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

Dr. Esselstyn noted the risk of heart disease in rural China was low in the 1970’s – and presumed that they didn’t have a “western diet.” Now there are two flaws in his population statistics: First in the 1970’s in rural China most individuals were starving to death – it was the end of the cultural revolution and any source of food that could be found and eaten was. The second issue is if you examine data from The China Study you will see that heart disease mortality was lowest in the rural communities that were able to eat more meat. In The China Study (again, I promise this will be a topic later) – they used mortality statistics from the time during the end of the Cultural Revolution. Rural China was starving then, all trees had been used for fuel, there were virtually no birds left (combination of deforestation and hungry humans) and rice was used for the army.

Dr. Esselstyn then talks about Norway during World War 2, when they were occupied by the Nazi Germany, and how that heart disease diminished as the Norske were forced to eat a plant based diet. That was a great assumption to make, but when examining the data from Norway there are a few interesting factoids – Meat consumption dropped 60% but fish increased 200 per cent. Vegetables and potatoes increased but sugar decreased by half. And when the data is put to a microscope in 1942 and 1943 when mortality declined, animal proteins were still higher than before the war. It appears that Norway suffered from increasing fish (great source of Omega 3 fatty acids) and foraged for foods such as wild greens, grew and ate a lot of potatoes, but had a low amount of sugars and almost no margarine (I don’t know a respectable Norwegian today who cooks with margarine). The sad part of the war was the increase of mortality from infectious diseases – especially pneumonia (my mother’s cousin who fought for the resistance died of this, as did many of his comrades).

Norway in WW2 ate a lot of fish- and this roe was popular

He followed these patients for up to 12 years – his numbers are confusing as he started with 24 patients and six dropped out (leaving 18). One of the 18 died from his heart disease (leaving 17). At ten years there were 11 patients. They did angiography and reported a regression of 11 lesions with 14 remaining stable.

Angiogram- xray - of a plaque. Not enough to do surgery on though

When any study talks about a “cardiac event” it means to most of us a heart attack. If you have a small lesion in a coronary artery and then that lesion accumulates a blood clot that is what a heart attack is. The blood clot (from platelets – a sticky component of blood that helps you clot ) blocks the flow of blood to the heart muscle. If the clot blocks blood flow for a long time then the heart muscle dies and you have a myocardial infarction, if it opens up then all you have is a heart attack. This has little to do with the size of the lesion, and more to do with the complex chemistry of the coagulation system. Hence, taking aspirin a day or Plavix is more beneficial.

The other major problem with the study is that these individuals were on lipid lowering medications. Dietary reduction of lipid level (Cholesterol and lipoproteins such as VLDL, HDL) is about ten per cent on average, but never more than twenty per cent. However, lipid-lowering medications – such as Crestor – can remarkably lower levels of the lipids. In addition, lipid-lowering medications are best for reducing inflammation. They are anti-inflammatory to blood vessels, meaning in addition to lowering the lipids and cholesterol, their main effect is to reduce the chance of having a “coronary event.”

Crestor shown to be effective at decreasing the plaque in arteries

One of my cousins, preventing heart disease and eating fat

Mom prefers Sous Vide to the traditional roasted turkey

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday- for so many reasons. But the turkey can be a pain — a pain to make properly, and then a pain because you have so much of it that one tires of turkey leftovers after a day or so.  The answer- making Turkey Sous Vide.

Sous Vide is a method of cooking that we have advocated for a while.  Don’t have a Sous Vide machine? Treat yourself and start changing the way you cook. It allows low temperature cooking, so that the meats are not overly dry. The most common reason people go to an emergency room on Thanksgiving is they get a piece of dry turkey caught in their throat. With Sous Vide, the turkey won’t be dry (of course, if you swallow too large a piece it can still get stuck).

The previous posts have talked about Sous Vide but there are a number of places that sell the equipment for the home cook to do Sous Vide cooking easily.  Most people need to get a water oven and a machine that does vacuum sealing of the food.  You can use the link above to purchase the Sous Vide machine, or you can find them at places like  Sur Le Table and William-Sonoma.  Mine was purchased from William-Sonoma and I have demonstrated its use at their stores.

Turkey

The first key is to butcher the turkey into its parts.  This makes the bird manageable.  As  you can see from the video, I love to do that myself, but if you have a good butcher they will do that for you. You can also purchase the pieces individually from the butcher if you like.  Some purchase just breast, some thighs.  It is cheaper to purchase the entire bird, though, and have the butcher break down the bird, including splitting the breasts.

