Tag: Wholefood Whole Food Plant Based Plant-Based Diet Nutrition

Surely Coconut Oil’s better than Butter?!

I had a recent email asking me whether there really was any problem with swapping nasty old butter for cholesterol-lowering coconut butter. Well, let’s see, shall we?

Saturated Fat Content

What’s the problem with saturated fat?

Let’s see what various authorities think…

NHS

“Eating a lot of saturated fat can increase the levels of cholesterol in your blood. Having high cholesterol can increase your risk of heart disease, which includes heart attack and narrowed arteries (atherosclerosis).”

Heart UK (The Cholesterol Charity)

“HEART UK advises people who want to lower their blood cholesterol to avoid using coconut oil in cooking and certainly not use it as a dietary supplement. Creamed and desiccated coconut contain around 60-70% coconut fat should also only be consumed occasionally or in small amounts as part of an overall healthy diet….The Cholesterol Charity wishes to correct the misleading claims being made in the press…claiming coconut oil helps lower blood cholesterol and have even suggested taking coconut oil as a dietary supplement. Coconut oil contains about 85% saturated fatty acids mainly as lauric and myristic acid which potently raise both total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol more than other fatty acids (1,2,3,4).”

Dr Michael Greger

“Saturated fat is considered harmful to health. Studies have shown that high saturated fat intake may raise the risk of:

Dr Greger goes on to ask

“…coconut oil. Harmful? Harmless? Or, helpful? In terms of what it does to our cholesterol, it is as harmful as butter.”

PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine)

“According to the American Heart Association, consuming saturated fat raises cholesterol levels in your blood, increasing risk for cardiovascular problems and Alzheimer’s disease. Setting aside saturated fat can also decrease your risk for obesity, diabetes, and cancer.”

Dr Dean Ornish

“…replacing dietary saturated fats with ‘good carbs’ such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

So, in light of the foregoing, does this mean I consider saturated fat and especially coconut oil/butter to be our number one public enemy?

No, not at all.

Focusing on any individual food “fragment”, whether it be a vitamin, mineral or an extracted oil from olives or organic Free Trade coconut butter, is a reductionist approach to nutrition that, in my opinion, is simply misguided. Concentrating on the individual harms or benefits of any individual part of our diet at the expense of stepping back and looking at diet as a whole is the reason that we have drifted into the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases.

Of course, if someone held my arm up my back and forced me to decide whether I would recommend eating coconut butter or an animal butter, I would have to say do NOT eat the animal product; but this would be like forcing me to decide whether I would recommend smoking cigars or smoking pipes! Without any doubt, I would say that it is better to smoke neither.

I believe exactly the same when talking about deciding between animal fats/oils and plant fats/oils – eat neither.

Why would I recommend anything to my clients, family or friends other than the diet that has repeatedly been shown to be the optimal diet for human health and longevity – a whole food plant-based diet.

And the emphasis here in on the word “whole”. The whole plant. Not the oil. The human body understands what a whole food is – it has been surviving and evolving on whole plant foods for millions of years. The body simply does not understand what concentrated and isolated components of plants are, let alone what to do with isolated animal or commercially altered and processed components. The body is used to the whole food (macronutrients, micronutrients and fibre) so that it can digest and absorb what it requires and safely excrete toxins and surplus nutrients as it sees fit.

Shock the system with isolated and concentrated saturated fat, or pretty much any other fragment of food, and the body cannot maintain homeostasis without a cost being paid right down at the cellular level – from the endothelial cells lining blood vessels to adipocytes bulking up that adipose fat around your waist (and your heart!)

Dr. Ostfeld

“People eat food. Studies focusing on the health impact of differing amounts of saturated fat intake often fail to look at what the subjects are actually eating. Many foods that are low in saturated fat are still unhealthy. Therefore, what you eat instead of foods high in saturated fat is also critical…Not surprisingly, when you replace an unhealthy diet with an unhealthy diet, they both look about the same…if you replace saturated fat with plant-based foods, people do better.”

Replacing unhealthy animal foods with unhealthy plant foods might have some benefits, but you just have to look at an overweight and diabetic vegetarian or vegan to know that jumping out of the BBQ into a deep-fried tofu frying pan is no solution if you want optimal health.

