Electronic Engineers and Dietary Advice

Posted on December 26, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese

Do you remember DiseaseProof’s week-long examination of The Atkins Diet? In it Dr. Fuhrman discusses the risks and misinformation associated with high-protein diets. In case you missed it, here are the five posts:

Now, why do I bring this up again? Well as you can imagine it more than miffed many of the low-carb loonies out there. One in particular was Barry Groves, PhD. Who is he? To quote Dr. Fuhrman, Barry Groves is “an electronic engineer and honorary board member of the Weston Price Foundation.” Mr. Groves was so flustered by Dr. Fuhrman’s opinion of high-protein diets that he actually made a few comments, that later spawned a couple of posts. Here they are:

The last post in particular has proved quite popular. Now even though it’s many months old and buried deep in the archives it’s still good for an occasional comment. But most of the comments are nothing more than lemming-like meat mongering or Fuhrman bashing. Like this:

Why does saturated fat increase cholesterol? Why the addition of a few hydrogen atoms suddenly makes fat more likely to be turned into cholesterol? what ISOLATED, OBJECTIVE, REPEATABLE evidence do you have that saturated fat from healthy sources increases cholesterol? im not either for your argument or against it, its just i have searched the internet for PROOF of the health harming effects of saturated fat and found none.


Epidemiological evidence is nothing like enough! groves has plenty of that in his favour and you seem to have a small amount in yours, but neither is any form of proof. You can correlate sesame seeds with cancer but only because there sprinkled upon most burgers.

You should not post YOUR OPINION as though it is scientific fact, many real scientists disagree, so it seems to me either you PROOVE IT or ZIP IT.

So as you can imagine I just approve comments like this and pay them no mind. But that doesn’t mean the occasional negative comment or dissenting opinion is just automatically ignored. Actually, a well supported counterclaim is always welcome here on DiseaseProof. Check out this one from last week:

Most Importantly we should remember that no randomised controlled Clinical Trial has ever shown any reduction at all in Coronary heart Disease mortality or overall mortality from replacing animal fats with polyunsaturated vegetable fats.


In fact, just the opposite persons randomised to polyunsaturated fat had significant increases in Coronary Heart Disease mortality rates.
Are you familiar with the research Dr. Fuhrman?

There are 18 Clinical Dietary Intervention Trials and 26 prospectiuve Trials to date on the saturated fat/Coronary Heart Disease issue.

Here are all 18 Clinical and you can look them up at a Medical University Library to confirm it everyone.

*Sydney Diet Heart Study
*National Diet heart Study
*Los Angeles Veterans Administration Study
*Ball et al
*Minnesota Survey
*Lyon Diet Heart Study
*Women's Health Initiative
*Bierenbaum et al
*DART
*Anti Coronary Club
*STARS
*Medical Research Council
*Hood et al
*Finnish Mental Hospital Stusy
*Medical research Council
*Rose etal
*Oslo Diet Heart Study

Clearly when you look these up you will see the research does not support the anti-cholesterol/anti-saturated fat paradigm.

Okay, now as I’ve said many times before, I’m not the expert. So when DiseaseProof receives a comment like this, I pass it on to the man. And here’s what Dr. Fuhrman say—it’s thorough to say the least:

I am familiar with the research, but there are lots more than that. I have made an effort to review every study on this subject in the last 20 years and through a comprehensive view of all the literature, the message is clear. I realize that there are people out there that deny the link between a diet rich in animal products and heart disease, diet and cancer and diet and any disease. The internet has become a forum for all different type of individuals to express their alternative beliefs, and the occasional disagreeing comments here serve a good purpose because by addressing them it helps the informed health seeker improve their view of the issues and get a better handle of the complexities of human nutrition. It is only that I am so busy working that makes the length of these responses somewhat limited and that to get the whole view it would help to first read Eat to Live and then review the posts here on this subject that have been already posted before reading this one.


I think if this commenter was already familiar with my body of work and not just commenting on one issue in a vacuum he may have already understood my answer here. Also, obviously, this is a complicated subject, but I have addressed the complexities before on this blog and in my recent newsletter addressing the poor science promoted by the Weston Price crowd and those denying that the amount and the type of animal products in one’s diet does matter when it comes to disease risk. More explanation can’t hurt though and we can review the reasons for the inconsistency in the scientific studies.

