Forks over Knives, a movie whose theme is in the title: food will replace surgical scalpels for cancer, heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and others.  Their answer is a “plant based” diet (Vegan).  The movie provides three live anecdotes to prove this, and star T. Colin Campbell and  Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr whose careers intersected with both having come to the same conclusion that a vegan lifestyle would eliminate heart disease, perhaps cancer, obesity, and other chronic illness.

The two stars of the movie, answering questions at its opening

The movie started with lots of video of obese people, and the movie ended with most of the people in the movie sitting down having a friendly, plant-based meal: great cinematic contrast as this small band of people fighting diseases by eating plants.

Some consider this movie  a documentary, especially those who advocate the whole plant (Vegan) lifestyle. It is not a documentary, a documentary is non-fiction, this is a movie, it is a hope, it is an unproven hypothesis.  As much as we (physicians) would love food to solve medical problems, and there is no doubt food can cause problems, but food, as medicine is another matter.

We are introduced to the narrator, Lee Fulkerson, who presents himself to a clinic while smoking a cigarette and having left behind two empty cans of an energy drink, and stating he earlier drank  a large cup of coffee.  The clinic is a family owned clinic  where the physicians, Drs. Matthew Lederman and Alona Pulde, promote a vegan lifestyle and will shop with the patients, cook with the patients, and watch their laboratory values improve. By the end of the film the narrator has lost weight, improved cholesterol, and improved his cardiac risk factors (they don’t tell you that the main reason for that improvement is he stopped smoking).

Lee Fulkerson looking over his lab results with Dr. Lederman

Much like the narrator doesn’t tell you that removing cigarettes, and weight loss were the primary improvement, the entire movie has a tendency to gloss over points, data, and misrepresent biology.

The good points of the movie are:

(1)  The doctors

It is great to see the physicians who take time with patients to change and impact their lives. Drs. Esselstyn, Matthew Lederman, and Alona Pulde whose fundamental belief in prevention is to impact what a patient eats. If you believe that food makes that fundamental impact on health, these physicians make a tremendous investment in their time to helping these patients. Many of us are teaching patients how to cook, and what to cook and more physicians are taking the course at Culinary Institute/Harvard to learn to these skills.  Changing lifestyle, spending time with patients, and having a positive impact is the ideal of primary care medicine.

Dr. Lederman and Pulde are a great team in this movie

(2)  Eating Healthier

Eating healthier is better than eating junk. No doubt the lady who ate her share of donuts into a heart attack helped herself by avoiding donuts. Whether she would have done just as well following a paleolithic diet as a vegan diet is debatable

Told she had to go to a rocker, Ms. Oswick found Dr. Esselstyn, and now lives without her donuts and chocolate

(3)   Feel Good Story

Watching a heartfelt good story: seeing people’s health improves, feeling better, and being more fit is a great story. Seeing physicians working to that end, as well as advocates of that position

The Incomplete Data
Cholesterol: The notions of cholesterol were not only out of date, but incorrect.  Early on the narrator states that cholesterol is what forms the plaques in the arteries of the body. To quote, “But when we consume dietary cholesterol, which is only found in animal foods like meat, eggs, and dairy products, it tends to stay in the bloodstream. This so-called plaque is what collects on the inside of our blood vessels and is the major cause of coronary artery disease.” This is not how plaque forms, and dietary cholesterol is far less important.  It may be that both T. Colin Campbell and Esselstyn were both trained in the era when cholesterol was thought to be the cause of the arterial plaques.  It isn’t and there are more discussions about this here.  Some people,  who have minor elevations of lipids,  can lower their lipid level (I avoid saying cholesterol because that is just not what we need to be talking about here)  through diet, exercise, and weight loss alone, but before throwing away medications and eating plants they should be  carefully monitored by their physician.

This is not a “minor slip up” in the movie- this is the first tenant of a plant based diet. It is also dangerously incorrect. Dietary cholesterol is avoided in a plant based diet, but a plant based diet does not avoid plaque in arteries.

