Free the Animal

There's Usually An Unconsidered Variable

The single biggest problem with what are called "observational studies" is that you generally can't be certain about which variable or combination of variables is responsible for the positive or negative effects you're observing.

This was recently illustrated by a couple of dumb studies. The second of those links is especially egregious, implicating red meat, a staple of humans and their ancestors going back 2.5 million years while the modern grains, sugars and vegetable oils that have been in the diet only recently are given a pass.

Stephan at Whole Health Source came up with a keen observation the other day in this regard.

In other words, the reason observational studies in affluent nations haven't been able to get to the bottom of dental/orthodontic problems and chronic disease is that everyone in their study population is doing the same thing! There isn't enough variability in the diets and lifestyles of modern populations to be able to determine what's causing the problem. So we study the genetics of problems that are not genetic in origin, and overestimate genetic contributions because we're studying populations whose diet and lifestyle are homogeneous. It's a wild goose chase.

Here's another way to look at it, by means of a joke Beatrice emailed the other day.

~~~

I was shopping at the local supermarket where I selected:

A half-gallon of 2% milk
A carton of eggs
A quart of orange juice
A head of lettuce
A 2 lb. can of coffee
A 1 lb. package of bacon

As I was unloading my items on the conveyor belt to check out, a drunk standing behind me watched as I placed the items in front of the cashier. While the cashier was ringing up the purchases, the drunk calmly stated, 'You must be single.'

I was a bit startled by this proclamation, but I was intrigued by the derelict's intuition, since I indeed had never found Mr. Right. I looked at the six items on the belt and saw nothing particularly unusual about my selections that could have tipped off the drunk to my marital status.

Curiosity getting the better of me, I said, 'Yes, you are correct. But how on earth did you know that?'

The drunk replied, 'Cause you're ugly.'

~~~

Of course, that suggests another problem in addition to an unconsidered variable: you might be biased against one of more or them.

Unbridled Reductionism vs. Common Sense

I get lots of interesting questions. For instance, the other day I was in the 40F deg. cold plunge at San Jose Athletic Club -- a mere 5-minute walk from the loft -- and while coming up on the minute mark and my intended time to get out, another guy got in and asked if I hadn't lost quite a bit of weight.

I ended up staying in and chatting for over five minutes about things Primal, Paleo, and "Ev-Revolutionary," not feeling a bit cold.

But the questions were remarkable, in that he could see the transformation in front of his very eyes -- which meant he also had no reason to doubt my performance gains in the gym either (and he could just go ask my trainer, Mike, anyway). But I guess they had to come...

Fasting? Doesn't that "harm your metabolism?"
Answer by question: does it harm the metabolisms of wild animals if they don't always get their kill?...

"Skipping" breakfast? Don't you have to "fuel" the body for the day?
Answer by question: are you saying that I should eat when I'm not hungry, and, do you observe wild animals eating that way?... 

"Only" two meals per day, usually? Don't you need to keep your "nitrogen balance" up so that you don't waste lean tissue?
Answer by question: do wild animals save up their kills and forages in order to divide into six annoying little meals per day?...

No cardio? Don't you have to get your heart rate up into the "fat burning zone?"
Answer by question: do you see wild animals on treadmills or in any way behaving as though they would have the remotest use for one?

Of course, this could go on and on, but hopefully you see the underlying principle at work. Principles save time, folks, because once you see them vindicated over and over, you can gradually raise the bar, over time, such that the burden of proof becomes greater, and you can dismiss out of hand propositions that clearly violate the principle.

I do this a lot, lately. There's so much out there now that is the product of unbridled reductionism in the service of bias confirmation; i.e., The Conventional Wisdom. So, for example, we can easily understand from an almost obvious, self-evident (a priori) point of view that it would be entirely logical for nature to have evolved very complex pathways in many species, including humans, that provide for essential nourishment from the body's own tissues when needed. Everyone talks about "fat burning," but the body can also burn lean tissue (for protein), and even bone (for calcium and perhaps other essential minerals).

But now, since we've been subjected to the conventional "wisdom" for decades that fat is the greatest nutritional evil, everyone is obsessed about "burning fat," "preserving lean tissue," and even, now, preserving bones from leaching minerals. Of course, no one seems to stop to ponder why they aren't afraid of releasing all that arterycloggingsaturatedfat into their bloodstream when they get into the "fat burning range."

So what happens? Reductionism happens, which, on its face is a worthwhile endeavor: "an approach to understand the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things" (Wikipedia) That's a good method generally, but then there's the unbridled sort of reductionism where a complex, integrated, and logical view of a system is set aside while sweeping cautions are leveled against perfectly normal behavior that we observe in nature all the time, like not getting three squares per day, not eating when hungry, not eating every two - three waking hours, and not running on treadmills or in circles.

Here's an example that's a little different from the above, which focuses primarily on fat burning and an obsessive fear with metabolizing even the slightest gram of lean body mass. I received this very respectful question in email from a reader.

I'd like to preface this by stating that I'm very grateful for the information that people like you and Mark Sisson freely provide to those who are trying to live and eat in a healthy, natural manner.

