Disease Proof

Recent claims that low-fat dairy products or calcium can help people lose weight are untrue, according to a review of the published scientific literature, which shows that neither dairy products in general nor calcium intake promote weight loss.

"Don't believe the hype," Dr. Amy Joy Lanou told Reuters Health. "The ads that promote milk as helping to achieve a healthy weight are misleading; the science does not support these ads…"

…Lanou said she was not at all surprised by the findings because milk is designed for growth. "Milk is a food that is designed for helping small mammals grow into rather large ones in a relatively short period of time," she explained. "It is counterintuitive to think that a food that has lots of calories, fats, and protein would be helpful for weight loss."

She suggests switching to water. "We drink way too many of our daily allotted calories in milk, milkshakes, lattes, sodas and other sweetened beverages. Water is healthy and naturally calorie-free," Lanou said. "Choosing water instead of milk means you can enjoy more nutrient-dense foods such as fruits vegetables, grains, and legumes and stay within your energy needs."

Kudos to Dr. Lanou! Her sentiments sound a lot like Dr. Fuhrman’s. He talks about milk in Milk Is For The Rapidly Growing Cow. Here’s a bit:

Milk, which is designed by nature for the rapidly growing cow, has about half its calories supplied from fat. The fatty component is concentrated more to make cheese and butter. Milk and cheese are the foods Americans encourage their children to eat, believing them to be healthy foods. Fifty years of heavy advertising by an economically powerful industry has shaped the public's perception, illustrating the power of one-sided advertising, but the reality and true health effects on our children is a different story. Besides the link between high-saturated-fat foods (dairy fat) and cancer, there is a body of scientific literature linking the consumption of cow's milk to many other diseases. If we expect our children to resist many common illnesses, they simply must consume less milk, cheese, and butter. Dairy foods should be consumed in limited quantity or not at all.

Milk for health has never sat well with me. Milk gives me the heebie-jeebies.

The new report is the first study to show the drug's benefit -- although only when taken at night -- with prehypertension, defined as blood pressure just below the 140/90 level. Prehypertension is a known warning sign of future risk of heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular problems.

Why aspirin should do its good work for blood pressure at night but not in the daytime is not clear, Hermida said. Research indicates that it can slow the production of hormones and other substances in the body that cause clotting, many of which are produced while the body is at rest.

The three-month study included 244 adults diagnosed with prehypertension. A third of them were advised to follow general rules of hygiene and diet designed to reduce blood pressure, another third were told to take a 100-milligram aspirin tablet every night at bedtime, and the final third were told to take the same aspirin dose on awakening.

Researchers monitored blood pressure levels at 20-minute intervals from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and at 30-minute intervals at night before the trial began and three months later.

Systolic blood pressure (the higher number in the 140/90 reading) dropped 5.4 points and diastolic pressure by 3.4 points for those taking aspirin before bedtime. No drop in blood pressure was found in those taking morning aspirin or following the general guidelines.

Dr. Fuhrman doesn’t agree with all the mumbo-jumbo surrounding aspirin and heart health. He talks about it here:

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.

Based on this unimpressive data, and in spite of pooled data that shows for most adults, aspirin therapy causes more harm than good,2 most Americans take it for granted that taking an aspirin every day will prevent heart disease.

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.

I know a few people that take aspirin daily and all of them are overweight, out of shape, and take aspirin as a result of previous heart trouble. Seems like an ineffective easy way out to me.

Whole-milk, butter, and cheese are the foods that contribute the most saturated fat to the American diet. Any person seeking excellent health should restrict these foods in his or her diet. Skim-milk and other non-fat dairy products can be used as part of the small amount of allowable animal products consumed weekly. They are not foods that should be consumed liberally, and they should not be seen as health foods because they are not high in micronutrients and phytochemicals.

Now, in an attempt to make dairy “healthy”, food manufacturers are adding plant compounds—like sterols and stanols—to butter and other junk foods. Melina B. Jampolis, MD talks about it in The San Francisco Chronicle:

Plant sterols-stanols are naturally occurring plant molecules that resemble cholesterol. They compete with the cholesterol in your diet for absorption into your body. When consumed in large enough quantities, they can block the intestinal absorption of some of the cholesterol that you eat, thereby helping to lower blood cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, they are not naturally present in plants in large enough quantities to have a significant effect, so food scientists found a way to incorporate them in much higher doses in foods ranging from butter spreads such as Benecol® and Promise® to tortilla chips (Corazones®) to chocolate bars (Cocoa Via®). Research shows that when these substances are consumed at the recommended doses of 1-2 grams per day, both total cholesterol and bad cholesterol (LDL) drop by as much as 6 percent. So if your cholesterol tends to run a little high, you might consider adding plant sterols-stanols to your diet in addition to limiting your saturated fat consumption and eating plenty of fiber…

…If you have serious medical problems or are pregnant, consult with your physician before eating foods that contain high levels of probiotics. If you are healthy, you may want to save your money until we have a better understanding of the role of probiotics in optimal health.

While I'm sure that functional foods are not what Hippocrates had in mind when he stated "Let food be thy medicine," I think he would be somewhat pleased with their potential health benefits.

Dr. Jampolis is clearly nuts. I doubt Hippocrates would be thrilled about any food produced in a factory. Health-promoting compounds come STANDARD in natural plant foods. Here’s a list from Dr. Fuhrman:

• Allium compounds
• Flavonoids
• Phenolic acids
• Alllyl sulfides
• Glucosinolates
• Phytoesterols
• Anthocyanins
• Indoles
• Polyacetylenes
• Caffeic acid
• Isoflavones
• Polyphenols
• Catechins
• Isothiocyanates
• Protease inhibitors
• Coumarins
• Lignans
• Saponins
• Dithiolthiones
• Liminoids
• Sulphorophane
• Ellagic Acid
• Pectins
• Sterols
• Ferulic acid
• Perillyl alcohol
• Terpenes

The biggest animals--elephants, gorillas, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and giraffes--all eat predominantly green vegetation. How did they get the protein to get so big? Obviously, greens pack a powerful protein punch, in fact, all protein on the planet was formed from the effect of sunlight on green plants. The cow didn't eat another cow to form the protein in its muscles, which we call steak. The protein wasn't formed out of thin air--the cow ate grass. Not that protein is such a big deal or some special nutrient to be held in high esteem. I am making this point because most people think animal products are necessary for a diet to include adequate protein. I am merely illustrating how easy it is to consume more than enough protein while at the same time avoiding risky, cancer-promoting substances such as saturated fat. Consuming more plant protein is also the key to achieving safe and successful weight loss.