The now clean arterial plaque:
One of Dr. Esselstyn associates had a heart attack- and they show the angiogram of his coronary arteries after the heart attack. You see the smooth arteries around this and then the ragged artery that caused the heart attack. After time on the plant based diet another angiogram was taken- and behold the artery is now clean.

Left is a clot, the artery on the right is free of clot - it is NOT reversed disease

This is misdirection to the viewers.  What they are seeing in that ragged artery is the remains of the clot in the artery that caused the heart attack. If a person survives, within a few days on aspirin that clot will disappear.  The associate credits Dr. Esselstyn with saving his life, by putting him on the plant based diet. But the misdirection is egregious, planned, and is often replicated on many websites that advocate a plant based diet — they will either show an artery of someone who had a heart attack with remaining clot, and then show a clean artery- or they will give you a slightly different two dimensional view of the artery that is more favorable.

The Norway Data
Dr. Esselstyn then shows the data of mortality from heart attacks and strokes of World War 2 Norway, which drops dramatically after the Nazi take over, and confiscate the meat supply.

The death rate dropped before the Nazi's took the Norwegians meats

The first question one would ask — if this is true, if by removing meat you immediately see a drop in strokes and heart attacks?  That is the implication. The problem is that Dr. Esselstyn’s conclusion about the data is missing a few points that might clarify the data:

The decrease in wartime heart disease and strokes was replaced with an increase in mortality from infectious disease, trauma (in war people tend to fire more bullets) – and in particular outbreaks of TB. The meats from the livestock were not taken by the Nazis until after this graph showed the dramatic decline (hence the drop was not because of less meat being consumed, in fact during this drop Norwegians consumed more meat  because the Nazis had told the Norwegians they were going to confiscate their livestock, so many Norwegians simply slaughtered their animals and didn’t raise new ones the following year. Meat consumption during this “fall in the graph” was almost double what it was during normal times.

The fish consumption during these times doubled. Not that eating more fish will decrease coronary disease (except in large population series this is a trend).

While others have pointed out that sugar consumption decreased, wheat consumption decreased and thus they became a paleo society with an emphasis on fish (thought Norwegians were Lutherans and turned out they were Pescatarians) – it is a long stretch that any single change in a diet would cause a single year dramatic decrease in cardiac mortality and strokes (but would be great if it did). It fits the theme of the movie that the change to a Vegan diet will, within a year, dramatically alter years of coronary artery accumulation of plaque – it won’t.

Dr. Campbell’s cancer study:
Rats given more milk protein have more “foci” of cancer than rats fed less milk protein. Several issues with this study, and those conclusions.  First, it wasn’t that the rats lived longer- they didn’t.  The rats died from being a part of an experiment, and some rats died before they were suppose to– those rats all were the rats getting less of “mothers milk protein.”

Campbell takes the one milk protein  and generalizes it to all animal proteins. Why? Proteins are chains of amino acids, and there is some magic about how a plant puts the amino acids together than an animal?  Casein is a bio-active group of proteins found in milk- it stimulates tissues to grow, which is what you want mother’s milk to do- it is not just a source of nutrition but is a “bioactive protein” meaning it helps to turn on certain proteins.  Take a rat liver, put it with a super high concentration of a protein that turns on proteins, and then add a cancer causing agent –well, it makes sense. But remember, these rats had better looking livers than the low protein rats (who died faster). Also  whey protein, another milk protein, has been demonstrated to have some opposite effect with tumor.  Some proteins are bio-active, and have effects when given in super concentrated form and isolated from their natural counter parts – like whey, they behave in not natural ways. Then to use this to make global conclusions about animal proteins is not science, it is prejudice. I discussed Dr. Campbell’s assumptions here.

Dr. Esselstyn’s patients:
Dr. Esselstyn took a bunch of patients with heart disease, convinced them to go on a Vegan diet (initially the group was allowed to have dairy til he met Dr Campbell then no dairy). Of this small group, six people dropped out. You can see more about his works on my previous post regarding him and this study.

