Support for "Trick and Treat": How 'healthy eating' is making us ill

Which is more reliable: a registered dietician or an unregistered nutritional therapist?

2012-01-31T14:05:00.005Z

This is an example of why I wrote Trick and Treat

In January 2012, The Daily Mail published an article which began:

Nutrition therapists condemned as 'quacks' who put patients' health at risk
Nutrition therapists have been condemned as quacks and accused of putting the health of the sick – including those suffering from breast cancer – at risk.
An industry has grown up based on the concept that ‘food doctor’ nutritionists can cure patients’ ills and allergies through diet.
However at least some of the practitioners, who charge up to £80 for a consultation, are providing advice that could harm health, a study by the consumer watchdog Which? found.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2087167/Nutrition-therapists-condemned-quacks-patients-health-risk.html

The article told readers that Which? had found nutritional therapists who gave questionable advice, had charged high fees for it and were unlicensed. Well, they might have a point but there may also be another side to this story.

Which?'s questionable methods

The first point is that Which?'s research methods and basic criteria are suspect. I have been on the receiving end of a Which? story so I can write this with some authority.

Back in 2001, Which? magazine tested the 14 best-selling slimming diet books to see if the dietary advice they gave worked. My book, Eat Fat, Get Thin! was one of those they 'tested'. But Which? did not actually test them at all. Instead, they looked to see if the books recommended 'healthy eating' and, if they didn't, they were adjudged to be of no benefit, an were not recommended. But, as I knew then, and as much more recent research has confirmed, healthy eating is a cause of obesity. So, as I was more knowledgeable, I wrote Eat Fat, Get Thin! to be of value to people wanting to lose weight, not to put more weight on. And for that reason, Eat Fat, Get Thin! did not fit with their preconceived, but totally wrong criteria. The full story is at http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/which.html

Is the same thing happening here?

Okay, I give dietary advice, if asked, but I wouldn't suggest to a breast cancer sufferer that she disregard her oncologist's advice, just cut sugar out of her diet, and keep her fingers crossed. But I might well point her in the direction of published research so that she can make an informed decision.

For example, the statistics for conventional breast cancer treatment are woefully bad at best, so a no-sugar diet might well work as effectively as (or even better than), say, chemotherapy, which is about 1.5% effective in breast cancer – and has lots of quality-of-life destroying adverse side effects. (Morgan G, et al. The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies. Clinical Oncology 2004; 16: 549-560. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2004.06.007)

Is registration a sign of quality?

The other point that the Daily Mail's article makes is that nutritional therapists are not registered or regulated, whereas dieticians are. And as the British Dietetic Association says: ‘Anybody can set up shop as a nutrition therapist, with no qualifications. Registered dieticians working in the UK are educated to degree level and must be registered with the Health Professions Council.’

But is that a guarantee of getting good advice? In my experience it is not.

In 2001, I was the interviewer and nutritional adviser in a documentary video which was attempting to sort out the confusion caused by books like mine and Atkins and the obvious conflict with current dietary advice. We interviewed nutritionists, dieticians and doctors as well as people attempting to lose weight. The doctors were fine: they knew that they didn't know much about diet. However, we found that registered nutritionists and dieticians were, to put it bluntly, ignorant, incompetent and arrogant. They were qualified; they knew their stuff – except they didn't! You can read about one of the interviews at http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/why-eat-5-portions-1.html.

She was not alone. We interviewed two others. Neither of them knew much about foods, nutrients and the effects on the body of even basics such as carbohydrates and fats. One openly admitted, when she asked for and I showed her the questions to come – they were about ketones and the effects of exercise – that she couldn't answer any of them! In fact, by the third interview, an NF registered nutritionist, it was obvious even to our nutritionally-uneducated production crew that the interviewees were completely ignorant of even the basic facts and could do little more than waffle. After the first three, we didn't interview any others: they were obviously going to be a waste of money.

In the end we didn't use any of these interviews in the documentary. We would have loved to, but couldn't: it would have ruined their careers.

Why are people going to unregistered nutritional therapists?

Registered nutritionists and dieticians effectively cost patients nothing: they are NHS-funded. To consult a nutritional therapist, on the other hand, is expensive. As the Daily Mail article points out, they might charge £80 ($120.00US) an hour. So why are people turning away from the registered dieticians and going to the alternatives?

There can only be one answer: They are dissatisfied with the NHS. And, from talking to many of them, I know that it is the sheer incompetence, indifference and inability to look outside the box they encounter within the ranks of registered dieticians.

I used to lecture on diabetes in hospitals to NHS diabetes staff. The NHS paid for me to do so. But the doctors, I found out, did not like what I was teaching – despite the fact that everything I said was backed by solid evidence and research published in their own medical journals. They had been taught one thing (and learned nothing) and nothing I said or was published subsequently was going to alter their minds or their treatment protocols. And so, diseases such as diabetes, obesity and other conditions associated with these diseases, continue to spiral upwards exponentially, while an ignorant and arrogant – but all powerful – regulated and registered 'health industry' bemoans the facts and suggests it's all the fault of their patients.

The bottom line

As I see it, any patient has two options: The first is to read articles on the Internet and select a nutritional therapist who might or might not know what they are talking about, or go to a qualified member of the British Dietetic Association and be sure that they don't.

Doctors Threaten Strike; Others want us all to be guinea pigs

2012-01-20T13:22:00.002Z

Supports Chapter One: Trick to Treat

Two pieces of news hit my computer almost simultaneously this week. One was good and one was bad. But together they illustrate what is wrong with medicine today.

The good news is that doctors, unsatisfied with a new pensions proposal by the British government are threatening to go on strike.[1]

The bad news is that a couple of very scary doctors in Oxford suggest that we healthy people should be forced to risk serious, possible fatal, illness by being injected with cocktails of bacterial and viral debris in the search for more effective vaccines.[2]

Doctors strike – and death rates fall

Doctors don’t often go on strike, but it has happened sufficiently often for a disturbing trend to be noticed. During the rare times that they have gone on strike – in several countries – the death rate has always gone down.

In 2000, Israeli doctors employed in public hospitals pursued a course of industrial action. This included the cancellation of outpatient clinics and the postponement of all routine surgery. And this limited strike action had some unusual consequences. Throughout Israel, while the doctors were on strike, death rates fell. The coastal city of Netanya has only one hospital whose staff members had a ‘no strike’ clause in their contracts. As a result, doctors in Netanya continued to work normally – and death rates remained stubbornly the same, failing to reflect the reduction that was shown in almost all of the rest of the country.[3]

And it wasn’t the first time; doctors in Israel had gone on strike in 1973, and reduced their total daily patient contacts from 65,000 to just 7,000. The strike lasted a month and during that time the death rate, according to the Jerusalem Burial Society, dropped by half.

It doesn’t just happen in Israel. The 1960s saw physicians in Canada go on strike and the mortality rate dropped. In 1976, in Bogota, Colombia, doctors refused to treat all but emergency cases for a period of 52 days, and in that time the death rate fell by 35%.[4] In the same year the death rate dropped 18% during a ‘slow-down’ by doctors in Los Angeles. After the strike, deaths rates jumped to 3% above normal for more than five weeks as the Los Angeles doctors caught up on their paperwork.[5]

And it is a standing joke among cardiologists that death rates fall during their conferences because fewer of them are attempting to cure moribund patients by doing dangerous surgery. Their treatment can be worse than the disease.

It may come as no surprise, therefore, that a major report by Australian medical researchers posed the question ‘WILL MORE DOCTORS INCREASE OR DECREASE DEATH RATES?’ The report, written by scientists at the Centre for Health Program Evaluation, hypothesized that an increase in death rates in that country was caused by an increase in the number of doctors. Although the report was concerned only with the situation in Australia, there is strong evidence to suggest that this question also needs to be addressed in many other developed countries including Britain and the US.

You may think that the question and hypothesis are outrageous. After all, Primum non nocere, ‘First, do no harm’, is a central tenet guiding medical practice, and most doctors treat this tenet very seriously. Yet the reality is that, with the state of healthcare as it is, our continual calls for more doctors, and expansion of the NHS and our dependence on it, may actually be increasing rather than decreasing illness in our lives. With the world’s highest concentration of doctors – one for every 500 people – you might expect that the US would be the healthiest country. Far from it; data from a health survey of the top thirteen wealthiest industrialized countries were published in the summer of 2000. The US came twelfth.[6]

One reason why medical care may increase death rates is the large number of adverse events associated with it. The Australian report mentions a 1995 study of 14,000 hospital admissions. Of those admitted almost 17% suffered an adverse event. One in seven adverse events resulted in a permanent disability and one in 20 of the individuals affected died.[7]

Even that may be an under-assessment. Research on under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in the United States and Canada suggests that formal reporting rates may be as low as 1.5% of the real total. US estimates place adverse drug reactions as the fifth most common cause of death after heart disease, cancer, stroke and pulmonary disease.[8] These figures are not always easy to acquire. It is well known that doctors and hospital consultants are notoriously bad at reporting drug side effects. Although there is a new national reporting system in the UK designed to flag potentially dangerous drugs and remedies, pharmacists said they tend not to report a side effect if patients have been harmed; they are more likely to report only those incidents where a protocol has been broken.[9] They fear that they will be blamed for any side effect, and so feel it is not worth running the risk. Why might they act in this way? It seems that they are ashamed to admit to their patients that they were wrong.[10]

In modern society there is an increasing tendency, typified by the human rights movement, to shame governments, professions and individuals into complying with a particular organization’s ideas for social change. Shame is hard to deal with. It engenders embarrassment and guilt; it makes professionals feel flawed. It is, perhaps, no surprise that they fall back on silence. Shame is probably the major reason why most doctors don’t report adverse drug effects or change their views on the usefulness and harm of drugs.

A second possibility, which the Australian researchers call ‘the dependency hypothesis’, is the idea that the more doctors are available, the more dependent on them people become to maintain their health. This leads patients to adopt an exaggerated confidence in the effectiveness of medical care and its ability to offset the harmful effects of their own self-neglect. But that is not a healthy attitude because getting involved with the medical profession can be decidedly dangerous. In 1999, doctors in the US were recognized as the third leading cause of death.[6] Four years later another review had elevated them into first place.[11] The number of Americans killed by FDA-approved pharmaceuticals is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb on a major US city every year.

We in Britain are not immune to this trend. On 13 August 2004, an astonishing article appeared on the front page of The Times. Based on an independent report published in the British Medical Journal, it confirmed that medical accidents and errors were directly blamed for the deaths of 40,000 Britons per year. This made them officially Britain’s fourth-biggest killer. But the report went on to state that less than a third of an estimated 900,000 medical mistakes are properly reported each year. The figure also excluded errors committed in primary care such as in GPs’ surgeries.

The following year came a Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee Report, A Safer Place for Patients: Learning to Improve Patient Safety. It stated that some 22% of medical mistakes that lead to a serious reaction or even death go unreported in the UK. This is because, while you may read ‘the patient died from complications of surgery’, the truth is often ‘the surgeon killed the patient’. Only one in four hospitals owns up to the patient (or relatives) when something goes wrong; the rest blame it on the disease itself; while just one in 25 drug reactions is ever reported. This massive under-reporting of mistakes is an acknowledged problem. It is usually because of fears of litigation.

Government officials were shocked to hear that nobody knows how many of the reported blunders end in the death of the patient. But based on the known, reported accidents, one in 10 people admitted to a hospital in Britain every year will suffer an incident that will harm them, said Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee. These included 974,000 medical ‘accidents’.[12] This is a conservative estimate; government officials accept the figure is more likely to be 1,190,000. We should then add 300,000 hospital-acquired infections, and 250,000 serious adverse reactions to a prescription drug, a figure which is again a very conservative estimate as it is based only on reported reactions – a truer figure may be closer to 1,200,000 every year, according to officials. This means that some 2,690,000 people, or 4.5% of the entire population, could be harmed by medical mishaps every year. ‘The numbers of blunders could have been halved if staff had learned from earlier errors,’ the report said. Edward Leigh added: ‘No public health system should tolerate a failure to learn from previous experience on this scale.’

The lapses cost the NHS (actually, you and me, the taxpayers, of course) an estimated £2 billion in extra bed days and £540 million in litigation and compensation.

All of this may be why the late Dr Robert Mendelsohn, a physician himself, wrote: ‘Doctors in general should be treated with about the same degree of trust as used car salesmen.’[13]

So, we in the UK must be grateful if the doctors carry out their threat to go on strike. Not only will the country save money by not paying their salaries while they aren't working, it will reduce the likelihood that they will kill or seriously hurt us.

A new medical threat proposed

But there are now other threats to our welfare. We justifiably do not trust doctors, and as a consequence, people are loath to allow themselves to be experimented on. Which is proving to be a problem for the doctors. As is clearly stated in their paper, Drs Susanne Sheehy and Joel Meyer believe that we should be forced, by law if necessary, to allow them to inject us with any material they like. Mandatory participation in vaccine trials, they suggest, is no different from requiring individuals to serve on jury duty, for instance, or to serve in the military.

They also believe that forcing people to take experimental vaccines, even when such vaccines come with obvious "inherent risks," is an individual's required duty to give back to society.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of the paper, though, is its suggestion that "increas[ing] the severity" of diseases will help to facilitate 'compulsory recruitment' into experimental vaccine trials. Deliberately creating more deadly strains of disease in order to scare people into vaccine programs, in other words, is apparently considered to be a valid approach by Sheehy and Meyer, whose passionate worship of vaccines have led them to such a preposterous notion.

Just how dangerous their ideas are is evidenced in what has happened in vaccine trials in the past. I'll just list a couple:

In 2008, 21 homeless individuals in Poland died during an avian flu vaccine experiment.[14]
And in the same year at least 14 Argentinean children died as part of an experimental vaccine trial conducted by British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline [15]

With that track record it is no wonder that Drs Susanne Sheehy and Joel Meyer are having difficulty finding volunteers on which they can test dubious procedures. And have they forgotten that we have a perfectly adequate immune system – if only it is allowed to do its job. And vaccines damage that capability.

Let me make it quite clear. I am very wary of going anywhere near the sharp end of a hospital. And there is certainly no way I would agree to allow myself to participate in any medical trial.