Gorillas and elephants, I’m happy to be in the company of giants. Now, new research supports the idea that green veggies—like spinach—build muscle. From NewScientist:

SOME may scoff at the notion that spinach - despite containing nutrients - builds muscles, but Popeye may have been on to something. A steroid found in leafy greens ramps up protein synthesis in muscles.

A team led by Ilya Raskin of Rutgers University in New Jersey extracted phytoecdysteroids from spinach. When they placed the liquid extract on samples of cultured human muscle, it sped up growth by 20 per cent. Rats were also slightly stronger after a month of injections of the extract.

I like to think of myself as living proof that you DON’T need animal protein to be big and strong. For more, check out: Complementary Protein Myth Won't Go Away!

Maybe this is why we’re fat. Diet Blog found it:

For the the last five years, I've been taking teams of scientists to five pockets around the world where people live the longest, healthiest lives. We call these places the Blue Zones. We found a Bronze-age mountain culture in Sardinia, Italy, that has 20 times as many 100-year-olds as the U.S. does, proportionally. In Okinawa, Japan, we found people with the longest disability-free life expectancy in the world. In the Blue Zones (Sardinia, Italy; Okinawa, Japan; Loma Linda, Calif.; and the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica), people live 10 years longer, experience a sixth the rate of cardiovascular disease and a fifth the rate of major cancers.

1. Move naturally: Be active without thinking about it. Identify activities you enjoy and make them a part of your day. Cut calories by 20 percent.
2. Cut calories by 20 percent: Practice "Hara hachi bi," the Okinawan reminder to stop eating once their stomachs are 80 percent full.
3. Plant-based diet: No, you don't need to become a vegetarian, but do bump up your intake of fruits and veggies.
4. Drink red wine: In moderation.
5. Plan de Vida: Determine your life purpose. Why do you get up in the morning?
6. Down shift: Take time to relieve stress. You may have to literally schedule it into your day, but relaxation is key.
7. Belong/participate in a spiritual community.
8. Put loved ones first/make family a priority.
9. Pick the right tribe: The people surrounding you influence your health more than almost any other factor.

These are fantastic suggestions. Be active, eat plants, and relax—perfect! You won’t get much argument out of Dr. Fuhrman:

Increasing the consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits, and raw nuts and seeds (and greatly decreasing the consumption of animal products) offers profound increased longevity potential, due in large part to broad symphony of life-extending phytochemical nutrients that a vegetable-based diet contains…

… Centenarian studies in Europe illustrate that those individuals living into their hundreds were likely to have consumed a plant-based diet consisting of fewer than 2000 calories per day. Multiple studies have confirmed that the thinnest people live the longest…

… As we condition our muscles and gain strength, our bones thicken and strengthen along with the muscle. Without regular exercise along the way, your bone structure can deteriorate as you get older. Some people survive with weak bones, but their quality of life suffers when they are immobilized by arthritis and osteoporosis…

…A safe and satisfying work environment, a happy marriage, a satisfying social and/or family life, and activities you enjoy are all related to positive health outcomes. Emotional wellness starts right here your finger tips end. As you respect and appreciate the value in the world around you and develop interests in other people and in such things as art, music, entertainment, sports, nature, and physical activity, you can respect yourself more for your ability and desire to appreciate the value of things not yourself.

Okinawans are fascinating people. These avid plant-eaters live a long-long time. In fact, they made John Robbins’s list of longest-lived people in his book Healthy at 100. Check it out:

1. Abkhasia: Ancients of the Caucasus, where people are healthier at ninety than most of us are at middle age.
2. Vilcabamba: The Valley of Eternal Youth, where heart disease and dementia do not exist.
3. Hunza: A People Who Dance in Their Nineties, where cancer, diabetes, and asthma are unknown.
4. The Centenarians of Okinawa: Where more people live to 100 than anywhere else in the world.

Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.1

Similar statistics are available for the high meat-consuming Maasai in Kenya. They eat a diet high in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world. Life expectancy is 45 years for women and 42 years for men. African researchers report that, historically, Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60. Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai show that they have a 50% chance of dying before the age of 59.2

I guess the same can be said about us; between all the fast food, beef jerky, potato chips, cheese pizza, and no exercise, Americans start dying at middle-age. We’d learn a lot from our foreign neighbors.

Whey protein is incontrovertibly one of the most widely used and accepted forms of protein available in supplement form. While some people avoid whey because it is a derivative of milk and/or milk products, others make a whey protein shake or two part of their daily diet. But, enter into any GNC or Vitamin Shoppe store and you'll immediately feel a wave of whey protein confusion roll right over you. There are so many brands and types of protein to choose from…

…Starting first with whey protein concentrate, this form of whey protein is not as potent as isolate. It can contain anywhere between 29 and 89 percent protein. And, as the amount of protein in concentrate decreases, the amount of fat and/or lactose usually increases. As for whey protein isolate, this purer version contains at least 90 percent protein and little to no fat and lactose.

The whey fad is way overdone. Go to any gym and you’ll see dozens of people sucking down protein shakes and, like Chris says, there are so many brands and types, but according to Dr. Fuhrman, they’re all equally worthless:

Consider that the maximum muscle mass the human body can typically add in one week is about one pound. That is the upper limit of the muscle fiber’s capacity to make protein into muscle; any protein beyond that is simply converted to fat. It also is not necessarily advisable to gain a pound of muscle per week. Although athletes have a greater protein requirement than sedentary individuals, this is easily obtained through the diet. The use of protein supplements is not merely a waste of money, it is unhealthy.

Studies on supplemental amino acid consumption have not supported claims that such supplementation increases growth hormone or provides other touted benefits. In fact, increased whey protein added to the diet of rats increased tumors and cancers.

Frankly, protein shakes and diet drinks strike me as unnatural. And the hoopla over protein is even more overblown. Maybe that’s why, in another post, Chris wants to know if you’ve got enough protein in your diet. Take a look:

Every body is different, just as everyone's lifestyles are different. To that end, the amount of protein one person may require may be vastly different than another. Fortunately, there has been research done on this very topic, producing some semblance of an answer.

According to a study published in The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, people who train at least 12 hours per week for at least five years need 1.37 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day to maintain their nitrogen balance. Sedentary individuals, according to the study, require only 0.73 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. This is not to say that you'll shrivel up and die if you fail to get this amount of protein every day. This is merely the amount suggested to maintain muscle mass over a longer period of time.

Dr. Fuhrman insists if you’re eating a healthy diet, you’re getting plenty of protein. There’s no need worry. He explains:

The average American consumes about fifty percent more protein than the recommended daily amount. Yet we often see—in addition to misinformed athletes, fitness enthusiasts, and bodybuilders—businessmen and women, homemakers, and those seeking to lose weight turning to protein powders, drinks, and nutritional bars in their quest for even more protein.