Professor T Colin Campbell

“…animal-based protein is more hazardous than lipids (cholesterol and fatty acids)…Unsaturated fats (PUFAs) are susceptible to tissue damaging oxidation, and saturated fat is not…[which] cause aging and increases cardiovascular disease and cancer…plant oils experimentally promote cancer much more than does saturated fats—that’s right. This is an experimental observation that is at least 30-40 years old…this mainly refers to added oils-isolated from plant sources. It does not refer to the oil within those plant-based foods because plants contain lots of antioxidants to keep the tissue damaging effects of ROS [reactive oxygen species] under control. In my opinion, this is a primary reason for avoiding consumption of added oils. Another reason for avoiding these oils is their contribution to total calorie intake which displaces, in effect, the consumption of calorie-containing whole, plant-based foods.”

So, in summary, my considered opinion is that if a person is really concerned about what food they put in their bodies – if they really want to be healthy and do all they can to weigh the balance in favour of a long and useful life – then forget about debating which food fragment is better than another, just transition to the only diet that has been proven to reverse heart disease and many other chronic diseases – one that is based exclusively on whole food plants.

I will leave the final word on added oil (ANY oils, including coconut oil or coconut butter) to Dr Esselstyn:

References

1. Sundram K, Hayes KC, Siru OH (1994) Dietary Palmitic Acid Results in Lower Serum Cholesterol Than Does a Lauric-Myristic Acid Combination in Normolipemic Humans. Am J Clin Nutr 59, 841-846.
2. Temme EHM, Mensink RP, Hornstra G (1996) Comparison of the effects of diets enriched with lauric, palmitic or oleic acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins in healthy men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 1996; 63: 897-903.
3. Zock P L, de Vries J H, Katan M B (1994) Impact of Myristic versus palmitic acid on serum lipid and lipoproteins levels in health men and women Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1994;14:567-575.
4. Sanders TA (2013) Reappraisal of SFA and Cardiovascular Risk. Proc Nutr Soc, 72(4), 1-9.

 

Lynda’s Flaxi Cauli Pizza

A healthy pizza

  • flaxseeds instead of egg
  • cauliflower instead of flour

You know how there are two styles of chef – there’s those that precisely record and follow recipe quantities to the milligram, and there’s those who instinctively alter everything to taste as they produce their masterpiece…well Lynda is a proud member of the latter. Therefore, I would suggest that you experiment with quantities until it suits your palate.

Prep Time:15 minutes
Cook Time:35 minutes
Servings:4

Ingredients

For the crust:

4 tablespoons ground flax seeds and 8-10 tablespoons lukewarm water
1.5 medium head cauliflower
2 tablespoons nutritional yeast
3 tablespoons almond meal (ground almonds)
2 teaspoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon dried onion powder
1 teaspoon dried rosemary
1 teaspoon dried sage

For the topping:

200g organic tomato sauce or passata
1 leek (sliced)
Cup of sweetcorn
10 cherry tomatoes (halved)
1 avocado (sliced)
1 teaspoon dried basil

Sprinkle low-salt soy sauce
200 grams jackfruit (sliced – if you can’t get it, double up on mushrooms. I used this one)
100-150g mushrooms (sliced)
Lemon juice
Black pepper
Clove of garlic, chopped
Sprinkle balsamic vinegar

Garnish after cooking: throw on the top a mixture of fresh green leaves, rocket, baby spinach and basil

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Preheat oven to 180°C or 350 F.
2. Prepare the egg replacement: whisk flax seeds and water together until thick, gelatinous and gloppy. Add more flax/water as required to get a really gluey “dough ball”.
3. Prepare the cauliflower: chop the florets into small pieces, place into a food processor and blend until pureed. Put cauliflower in a colander.
4. Put boiling water in a saucepan and steam colander of cauliflower over it (with lid on top of colander) for 5-10 minutes until soft, then place it into paper towels and squeeze all the excess water. Transfer cauliflower to a clean tea towel and squeeze the ‘bag’ of cauliflower (get help if you need strong hands) until no more liquid comes it. Getting it as dry as possible also gives your hands and forearms a nice workout!
6. Combine the cauliflower in a bowl with the remaining base ingredients and hand mix very well, pressing into a ball.
7. Spread the dough into a pizza shape if you have one otherwise on a baking tray. Mine ended up as a square.
8. Bake at 180°C (350F) for about 25/30 minutes, until the top is golden brown then flip and cooked the other side for 10 minute (just be careful not to destroy the dough while you flip it).
9. Then take out of the oven and spread with tomato passata.
10. Combine mushrooms, jackfruit, soy, lemon juice and garlic in a saucepan (or microwave) for a few minutes until soft. Spread this over the tomato base
11. Top with fresh leaves, cherry tomatoes, leeks, avocado slices and sweetcorn.
12. Drizzle with a reduction of balsamic vinegar (just heat the balsamic vinegar in a saucepan till it becomes thick) and enjoy!
13. Back in oven until golden brown.

