Sunday, February 17, 2019

Retrospective #1: A Very Brief (and Necessarily Selective) History of Human Nutrition (and Dieting)

In the beginning, there were the hunters and the gatherers. In the History of Nutrition this was the Paleolithic Era, hence the Paleo Diet. In most cultures, men hunted and women and children gathered food as it was available to them. Early humans adapted to periods of feasting and starvation (fed and fasting states, in dieting terms).
We humans were of necessity omnivorous. It was a survival thing. We ate every part of the animals we were lucky or skilled enough to trap, club or impale. Every part of the animal (or fish), including the organ meats (offal), the blood, and even the marrow within the bone cavity, was eaten. Some of us still enjoy these foods today.
We also ate the things we could gather from in-season fruit trees and vines, and the leaves, roots and fungi that didn’t kill us. It was a trial and error thing. We learned that to survive we had to take risks, both in hunting and gathering, and to make the most of what was available. This is why children have a natural aversion or “distaste” for “new” foods and only increase the scope of what they will eat as they mature. Remember when you wouldn’t eat x – fill in the blank. For me, it was Brussels sprouts, which today I love, especially tossed in olive oil and roasted.
Then, as we became more “civilized” and gathered together for socialization and protection, we wandered about less. This undoubtedly fostered the beginnings of agriculture. We saw that cereal grains, that is, the seed heads of grasses such as corn, wheat, and rice, grew naturally where nature planted them. We reasoned, why wander about when we could plant our food supply and water and cultivate and harvest it where we lived? This also enabled us to build more permanent shelters and live in fertile places with good fresh water supplies and abundant game and vegetative life. We also learned that we could catch certain animals and domesticate them for a steady food supply as they multiplied naturally in captivity. Wunderbar! Surely, this was a milestone of human evolution.
Could life get any better? Perhaps. But, in the view of many students of these developments, this was also the beginning of mankind’s downfall, nutritionally speaking. It was the dawn of the onset of the age that was to bring us the dreaded Diseases of Civilization. It was the advent of the Neolithic Age, and it began about 10,000 years ago.
Fast forward to about 150 years ago. William Banting¹, in 1863 a retired London undertaker, wrote and published a 16-page pamphlet titled Letter on Corpulence – Addressed to the Public. In it, the 5-foot 5-inch, 200-pound Banting – surely a fat man – described a program of eating in which he “scrupulously avoided eating any…food that might contain either sugar or starch.” On Banting’s diet, he ate 5 or 6 ounces of meat or fish at each of three meals every day, together with a fair amount of wine and spirits, avoiding altogether “bread, milk, beer, sweets and potatoes.”  Banting lost about 50 pounds in 18 months. His pamphlet became a best seller in England and on the Continent.
William Banting credited his diet to William Harvey, an aural surgeon in London who had recently been to Paris where he had heard the great French physiologist Claude Bernard debate on diabetes. Voila! So, there you have it.
Now, fast forward again to about 50 years ago, to include the impact of the Industrial Revolution, the new roller-milling technology for making flour, trans-fat-loaded Crisco and “vegetable” oils made from soy beans and corn.  
On January 13, 1961, Ancel Keys, an assertive University of Minnesota physiologist (after whom WWII’s K-Rations were named), was on the cover of Time Magazine. Since the 30’s Keys had been interested in the influence of diet on health. His epidemiological work on the etiology of heart disease would later be published in his 2nd seminal tract, the “Seven Countries Study” (Harvard University Press, 1980). In it he advanced his hypothesis associating saturated fat and dietary cholesterol with heart disease. This was the genesis of the Diet-Heart (Lipid) Hypothesis.
Keys’ Lipid hypothesis led the nation and the world to the Low-Fat diet. Lamentably, the study was later discovered to have been “cherry picked.” It will be the subject of the third essay of this series, but first will be a primer for non-scientists (and physicians) on “The Basics of Nutrition: Macronutrients, Vitamins, Minerals and Phytochemicals.”
¹ “Prologue: A Brief History of Banting” from Gary Taubes’ Good Calories – Bad Calories, 2007, Alfred A. Knopf

Type 2 Nutrition #472: Is the Vedda Blood Sugar Remedy Credible?