Eating less animal products and avoiding trans fat and in their place, utilizing more fruits and vegetables, beans and nuts is a goal of those seeking to reduce their risk of both heart disease and cancer. The evidence regarding these guidelines is overwhelming and I have referenced over 1500 scientific references in Eat to Live. What makes my dietary advice somewhat unique is that I insist that increasing the micronutrient density of food is an important component of a good diet and that foods that are naturally rich in vitamins and minerals are also rich in thousands of phytochemicals that are a critical (but largely ignored and unmeasured) link to good health. Since 90 percent of calories consumed in America is either animal products or processed foods, neither which contain antioxidants and phytochemicals, we suffer the medical tragedies as a result of this nutritional folly. It is the total micronutrient and phytochemical density of the diet which is more important in disease-prevention than moderating fat intake. The standard modern diet is disease-promoting and just decreasing or exchanging the type of fat can’t change its pitiful level of protective nutrients. I repeat, micronutrient density and variety overwhelms saturated fat (lowering) as a disease protector. If interested, as it will help you understand this, check out the library on DrFuhrman.com. There you can view a chart of nutrient per calorie density of selected foods.

I also teach that the saturated fat content of the animal products chosen to include in one’s diet does also make a difference when it comes to health science and promoting optimal health; not just for heart disease, but for cancer reduction too. Animal fats are more risky than vegetable fats, but they both promote disease if eaten in excess and the fact that cheese has much more saturated fat than fish and fowl, makes it a more risky food to include in one’s diet in any substantial amount. That does not mean I advocate eating vegetable oils and consider them health foods. I am not a promoter of processed oils as they dilute the nutrient density of our diet and are a high calorie, low nutrient food. Saturated fat does not become good because trans fat and some processed oils are bad. Polyunsaturated oils are processed foods, consumed in a rancid state, with little or no fiber, micronutrients, antioxidants or phytochemicals. In no way do I agree with Walter Willet and other highly esteemed names in the field of nutritional science who think that substituting polyunsaturated oils in place of saturated fats is the answer for optimal health. Oil is too fattening a food to be promoted has health food and I thinks Willet’s message to put olive oil and other polyunsaturated and monounsaturated oil at the base of a nutrition pyramid is ridiculous and most likely reflects his desire to commercially appeal to America’s food preferences. Instead, I recommend most of our fat intake come in the whole food form from flax seeds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, avocados, sesame seeds and other foods that are not only rich in healthy fats, but also contain antioxidants, lignans, flavonoids and other protective compounds (and I make delicious salad dressings from these whole-food plant fats).

When we consider these complicated issues we must be familiar with hundreds and in some cases thousands of research articles to understand the complexities of human nutrition. One thing that stands out in all this is that it is not one element good or bad that can explain the complicated nutritional component in disease-causation. So I would never encourage the thinking that looking at saturated fat intake alone in a diet and no other critical factors would afford us good health and protection from heart disease and cancer. Comparing one type of low nutrient diet to another does not show much, they are all bad. But I agree with the point made by some of the articles the commenter mentioned; that moderate reductions in saturated fat intake, in an elderly population, while the diet stays relatively low in high-nutrient plant foods is not likely to offer dramatic health benefits. Especially because what we do at a younger age has a more powerful effect to modulate the expression of these later life diseases compared to what we do at a later age. This is especially true with cancer, where we expect to see a 25 to 50 year lag time between cause and effect. So another element that this question and a review of all these studies indicate is that the earlier in life that dietary change is instituted more dramatic protective effects are seen and the later in life, the smaller the benefit, if any. I spend a lot of time discussing this in my book, Disease-Proof Your Child, which explained that dietary factors in childhood are the largest component of adult cancer causation.

More recent studies are accumulating that show eating more high-nutrient plant food is a more powerful intervention to prevent disease, than just reducing saturated fat alone. You can reduce cheese and butter and still be eating a crummy, low nutrient, disease-promoting diet; big deal! But the best protection from disease occurs and the most dramatic amount of disease reversal is accomplished when the diet is both low in saturated fat and high in micronutrients. This is the pattern of the dietary recommendations in Eat to Live and my other works. Eat to Live because it is written for the overweight individual is more restricted in nuts, seeds and avocados (higher fat, higher calorie plant foods) compared to Disease-Proof Your Child, which contains dietary guidelines somewhat higher in the fattier whole foods (healthy fats) geared for a general audience, not for those who are so weight-challenged.