The medical profession today all seem to think we 'patients' exist to provide them with a comfortable standard of life which we can never aspire to. Well, we don't! They are our servants; we pay their salaries. And there is a limit to how much we can afford. If they cannot live with that, so be it.

So, let the doctors strike, I say. We will almost certainly be better off without their ministrations, and we will save money.

References
1. Doctors threaten first strike in 40 years – over £48,000 pensions, The Independent, Thursday 19 January 2012. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/doctors-threaten-first-strike-in-40-years--over-48000-pensions-6291595.html
2. Susanne Sheehy, BM BCh, MRCP, DTM&H, and Joel Meyer, BM BCh, MRCP. Should Participation in Vaccine Clinical Trials be Mandated? Virtual Mentor 2012; 14: 35-38.
3. Doctors’ strike in Israel may be good for health. BMJ 2000; 320:1561.
4. Horne, Ross. Health & Survival In The 21st Century. HarperCollins Publishers Pty Limited, Australia, 1997. Chapter 11.
5. Science News, 28 Oct 1978; 114: 293.
6. Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000; 284: 483-485.
7. Wilson RM, et al. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 458-471.
8. Motl S, et al. Proposal to improve MedWatch: decentralized, regional surveillance of adverse drug reactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61: 1840-1842.
9. Ashcroft DM, et al. Likelihood of reporting adverse events in community pharmacy: an experimental study. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15: 48-52.
10. Davidoff F. Shame: the elephant in the room. BMJ 2002; 324: 623-624.
11. http://www.garynull.com/documents/iatrogenic/deathbymedicine/deathbymedicine1.htm
12. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. A safer place for patients: learning to improve patient safety; Fifty-first Report of Session 2005-06. 12 June 2006
13. Mendelsohn RA. Confessions of a Medical Heretic. New York: McGraw-Hill Contemporary; 1979.
14. Homeless people die after bird flu vaccine trial in Poland. Daily Telegraph, 02 Jul 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2235676/Homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-Poland.html.
15. GSK fined after over vaccine trials; 14 babies reported dead. Buenos Aires Herald. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/88922/gsk-lab-fined-$1m-over-tests-that-killed-14--babies

Cholesterol Paradox In Survival After Stroke Thrombolysis

2011-12-08T16:25:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 22: The dangers of low cholesterol

There are many paradoxes in cardiovascular medicine. These are where real life doesn't follow what 'everyone knows' is true. Indeed there are so many paradoxes that I would have thought that by now, the 'establishment' would have caught on to the fact (as I see it) that these paradoxes are not paradoxes, but examples of evidence that the accepted paradigm about raised cholesterol being the cause of a wide range of cardiovascular diseases is wrong, wrong, wrong!

But they don't, so to add to the many, already published 'paradoxes' another has just been published in the European Journal of Neurology. It is from research conducted at the Hospital del Mar, Barcelona. Paradoxically, it finds that patients with ischaemic stroke who have low cholesterol levels are more likely to die after a stroke than similar patients with higher cholesterol levels.

The research team measured cholesterol levels in 220 patients with ischemic stroke who underwent intravenous thrombolysis (clot-busting treatment) within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

As expected, stroke severity, as measured on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), was the most significant determinant of patient survival at 3 months in all models. However, the NIHSS score correlated inversely with patients' levels of total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol (it did not correlate with HDL cholesterol).

Put another way, it means that higher total cholesterol levels were significantly associated with higher survival, and remained so after accounting for stroke severity.

Three-month mortality, when total cholesterol was divided into tertiles (thirds) were as follows:

25.7% in the lowest tertile (<155 mg/dL; 4.0 mmol/L)
13.7% in the middle tertile (155-192 mg/dL; 4.0-4.9 mmol/L)
5.5% in the highest tertile (>192 mg/dL; 4.9 mmol/L).

"Our study does not allow us to identify the reason why low cholesterol is associated with increased mortality after [ischemic stroke], although we could hypothesize that this is an epiphenomenon or a surrogate marker of poor prognosis rather than an effect related to cholesterol levels," they say. But they do note that cholesterol is essential for cell membrane function, and has many other important roles, making it "plausible" that high blood cholesterol levels could be neuroprotective.

The authors say that: "The mechanism of this apparent paradox, common to both ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes, remains unexplained, and merits further research."

But they always say that - it keeps them in a job. What I would like to see researchers like these to say, just once, is "this increases the evidence base that having a low cholesterol levels is not healthy."

Roquer J, et al. Serum cholesterol levels and survival after rtPA treatment in acute stroke. Eur J Neurol. 2011 Dec 5. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03607.x. [Epub ahead of print]

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

2011-10-03T16:50:00.002+01:00

What I wrote Trick & Treat for
I imagine there can be few readers of this blog who are not aware that ther Danish government has begun to tax 'saturated fat' If you haven't seen it in the news, here is an example from the Daily Telegraph

This move to price healthy foods beyond the reach of the poorer members of Danish society will undoubtedly make the manufacturers of junk foods very happy because, of course, their products contain very little saturated fat - just hydrogenated polyunsaturated fat! And, of course, as we know, it will have an effect that is exactly the opposite of what they hope to achieve. But when you have ignorant politicians who are influenced by Big-Food and let down by incompetent nutritionists, this is exactly the sort of lunacy that results.

I can understand their motives but, surely, someone must have spoken out against this move before it happened.

But there could be a wider problem: The domino effect. Now that one country has gone mad, it could prove to be contagious, with other countries caught up in the lunacy.

One can't help but wonder how this hydra that saturated fats are in abny way harmful has kept sprouting heads for many decades after it was shown to be based on deception. And, as the Danes have made this move "to counter the growing trend of obesity", how does taxing the only fat which has been shown not to cause obesity and which actually has the lowest calorific value of any fat - only about half as many calories as polyunsaturated fats - going to help.

Our politicians are probably no better informed than the ones who have let the Danes down so abysmally, so I'm not holding my breath that ours are not equally gullible and we won't see such stupidity here.

For my part, my MP, David Cameron, the Prime Minister, together with his Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, both have a copy of my Trick & Treat. One can only hope one or other of them has read it.

Barry

Feeling down? Then eat some fat!

2011-07-28T16:03:00.002+01:00

Supports Chapter 26: Diet and the brain

When you are feeling down what is the most likely comfort food you would choose? Something carbohydrate-based and sweet? In fact, according to researchers from University of Leuven, Belgium, in a study in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, the best mood-enhancer is fat.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, the team led by Lukas Van Oudenhove, MD., PhD charted specific areas of the brain which are known to light up when a person is sad. For the study, they recruited 12 healthy individuals, none of whom was obese. They were then given an infusion of a fatty acid emulsion or saline solution via a feeding tube straight into their stomachs. This meant that taste was not involved and the participants did not know whether they were receiving saline or fat.

The fat was used because most comfort foods, such as chocolate, have a high fat content.

The researchers found that the levels of sadness among those fed the fat was approximately 50% lower compared to those fed saline solution, and say:

"These findings increase our understanding of the interplays among emotions, hunger, food intake and meal-induced sensations in general which may have important implications for a wide range of disorders including obesity, eating disorders, and depression."

In interview, a co-author, Giovanni Cizza, MD., said that he believes that the gut must be talking to the brain in some way:

"We did not know if you put fat in the stomach without pleasant stimulus, it could modulate our emotions ... There must be a way in which the gut talks to the brain."

The areas of the brain that get activated or suppressed as a result of emotion and mood were impacted by fatty acid emulsion. These fats reduced some of the emotion or neural changes, and this is a phenomenon that many patients have described.

"Many things in obesity have been said to be psychological and this adds to the body of evidence that something physical is going on."

Unfortunately, the recommendation to come from this study wasn’t that, perhaps, people who are sad or depressed might benefit from eating more fat, as you might have supposed, but that if scientists can identify what is going on, there might be a potential for new drug developments!

Oh, well, you can't win them all!

Reference
Van Oudenhove L, McKie S, Lassman D, et al. Fatty acid-induced gut-brain signaling attenuates neural and behavioral effects of sad emotion in humans. J Clin Invest. 2011. doi:10.1172/JCI46380.

Now, What Are We Going to Eat For Breakfast?

2011-03-10T07:34:00.004Z

Reinforces Chapter 6: The Seeds of Ill-health

You may have read recently that, because of the use of recycled newspapers being used in the manufacture of cardboard used to make breakfast cereal boxes the boxes pose a serious cancer risk.

How times have changed.

I remember, many years ago, reading a study conducted on rats, which tested the relative nutritional merits of different breakfast cereals. In this study, the rats were divided into groups and each group was given a different breakfast cereal to live on. Then the last group was fed on the chopped-up cardboard breakfast cereal boxes.

Guess which group lived longest.

I expect you chose correctly: Yes, it was the group that ate the chopped up cereal boxes.

I regret that I can't find the reference for this study now, but the American consumer advocate, Robert Choate, quoted the study to a U.S. Senate subcommittee in Washington in 1970 as an example of the woeful nutritional inadequacy of breakfast cereals.

So this latest news must have come as something of a bombshell to the masses. Now, it seems, the only healthy thing about breakfast cereals you could rely on - the cardboard boxes they come in - can no longer be trusted either.

Oh dear! What on earth are we going to eat now? some will cry.

Me? I'll stick to my scrambled eggs for breakfast.

HFCS Name Sanitized to Boost Flagging Sales

2010-09-15T09:33:00.003+01:00

A rose by any other name?

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has been trying for years to make high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which I prefer to call the ‘Corn Refiners Association Product’ (CRAP), as acceptable as all other forms of sugar. As more and more studies show that CRAP (HFCS) is a major cause of the recent dramatic increases in obesity, diabetes and other ‘metabolic diseases’ in the US, UK and other westernised countries, consumers are getting the message and are abandoning CRAP laden foodstuffs in their droves.

Does the CRA give up? No sirree! The CRA think that if they change its name, the gullible public won’t notice. According to the Associated Press, CRA is now petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow it to change the name of the highly-processed, controversial sweetener to ‘Corn Sugar’, which they fervently believe will make it more acceptable.

No matter how you look at it, CRAP (HFCS) is a highly-processed, unnatural form of refined sugar that inflicts a heavy burden on the liver. Besides being derived from corn, most of which is genetically-modified (GM), HFCS is linked to metabolic syndrome, heart disease and type-2 diabetes. If that weren’t bad enough, a study last year also found that much of the HFCS contains high levels of toxic mercury caused by the chemical refining process necessary to produce the HFCS. Nearly a third of the HFCS-containing breads, cereals, sodas and other consumer foods tested as part of the study showed up positive for mercury.

Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that HFCS is harmful to health, the CRA is determined to change its image. With millions of acre of corn to get rid of somehow, they can’t afford not to. Consumption of HFCS has reached a 20-year low, and shows no sign of picking up. So the CRA have a new marketing slogan which claims that ‘whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar’.

Oh yes it can – otherwise our bodies wouldn’t get sick from eating it!

The best forms of sugar are those which occur naturally, and in their whole form. That said, the main cause of sugar’s adverse effects on health lie in the fructose content, not the glucose. So it is better to cut down on even very sweet fruits and honey which are fructose (levulose) rich. If you must sweeten anything, use stevia leaf extract. Better still learn to like the naturalness of foods without adding sweetener.

So whether it’s called High Fructose corn Syrup or Corn Sugar, it’s the same thing, with the same results. As Shakespeare wrote: ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. Similarly, HFCS by any other name will still be CRAP.

Another Huge Study Finds Little Benefit From '5-a-day'

2010-04-07T16:18:00.002+01:00

Supports Chapter 8: Why 'Five Portions'?

You may have heard on the news today about this latest study, which didn't find much benefit from forcing five portions of fruit and veges down. I was not surprised as all the ones before it are detailed in Chapter 8 of Trick and Treat. But it was good of the media to report it. 'Bad news' like this is generally missed.

There have been several studies since the '5-a-day' message was first trumpeted. None so far has found much, if any benefit from eating so much vegetation. This latest one is by far the biggest - but its findings are much in line with the earlier studies.

Wouldn't it have been better if the diet dictocrats had thought to do a study before they told us all to eat so much!

The abstract to the latest study is below.

I have written a full article explaining why it's NOT a good idea to eat 5-a-day.

* * * * * *

Paolo Boffetta, et al. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Overall Cancer Risk in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) JNCI 2010 [e-pub ahead of print]

ABSTRACT
Background: It is widely believed that cancer can be prevented by high intake of fruits and vegetables. However, inconsistent results from many studies have not been able to conclusively establish an inverse association between fruit and vegetable intake and overall cancer risk.

Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort to assess relationships between intake of total fruits, total vegetables, and total fruits and vegetables combined and cancer risk during 1992–2000. Detailed information on the dietary habit and lifestyle variables of the cohort was obtained. Cancer incidence and mortality data were ascertained, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable Cox regression models. Analyses were also conducted for cancers associated with tobacco and alcohol after stratification for tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking.

Results: Of the initial 142 605 men and 335 873 women included in the study, 9604 men and 21 000 women were identified with cancer after a median follow-up of 8.7 years. The crude cancer incidence rates were 7.9 per 1000 person-years in men and 7.1 per 1000 person-years in women. Associations between reduced cancer risk and increased intake of total fruits and vegetables combined and total vegetables for the entire cohort were similar (200 g/d increased intake of fruits and vegetables combined, HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96 to 0.99; 100 g/d increased intake of total vegetables, HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 0.99); intake of fruits showed a weaker inverse association (100 g/d increased intake of total fruits, HR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.00). The reduced risk of cancer associated with high vegetable intake was restricted to women (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 0.99). Stratification by alcohol intake suggested a stronger reduction in risk in heavy drinkers and was confined to cancers caused by smoking and alcohol.

Conclusions: A very small inverse association between intake of total fruits and vegetables and cancer risk was observed in this study. Given the small magnitude of the observed associations, caution should be applied in their interpretation.

CONTEXT AND CAVEATS

Prior knowledge

The association between high intake of fruits and vegetables and reduction in overall cancer risk is not conclusively established.