A friend of 40 years, who used to follow my blog, thenutritiondebate.com, recently emailed me to ask, “Does the Vedda Blood Sugar Remedy have any credibility?” I’d never heard of Vedda before so I looked it up. It’s a Sri-Lanka herbal product and diet program that’s being promoted here in a new book.
The website Contra Health Scam says the Vedda Blood Sugar Remedy is a scam. Quoting from their conclusion, “Vedda Blood Sugar Remedy is nothing but a well-produced scam, complete with paid actors, stock photos, stock videos, twisted scientific studies and outright lies.” So, I sent the link to my friend and suggested instead that he look up the Virta Health program (see the name similarity?) for managing his weight and blood sugar.
My friend thanked me and later emailed me, “The Keto rage sure evidences your research! The weight loss results are phenomenal. This is totally counter to the food pyramid we grew up with, or Michelle Obama’s new school she tried to promote.” I replied, “Yes, that’s all true,” and asked if he would like to be added back to my distribution list.” He replied, “Yes, I am definitely still struggling to get to my goal weight. Thanks.”
Later, while working in the garden I got to thinking about this “conversation.” I found it very depressing. I’ve been proselytizing about how to manage weight and blood sugar about ten years and have written almost 500 columns (472 published with this one), and even my long-time friends (and my own wife!) pay no attention to me. How frustrating is that? So, I told my wife about the conversation and she said, “You have no bona fides.”
I understood what she meant, of course. I’m not a medical doctor. But, with exasperation, I replied, I have personally lost 170 pounds (and maintained most of the loss) BY DIET ALONE, WITHOUT EXERCISE, AND WITHOUT HUNGER. Not only that but I have turned my diabetes health around, from a progressively worsening disease to the point where, from a clinical standpoint, I am “cured,” and in complete remission.
In addition, my lipid (cholesterol) profile is also completely reversed, I’m no longer on a statin, my blood pressure is “normal” (with meds), and my inflammation non-existent (hsCRP ≤1.0). I am so full of energy and so much healthier and happier than I was 17 years ago when my doctor first suggested I try a Very Low Carb diet to lose weight. He didn’t call it LCHF or Keto, but that is what is was and IT WORKS!
So, it seems, my personal example only works for me – “you’re not like other people,” my wife says – until you read somewhere in the mass media about “the Keto rage” with “weight loss results [that] are phenomenal.” And then you realize that it’s “totally counter to the food pyramid we grew up with,” the one our government has been promoting for more than half a century.
My wife said I should be grateful that my friend has come back into the fold. I said I was, but still, I was stunned at the resistance of some people…by which I mean most people, not my friend in particular…to rational change. We just don’t want to change, until perhaps we reach a tipping point in our personal life. For me it was the shock of learning that I weighed 375 pounds. My doctor’s scale only went to 350, so one morning before an appointment, I stopped at the Fulton Fish Market in New York City and weighed myself on a commercial scale. I thought I was going to die. I looked around and I didn’t see any really fat, old people. I didn’t want to die.
What will it take for you? What combination of fear, courage, and a glimmer of a chance that changing your diet could work? That it might be easy to lose weight and improve all the markers associated with death?
What will it take for you to realize you became overweight because of what, you ate? To realize the way to reverse that condition is to change what you eat – to eat in a way “totally counter to the food pyramid we all grew up with,” that we’ve been following our whole lives and that got us into this mess in the first place. Think about it. If that’s what it takes, then maybe you’ll become a follower too, and we can grow old together…

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Type 2 Nutrition #471: “You mean, sugar is a carb?”