It is true that resistance training and endurance workouts can break down muscle protein and increase our need for protein to fuel repair and growth. But the increased need of protein is proportional to the increased need for calories burned with the exercise. As your appetite increases, you increase your caloric intake accordingly, and your protein intake increases proportionally. If you meet those increased caloric demands from heavy exercise with an ordinary assortment of natural plant foods—vegetables, whole grains, beans, and nuts, which contain more than 50 grams of protein per 1000 calories—you will get the precise amount of extra protein you need.

Personally, I don’t worry about my protein intake. Like Dr. Fuhrman says, focus on the micronutrient quality of your diet, not the macronutrient density—protein is a macronutrient.

Foods that are refined, including chips, cookies, bread, and pasta, lose a dramatic amount of their nutrients in the refinement process. Plus, the process that browns foods and turns a grain into a baked flake or chip creates acrylamides—carcinogens that make these foods even more harmful. These processed foods are not only nutrient-poor, but they also contain elements that contribute to our health problems. They are typically high in salt, chemical food additives, trans fats, MSG, sodium nitrate, and other unhealthy ingredients.

So, ignore the hype surrounding this latest marketing fad, and, ignore the snacking advice of this loopy dietician:

The 100-Calorie Healthy Snacks

• 7 baby carrots (five calories each)
• 2 tsp. all-natural almond butter or peanut butter (about 66 calories)

• Small fruit salad
• 1 TB slivered almonds (33 calories)

• 2 TB hummus (50 calories)
• 5 baby carrots
• As many cucumber and celery sticks as you'd like

• 1/2 medium banana (55 calories)
• 1-2 TB shredded coconut (for dipping!) (30 calories)

Sure, these all sound like good options, but personally, I don’t count calories. I just eat lots and lots of healthy food. Like today, for lunch I had an entire bag of baby spinach again—yes, an entire bag!

The low-fat food craze is almost as perverse as the low-carb craze. Most low-fat foods are hardly the healthy alternatives they are marketed to be. Jacki Donaldson of That’s Fit explores the issue in, “Low-fat foods are not free foods.” Here’s a bit:

Visions of low-fat Wheat Thins are swimming through my head right now -- I've been known to demolish a whole box of these treats.

I remember during my sweet-tooth days enjoying an occasional package of fat-free Twizzlers. Fat-free. Smart choice, right? Nope.

No matter how low-fat the food, calories still matter most. Eating low-calorie foods such as veggies means you can eat larger amounts. But starchy foods, like rice, bread, and yes, Wheat Thins, are higher in calories. Which makes them bad for weight loss and management.

Jacki’s right. These low-fat foods are bupkis! Just take a look at the nutrition facts for Low-Fat Wheat Thins and Strawberry Twizzlers:

DiseaseProof regular, Llouise—funny spelling, for a funny lady—read yesterday’s Health Points and was intrigued by The New York Times report dealing with vitamin D and sunlight. Here’s the excerpt I pulled:

Complete cloud cover halves the energy of ultraviolet rays, and shade reduces it by 60 percent, according to the National Institutes of Health…

…To strike a balance between useful exposure and protection, the N.I.H. recommends an initial exposure of 10 to 15 minutes, followed by application of a sunscreen with an S.P.F. of at least 15. The institutes say this much exposure, at least two times a week, is usually sufficient to provide adequate vitamin D, though some researchers suggest it may not be enough. At the earth’s northern latitudes for much of the year, and at the midlatitudes in winter, the sun does not stay far enough above the horizon (45 degrees) for the angle of the sun’s rays to guarantee an efficient ultraviolet-B bath. Northerners may have to rely on the vitamin D synthesized in the summer or on foods and supplements.

After reading this, she was curious to get Dr. Fuhrman’s thoughts on this study; suggesting that vitamin D supplementation might be overrated and needs to be reconsidered. The report is over at PR Web:

Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been made that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. In the light of new knowledge that hundreds of genes are dependent on vitamin D, this assumption needs to be reconsidered.

In a report published in the current issue of the journal BioEssays, Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia's Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.

"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body's ultimate response to infection," Marshall said. "Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."

Well, fearing the wrath of a Llouise scorned, I quickly emailed the article over to Dr. Fuhrman and here’s what he had to say about it:

You can always find someone who will take the opposite stance to the main thrust of research in the world and the press is always quick to jump on it, even if it is one person's opinion without significant research to prove anything. Lots of this (anti vitamin D supplementation) article is not correct. Vitamin D deficiency does cause rickets. Taking Vitamin D supplement have a long proven history to reduce incidence of rickets. That does not mean that severe calcium deficiency can't contribute to rickets as well.

Evidence is emerging that more than 17 different types of cancer are likely to be vitamin D sensitive. A recent meta-analysis concluded that 1,000 IU of oral vitamin D per day is associated with a 50% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence. That is taking the supplements result in dramatic benefits.

In general, the most critical outcome related to any intervention is mortality, and a recently published meta-analysis examining the effects of vitamin D supplementation is the most important information we have. The authors of this study evaluated 18 randomized, controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for any indication. The mean daily dose of vitamin D was 528 IU, and the mean follow-up period was 5.7 years. Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared with placebo.

Here's the study Dr. Fuhrman is talking about. From the Archives of Internal Medicine:

Background: Ecological and observational studies suggest that low vitamin D status could be associated with higher mortality from life-threatening conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus that account for 60% to 70% of total mortality in high-income countries. We examined the risk of dying from any cause in subjects who participated in randomized trials testing the impact of vitamin D supplementation (ergocalciferol [vitamin D2] or cholecalciferol [vitamin D3]) on any health condition.

Methods: The literature up to November 2006 was searched without language restriction using the following databases: PubMed, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.

Results: We identified 18 independent randomized controlled trials, including 57 311 participants. A total of 4777 deaths from any cause occurred during a trial size–adjusted mean of 5.7 years. Daily doses of vitamin D supplements varied from 300 to 2000 IU. The trial size–adjusted mean daily vitamin D dose was 528 IU. In 9 trials, there was a 1.4- to 5.2-fold difference in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D between the intervention and control groups. The summary relative risk for mortality from any cause was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.99). There was neither indication for heterogeneity nor indication for publication biases. The summary relative risk did not change according to the addition of calcium supplements in the intervention.

Conclusions: Intake of ordinary doses of vitamin D supplements seems to be associated with decreases in total mortality rates. The relationship between baseline vitamin D status, dose of vitamin D supplements, and total mortality rates remains to be investigated. Population-based, placebo-controlled randomized trials with total mortality as the main end point should be organized for confirming these findings.

So Llouise, does that answer your questions? And Llouise, keep the comments coming. You rock!