While the study seems great, and they bring out two individuals who were a part of the original study (I think- they don’t really say that, and since the movie tends to gloss over details quite a bit one cannot make assumptions).

What is remarkable is that Dr. Esselstyn met with these patients every couple of weeks in his home. One sweet lady who had two heart attacks before 59 while eating a diet of chocolate and “every donut I could get my hands on and lots of gravy.” She also noted that Dr. Esselstyn, in spite of his “kind eyes” was quite strict “there’s the door.” That may explain why 6 of the original 24 dropped out.  Of the remaining 18 the math gets a bit fuzzy. 6 had “evidence of regression of disease” 11 stabilized.  But it turns out that Dr. Esselstyn’s math as presented was off, and not surprising, the data in this movie is driven by making a point, and not by precise details.

Esselstyn’s publication states he started with 22 patients, five dropped out, and six stayed on the diet but never came back for data collection—leaving Esselstyn with only 11 people in the study. The data from the  11 had  stabilization of their heart disease, but four people  had lesions that slightly progressed. The paper then looks at the method of regression of plaque, and these methods are now considered out-dated and of no use.

The high drop out rate could mean people either could not tolerate the diet, or died, or were asked to leave. The other issue is these patients had other interventions, such as statin agents that really do reduce arterial plaque formation. Esselstyn’s paper that does not rise to the evidence based medicine for major research. It is quite small, highly selective of the patients, not controlled for other interventions with heart disease (some patients had angioplasties, heart surgeries, and etc) – thus we cannot determine which intervention for this small group of individuals worked, if any. Why Esselstyn didn’t keep the other drop-outs on to serve as a control is deeply flawed.  Throughout the years on this diet variables changed – such as removing dairy products, and even if there was a dietary answer to heart disease, it would be lost in the details.

As a personal anecdote, my father had a heart attack in 1979, was forced to retire at age 55, did not have angioplasty (not available then) and loves sugar, ice cream, peanut butter, meat,  cheese, but he stopped smoking, retired, and 33 years later (and a few stents and an implantable defibrillator later). Looking at his previous angiograms- his disease has regressed (in spite of not being on a plant based diet, not being on a paleo diet, and not probably eating things that most diet zealots would shun). That is a series of 1, not 11 – but has as much validity as Esselstyn’s work.  The question is, was it diet that did this for these 11 people? What happened to the others? What does this mean? The answer is that this is as much of an anecdote as my dad is.

The China Project
T. Collin Campbell, a physiologist, calls this massive study the highlight of his career.  With his Chinese counterpart, Dr. Chen,  they took the simple hypothesis: diet effects disease rate.  By choosing rural villages with stable diets, and known health and mortality statistics assumptions could be made about how diet effects health.

Campbell and Chen with their monograph

The film shows the proud researchers, with reams of data, and the NY Times Jane Brody column (Brody is not an authority figure but the implication that the NY Times said this was a good study is another logical fallacy called “appeal to authority.”).

There are major problems with the China Study – the blood samples of all individuals was pooled and studied – avoiding individual variation. The statistics for heart disease in rural villages in the 1970′s (they used this data for their study) was imperfect at best, and if you ask Chinese cardiologists today the current statistics – 30 years later – are poor.  Heart disease is underestimated now, and even more 30 years ago. The same with cancer statistics, and most rural Chinese statistics.

The China Study has been uniquely reviewed and dissected by  Denise Menger of rawfoodsos.com.  She points out how the data sometimes shows the opposite of what is stated (much like this movie).  For example, the meat eaters of one village had lower levels of the diseases.

OVERALL
This is a movie, and not a documentary. This is a movie that advocates a plant based (Vegan) diet will solve heart disease, cancer, and other ailments- and presents inadequate and skewed data to that end. To be clear, there is no substantial data that proves their point, and the data they use is skewed if not outright incorrect.  It is a warm, feel good movie with some great people.

IF you wish to have a whole plant diet – then do so..  If you think you can throw your medicine away and just eat plants, do not do this without medical supervision – and by that I mean the MD or DO who prescribed the medication for you, or a physician that will monitor your blood levels of lipids, glucose, etc.