My question is concerning the fact that Vitamin K2 protects against osteoporosis. You stated that things like animal fats and lean meats are good sources of K2. Since K2 protects against osteoporosis, then it's logical to say that increased meat consumption would preclude bone breakdown; however, I have also read other literature stating that a high protein diet -- such as a diet high in meat content -- would also cause the blood pH to be in a persistent, subclinically acidotic state. The thinking is that this would cause leeching of calcium from the bones, which leads to calciuria and decreased bone mineral density.

I'm thinking that there is a gap in knowledge with respect to the latter point, but can you explain the logical disconnect between the two?

Well I must say that reader Sun hit the nail on the head: logical disconnect. Now, without knowing anything else, does it make any sense that one pathway to good health is also the pathway to decline? I touched on this in my Vitamin K2 entry the other day:

So we're in a sort of bizarre estoppel situation, where they're now finding important nutritional benefits for preventing and reversing heart disease, and these super nutrients are found primarily in the things we've been told will give us heart disease. A perfect storm of modern ignorance.

And digging through the medical literature can become even more confusing, and these are just things I got today, only one of which I explicitly searched for:

Maybe vitamin K increases bone mineral density (BMD) in some people.

Or, maybe it doesn't.

Or, maybe vitamin D is also critical, synergistic.

Or, maybe what's really important is the actual end fracture risk, not bone density, implying the logical, that BD is not the only factor in fractures.

It's enough to make your head spin. Now, here's one I specifically went searching for, but really, only as a means of showing you that the fundamental logic, the Paleo Principle, is sound. Of course, eating meat in abundance is great and essential for your bones, just as one would think from merely looking around and observing nature.

Nutrition plays a major role in the development and maintenance of bone structures resistant to usual mechanical loadings. In addition to calcium in the presence of an adequate vitamin D supply, proteins represent a key nutrient for bone health, and thereby in the prevention of osteoporosis. In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution. This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures. The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological "cascade" that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health. Thus, selective deficiency in dietary proteins causes marked deterioration in bone mass, micro architecture and strength, the hallmark of osteoporosis. In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay. In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures. As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.

Now, did you catch the unbridled reductionism in the above? "This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures."

It's all so unnecessary.

HED: High Everything Diet (If eating garbage is your problem, just eat more of it)

Coming to one or more of your favorite blogs' comments section soon, if the messianic crusade on Peter's Hyperlipid blog is any indication. The comment thread in question begins here. He has also hit Dr. Eades on this post (there's no comment links, but the comments in question begin at 25 April 2009, 23:24). Now, Stephan's blog.

In a nutshell, from one of his comments:

HED = high-carbs + high-fat + high-calories

HED = SAD - sugar - HFCS - PUFAs - TFAs

I'm not going to recount all the specifics, as those are contained in the comments -- over and over -- if you're interested.

I've said before that I don't think carbohydrate is the primary problem (for those without type 2 or borderline, or obsese), and the Kitavans and other H-G groups seem to prove that. In that regard, this HED does seem to eliminate at least some of what migh destroy a high-carb munching Kitavan's health, i.e., refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, processed vegetable oils (HEDers seem also not too fond of omega-3 PUFA -- the Ray Peat influence) and trans fatty-acids.

He has also posted that lots of the low-carbers ignore the Kitavans, which is true. I don't think that's the case for all the paleo-like eaters, and certainly not true for me, as I've often written that healthful diets exist from equator to arctic circle, from high carb intake (Kitavans, Kuna and others -- mostly from starch) to virtually zero carb (Inuit).

What I think is of far more importance is to find the diet or life way that works for you. First, begin with a principle: Real Food and nothing but Real Food. Next, attempt to determine where your genetic ancestry evolved in the last 50,000 years since coming out of Africa. Did your ancestors evolve in tropical regions with plenty of starches and fruits available year round, in regions with limited starches and fruits only seasonally, or with pretty much nothing but meat and animal fat most of the time?

Start there and go with how you feel as your first and primary authority. It's a process. There is great variability, so you may be more adaptable to one macronutrient mix than another, or, it may not make much of a difference. Some are going to feel better on high carb, and some on zero carb, and some in-between.

But never forget the Real Food principle. That's a safe haven and you just can't go wrong.

The HED people are saying, in essence, that if you don't eat grains in abundance (e.g., replacing the cals with more meat, fat, veggies, fruits, nuts), that you're "stupid" and that you're damaging your health. That's nonsense. It violates a sound and proven principle (Real Food), it's -- so far -- based on short term anecdotes and nothing more, and it proposes a one-size-fits-all diet.

Perhaps most annoying of all is that -- at least in the case of the comment crusader -- they seem to take great stock in each and every anecdote of great health achieved (over the last weeks and couple of months) on this HED, yet discount the thousands of low-carb and paleo anecdotes recounted over decades. Everyone here knows my story, including that I've lost 50ish pounds so far, dropped my BP from 160/100 to normal ranges, have HDLs in the 130s, Trigs in the 40s, cured and reversed gum disease, and have rid myself of a number of prescription medications that I have been on for years, and in one case, decades.