I was sitting at the bar in an upscale restaurant, having dinner and chatting with the co-owner about nutrition, when she said, earnestly, “You mean, sugar is a carb?” I’m not kidding. This woman, who is seriously obese, blames it on her “lack of discipline” and being “married to a chef.” “I work in a restaurant,” she says. Sheez…
“I know sugar is the enemy,” she continued. But for someone in her position – she clearly has an influence on the menu– to know virtually nothing about nutrition, is shocking. I’m tempted to go into another rant about how we got into such a state of affairs, but you’ve read enough of those. Instead, let me illustrate the point with further evidence of her thinking, and how that influences her and their business.
I hadn’t been to this neighborhood restaurant in a while, so I took a good look at the menu: Two soups, seven appetizers, and eight or nine entrees. One soup was a creamed squash, the other a chowder, by definition loaded with potatoes. I was interested in the creamed soup so the wife checked to confirm that it contained no flour. But I wasn’t hungry enough for such a filling and calorie loaded starter.
Then, to my surprise, the first appetizer listed was a plate of fried potatoes. Five of the other six appetizers were salads. The seventh was calamari, dredged in flour, dipped in cornmeal and deep fried – three good reasons not to order it. Some of the salads looked good though, especially hearts of artichoke and a burrata.
Several of the entrees were also appealing: two fish entrees, an osso bucco, and a pork chop. All the entrees were accompanied by a vegetable and a starch, which of course could be switched out for extra vegetables. However, since I was not hungry, I settled on just the artichoke salad…and it was very good.
The young amiable bartender made me a good drink and I settled in. That’s when the co-owner joined me and we got into conversation about nutrition. I told her about how I had lost over 170 pounds, starting in 2002, and was still down 150. She said that was very good, but she didn’t ask how. It was a sign she didn’t want to change her way of eating. I told her anyway: VERY LOW CARB. I started on Atkins INDUCTION.
She told me she did Weight Watchers. When I asked her, rudely, why she was not successful, she explained that she was married to a chef. I let that pass and instead mentioned that she and I – both of us – were at a disadvantage to many in the population, like the bartender, who was skinny.  She and I were victims, I said, thinking that would appeal to her. We, like millions of others among us, had a bundle of genes in our makeup that had been “expressed” over the years by our eating too many processed and refined carbs and sugars.
Her response was, “I think that’s up for debate.” She averred that a meal had to be “balanced.” Her problem, she said, was “discipline.” I countered that when you eat a meal of mostly protein and fat, your hunger is satisfied. She responded that a large serving of broccoli satisfied her for hours. We were going nowhere.
“Potatoes have a lot of fiber in them,” she continued. “I like potatoes.” I now understood why the potatoes were the first item listed on the menu, offered as an “appetizer.” And I now also understood why the seat I took at the bar had a half-finished plate of potatoes in front of it that the bartender removed. I had taken the co-owner’s seat and had interrupted her dinner.
I had another drink and another salad, the burrata – which was also very good. That was all I could salvage from the night’s foray into re-educating the world, one person at a time. But I did get subject matter for another blog on the state of nutrition in this world, and my fasting blood sugar next morning was 87mg/dl. That’s good. But what’s going to become of us if we’re not even interested in knowing about nutrition. If we’re so fixated on a “balanced” diet, getting lots of “fiber,” and blaming others for the food choices we make?

Sunday, February 3, 2019

Type 2 Nutrition #470: A Tale of Two Paradigms

Sitting next to a good friend – waiting for a memorial service to begin – I asked her if she was pre-diabetic. Huffily she replied that she was not! Her fasting blood sugars were all in the “low hundreds,” she said, which her doctor told her was okay. She’s happy because she thinks she’s avoided the dreaded T2 diagnosis and the drugs. But she’s “a little” overweight, like most of us, so I supposed she might also be a little Insulin Resistant.
This is how the Medical Treatment Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes works, historically and for the most part as it exists today.  The doctor might have told a patient with blood sugar in the “low hundreds” to “lose weight and move more.” But my friend is in her mid-eighties, still working hard, and no doubt very glad to be alive and declared “well.” A good doctor might also have counseled my friend to take Metformin and eat fewer carbs, but given her age and the new, very lax ADA Standards of Medical Practice for older folks, she probably didn’t.
Doctors are taught to diagnose disease and treat symptoms by prescribing medicine. But almost all of us are “a little” overweight, and everyone is getting older, so what’s a doctor to do? Prescribe Metformin for every one? Ironically, that’s not a rhetorical question. There’s evidence that Metformin extends longevity even in a non-insulin resistant population. It's been suggested that maybe everyone should take Metformin. It’s cheap and, except for brief intestinal distress in about 20% of those who start on it, it has no other side effects.
But even in the best of circumstances, in our 40s when we start to develop Insulin Resistance and put on a few pounds, a doctor today would still counsel “diet and exercise,” and when that fails – as it invariably does – initiate drug therapy. Metformin is the first line of pharmacotherapy recommended almost universally. In the clinical world the debate these days is what should be the 2nd and 3rd course of oral medications, before the doctor begins a more advanced drug like an injectable GLP-1 incretin mimetic, and finally, insulin therapy.
This is how the Medical Paradigm dominates the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes. We all wait too long to start, think of losing weight as a personal responsibility, and consider treating disease (like T2D) as something doctors do. Ironically, it is totally lost on us (and the doctors) that the reason we gained weight was a due to a medical condition called Insulin Resistance, whose best MEDICAL treatment is a CHANGE in DIET. Weight gain and Type 2 Diabetes both arose because for years we ate way too many refined carbohydrates and simple sugars.
The Dietary Treatment Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes is rarely suggested in the doctor’s office. There are many reasons for this, but suffice it to say it is both “safe and effective.” And so long as YOU follow this dietary “treatment” (eating Very Low Carb), you will lose weight (a lot of it, if you want) and your blood sugars will get much better. Many people report A1c’s below the pre-diabetic threshold (5.7%). My first A1c, taken by an endocrinologist more than 25 years ago, was 8.9%. Last December it was 5.0%, rock solid normal.
So, the question arises: What will it take to bring about a revolution in the basic principles and practices of medicine to make this Paradigm Shift, a shift from the Medical to the Dietary Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes? It does not require a shift in all the “principles and practices of medicine.” It is only because Type 2 Diabetes is caused by diet that a change of diet is needed. Until doctors make this shift, patients must learn Type 2 Diabetes is reversible through diet and take responsibility for their own health at every meal. Treating an elevated blood sugar with drugs, because “that is something doctors do,” is “old school.” Until that day, the framework for diagnosing Type 2 Diabetes and treating it with drugs will continue to be the model.
Doctors likewise need to be reminded that Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” If you have fasting blood sugars in the “low hundreds,” you have Insulin Resistance. You’re “Pre-diabetic” (actually a Type 2; see #469 ). And if you want to avoid the clinical Dx, now is the time to change what you eat. Don’t wait before you graduate to finger sticks and a cocktail of drugs.  