The Paleolithic diet presumes that foods eaten during the stone-age (Paleolithic era from 2.5 million years ago to 10 thousand years ago) are optimal foods for humans. The Paleolithic (Paleo) diet includes grass fed beef and other lean meats, fish, shellfish, fruits, vegetables,  eggs, nuts, but no grains, no dairy, no salt, no refined fats (butter or margarine) and no sugar or high fructose corn syrup.

Fanatical Diet (Lifestyle types)
There are three things one should never discuss in polite company, religion, politics, and diet. Getting into an argument with proponents of diets is like a democrat trying to convince a republican that Obama is ok. Each side will quote their own studies, statistics, and population studies. But the key to scientific study of the various diets is not what we presume from correlation, but from what we learn when that diet is placed into patients – in this case, the laboratory values of those who have the diet.

Diet proponents become fanatical about their diet (lifestyle) to the point of religious fervor. Seeking to prove that their diet is backed by science, proponents use population studies with associations that are only suggestive and not proof of causation. These associations become propaganda as the associations are repeated over and over, morphing from a suggestion to “proof.”

The Flaws of population studies or Correlation does not equal causation
The foundation of many diets are based on the correlation of what a population eats and what diseases they suffer from. In the Paleo diet the assumption about what they ate and the diseases they suffered from is a spurious correlation at best, and far from causation.

Population studies are flawed, as often we find that we don’t know as much about the population as the data might suggest. Take the Pima Indians of the Southwest. In 1990 a paper came out stating that the Pima Indians had a low incidence of fatal coronary heart attacks in spite of having a high rate of diabetes. The Pima Indians were called among the most studied populations, with an NIH post in Phoenix, and lots of studies showing the highest rate of diabetes in the world. When the population was examined more carefully, the Pima Indians had plenty of heart disease.

Step back from the most studied group in the United States with great statistics and physicians trained in modern medicine and then imagine making conclusions about what Chinese eat, or Mediterranean’s, or French. Those assumptions are more flawed, as are the statements about what diseases they do or do not have. Now step back further trying to determine what people of the Stone Age ate, what diseases they had, and we leave the tenuous role of suggestion and enter the role of outright guessing. Even if we have reasonable data (and often we don’t – even for the best studied people in the United States) the correlation between what people eat as a cause for what diseases they have is a fundamental flaw. Correlation does not equal causation.

The Best Diet or Lifestyle is?
When it comes to the best diet plan for a person – we just don’t know enough to say that one is better than another. There isn’t enough evidence to state that the Paleolithic (also called Paleo) diet is better than the Ornish, Southbeach, Pritiken, or pick one, or better than how you currently live your life.

We cannot broadly say that any given diet will prevent heart disease, cancer, arthritis, or even obesity. When someone tells you a diet can prevent such, they have gone from the realm of science to the realm of bs.

The Paleo Diet Premise:
The Paleo diet premise is that we should avoid certain foods because our body is not evolved to process those foods, and if it does process them it will lead to the chronic diseases of modern man – heart disease, strokes, cancer. Cavemen didn’t have those diseases, so we should eat like cave men. Of course, we don’t know about what diseases that cavemen had – especially when it comes to organ and soft tissue diseases, we just have a few fossils that we examine and look for evidence of known diseases. Would coronary artery disease show up in a fossil – nope? Would cancer show up in the fossil – bone cancer would (kind of a rare cancer) or cancer that went to the bone might – but it would be hard to tell if the fossil evidence.

We do know, from many hunter-gathering societies, that they live a short life, and not long enough to develop the diseases we associate with aging. All a person has to do to pass on their genes is make it into puberty, and to be effective to nurture the young, into the 30′s, and to see grandchildren and help child raising – into the early 40′s. That is what a simple civilization needs. After that, in any primitive society, the elderly become a burden – perhaps to be placed on an ice flow. People who live into their 40′s and 50′s may die of cancer, heart disease, or obesity- but they will have passed on their genetic code.