So even though we could point to some older studies that looked at a population with a high animal product intake and then compared it to one that was still high in animal products but somewhat lower in saturated fat and added oils to it, to show an unclear differences in outcome is not surprising. Especially when both studied diets are still rich in processed foods and animal product, and especially when the subjects are older and not followed for enough years to see the differences or when both the size of the study, the amount of dietary change, and the number of years studied make the difference in “relative risk” insignificant. So contrary to the commenter’s assertion most of the studies mentioned show insignificant and inconsistent mortality differences. When you read the whole study, you can usually understand why it found the outcome it did and the better quality studies explain the inconsistencies better. And you have to look at the nutritional quality of the whole diet studied to predict the outcomes not merely one of the many variables that give a diet its disease promoting or health promoting properties.

Let’s look at some of the most recent studies (click “Permalink” or “Continue Reading”) and see what they really say. Oh, and for other readers who want to post references to support their views, like this commenter did, please include the complete reference so others can easily look it up and check the facts.

Of course some people are not interested in science or logic, to them nutrition is based on emotion and what they want to believe and what they want to eat and no matter what I say or the research says won’t change their fixed views.

Don’t forget, click Permalink or Continue Reading to check out those studies Dr. Fuhrman mentioned—there’s a bunch of them!

Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , , ,

China: Weight Loss Teas Not the Answer

Posted on December 20, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
Diet pills and quick-fix weight-loss scams are everywhere! Don’t believe me? Just check your bulk email filter. Better yet, take a look at this. Here’s a sampling of DiseaseProof’s recent comment spam:



Yeah, like anyone reading this blog wants that junk. So why do I bring this up? Well it seems Americans aren’t the only ones exposed to misleading miracle cures. According to Reuters many Chinese are lulled by the promise of fast fat-loss too. And it doesn’t appear to be working for them either. Tan Ee Lyn reports:
Unhappy with her weight, Charmaine Tong decided two years ago to try a slimming tea, which supposedly contained only traditional Chinese herbs.
She was overjoyed when she lost her appetite and the bathroom scales began dipping, but her happiness vanished when she began suffering a racing heart beat a month later.


"I chose Chinese medicine as I thought it wouldn't have chemicals and would have fewer side effects, but my heart went out of control," said Tong, a marketing executive in Hong Kong.

She stopped drinking the tea at once, and has since regained the seven pounds she lost, and more.

Pills and teas purporting to "melt away body fat" and help shed unwanted pounds are sold widely across Hong Kong.
Lyn’s report goes on to talk about Asian people's genetic predisposition to obesity and how the Western life- and diet-style are adversely effecting the populous. This reminded me of the report by The New York Times discussing how perilous standard American food can be to Asian physiology, especially regarding the development of type-II diabetes. Here’s the DiseaseProof post about it: Asian-American Diabetes Trends Point to Diet.



Tags: ,

Master Cleanser Redux

Posted on December 19, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
Last week The New York Times printed an article on the “Master Cleanser.” A connection of lemon juice, cayenne pepper, maple syrup, and water—what does it do? Well according to the report it’s a quick way to lose excess pounds and purge the body of impurities and toxins like pesticides and food additives.

Personally, I don’t believe in magic potions, but what does Dr. Fuhrman have to say about it? Well I decided—actually he told me—to sniff around the member center. And here’s what I found:
Taking maple syrup (sugar) during a fast weakens and even removes the longevity benefits of fasting. Empty calories or low-nutrient calories prevent the cells from dumping lipofuchen and other toxins. It speeds up the utilization of glutathione in liver and retards detoxification. The Master Cleanse is a master farce. Using sugar and pepper as stimulants to give you energy, while fasting is robbing the body of its opportunity to maximally heal. The power in the battery is proportional to its charge and reduced by the utilization of its energy. These stimulants (irritants) rob the body of its healing powers and significantly reduce the healing and rejuvenating potential of fasting. Lemon is not much of a problem.
Now this next part really hits home. Once during a period of dieting I ate some really spicy food and because of it, I spent the next two evenings in the Emergency Room with extremely bad gastritis. So as you’ll see Dr. Fuhrman thinks ingesting cayenne pepper while fasting is an especially bad idea:
Stop cayenne pepper and honey and stick to fresh squeezed vegetable and fruit juices then. Pepper when fasting can cause gastritis and injure your stomach lining. Then advance to the typical advice to break the fast with a small piece of solid fruit or non-starchy vegetable every two hours on day one and gradually increase the volume and increase the time between meals.
Tags: ,

Member Center: A Meat Eater's Rant

Posted on December 18, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
Got a question for Dr. Fuhrman? Want to ask him directly? Do you know about the “Ask the Doctor” section of DrFuhrman.com? That’s where Dr. Fuhrman can address your individual concern or inquiry. Like this one.

