in very elderly subjects without the apolipoprotein e4 allele. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 16(9):781-5.
23. Huang X, et al. 2008. Low LDL cholesterol and increased risk of Parkinson's disease: prospective results from Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. Mov Disord 23(7):1013-8.
24. de Lau LM, et al. 2006. Serum cholesterol levels and the risk of Parkinson's disease. Am J Epidemiol 164(10):998-1002.
25. Shin JY, et al. 2008. Are cholesterol and depression inversely related? A meta-analysis of the association between two cardiac risk factors. Ann Behav Med 36(1):33-43.
26. Perez-Rodriguez MM, et al. 2008. Low serum cholesterol may be associated with suicide attempt history. J Clin Psychiatry 69(12):1920-7.
27. Seneff S. 2009. APOE-4: The Clue to Why Low Fat Diet and Statins may Cause Alzheimer's
28. Morgan RE, et al. 1993. Plasma cholesterol and depressive symptoms in older men. Lancet 341(8837):75-9.
29. Brown L, et al. 1999. Cholesterol-lowering effects of dietary fiber: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 69(1):30-42.
30. Swain JF, et al. 1990. Comparison of the Effects of Oat Bran and Low-Fiber Wheat on Serum Lipoprotein Levels and Blood Pressure. N Engl J Med 322:147-152.
31. Barnard RJ, et al. 1998. Diet-induced insulin resistance precedes other aspects of the metabolic syndrome. J Appl Physiol 84(4):1311-1315.
32. Alderman MH, et al. 1998. Dietary sodium intake and mortality: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I). 351(9105):781-785.
33. Jurgens G and Graudal NA. 2003. Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterols, and triglyceride. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004022.
34. Garg R. 2011. Low-salt diet increases insulin resistance in healthy subjects. Metabolism 60(7):965-968.
35. Cohen HW, et al. 2006. Sodium Intake and Mortality in the NHANES II Follow-up Study. Am J Med 119(3):275e7-275e14.
36. Fasano A, et al. 2003. Prevalence of celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the United States: a large multicenter study. Arch Intern Med 163(3):286-92.
37. Troncone R and Jabri B. 2011. Coeliac disease and gluten sensitivity. J Intern Med 269(6):582-590.
38. Fasano A. 2011. Zonulin and its regulation of intestinal barrier function: the biological door to inflammation, autoimmunity, and cancer. Physiol R 91(1):151-75.
39. Fasano A. 2012. Zonulin, regulation of tight junctions, and autoimmune diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1258(1):25-33.