Most nutritarians only eat meat once a week or less, so, are they getting enough iron? Yup, they certainly are. Veggies are loaded with iron. Take a look at this:

Dietary iron comes in two forms. One is in red meat, poultry, seafood and other animal products. Known as heme iron, it's absorbed more efficiently and more easily than the iron found in plants, from dried beans to spinach.

So what can you do?

Eat cereal fortified with iron. One cup of instant fortified oatmeal has 10 milligrams of iron -- about 60 percent of the daily value. Eat a half-grapefruit or sip a half-cup of orange juice with it, since Vitamin C helps boost absorption of iron.

If you are a pesce vegetarian -- that is, you eat some seafood -- then you've got a lot of options, including oysters and clams. Just six oysters provide more iron than three ounces of chuck steak. And six ounces of clams -- about three-quarters of a cup -- have more iron than three ounces of beef tenderloin.

And if you don't eat seafood, then load up on dried beans and greens. There are delicious ways to do this. One cup of lentils packs 35 percent of the daily value of iron. Kidney beans are also a rich source of iron.

Okay, here is an interesting tidbit about iron, too much can actually be problematic. Dr. Fuhrman explains:

Certain minerals are toxic and if consumed daily with even as little as 5 to 10 times the recommended daily allowances (which is found in some supplements) can have detrimental effects. These minerals with a narrow therapeutic range are primarily chromium, selenium and iron.

This worrying about iron if you don’t eat meat, reminds me of the mindless blathering about protein. More from Dr. Fuhrman:

There is protein in all foods, ESPECIALLY VEGETABLES, not just in animal products. The fact is, protein deficiency is not a concern for anyone in the developed world. It is almost impossible to consume too little protein, no matter what you eat unless your diet is significantly deficient in overall calories. If it is, you’ll deficient in other nutrients as well.

Take me for example. The only animal I eat is some fish a few times a month and here are my protein and iron levels:

Iron: 73
(reference range; 45-175 mcg/dL)

Protein: 7.5
(reference range; 6.2-8.3 g/dL)

Oh! And I bench-press more than my bodyweight, so yeah, I’m not too worried about protein and iron. What do you think?

Health-blogging has taught me a lot of things, most notably—misinformation is everywhere! Like this:

Saturated fat is the element of the modern diet that shows the most powerful association in these medical research studies with high cholesterol and premature death from heart attacks.1

White flour and other refined grains such as sweetened breakfast cereals, soft drinks, other sweets, and even fruit juices are weight-promoting and not only lead to diabetes, but can raise triglycerides and cholesterol levels, increasing heart attack risk.

Tell you what, ignore both those shaky foundations and get hip to a REAL food pyramid. Check it out:

Eight glasses of water a day, good for you or just an urban legend? Discover Magazine investigates:

Balderdash, says a new review of the scientific literature by kidney gurus Dan Negoianu and Stanley Goldfarb from the University of Pennsylvania. They found that for the average, healthy individual, there is no evidence that increased water intake benefits organ functioning, appetite, headaches, skin tone, or substance clearance from the kidneys—and the origin of 8×8 is a mystery. The human body didn’t evolve a chronic thirst—it evolved a great capacity for maintaining proper water balance in the face of variable intake.

These findings support an earlier study by Heinz Valtin from Dartmouth, which found no support for 8×8, and debunked a few other myths. He found that dark urine does not mean dehydration, caffeinated beverages “count” as fluid intake, thirst doesn’t mean “it’s too late,” water doesn’t prevent (or help) constipation, cancer, or heart disease.

Dr. Fuhrman actually emailed me this one, here’s what he had to say about all the water hype. Check it out:

If you need all that water, you must be eating an unhealthy diet. A healthy diet, high in fruits and vegetables and low in salt is full of water already.

And you won’t be peeing as much either—yippee!

“It is meaningless to compare foods by weight or portion size,” explains Dr. Fuhrman. Don’t believe it? Give this experiment a try:

Take one teaspoon of melted butter, which gets 100 percent of its calories from fat. If I take that teaspoon of butter and mix it in a glass of hot water, I can now say that it is 98 percent fat-free, by weight. One hundred percent of its calories are still from fat. It didn’t matter how much water or weight was added, did it?

I mean, look how silly these are. From The Los Angeles Times:

Portion-control plates are intended to do just what their name says: get portion sizes under control. Most experts agree that portions have run amok.

Starting in the 1970s, portions in all food categories except bread have been growing, according to a 2002 study conducted at New York University. That includes portions served in restaurants, packaged items sold in grocery stores and portion sizes in cookbook recipes.

Some examples: Twenty years ago, an average-sized bagel was 3 inches in diameter and had 140 calories, according to figures from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Now it's 6 inches across and packs about 350 calories. Twenty years ago, a cheeseburger, order of fries and a soda had 630 calories, fewer than half as many calories as the same 1,450-calorie meal, on average, today, according to the institute.

"People know portions are big, but they have no idea how big, and how much bigger they are than what we should eat," says Lisa Young, adjunct professor of nutrition at New York University.

Here’s my portion control. Please, may I have a GIANT portion of fruits and vegetables!

The most common question people are asked when they switch to a nutrient-rich diet is, “Where do you get your protein/” In a diet that is chock-full of vegetables and fruits, and short on animal products, it might seem like a reasonable question. But it isn’t.

It is an old myth that a diet needs to contain lots of animal products to provide enough protein and be nutritionally sound. Adding to the confusion are diet books and magazine articles that promulgate another myth—that eating more protein is weight-loss favorable and eating carbohydrates is weight-loss unfavorable. Another common misconception is the notion that you need to maintain a fixed ratio (percentage) of fat, carbohydrate, and protein. There also are plenty of self-appointed experts ready to tell you that the ideal diet should be based on your heritage, skin tone, eye color, blood type, or the spelling of your mother’s maiden name. Some recommend high-protein, others low-protein; some recommend very low-fat diets; others recommend much higher levels of fat. But regulating the macronutrient content of a diet is not the critical factor you should be concerned with, and here’s why.

If you are overweight, you consumed more calories than you have utilized. Micromanaging the percent of fat, protein, or carbohydrate isn’t going to change the amount of calories very much. You need to consume fewer calories. Therefore, almost all overweight individuals need to consume less of all the macronutrients—less protein, less fat, and less carbohydrate. These are the source of all calories. Don’t worry about not consuming enough of these. Unless you are anorexic, it is very rare to find an American who is deficient in fat, protein, or carbohydrates.

There is protein in all foods, ESPECIALLY VEGETABLES, not just in animal products. The fact is, protein deficiency is not a concern for anyone in the developed world. It is almost impossible to consume too little protein, no matter what you eat unless your diet is significantly deficient in overall calories. If it is, you’ll deficient in other nutrients as well.