Study design

European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study was conducted between 1992 and 2000. Diet and lifestyle data were self-reported by the participants. Cancer incidence and mortality data were obtained from country-specific national and regional registries. Association between overall cancer risk and high intake of total fruits, total vegetables, and total fruits and vegetables combined was assessed. Estimated cancer risks were adjusted for smoking, alcohol consumption, and many other variables.

Contribution

High intake of vegetables, and fruits and vegetables combined, was associated with a small reduction in overall cancer risk. The association was stronger in heavy alcohol drinkers but was restricted to cancers caused by smoking and drinking.

Implications

This study reveals a very modest association between high intake of fruits and vegetables and reduced risk of cancer.

Limitations

The inverse association between overall cancer risk and high intake of fruits and vegetables was weak. Errors inherent to self-reported dietary habits may have resulted in bias.

But weren't we told that statins didn't have side effects?

2010-03-11T16:50:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 1: Trick to Treat

This short article was published in the Daily Mail today. It's a long time since I blogged, so I thought I'd include it for your enjoyment.

The statin manufacturers have always denied that their products have side effects. They have been so convincing that many doctors have simply refused to hear their patient's complaints.

Now there is a new cholesterol-lowering drug in the offing. I don't propose to discuss the merits or otherwise of lowering cholesterol; I'm sure you kmnow my feelings on that. I just want to show you how this new drug is being promoted: "free of the side-effects associated with statins."

So after denying that statins had side effects, the fact that they have is going to be used to launch this new drug.

I wonder what side effects this new drug will have. There are always some.

Here' the article:

11/03/2010
Daily Mail
By: Presswatch
New 'statin' without the side effects
Cholesterol levels declined by a third in patients taking eprotirome tablets, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The drug was free of the side-effects associated with statins, including muscle and liver problems, depression, loss of libido and difficulty sleeping. Eprotirome, which is still several years away from the market, is unlikely to replace statins. But it could be given to the hundreds of thousands who cannot tolerate the drugs. It also lowers levels of other harmful blood fats that are not combated by statins, but are known to raise the risk of heart disease.

What a waste!

2010-02-17T20:55:00.004Z

Supports pretty much all of Trick and Treat

This has got to be one of the best studies I have ever seen - as a demonstration of how to waste time and money. As well, no doubt, as providing 'evidence' to frighten the less knowledgeable of the populace into cutting down on saturated animal fats to prevent obesity and osteoporosis (NOTE: Corn oil is not an animal fat and is not saturated - but I doubt that will stop someone using it as 'evidence' against them.)

I have never been a fan of extrapolating animal dietary studies to Homo sapiens. We have quite different reactions to foods. As you can read, these 'scientists' obviously share my views. But, after admitting that animal studies like this don't mimic human conditions, these 'scientists' conduct a trial on mice which, they say, serves as a model for humans!

Can anyone, please, tell me:
1. In what way does it have any relevance to anything other than, perhaps, female C57Bl/6J mice?
2. Do female C57Bl/6J mice even suffer from osteoporsis?
3. Should we care??
4. How on earth they get this cr*p published??

The abstract is below (I've got a PDF of the whole paper if anyone would like it)

Barry

Ganesh V. Halade, M. Rahman, Paul J. Williams and Gabriel Fernandes. High fat diet-induced animal model of age-associated obesity and osteoporosis.The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry February 2010, [Article in Press, Corrected Proof]

Abstract
Osteoporosis and obesity remain a major public health concern through its associated fragility and fractures. Several animal models for the study of osteoporotic bone loss, such as ovariectomy (OVX) and denervation, require unique surgical skills and expensive set up. The challenging aspect of these age-associated diseases is that no single animal model exactly mimics the progression of these human-specific chronic conditions. Accordingly, to develop a simple and novel model of post menopausal bone loss with obesity, we fed either a high fat diet containing 10% corn oil (CO) or standard rodent lab chow (LC) to 12-month-old female C57Bl/6J mice for 6 months. As a result, CO fed mice exhibited increased body weight, total body fat mass, abdominal fat mass and reduced bone mineral density (BMD) in different skeletal sites measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. We also observed that decreased BMD with age in CO fed obese mice was accompanied by increased bone marrow adiposity, up-regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ, cathepsin k and increased proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor α) in bone marrow and splenocytes, when compared to that of LC fed mice. Therefore, this appears to be a simple, novel and convenient age-associated model of post menopausal bone loss, in conjunction with obesity, which can be used in pre-clinical drug discovery to screen new therapeutic drugs or dietary interventions for the treatment of obesity and osteoporosis in the human population. (Emphasis added)

Barry

Millions of people 'waste their time by jogging'

2010-02-04T17:16:00.002Z

Supports Chapter Twelve: Exercise care

When I wrote my first book, The Calorie Fallacy, in 1993, I included a chapter about the lack of weight loss benefit from such exercises as jogging. Apart from my Fluoride book, all of my books since then have included a chapter about the lack of evidence that exercising has much significant benefit to health. Even though I like to think of myself as an athlete, I recognise the difference between being 'fit' and being 'healthy'. Many people seem to think of the two words are synonymous, but they aren't. You can be fit enough to run a marathon, but drop dead of a heart attack walking to the start. The classic example is Jim Fixx, who started the jogging craze with his book, The Complete Book of Running, in 1977. He died of a heart attack while jogging!

Now, according to a study reported in the Daily Telegraph, the secret is out: "millions of people who strive to keep fit by jogging, swimming or going to the gym are wasting their time."

The article says: Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic exercise are determined by our genes - and can vary substantially between individuals.

Around 20 per cent of the population do not get any significant aerobic fitness benefit from regular exercise, according to an international study led by scientists at the University of London.

For these people, regular jogging and gym work will do little to ward off conditions like heart disease and diabetes which aerobic exercise is generally thought to resist.

Researchers say they would be better off abandoning their exercise regime and focusing on other ways of staying healthy - such as improving their diet or taking medication.

Read the rest of the story here

EU Health Chief calls swine flu pandemic scare 'one of greatest medical scandals of century'

2010-02-04T16:24:00.003Z

Supports Chapter One: Trick to Treat

In the first chapter of Trick and Treat, I talked about how the ‘health industry’, and the pharmaceutical industry in particular, invented scares and ‘diseases’ so that they could capitalise on selling 'treatments' for those conditions.

The latest scam,‘The Swine Flu Pandemic’ scare, was one of the greatest medical scandals of the century, and was engineered to increase the profits of the drug companies, says the European Council's health chief, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg.

The council is to begin an investigation into the role of the drug companies, and how they influence ‘independent’ authorities such as the World Health Organization, after they passed a resolution from Wodarg, chairman of the Council’s health committee. Dr Wodarg, who is an epidemiologist and former health director in Germany, has followed the swine flu (H1N1 virus) pandemic story unfold. “It is one of the greatest health scandals of the century,” he says. “We have had a mild flu – and a false pandemic.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the virus a pandemic last year, and health authorities around the world ordered in huge stocks of vaccines. The UK's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, predicted 65,000 deaths in the UK, and convinced the government to place a £1bn order for swine flu vaccine. In the event, a mere 251 people in the UK have died from the virus, and the government is now desperately trying to offload vast stocks of the redundant vaccine.

Wodarg claims that governments have sealed contracts with drug companies that are triggered when a virus is classified as pandemic. “In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. So they just wait until the WHO says ‘pandemic’ and activates the contracts.” As things stand with the contracts with the drugs companies, governments have no choice but to pay up.

And what do we do with all the unwanted, useless, vaccines? We give them to third-world countries - who are very unlikely to have a need for them!
(Source: www.wodarg.de/english/3013320.html)

Ban butter ? No, we should ban processed margarines!

2010-01-19T09:12:00.002Z

Supports Chapter One: Trick to Treat

The UK media have been full of a story which illustrates well how we are put in fear unnecessarily - and irresponsibly.

Shyam Kolvekar, a consultant heart surgeon at University College London Hospitals has said that butter should be banned to protect the nation's health. Warning of the dangers of other foods high in saturated fat, he advises people to eat less red meat, take low-fat milk and switch to olive and sunflower oil. He went on to warn that:

"Saturated fat is blamed for a third of the 200,000 premature deaths from heart disease a year. . . By banning butter and replacing it with a healthy spread the average daily sat-fat intake would be reduced by eight grams."

BUT: That's not what the evidence shows!

Mr Kolvekar may be a good heart surgeon, but he is obviously not an expert in nutrition and its effects on health. In its report of this story, the BBC shows Mr Kolvekar operating on an Indian Hindu - in the UK. Indians have been using ghee (clarified butter) for centuries - without getting blocked arteries. Mr Kolvekar said when he became a consultant cardiac surgeon eight years ago the bulk of bypass operations he did were on older people. Now he is seeing people in their 40s and 50s needing triple bypasses. So are Indians eating more ghee than they did just eight years ago? Of course not!

In 1967 Dr S. L. Malhotra, reported that in Madras, the population was vegetarian, living mainly on rice.[1] The principal fat in their diet was polyunsaturated peanut oil. Malhotra compared the Madrasis with a population who lived near Udaipur in the north. Their religion allowed them to eat meat and their fat intake was almost entirely from animal sources. They cooked with ghee and had probably the highest butterfat consumption in the world.

Present-day wisdom would predict that the vegetarians would have the lower rate of heart disease, but Malhotra found the opposite: the vegetarian Madrasis had 15 times the death rate from heart attacks compared with the northern Indians even though those in Udaipur ate 9 times as much fat - and that fat was animal fat.

Twenty years later, a paper in the Lancet noted an increase in heart-attack deaths amongst the latter group.[2] By this time their diet had been made 'healthier' by replacing the traditional ghee in their diets with margarine and refined vegetable oils. This was confirmed 10 years later by a third study which found that reducing saturated fat did not reduce heart disease risk.[3]

The truth is that arteries are not blocked by eating ghee, but by adopting our 'healthy' western diet. This is backed up by many studies showing that south Asians in the UK have higher heart disease rates than they do in India.[4-5]

People who have had one heart attack are invariably told by their doctors to cut out butter and use polyunsaturated margarines instead. But there is no evidence that this will prolong their lives. Quite the opposite. As long ago as 1965 survival rates were studied in patients eating different fats and oils.[6]

In this study, patients who had already had one heart attack were assigned to one of three groups, who were given polyunsaturated corn oil, monounsaturated olive oil or saturated animal fats respectively. Blood cholesterol levels were lowered by an average of 30% in the polyunsaturated group, while there was no change in the other two groups. At first sight, therefore, it seemed that men in the polyunsaturated group had the best chance of survival. However, at the end of the two-year trial only 52% of the polyunsaturated group were still alive and free of a fresh heart attack. Those on the monounsaturated olive oil fared little better: 57% survived and had no further attack. But those eating the saturated animal fats fared the best with 75% surviving and without a further attack.

The hypothesis that saturated fats raise cholesterol and clog arteries was proposed in the 1950s, but has never been verified and confirmed - and it isn't for want of trying. There is not now, and there never has been any evidence that saturated fats are harmful in any way. In fact all the evidence points the other way. If any fats should be banned, it's the processed vegetable margarines and cooking oils.

References
1. Malhotra SL. Serum lipids, dietary factors and ischemic heart disease. Am J Clin Nutr 1967; 20: 462-475.
2. (No authors listed.) Ghee, cholesterol, and heart disease. Lancet 1987; 2: 1144-1145.
3. Singh RB, et al. Low fat intake and coronary artery disease in a population with higher prevalence of coronary artery disease: The Indian paradox. J Am Coll Nutr 1998; 17: 342-350.
4. McKeigne P M, Marmot M G, Adelstein A M, et al. Diet and risk factors for
coronary heart disease in Asians in Northeast London. Lancet 1985; ii: 1086.
5. Raheja BS. Obesity and coronary risk factors among South Asians. Lancet 1991; 337: 971.
6. Rose GA, et al. Corn oil in treatment of ischaemic heart disease. Br Med J 1965; 1: 1531-33.

Good Health Begins With a Good Breakfast - of Fried Eggs and Bacon

2010-01-07T16:56:00.004Z

Supports Chapter 18: Prevention is better - and more

The Daily Mirror published an article on 6 January 2010 about a new study showing that, for an expectant mother, the traditional English breakfast of fried eggs and bacon was the best for supplying the choline necessary for her fetus's proper brain development. But, when I looked into it, higher levels of choline are beneficial for everyone. For example, it turns out that a fried English breakfast is even good for the heart!

With blankets of snow all around, and drifts to dig out, it made my day! My article is here

Compliments of the Season

2009-12-24T09:56:00.003Z

Best wishes for the holidays and for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2010

With greetings at this time of the year - and so many religions, it can be difficult to get the wording right. For example:

In the old days, it was not called the 'Holiday Season'.
The Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church.
The Jews called it 'Hanukah' and went to synagogue.
The atheists went to parties and drank.

People passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!", "Happy Hanukah!" or they would shout to the atheists "Look out for that wall!"

There are three poems for the season which you will like here. Written by members of THINCS, these are both appropriate to the season and to my websites.

And, as you will want to be with the family rather than reading lots of stuff, I'll just leave you with this:

HUNDREDS GATHER TO PROTEST GLOBAL WARMING

Best wishes

Barry

The reporting of a new study illustrates how the public are misinformed

2009-12-07T12:00:00.004Z

Supports Chapter One: Trick to Treat and Chapter 5: Fats - From Tonic to Toxic

A new study, published in the December 2009 edition of the medical journal, Gut, shows that linoleic acid, the major fatty acid in all 'healthy' vegetable margarines and cooking oils increases the risk of some serious intestinal conditions.

But that's only half the story. The other half is the way this study has been reported, not just in the news media, but also on 'health' websites.

Linoleic acid is found in the largest quantities in polyunsaturated vegetable margarines and cooking oils. But we have been told these are 'healthy', so this new study is proving to be a bit embarrassing. So what do they do? Easy, blame it on what 'we all know' is unhealthy: red meat - even though red meat contains very little linoleic acid!

Read the article here.

New Chapter for Trick and Treat

2009-11-17T09:32:00.002Z

When I was researching Trick and Treat, I came across a new scientific theory called 'Epigenetics'.

It had always been taught that our DNA, which is fixed at conception, determined all our physical characteristics, and that these could not be changed throughout our lives, and would in turn, be passed on to our children. But then several observations were made in the middle of the last century which questioned this 'truth'. And so Epigenetics was born.