But I'm not munching on unlimited bread, pasta, bagels, pizza and pancakes, so I've actually damaged my health, you see. I am unclean; unwashed; unsaved. I'm ruined. I need salvation: HED, I repent; please save me.

A final note about that last paragraph. He -- over and over -- stipulates that those things are only a problem in a low fat environment and that eating them with plenty of animal fat solves the problem. Well, I was never a low fat dieter, and have probably been over 40% fat most of my entire life, mostly from animal sources. I was never much of a candy or junk food muncher, but I certainly did eat lots and lots and lots of bread (with huge mounds of meat, cheese, and veggies between), pizzas (all meat, usually), always used lots of butter and drank plenty of milk and other dairy sources of fat.

Grains ruined my health, and getting away from them while eating unlimited meat, fowl, fish, animal fat, coconut milk & oil, veggies and reasonable fruits and nuts restored my health.

This post is intended as a public service announcement, aimed primarily at those who, for lack of a good explanation, seem to be influenced by religious crusades. So just remember: Animals don't need gurus. Be your own Master and Control your own life.

Cordain, again...

In anticipation of this Thursday's release of Jimmy Moore's interview of Loren Cordain, which I'll blog about after I listen to it, I had a tidbit to report from Cordain's free newsletter, which I subscribe to.

The latest issue (v5, #16) is The Impact of Saturated Fat on Health. For those new to all this, Loren Cordain wrote The Paleo Diet, a book that when I last wrote about it, I lamented not being able to toss my ebook reader across the room.

I have a love/hate thing going with Cordain. I love the principles, i.e., the fact of our evolution, how long agriculture has been a part of that, and how such facts inform our logic as to what things we ought to eat and not eat for optimal health, lean bodies, and taking years off your look.

I hate his ideas regarding saturated fat, and unfortunately suspect that he takes this position out of convenience and then uses silly science to justify it. Here, from the latest newsletter:

The estimation of saturated fats from animal sources is more complex because hunter-gatherers typically ate the entire edible carcass,^10-11 necessitating the calculation of the total edible carcass saturated fatty acid content.

In mammals and most vertebrates, organ and tissue mass scales closely with body mass. Consequently, the mass of individual edible organs can be calculated from body mass using allometric equations.^12-15 Edible carcass mass can be determined by subtracting the mass of bones (minus marrow), hide, hooves, antlers, blood, urine and gastrointestinal contents from the total live weight. Edible carcass saturated fatty acid mass can be computed by multiplying individual tissue and organ mass by their respective saturated fatty acid compositions and then summing these values. The edible carcass saturated fatty acid content by energy can be calculated from values by mass using the cubic regression equations developed by Cordain et al.¹⁶

10. Thomas, E.M., The Harmless People, New York, Knopf, 1959

11. McArthur, M., Food consumption and dietary levels of groups of aborigines living on naturally occurring foods, in Records of the American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land, Mountford C.P., Ed, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1960, 90.

12. Stahl, W.R., Organ weights in primates and other mammals, Science, 150, 1039, 1965.

13. Calder, W.A., Size, Function and Life History, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1984.

14. Meadows, S.D. and Hakonson, T.E., Contributions of tissues to body mass in elk, J. Wildl. Manage., 46, 838, 1982.

15. Hakonson, T.E. and Whicker, F.W., The contribution of various tissues and organs to total body mass in mule deer, J. Mammal., 52, 628, 1971.

16. Cordain. L., et al. Plant to animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in world wide hunter-gatherer diets, Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 71, 682, 2000.

Now, how likely does it seem to you that primitive hunter-gatherers generally ate an entire animal, less "the mass of bones (minus marrow), hide, hooves, antlers, blood, urine and gastrointestinal contents from the total live weight"? Or, in normal times, would they have eaten the most desirable parts (fatty!), discarded the rest, and gone on another hunt?

This analysis just seems too contrived and convenient, to me. It looks like science done for the sole purpose of confirming a bias. How about to you?

Ever seen how bears deal with the salmon run? They strip off the fatty skin, particularly the belly fat, discard the lean salmon meat, and head back into the water for another. I don't think humans behaved altogether differently short of famine or starvation. I know that, had I had reasonable means to just obtain more fatty meat, I certainly would have, in lieu of eating lean, tough, unappealing meat.

Later: Oh, he began the newsletter talking about saturated fat being linked to heart disease. I don't think much of such associations, given that perfectly healthy primitive societies existed on 40-50% of total energy from saturated fat.

More Stupid Nonsense

So, Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Amanda J. Cross, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD; Michael F. Leitzmann, MD, DrPH; and Arthur Schatzkin, MD, DrPH all set out to prove that eating red meat kills you, and -- surprise! surprise! -- they got the result they were looking for in the first place.