This allows the turkey parts to be cooked at temperatures and times individually for them. It also allows you to cook the entire turkey Sous Vide and those parts you won’t use can be frozen for up to six months (avoiding those many recipes for turkey soups, turkey casseroles, and turkey curry).

To Brine or not Brine

Many talk about placing the turkey into a brine in order to help the turkey stay moist through cooking.  The brine has little to do with a turkey being moist. A brine is a solution of salty water, and some place other herbs and sugar in it- that draws water out of the turkey, especially the skin. It does not make the turkey more moist when cooking it.  Over cooking turkey in an oven is easy- over cooking turkey Sous Vide is impossible.

I find brines and marinades to be messy.  But having a turkey broken down into its parts makes it easier to handle.

Instead consider seasoning the turkey with Kosher Salt for a day. Less messy than making up a brine.  Salting the turkey helps the skin become crisp.

Seasoning the turkey:

A simple salt and pepper seasoning works well on the turkey. You won’t need olive oil on it, and we will take care of that great herb flavor with our cachet of herbs.  Salt and pepper the skin.  There are a number of poultry rubs available- and you may prefer those.

Herbs:

With Sous Vide the best way to permeate the turkey with sage, rosemary, thyme, and even basil if you like- is to roll these up in a plastic wrap. Cut off both ends and drop this into the bag.  If you put the herbs in directly there will be bits of turkey that will have intense flavor, and other bits that have none.

Duck Fat or Butter:

Placing either duck fat or butter in the bag will bathe the turkey during the time it is in the water oven. Some prefer one over the other- some even use a bit of olive oil. Butter is easy because it is solid at room temperature and melts nicely in the water oven.  Duck Fat, if kept in the refrigerator is solid at cool temperatures also.  Olive oil isn’t solid at room temperature and may be pulled out by the vacuum sealer, unless you are careful.

Water Oven Time:

Once sealed, they can be placed into the water bath kept at 150 degrees F.  Breast is done in 2.5 hours, thighs about 2 hours. They can stay in for longer- so if the guests are not quite ready, you can relax knowing that the turkey will not over cook.

Simple Sear:

When you are ready, have a hot grill to sear the turkey skin and provide that crispness to it. Whether you use a grill, grill pan, or hot oil – it is only two minutes a side.

Pre-Left overs:

If you find that you will have more turkey than you need- leave the turkey in the vacuum sealed bag. Put it into an ice bath immediately to stop the cooking and cool it down. Then freeze it. The turkey will be ok for up to six months.  Three months after last Thanksgiving we placed turkey breast back into the Sous Vide for 30 minutes to “re-warm” it (an oven, microwave, or stove will dry it out) – and had the most delicious, most amazing turkey breast — far better for sandwiches than anything you could purchase.
–
Want to smell that stuffing– simple- make your favorite stuffing and bake it– the house will smell like thanksgiving and no choking on dry turkey!

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

Artificial sweeteners are either the saving grace of America, or the devil. The first issue with artificial sweeteners came to light when cyclamates (the first marketed artificial sweeteners) were found to cause cancer in rats. So in 1969 cyclamates were taken off the market. Saccharin was the next agent, but many didn’t like its after taste. Then came aspartame (Equal). This had no bitter after taste and became the favorite until someone started a rumor that aspartame killed ants, and was originally developed as a rat poison – this is untrue on both counts.

First, aspartame was developed as an artificial sweetener and second, it does not kill ants (I tried it, as have a lot of others – sadly it doesn’t work). Splenda does contain calories (because of our FDA regulations it is allowed to be listed as “zero calories” but it is not). Splenda has 3.36 calories per packet (1 gram). It tastes like sugar and is generally easy to cook with – however; one package of Splenda is 600 times sweeter than an equal amount of sugar.

Two other sweeteners have joined the market in the United Sates. Stevia- is a product of several plants and was recently approved as a food additive in the United States, and Truvia (a proprietary blend of Stevia made by Coca-Cola and Cargill the Pepsi produce it PureVia). These are essentially all the same. There are some other sugar-alcohols like Xylitol that function as sweeteners.

The issue with artificial sweeteners has been getting use to the sweet taste, and thus an increase in appetite. In rats that are consuming artificial sweeteners there is an increase in their body weight over time as they increase the amount of food they consume. Not that we are rats – but avoiding the overly sweet taste is important. And there is no accident that while many of my weight loss patients consumes large quantities of “diet cola” – they still consume a lot of calories to go with them. It is also no accident that once our patients get off artificial sweeteners, they lose more weight.