As it now seems that life experiences - including what we eat (or don't eat) - can have a profound effect on not just us but our offspring, and for several generations.

I wrote a chapter about Epigenetics for Trick and Treat. But then, as the book was getting a bit too big already, it was decided to leave it out.

But it seems a shame to leave it on my computer; it is an important subject in that the incorrect diet we are all being forced to eat, could have serious unforeseen effects for generations to come. It's a year late, but here it is.

Two New Articles

2009-11-12T15:57:00.003Z

I have put two new articles on my Second Opinions website in the last two day. Both of them support what I have written in Trick and Treat (up to a point :-))

I have been thinking of the first, about Biblical guidance that instructs the faithful of three religions - Jews, Christians and Muslims - that they should eat meat, for some time. This is because, with a world where religion is becoming more and more fundamental, it seemed like a good idea. Then when Prince Philip gave world religious leaders a vegan meal a couple of weeks ago, I couldn't resist it.

The second is a result of big changes in the murky world of prescription drugs - and cholesterol-lowering statins in particular - and drugs regulation. At long last, a regulatory body has woken up to the fact (that many of us have known for several years) that statins are not the benign panaceas they are made out to be.

Both are indexed on my home page

Tomorrow I should have an interview with Dr Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, a longtime cholesterol sceptic.

More studies support Trick and Treat

2009-11-08T09:48:00.002Z

Because of house renovations, I've been very remiss recently in updating both my websites and this blog. With a bit nof luck that will change, but during the last few months, all sorts of studies have been published which I shouldn't have missed - because they support Trick and Treat.

I have just added ten which were published in the last week alone. They are indexed on Second Opinions on both the Home Page and the News Index. I should have a couple of new articles on soon. I'll keep you posted.

From a sunny island off the east coast of Africa (well, I've got to keep the vitamin D up).

Barry

Don't want a heart attack? Eat your fruit with cream.

2009-10-14T09:21:00.004+01:00

Supports Chapter 8: Why 'five portions'?

Over the last three months, I have been engaged in bringing my house into the 21st century. Taking out the remnants of a solar heating system that was great in the summer, when I didn't need it - and next to useless in the winter when I did, and replacing that with a high efficiency gas fire and a condensing boiler. All of which involved a lot of knocking down and rebuilding. And I'm not getting any younger! As a consequence, websites and blogging have had to take a back seat and a lot of controversial studies I should have written about have been missed.

But I felt I couldn't let this one go by:

A new Swedish study looking at fruit and veges in heart disease (click here for the full paper in PDF)arrived on my computer this morning. It finds that eating fruit and veg is only of benefit when combined with a high dairy fat intake. Without the dairy fat, not only was there little or no benefit from eating your 5 portions, the fruit and veg actually increased risk of a heart event by 70%!

What it's really saying, of course, is that to reduce the risk of a heart attack, eating fruit and veg are irrelevant, and may actually be harmful, and it's the saturated fat that is beneficial. So much for the UK's Food Standards Agency's advice to use skim milk and other low-fat dairy!

Oh, and by the way, the study found that eating wholemeal bread and fish twice a week were also of no benefit.

Barry

I wish I'd known

2009-07-07T17:04:00.001+01:00

Old study I'd missed supports a great deal of Trick and Treat

One of the difficulties I have had, writing as I do in favour of a high-fat, low-carb diet, is that it is deemed to be 'unhealthy'.

A few weeks ago I came across a study from 1997 which I had missed - probably because it concerned the gorilla's diet, rather than ours. But now that I read it, it is a real eye-opener and I wish I'd read it when it was first published so that I could have incorporated it in Natural Health and Weight Loss and in Trick and Treat. It really supports my ideas in a way I hadn't considered.

If you'd like to see what it's about, you can read an

Is it about time we learned not to heed 'experts'?

2009-05-18T10:28:00.004+01:00

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunlight

The UK's Daily Express today has an article about yet another study saying that we don't get enough sunlight. If we want to avoid conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, and live longer we need to get out in the sun more, it says.

In 1997 I wrote much the same article for my column 'Second Opinions' in The Oxford Times. The editor refused to print it because it was in conflict with what we were being told by the health industry. A shame really as the paper was published on 21 June, the first day of summer, and so the timing was ideal for such an article. This was the reason I gave up writing for the paper. Well, the articles took time and they didn't pay much then.

Since then many more studies have also said the same thing.

In the Express's article, 'experts' from authoritative bodies such as Cancer Research UK say that they know about this and that we need more vitamin D and should strive to get out more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they the same people who have been scaring us with anti-sun propaganda for the last few decades?

And there are a couple of other points they still aren't telling us:

Firstly, it is important to know that only sunshine around midday produces vitamin D at our latitude. UVB, the active wavelength, doesn't penetrate the atmosphere well, so until the sun is well up in the sky, the atmosphere it has to travel though reduces its strength markedly. Sunshine earlier in the day is mostly UVA. It is UVA which causes sunburn - without the vitamin D benefit.

Secondly, it's also important NOT to use a sunscreen as this filters UVB, thus inhibiting vitamin D production. Sunscreens have also been shown independently to increase skin cancer risk. The really silly thing about sunscreens is that they are very good at screening us from the beneficial UVB, but not very effective at stopping harmful UVA! There is much more on this at http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/sunlight.html and http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/full_spectrum_sunlight.html.

Unlike most Brits who take their holidays by the seaside in the summer, for many years now I have been heading south to an island off the coast of west Africa during the winter, just to keep my Vitamin D levels up. If global 'climate change' continues its now 10-year-long current cooling trend for another decade and a half, as it is forecast to do, I'll have to think about going south during our summer too. The last time I comfortably got out in the garden in the nuddy for any length of time was March!

Cheerios Are a Drug? FDA's Surprising Letter to General Mills

2009-05-13T16:09:00.002+01:00

May 13, 2009

The following story is all over the Internet today. But the question si this:
In the US foods and supplements are not allowed make claims to treat or diagnose a disease. However, the FDA has allowed Cheerios' claims to lower cholesterol for over 10 years, so why have they suddenly changed?

********

Popular US breakfast cereal Cheerios is a drug, at least if the claims made on the label by its manufacturer General Mills are anything to go by, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said.

"Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug," the FDA said in a letter to General Mills which was posted on the federal agency's website Tuesday.

Cheerios labels claim that eating the cereal can help lower bad cholesterol, a risk factor for coronary heart disease, by four percent in six weeks.

Citing a clinical study, the product labels also claim that eating two servings a day of Cheerios helps to reduce bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, the FDA letter says.

Those claims indicate that Cheerios -- said by General Mills to be the best-selling cereal in the United States -- is intended to be used to lower cholesterol and prevent, lessen or treat the disease hypercholesterolemia, and to treat and prevent coronary heart disease.

"Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug," the FDA concluded in its letter.

Not only that, but Cheerios is a new drug because it has not been "recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease," the FDA said.

That means General Mills may not legally market Cheerios unless it applies for approval as a new drug or changes the way it labels the small, doughnut-shaped cereal, the FDA said.

General Mills defended the claims on Cheerios packaging, saying in a statement that Cheerios' soluble fiber heart health claim has been FDA-approved for 12 years, and that its "lower your cholesterol four percent in six weeks" message has been featured on the box for more than two years.

The FDA's quibble is not about whether Cheerios cereal is good for you but over "how the Cheerios cholesterol-lowering information is presented on the Cheerios package and website," said General Mills.

"We look forward to discussing this with FDA and to reaching a resolution."

Meanwhile, the FDA warned in its letter that if General Mills fails to "correct the violations" on its labels, boxes of Cheerios could disappear from supermarket and wholesaler shelves around the United States and the company could face legal action.

According to General Mills, one in eight boxes of cereal sold in the United States is a box of Cheerios. The cereal debuted on the US market in 1941."

Another blow to the 'Lower Is Better' craze

2009-05-11T10:07:00.002+01:00

Low BP associated with increased risk for stroke and heart attack

Researchers found a J-curve relationship between cardiovascular events and blood pressure (BP) at above and below reference levels.

Data results from the American Society of Hypertension 24th Annual Scientific Meeting and Exposition, San Francisco Marriott, San Francisco, CA, May 6 – Saturday, May 9, 2009, show that patients with coronary artery disease who also have low blood pressure are at higher risk for stroke and heart attack.

Researchers examining results from the TNT study analyzed 10,001 patients with coronary artery disease. Patients were assigned to either 10 mg of atorvastatin daily (n=5,006) or 80 mg atorvastatin daily (n=4,995). The primary endpoint was a composite of death from coronary disease, nonfatal MI (heart attack), resuscitation following cardiac arrest and fatal or nonfatal stroke.

Among the 10,001 patients, 982 (9.82%) reached the primary endpoint during the 4.9 follow-up period.

The researchers reported a J-shaped curve relationship between systolic or diastolic BPs both above and below reference BP ranges (130 to 140 mm Hg for systolic, 70 to 80 mm Hg for diastolic) and major cardiovascular events, despite a reduction in LDL levels.

According to the study results, there was a 3.1-fold increase in the risk for major cardiovascular events in patients with a systolic BP of 110 mm Hg and a 3.3-fold increased risk in the group with a diastolic BP of 60 mm Hg.

Following application of a nonlinear Cox model, the lowest event rates were associated with a systolic BP of 140.6 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 79.8 mm Hg for diastolic BP.

Franz Messerli, MD, director of the hypertension program at Saint Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in New York, said in an interview:

“There is no question that a lot of patients are not controlled at present, but the dictum that lower is better is not true in all patients and particularly not true in patients with manifest coronary artery disease . . . In patients with coronary artery disease, you really have to be careful.”

This means that the current 'healthy' guidelines on BP - the 'optimal' level of 120/80 may need rethinking.

"New" weight loss drug - We're heading for more sickness!

2009-04-20T19:01:00.003+01:00

20 April 2009

A 'new' weight loss drug, called alli is all over the newspapers at present. It is hyped as a wonder drug.

What is alli? The Myalli website says: "alli™ is the only FDA approved, over-the-counter weight loss product. The alli program includes alli capsules and myalliplan, an individually tailored, online action plan to help you lose weight gradually."

But what alli really is is xenical (previously known as Orlistat). And the harm it did under that name, will continue under the new name.

And it doesn't work — for two reasons:

alli prevents dietary fat from being absorbed into the body. But it isn't dietary fat that puts weight on, only carbs do that. Dietary fat is actually slimming. So, eat a low-carb, high-fat diet and you will save a small fortune — alli is not cheap!

If you want to lose weight the alli way, you still have to eat a low-fat diet and take lots of exercise, which is probably what you are already doing. And, if you're doing that, you don't need alli. If you don't also cut your fat intake, you'll spend a lot of time sitting either on the toilet or in very messy, pants. The fat that alli has stopped you body absorbing has to go somewhere; it leaks out of your nether end!

But those side effects could be the least of your problems if you use this product. You could end up like this Swedish alli (xenical)user.

Until people realise that there is only one way to live their lives at a normal weight and in good health — and that way does not include drugs — they will remain a constant source of income for unscrupulous drug pushers, while living an uncomfortable life.

Wild Chimpanzees Exchange Meat for Sex on a Long-Term Basis

2009-04-11T08:23:00.002+01:00

Supports Chapter 13: Homo Carnivorous

Vegetarians, and even more vociferously, vegans, would have us believe that all the other primates (chimpanzees, gorillas, etc) are herbivores and, that, as humans are also primates, we are also herbivores, and should not eat meat.

QED? Well, no. As I wrote in Chapter 13 of Trick and Treat, all the other primates actually eat meat as well as leaves and fruit. And this latest study demonstrates that both male and female chimpanzees are agreed: If you want a good mate to produce healthy offspring, it's the meat-eaters who are the preferred partmers.

The abstract of the study by Cristina M. Gomes and Christophe Boesch of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, is below. Click on the citation at the bottom for the complete study.

Abstract

Humans and chimpanzees are unusual among primates in that they frequently perform group hunts of mammalian prey and share meat with conspecifics. Especially interesting are cases in which males give meat to unrelated females.

The meat-for-sex hypothesis aims at explaining these cases by proposing that males and females exchange meat for sex, which would result in males increasing their mating success and females increasing their caloric intake without suffering the energetic costs and potential risk of injury related to hunting.

Although chimpanzees have been shown to share meat extensively with females, there has not been much direct evidence in this species to support the meat-for-sex hypothesis. Here we show that female wild chimpanzees copulate more frequently with those males who, over a period of 22 months, share meat with them.

We excluded other alternative hypotheses to exchanging meat for sex, by statistically controlling for rank of the male, age, rank and gregariousness of the female, association patterns of each male-female dyad and meat begging frequency of each female. Although males were more likely to share meat with estrous than anestrous females given their proportional representation in hunting parties, the relationship between mating success and sharing meat remained significant after excluding from the analysis sharing episodes with estrous females. These results strongly suggest that wild chimpanzees exchange meat for sex, and do so on a long-term basis.

Similar studies on humans will determine if the direct nutritional benefits that women receive from hunters in foraging societies could also be driving the relationship between reproductive success and good hunting skills.

Citation: Gomes CM, Boesch C (2009) Wild Chimpanzees Exchange Meat for Sex on a Long-Term Basis. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5116. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005116

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005116

More new studies show that Food Standards Agency is wrong

2009-04-08T18:49:00.003+01:00

Following my post about the Food Standards Agency demonstration of ignorance about what constitutes a healthy diet, several studies have been published which support my side against them - which is nice!

I've put them on the NEWS section with comments as appropriate.

I must look out for more as I have now attacked both the Food Standards Agency and Unilever's cashing in with their SatFatNav ads on TV where they demonise good, natural, healthy butter as a 'bad' fat and then promote Flora and the other spreads they make which are rich in carcinogenic linoleic acid as 'good' fats.

I have complained to the Advertising Standards Athority about both Unilever and the FSA, as I feel that if I complained directly to the FSA and Unilever, they are not bound to do anything about my complaint. The ASA are. I'll keep you posted.

Swedes are demanding a healthier diet

2009-03-01T08:49:00.002Z

Just a short piece of news I thought you might like to know about.