Now, I have not looked at this in detail, mostly because it's the same formula I see all the time. In this case, they get a half million old people, give them a questionnaire on their eating habits over the past 12 months (relying upon their memories), then they see who croaks and who doesn't over the next ten years -- ten years riddled with general, increasingly hysterical propaganda about cutting fat, avoiding meat, eating more grains and vegetable oils -- not to mention an explosion of high-sugar, highly processed, vegetable oil and grain ladden packaged foods -- many of them criminally labeled and advertised as "healthy" or "heart healthy;" and the assumption in the study, of course, is that the subjects continued to eat as they had eaten (or, rather, how they recalled from memory how they had eaten).

It's utter crap, and here's their bias on display going into the thing in the first place.

To investigate whether the overall composition of meat intake was associated with mortality, we created 3 diet types: high-, medium-, and low-risk meat diet. To form these diet variables, red and white meat consumption was energy adjusted and split into 2 groups using the median values as cut points. Individuals with red meat consumption in the upper half and white meat consumption in the lower half got a score of 1 (high-risk meat diet), those with both red and white meat consumption in the same half got a score of 2 (medium-risk meat diet), and those with red meat consumption in the lower half and white meat consumption in the upper half got a score of 3 (low-risk meat diet).

So, even before knowing what results they would get, they assessed the "risk" of the diets based on the amount of red meat consumed. You don't think for a second that they would design a study that had any major risk of showing a result where the "low-risk diet" was highest in associated risk, do you?

This kind of crap means nothing to us, folks. And the reason it means nothing is because they are simply comparing a bunch of people eating mostly crap diets (as most Americans do, now) in various mixes of crap & decent food. This is totally inapplicable to a Paleo-like dieter who eats 95% + whole, real food and abstains from killer whole grains, heart-attack-in-a-bottle vegetable oils, concentrated sugar -- and all the derivatives loaded with one or more of these -- and takes it easy on the starches and fruits.

Now go eat your blood red meat.

Saturated Fat and Heart Disease Deaths

Ricardo Carvalho, whose great database work I highlighted yesterday, just emailed me another graph. The latest saturated fat data he could find was from 1998, but see if you can find any correlation.

It's all over the map. If you had to draw a trend, however, how would it look? I'd probably start it from the left at the 120 and finish off to the right at about 80, i.e., more saturated fat associated with less CHD mortality.

Update 3/30/2009: Physicist Robert McLeod took the tabular data I provided and did a fit in MATLAB. The punchline is that there's only a 1% chance of the slope being positive (more saturated fat correlated with more CHD deaths) and a 99% chance the slope is negative (more saturated fat correlated with fewer CHD deaths).

Interesting how, once again, the French thumb their noses at the rest of the world. Red wine? Gimmeabreak. I lived there, and most people have no idea how much animal fat most of them eat. From their fat-heavy sauses to their fatty charcuterie and pâté, to their sweet butter and many fine cheeses. I've remarked before about the difference between how Americans eat cheese and how the French do it. In America, I see people taking a whole slice of bread (or a cracker) and thinly spreading cheese on it. In France, you take a small bit of crust and pile a huge mound of cheese on it. And that's often not all. Many French first put a big pat of sweet butted on, and then the cheese. Like this; tiny piece of cracker, big butter, and big cheese:

Yea, I ate it. It was in the interest of science. Frankly, I think the "French Paradox" has a lot more to do with getting a healthy dose of K2 in their diets from all the organ meats they frequently eat (tripe, kidney, liver), as well as the butter and cheese.

Low Cholesterol to "Die For"

I was having an email exchange with my aunt the other day who was lamenting how her husband's doctor told him that his total cholesterol of 117 (!) is one that most people would "die for." Maybe he's right, as we'll see in a minute; but first, I should point out that George is in his late 80's. So, always be careful about assigning causes to correlations. Correlations are great things, but the best way to regard them is as falsification (disproof) of hypothesized causation.

Reader and commenter on this blog, Ricardo, and blogger in his own right at Canibais e Reis has done something truly amazing (and has surely put Ancel Keys in short pants). Lots of this is going to go over the heads of most people, including myself, but I'm quite confident a number of math and health whizzes will be on this project in short order.

Ricardo has essentially combined data from the following sources into a single database anyone can access:

• UN Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Yearbook
• FAOSTAT food consumption database
• British Heart Foundation Health Statistics database
• World Health Organization Global Health Atlas

In the end, he had data on 170 countries, which he eventually narrowed to 86 countries in order to get a complete data set for all available parameters. You can read about the whole thing right here. This just scratches the surface of what can be done, but here's a couple of examples. How about death in men from heart disease against total cholesterol? (click here for full size).

While the correlation isn't great, it is interesting to note that the lowest heart disease mortality is associated with total cholesterol of 200-220 for quite a group of countries. And do note the saturated fat junkie French right down there at the bottom, edged out only slightly by the Japanese.

Now let's look at life expectancy for women from birth against total cholesterol (click here for full size).

Here, the correlation is much stronger and shows unmistakably an association between higher total cholesterol levels and longevity for women. Interestingly, it looks again like total cholesterol of 200-220 seems to be the sweet spot.

So, guys & gals, how much do you want to "die for" low cholesterol?