The Evolution of Homo Sapiens:
When Homo Erectus came out of Africa, they encountered a world that was much more varied in food sources than Africa. The brain of the human (H. sapiens) evolved, becoming much larger, and utilizing far more energy than the brains of the Australopithecus – about 10 percent more. More than any other species, humans evolved a brain that required more calories- and our brain metabolism accounts for up to 25% of our energy needs. Bigger brains and its increased requirements mean a richer diet- and modern hunter gathering species derive about half of the energy from animal foods – in contrast with other primates that have far fewer animal foods. While our ancestors the Australopithecus dined on plant foods, and had large mouths to grind up fibrous plants – humans are built, with smaller faces and jaws, to dine on energy rich animal foods.

The reconstructed skull of Lucy, Australopithecus- large jar and muscles for eating plants

The Human skull is larger, larger brain- and jaws for more energy rich foods

Humans were successful, as the fossil record shows, because they were “flexible” eaters, using a wide variety of dietary strategies. If there were a lot of Elk, then we ate elk- berries, we picked berries. To state that our digestive system evolved only to eat some few items found in the Stone Age – has been disproven on the face of it. Our ancestors in Africa didn’t encounter Arctic char, whales, seals, salmon – and yet when they moved from that warm climate to the frozen north, they adapted quite well to a very high fat diet of primarily animal based diet that was clearly not available in Africa. The findings of starch grains from wild plants in grinding tools from sites in Italy, Russia, and the Czech Republic from the mid-upper Paleolithic era suggest that the production of flour was present 30,000 years ago.

Contrary to what Paleo proponents state: people made flour 30,000 years ago

How to eat like a caveman
There are some things about the Paleo diet that people avoid:

Excess sugars including fructose
Excess Omega 6 oils – including soy
Processed wheat, grains, and gluten
Dairy

What is the scientific evidence for this? It’s the simple premise that modern man has lifestyle illness from altering food, taking in too many calories, and if we would return to our ancestors roots (pun intended) we would avoid these highly processed foods and not suffer from the holy trinity of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and maybe even cancer. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the premise of this diet.

An entire dietary regimen has been formed with plenty of books and websites to guide you through this. It has become so popular that the question becomes not the flawed premise for the diet, but rather how the diet would compare to other diets. If you want to eat like a caveman, then shop on the outside of your grocery store.  Everything on the inside of your grocery store is generally processed foods, and everything on the periphery of the grocery store is generally not processed.  On the periphery you will find the vegetables, fruits, meat counter, fish counter – although you might get in trouble with dairy, and before you check out they might have a cookie or two – or there might be a bakery (a big no no among the non-Geico types). But lets be clear- whatever the caveman could get that they could eat- they would eat, and if a caveman were to be around today- wait, we have them – well, they eat Poptarts.

In one real scientific study patients with known heart disease who were randomized to either the Mediterranean-like diet (based on whole grains, low fat dairy products, fish, fruit, and vegetables) or the Paleolithic diet (no grains or dairy but plenty of lean meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts) and those who undertook the Paleolithic diet were satisfied with less food. There was also a decrease in leptin in the Paleolithic group by 31% and by 18% in the Mediterranean group.

There have been other studies that show that people who go with this diet have improved laboratory values – less triglycerides, lower blood pressure, some weight loss, that the diet has a better glycemic index (the food doesn’t increase blood glucose levels as much). This diet compared to a standard diabetic diet did better. Those studies are short term, with small numbers of individuals, and hints of laboratory values.

So before one assumes I am putting this diet plan into the trash bit along with Ornish- there is clearly some data here that shows good nutritional sense in the food.

While highly processed carbohydrates transiently increases blood glucose levels more than whole grains – it does not mean that bread is bad for a person. At least we don’t know enough about this to state that today. Clearly, people who eat a lot of flour based products can get fat quickly, and getting off the bread and bakery products will help reduce weight, decrease hemoglobin A1C levels, decrease triglycerides, and overall be healthy.  Some people need to be told to never eat them again – as some alcoholics must never drink again- and some people are able to moderate them so they do minimal damage to the body.