Recently one member wanted doctor’s reaction to this tirade by someone bashing the vegetable-based/vegan diet and promoting the advantages of gobbling up lots of animal products and organ meats. Here’s the actual rant:
It's disgraceful that you steer (or help steer) people toward veganism in your capacity as a professional nutrition consultant. No one in your profession should ever be allowed to practice if they approve of veganism as being healthy and safe for most, especially over the long haul. Meat and fish contain many nutrients that are either absent from, or present in only scarce amounts in, plant foods. Here are some examples:


Creatine is used to form adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), our ultimate source of cellular energy. Creatine availability is critical during situations when neither fat nor glucose can be processed quickly enough to form ATP, such as during the first few seconds of high-intensity physical activities like sprinting and picking up heavy objects. Creatine supplements have been shown in numerous studies to aid performance in power-oriented sports, and to improve muscular strength in patients with congestive heart failure [Kreider RB].

Creatine only occurs naturally in animal foods, with meat by far the richest source. Not surprisingly, habitual vegetarians exhibit poorer creatine status than omnivores [Maughan RJ].

Meat, along with certain species of fish and seafood, is a rich source of taurine, an important amino acid whose concentration in eggs, milk, and plant foods ranges from negligible to none [LaidlowSA][Pasantes-Morales H]. Taurine is found in high concentrations in the heart, brain, and central nervous system, where it helps stabilize the cellular response to nervous stimulation. Taurine possesses antioxidant capabilities and has been shown in double-blind clinical trials to improve cardiac function in patients with congestive heart failure [Schaffer SW][Azuma J][Azuma J].

Taurine cannot be found in plant foods. Humans can manufacture their own taurine but with far less efficiency than herbivorous animals, as evidenced by significantly lower blood taurine levels in vegans and rural Mexican women reporting low meat intakes [Laidlaw][Pasantes-MoralesH].

Carnitine is a remarkable amino acid that plays a pivotal role in energy production, and is absolutely essential for the fat-burning process to proceed. Because of its pivotal role in energy production, high levels of carnitine are found in the heart and skeletal muscle. Clinical trials have observed markedly improved survival outcomes resulting from carnitine supplementation in patients with heart failure and coronary heart disease [Davini P][Rizos I][Singh RB][Iliceto S]. A review of the scientific literature shows that this versatile amino acid has been shown to benefit anorexia, chronic fatigue syndrome, heart disease, male infertility, sexual dysfunction and depression in aging men, and pregnancy outcomes. Exercise, even at moderate levels, can cause a significant drop in muscle carnitine levels; in patients with angina and respiratory disorders, carnitine enhances exercise tolerance [Kelly GS][Cavallini G][Gentile V].

The richest food source of carnitine, by far and away, is meat. Compared to omnivores, vegetarians repeatedly exhibit lower blood levels of carnitine [Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M][Lombard KA]. Carnitine status appears to also be worsened by the high-carbohydrate diets recommended by folks like Campbell. In healthy men receiving the same amount of dietary carnitine, blood levels of this all-important amino acid rose significantly in individuals following a high-fat, low-carb diet, while no change in carnitine levels were observed in individuals on a high carb, low-fat diet [Cederblad G].

Meat is the only food containing significant amounts of carnosine, an amino acid with some rather interesting and highly beneficial properties [Chan KM]. Carnosine is a potent antioxidant, being particularly effective in protecting cellular fats against free radical damage. Research shows carnosine may accelerate wound healing, boost the immune system, protect against cataracts, reduce gastric ulcer formation, rid the body of toxic metals, and even help fight against cancer [Hipkiss AR]. The most potent effect of carnosine however, appears to be its ability to prevent glycation, which, along with free-radical production, is a major contributor to degenerative illness and the aging process [Price DL, et al].