Let me stress and reiterate, however. This does not prove or suggest that higher cholesterol causes longevity or reduced mortality from heart disease. Nor does it prove that low cholesterol causes decreased longevity or increased mortality from heart disease. What it does do is prove that "high cholesterol" does not cause more death from heart attack or decreased longevity and it proves that "low cholesterol" does not cause less death from heart attack or increased longevity.

Finally, it proves that every single person, worldwide, out there touting "low cholesterol" is an abject ignoramus. That means we're probably talking about more than 95% of physicians, including your own.

Here's a good primer on the cholesterol con from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, which I blogged a bit over a year ago.

Thought Exercise

I would dearly love to take time to develop this tonight, but I'm fixing dinner for friends (2nd night in a row, with Thursday for family coming up).

Here's the refresher course. Gary Taubes' "alternate hypothesis of fat accumulation," (in my crude way of explaining it). Simply stated: people overeat because they are (have accumulated excess) fat, and it's not that they are fat because they overeat (cause & effect reversal; 180 degree error; the easiest kind).

Here's a quote, and I'm quite certain the author will be fine with non-attribution for now, 'cause if Ilinked it, too many of you smart ones would figure it out (those who haven't already).

Applying the 1st Law [of thermodynamics] to living organisms is Proof by Tautology. Yes, 1 + 1 = 2, but this tells us absolutely nothing about the underlying mechanics. The 1st Law does not (I repeat N-O-T) tell us whether you store excess energy in the form of fat, or bleed it off into the atmosphere by dilating blood vessels next to the skin, sweating, etc. To do so would require an accounting of entropy.

I read that twice the other day, as part of a long piece (which I have linked, BTW). But only today did it jump out, off the page, and bite me like a snake. Finally, I thoroughly understand Taubes' alternate hypothesis for fat accumulation.

Here's a chance for you to think about it, in the context of the "energy is neither crated or destroyed, calories in, calories out" failure.

Let me emphasize. There are still thousands upon thousands out there vigorously trying to shore up their bankrupt hypothesis. See if you can understand more than they do by tomorrow. Clue: trying to apply 1LT to a human organism exposes supreme ignorance. It is in their ignorance that they fail.

Observe America over the last 20 years. It is the 1LT-based hypothesis fully applied to practice.

News Flash: Above 40% Dietary Calories From Fat Virtually Eliminates Heart Disease

The data is in:

Now quick, quick, and go see the shocking rest.

(Note: Ancel Keys was an utter fraud.)

And later: I hope everyone gets the tongue-in-cheek about this post...

A Tale of Two Mayo Clinic Dietician Morons

You've really got to love the Internet.

Another thing I love is watching establishment, authoritarian "experts" -- who fake a livelihood and self-esteem regurgitating the party line -- get it right in the teeth.

That's what happened to these two dumbshits, Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D. in this post ("For those with diabetes — there's more to it than carbs"). I'm not even going to quote any of it because it's just so dumb. 1+1=3 dumb; that's how dumb.

But luckily, as of right now, 31 out of 33 commenters -- most of whom are T2 diabetics or successfully treat T2 diabetics -- have given the two morons a rash of real nice kicks in the teeth. Here was one of my favorite comments, by Debbie (of the two comments that were not kicks in the teeth, one was a question and another was a comment by the author of the post):

This is the sort of article which helps reinforce the truth of the comment my son frequently makes: "If you want to understand human nutrition *never* ask a dietician or a nutritionist, ask a biochemist". I'm a T2 diabetic and thank God I'm pretty internet-savvy. Thus I know full well that a diet that is 45% carbs is a true "killer" diet for diabetics. Any diabetic who researches the issue knows that a real low carb diet is the best hope for longevity. I try to keep carbs at about 5% of my total caloric intake, sometimes up to 10% but *never* higher than that! Higher would send my blood sugars spiraling out of control. But my numbers are all good. I eat plenty of saturated fats too, since I feel quite sure it is not a demon. Not that I eat fat indiscriminately. I avoid trans fats, and polyunsaturated vegetable fats. But I eat my share of dairy fat, animal fat, coconut oil, and monos like olive oil. My typical diet is 70% fat, 5% carb, 25% protein. It's easy to maintain, makes me feel incredible. So far I've lost 70 pounds, and all my numbers are much better. But I pity the poor diabetic who does not have access to the internet. They are the ones likely to lose their limbs, their eyesight, etc. I used to respect the Mayo Clinic as a dispenser of medical information, but after reading this I realize I can't trust a word written here either!

It gets better. A few days later (Feb 3), they published a follow-up moronic post that essentially said the same stupid things. So far, about 12 of 14 comments are good teeth kicks, while a couple of diabetics are recommending going on a pea brain-diet (vegetarian). I particularly liked this comment by Mary Kolk, who literally saved her husband's life from the dietitians and medical doctors doing their level best to kill him -- and those dietitians and medical doctors very nearly succeeded in killing him, by Mary's account.