Finally, throw on the garnish and ENJOY! Mine was served with a seedy/nutty green salad.

Joe’s Comment

I tried this one and it was really nice. Thanks Lynda.

Wholism vs Reductionism – Not Just a War of Words

You may never have heard of these two terms, “wholism” and “reductionism”, but the war between them is not just a war of words, it’s a war of paradigms. One of these paradigms is unfortunately winning most of the battles, and the result is an escalating public health crisis.

First, let’s look at what I mean by “paradigm”. A good example is the difference between geocentric and heliocentric world views that came to a head around the 15th-16th centuries. Before the so-called Copernican Revolution (involving intellectual giants such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), the accepted and, for the most part, unchallenged paradigm was that the Sun and other planets revolved around the Earth, and the stars were all fixed in the heavens, just like it said in the Bible. Post-Revoltion, there was a slow but ultimately complete “paradigm shift” which meant that everyone now accepts that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun, and the stars are no longer just pin-pricks in some form of heavenly firmament.

Put simply, in terms of nutrition, wholism (a term adopted by Professor T Colin Campbell from the similar and better-known term “holism”) deals with whole diet and its effects on the whole person; whereas reductionism looks at specific elements of diet and their effect on specific parts of the person (like a specific gene for loving or hating Marmite).

The seemingly unstoppable increase in diet-related chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity, is simply not being addressed by the ever more precise research being undertaken by scientists, whether they are chemists looking at a specific chemical that can target particular cellular behaviour or a geneticist looking at which gene is responsible for the onset of a particular disease.

Of course it’s necessary to narrow one’s visual field to a specific area of investigation when it is appropriate (for instance, using a microscope to distinguish which virus has infected a given tissue sample); but there is a general tendency nowadays within nutritional science to exclusively apply the microscope (metaphorically speaking) to every public health issue.

Let’s look at an example: A recent report revealed that half of our schoolchildren are now dangerously overweight or obese.

A reductionist response could be to look for and try and isolate the gene that causes obesity in children. £millions or even £billions could be poured into expensive genetic research to find this “needle in the haystack”. Whereas a wholistic response could be to look at what societal changes have occurred that might account for this unwelcome change in the health of schoolchildren. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that there has been a significant change in the average diets that schoolchildren are now eating when compared to previous generations.

With the reductionist response, one could expect that years and even decades could pass without anything being discovered, and all the while more and more children are likely to become obese.

With the wholistic approach, a solution could theoretically be found very quickly – legislate to improve school meals, increase junk food taxes, ban advertising of unhealthy foods to children, and so forth. The chances are that obesity statistics would start to improve the more practical efforts were made to change laws, educate parents and improve children’s diets. And whilst it might appear that governments do make some moves in this direction, their efforts to implement substantial solutions end up being quasi-wholistic because they are generally hamstrung by the pressure imposed on them by Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Agriculture – and the majority of research funding, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. through universities and other institutions), greatly influences which research is most powerfully supported in government circles and reflected in the media to the public.

But even if simple dietary changes could significantly reduce childhood obesity, it would probably not make the reductionists happy. They would still want to delve down into minutiae and find a biological mechanism that could then be controlled somehow, most likely by a drug that could be patented and sold for profit. There is no profit to be made from people simply changing their diets. And there is certainly no profit to be made by pharmaceutical companies or medical organisations from a population full of healthy people.

But let’s say that the geneticists do find a gene that is strongly associated with childhood obesity. It may still take years or decades of research to transfer that information into a fully-tested and certified treatment, probably in the form of a drug. And even if the obesity pill works in the trials they’ve undertaken, there is no guarantee that it will work within the general population, or that it will be free of serious side-effects only apparent years or decades later (remember Thalidomide?), or if it is too expensive for the majority of people to afford or indeed if the percentage improvement attributable to the drug would bear any comparison with the size of improvement made simply by changing dietary intake.

There is nothing wrong with geneticists exploring the fascinating world of genes, nor is there anything wrong with scientists trying to find what makes one person’s personality different from another’s, or any of the other intriguing questions that beg to be researched and answered by the curious and searching human mind.

