Disease Proof : Disease Proof : Health & Nutrition News & Commentary : Dr. Joel Fuhrman

We’ve all heard the “take an aspirin daily” edict. Supposedly this is some sort of home remedy for preventing a heart attack. But here’s a question. If you’re living and eating healthfully, is this really necessary? Dr. Fuhrman talks about it in The Popular One-Aspirin-Per-Day Myth:

I am aware that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that individuals at high risk of heart attacks take aspirin as a preventative. But even if I agreed with their theory that taking aspirin was an effective way to prevent premature death from heart disease, I wouldn’t recommend it to as many people as they do. According to the Task Force, those at high risk include: men over forty years of age, postmenopausal women, and younger individuals who have high blood pressure or high cholesterol or who smoke. That is quite a broad definition of high risk. It includes almost everybody I know, except my wife and children…


…Five studies to date have examined the effects of daily or every-other-day aspirin use for primary prevention for periods of four to seven years.1 Most participants were men older than 50 years. Meta-analysis of the pooled data from all of the studies show that aspirin therapy reduced risk for coronary events by 28 percent, but with no decrease in mortality. In other words, aspirin use did not result in longer life. There was no reduction of death due to heart attack or stroke. Further, there was evidence of an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke and a two- to four-fold increase in gastrointestinal complications, including ulcers and bleeding…

… For healthy people, the risks outweigh the benefits. That is why, in contrast to typical physician recommendations aimed at reducing risk, I recommend that people eliminate their risk factors. Daily aspirin consumption is for those satisfied with mediocrity and willing to gamble with their lives.

Makes you wonder how 43 million Americans would be willing to pop an aspirin a day. No, I’m not making that figure up. According to Reuters most of the 43 million take aspirin because they really-really believe it’ll stave off a heart attack:

An estimated 43 million U.S. adults take an aspirin every day or almost every day, according to a U.S. government survey, a figure that accounts for a fifth of the adult population.

Most are taking the pills for their health -- such as to prevent heart attacks or strokes -- the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found…

… More than half of the estimated 26 million U.S. adults who were told by a doctor that they had heart disease said they took an aspirin regularly, the survey found. And 48.5 percent aged 65 and older said they took aspirin regularly.

Lulling 43 million people into a regiment of aspirin is very big-brother-like if you ask me. Now, if you’re like Dr. Fuhrman and don’t want to settle for this health mediocrity, take charge and Defeat Heart Disease Now! Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

• Anita Srikameswaran of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette takes a look at the relationship between type 2 diabetes and childhood obesity. Take a look:

A recent study indicates pediatric type 2 diabetes is still relatively infrequent, experts are concerned about the trend and the impact the condition, particularly its complications, might have on affected children and families.

"It does exist and it's increasing," noted endocrinologist Dr. Silva Arslanian, director of the Weight Management and Wellness Center at Children's Hospital. "It's increasing because more and more children are becoming obese."

• The Cancer Blog shines the spotlight on Tangerine Tomatoes. These orangey colored tomatoes pack quite the lycopene-punch. Check it out:

I just yesterday came across research (from a 2007 Ohio State study) involving a certain variety of orange tomato called a Tangerine Tomato. Evidently, people are able to better absorb the antioxidant lycopene from this particular type of tomato than from the more typical red tomatoes.


If you have trouble finding Tangerine Tomatoes at your grocery store, try other kinds of orange tomatoes or gold heirloom varieties. But, whatever kind, color, brand, or type of tomato you choose, always be sure to cook your tomatoes in order to receive the greatest absorption of lycopene.

• You’d be hard-pressed to find good news about obesity. So here’s more bad news. According to the AFP, new research links obesity to infertility. Read on:

While obesity has long been suspected of hampering a woman's ability to conceive, the University of Adelaide research is said to be the first to find a direct scientific link.


Researcher Cadence Minge said experiments on female mice showed that fat has an impact on the egg before it is even fertilised.

• I can only speculate, but I imagine a lot of kids’ lunch bags are chock full of snack foods and soft drinks. Bu here’s a novel idea! Pack them a piece of fruit. More from The Diabetes Blog:

The teacher announced daily snacks must be healthy. Juice boxes were not allowed. A water bottle was fine, but the drinking fountain even better. Geez, I was starting to really like this school. Fruit and vegetables were strongly suggested, but no cookies, mile-high frosted cupcakes or sugary fruit snacks. I nearly stood up and clapped, but I didn't want to freak out a roomful of mommy strangers. After reading Allie's recent post on water, I will definitely pack a water bottle…


…Think fruits and vegetables. Don't throw those sugary graham crackers in your shopping cart. Stay away from the processed carbohydrates. This is your chance to develop healthier habits for a lifetime. Hey, you might not even need to be the fall guy -- hopefully it's "school policy."