You have got to be kidding me! You need to read Dr. Richard Bernstein's book, "Diabetes Solutions Third Edition" It is amazing how the medical community refuses to acknowledge tremendus benefits of eating a low carbohydrate diet. My husband is a type 2 diabetic for over 25 years. He had severe neuropathy in both feet and could not walk over 75 to 100 feet at any one time. He was eventually put on insulin after the doctor felt there was nothing more he could do for him. Beginning at 5 units a night, a year later he was on 43 units a night. His weight ballooned to 280 pounds. He was depressed and I told my kids that in 6 months I would be pushing dad around in a wheelchair. About 7 years ago I read Dr. Bernstein's book. I read that book and realized it was all about my husband. Six years ago, my husband accepted responsibility for the diabetes, went on a program of low carb and exercise this was the result: he lost 80 pounds in 9 months, his HA1c fell to 6.5 from 11, he goes to the gym 3 times a week and walks 2 miles each time. He came off of insulin about 3 months after beginning this program and his doctor takes him OFF of meds each time he sees him. He has not had insulin in 6 years! He feels wonderful, he looks wonderful and he is wonderful. He was literally dying in front of my eyes - seeing his doctor faithfully and following what his doctors told him to do. And he was dying slowly. He is now fully alive and well. His HDL is great.

(HT: Doc Eades)

Careful Out There

Here's an example of how one needs to be careful about interpreting studies.

Vitamin D Status and Its Relationship to Body Fat, Final Height, and Peak Bone Mass in Young Women

Context: Vitamin D insufficiency has now reached epidemic proportions and has been linked to low bone mineral density, increased risk of fracture, and obesity in adults. However, this relationship has not been well characterized in young adults.

Objective: The objective of the study was to examine the relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD), anthropometric measures, body fat (BF), and bone structure at the time of peak bone mass.

Design: This was a cross-sectional study.

Outcome Measures and Subjects: Anthropometric measures, serum 25OHD radioimmunoassay values, and computed tomography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry values of BF and bone structure in 90 postpubertal females, aged 16–22 yr, residing in California were measured.

Results: Approximately 59% of subjects were 25OHD insufficient (29 ng/ml), and 41% were sufficient (30 ng/ml). Strong negative relationships were present between serum 25OHD and computed tomography measures of visceral and sc fat and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry values of BF. In addition, weight, body mass, and imaging measures of adiposity at all sites were significantly lower in women with normal serum 25OHD concentrations than women with insufficient levels. In contrast, no relationship was observed between circulating 25OHD concentrations and measures of bone mineral density at any site. Unexpectedly, there was a positive correlation between 25OHD levels and height.

Conclusions: We found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with increased BF and decreased height but not changes in peak bone mass.

While it's tempting to jump on such news -- there's already plenty of well-established reasons to get vitamin D levels up anyway -- studies like this don't do much for me.

Note where the study was done: [sunny] California, which, I might add, has been breaking temperature records lately -- high 70s in mid-January in San Jose. I'm in the mountains right now, 4,500 feet, and it's a beautiful bright & sunny 55 outside. And, when was the study done, summer, winter, spring or fall? Doesn't say.

So, is it the higher D levels causing lower body fat and increased height, or is it just more likely that tall slender girls (16-22) go to the beach and other places to bare their skin and model their bodies more often than short fat girls?

The Black Swan

Here represents a core fundamental of scientific method.

Suppose you lived in Europe any time during the last few hundred years and were fortunate enough to observe the lovely swan in action. Suppose further that you noticed that every single one was white. How about you observed a million of them over time? Could you say, definitively, that "all swans are white?"

No. You. Can't.

You could hypothesize, which, if you're a scientific researcher, would naturally involve attempting to find swans that aren't white. Grasp that: you look for swans that are not white, because, it doesn't matter if you find 10 billion white swans, you still can't say definitively that all are white universally, or even globally, unless every nook and cranny of the Earth has been checked for non-white swans. OK, but so what? Could we work with and find use in hypotheses that may not be substantiated universally, but are true in a limited context? Sure. It's done all the time, and it's fine, so long as it's done right.

But this isn't how politicized, government, and big-industry "science" is done, now -- especially in areas like diet, medicine, environment (yea, all you "health-nut" greens: the bad science is exactly the same, and I've looked into it just as extensively as health going back far more years than I've been into health / fitness). What is done now is that everyone is going about looking for white swans, finding them, and proclaiming that, (!!!) yep, all swans are white.

But it gets worse. Way, way worse. Why? Simple: all swans aren't white. It only took a single exception to disprove the "rule." Here, let me have the always delightfully candid Robb Wolf elaborate:

In the case of vegetarianism from the China Study perspective, we should see a simple dose response curve with meat intake and cancer. We do not. In fact, we only need ONE (1) example of a conflicting finding to completely discredit the hypothesis. The Inuit Paradox is just such an example. Now the vegetarians will start back-pedaling and yamering a bunch of bull-shit, but the fact is we have a well documented example of a society that consumes greater than 90% of it’s calories from MEAT yet suffers NO: cancer, diabetes, or heart disease until the introduction of neolithic foods. This fact is forgotten, ignored, dismissed…but it’s still a fact. The inuit, are BTW but one of hundreds of hunter gatherer cultures who represent this interesting “Paradox”.