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Type 2 Nutrition #469: Why Pre-diabetes is actually Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM)

I’m not trying to be alarmist here. It’s just that there’s a broad misunderstanding in the patient population perhaps due to misunderstanding or reluctance to counsel patients by most clinicians: The diagnosis (Dx) of Pre-diabetes is prima facie evidence of an already failed glucose metabolism. The biomarkers used, an A1c of ≥5.7% (39mmol/mol) and/or an elevated blood sugar (≥100mg/dl or 5.6 or even 6.1mmol/L) is proof of that.
Most clinicians understand that a Dx of T2DM means that you have Insulin Resistance (IR). IR means that the uptake of glucose by the body is impaired by the inability of the hormone insulin, which accompanies glucose in the blood, to open receptor cells. This results in an elevated glucose. The body fights this dysfunctional response by sending more insulin. And as long as it sends more insulin, your blood glucose stays “Pre-diabetic.”
Here’s the misunderstanding. Your body has been successfully fighting IR by sending more insulin. And because it has been “successful” – keeping your blood glucose levels in the high-normal or even “Pre-diabetic” range – you, and ruefully in most cases your clinician, think you are not diabetic. The truth, however, is: You have IR (the definition of T2DM) and YOUR BODY is CONCEALING it from you.
Your pancreas will fight to make enough insulin to keep your blood sugar “normal,” until it fails. That failure is what constitutes a clinical diagnosis today. The failure of this late symptom of a dysfunctional glucose metabolism is after the fact. You have type 2 diabetes. Your pancreas has exhausted its ability to make enough new insulin. Either the Islet cells have died from fatigue or they so clogged with fat that they are blocked from functioning properly.
So, what should your clinician tell you or you do instead? If you have been told that you have a “slightly elevated” or “high-normal” or even a “Pre-Diabetic” blood glucose, accept that 1) you have Insulin Resistance, and 2) this is the definition of T2DM. NOW is the time to do something about it. Most clinicians will counsel you to “wait and see.” That’s because under clinical guidelines (and Medicare and other insurance rules), they can’t write you an Rx until you have been “clinically diagnosed.” But by then it’s too late. Your pancreas has already failed. It’s a fait accompli.
But up until this point your doctor has been in something of a bind. He can tell you to “diet and exercise,” but government’s idea of a “healthy diet” is to eat a “mostly plant-based” or even a Mediterranean diet. You’ve also been led to think that exercise is an effective weight loss strategy. Your doctor is also unlikely to know or believe that the diet or “lifestyle change” that will work to reverse your dysfunctional glucose metabolism is a low carb diet.
Nevertheless, losing weight is a good prescription, especially losing weight around the waist. Central obesity and belly fat are terms for visceral fat. As distinguished from subcutaneous fat, this is fat within the abdomen, around and within the organs, especially the liver and pancreas. This is why some people who are not obese have T2D. They are “skinny-fat” with a fat-clogged pancreas and probably a fatty liver (NAFLD) as well. This is very common in American children and adolescents. Losing this visceral fat can help restore function to pancreas for the obese, overweight and “skinny-fat” or viscerally obese.
Restoring pancreatic function only addresses the failed insulin production aspect of T2DM. Remember, this is the late symptom of a failed glucose metabolism, not the cause of T2DM, which is Insulin Resistance. What can be done to reverse IR? Well, ask yourself, what caused the resistance to insulin? Too much insulin! And what caused too much insulin? A diet too high in carbohydrates: eating too many carbs all day long, in every meal and in between. Solution: Change what you eat. Cut the refined carbs and simple sugars. Keep an eye on your fasting insulin level.
You got into this mess by eating far, far too many carbs. You can turn this whole thing around by eating far fewer carbs. Personally, I eat a Very Low Carb, Moderate Protein, High Fat (Healthy Saturated Fat, not the PUFA vegetable oils), also known as a LCHF or Keto diet. I also incorporate Intermittent Fasting (IF) from time to time. I’ve lost a lot of weight (170 pounds) and put my T2DM (Dx 1986) in remission. I have very good blood markers and I feel great. I did it without hunger (because fat is satiating), and without exercise. You can too.