People who drink sodas that have artificial sweeteners have a sixty percent increase in stroke and heart disease. Sixty percent!

How do you gain weight with artificial sweeteners? Since they are so sweet, you naturally want food to balance out the sweetness. Increasing the quantity of food allows you to increase the bitter, sour, and other sensations to balance the sweet taste. Remember, your palate always wants to return to a balance.

Overall –avoid the artificial sweeteners. Still- what is better than artificial sweeteners in soda? Simple water. It is free (unless you are in a city where the water tastes bad) and is regulated more tightly than most things

Imagine a way that the government could reduce the level of obesity and it would cost nothing.  The government had that chance- and they blew it.

The US Department of Agriculture denied a request by New York State to run a pilot program where the city of New York would not allow people to purchase soda, or other sugar sweetened beverages, using food stamps. There are at least seven other states requesting such pilot programs.

It is not surprising that the opposition to this proposal came from the beverage industry who said, “It’s another attempt for government to tell people what they can and can’t drink. Singling out one specific item is discriminatory and unfair.”

Really? No one is saying they can’t drink soda – simply that the government won’t purchase items that are not in line with the intent of the food stamp program which is, “to provide for improved levels of nutrition among low-income people each month.”

The USDA said that city retailers would not be prepared to implement the new policy.  The food stamp program is run with a debit-style card. If a beneficiary is purchasing items from the grocery store not covered by food stamps, such as tobacco or alcohol, the cashier collects the money for those items after the food is deducted.

The original Food Stamp Act prohibited purchase of “soft drinks,” but that was changed because of regulatory issues-, which are now overcome thanks to technology. In fact, New York City officials stated that the “program’s electronic benefit card looks and acts like a credit or debit card” and that it only covers “some of the items in a typical s hopping cart, so program participants are already accustomed to supplementing their purchases with personal funds.”

The USDA also said “the proposal lacked rigorous methods to asses changes in sugar sweetened beverage consumption resulting from the new policy and the effects of those changes on obesity and health.”  A pilot program doesn’t have to prove that sugar sweetened beverages are not “food.” Even the original act prohibited these items.

The government purchases millions of gallons of sugar laden drinks for food stamp holders every day. Obesity is the number two killer in the United States – and by denying this simple pilot program are paying for obesity.  Preventing obesity costs nothing – paying for the effects of obesity costs everything.

References:

US Department of Agriculture. The Food Stampe Act of 1964. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/PL_88-525.pdf.

Jessica Shahan, Associate-Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, USDA, to Elizabeth Berlin, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance. August 19, 2011.

Scott-Thomas C. Food stamp soda exemption in NYC is discriminatory, says industry. Food Navigator-USA. May 5, 2011. http://www.foodnavgator-usa.com/Business/Food-Stamp-soda-exemption-in-NYC-is-discriminatory-syas-industry

JAMA, September 28, 2011 Vol 306, No. 12 page 1370-1371

This Sunday in the New York Times, Sept 25,2011, Mark Bittman showed that it was not cheaper for a family to eat out at Fast Food places. And it also costs them in terms of calories, sodium, and the quality of food.  We want to expand that to not only fast food restaurants, but common chain restaurants.

Cooking at home is less expensive – less for food costs, less for calories, less for sodium.  Eating out at chain restaurants often have more calories than even fast food places – for example:

Most salads at TGIF’s are 1200 to 1500 calories.  That is as many calories as most individuals should have for an entire day!  One of the least calorie items there is their burger – at 800 calories, and can be split between two people.  Thankfully TGIF’s puts calories on their menu.  Not meaning to pick on TGIF’s – we have found the same looking through the menus of Applebees, Red Lobster, Rubios, Village Inn, and other chain restaurants.

Santa Fe Salad 1500 calories

Eating out at most chain restaurants is not avoiding calories, or getting better food quality than at Fast Food- in fact, the calories are more.

The bottom line: home economics – it is cheaper and healthier to learn to cook, and to learn to cook at home. We have lots of recipes, and techniques to help you (cook book coming soon).

If you do want to eat out- there are some great restaurants that we highly recommend: not only does the food taste great, but it is prepared from fresh ingredients – and have fewer calories.  In Phoenix, Tarbell’s, in New York any of the restaurants by Gordon Ramsay, Thomas Keller, Bobby Flay, or Morimoto.