• Nowadays genetics get played for everything, but can genetics be the reason why some kids are fussy eaters? The Associated Press reports:

''Children could actually blame their mothers for this,'' said Jane Wardle, director of the Health Behavior Unit at University College London, one of the authors of the study in this month's American Journal of Clinical Nutrition


Wardle and colleagues asked the parents of 5,390 pairs of identical and non-identical twins to complete a questionnaire on their children's' willingness to try new foods.

Identical twins, who share all genes, were much more likely to respond the same way to new foods than non-identical twins, who like other siblings only share about half their genes. Researchers concluded that genetics played a greater role in determining eating preferences than environment, since the twins lived in the same household.

• Now, I’m not sure if this is a joke or not, but Diet-Blog is all over something called “The Diet Fork.” Judge for yourself:

The following features will (apparently) lead to weight loss...

• Shorter and dulled teeth inhibiting user from grasping larger pieces of food at any one time.
• Smaller triangular shaped surface area allowing dieter to hold less food than many other forks.
• Uncomfortable grip compelling user to put fork down between bites, slowing the user's eating speed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

From the December 2002 edition of Dr. Fuhrman's Healthy Times:

As much as I hate to keep talking about the high-saturated-fat, low-antioxidant-nutrient Atkins diet, I am forced to because his diet continues to make front-page news and stays on the tips of everybody’s tongues.

A study reported at [a previous] American Heart Association (AHA) annual scientific session compared the Atkins diet to an AHA diet. The study found that the Atkins diet was not quite as bad as the AHA diet, when considering weight loss and lipid levels. The study was funded by the Atkins Foundation.

But instead of using the results of this study to warn consumers about the documented problems associated with these unhealthful diets, the press simply reported that the Atkins diet “beat” the AHA diet, which suggested that this high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet has favorable qualities.

Had I written the news report on this study, the story would have been very different. My headline would have read: Recent Study Showed Atkins Diet Almost as Bad as AHA Diet. The subtitle would have read: Neither diet showed significant lowering of cholesterol levels.

Two Terrible Diets
Imagine the ignorance of the researchers actually comparing two low-nutrient, low-fiber diets. It is like staging a prize fight between two over-the-hill, washed-up, has-beens. In this corner, we have the Atkins diet featuring 65-85 percent of calories from fat and loaded with dangerous levels of artery-clogging, cancer-causing, saturated fat and cholesterol. In the opposing corner, we have the junk-food-filled AHA diet, a diet that has already failed the scrutiny of multiple studies and is documented to be a proven failure. Can we change the channel, please?

More than a dozen studies have shown that the majority of patients following the AHA’s typical diet find that their conditions worsen with time.1 Comparing the Atkins diet to the ineffective AHA diet proves nothing. It’s like evaluating the purchase of a new car by comparing it to a junkyard wreck.

It is true that both groups lost weight—thirty-one pounds on the Atkins diet and twenty pounds on the AHA diet. But LDL (the bad cholesterol) did not change significantly on either diet. Triglycerides went down considerably more on the Atkins diet as expected from eliminating refined carbohydrates and grains.

The Healthful Alternative
When we look at the research done on the cholesterol-lowering effects of the type of diet that I recommend, we see an average drop of 33 percent in the cholesterol level and triglyceride level. These drops in both cholesterol and triglycerides compare favorably with the most powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs.2

By contrast, researchers have noted for 50 years, with data collected from thousands of studies, that diets low in fresh fruit increase cancer risk. This recent Atkins study—an attempt to evaluate the weight loss-and other short-term effects of a low-fruit (and, therefore, cancer-causing) diet—illustrates the nutritional naiveté of its researchers. If it had not been for the funding from the Atkins Foundation, it is hard to imagine why anyone would choose to evaluate effects of such a diet.

Weight Loss Not Enough
This study is almost as absurd as studying the weight-loss and cholesterol-lowering effects from snorting cocaine three times a day. That practice also would show some cholesterol lowering, but who would be willing to conduct such a study and proclaim the results to the press?

Imagine the headlines—“Snorting Cocaine Causes Weight Loss and Lowers Cholesterol Better than the AHA Diet.” Fortunately, we already know that even dangerous weight loss schemes like the Atkins Diet lower cholesterol a bit because lowering weight lowers cholesterol.