What IS a problem, though, is when the ONLY approach to solving scientific problems, particularly those directly linked to public health, is an approach which ignores anything that is “fuzzy” and too…well, human! The funding for most of the scientific research that is undertaken nowadays is only available if there is a tangible and clear hope of achieving a binary, black and white result:

  • 1. A always precedes B.
  • 2. B always follows A.
  • 3. There is no C that could also cause B.

Human behaviour and particularly human nutrition on a population-wide level can never conform to this linear causal pattern. Indeed, even one single cell does not and arguably never can be analysed or understood fully by any amount of analysis – just as can be seen in quantum physics (where electrons can exist in two places at the same time – or cease to exist and reappear elsewhere in ways that can never conform to what we think of as causality), the more we delve into our biochemistry, the more we appreciate how much there is that we can never fully know. Just look at the following diagrammatic representation of just the partial metabolic processes involved in one single cell:

Professor T Colin Campbell explains (1.) the dilemma like this:

“The fact that each nutrient passes through such a maze of reaction pathways suggests that each nutrient also is likely to participate in multiple health and disease outcomes. The one nutrient/one disease relationship implied by reductionism, although widely popular, is simply incorrect. Every nutrient-like chemical that enters this complex system of reactions creates a rippling effect that may extend far into the pool of metabolism. And with every bite of food we eat, there are tens and probably hundreds of thousands of food chemicals entering this metabolism pool more or less simultaneously.”

Whilst it is understandable that the human mind is inquisitive and naturally wants to simplify complexity, is it really essential to map the inter-, intra- and extra-cellular labyrinthine world of the 100 trillion cells comprising the human body before we can identify and apply timely solutions to public health issues?

In any event, our cellular make-up is only one aspect of what constitutes the indefinably complex entity that is a human being. Can we truly ever expect to see a cellular or genetic “cog” that explains what it is to be a friend, a lover, a parent? Why we find beauty in a sunset?

Tackling childhood obesity head-on in the messy “real” world of human populations represents the sort of indeterminate complexity that does not attract large government or institutional funding. More effort goes into producing incomprehensibly complex charts such as the one above than goes into practical measures to help children live full and productive lives. This is not to say that scientists, governments and organisations do not care about the lives of real people – particularly real schoolchildren. Rather, my contention is that they are so wrapped up in doing things the way that things have been done for so long (“stuck inside the paradigm”) that they may, in part, genuinely believe that their way is the ONLY way to solve such public health crises.

This is why I believe it is appropriate to apply the term “paradigm” to the general outlook and approach that science and medicine has been immersed in for at least the past 50 years – probably since the joint effects of two discoveries: the so-called completed list of vitamins and the structure of DNA. It is also the reason why incredibly convincing population studies, such as The China Study, come under attack from reductionist thinkers. They attack such wide-scale population studies because there is no single causal link demonstrated. This is even the case when the study identifies significant differences in health markers (e.g. cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes) between those Chinese populations eating the traditional plant-based diets and those Chinese populations that have adopted the Standard American Diet (SAD).

There is good reason for this lack of indisputable causality: and the reason is that it is simply impossible to prove a single causal link between health and diet when, as Professor Campbell indicated above, no single nutritional input ever causes just one single biochemical response. But such linear responses are just what scientists have habitually expected to discover when the overriding world-view they have been exposed to all their academic and professional lives aims to reduce all complexity down to minute and simple mechanics.

You will have heard the saying “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. Intuitively obvious, but possibly not so in the majority of research laboratories around the world.

The assumption that it should be possible to find such a causal link is based on a mechanistic reductionist ideal of the Universe. The likes of Ray Kurtzweil et al consider that one day we will be able to understand everything about ourselves – biology, emotions, personality – by drilling down deeper and deeper, smaller and smaller into the world of micro and nano particles until we find all the little “cogs” and see how they are all connected. We will then be able to predict all events in the “macro world” and reproduce them in better ways with far more durable materials than human flesh and blood.

Of course we don’t want to return to an age of religion and mysticism, where all events were caused by unknown and unknowable forces, spirits and demons. Where everything in biology and personality could be accounted for by the four humours – blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm! We all enjoy huge benefits from the application of reductionist approaches to finding causes and cures for TB and smallpox, and without this approach doctors might still be delivering babies with unwashed hands after having chopped up cadavers or been to the toilet, or both.

Also, I can see how a reductionist approach can be very attractive. It’s neat and orderly and avoids that great enemy of the reductionist thinker, namely, uncertainty.