It is a big mistake to put emphasis on trying to get enough of something (protein) you are undoubtedly getting too much of it in the first place. Hundreds of studies show that as protein consumption goes up, so does the incidence of chronic diseases. Is protein bad for us? No, incidence of chronic diseases goes up when you increase the consumption of carbohydrates and fat, too.1 Most Americans simply don’t need to increase eating any macronutrients. Increasing the consumption of protein (or fat or carbohydrates) is good if you need more calories because you are anorexic or are chronically malnourished, like a starving person in a troubled area of the world. But it is bad if you are already getting too much. If any of these nutrients exceed our basic requirements, the excess is harmful. Americans already get too much protein, and it iss hurting us.2

The problem is that people in modern societies like the United States eat diets that are deficient in micronutrients.

The New York Times investigates the claim that GRAPEFRUITS can INCREASE breast cancer risk—what the heck? More from Anahad O’Connor:

The British Journal of Cancer that found an increased risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women who ate large amounts of grapefruit. In the group of women, more than 46,000 over all, those who ate about a half a grapefruit every other day had a 30 percent higher risk of breast cancer than those who ate none, even after other risk factors were taken into account…

…That analysis used data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which followed more than 77,000 women 30 to 55 over many years. The scientists looked at intake of both grapefruit and grapefruit juice and found no rise in breast cancer risk, either among women over all or among postmenopausal women.

I don’t know, but I have a hard time believing any fruit or vegetable causes cancer—what about you?

UPDATE: Here's what Dr. Fuhrman had to say:

This is not new. I have been advising women on DrFuhrman.com not to consume too many grapefruits, not more than 2 weekly for the last year or so just to play it safe. The issue is a compound in grapefruit that interferes with the breakdown of estrogen. Whereas green vegetables aid in the breakdown of estrogen for easy excretion of excess by the body.

Yeah, DiseaseProof is no fan of the low-carb fad. Most people know it’s just a big money-making scam. Now, fear of carbs is one of the nutrition myths Maggie Vink of That’sFit decided to debunk. Take a look:

Eating carbohydrates causes weight gain. MYTH! The anti-carb crusade has really gotten out of control. Calories make you gain weight. Carbs are actually your body's preferred choice of fuel. The trick is to choose healthful complex carbs such as fruits, veggies, and whole grains. Simple, refined carbs like candy offer little to no nutrition and are just empty calories.

Quite frankly, it’s unnatural to avoid carbs. “Our bodies need carbohydrates more than any other substance. Our muscle cells and brains are designed to run on carbohydrates,” explains Dr. Fuhrman. Here’s more:

When you eat high-carbohydrate foods, such as fresh fruits and beans, you eat more food and still keep your caloric intake relatively low. The high fiber content of (unrefined) carbohydrate-rich food is another crucial reason you will feel more satisfied and not crave more food when you make unrefined carbohydrates the main source of calories in your diet. Carbohydrate-rich foods, when consumed in their natural state, are low in calories and high in fiber compared with fatty foods, processed foods, or animal products.

The real culprits are refined carbohydrates and animal products—i.e. meat, fat, and dairy—are not saviors. Of course, you’re really goofing up if you find yourself consuming both of these. Dr. Fuhrman talks about it:

The combination of fat and refined carbohydrates has an extremely powerful effect on driving the signals that promote fat accumulation on the body. Refined foods cause a swift and excessive rise in blood sugar, which in turn triggers insulin surges to drive the sugar out of the blood and into our cells. Unfortunately, insulin also promotes the storage of fat on the body and encourages your fat cells to swell.

And yes, I feel like a bully picking on the low-carb nonsense—but it’s just so darn easy!

Do you remember when dairy consumption was dumped for weight-loss? Kim Severson of The New York Times reported:

The assertion that there is a link between weight loss and dairy consumption has long been contested by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine [PCRM], an advocacy and research group that promotes a diet free of animal products.

The group petitioned the F.T.C. in 2005 to argue that the advertisements were misleading. In a May 3 letter to the group, Lydia Parnes, director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said Agriculture Department representatives and milk producers and processors had agreed to change the advertisements and related marketing materials “until further research provides stronger, more conclusive evidence of an association between dairy consumption and weight loss.”

As of Thursday, the National Dairy Council still had a section of its Web site devoted to the weight-loss claim. But the site, along with some of the advertisements, will be changed, said Greg Miller, who is executive vice president of the council and has a doctorate in nutrition.

According to Dr. Fuhrman dairy, is NOT good for weight-loss and not exactly health-promoting either. More from Dr. Fuhrman:

Fifty years of heavy advertising by an economically powerful industry has shaped the public's perception, illustrating the power of one-sided advertising, but the reality and true health effects is a different story. Besides the link between high-saturated-fat foods (dairy fat) and cancer, there is a body of scientific literature linking the consumption of cow's milk to many other diseases.

But some people still insist that cow juice is a good idea. Check it out from Chris Sparling of That’sFit:

Unless you've taken a dietary (or even ideological) stance against dairy, you'd do well to include it into your diet every day. Worried that it may get in the way of your efforts at weight loss? No need to fear, say researchers from Harvard Medical School. No need at all, in fact.

Researchers found that people who consumed three servings of dairy per day (providing them with around 1,200mg of calcium) were 60 percent less likely to be overweight. This is because calcium-rich foods actually burn many calories during their digestion.

More junk science in action, in fact the study is from 2005; Study backs dairy weight loss claims. How current? More Dr. Fuhrman on dairy:

Using weight instead of calories in nutrient-analysis tables has evolved into a ploy to hide how nutritionally unsound many foods are. The role of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was originally to promote the products of the animal agriculture industry.1 Over fifty years ago, the USDA began promoting the so-called four basic food groups, with meat and dairy products in the number one and two spots on the list. Financed by the meat and dairy industry and backed by nutritional scientists on the payroll of the meat and dairy industry, this promotion ignored science.2

I think milk and dairy products are just another food that Americans are chronically addicted too—WAKE UP—and get over it.

A new study has determined that fad diets like Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and the Zone produced only modest weight-loss with limited sustainability. Ian Ayres of the Freakonomics blog has more:

A randomized control year-long study looked at the impact of four different diets (Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets) on a group of overweight and obese subjects who were looking to lose weight. The diets produced only “modest” average weight loss of about 6.4 lbs (2.3 percent of original body weight) and found no statistically significant difference in weight loss for the four different diets.

People do a pretty good job of losing weight for about half a year, and then their weight tends to drift back toward their pre-diet number. The difficulty of sustaining weight loss can be seen in this figure taken from a 2-year randomized study of the Weight Watchers program:

All those second rate diets fail, because without addressing adequate micronutrient density, people crave more food than their body requires for good health.