A Swedish friend of mine tells me that the local diary in Dalecarlia, Sweden, is complaining that they are having difficulties delivering enough butter and heavy cream. This is because consumption of these is going up due to the fact people are demanding natural fats instead of margarines.

I wonder what the UK's Food Standards Agency would say about that?

Eggs are now okay - but not saturated fat!

2009-02-11T09:08:00.003Z

Hi all

This morning (11 Feb), BBC News announced that we could all eat eggs again. Dr Bruce Griffin of Surrey University said that the anti-egg campaign had been based on "a misconception based on out-of-date evidence".

"The ingrained misconception linking egg consumption to high blood cholesterol and heart disease must be corrected."
"The UK public do not need to be limiting the number of eggs they eat - indeed they can be encouraged to include them in a healthy diet as they are one of nature's most nutritionally dense foods."

Great, I thought, at long last they are finally catching up with what I have been preaching since I started to give a talk called "The Fat of the Land" in 1971. The tide is finally turning.

But I wonder if it is really. Further down he is reported to have said that:

"The amount of saturated fat in our diet exerts an effect on blood cholesterol that is several times greater than the relatively small amounts of dietary cholesterol.

So, Dr Griffin has yet to catch up on the couple of decades' worth of news about saturated fat! But, at least it is a start, I suppose.

Yesterday, four bank CEOs apologised to Parliament and the people for the mess they had made and the harm they had caused to world finances. I wonder how long we will have to wait for the nutritionists to make similar apologies.

Or will they wait until someone who has contracted one of the over 70 diseases discussed in Trick and Treat by following 'healthy eating' guidelines decides to sue them?

Food Standards Agency shows its ignorance

2009-02-06T08:57:00.003Z

The following article appeared in the Guardian a couple of days ago. It demonstrates yet again that we are living in an asylum that's being run by the inmates.

People urged to cut out foods with 'killer' fats
guardian.co.uk by Rebecca Smithers on 4 February 2009

The food watchdog is to launch a multi-million campaign to urge people to cut out foods with "killer" fats amid growing evidence that families of all classes are eating far too many crisps, biscuits, cakes and pastries.

The Food Standards Agency will next week underline the strong links between heart disease and diets high in saturated fats, featuring "striking heart-shaped" images in popular foods.

Significantly the agency's research has shown that saturated fat consumption is too high across all social groupings, so the campaign will attempt to reach families from all classes and on various budgets. Middle-class cheese eaters, for example, will be urged to cut back on high-fat hard cheese products and to eat less cheese by grating it rather than eating it in blocks.

One image in the campaign reveals cheese coming through a grater in a heart shape, while another picture shows a "balanced" meal of salmon, peas and broccoli arranged in a heart.

According to the FSA, Britons are eating 20% more than the maximum recommended amount of saturated fat. The campaign will aim to educate consumers about the relationship between saturated fat and heart health, and will provide tips on shopping, preparation and cooking to help adults choose lower saturated fat options. The wide-ranging TV and media campaign will start next week, backed by leaflets, posters, flyers, recipe cards, postcards and shopping guides.

Last year the government announced a series of initiatives to crack down on saturated fats, including the appointment of a "tsar", Susan Jebb, of the government's Medical Research Council, to lead an academic group looking at strategies to reduce saturated fat consumption.

Cutting levels of fat intake by 20% would save an estimated 3,500 deaths a year, the FSA says. Although Britain's consumption of saturated fats has been falling over the past 20 years, largely due to people switching from full-fat to semi-skimmed milk, scientists say it is still too high. The fats make up almost one seventh of the average Briton's calorie intake.

Food manufacturers are also being encouraged to play their part by reformulating products. Snacks such as crisps are high in both salt and saturated fats, for example, but recipes have been altered so that many brands now contain 70% less fat than before.

Claire Hughes, nutritionist with Marks & Spencer, said: "We welcome any campaign from the FSA that helps educate consumers about a healthy diet, and how they can make more informed choices about what they eat."

The FSA hitlist

Foods high in saturated fat, which the FSA wants us to eat less often:

• Meat pies, sausages, meat with visible white fat
• Hard cheese
• Butter, and lard, spreads containing palm oil
• Pastry, cakes and biscuits
• Cream, soured cream, and crème fraîche
• Coconut oil or coconut cream

MY RESPONSE:

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was correct to indict the fats found in crisps, biscuits, cakes and pastries. But these are NOT saturated fats; they are artifically hydrogenated fats which merely resemble saturated fats. There is a huge difference between the two as far as our health is concerned; lumping the two together is highly misleading.

When we talk about saturated fats these days, the popular perception is that we are talking about animal fats. But animal fats are entirely healthy. Indeed, when all the fats we ate were from animal sources -- butter, lard, dripping, cream, et cetera -- the chronic degenerative diseases that plague our lives today were either very rare or non-existent. Evidence over the last decade or so indicates that for optimum health, animal fats should provide upwards of 50% of calorie intake. We should be eating more of them, not less.

An FSA campaign aimed at cutting the consumption of crisps, biscuits, cakes and pastries, may have a useful purpose as the fats used in these have been shown to be harmful, as have the starches they include. But if the safest fats of all -- the fats found in meat, sausages, cheese, cream, butter, and tropical oils such as coconut oil -- are also to be targeted, then our health will only decline even more rapidly than it is at present.

It is no coincidence that diseases such as diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer's and more have taken off since 'healthy eating' was introduced by the COMA Report of 1984. These are classic cases of cause and effect. 'Healthy eating' is not the answer to the problem, it IS the problem. Until that is acknowledged, our health will only get worse.

So breast cancer screening really isn’t worth it – but women aren’t told that.

2009-02-04T09:18:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 2: What’s behind the screens?

There is another gem in the British Medical Journal.

Peter Gøtzsche and colleagues argue that women are still not given enough, nor correct, information about the harms of screening.

Three years ago, Peter Gøtzsche and colleagues at the Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Department of Nuclear Medicine, and the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, published a survey of the information given to women invited for breast screening with mammography in six countries with publicly funded screening programmes. The major harm of screening, which is overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment of healthy women, was not mentioned in any of them.

This latest analysis shows that nothing has changed. Although the information that women were given should have been about both the benefits and adverse effects of breast cancer screening, the supposed benefits were hyped up, but the harms were still not mentioned. The authors say:

“By contrast, little information is given about harms. It states that "some women" find mammography uncomfortable or painful, which becomes "many women" in the summary. The summary also notes that recalls for more investigations "can cause worry." No mention is made of the major harm of screening - that is, unnecessary treatment of harmless lesions that would not have been identified without screening. This harm is well known and acknowledged, even among screening enthusiasts. It is in violation of guidelines and laws for informed consent not to mention this common harm, especially when screening is aimed at healthy people. The new guidelines from the General Medical Council state: "You must tell patients if an investigation or treatment might result in a serious adverse outcome, even if the likelihood is very small." The likelihood of being overdiagnosed after mammography is not very small; it is ten times larger than the likelihood of avoiding death from breast cancer.”

“Another harm is false positive diagnoses. The leaflet notes that about one in every 20 women screened will be recalled for more tests, but does not explain that this 5% rate applies to only one round of screening. The rate of false positive diagnosis after 10 screenings was 50% in the United States and 20% in Norway.”

And there are many more examples of the harm that mammography causes that are mentioned in Chapter 2 of Trick and Treat.

Gøtzsche and co publish a specimen leaflet which does list both sides. It is this:

Summary from evidence based leaflet
• It may be reasonable to attend for breast cancer screening with mammography, but it may also be reasonable not to attend because screening has both benefits and harms

• If 2000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will benefit from the screening, as she will avoid dying from breast cancer

• At the same time, 10 healthy women will, as a consequence, become cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy and sometimes chemotherapy

• Furthermore, about 200 healthy women will experience a false alarm. The psychological strain until one knows whether it was cancer, and even afterwards, can be severe

But I doubt that women will be told the truth. If they were, they would probably say ‘no, thank you’ and doctors would then see a cut in their salaries – and that would never do, would it?

Gøtzsche PC, et al. Breast screening: the facts—or maybe not. BMJ 2009;338:b86
doi:10.1136/bmj.b86

It’s the glucose, stupid!

2009-02-04T09:06:00.001Z

Supports Chapter 21: Diseases of the heart and blood vessels

An interesting study has just been published which looks at a wide range of possible variables in the formation of the arterial lesions thought to cause heart attacks. The interesting part is that, although all the traditional ‘risk factors’ for heart disease such as cholesterol, HDL, LDL were considered, the factor that really stood out was none of these. It was blood glucose levels – from a ‘healthy’ carbohydrate-based diet, perhaps?

This study is open access so anyone can read the full paper online.

Nunes JPL, Silva JC (2009) Systemic Correlates of Angiographic Coronary Artery Disease. PLoS ONE 4(1): e4322. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004322

Abstract
Coronary angiography allows a direct evaluation of coronary anatomy.

The aim of the present investigation was to search for correlations between the magnitude of coronary artery disease, as assessed by angiography, and a number of systemic parameters.

A group of 116 patients (80 male, 36 female) with coronary heart disease diagnosed by angiography, aged 62.0610.5 years, was the subject of an observational study.

Correlation and linear regression analysis using coronary artery disease burden (CADB - sum of the percentage of the luminal stenosis encountered in all the lesions of the coronary arterial trees) as dependent variable, and age, sex, plasma calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, glucose, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, estimated glomerular filtration rate and body mass index as independent variables, were carried out.

Significant correlation values versus CADB were seen with age (r 0.19, p 0.04), uric acid (r 0.18, p 0.048) and fasting plasma glucose (r 0.33, p,0.001). Linear regression analysis, yielding a global significance level of 0.002, showed a significant value for glucose (p 0.018) and for sex (0.008).

In conclusion, among several systemic parameters studied, plasma glucose was found to be correlated to coronary artery atherosclerosis lesions.

Nanny state at its worst

2009-01-26T10:14:00.006Z

Supports the whole raison d'etre of Trick and Treat

On Monday 26 January 2009, UK's Daily Express published two stories that illustrate the sheer and utter incompetence and wastefulness of the present government and 'health' boffins. They also demonstrate how the 'health' industry is able to con the media so that they can profit from our ill-health.

Article 1:

NOW FOOD POLICE PLAN TO SWOOP ON YOUR FRIDGE

SQUADRONS of “Food Police” are to start knocking on doors to lecture families on how to feed themselves properly.

In a move branded “Government nannying at its worst”, the teams – operated by councils across the country – will be recruited to visit homes at meal times before handing out advice on diet and how to reduce waste.

Eight thousand Food Police, or Love Food Champions under their official title, will be paid up to £8.50 an hour of taxpayers’ cash. And if a pilot scheme is successful, the idea could be rolled out across the country, costing the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.

Employed by a private contractor, the teams will advise householders on how to plan their shopping carefully so that they do not over-cater.

You can read the rest at: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/81804/Now-Food-Police-plan-to-swoop-on-your-fridge

Apart from the obvious intrusion into people's lives and the total waste of taxpayers' money (I thought we were in a recession and short of the stuff), what possible good will it do? Don't people know now that they are wasting money by buying more food than they can eat and so on?

And if these cretins think that advising people to eat more 'healthy' carb-based foods to cut the incidence of conditions such as obesity and diabetes, when there is such a huge amount of evidence that this adv ice is a major cause of these illnesses, then the result can only be that the situation will get worse.

Article 2:

OBESITY BUG YOU CAN CATCH

OBESITY can be “caught” as easily as a common cold from other people’s coughs, sneezes and dirty hands, scientists will claim today.

Researchers believe that an airborne “adenovirus” germ could be causing the fat plague that is blighting Britain and other countries.

As many as one in three obese people may have become overweight after falling victim to the highly infectious cold-like virus, known as AD-36.

Read the rest here: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/81810

Even if this is true, which I doubt, increasing the numbers of fat cells (adipocytes) won't make you any fatter — unless you fill those adipocytes with fat!

Stories like these are making me lose the will to live (at least in this country!)

But there are two other points:

1: Just what qualifications will these £8.50 per hour 'advisors' have to tell me what to do?

2. As my doctor is cannot legally prescribe for me without my consent, what law allows the (probably unqualified) otherwise unemployed to tell me what I can and can't eat?

Low-carb, high-protein diet beats low-fat diet for weight loss - again

2009-01-13T07:18:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 4: Learning from history,
Chapter 19: 'Healthy eating' is fattening,
Chapter 20: Diabetes deceit, and
Chapter 21: Diseases of the heart and blood vessels

Results from a systematic review demonstrate, yet again, that low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are more effective for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health than are low-fat diets.

Catherine Rolland and colleagues from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, UK, carried out a systematic review of 13 randomized, controlled trials including a total of 1222 individuals comparing low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets with low-fat diets.

Inclusion criteria included publication between January 2000 and March 2007, length of at least 6 months, participants aged 18 years and above, and a mean or median body mass index of at least 28 kg/m2.

Of the 13 studies, five lasted for 6 months, six for 12 months, one for 17 months, and one for 36 months. Eleven studies compared low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets with low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets and two compared medium-protein with high-protein diets. Measurements were compared at 6 and 12 months.

At 6 months, weight loss was an average of 4.02 kg greater in the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group than in the low-fat diet group.

At 12 months, the difference between the two groups had reduced, with the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group having lost an average of 1.05 kg more than the low-fat group.

Rolland and team also noted improvements in serum lipids, although these were more mixed, as a significant improvement in high-density lipoprotein and triglycerides was seen favoring the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group up to 12 months, but improvements in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were higher in the low-fat group at 6 months.

A nonsignificant trend toward improvement in diastolic and systolic blood pressure was also observed up to 17 months for the low-carbohydrate, high-protein group.

The researchers conclude in the journal Obesity Reviews that their results show low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are more effective for weight loss up to 12 months than low-fat diets with unrestricted or high levels of carbohydrates.

They add that although trends toward cardiovascular improvement favoring the low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet were seen in this study, “more evidence and longer-term studies are needed to assess the long-term cardiovascular benefits from the weight loss achieved using these diets.”

But there have already been many studies, both clinical and epidemiologic dating back over 140 years.