But I propose that the answer to childhood obesity is both complex and simple.

It’s simple because all it requires is that we feed our children the natural diet for our species (ideally consisting completely or in the main part of whole plant foods), while ensuring that they get some regular exercise.

It’s complex because WE – our biochemistry, our personalities, our societies – ARE complex.

But effective and timely solutions to childhood obesity and many other public health crises are much more likely to be found with the help of two eyes rather than the help of a two million pound electron microscope.

Ample evidence already points to dietary change being the major factor needed in order to solve this escalating health problem. So much evidence, indeed, that I have not even bothered to list it in this article. Just scan through the databases of the NCBI or NIHR to see that sufficient research already links obesity to diet. But in spite of this, the main thrust of government and medical policy derives from what is called “Gold Standard” research, where the majority of research funding (and resultant credibility) is assigned to randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) that control all potential extraneous biases. And, clearly, you cannot do with when dealing with the nutritional and behavioural diversity that exists in the wider world of society as a whole.

This situation can be further explained by the analogy of an elephant in a room along with 60,000 blind scientists who are each responsible for describing one individual facet in minute detail. They can talk at length about the life-cycle of one of the thousands of species of bacteria colonising a crack between two toes, or churn out publications on the chemical components of a particular pigment within a hair from its tail. Yes, it’s true that they become incredibly expert in their own field of research, but it takes just one non-visually impaired child running into the room to be able to announce that there’s a bleedin’ great elephant standing there!

And to the surprise of the child, these 60,000 blind researchers with one voice ask “what’s an elephant?”

To those who have their eyes open to the whole picture, they can see that our example of childhood obesity is but one of the many chronic health conditions clearly caused by diet, and it’s always the same diet, the one that contains far too much animal protein, saturated fats, salt, sugar and processed junk, and far too little whole plant foods.

Diet is a “zero-sum” affair. Whenever one unhealthy food item goes into your mouth it means that another more healthy food item didn’t. And it is the cumulative effect of this, meal after meal, day after day, year after year that leads inexorably to the near-epidemic diet-related health issues that are starting to bring our hospitals to a standstill.

A fish is hooked, thrown onto land, flops around for a bit in the air and then escapes back into the water. Eager to tell his fishy buddies about his experience, he starts talking to them about his time out of the water. “What’s water?” they all ask, looking at him as though he’s out of his scaly mind. When water is all that you know, there is no word for it…

You may enjoy another view of this issue by Dr. Michael Greger…

Bibliography

  1. Campbell, T. Colin. Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition (p. 97). BenBella Books, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

 

How To Analyse the Health Claims Made for Dietary Supplements

critical thinking.jpg

How do you decide whether dietary supplement health claims are factual or phoney?

In this article I would like to apply critical thinking to one such claim that I came across at random on Amazon.co.uk.

These are the sort of questions we are going to ask:

  1. What is the health claim that is being promoted about the supplement?
  2. Is the health claim “evidence-based” (that is, based on research results)?
    • Does it include any research references or citations ? (Be wary of reports that only contain personal testimonials.)
    • Are the research and/or citation from a reputable source?
  3. Who is funding the research?
  4. Who are the researchers and/or authors? Consider the following:
    • What are their credentials or qualifications?
    • Are they currently or have they previously been funded by industry?
  5. Are the conclusions well-reasoned and warranted by the evidence (that is, for the health claim/s listed in question #1)? Consider the following:
    • Claims that sound too good to be true.
    • Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
  6. What might be some important consequences of accepting these conclusions (for individuals, society, the environment,etc.)?

Swanson Beta Carotene Vitamin A – 10,000IU, 250 Softgels

Offered for sale on Amazon.co.uk

1) What is the health claim being promoted with the supplement?

They state in a bullet-point list at the start of the advertisement the following: “A powerful source of antioxidant protection for the whole body” and “Delivers a healthy dose of essential vitamin A nutrition”. Neither of these claims is directly linked to the product since they are simply general statements and there is no definition or clarification of terms such as “healthy dose” or “essential”. It would be reasonable to assume that readers of this advertisement might consider that the seller was making these health claims about the softgel product itself.

The third bullet-pointed statement “Each convenient softgel provides 10000 IU of antioxidant nourishment” clearly links the softgel product with the claim; however, there is no immediate clarity about what “antioxidant nourishment” actually means, nor is there any supporting explanation or data related to the claim.