The potent anti-glycation effects of carnosine may explain why a comparison of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eating omnivores revealed the latter to have significantly lower levels of nasty glycation end-products known as advanced glycosylation end-products (AGEs) circulating in their bloodstreams. The difference couldn't be explained by total carbohydrate intake, blood sugar, age or kidney function, as all these variables were similar between the vegetarian and omnivorous groups [Sebekova K].

Meat, especially red meat, is the richest source of B-complex vitamins. The B vitamins perform a myriad of crucial functions in the body and requirements for these vital nutrients are dramatically increased during periods of stress, illness and physical activity. Unfortunately, the body can't store a surplus of B-vitamins for times of increased need, so optimal amounts must be consumed daily.

Meat, especially red meat, is also a rich source of iron. Iron forms an essential component of hemoglobin, the red pigment in blood that transports oxygen from the lungs to the various body tissues. Insufficient iron intake can result in impaired immune function, decreased athletic performance and lack of energy. A double-blind Swiss study of women aged 18-55 who had sought medical advice for fatigue, found that most of the women had low blood concentrations of iron. After four weeks, a significantly greater number of women receiving iron supplements reported a decrease in fatigue symptoms than those receiving placebo [Verdon F]. Australian women complaining of fatigue showed similar improvements when treated with either iron supplements or a high-iron diet [Patterson AJ].

Those who need to boost their iron stores should look to red meat rather than supplements or plant foods. When previously sedentary women were challenged with 12 weeks of aerobic exercise, a high meat diet protected iron stores more effectively than iron supplements[RM Lyle]. Heme iron (the form of iron found in meat) is far more easily absorbed by the body than non-heme iron from plant sources. Men and women on lacto-ovo vegetarian diets consistently exhibit lower blood levels of iron, even when consuming similar total amounts of dietary iron as omnivores [Alexander D][Hunt JR].

Animal foods are also by far and away the richest source of zinc. Apart from oysters, meat is the richest source of this mineral, with red meats again containing greater amounts of this mineral than white meats. Zinc is essential for optimal growth and repair, being involved in the actions of several vital hormones and hundreds of enzymatic reactions in the body. Zinc is essential for the formation of superoxide dismutase, one of the body's most potent antioxidants. Zinc deficiencies can result in growth retardation in children, significantly weakened immune function, poor wound healing and muscle loss, lowered testosterone levels and sperm counts, and have also been linked to depression and gastric cancer [Prasad AS][Brown KH][Siklar Z][Dardenne M][Ibs KH][Maes M][Nakaji S][Prasad AS][Hunt CD].

Overt zinc deficiencies are common to Third World countries where animal protein consumption is low. Milder, 'sub-clinical' zinc deficiencies also appear to be a common phenomenon in modernized nations. Those who follow low fat diets are at even greater risk of zinc deficiency [Retzlaff BM][Baghurst KI, et al].

Animal foods, most notably brains and fatty fish, are the only dietary source of long chain omega 3 fats such as DHA and EPA (special algae supplements containing LCPUFA have only recently become available). Some plant foods do contain omega-3 fatty acids, but in a form known as alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). To obtain the LCPUFA the body needs, ALA must be converted endogenously to longer-chain omega-3s such as DHA and EPA. The conversion rate, however, is very low, with clinical studies repeatedly showing that omega-3 fats from plant sources to be vastly inferior to those from animal foods when it comes to boosting long-chain omega-3 status [Fokkema MR][Francois CA][Tang AB, et al].

Numerous studies have shown that vegetarians consume far lower levels of long-chain omega-3 fats--not surprising considering their avoidance of meat and fish [Rosell MR, et al]. Studies of pregnant women show that, compared to omnivores, vegetarians have significantly lower levels of DHA in their breast milk, with vegans displaying the lowest levels of all. These negative fatty acid profiles are reflected in infants, with vegan newborns displaying significantly lower red blood cell levels of DHA. This is an ominous finding, given the critical role that omega-3 fats play in healthy immune function and cognitive development [Williams C][O'Connor DL][Helland IB][Moriguchi T][Dunstan JA].

Along with lowering one's omega-3 levels, low meat intakes also increase the concentration of omega-6 fats inside the body. A high dietary and bodily ratio of omega-6: omega-3 fats increases the risk of numerous diseases, including cardiovascular disease. A sizable portion of heart attacks are triggered when blood clots lodge themselves in narrowed coronary arteries and prevent the flow of blood to the heart, a process also known as arterial thrombosis. One of the early and key events in the development of thrombosis is platelet aggregation, the 'clumping together' of blood platelets. Researchers from Melbourne, Australia, compared heavy-meat eaters, moderate-meat-eaters, lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans and found that as meat consumption increased, platelet aggregation decreased. Heavy-meat-eaters displayed the lowest levels of platelet aggregation, while vegans displayed the highest levels.