In spite of the more than $110 million consumers spend every day on diets and “reducing” programs (more than $40 billion per year), Americans are the most obese people in history. To be considered obese, more than one-third of a person’s body must be made up of fat. A whopping 34 percent of all Americans are obese, and the problem is getting worse, not better.

Unfortunately, most weight-loss plans either don’t work or offer only minor, usually temporary, benefits. There are plenty of “rules and counting” diets, diet drugs, high-protein programs, canned shakes, and other fads that might enable you to lose some weight for a period of time. The problem is that you can’t stay on these programs forever.

Here’s my UNEXPERT opinion. Ditch the “diet” and change your lifestyle. Hey, it worked for me—Healthy, with a Vengeance!

I’m not a sports drink guy, so all this hype surrounding vitamin waters is lost on me. The CBS Early Show explains why these designer waters come with a price. Check it out:

Registered dietician Keri Glassman cautioned Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith Friday that, "You see all these waters out there loaded with vitamins and minerals. The problem is, they're also loaded with lots of sugar. A lot of these bottles of water have about 150 calories. We're over-consuming calories as a nation…

…As for the vitamins in the designer waters, many aren't water-soluble, Glassman points out, meaning the body won't retain them, anyhow. And it's not worth the added calories just to get the ones the body does retain.

Now, since we’re talking about sports drinks. Here’s my latest gripe, the brainlessness that is protein water. These "fitness experts" are rambling about it:

The average American consumes about fifty percent more protein than the recommended daily amount. Yet we often see—in addition to misinformed athletes, fitness enthusiasts, and bodybuilders—businessmen and women, homemakers, and those seeking to lose weight turning to protein powders, drinks, and nutritional bars in their quest for even more protein.

It is true that resistance training and endurance workouts can break down muscle protein and increase our need for protein to fuel repair and growth. But the increased need of protein is proportional to the increased need for calories burned with the exercise. As your appetite increases, you increase your caloric intake accordingly, and your protein intake increases proportionally. If you meet those increased caloric demands from heavy exercise with an ordinary assortment of natural plant foods—vegetables, whole grains, beans, and nuts, which contain more than 50 grams of protein per 1000 calories—you will get the precise amount of extra protein you need.

The worst is watching people finish up a grueling run and then stop to choke down some goopy gritty brownish mixture—YUCK!

Atkins' devotee Gary Taubes has been getting a lot of press lately. His message, “Low-carb diets are good.” Yeah, he’s nuts. Fad diets—like low-carb—are dangerous. Real quick, Dr. Fuhrman explains why:

High-fat diets are unquestionably associated with obesity, and eating meat actually correlates with weight gain, not weight loss, unless you radically cut carbs from your diet to maintain chronic ketosis.1 Researchers from the American Cancer Society followed 79,236 individuals over ten years and found that those ate meat more than three times per week were much more likely to gain weight as the years went by than those who tended to avoid meat.2 The more vegetables the participants ate, the more resistant they were to weight gain.

Now, recently Taubes gave a lecture at the Stevens Institute of Technology and fittingly, a blog called Hoboken411 blogged about it. Here’s a snippet:

Taubes strongly explains his principles about the importance of a low-carb lifestyle. He goes into the history of how we became fat, and exactly why most current “diets” you see littering the shelves of your local bookstore are worthless.

The lecture is a bit technical at times, but it is very informative. He cites many historical references and shows how the obesity trend has worsened.

Now I’ve always been a firm believer in “burning more than you consume” as the rule of thumb for weight loss (whether I can put my words into action is another story.) However, his presentation and theories really made me think that there’s more to this than meets the eye. Maybe all the bread I love to consume isn’t such a great idea.

Indeed, all that bread is a bad, but Taubes assertion that low-carb ushers in superior health, is ludicrous. I mean just look at him. He’s looking a little tubby around the middle. My comment buddy Honcho was the first to point this out. Take a look:

Seriously would you want this Taubes’ guys figure?

Please…the guy has a paunch and a double chin.

A picture is worth a thousand words!

Honcho’s right. A picture IS worth a thousand words. Here’s a picture of the doughy Gary Taubes speaking at Stevens. Proceed carefully:

• The New York Times: Diet and Fat
• Cholesterol: Well Blog Encounters a Loon
• TierneyLab: Nutrition Science and Gary Taubes
• The Physician and The Student
• How a High-Protein Diet Works
• Increased Risk of Cancer Associated with The Atkins Diet
• Short and Long-Term Dangers of High-Fat Diets
• What Happens When You Tell The Truth About Atkins

A lot of food producers now claim their products are “trans-fat free,” but health experts are still urging consumers to be leery of those nutrition facts. Amy Norton of Reuters explains:

In a sampling of packaged foods at a local Wal-Mart, researchers at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that a majority of margarines and butters, cookies, cakes and snack foods had gone trans fat free.

However, a number of products still had substantial amounts of the fat, the researchers report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

For example, three of 40 brands of chips, crackers and popcorn contained at least 3 grams of trans fat per serving, according to the products' labels.

So, despite the food industry's move toward cutting trans fat, consumers still need to check labels, according to the researchers, led by graduate student Matthew J. Albers.

Trans fat has become notorious because it not only raises "bad" LDL cholesterol, but also lowers heart-protective HDL cholesterol. The main source of trans fat in the diet is the partially hydrogenated oil used in many commercially prepared baked and fried foods -- including cookies, crackers, chips, breads and french fries.

These shyster tactics are pretty typical, but don’t take my word for it—again, I’m just a dopey blogger—Dr. Fuhrman’s friend Jeff Novick, MS, RD explains. Watch and learn:

Honestly, I hate using the word “carbs.” It’s a such a fad word, for fad diets, but carbs are in the news and this report caught my eye. One nutritionist claims carbs can actually help promote weight-loss. Check out this video from ABC News:

When you eat high-carbohydrate foods, such as fresh fruits and beans, you eat more food and still keep your caloric intake relatively low. The high fiber content of (unrefined) carbohydrate-rich food is another crucial reason you will feel more satisfied and not crave more food when you make unrefined carbohydrates the main source of calories in your diet.

Don't fear eating foods rich in carbohydrates and don't be afraid of eating fruit because it contains sugar. Even the plant foods that are high in carbohydrate contain sufficient fiber and nutrients and are low enough in calories to be considered nutritious. As long as they are unrefined, they should not be excluded from your diet. In fact, it is impossible to glean all the nutrients needed for optimal health if your diet does no contain lots of carbohydrate-rich food.