So this is what you're up against, folks. It is the literal equivalent of having government and big industry marching about and conducting research, today -- often spending your tax dollars -- to tell you that they have -- yay! -- located even more white swans. And you're trusting your health and that of your kids to that kind of...FRAUD?

What You're Up Against - Eggs Linked to Diabetes

Via reader Chris S. comes this absolutely astounding news: "Eating an egg a day can raise the risk of developing diabetes." And, of course, such "startling" news is being uncritically reported all over the place. You can access the abstract here.

In a word: absurd. I don't know what's worse, actually doing this sort of meaningless and useless "research" in the first place, or mindlessly shilling for it via sensational "news" reporting. In my opinion, the whole lot of 'em ought to be pelted with rotten fruits, vegetables, and of course, eggs.

Now, here's why. This is an observational study, not a controlled intervention study. And not randomized, either. In essence, what they did was to take data from two other studies, data that was gathered by means of an annual questionnaire. As it turned out when they analyzed the data, those who developed type 2 diabetes were largely the same people who tended to eat a fair amount of eggs. Correlation or association, however, in no way implies causation. It could also turn out that the people who got diabetes take hotter showers, on average.

The only thing you can really say is that type 2 is surely linked to diet, diet composition is an individual thing, and it happens that the people who generally have a taste for the foods that tend to lead to the development of diabetes also happen to have a greater than average liking for eggs as well.

Apparently, they only looked for an association with eggs. They didn't look at what, for instance, those who developed type 2 ate with their eggs, i.e., bacon & sausage, or, lots of hash browns, toast, pancakes, waffles, syrup, jams, jellies, fruit cocktails and so on. They didn't look to see, in general, if those who developed Type 2 tended to have higher or lower carbohydrate intake, and, what kind of carbs, i.e., from fruits & vegetables, or from products containing white flour, white sugar, processed vegetable oils, and/or high fructose corn syrup.

But no; couldn't possibly be foods that have continually and steadily grown to super proportions in the American diet over the last century. Nope: it's the eggs, a food humans and their ancestors have been poaching from nests since the dawn of time millions of years ago.

Some of my other posts to shed light on this sort of menace to society:

• Confirming a Bias
• Bad Science and Confirmation Bias
• This Article Made Me Hungry; So I Stopped For Breakfast

  

Confirming a Bias

The problem with doing science is enormous. I have often said that science is a "discipline," and what I mean when I say that involves the recognition that it can be used even more easily to conceal the truth -- or even advance falsehood -- than to establish the truth.

In fact, science, qua discipline, can't really "establish the truth." It can only really show what's unequivocally false. Doing this involves confining one's self (through discipline, over the desire to "prove" one's self "right") to speculations and hypotheses that are falsifiable. I've linked this before, but here's my favorite passage that serves to explain the principal. So, in short, we speculate and hypothesize, and then if doing science in a disciplined way, we set about to prove our speculations and hypotheses...not true, but false. Failing to do that, time and again, is the basis of real science. Look at it logically. Even if I came up with a million different associations to "confirm" or suggest that a hypothesis could possibly be true, I only need one single contradictory fact to render a hypothesis useless.

In the fields of nutrition and health, it's an unmitigated disaster. Has been for decades. It's so insane that there have been billions upon billions (much your tax dollars) spent on research to "prove" or confirm a baseless bias that saturated fats from animals, and consuming other foods high in cholesterol (like eggs) substantially increases your risk for cardiovascular disease, typically through the accumulation of atherosclerotic plaque buildup, i.e., calcification. Why? Maybe because it represents a lifetime of employment. As I indicate above, they can come up with millions upon millions of associations, but you'll never know which one, or combination, or which combination among many possibilities is your "secret formula" for heart health. It's even so bad now that when they don't even produce an association they have predicted to produce, it gets chalked up to a fluke.

It goes even deeper than that; for, the chances -- even if you do all the supposedly "good" or "bad" things -- are that you'll live a fine long life in general good health. ...Although, that's getting more tenuous as there are now so many millions doing "all the right things" and getting fat, diabetic, clogged arteries, and dying young -- like Tim Russert.

Those who subscribe to Art De Vany's private blog were recently treated to a great science lesson along these lines. Art has graciously granted me permission to quote liberally, but, by all means: do yourself a favor and subscribe if you can. And here's a hint: It ain't just Art. One of the great things about the private blog is the comments, like those from Doug McGuff, MD, for example. I'll get to him later.

Before I take up the topic a reader asked me about may I mention that studies by psychologists show that we all suffer confirmation bias. That is, we look at evidence to find ways in which it supports a view or opinion we already have. Minds or opinions are seldom changed by evidence. It is so bad that experiments show that if you take a group of people and separate them according to their view point on a subject — marathons are good for you, or gun control is good or bad — and then give them a lot of data and studies to read, they will strengthen their opinion. They find, even in the most objective studies they may read that are neutral on the opinion and just cover the evidence, that the review strengthens their already held opinion. Minds don’t change, they just have more facts to back their opinion when they read the same studies as the other group. Psychologists call this the confirmation bias; we look for evidence to support our views. This is why Popper and real scientists stress the need to look for evidence that goes against your idea.