The real question to ask about a diet is this—What are the long-term effects to your health?

Hurrying the Undertaker
Any diet high in animal products and low in fiber, fruit, beans, and yellow vegetables is going to shorten life span significantly. If Robert Atkins follows his own dietary advice, he is a perfect example of what you would expect from such unhealthful dietary recommendations. He is overweight and has developed heart disease. Do you think he needs to eat more cheese and pork rinds to thin up a bit, as he recommends; or do you think he just might be better off on a diet rich in raw plant foods, beans, steamed greens, carrots, and fresh fruit such as berries and peaches?

Unfortunately, when you eat healthful food, calories and exercise do count. When you attempt to trick nature with gimmicks, like appetite suppressants, metabolic boosters, radical surgical procedures, and risky diets like Atkins to gain some metabolic advantage, you always will pay a price. You don’t get something for nothing, and you can’t escape the laws of cause and effect forever. Atkins and his followers desperately need to read my book, Eat To Live.

Never forget my recurrent admonition: do not be satisfied with mediocrity. Nutritional mediocrity just might cause your death. Marginal cholesterol lowering—from a high level down to a moderately high level—is inadequate. Only a cholesterol level below 150 and an LDL level below 100 are satisfactory. Atkins devotees never reach these ideal levels, while those following my recommendation routinely do. Don’t gamble with your health. Go for superior health.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Colette Bouchez of WebMD busts nine major fitness myths. This one about abdominal fitness is really good. I’m sure some people will be getting red-faced. Take a look:

Fitness Myth No. 2: Doing crunches or working on an "ab machine" will get rid of belly fat.


Don't believe everything you hear on those late-night infomercials! Harr says that while an ab-crunching device might "help strengthen the muscles around your midsection and improve your posture," being able to "see" your abdominal muscles has to do with your overall percentage of body fat. If you don't lose the belly fat, he says, you won't see the ab muscles.

But can doing ab crunches help you to lose that belly fat? Experts say no.

"You can’t pick and choose areas where you’d like to burn fat," says Phil Tyne, director of the fitness center at the Baylor Tom Landry Health & Wellness Center in Dallas. So crunches aren't going to target weight loss in that area.

"In order to burn fat, you should create a workout that includes both cardiovascular and strength-training elements. This will decrease your overall body fat content," including the area around your midsection, he says.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

From the December 2002 edition of Dr. Fuhrman's Healthy Times:

There have been so many misleading media reports stating that taking an aspirin every day is a good way to prevent heart attacks that most people are starting to believe it. Here is an example of the typical conversation I have with other physicians on the subject.

“Dr. Fuhrman, do you take an aspirin every day to prevent heart attack?”

“No, of course not,” I respond.

“Haven’t you read the reports about it in the New England Journal of Medicine?”

“I’ve read them.”

“Then why don’t you practice what you preach.”

“Don’t you mean, ‘Why don’t I practice what you preach?’ I don’t recommend taking aspirin. I recommend eating so healthfully that taking aspirin is not necessary.”

At that point, the fireworks usually begin. Since I don’t enjoy arguing, I’ve decided to describe my thinking here. That way, the next time I’m at a meeting with other physicians, I can hand them a copy of this newsletter and avoid inciting a riot, where I might get attacked with flaming shish kebabs or doused with blazing hot cheese fondue.

Leading Cause of Death
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, more than one million Americans die of heart attacks. The saddest aspect of this enormous suffering is that virtually all of these deaths are unnecessary. With very few exceptions, nobody is predestined to have a heart attack. Heart disease is easily preventable, but not by taking aspirin.

I am aware that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that individuals at high risk of heart attacks take aspirin as a preventative. But even if I agreed with their theory that taking aspirin was an effective way to prevent premature death from heart disease, I wouldn’t recommend it to as many people as they do. According to the Task Force, those at high risk include: men over forty years of age, postmenopausal women, and younger individuals who have high blood pressure or high cholesterol or who smoke. That is quite a broad definition of high risk. It includes almost everybody I know, except my wife and children.

Increased Sudden Death
Aspirin for prevention of heart attacks was first touted after the landmark Physicians Health Study1 found that aspirin decreased the heart attack rate in asymptomatic physicians during a five-year period. That sounds like good news until you realize that overall mortality (death) was not decreased and sudden death was increased. Oops. Sudden death is not a desirable side effect.