Clearly, the taboo against carbohydrates is ill-informed. Refined junk—like white rice, bread, and sugar—are the “carbs” you want to avoid, but wholesome fiber-full foods like fruits and vegetables are the key to a healthy diet. More from Dr. Fuhrman’s Food Scoring Guide:

I urge you to start eating a diet that contains more high-nutrient plant foods today. Eat fewer animal products and fewer processed foods, and replace these calories with more fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and beans. At minimum, I recommend that you cut back on animal-product consumption from servings a day to one serving a day. Better yet, when you use animal products, add them to a dish in small amounts like condiments so that the total amount you consume each week will be even less. Eat vegetarian dinners frequently.

Make this dietary transition an exciting adventure where you learn new great-tasting recipes with high-nutrient plant foods. Design a food plan that uses large quantities of the most powerful anticancer, disease-fighting foods on the planet, make it taste, and then test it to see what kinds of results you get. I can tell you now that the results will astound you!

So, when you hear fad-terms like carbs, zone-diet, and south beach, just ignore them and focus on natural things like fruit, vegetables, beans, nuts, and seeds—phooey to the hype!

Here’s a good question, “Are those “whole-wheat” bagels really made from whole grain?” The answer might surprise you—but probably not—Dr. Fuhrman explains:

No. In most cases, it is primarily white flour. It is hard to tell sometimes. Ninety-nine percent of pastas, breads, cookies, pretzels, and other grain products are made from white flour.

It gets worse. That hearty brown color might not be from grain at all. Let’s just say it has a “caramel” complexion. More from Dr. Fuhrman:

Sometimes a little whole wheat or caramel color is added and the product is called whole wheat to make you think it is the real thing. It isn’t. Most brown bread is merely white bread with a fake tan.

Unreal! You talk about false advertising. These over-marketed “healthier” breads are nothing more than standard American junk food. Dr. Fuhrman again:

Wheat grown on American soil is not a nutrient-dense food to begin with, but then the food manufacturers remove the most valuable part of the food and then add bleach, preservatives, salt, sugar, and food coloring to make breads, breakfast cereals, and other convenience foods.

Now, Dr. Fuhrman isn’t the only wary of faux-wheat bread. On The CBS Saturday Early Show, Dr. Mallika Marshall, shares her thoughts on most “wheat” breads:

White bread, she continues, isn't the best choice because that means they took out the good stuff: They just left the starchy part of the grain, then they threw back in a couple B-vitamins and some iron. Also, there's little or no fiber, which you need for good digestive health, and for helping ward off heart disease and some cancers.

Still, Marshall cautions, don't just "go brown" with your bread: Not all brown breads are created equal.

Breads that look brown aren't necessarily good for you. It may simply have caramel coloring. What you want to see on the label is the term "whole wheat" or "whole grain," and you want that to be the first or second ingredient on the list. Other words to look out for are "whole mill," "whole barley," or "whole oats."

I once heard Dr. Fuhrman say, “Don’t eat a bread-based diet.” I think that pretty much sums up what you should do here—don’t you agree?

And that’s the truth! If you’re looking to get healthy, lose weight, and prevent and reverse disease, DON’T even consider “low-carb” or high-protein diets. Here’s why in a nutshell. Dr. Fuhrman explains:

Americans already eat approximately 40 percent of their calories from animal products; we have seen a tragic skyrocketing in cancer and heart-disease rates in the past fifty years as a result of such nutritional extravagance.1 You can lose some weight on the low-carb diet, but you run the risk of losing your health at the same time.

Now, most health experts agree—even Dr. Fuhrman—that eating a lot of carbs is a bad idea, but Dr. Fuhrman’s criticisms focus on the refined and process carbohydrates. Here’s why he thinks this stuff is bad news:

Diets containing refined grains and refined sweets are consistently linked to stomach and colon cancer, and at least twelve breast cancer studies connect low-fiber diets with increased risks.2 Eating a diet that contains a significant quantity of sugar and refined flour does not just cause weight gain, it also leads to an earlier death.

Once you kick the refined junk to the curb, you’re left with the good stuff—the healthy carbs! In fact, these carbohydrates are important brain and muscle fuel. Let’s check back with Dr. Fuhrman:

Our bodies need carbohydrates more than any other substance. Our muscle cells and brains are designed to run on carbohydrates. Carbohydrate-rich foods, when consumed in their natural state, are low in calories and high in fiber compared with fatty foods, processed foods, or animal products.

You can find these healthy carbs in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and legumes, and, as Dr. Fuhrman points out. Plant foods likes these are the benchmark of healthy living. Here Dr. Fuhrman talks about the power of plants:

Increasing your consumption of high-nutrient fruits and vegetables is the key to disease resistance, disease reversal, and a long, healthy life. The potential reduction in disease rates shows no threshold effect in the scientific studies. That means that as high-nutrient vegetables and high-nutrient fruits increase as a major portion of caloric intake, disease rates fall in a dose-dependent manner—the more the diet is comprised of these foods, the better your health will be.3

So, what’s wrong with “low-carb” diets—A LOT—Atkins-like diets dupe people into believing that increased consumption of animal products and decreased consumption of plant foods is healthy—WRONG! Dr. Fuhrman elaborates:

It is an interesting phenomenon to me low-carb dieters search to find small pearls of dissent in the scientific literature to support their views as they ignore thousands of well-performed studies, I wonder why they are so attached to their diets or views that they can’t accept the preponderance of evidence and modify their stance.

And when you exam the facts, you’ll quickly realize the profound link between eating too much animal products and saturated fat and diseases; like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Again, Dr. Fuhrman explains:

Today, the average American consumes 100-120 grams of protein per day, mostly in the form of animal products. This high level of animal product consumption has been linked to not just heart disease and strokes, but to higher rates of cancer, as well4…

…High-protein, carbohydrate-restricted diets also are heart unfriendly. One comprehensive study on the Atkins’ approach showed that after one year on the diet, blood flow to the heart diminished by an average of 40 percent and inflammatory markers that predict heart attacks increased.5 The low levels of plant fiber, phytochemicals, and antioxidant nutrients on these unbalanced, low produce diets expose the diabetic patient to additional risks.

Okay, by now we’ve worked up a good information-base—low-carb bad, veggies good—so let’s check out this study appearing in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It suggest that low-carb is better than low-fat for preventing diabetes. Amanda Gardner of HealthDay News is on it:

"One study is never enough to change a recommendation, but this study is interesting in that it shows that a low-fat diet is no better than a low-carbohydrate diet in preventing type 2 diabetes," said Thomas Halton, lead author of a study in the current issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. "The one diet that did seem to show a protective effect was a vegetable-based, low-carb diet which consisted of higher amounts of vegetable fat and vegetable protein, and lower amounts of carbohydrate."