For example, as I showed in Trick and Treat, a study conducted in 1932 with four different diets with the same number of calories but different constituents gave these results in grams of weight lost per day on average:

high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet – 49 grams (Typical 'slimming' diet)
high-carbohydrate/low-protein – 122 grams
low-carbohydrate/high-protein – 183 grams
low-carbohydrate/high-fat – 205 grams (As recommended in T&T)

Those were all 1,000 kcals. But obese patients also lost weight at 2,700-kcals - but only on the low-carb high fat diet.

How much more evidence will it take before the disastrous 'healthy eating' experiment is called to a close - and those perpetrating it, and who are responsible for the increasing ill-health in our society, are called to account?

Hession M, et al. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat/low-calorie diets in the management of obesity and its comorbidities. Obes Rev 2009; 10: 36-50
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00518.x

Autism And Schizophrenia Share Common Origin

2008-12-27T15:09:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 26: Diet and the brain
and Chapter 19: Prevention is better

Medical News Today has just reported a study conducted by a Dutch researcher, Annemie Ploeger, in which she hypothesises that "Schizophrenia and autism probably share a common origin".

There is already research which links these conditions to our 'healthy' diet in infancy, but what is new is that Ploeger also indicts "disruptions" to the fetus during the early growth period - between 20 and 40 days after fertilisation - when the embryo is highly susceptible to such disruptions. Such 'disruptions' she puts down to the mother taking a morning sickess drug called softenon. However, morning sickness is less likely if the pregnant mother is eating a natural diet.

If Ploeger is right, and I have every reason to suspect that she is, an expectant mother's diet as well as the diet her baby eats during its postnatal formative period, may both play an important role in the growing incidences of both autism and schizophrenia.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133293.php

Low cholesterol increases risk of bone fracture

2008-12-17T10:55:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 22: The dangers of low cholesterol

A new study shows that low levels of cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides are associated with fractures of the vertebrae in postmenopausal women.

“Many factors other than low bone mineral density (BMD) have been suggested as predictors of risk for osteoporosis-related fractures,” comment Ebru Alemdaroglu and colleagues from Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Turkey.

They add that growing evidence suggests bone and fat metabolism are related, but data are limited and contradictory.

To investigate the effect of the serum lipid levels on BMD and vertebral fractures, Alemdaroglu and team examined lumbar spine, hip and radius bone mineral density (BMD) measurements, lateral dorsal and lumbar spine radiographs, and serum lipid levels in 107 postmenopausal women aged 45–79 years.

The researchers were able to score 89 radiographs with good technical properties using the Kleerekoper method. Vertebrae fractures were observed in 71% of the women.
Analysis showed that patients with vertebrae fractures had significantly lower levels of total cholesterol, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol than the patients without vertebrae fractures.
Total cholesterol level was most strongly associated with vertebral fracture. An increase of 1 mg/dl (0.03 mmol/l) total cholesterol was associated with a 2.2% decreased risk for vertebrae fracture.

The researchers reason that estrogen is synthesized by cholesterol and esterified forms of estrogen are stored and transported by lipoproteins. Thus, decreased LDL levels would be associated with decreased stored estrogen and may explain the relationship between vertebrate fracture and reduced serum lipids.

According to the T-scores obtained by BMD measurement, 36 (33.6%) of the 107 women examined were suffering from osteoporosis. Alemdaroglu and co-researchers report that the lipid profiles of women with osteoporosis did not differ significantly from those without osteoporosis.

There was no correlation between serum lipid levels and BMD at the lumbar spine, right hip and radius in any of the study participants. Only total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were weakly associated with BMD at the forearm after the adjustment for possible confounders.

Sivas F, et al. Serum lipid profile: its relationship with osteoporotic vertebrae fractures and bone mineral density in Turkish postmenopausal women. Rheumatol Int 2008. [Online publication ahead of print]
DOI 10.1007/s00296-008-0784-4

COMMENT
The bottom line is: This is yet another indication that low cholesterol levels are not desirable.

Yet more vitamin D deficiency diseases

2008-12-12T15:14:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunlight

I really should have delayed Trick and Treat; there is so much more evidence coming out in support of its various chapters and subjects since it went to print in September.

Two studies just published show even more dangers of ill-health caused by the current ‘keep out of the sun’ advice. These concern low levels of vitamin and Parkinson’s disease, and the inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Parkinson’s disease

A team of doctors at the Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, compared the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in mainly white patients with Parkinson’s disease, with the prevalence in age-matched healthy controls and patients with Alzheimer disease, between 1992 and 2007.

They found significantly lower levels of vitamin D levels at a mean of 31.9 nmol/l in the Parkinson’s patients compared to the other two groups.

(Alzheimer’s patients levels were also lower than the levels in the healthy cohort, although the study was not set up to measure the effects of this.)

Evatt ML, et al Prevalence of vitamin d insufficiency in patients with Parkinson disease and Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2008; 65: 1348-52.

Inflammatory bowel disease

A causal connection between vitamin D deficiency and inflammatory bowel disease was reported at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Orlando, Florida, during October.

Lead researcher Dr Alex Ulitsky from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, USA, and his team found that Vitamin D deficiency was common among people with inflammatory bowel disease and is associated with increased disease activity and worse quality of life.

They found that nearly 50% of the patients were Vitamin D deficient at some point, with 11% being severely deficient. Vitamin D deficiency was also associated with reduced quality of life in patients with Crohn’s disease, but not in those with ulcerative colitis.

Although concerned mainly with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, Dr Ulitsky concluded: “All inflammatory bowel disease patients, irrespective of their disease, disease location or nature should have their Vitamin D levels checked regularly and corrected aggressively when insufficiency is found.”

Meeting website: http://www.acg.gi.org/acgmeetings/

COMMENT

There may be some excuse for people living at higher latitudes to have some vitamin D deficiency, particularly if they have darker skins, but for residents of Florida, with its almost year-long sunshine also to suffer must be a reflection on the appalling health advice they are given. We need to get out in the sun more, not less.

Leading nutritionist shows how little she knows

2008-12-10T14:42:00.002Z

Supports pretty well all of Trick and Treat

The UK's Daily Express published an article on Tuesday 9 December 2008 entitled "Did scientists get it wrong on the dangers of saturated fat?" It was written to publicise Trick and Treat: How 'healthy eating' is making us ill, but was in the form of a debate.

On the "Yes" side was me and my book, Trick and Treat. On the "No"side was an argument by a senior member of the British Nutrition Foundation, Dr Joanne Lunn. Her comments illustrate well why I felt it necessary to write Trick and Treat as she said that:

"The government, doctors and nutritionists don't base recommendations for reducing the amount of saturated fat in our diets on old research but on a growing body of evidence linking a diet high in saturated fat with a higher level of blood cholesterol and high blood cholesterol levels with a risk of cardiovascular disease."

The evidence I quoted in support of Trick and Treat is not 'old' evidence, but is right up-to-date; it includes studies published as recently as September this year. And that evidence shows over and over again that saturated fat does not cause cardiovascular diseases

Indeed, there has been so much evidence against 'healthy eating' since its inception in the 1980s that Professor Sylvan Lee Weinberg, a past President of the American College of Cardiology and a fervent supporter and advocate of 'healthy eating', finally wrote in the 4 March 2004 edition of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, that:

"The low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated vigorously . . . may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid [blood fat] abnormalities, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndromes. This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious medical organizations or by rejecting clinical experience and a growing medical literature suggesting that the much-maligned low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in question."

Professor Weinberg is not alone; there is a growing number of doctors speaking out about the falsity of the current 'healthy' recommendations.

Dr Lunn also said that "people will always ignore the evidence". But it is not I who am ignoring the evidence, it is people like Dr Lunn, and until those in authority stop ignoring the growing evidence that 'healthy eating' isn't healthy, our health can only deteriorate still further.

But, of course, if we didn't get ill, they wouldn't have a job, would they?

Study finds vegetarians have smaller brains

2008-12-03T16:47:00.001Z

Supports Chapter 13: Homo carnivorous

Scientists at the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain – with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.

The study involved tests and brain scans on community-dwelling volunteers aged 61 to 87 years without cognitive impairment at enrolment, over a period of five years. When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.

Vegans are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish.

This study confirms other findings, covered in Trick and Treat, which shows that overall human brain sizes have reduced by an average 11% since we adopted an agricultural diet based on cereal grains rather than the meat-based diet of our Palaeolithic ancestors.

Vogiatzoglou A, et al. Vitamin B12 status and rate of brain volume loss in community-dwelling elderly. Neurology 2008; 71(11): 826-32.

Low cholesterol increases suicide in bipolar patients

2008-11-30T09:53:00.001Z

Supports Chapter 22: The dangers of low cholesterol
and Chapter 26: Diet and the brain

Several studies have been conducted looking at levels of blood cholesterol and its effect on the brain. Most have found that people with one or more of many mental illnesses from Alzheimer’s disease to depression tend to have lower blood cholesterol than healthy people, a few studies have been equivocal.

In a new study, to be published soon, scientists at the University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Croatia, investigated whether there were differences in the serum cholesterol levels in hospitalized bipolar disorder male patients with history of suicide attempts and without suicide attempts.

They found there was a significant difference. Men who attempted suicide had significantly lower levels of total cholesterol (median 3.9 mmol/L vs 4.8 mmol/L); they also had lower LDL (median 2.3 mmol/L vs 3.0 mmol/L).

This adds to the weight of evidence both in Trick and Treat, and to my earlier post, that low cholesterol levels can play havoc with the brain.

Vuksan-Cusa B, et al. Differences in cholesterol and metabolic syndrome between bipolar disorder men with and without suicide attempts. To appear in: Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry (2008)
doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2008.10.017

High Protein Meals Help Keep The Fat Away

2008-11-27T16:18:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 19: 'Healthy eating' is fattening

A low-calorie diet made up of higher protein meals improves the ability to burn fat among overweight and obese people and may be the key to shedding excess kilos, according to new Australian research.

The study found higher protein meals may have a subtle fat-burning effect in overweight or obese people. And the study showed the glycaemic index (GI) of a meal has no additional effect on fat breakdown.

Study co-author Dr. Marijka Batterman said: 'We know from past research that overweight or obese people are not as efficient at burning fat. This new study shows that fat oxidation, or the body's ability to 'burn' fat, improves in obese people when they eat a higher protein diet.'
Study participants were put on two protein-enriched meals and one standard meal, which all contained the same number of calories. The two protein-enriched meals differed in the type of carbohydrate they contained - either high- or low-GI. The amount of calories subjects burnt was then measured.

The high-protein meals led to the greatest level of fat oxidation. This plan included a cheese and tomato omelette for breakfast.

"We found a clear relationship between body composition and the effect of dietary protein on fat oxidation. Our bodies burn energy and use fat differently, and we need to take this into account when planning our diets,' said Dr. Batterman who works at the Smart Foods Centre, University of Wollongong.

Batterham M, et al. High-protein meals may benefit fat oxidation and energy expenditure in individuals with higher body fat. Nutrition & Dietetics 2008; 65(4):
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121501657/abstract

Sunshine Deficit May Diminish Vitamin D Levels And Harm Cardiovascular Health

2008-11-27T16:14:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunlight

The temperature might not be the only thing plummeting this winter. Many people also will experience a decrease in their vitamin D levels, which can play a role in heart disease, according to a new review article in Circulation.

Vitamin D deficiency results in part from reduced exposure to sunlight, which is common during cold weather months when days are shorter and more time is spent indoors.

"Chronic vitamin D deficiency may be a culprit in heart disease, high blood pressure and metabolic syndrome," said Professor Sue Penckofer at Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing, Loyola University Chicago.

The review article cited a number of studies that linked vitamin D deficiency to heart disease. These studies found rates of severe disease or death may be 30 to 50 percent higher among sun-deprived individuals with heart disease.

Penckofer and colleagues concluded that diet alone is not sufficient to manage vitamin D levels. Treatment options to correct this level, such as vitamin D2 or D3, may decrease the risk of severe disease or death from cardiovascular disorders. The preferred range in the body is 30 - 60 ng/mL of 25(OH) vitamin D.

"Most physicians do not routinely test for vitamin D deficiency," said Penckofer. "However, most experts would agree that adults at risk for heart disease and others who experience fatigue joint pain or depression should have their vitamin D levels measured."

Wallis DE, Penckofer S, Sizemore GW. The "sunshine deficit" and cardiovascular disease.
Circulation 2008;118(14):1476-85. PMID: 18824654

Role Of Vitamin D In Colon Cancer Therapy

2008-11-27T16:12:00.001Z

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunlight

Vitamin D can tame the rogue colon cancer cell by adjusting everything from its gene expression to its cytoskeleton. In the Nov. 17 issue of the Journal of Cell Biology, Ordóñez-Morán and colleagues show that one pathway governs the vitamin's diverse effects. The results help clarify the actions of a molecule that is undergoing clinical trials as a cancer therapy.

Vitamin D stymies colon cancer cells in two ways. It switches on genes such as the one that encodes E-cadherin, a component of the adherens junctions that anchor cells in epithelial layers. The vitamin also induces effects on the cytoskeleton that are required for gene regulation and short-circuiting the Wnt/b-catenin pathway, which is overactive in most colon tumors. The net result is to curb division and prod colon cancer cells to differentiate into epithelial cells that settle down instead of spreading.

To delve into the mechanism, the team dosed colon cancer cells with calcitriol, the metabolically active version of vitamin D. Calcitriol triggered a surge of calcium into the cells and the subsequent switching on of RhoA-RhoGTPases, which have been implicated in the cytoskeletal changes induced by vitamin D. The activated RhoA in turn switched on one of its targets, the rho-associated coiled kinase (ROCK), which then roused two other kinases. Each step in this nongenomic pathway was necessary to spur the genomic responses, the researchers showed. The team also nailed down the contribution of the vitamin D receptor (VDR). The receptor was crucial at the beginning of the pathway, where it permitted the calcium influx, and at the end, where it activated and repressed genes.

The study is the first to show that vitamin D's genomic and nongenomic effects integrate to regulate cell physiology. One question the researchers now want to pursue is whether VDR from different locations - the nucleus, the cytosol, and possibly the cell membrane - has different functions in the pathway.