The British did a similar study in 1988, which also found no reduction in mortality. After the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reviewed this and other data, they modified their guidelines and noted that no added benefit, only added risk, has been documented in doses of aspirin greater than 75 mg per day.

Five studies to date have examined the effects of daily or every-other-day aspirin use for primary prevention for periods of four to seven years.2 Most participants were men older than 50 years. Meta-analysis of the pooled data from all of the studies show that aspirin therapy reduced risk for coronary events by 28 percent, but with no decrease in mortality. In other words, aspirin use did not result in longer life. There was no reduction of death due to heart attack or stroke. Further, there was evidence of an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke and a two- to four-fold increase in gastrointestinal complications, including ulcers and bleeding.

Based on this unimpressive data, and in spite of pooled data that shows for most adults, aspirin therapy causes more harm than good,3 most Americans take it for granted that taking an aspirin every day will prevent heart disease.

Conclusion
Advice on aspirin for prevention against heart attacks and stroke must be based on each individual’s cardiac risk. For those at very high risk, with known risk factors such as the conventional, high-saturated fat, low-nutrient diet, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and overweight, the benefits of aspirin may outweigh the risk. But for those of us who eat healthfully, exercise and don’t smoke, taking aspirin will increase our risk of cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding complications.

For healthy people, the risks outweigh the benefits. That is why, in contrast to typical physician recommendations aimed at reducing risk, I recommend that people eliminate their risk factors. Daily aspirin consumption is for those satisfied with mediocrity and willing to gamble with their lives.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

LivinLaVidaLowCarb interviews Weston Price lackey and low-carb lemming Dr. Barry Groves. If you like nonsense and misinformation, here’s a snippet:

3. This sounds like a trick question, but I'm curious to know what you think based on your studies and experiences. What's wrong with a low-calorie diet? Why do you believe the low-fat, low-calorie, portion-controlled diets have literally monopolized dietary recommendations for what is considered "healthy" for so many decades?

No, it’s a good question. Low-calorie, low-fat diets have monopolized weight loss diets for the simple reason that the hypothesis that cutting down on energy intake or burning up more by exercising is plausible. But as Mark Twain once said, "For every problem there is a solution, neat plausible and wrong!" What is wrong with it is that it doesn't take into account how our bodies work. Starvation, which is what low-calorie dieting is, is unsustainable. It is bound to fail.

4. As a highly-respected and reliable source for information related to diet and nutrition, you've written many extensive columns and traveled all over the world talking about what you have discovered in your own empirical study of the scientific data about this subject. Do you see any meaningful progress happening anywhere that gives you hope that a major paradigm shift is about to happen? What's it going to take to wake up government and health leaders around the world to the low-carb answer to obesity and disease?

When Robert Atkins’ second book was published in 1999, it took the dieting world by storm. Studies, some funded by Atkins, showed that low-carb dieting worked, and conventional nutritionists were looking at litigation from people whose health had been compromised by their "healthy" advice. Unfortunately, this sparked a massive backlash by the diet dictocrats and, backed by governments and the all-powerful "health industry," they seem to be winning the debate. At this point, I think it will take a strong population-led revolt to make a meaningful difference.

Honestly, at this point I hope no health-conscious person even remotely entertains the low-carb lies. Now, back to Barry Groves. Dr. Fuhrman has addressed his drivel in the past. Here’s an excerpt from The Misinformation of Barry Groves and Weston Price:

Dangerous Advice
I realize the web allows a forum for people with potentially dangerous advice, but I think most intelligent people can see through his straw arguments, so I welcome the opportunity to comment again to his skewed nutritional viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims. Each time Barry Groves reports on a medical study he gave a different conclusion to the data than the researchers do, and the studies are usually some poorly done old study. It is typical stuff for the Atkins crowd and the Weston Price Foundation to find one research paper they can claim makes their argument legitimate, but even when they hand pick one study, they typically don't report the research accurately.


Fortunately we have a comprehensive body of knowledge today with over 15,000 articles written since the 1950's documenting the link between a diet high in saturated fat and low in fresh fruits, nuts, seeds, vegetable and beans and the increase risk of cancer and heart disease. Thousands of research scientists don't agree with Barry Groves' meat-centered diet recommendations and the platform of the Weston Price Foundation.

For more on the problems with low-carb, check out these previous posts:

• Electronic Engineers and Dietary Advice
• Deadly Dietary Myths
• Dangers of High-Protein, Low-Carb Diets

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

From the July 2006 edition of Dr. Fuhrman's Healthy Times:

In my book Eat To Live, I have warned readers about adopting fad diets such as The Atkins Diet, The Zone Diet, and Eat For Your Blood Type because the scientific data is so clear about the fact that eating more than a few small portions of animal products each week is associated with a host of serious diseases.