Sunday, January 20, 2019

Type 2 Nutrition #468: Drink SuperBeets® for a “boost”?

SuperBeets®? Have you seen the TV commercial? Dana Loesch, a radio and TV host, pushes a powdered beet juice concoction that promises to make you “more healthy.” “Beets contain a nutrient that increases your own natural energy,” she says, but she doesn’t say what it is. It’s sugar. Fact: the body can only get its energy from either sugar (glucose) or fat (fatty acids and ketones from triglycerides), plus protein by gluconeogenesis. But you can bet your sweet bitty that the “natural energy” you get from beets is sugar, not fat or protein.
Don’t you think it’s curious that the TV commercial doesn’t even mention “sugar”? Neither energy source (fat nor sugar) is mentioned in the 1-minute TV commercial. Instead, the commercial extols the alleged benefits of the “boost” you’ll get from “increasing your nitrous oxide level.” It suggests, by inference, that this compound is one that your body lacks and needs more of to be healthy. Did you know that? No? It’s news to me, too.
I did some research, however, and discovered that 20% of the world’s sugar production is derived from beets. Sugar beet production is mostly from temperate climates. Russia, France and the U.S. are top producers, with the U.S. accounting for about 12%. The remaining 80% of world sugar production is from cane sugar, grown in tropical places like Brazil, India, China and Thailand. The U.S. produces about 1.5% of the world’s sugar cane.
Nitrous oxide (N20), known as “laughing gas,” is an analgesic and a weak anaesthetic. The inhaled gas has a half-life of 5 minutes. I was unable to learn how long a “nitrous oxide level” persists in the blood, but glucose persistence in your bloodstream, a much more important fact, depends on your degree of Insulin Resistance.
With normal blood sugar metabolism, the pancreas will produce insulin as needed to convey glucose (the “sugar” in the blood) from the food you eat to the cells. Insulin receptors are supposed to open up to receive the glucose. This quickly produces a spike of energy, and your blood sugar level soon returns to normal.
If, however, you have any degree of Insulin Resistance, the receptor cells will resist opening. The pancreas will then send more insulin until the cells eventually open, your blood sugar crashes, and you need a “boost.”
So, if you have insulin receptors that have been conditioned by a lifetime of eating processed carbs and sugars – both cane and beet, and you drink SuperBeets® for a “boost,” your blood sugar will go and stay high for a long time. But with SuperBeets®, who cares? Your nitrous oxide will be high for 5 minutes. Woo hoo!
“Within 30 minutes of taking it, I felt the difference,” one online testimonial said. That makes sense. That’s the sugar, stupid! Sugar IS a source of quick energy. It gets into your bloodstream in minutes. And with Insulin Resistance, it will cause blood sugar to “boost.” You will feel “the difference” You’ll also feel the crash!
Thus, Dana says she takes SuperBeets® multiple times a day: “in the morning, at the gym, in the afternoon as a pick-me-up.” Can you imagine? If she has any Insulin Resistance at all – and most of us do – her blood sugar curve would be a rollercoaster of ups and downs all day long. Spike, crash, spike, crash, spike, crash…endlessly, for so long and as often as she gets a concentrated hit of beet sugar “as a pick-me-up,” and for whenever she wanted to “feel the difference.” Is that what you want? To be more of a “sugarholic” than you already are?
If not, you could try a “lifestyle modification” and give your pancreas a rest. If you eat less “sugar,” your pancreas will not need to send a double dose of insulin to make the receptor cells work. This will help preserve the pancreatic capacity for years to come, and your energy level will not fluctuate as much. It will remain stable and flat while your body burns fat for energy. Fat doesn’t need insulin to give you energy. It’s actually absorbed through the lymph system and then into your blood to keep your energy level high and level.
If you feel the need for a “boost,” ask yourself, am I already addicted to sugar? If you answered “yes,” then, ask yourself, why on earth would you choose to add more sugar to your diet? Think about that.