While meat eaters ate more of the omega-6 fat arachidonic acid, vegetarians consumed significantly higher concentrations of the omega-6 fat linoleic acid and significantly lower amounts of long chain omega-3's. The resultant unfavorable omega-6: omega-3 is believed to be responsible for the higher levels of thromboxane A2 (TXA2) seen in the vegetarian group[Li D]. TXA2 is an eicosanoid that stimulates platelet aggregation. Chilean researchers have similarly observed significantly lower blood levels of EPA and DHA, and concomitant increases in blood platelet aggregation, among vegetarians [Mezzano D].
Now, check out Dr. Fuhrman’s response. As usual he pulls no punches in his support of the vegetable-based (and not necessarily vegan) diet:
Most people eating omnivorous diets in America are severely deficient in antioxidants and phytochemicals because of a low percentage of calories from fruits and vegetables; especially raw vegetables and green vegetables. It is this major deficiency that is a large component in the development of cancer.


Most people eating vegan, vegetarian or flexitarian diets in America are severely deficient in antioxidants and phytochemicals because of a low percentage of calories from fruits and vegetables; especially raw vegetables and green vegetables. It is this major deficiency that is the biggest factor in the development of cancer, however it has been shown that this deficiency is less compared to the meat-eating counterparts.

But since we are talking here about lifespan and not about success as a linebacker on the Chicago Bears, and since the major cause of death in America is heart disease, it is still true that a person with less B-vitamins, iron, zinc, fatty acids and amino acids on the “junkatarian” vegan diet will still have lower risk of a life threatening disease compared to the average meat-eating American.

We are not just adding up nutrients here, it is end points (age of death and cause of premature death) that should be our main consideration, not just what nutrients might be optimized with one type of diet versus another.

So, while a conventional and unsupplemented vegan diet may be low in Omega-3 fatty acids, B12, other B-vitamins, zinc, and many non-essential amino acids, there are still other advantages that make this less-than-optimal diet better than the conventional omnivorous diet. When supplemented appropriately even the conventional vegan diet would grant a higher probability of a longer life than a conventional omnivorous diet.

When we are considering my nutritional recommendations it is a horse of a different color because we are not comparing a low-nutrient vegan diet to a low nutrient omnivorous diet. We are comparing a vegetable-based vegetarian, flexitarian (near vegetarian diet) that emphasizes lots of green vegetables both raw and cooked in the menus.

Plus my conservative supplemental recommendations assure nobody is low in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, iodine, B12 or Vitamin D. Some people call this diet-style Eat to Live to match the name of my best-selling book, but it may be more descriptively be described as a high nutrient density, vegetable-based, flexitarian diet. So let’s call it Eat to Live for simplicity here. Since green vegetables are rich in iron, zinc and B-vitamins, you can no longer critique this type of vegan diet as being low in these nutrients. The typical essential amino acids that a vegan diet is low in is lysine and methionine, but these are not deficient in a vegan diet that follows my Eat to Live recommendations as lysine is high in nuts and seeds and beans are rich in methionine and greens have both.

In other words, it would be extremely rare for someone following a truly healthy and well-designed vegan diet to be dangerously low in any essential or non-essential amino acids. When all the essential amino acids are adequately present, the non-essentials will also be produced in an adequate fashion. But even if they were relatively low in amino acids compared to a meat eater that lowness would most likely be a good thing not a bad thing because lower protein diets are linked to longer life and lower cancer risk, not the other way around.

The writer, who proposed a higher level of non-essential amino acids from animal products is favorable, may be able to show muscle growth is enhanced, but he can’t show lifespan is enhanced or cancer rates are lowered because the preponderance of the evidence shows less animal proteins, less cancer.

What is interesting is my book Eat to Live is critiqued on Amazon for not recommended the “proven” benefits of a diet containing grass-fed animal products. As if there are studies showing the consumption of more grass-fed animal products lower cancer rates or increase lifespan? People are just so ignorant about nutrition it is frightening. And, because the review is on Amazon, I cannot comment on some of those inaccurate and even ridiculous critiques.