Ordóñez-Morán P, et al. RhoA-ROCK and p38MAPK-MSK1 mediate vitamin D effects on gene expression, phenotype, and Wnt pathway in colon cancer cells. 2008. J Cell Biol doi:10.1083/jcb.200803020.

Tumours Fuelled By Lactic Acid

2008-11-27T16:07:00.003Z

Supports Chapter 8: Why 'five portions'?
and Chapter 23: Cancer: disease of civilization

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center and the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) have found that lactic acid is an important energy source for cancer cells. In further experiments, they discovered a new way to destroy the most hard-to-kill, dangerous cancer cells by preventing them from delivering lactic acid. The study was published in the Nov. 20 online edition of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Mark Dewhirst, DVM, Ph.D., professor of radiation oncology and pathology at Duke, and a co-author of the study said:"We have known for more than 50 years that low-oxygen, or hypoxic, cells cause resistance to radiation therapy . . . Over the past 10 years, scientists have found that hypoxic cells are also more aggressive and hard to treat with chemotherapy. The work we have done presents an entirely new way for us to go after them."

Many cancers have cells that burn fuel for activities in different ways. Cancer cells near blood vessels have adequate oxygen sources and can either burn glucose like normal cells, or lactic acid (lactate). Cancer cells further from vessels are hypoxic and need to burn a lot of glucose to keep going. Thei si very inefficient but they produce lactate as a waste product.

Cancer cells with good oxygen supply actually prefer to burn lactate, which frees up glucose to be used by the less-oxygenated cells. But when the researchers cut off the cells' ability to use lactate, the hypoxic cells didn't get as much glucose.

For the dangerous hypoxic cells, "it is glucose or death," said Pierre Sonveaux, the lead author and professor in the UCL Unit of Pharmacology & Therapeutics.

The next challenge was to discover how lactate moved into cancer cells. Because lactate recycling exists in exercising muscle to prevent cramps, the researchers imagined that the same molecular machinery could be used by cancer cells.

"We discovered that a transporter protein of muscle origin, MCT1, was also present in respiring tumor cells," said Dewhirst. The team used chemical inhibitors of MCT1 and cell models in which MCT1 had been deleted to learn its role in delivering lactate.

"We not only proved that MCT1 was important, we formally demonstrated that MCT1 was unique for mediating lactate uptake," said Professor Olivier Feron of the UCL Unit of Pharmacology & Therapeutics.

Blocking MCT1 did not kill the oxygenated cells, but it nudged their metabolism toward inefficiently burning glucose. Because the glucose was used more abundantly by the better-oxygenated cells, they used up most of the glucose before it could reach the hypoxic cells, which starved while waiting in vain for glucose to arrive.

"This finding is really exciting," Dewhirst said. "The idea of starving hypoxic cells to death is completely novel."

Even though hypoxic cancer cells have been identified as a cause of treatment resistance for decades, there has not been a reliable method to kill them. "They are the population of cells that can cause tumor relapse," said Professor Feron.

A significant advantage of the new strategy is that a new drug does not need to reach hypoxic cells far from blood vessels and it does not need to enter into cells at all - it merely needs to block the transporter molecule that moves the lactose, which is outside of the cells. "This finding will be really important for drug development," said Sonveaux.

----------------------------
Article adapted from original press release.

The point is that, as is explained in Trick and Treat, cancers thrive on glucose and its byproduct, lactic acid. But if you eat a low-carb, high-fat diet, this cannot happen and cancers are much less likely to survive.

Low cholesterol increases suicide risk

2008-11-23T16:52:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 22: The dangers of low blood cholesterol;
and Chapter 26: Diet and the brain

There is already a lot of evidence in Trick and Treat which shows that people with low cholesterol levels are more likely both to attempt to commit suicide and to succeed in those attempts. This latest study, from the University of Madrid, adds yet more weight to this evidence.

In this study ‘low cholesterol’ was defined as less than 160mg/dL (4.16 mmol/L). This level has been noted several times in the medical literature as a level below which suicide is more likely. And you should note that this level is well within what is considered ‘healthy’ by a cholesterol-lowering, drug pushing health industry.

What makes it worse, to my mind, is that suicide attempters in this study were those one might consider least likely to want to take their own lives: they were generally younger than 35, and had a ‘healthy’ weight, with a Body Mass Index of 22 or lower.

Perez-Rodriguez MM, et al. Low cholesterol may be associated with suicide attempt history. J Clin Psychiatry 2008 e1-e8 (pii: ej07m3866). Published online ahead of print.

Get out in the sun to protect your heart

2008-11-22T17:11:00.004Z

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunlight

All the 'healthy eating' hype is aimed at preventing heart attacks caused by 'ischaemic heart disease', where the coronary arteries become blocked, either by a build-up of plaque in the artery walls, or by a blood clot. But there are many diseases of the heart – and the one that is responsible for the most deaths is a condition called 'heart failure' or 'sudden cardiac death' (SCD).

We have been told for many years that we should not go out in the sun unless we cover up and/or wear a strong sunscreen. But this measure dramatically reduces the amount of vitamin D our bodies can make from UVB sunlight (our major source of vitamin D). As a consequence, there is now a widespread deficiency of vitamin D in all industrialised countries, particularly those furthest from the equator.

There are also increasing numbers of cases of SCD in those countries.

The classic role of vitamin D for maintaining bone health is well documented and recent reports have linked vitamin D deficiency to various other diseases, including arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and cancer which are already covered in Trick and Treat.

A combined German/Austrian study published in October 2008 looked to answer the question of whether vitamin D deficiency also increased the risk of SCD. They found clear evidence that it did, concluding that:

"Low levels of 25(OH)D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D are associated with prevalent myocardial dysfunction, deaths due to heart failure, and SCD."

So, this is yet another reason to get out in the sun – without sunscreen - as often as you can.

Pilz S, et al. Association of Vitamin D Deficiency with Heart Failure and Sudden Cardiac Death in a Large Cross-Sectional Study of Patients Referred for Coronary Angiography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93: 3927-3935.

If you are diabetic, beware of statins

2008-11-12T09:38:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 1: Trick to treat, Chapter 2: What’s behind the screens? and Chapter 20: Diabetes deceit.

As diabetics are about eight times more likely to suffer a heart attack than the healthy population, not only are they told to eat an unhealthy 'healthy' diet, they are also routinely prescribed the cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins.

Disease of the blood vessels caused by diabetes mellitus represents a significant medical problem that has been firmly established in large clinical trials to be directly related to high glucose levels. At a cellular level, high glucose exposure damages endothelial cells (the cells that line the blood vessels) and inhibits their repair. Needless to say, this is highly undesirable and could account for many of the complications of diabetes.

Glucose does this by inhibiting the 'mevalonate pathway', a series of chemical processes that produce a number of compounds needed for endothelial cell repair.

Cholesterol is also a compound which is manufactured via the mevalonate pathway; it is this pathway that is inhibited by statins.

A brand new study from the University of Sydney, Australia, finds that statins, not surprisingly, which work by blocking not only cholesterol but also the other vital compounds that the body needs, have a similar effect to high levels of glucose.

It would seem foolhardy, therefore, to continue the practice of putting all (or indeed any) diabetics on statins.

Mather A, et al. High glucose induced endothelial cell growth inhibition is associated with an increase in TGFβ1 secretion and inhibition of Ras prenylation via suppression of the mevalonate pathway. Int J Biochem Cell Biol (2008),
doi:10.1016/j.biocel.2008.07.007

High body fat linked to poor bone density

2008-11-08T15:58:00.003Z

Supports Chapter 25: Deficiency diseases

New research suggests that body fat may have an impact on bone mineral density.

Results of a study by Kathryn Piehowski, RD, of Pennsylvania State University showed that bone mineral density in normal weight women was higher than in overweight women.

The report suggested that the reasons why fatter women should have a lower bone mineral density were unclear. Piehowski suggests that inflammation may well play a role, as high levels of body fat are associated with greater levels of inflammation, and some inflammatory mediators are known to promote bone loss.

Well, it might. But there may well be another reason. Fatter women tend to be those on calorie controlled, carbohydrate-based diets. These are inevitably low in fat and, as fat comes mainly with protein, low in protein as well. Although women are told that low bone density can be caused by eating a high-protein diet, in fact the opposite is true. The real reason for the low bone density in fatter women, therefore, could well be their reliance on a ‘healthy’ diet

Too Much Body Fat Bad for Bones? WebMD Health News. October 31st 2008.

More children being prescribed drugs for obesity-related health problems

2008-11-08T15:56:00.000Z

Supports pretty much the whole of Trick and Treat!

A new study of chronic medication use in children aged 5 to 19 revealed that the number of prescriptions issued for type 2 diabetes medications more than doubled between 2002 and 2005. In the same period the number of prescriptions for type 2 diabetes medications issued to girls aged 10 to 14 rose by 166%. The use of cholesterol-lowering and anti-hypertensive medications rose by 15% and 1.8%, respectively.

Co-author of the study, Donna R. Halloran, an assistant professor at Saint Louis University School of Medicine, said that the increasing use of chronic medication is mainly due to the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity. She added that the study findings also showed that more children are being diagnosed with chronic conditions, and doctors are increasingly using medication to treat these conditions.

Comment
But these drugs only mitigate and mask the symptoms of these conditions; they do absolutely nothing to stop the causes. As\Trick and Treat shows very clearly, our ‘healthy’ diet is a major contributor to these conditions. That is why they are in creasing at such an alarming rate.

Cox ER, Halloran DR, Homan SM, Welliver S, Mager DE. Trends in the prevalence of chronic medication use in children: 2002-2005. Pediatrics. 2008;122(5):e1053.

Cases of type 2 diabetes rise by 90%

2008-11-08T15:44:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 19: ‘Healthy eating’ is fattening, and Chapter 20: Diabetes deceit

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have revealed that the number of cases of type 2 diabetes in the US almost doubled within just ten years, from 4.8 people per 1,000 in 1995 -1997 to 9.1 people per thousand in 2005 - 2007.

But this may be a massive underestimation because many people are unaware that they have diabetes until one or more complications rears its ugly head.

The CDC puts the blame for this dramatic rise in type-2 diabetes on the epidemic. They say that type-2 diabetes: "can be prevented or delayed by moderate weight loss and increased physical activity."

This may be right; however, it’s too much carbohydrate in the diet that causes diabetes, just as it causes obesity. That’s things like 6 to 11 portions of starchy foods and five portions of fruit and veg. I wonder how the people who trot out this unhealthy advice will defend themselves when the s**t hits the fan and Trick and Treat gives those harmed by this unhealthy advice the ammunition they need to sue them.

State-Specific Incidence of Diabetes Among Adults -- Participating States, 1995-1997 and 2005-2007. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2008;57:1169-1173.

Dietary Committee's Industry Ties Ignored

2008-11-03T14:53:00.003Z

Supports Chapter One: Trick to treat

The US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services failed to tell the public about relevant conflicts of interest on the newly impaneled Dietary Guidelines advisory committee, which a year from now will recommend changes to the government's daily food intake advice.

A Center for Science in the Public Interest analysis reveals that nearly half the roster's 13 members have taken funding from the food and pharmaceutical industries.

None of those industry ties were disclosed by the government; and, according to Robert Post, director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, none received waivers declaring that their expertise was needed to round out the committee, which the law requires before scientists with conflicts of interest can serve on federal advisory committees.

When it comes to it, it's pretty obvious that their wealth is much more important than your health.

http://takeaction.cspinet.org/

'Healthy' carbs increase cancer risk

2008-11-03T10:09:00.003Z

Supports Chapter 8: Why 'five portions'? and Chapter 23: Cancer: Disease of civilization.

Scientists at the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany have published a review of some key biological mechanisms that may provide important metabolic links between nutrition, physical activity and cancer.

These include insulin resistance and reduced glucose tolerance, which are caused by eating a 'healthy' carbohydrate-based diet.

Also included are increased activation of the growth hormone/IGF-I axis, alterations in sex-steroid synthesis and/or bioavailability, and low-grade chronic inflammation through the effects of adipokines and cytokines.

These, too, may be adversely affected by our so-called 'healthy' lifestyle. For example, cholesterol is a major building block in the production of the sex hormones; inflammation may be caused by any form of stress which raises levels of cortisol in the blood as well as high levels of glucose and insulin.

This latest study confirms several earlier studies which have found that a carb-based diet increaes the risk of several types of cancer – and significantly, the ones that are now on the increase.

Dossus L, Kaaks R. Nutrition, metabolic factors and cancer risk. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 22: 551-71.
PMID: 18971118

Patients With Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Diseases need vitamin D

2008-11-01T11:09:00.007Z

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunlight, and Chapter 26: Diet and the brain

A study by researchers at Emory University School of Medicine published in October 2008 compared the amount of vitamin D, which we get from sunlight, and the prevalence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases with the amounts of vitamin D in healthy people. The study was over a 15-year period.

What it found was that people suffering these two distressing and debilitating diseases was that they had significantly lower levels of vitamin D than healthy people.

Although the researchers call for more research to be done, it has really been quite obvious for some years that one aspect of prevention of these diseases is to get out in the sun as much as possible. This is particularly important if you live in higher latitudes such as northern Europe, the northern states of the US or Canada. This new study adds weight to what I wrote in Trick and Treat.

Evatt ML, et al .Prevalence of Vitamin D Insufficiency in Patients With Parkinson Disease and Alzheimer Disease. Arch Neurol. 2008;65:1348-1352.
PMID: 18852350

Low-carb, high-fat should be the preferred diet for diabetics

2008-11-01T09:32:00.002Z

Supports Chapter 14: The Metabolic syndrome and the glycaemic index, and Chapter 20: Diabetes deceit

A new paper looking at diet in the treatment of diabetes and the metabolic syndrome points out that there is a better way to treat both conditions than the 'healthy' carbohydrate-based, low-fat diet currently recommended. It reverses current guidelines as it recommends reducing carbs and increasing fats, particularly animal fats.

The authors say:

"Dietary carbohydrate restriction in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome is based on an underlying principle of control of insulin secretion and the theory that insulin resistance is a response to chronic hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. As such, the theory is intuitive and has substantial experimental support.
"It has generally been opposed by health agencies because of concern that carbohydrate will be replaced by fat, particularly saturated fat, thereby increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease as dictated by the so-called diet-heart hypothesis."