The findings, Halton added, were a bit surprising in that most doctors and nutritionists recommend a low-fat diet to prevent type 2 diabetes. "This study showed that a low-fat diet didn't really prevent type 2 diabetes in our cohort when compared to a low-carb diet. I was also surprised that total carbohydrate consumption was associated with type 2 diabetes, and that the relative risk for the glycemic load was so high."

Now, despite the dirty term “low-carb” the study is looking surprisingly good, but just to be safe, let’s look at the actual study, pay very close attention to the conclusion. From The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

Background: Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets remain popular; however, the long-term effects of these diets are not known.

Objective: The objective was to examine the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes

Design: We prospectively examined the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score (based on percentage of energy as carbohydrate, fat, and protein) and risk of diabetes among 85 059 women in the Nurses' Health Study.

Conclusion: These data suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in fat and protein do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in women. In fact, diets rich in vegetable sources of fat and protein may modestly reduce the risk of diabetes.

Vegetable fat and vegetable protein—not the high animal fat fallacy perpetuated by Atkins and his ilk. In fact, when you strictly limit all the meat, dairy, and oil in the typical Atkins menu and upgrade the fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and legumes, you’re left with a diet naturally free of refined carbohydrates and packed with nature’s best foods! One more quote from Dr. Fuhrman:

Knowing that the right micronutrients in the right proportions are easily available to us in whole, natural foods is wonderful. But we no longer get our foods in natural form from the wild. Most of the food we eat is concocted in factories. These processed foods do not contain the level and diversity of the vitamins and minerals we get in natural foods. For example, the fruits and vegetables that primates eat in the wild are loaded with micronutrients, giving these primates a diet far richer in many essential vitamins and minerals than the diets consumed by any humans in the modern world.

Clearly these primates are eating the right kind of low-fat diet and NOT monkeying with dangerous high-protein diets. For more on this topic, be sure to check out Standard American Low-Fat—JUNK—Diet.

New research claims some people are born wired to be obese. Jeffrey Perkel of HealthDay News reports:

The brain circuitry that controls appetite might be wired differently in some people, and that could predispose them to obesity, California researchers suggest.

The study was conducted in rats, not humans, and yet it could ultimately lead to novel obesity treatments, said Philip Smith, director of the Office of Obesity Research at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

"It is not just about drugs that modify short-term appetite," he said, "there may be drugs that stimulate development of the appropriate neural pathways. So, it is an exciting, but very early, time in this field."

The study was published in the February issue of Cell Metabolism.

Don’t let your genetics stop you from living healthfully. Here’s a great quote from Dr. Fuhrman. Have a look:

We all have genetic weaknesses, but those weaknesses never get a chance to express themselves until we abuse our body with many, many years of mistreatment. Never forget, 99 percent of your genes are programmed to keep you healthy. The problem is that we never let them do their job.

Hey, my genetics mean I should be an ox-minded hot-tempered Italian guy, but, I’m really as cuddly as a teddy bear—wink-wink.

I found this great quote about vegetable protein over at Jugalbandi—a site powdered by plant protein—take a look:

All of these proteins can be obtained from plant based sources. The body is agnostic to the source, as long as the sufficiency and balance requirements of amino acids (the building blocks of protein) are met.

Vegetable protein is the real deal. “Complete protein” is just a myth. Dr. Fuhrman’s buddy Jeff Novick, MS, RD has explained it countless times:

Unfortunately, the “incomplete protein” myth seems unwilling to die. In an October 2001 article in the medical journal Circulation on the hazards of high-protein diets, the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association wrote, “Although plant proteins form a large part of the human diet, most are deficient in one or more essential amino acids and are therefore regarded as incomplete proteins.”1 Oops!

Medical doctor and writer John McDougall wrote to the editor pointing out the mistake. But in a stunning example of avoiding science for convenience, instead of acknowledging their mistake, Barbara Howard, Ph.D., head of the Nutrition Committee, replied on June 25, 2002 to Dr. McDougall’s letter and stated (without a single scientific reference) that the committee was right and “most (plant foods) are deficient in one or more essential amino acids.” Clearly, the committee did not want to be confused by the facts.

Dr. Fuhrman knows there are plenty of protein-building amino acids in vegetables. He talks about it in the new Food Scoring Guide. Here’s a bit:

Amino acids are the building blocks that make proteins. All vegetables and grains contain all eight of the essential amino acids (as well as the twelve other non-essential). While some vegetables have higher or lower proportion of certain amino acids than others, when eaten in amounts to satisfy your caloric needs, a sufficient amount of all essential amino acids is provided. Today’s nutritional science has deemphasized the importance of protein because we now know that it is easy to get enough, and that too much is not good.

Hey, just think. Rhinosauruses and Gorillas, big beefy animals, both, mainly eat plants—a lot of plants!

This is certainly a unique take on dieting. Blackmail yourself. “Dear self, if I don’t lose weight, I will donate money to the American Nazi Party or my car to Ku Klux Klan.” You’ve go see it, to believe it. Bill Toland of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has more:

Dr. Bear wrote the farcical "Blackmail Diet" more than two decades ago -- if you want to shed those stubborn pounds, sign a legally binding contract mandating a certain weight loss. And if you don't satisfy the contract's requirements, you must fork over, say, $5,000 to the American Nazi Party, which happens to be the precise deal Dr. Bear struck with himself.

Wouldn't ya know it? Those 70 pounds melted right off. (Although one poor reader, having failed to lose the weight, reported that he'd be donating his car to the Ku Klux Klan.)

"We have known this since the earliest times," he said when contacted in his California home. "The bigger the incentive, either positive or negative, the more likely it is to work." Behavioral scientists know it. Prophets in the Bible knew it -- screw up, and you'll go to hell. The penalties don't get much bigger than that.

Dr. Bear's creepy vision has arrived, and not just in the form of "The Biggest Loser," NBC's grotesque of a hit, featuring obese men and women trying to get in shape for a cash prize. Clinical studies and economists are more or less on his side. In recent months, health insurers, city mayors, British politicians and university professors have all come up with their own versions of plans that dangle dollar bills in front of clients and customers, hoping the carrot -- or a stiff penalty -- will be enough incentive to shape up.

I don’t like this one bit. Here’s why. Just look at all the dollars Americans spend on weight-loss, I don’t want either one of these despicable “organizations” getting a single dime. From Dr. Fuhrman’s book Eat to Live:

In spite of the more than $110 million consumers spend every day on diets and “reducing” programs (more than $40 billion per year), Americans are the most obese people in history. To be considered obese, more than one-third of a person’s body must be made up of fat. A whopping 34 percent of all Americans are obese, and the problem is getting worse, not better.

Here’s an idea, don’t blackmail yourself—love yourself! In my opinion—and mind you, I’m just a smart-aleck—I think this is a disgusting premise.

Kudos to