In fact even a study this month December 2006 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is just about this topic. It is a study that shows that less animal products result in less cancer and more animal protein raises IGF-1 and promotes breast and prostate cancer.

To conclude, my recommendations to eat a whole food, high vegetable, plant-based diet with less than three serving of animal products a week (vegan or flexitarian) is still hands down the most healthful diet to eat. I can’t speak on behalf of other vegetarian diets; they may be less than ideal. This does not mean that a vegan diet is healthier or more lifespan promoting compared to one that eats a small serving of animal products a few times a week. This we don’t know yet.

Here's a good article on the missing nutrients in a vegan diet go to: VeganOutReach
Be sure to click “continue reading” or “permalink” for more references and resources.
Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , ,

The Nutrient-Weight Con-FLAB-ulation

Posted on December 18, 2006 by Joel Fuhrman, M.D.
From Dr. Fuhrman's book Eat to Live:

Nutrient-weight ratios hide how nutrient-deficient processed food is and make animal-source food not look so fatty. Could this be why the food industry and the USDA chose this method? Could it be a conspiracy to have consumers not realize what they are really eating?

For example, a Burger King bacon double cheeseburger is clearly not a low-fat food. If we calculate its percentage of fat by weight and include the ketchup and the bun, we can accurately state that it is only 18 percent fat (over 80 percent fat-free). However, as a percentage of calories it is 54 percent fat, and the hamburger patty alone is 68 percent fat. McDonald's McLean burger was advertised a few years back as 91 percent fat-free using the same numbers trick, when in fact 49 percent of its calories came from fat.

Likewise, so-called low-fat 2 percent milk is not really 2 percent fat. Thirty-five percent of its calories come from fat. They can call it 98 percent fat-free (by weight) only because of its water content. Low-fat milk is not a low-fat product at all, and neither are low-fat cheeses and other low-fat animal foods when you recalculate their fat on a per calorie percentage basis. This is just a sad trick played on Americans. Incidentally, 49 percent of the calories in whole milk come from fat.
Tags: , ,

Protein, Protein, Protein!

Posted on December 14, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
Protein, protein, protein—I’m tired of hearing about how “essential” animal protein is to our bodies! Yeah, man the big giant hunter, distinguishable by our sharp talons, large canine teeth, and pack-mentality. Ask Dr. Fuhrman, he’ll tell you, most people can get all the protein they need from plant sources; check out Nutrient Density of Green Vegetables.

But Americans love their meat! Beef, pork, bacon, chicken, sausage—you name it, we’ll fry it, and slam it in between two pieces of white bread. Yum. Borrowing a catch phrase from Stephen Colbert, “Guess what Nation?” According to Sally Squires of The Washington Post a little extra lean protein in the morning will help satisfy you until lunch, and beyond! Here’s more:
Of all the macronutrients that we eat, "protein blunts your hunger the most and is the most satiating," says Wayne Campbell, who leads a team investigating protein at Purdue University's Campbell Laboratory for Integrative Research in Nutrition, Fitness and Aging…


…It doesn't seem to matter what type of protein is eaten as long as it's lean. So poultry without the skin, fish, vegetable protein such as soybeans, eggs, low-fat or nonfat dairy products are just as good as eating lean cuts of meat. Nor does it take a lot of protein to see the effects. For healthy people, "an extra three ounces per day is well within the acceptable range," says Campbell, whose study was funded by the National Pork Board. (If you have type 2 diabetes or any medical condition that could affect your kidneys, be sure to check with your doctor before boosting protein intake.)
How ironic is it that PURDUE University is leading this investigation, not to mention the study was funded by the National Pork Board—who would have thought there was such a thing? I asked Dr. Fuhrman about this, and he was blunt, to say the least:
It was funded by the pork industry. Of course they found out that giving people an extra piece of Canadian bacon helped!!
Now, I question the merit of these studies just as much as I do studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. It would seem there is a hidden—or not-so hidden—agenda at work. What’s really sad is someone could read a report like this and then start downing bacon seven days a week—I give you the Atkins crowd.