Art goes on to quote a Dr. Mirkin on why we should avoid red meat. Take a read, it's pretty short. I'll quote one bit:

His theory depends on evolution.

Ha! Blinded by Science, again. What's most amazing is that after millions of years of meat eating all this human heart disease shows up only relatively recently. Evolution, it must be understood, is merely a term we use to describe what is the underlying cause of it: the almost mathematical logic of natural selection.

Now, if one were to firmly affix such logical cause-effect relationships in their mind they would immediately see that Mirkin is full of bunk. According to the doc, this gene mutated way back when, as homo sapiens first emerged. Yet, there is clear evidence that humans have always eaten meat. Had, in fact, this gene's mutation been harmful in the way Mirkin (and Ajit Varki) suggest, then considering that meat was so absolutely essential to human evolution, natural selection almost certainly would have weeded out that mutation (carriers would have died off), or some other mutation would have emerged to neuter its adverse effects on survival and continued evolution, or even render the original mutation beneficial.

There's more. Back to Art:

First you see the new information is used only to confirm his already held view that one should not eat meat. Second, you see that he adopts the hypothesis proposed by Varki with out testing it. It has not been tested and is nothing more than a possibility. Third, you see that much is being attributed to a difference of one molecule between humans and other animals when there are thousands of such molecules. Fourth, the new form of the molecule evolved with the emergence of humans, a late development in our evolution and one that may have occured along with many others to permit brain expansion. Fifth, no evidence is given concerning the function of the molecule. Sixth, the evolutionary argument is used to make a case for the importance of the molecule while failing to note that humans ate animals for at least 3 million years and most other animals also eat animals, whether they are herbivores are not. Seventh, there are many causes of inflammation and the immune system lies at the root of it. Obesity is the primary cause of systemic inflammation and there are other promoters such as alcohol and trans fats. The list is endless. Eighth, many elements of our lives, diet and environment promote inflammation through immune system responses.

Art goes on to point out how Mirkin (and/or Varki -- I'm not certain who was meant) used to be an early promoter of the "fat=bad" hypothesis, now largely discredited for those in the know (the diet and nutrition media are still shilling for and being the fools of the sugar / grain / pharma industries -- and the public is everybody's fool, as usual). So, now he / they have latched onto an obscure molecule to point the finger at meat. So, it's not the fat, now, but the meat: meat=bad.

And modern ignorance marches on...

What Causes Heart Disease?

In a mental exercise I posted yesterday, I asked readers to speculate as to the order of most likely cause of heart disease and death from myocardial infarction.

The facts are that death by MI was unheard of in 1910 (about 100 years ago), had risen to 3,000 deaths per year by 1930, and to 500,000 by 1960. Then I provided eight food group categories, A - H, and indicated how much each had changed over the last 100 years, but without telling you which group was which. So here we go:

• A; sugar and sweeteners: 100% increase
• B; eggs, fruit (excl. citrus), vegetables, whole grain: Moderate decrease
• C; lowfat milk: 100% increase 
• D; whole (full fat) milk: 50% decrease
• E; butter, lard, tallow: 70% decrease (30 lbs. per person per year to under 10)
• F; vegetable oils (incl. hydrogenated): 437% increase (11 lbs. pppy to 59) 
• G; poultry: 280% increase (18 lbs. pppy to 70)
• H; beef; 46% increase (54 lbs. pppy to 79) 

So, if one were to simply line it up by the numbers, the order would be like this:

1. Massive increase in vegetable oil consumption.
2. Huge increase in poultry consumption. 
3. Large increase in sugar and sweeteners.
4. Large increase in low fat milk consumption. 
5. Large decrease in animal fat consumption (butter, lard, tallow).
6. Moderate decrease in whole, full fat milk consumption.
7. Moderate increase in beef consumption.
8. Moderate decrease in eggs, fruit, vegetables and whole grains. 

Of course, this is missing junk and highly processed foods.

Now, I agree with the commenter on the previous post. This does not establish causality. And yet, how many decades has it been now that the "health" establishment has been telling you, as though it was certain, that meat and saturated fat are the causes of heart disease? If they even mention junk food, pastries, and all manner of stuff loaded with flour and sugar, it's not those: It's the fat.

It's absurd.

So here's the article with associated references from whence I culled this little exercise. That's Sally Fallon and Mary Enig: It's the Beef. This is an excellent source for all manner of mythbusting with regard to meat and other animal products. Here's another good one.

There was another question posed on my original post speculating that perhaps there weren't heart attacks in 1910 because people didn't live long enough to have them. Average longevity was way lower. The firs thing to note about that is infant and child mortality is what brings the averages way down. There are still people living to 80, 90, 100 and beyond -- plenty of them -- and they weren't dying of heart attacks. Stephan had a good post last July concerning this exact issue, vis-a-vis the Inuit.