Only a few studies have examined the effects of the Paleolithic diet on laboratory values that we associate as increased risk for disease – but again, those were laboratory values, not a long-term follow up for disease.

The premise for the Paleo diet may be flawed, but here are the parts of the Paleo diet that most would agree with:

(a) Highly processed grains – white flour, rolled oats- do cause a rapid increase in blood glucose levels and the body responds to that by increasing triglycerides and ultimately fat.
(b) Fish – as long as it is not contaminated with mercury, is a protein source that is high in Omega 3 fatty acids, which have been shown to be beneficial. If you have some great fish three or four meals a week it works out well.
(c) Vegetables and fruits are the basis for most diets- thus a vegetarian could participate in a Paleo diet easily. Too many people do not eat enough fruits or vegetables or look to them as snacks.
(d) The trend away from cattle feedlots and desire to have grass fed rather than grain fed beef. Grain fed beef is fatter and more prone to being infected with Salmonella or E.Coli than grass fed beef.  There is a wider variety of taste with grass fed beef, and most who find grass fed beef end up preferring its flavor. Grass fed beef is best cooked with Sous Vide cooking.
(e) If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. But it is more than just calories – it is also the types of calories. Eating high glycemic index foods mean you will spike glucose pushing it into cells, where it will be quickly transformed and stored as fat. Low glycemic index foods will be slowly burned  - thus, calorie for calorie with the Paleo diet plan you will tend to burn the fuel from the food as opposed to store it.
(f) If you eat a majority of your food with highly processed grains instead of whole grains you will have a faster rise in blood sugar. Some attribute this rise to increased obesity and an increased load on the pancreas.

Overall- this is not a bad diet program. Nothing in it would appear to cause nutrient deficiencies and there is some preliminary evidence that this diet keeps a person more satisfied with less food. It is a low-carbohydrate diet, and those diets, in comparison to other diets, tend to produce faster and longer weigh loss.

Here are a few scientific references- I’m sure we will add more as time goes on

Low incidence of fatal coronary heart disease in Pima Indians despite high prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes. RG Nelson, ML Sievers, WC Knowler, BA Swinburn, DJ Pettitt, MF Saad, IM Liebow, BV Howard, and PH Bennett
Circulation. 1990;81:987-995

Food for Thought: Dietary change was a driving force in human evolution. Wm R Leonard. Scientific American. December 2002: 107-114.

A Paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a Mediterranean-like diet in inviduals with ischemic heart disease. Jonsson, et. Al. Nutrition & Metabolism 2010, 7:85

Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing. A Revedin, et al Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci, November 2010: 107:18815-18819

Sometimes all you want for breakfast is a cup of coffee-- and that's ok

Everyone knows:  Always   eat Breakfast

There   are   a lot   of   variations   of   this   axiom.

“Breakfast   is   the   most   important   meal   of   the day.”

“Breakfast makes it so you won’t be hungry later.”

“Breakfast jump starts your metabolism”

“You need to eat a large breakfast”

“Breakfast   is   the   most   important   meal   of   the day.”

All of those are FALSE.

Breakfast is NOT the most important meal of the day- so don’t force it. The reality is that most people are not ready to eat breakfast when they first wake up.  So why does “everyone” say this? Some of this data was based on the Iowa Breakfast study- which was more than a single paper- but a group of observations made over a number of years and published. There have been a number of other studies showing that kids who eat breakfast do better in school than kids who do not. However, there are a lot of variables not accounted for in those studies.

In addition- a few other items were not taken into account: if you wake up at 4 am to do chores until 7 am, then have breakfast and go to school, you will do better in school than someone who wakes up at 4 am, does chores and doesn’t get breakfast.

Regarding most breakfast studies — funded by, and poor research  done, from cereal companies. Doesn’t mean they are bad studies- but they all fall into poor categories of evidenced based research.

“Breakfast makes it so you won’t be hungry later.”