Hungry for more on the protein issue? Read this post by Dr. Fuhrman’s colleague Jeff Novick: Complementary Protein Myth Won't Go Away!
Tags: , , ,

Master Cleanser Starvation Diet

Posted on December 11, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
Ironically, I first heard about this diet from Robin Quivers on The Howard Stern Show. Now, even though I love Robin, a diet based on a “master cleanse” elixir always sounded weird to me. In case you’re baffled by it too, check out Lola Ogunnaike’s report in The Sunday New York Times:
While popular diets and fasts come and go, master cleanse remains a perennial favorite, a kind of folk regimen that owes its popularity to word of mouth and the Internet. Created in the 1940’s by a nutrition guru, Stanley Burroughs, to treat ulcers and other internal ailments, the fast enjoyed a vogue in the late ’70s after the publication of his book “The Master Cleanser.” Its fans then were health-conscious types, interested in purging their bodies of impurities and toxins like pesticides and food additives…


…Robin Quivers, Howard Stern’s long-suffering sidekick, told People magazine that she did the fast on three separate occasions in 2004 and shrunk to 145 pounds from a peak of 218. (She heard about it from the magician David Blaine, no stranger to challenging his body.)
Has anyone ever tried this? Personally, I’ll stick with my leafy greens and avocados.
Tags:

Health Points: Thursday

Posted on December 7, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
  • I’m sure most parents would agree, too many kids just sit around the house all day playing video games and futzing with the computer. Who goes outside to play anymore? No wonder why childhood obesity is on the rise. You know what we need? A kiddy gym. Virginie Montet of the AFP reports two sisters thought this was a pretty good idea. Introducing Youth Visions:
Tonya Manago, a former paralegal, and her sister Keitha Howerton opened the gym last April when Manago noticed that her daughter was putting on weight.

Desha, nine, has since managed to lose 12 pounds (5.5 kilos) and now weighs 116 pounds (53 kilos), while her girlfriend Ravin, who is 10 and weighs 257 pounds (117 kilos) has reached star status at the gym by losing 22 pounds (10 kilograms).
  • Now, I’m not a smoker, so a ban on smoking in public places doesn’t really upset me, but I admit, losing the romance of a smoke-filled bar is a little depressing. Well people in Ohio, a tobacco-producing state, are about to see that imagine dissipate. According to The Chicago Tribune Ohio is poised to join the smoking prohibition:
Starting Thursday, forget about smoking in Ohio bars, restaurants, bingo halls and private clubs. Even the last bastions of smoke-filled heaven, bowling alleys, will be off-limits for smokers. Ashtrays have effectively been outlawed.


This is the thrust of one of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the nation, approved by voters last month, making Ohio the first state in the Midwest to go smoke-free and the first tobacco-producing state to enact such a ban.
  • Oh that zany “Diet Detective” Charles Stuart Platkin is at it again. This time the king of calorie-counting is going to help you overcome those pesky “Diet Villains.” Just take his diet quiz and all will be revealed, your troubles will melt away—insert tongue in cheek. From The Seattle Times:
Mostly G's: The health nut. You shop only in health-food stores, buy organic, follow a vegetarian diet, take loads of vitamins and preach about the virtues of eating "healthy." Nevertheless, you're overweight.


The fix: Don't confuse the concept of eating foods that have health benefits with eating to lose weight. Even if foods are healthy, calories still count.
Beta carotene, an antioxidant found in such foods as squash and carrots, was -- and still is, in some circles -- considered a powerful cancer fighter and a combatant against free-radical damage. While the evidence regarding the latter still, at least ostensibly, holds true, some new research suggests that beta-carotene is completely ineffective as a cancer fighter (of course, it can be argued that by helping to fight against free-radical damage, beta carotene is also battling against the increased risk of developing cancer).
According to a study led by Dr. Evelyn Cohen Reis, of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, parents of youngsters who are obese and have high blood pressure or elevated triglycerides are likely to have the same issues.


"What we took from that was, 'Gosh, you could look at the children's health and help predict whether the parents are at increased risk of heart disease,' " Dr. Reis said.
  • Are you a cell phone addict? Do you know one? Personally, I’m not into cell phones—the obsession with texting and ring tones is a mystery to me. But hey! At least we now know that they don’t cause cancer. A new study involving 420,000 Danish cell phone users determined cellular phones don’t trigger cancer. More from the Associated Press:
Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the brain’s outer edge, raising questions about cancers of the head and neck, brain tumors or leukemia. Most research has found no risk, but a few studies have raised questions. And while U.S. health officials insist the evidence shows no real reason for concern, they don’t give the phones a definitive clean bill of health, either, pending long-term data on slow-growing cancers.
Tags: , , , , ,