Conclusive scientific warnings notwithstanding, people continue to flock to diets like these because a) they reinforce existing bad habits, and b) numerous organizations encourage this behavior. One of the more influential of these organizations is the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF).

The Weston A. Price Foundation is named in honor of a Cleveland dentist, author of the book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. In the 1930s, upon observing that a large number of his patients had poor dental health, Dr. Price traveled to remote regions of the world and found that people in those areas who were still eating diets consisting of unprocessed foods had healthier teeth than his patients, who were eating large amounts of processed foods. He concluded that poor dental health was the result of nutritional deficiencies.

WAPF is a relatively small non-profit with a modest budget, but its leaders and members have been very effective in advocating a meat-centered diet, with lots of butter and whole, raw milk. Unfortunately, although some of its recommendations are laudable (such as the admonition to avoid highly processed foods, and the warning that most popular vegetarian and vegan diets are not ideal), many others are entirely out of step with modern nutritional science. They promote a range of irresponsible and potentially dangerous ideas, including:

• Butter and butter oil are “super foods” that contain the “X factor” discovered by Weston Price.
• Glandular organ extracts from animals promote the health and healing of the corresponding human organs.
• Poached brains of animals should be added to other ground meats for better nutrition.
• Raw cow’s milk and meat broth should be fed to newborns who don’t breast-feed, rather than infant formula.
• Regular ingestion of clay (Azomite Mineral Powder) has detoxifying effects because the clay particles remove pathogens from the body.
• There are benefits to feeding sea salt to infants and babies.
• Fruits and vegetables should be limited in children’s diets.

There are plenty of organizations offering woefully out-of-date and inaccurate dietary advice, so I do not want to give the impression that WAPF is alone in this regard. But there is limited space in a single newsletter, and a review of some of the WAPF recommendations offers an opportunity to point out examples of nutritional misinformation readily available in books and on the Internet.


How to Feed Your Baby
WAPF advocates a severely deficient and dangerous diet for infants and children that has the potential to cause a lifetime of medical problems, reduced brain function, and an early death from cancer. Infants have their best chance of developing normally when they consume breast milk from well-fed mothers. But contrary to a plethora of scientific studies indicating that breast milk should be the only food for the first six months of life, Sally Fellon, founder and president of the WAPF and coauthor (with Mary Enig) of the book Nourishing Traditions, says that pureed meat (including organ meats) is an excellent early food for babies.

What does WAPF recommend?

One WAPF baby formula mixes cow’s milk with heavy cream and other oils, while another is made from cow’s liver, beef broth, whey powder, and various oils. It is well established in the scientific literature that a diet high in saturated fats and low in fruits and vegetables in early childhood is the leading cause of adult cancers. Infants fed cow’s milk instead of breast milk or formula do not get sufficient iron, vitamin C, linoleic acid, or vitamin E, and take in excessive amounts of sodium, potassium, and protein,which can lead to dehydration and kidney damage. For many years, the American Academy of Pediatricians has warned against the use of any whole cow’s milk during the first year of life after it was found that infants given cow’s milk developed iron deficiency and occult (silent) bleeding of the digestive tract.1 The resultant iron deficiency seen in children raised on cow’s milk in early childhood leads to long-term changes in behavior and loss of intelligence that can not be reversed even with correction of the iron deficiency later on in life.2 In other words, permanent brain damage can occur from the feeding of whole cow’s milk to babies.

Good Intentions Gone Awry
How can an organization offer nutritional advice so out of step with the world’s scientific literature? Part of the blame can be placed at the feet of those who remain loyal to some of the original observations of Weston Price rather than his original intent.

When Dr. Price traveled to remote areas, his intent was to find healthful solutions for his dental patients. When we look back with 70 years of scientific hindsight, we can see that his examinations and conclusions were flawed.When he touted the health of primitive peoples, he was not aware of their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and infection.

It can be argued that few scientific researchers in the 1930s would have understood the complexity of multifactorial causation of health, disease, and longevity, and Price should not be held to today’s higher standards. But the same cannot be said for his followers today.To advocate eating a diet high in saturated fat is to ignore all of the nutritional research—especially of the past 40 years—that links this diet to shorter life spans and higher rates of heart disease and cancer is unconscionable.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link