A recent study showed that people who eat a large breakfast are not affected by how much they eat later in the day. Meaning that eating a large breakfast won’t keep you from snacking, or eating less the rest of the day.

You wonder where people come up with this idea– but when it is put to the scientific test- the breakfast you consume does not reduce food you consume later. Not one bit. No relation- no correlation.

Breafast buffet is not your friend

“Breakfast jump starts your metabolism”

They also found that eating less in the morning contributed to overall weight loss (if you eat less calories you will lose more weight).  There is a simple truth about weight loss – if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you eat big breakfasts and lots of other calories you will gain weight.  Breakfast does not jump start your metabolism- your body does that.

Again- how would you measure a “jump start” to metabolism? There are ways- but activity itself increases heart rate, breathing, and over all muscle activity. If you take comatose patients and measure their oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production- and cycle feeds – the feeds do not increase metabolism. Another study took college football players and put them into a hospital and fed them. They were allowed to do a few walks- but not much more.  It was activity that increased metabolism- not food. Any food will increase some metabolism – but a breaking of the fast does NOT do any sort of jump start.

“You need to eat a large breakfast”

Want to just have a smoothie or yogurt or some oatmeal to start your day? Go ahead. You want to wait for a couple of hours after you get up before having something to eat- that works too. But if you eat a large breakfast – you still need to work off those calories.

You think this is an important meal?

The great thing about breakfast foods: You can eat them anytime! Who doesn’t like eggs for dinner? And after a long day- nothing is more refreshing than a blueberry smoothie to take the edge off hunger, and let you relax for a bit.  We have recipes for smoothies containing micronutrients, fibers, and supplements – a simple smoothie can be a pleasant treat after a long day of work, taking the edge off hunger so you can make a great dinner.

For the smoothie and other recipes go to terrysimpson.com

Heart disease happens when the arteries feeding the heart become infiltrated with plaques – and these plaques happen to contain fat, cholesterol, white blood cells. If the plaque builds up slowly the flow of blood to the heart diminishes and people develop chest pain or angina. If that plaque ruptures and causes the artery to close- that is a heart attack or myocardial infarction.

Plaque formation was thought to be because of a person’s diet – since the plaques had high levels of fat and cholesterol, it was thought that a diet that was low in fat and cholesterol would minimize a person’s risk of heart disease. Sometimes that is true- but not always- as the French have shown us- with a diet high in fat and cholesterol and one of the lowest levels of heart disease in the western world.

It turns out the instigator of plaque formation are the lipo-proteins that carry cholesterol and triglycerides. Think of LDL, HDL, VLDL, and IDL (low density lipoprotein, high density lipoprotein, very low density lipoprotein, and intermediate density lipoproteins) as boxcars that carry cholesterol and triglycerides. Those lipoproteins set off an inflammatory reaction in the blood vessel (they become oxidized) and that leads to plaque formation. The more of those proteins a person has, the higher the likelihood that they will develop heart disease.

Think of LDL as “lousy.” The HDL levels are associated with fewer tendencies for heart disease – but they still can cause inflammation of the artery, and a problem. Hence, artificially raising HDL levels causes more issues with heart disease (as was recently discovered in the niacin trials). HDL levels are seen in people who have more omega-3 fatty acids in their diets, but increasing their levels is still harmful.

The more lipoproteins your body makes the higher incidence of heart disease you will have.

It has only been recently that science has recognized that one must measure the lipoproteins directly. Not indirectly by measuring cholesterol – as the laboratories do today. In the recent article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, they measured LDL-cholesterol in people placed on diets rich in soy proteins, fiber, and walnuts – showing a decrease in the LDL-cholesterol – a classic mistake. LDL-cholesterol does not measure the total number of lipoproteins. The amount of lipoproteins one has depends on how much cholesterol and triglycerides the lipoproteins have to carry. If a person has a lot of cholesterol and/or triglycerides in the blood the body will make more lipoproteins. If you have too many, those lipoproteins will get into the wall of the artery and lay down their cholesterol and triglycerides (which are fats).