The paper then summarises the available evidence and shows that, in fact, substituting fat for carbohydrate actually improves cardiovascular risk factors.
This means that there should be no concern about dietary fat, and that carbohydrate restriction the preferred method for treating type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

The authors: "emphasize the ability of low carbohydrate diets to improve glycemic control, hemoglobin A1C and to reduce medication."

Which, of course, is what diabetics want. No doubt it will be strongly opposed by the diabetes and drugs industries.

Feinman RD, Volek JS. Carbohydrate restriction as the default treatment for type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal 2008; 42: 256 - 263.
DOI: 10.1080/14017430802014838

Arthritis patients face increased risk of mood disorders

2008-10-30T09:55:00.003Z

Supports Chapter 25: Deficiency diseases and Chapter 26: Diet and the brain

The results of a world-wide study confirm that people with arthritis are more likely to suffer from mood disorders and other mental health conditions than other people.

Researchers from Shanghai Mental Health Center in China studied data from a health survey of more than 85,000 adults in 17 countries in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the South Pacific. They specifically assessed associations between arthritis and the prevalence of anxiety, mood and alcohol use disorders.

They found that people with arthritis were almost twice as likely to suffer from mood and anxiety disorders as those without arthritis. This was similar across all the countries studied.

It could be argued that people who suffer the pain and discomfort of arthritis are more likely to be depressed than people who aren't, but there is also a dietary component: This study adds weight to others that show that both conditions may be caused or exacerbated by eating the same 'healthy' diet. That is one which is based on cereal grains in foods such as bread, and is low in fat.

He Y, et al. Mental disorders among persons with arthritis: results from the World Mental Health Surveys. Psychol Med 2008; 38: 1639-1650. doi:10.1017/S0033291707002474

Eating fruit may increase heart attack risk

2008-10-30T09:26:00.004Z

Supports Chapters 8: Why 'five portions', and Chapter 21: Diseases of the heart and blood vessels

Dr Hans Selye first proposed that stress may be a cause of heart attacks back in 1950. There is now a considerable body of evidence to support this hypothesis, but the mechanism has been obscure.

There is also a hypothesis that a low pH in the blood (denoting acidity) increases cardiac risk. So we are told to avoid eating 'acid forming' foods such as meat, fats and dairy, and eat more 'alkaline foods' such as fruit and vegetables.

A recent hypothesis by Dr Carlos Monteiro in Brazil may have the answer - and it turns current acid/alkaline foods hypothesis advice on its head.

We have lived by eating meat and its 'saturated' fat for the whole of our existence as a species; ischaemic heart disease, against which 'healthy eating' is targeted, only 'took off' in the 20th century. The idea that our traditional diet should suddenly become the cause of this modern disease is a fraud and a delusion. Yet it is the sole basis for the current paradigm. It is also the basis for the 'acid/alkaline' theory.

But there is an acid that can lower pH in the blood and cause harm, and that is lactic acid. It’s not ingested lactic acid but produced by the body in response to stress. We live now in stressful times, where our 'fight-or-flight' reflex must be working overtime. A principal result of such stresses is increased levels of lactic acid in the blood.

A 'healthy' diet of glucose, fructose and other sugars from carbohydrates also raises blood lactic acid as a by-product of the metabolism of glucose for energy from dietary carbohydrates. The worst of these is the fruit sugar, fructose, which increases blood pressure and other heart attack risk factors.

If a low-carb, high-fat diet is adopted, that naturally reduces lactic acid production from anaerobic metabolism of glucose by increasing aerobic metabolism of fats for energy.

Carlos ETB Monteiro. Acidic environment evoked by chronic stress: A novel mechanism to explain atherogenesis. Available from Infarct Combat Project at http://www.infarctcombat.org/AcidityTheory.pdf

Low carb diet found to lower insulin levels

2008-10-25T11:34:00.002+01:00

Supports Chapter 14: The metabolic syndrome and the glycaemic index; and Chapter 20: Diabetes deceit

If you want a long and healthy life, without diseases such as diabetes with its wide range of complications, you need to ensure stability in blood sugar and insulin levels. This means that foods such as meat, fish, eggs and green vegetables, which don't disrupt blood sugar (and therefore insulin) levels, are the ones you should eat.

This concept of controlling carb intake is not considered 'healthy' by the establishment, who want to profit from diabetes. But its not just relevant for diabetics, but also for those who would prefer not to develop diabetes.

A recent study tested the effects of low-carb and low fat (and higher carb) diets in a group of obese adolescents aged 12-18.it showed that the high-fat, low carbohydrate diet out-performed the low fat one in critical areas: insulin levels were lower in those eating a lower carb diet; as was insulin resistance and beta-cell exhaustion.

In other words, those adolescents on a lower carb diet saw improvements in their biochemistry which would, generally speaking, put them at reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes over time.

This evidence is in line with other research which has found that the consumption of blood sugar-disruptive 'healthy' carbohydrate-based diets arer associated with an increased risk of diabetes.

Demol S, et al. Low-carbohydrate (low & high-fat) versus high-carbohydrate low-fat diets in the treatment of obesity in adolescents. Acta Paediatr. 2008 Sep 29. [Epub ahead of print] [PMID: 1882649]

Breakfast cereals can damage children and make them fat

2008-10-24T14:45:00.000+01:00

Supports Chapter 18: Prevention is better; Chapter 19: 'Healthy eating' is fattening

It's not surprising that today's children are become so obese. On average, sugar accounts for more than one-third of the weight of children's cereals compared to less than one-quarter of adult cereals. Some breakfast cereals aimed children are two-thirds sugar. Even the rest is composed of starch, a carbohydrate which the digestion converts into sugar.[1]

Yet the 'health industry' labels these as 'healthy'!

Schwartz MB, Vartanian LR, Wharton CM, Brownell KD. Examining the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals marketed to children. J Am Diet Assoc 2008; 108:702-5. (PMID: 18375229)

Trick and Treat goes to Number One on Amazon - over a week before publication

2008-10-23T15:28:00.006+01:00

The official publication date for Trick and Treat: How 'healthy eating' is making us ill is 30 October 2008 in the UK.

Following the first article about Trick and Treat in the Telegraph on Monday, 20 October, Trick and Treat shot right up to Number One in Amazon.co.uk's Public Health and Preventive Medicine category, and 158 overall.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trick-Treat-Healthy-Eating-Making/dp/1905140223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224686093&sr=1-1

Lipitor advertising misleading over lack of benefits for women.

2008-10-22T17:12:00.005+01:00

Supports Chapter One: Trick to Treat

Experts in epidemiology and law claim that in the advertising of the world’s best selling drug, Lipitor (atorvastatin), its manufacturer, Pfizer, failed to disclose the fact that there are no known benefits for women in taking the drug.

They argue that unqualified claims of protection against heart attacks made in advertisements for Lipitor may be misleading and that this advertising raises concerns about the way the US Food and Drug Administration regulates drugs.

The authors, Theodore Eisenberg, a professor of law at Cornell Law School, and Martin Wells, professor of clinical epidemiology at Cornell University Weill Medical College, claim that a substantial portion of the multibillion dollar market in statins may be made up of users for whom the drugs offer no benefit.

They say that women prescribed the Lipitor should be entitled to compensation to recoup the costs of treatment. The same should also apply to other statins, of course, as no study of cholesterol-lowering in women - by any drug - has shown a benefit.

Eisenberg T, Wells MT. Statins and Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Moderate-Risk Females: A Statistical and Legal Analysis with Implications for FDA Preemption Claims. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 2008 Sep 5;5(3):507 - 550 (doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00132.x)

Aspirin should not routinely be used to prevent heart attacks in diabetics

2008-10-22T16:30:00.006+01:00

Supports Chapter 20: Diabetes deceit

Aspirin should not be routinely prescribed to diabetics for the prevention of heart attack and stroke, say researchers.

The Prevention of Progression of Arterial Disease and Diabetes (POPADAD) Trial involved 1,276 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who had no symptoms of coronary heart disease. Participants had either a daily 100 mg aspirin tablet plus antioxidant capsule, an aspirin tablet plus placebo capsule, a placebo tablet plus antioxidant capsule, or a placebo tablet plus placebo capsule.

Results showed that aspirin – whether taken alone or in combination with an antioxidant capsule – did not significantly reduce the risk of death from coronary heart disease or stroke, or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke.

The researchers conclude: “This trial does not provide evidence to support the use of aspirin or antioxidants in primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality.”

Let's face it, as Type-2 diabetes is so easily and quickly rectified merely by a change of diet, why take risks with any drugs?

Belch J, MacCuish A, Campbell I, et al. The prevention of progression of arterial disease and diabetes (POPADAD) trial: factorial randomised placebo controlled trial of aspirin and antioxidants in patients with diabetes and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease. BMJ 2008;337:a1840. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1840

We should get out in the sun more - in the middle of the day

2008-10-22T12:26:00.006+01:00

Supports Chapter 11: Our irrational fear of sunshine

Health recommendations are that we should avoid sun exposure for three to five hours around noon because of the skin cancer risk. But a group of doctors at the Institute for Cancer Research, Montebello, Oslo, Norway, say this may be wrong and may even promote melanoma. They have determined that, to get an optimal vitamin D from the sun at a minimal risk of getting malignant melanoma, around noon the best time to go out in the sun exposure. This add weight to the studies in Trick and Treat (click above for the abstract)
This would give a maximal yield of vitamin D at a minimal CMM risk.
Moan J, Dahlback A, Porojnicu AC. At what time should one go out in the sun? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008; 624: 86-8

High cholesterol is better for memory

2008-10-12T20:55:00.009+01:00

Supports Chapter 26: Diet and the brain

High cholesterol is better for memory and cognitive function in the elderly
A study assessed cognitive function and cholesterol levels in 185 participants between the ages of 85 and 101. These participants were recruited from the New York City area.
    Bloods were drawn to assess total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, as well as for APOE genotyping.
    In contrast to the researchers' expectations, they found that "high total cholesterol and high LDL cholesterol were associated with higher memory scores for noncarriers of the APOE4 allele. No significant associations between cognitive performance and lipid profile were found for carriers of the APOE4 allele."
    High cholesterol in individuals above the age of 79 has actually been found to be associated with reduced risk of dementia.
    High total cholesterol has also been correlated with a lower risk of mortality in the elderly. It may be conjectured that high levels of cholesterol suggests better health than that of individuals with lower levels of cholesterol.
    They concluded that "high cholesterol is associated with better memory function."

West R, Schnaider Beeri M, Schmeidler J, et al. 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 2008;16:781–785

Carbs cause obesity

2008-10-12T20:21:00.005+01:00

Supports Chapter 20: Healthy eating is fattening

Carbs may destroy appetite regulation over time
People who eat diets high in carbs and sugar may lose their natural ability to regulate their appetite, researchers warned today. The ability to regulate appetite may decline with age depending on what is eaten, new research suggests.
    A team from Monash University in Victoria, Australia, say that appetite-suppressing cells are attacked by free radicals after eating. This degeneration is more significant after meals high in carbohydrates and sugars.
    People who consume more carbohydrates and sugars experience more damage to their appetite-control cells, which could result in over-eating and weight gain, the researchers believe.
    Dr Zane Andrews, the lead author, says that the damage to appetite suppressing cells creates a cellular imbalance between our need to eat and signals to the brain to stop eating. "People in the age group of 25 to 50 are most at risk," he said. "The neurons that tell people in this crucial age range not to over-eat are being killed-off.
    "When the stomach is empty, it triggers the ghrelin hormone that notifies the brain that we are hungry. When we are full, a set of neurons known as POMCs kick in. However, free radicals created naturally in the body attack the POMC neurons. This process causes the neurons to degenerate overtime, affecting our judgement as to when our hunger is satisfied."
    It could therefore play an important role in adult-onset obesity. Dr Andrews said. "A diet rich in carbohydrate and sugar that has become more and more prevalent in modern societies over the last 20-30 years has placed so much strain on our bodies that it's leading to premature cell deterioration."
    These findings were published in the journal Nature. The team are now looking at whether carbohydrates and sugars affect the brain in other ways, including risk of neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease.

Andrews ZB, et al. UCP2 mediates ghrelin's action on NPY/AgRP neurons by lowering free radicals. Nature 454, 846 - 851 (30 Jul 2008), doi: 10.1038/nature07181,

Welcome to Trick and Treat

2008-10-11T21:16:00.014+01:00

The Second Opinions website started as a collection of articles. For about 10 years, I had been researching the role of foods in a number of 'diseases of civilisation' — mostly heart disease and obesity at that time — and it had become very obvious that what our governments, as well as doctors, dieticians and nutritionists were telling us had very little basis is any coherent body of evidence; in fact all the evidence tended to point the other way. This meant that the conditions the dietary recommendations were meant to benefit, would probably get worse rather than better. And that is what did happen and that is what is still happening as the numbers of cases of diseases such as obesity and diabetes have risen dramatically since 'healthy eating' was introduced in the 1980s.
It seemed that the only way to reach a lot of people and let them know what was going on, was either to write a book or to write a website. I have ended up doing both.
I started writing my latest book, Trick and Treat: How 'healthy eating is making us ill, in 1989. I called it Diet and be Damned. The publisher, Hodder Headline, told me they thought it was too important a book to publish as I was then an unknown author; they advised me to write a 'diet book'. I have written three since then, as well as other, more technical works.
Now, 19 years after I first conceived it, the health situation has become so bad in western countries, as 'Big-Pharma' and 'Big-Food' have assumed control of our health for their profit, that I decided I must finish what I had started almost two decades ago. 2008 also marks the 60th anniversary of the British National Health Service (NHS). What better time could there be for such a book as Trick and Treat.

Trick and Treat
This title is a play on words with the title of the American children's 'extortion with menaces' game, trick or treat. But where trick or treat gives its victims a choice, the modern 'health industry' does not. With them it is both Trick and Treat. The health industry needs us to be ill so that it can profit fby it. For this reason, they trick us into an unhealthy lifestyle so that they can treat the resultant illnesses.

Stop Press
The problem with a book like this is that it is finished quite some time before it is published. The purpose of this blog is to list some of the supportive studies and evidence published after Trick and Treat was finished.