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Type 2 Nutrition #467: It’s not fair!

It’s not fair. It’s not fair that, “The weight reduced individual will be requiring about 20% less (sic) calories per day relative to somebody of that weight who’s never lost weight would eat…in order to keep at that weight.” That’s what Rudolf Leibel, MD, Co-Director of the New York Obesity Research Center at Columbia University Medical Center said in “Choices,” one of 4 hour-long videos in the 2014 PBS series, “Weight of the Nation.”
“Individuals losing weight are not metabolically the same as they were before they lost weight,” Dr. Leibel said. I know. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is…if you believe “a calorie is a calorie,” as Dr. Leibel apparently does. You will be consigned to accept this depressing fact and live with it. Worse still, you must be resigned to either 1) be fat because you will naturally want to eat as much as the person “who’s never lost weight” (because they don’t have to), or 2) you will eat 20% fewer calories and be hungry all the time. Your choice!
Dr. Leibel’s example: “Consider two individuals – same gender, same age, exactly the same body weight – one of whom is at that body weight as a result of let’s say a 10 or 15% weight reduction, the other who’s been at that weight for their entire adult life. If that reduced weight individual goes out to lunch with her friend, and they both order the same meal, that will represent 20% overeating for the weight-reduced individual, and be quite normal for the individual who’s not in that state. Twenty percent might seem like a little, but 20% excess calorie intake a year will account for the inexorable weight gain.” There, he said it again: “excess calories.”
But what if “calories don’t count”? I’m not joking. If you haven’t heard this before, just Google it. I got 20 million hits, many, on the first few pages, from sites that I respect. But I don’t need to search the Internet to know that I don’t need to “count” calories (or eat 20% fewer) to keep the weight off or not regain the weight I’ve lost. I know I can do that by changing the foods I eat; by eating fewer processed carbohydrates; by eating high quality proteins and fats instead. They will be more satiating, and I will naturally eat less without hunger.
Sound too good to be true? Well, if you don’t want to accept this, then you are welcome to wallow in self-pity and eat the “balanced diet” that the USDA and BIG PHARMA and the medical establishment dictate. You can ignore their conflicts of interest. You can also ignore your glucose meter and what is best for YOUR health. You can follow the HHS/USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which continues to closely mirror the catastrophic “diabesity” epidemic trendline since they were first published in 1980, following the “Dietary Goals” of 1977. 
You can also rely on the American Heart Association’s exhortation since 1961 that you avoid saturated fat and dietary cholesterol and instead eat their recommended highly processed vegetable and seed oils produced by the same USDA-subsidized AGRIBUSINESSES that made the trans-fat laden Crisco and corn-oil margarines.
It’s your choice. So, whom are you going to believe, me or your heart doctor? ;-) Okay, THAT’s not fair either. If you already have heart disease, I won’t blame you for following your specialist’s advice, even if he or she doesn’t know sh*t about nutrition. But, just for laughs ask if they know 1) that in 2014 the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee declared “dietary cholesterol…is no longer a nutrient of concern for over-consumption” and 2) that Ancel Keys, the author of the “diet-heart hypothesis,” said later in life “we’ve known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn’t matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit.”
Then there’s this quote of “updated findings” from Dr. William Castelli, Director of the famous Framingham Study, published in Archives of Internal Medicine: “In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, and ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.” Confounding, isn’t it? Whom are you going to believe?