Food made fresh is great. Like Ramsay demands

For many the issue comes down to cooking. Cooking at home is daunting for some individuals – they never learned it, they think it is difficult, and we have lost an entire generation of people who cook. There are now five fast food places for every supermarket. So what causes people to not eat at home:

(a) Time – hard to imagine this one. As a busy surgeon I have the time to cook for myself and my family. It is a lovely hobby, and when I go home I like to get into shorts, flip-flops, and relax cooking making a great meal.

(b) Cooking skill – this is not a difficult but it is thought of as difficult. We spend a great deal of time teaching our patients to cook (we do weight loss surgery). Our recipes, videos are all designed to show that it takes less effort to cook than one can imagine.

(c) Perceived food costs – we have fixed that myth. It really costs more to eat out, than eat at home

Some blame the effective job of marketing that chain restaurants and fast food places have done. But, we are not robots- and those who wish to improve their health, will learn to cook. Most simply need to know that cooking is a great hobby. For the single men, let me quote you from my favorite dating expert, “If you cook dinner for your date, be careful, you will probably end up cooking breakfast.”

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.

The results, as they were with President Eisenhower- are not likely to be different.  Eisenhower ended up eating almost nothing but Melba toast and grapefruit, obsessed with his cholesterol level, and having more heart attacks until the last one killed him.

What is the evidence that a vegan diet is healthier for a person than a diet with animal proteins? None. There is no evidence that a diet that is based around plants or a diet with low animal fat does little.

Some will cite epidemiologic data- a poor source for data less than a level one.  If you cite epidemiologic data you have to explain all the data—and often they ignore the “French Paradox.”  Or ignore that while the Japanese eat little meat and have few heart attacks – their average consumption has increased over 22 percent with no increase in heart attacks (often people cite data from post World War 2 Japan, and not current Japan – and then ignore the data about stroke rate). When all epidemiologic studies are examined – one cannot justify a plant based diet on those.

Some cite the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study claiming that an animal based diet had more mortality than a plant based diet – but few have read the study.  While Dr. Ornish jumped on this study, saying it justified what he has been telling people- apparently he didn’t read the study either.

This study divided people into two groups- the low-carb group received 37 to 60 percent of their calories from carbohydrates (that isn’t low carbohydrate by any standard). The meat group was not divided out for those who smoked and were overweight (a higher portion of the meat group smoked and were obese). The vegetable group had 30 per cent of their calories from animals, as opposed to 45% for the meat group (so not really a vegetable group).  Once again, an epidemiologic study  and it is flawed.

What we do know from science about low-density-lipoproteins is that they fall into two groups- one group is far more deadly than the other, causing the majority of atherosclerotic plaques.  That is the group with the high tri-glyceride levels is the one that is deadly. Of this there is no doubt in the scientific community.  When the Very Low Density Lipoprotein and apo B – leading to high low density lipoprotein – leads the the increased in artery plaque leading to heart attacks and strokes.  The lower the triglyceride levels then the lipoproteins secreted by the liver become the subspecies of intermediate-density lipoproteins, which are far less cause of atherosclerosis than the others.  Where does the triglycerides come from? Not animal proteins, but primarily carbohydrates.

Bottom line from science – the more triglycerides – result in atherogenic small, dense LDL proteins – and this happens from carbohydrate rich foods.

What about Greece, and Southeast Asia, and Japan(after world war 2) . These populations barely had enough food to survive.  They didn’t use refined carbohydrates – and ate whatever they could. It was not the low-intake of saturated fat that protected them, rather the relative lack of a refined carbohydrate leading to low triglyceride levels. Still, those studies, championed by the late Ancel Keys, are still cited.  This in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Back to President Clinton – a vegan diet will not save his heart. Saturated fat is not what led to the atherosclerotic plaques – rather, it was the abundance of triglycerides from highly processed and abundant carbohydrates. What he has done that will help him is, lose weight, have heart surgery, take medication –but  in terms of diet, President Clinton falls into what Eisenhower did, as well as every anorectic—when the only thing they can control is diet, they will fall victim to fads that sound healthy, are promoted by TV MD’s – but have no science to back them up.

If you want to be a vegan for health, there is no data to support that. In fact, vegans have a life expectancy that is less than pescetarians (fish eaters) and omnivores.President Clinton – a Vegan