If you have a lot of triglycerides it will bump off the cholesterol and you will make more proteins to carry the triglycerides. Your cholesterol level will be low, but your number of lipoproteins will be high- and thus, even with low cholesterol you will have a high incidence of heart disease. This explains some of the seemingly contradictory data of people who had low LDL-cholesterol levels but a higher incidence of heart disease – when that blood was looked at later they were found to have a high level of the LDL proteins.

We still don’t understand everything about the biology of the formation of plaque but we do know this: genetics determines most of the level of cholesterol, and if your level is high reducing it with medication will reduce the incidence of heart attacks and strokes. If you have genetically high triglyceride levels, the same applies.

In terms of diet- dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on blood cholesterol. Triglyceride level can be greatly impacted by diet – however.

To reduce triglycerides in your diet, here are some suggestions:

* Eat fewer calories if you are overweight. Excess calories are converted into triglycerides and stored as fat.
* Avoid trans fats, found in some fried foods and commercial baked products.
* Replace saturated fat (found in animal fat and some tropical oils) for mono-unsaturated fat (found in olive/canola/peanut oils, etc.).
* Consume at least 2 servings of cold water fish each week, such as salmon, mackerel, tuna, lake trout, herring, and sardines (all of which are high in omega-3-fatty acid). *Include into your diet other foods high in omega-3 fatty acid, such as ground/milled flaxseed, walnuts, almonds, canola or soybean oil, etc.
* Avoid refined foods and foods that contain sugar (such as white flour, desserts, candy, juices, fruit drinks).
* Choose carbohydrates that have 2 grams fiber or more per serving, such as brown rice, whole wheat bread, and whole grain cereals.
* Consume at least 2-3 cups of vegetables and 1 cup of fruit each day.
* Follow your doctor’s advice regarding alcohol. Alcohol increases triglyceride levels for some individuals. If you have high triglycerides and do consume alcohol (such as red wine), it is recommended to limit intake to 5 ounces per day or limit it entirely.
* Exercise to burn excess calories, aiming for at least 30 minutes of physical activity on most days of the week.

Medications
People who have high triglycerides and low HDL or high LDL levels may require medications as well as diet modifications. Patients with triglycerides in the very high range (over 500 mg/dL) generally will require medications, because triglyceride levels this high may cause an acute inflammation of the pancreas.

YourDoctorsOrders.com – 100 Calorie packs are still FAT! from TweetMeTV on Vimeo.

The 100 calorie snack food has come in just about everything from Oreo’s to Rice Krispie treats. These appear to be a great alternative for those who want a little something, but not over indulge.

There is a central problem with these foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then you want to have foods that will be used as fuel and not stored as fat. With highly processed foods- like these snack treats -they are quickly stored as fat – and not used by the body as fuel.

This has to do with something called the Glycemic Index. The Glycemic Index is a measure of how fast a particular item raises blood sugar. The faster a food raises blood sugar the more likely it will be stored as fat, and not used as fuel.

Take an apple– it will slowly digest, with a minimal rise in blood sugar. This allows the body to use the apple as fuel over time, instead of getting a BURST of sugar in the bloodstream. The apple has fiber – or bulk – which means it will suppress the appetite for a longer period of time.

When you eat something like an Oreo- even if it is a few with 100 calories- the blood sugar will rapidly rise. The pancreas produces insulin to move the sugar into the fat cells. If the pancreas over produces insulin, it can cause the blood sugar to drop. And if your blood sugar drops, it doesn’t feel well — so the next thing to make you feel better— another cookie. There is a reason it is called “junk food junkie.”

So instead of those highly processed 100 calorie snacks– look to something that is just as portable, but doesn’t cause that rapid rise in blood sugar– think of a fruit– like an apple. Your body is more likely to use it as fuel, and it will keep your appetite satisfied much longer than a cookie or other treat.

If you want to lose weight– start by changing from highly processed foods and moving snacks to fruits and vegetables.

Thinking of skipping meals? Think Again! from McMedia ProducerGirl on Vimeo.