In the Product Description, further down the page, the seller makes additional statements:

  1. “Get vitamin A for healthy vision and antioxidant protection for your whole body with beta- carotene!” and
  2. “A natural plant pigment that can be converted into vitamin A by the body as needed, beta-carotene also acts as a powerful antioxidant in its own right.”

Again there is a lack of clarity about whether the above statements directly relate to the benefits of the softgel product being sold.

The exclamatory general statement in A. could be interpreted in one of two ways: firstly, that their softgel product offers these benefits or, secondly, that beta-carotene in general offers these benefits.

The general statement in B. could also be interpreted in one of the above two ways.

The lack of clarity in both the initial bullet-pointed list and in A. and B. above raise the issue of whether or not legal responsibility is being accepted for implied claims regarding the benefits of the softgel product being sold.

2) Is the health claim (as stated above) “evidence-based” (that is, based on research results)?

No. Such words as “Sources”, “References” or “Evidence” do not appear.

– Does it include any research references / citations?

No citations are used.

– Are the citations from a reputable source?

N/A

3) Who is funding the research?

There are no references to research data. A look at the seller’s website revealed no additional research-based evidence for the implied/stated claims on advertisement. And the following general statement made under the Our Guarantee tab provides no additional links to research data: “We know how important your health is to you and your loved ones. That’s why we’re focused on delivering only high quality products you can trust at the best value. Our lab evaluates every product to make sure it’s compliant with strict standards and government regulations, and we fully believe in and stand behind our products. If you’re dissatisfied for any reason, we’ll give you a full refund and pay return shipping.”

4) Who are the researchers and/or authors?

There are no researchers or authors mentioned.

– What are their credentials or qualifications?

N/A in view of the lack of information on researchers.

– Are they currently or have they previously been funded by industry?

They are a company that advertises, sells and distributes supplements to the general public. I assume they are self-funded by their own business profits. There is no indication from my research that they are in receipt of additional funding from any other source.

5) Are the conclusions well reasoned and warranted by the evidence (for the health claim listed in question #1)? Consider the following:

– Claims that sound too good to be true.

The statements they make are rather general and, on the face of it, do not seem “too good to be true”. However, because of the lack of referenced research or evidence of any sort within the advertisement there is no way of assessing the validity of their implied/stated claims for the softgel product without reference to external sources. Their general statements about the benefits of beta-carotene for healthy vision and as an antioxidant for the whole body, and for vitamin A as being in some sense “essential”, seem reasonable on the face of it. There is no mention of research suggesting the harmful effects of beta-carotene (such as can be found here and here), nor of the biochemical relationship between beta-carotene as a precursor for vitamin A except for the generalised statement that beta-carotene is a “…natural plant pigment that can be converted into vitamin A by the body as needed”. The term “natural” when applied to a vitamin supplement containing isolated beta-carotene is something that is not justified and might mislead the reader to suspect that supplementation is as natural a way of acquiring beta-carotene as deriving it from diet.

– Recommendations that promise a quick fix.

“Delivers a healthy dose of essential vitamin A nutrition” and “Each convenient softgel provides 10000IU of antioxidant nourishment” appears to be offering a solution to a problem – viz. the problem of not having sufficient vitamin A nutrition and/or sufficient antioxidant nourishment. I think it would be reasonable to suspect that the average reader would consider this to be a quick fix for a perceived deficiency in vitamin A nutrition and/or sufficient antioxidant nourishment – whatever these terms do or do not imply or actually mean when put under scrutiny.

6) What might be some important consequences of accepting these conclusions (for individuals, society, the environment, etc.)?

In terms of consequences for individuals purchasing and taking this supplement, there are potentially significant implications. Whenever unsupported health claims are made in relation to health supplements, there is a danger of individuals being misled. When a supplement is fairly innocuous and has no associated published evidence included with it to suggest inherent dangers associated with its use, issues of reliability of claims and value for money are perhaps the most relevant issues involved. However, when the supplement being sold has been shown in published literature to have associated dangers, this is something that might raise much greater concern. In this case, I believe that there is ample research data on the negative effects of vitamin A / beta-carotene supplements to raise the question of whether or not the seller should be legally allowed to advertise this product without some printed warning being included in the advert.

As Professor T Colin Campbell asks “Did you know, for example, that vitamin A at higher levels of intake, actually can increase, not decrease, cancer risk?”

In terms of environmental consequences, I can see none.

In terms of societal consequences, there is the wider issue of how much responsibility should be taken by governments and organisations (such as Amazon – the website advertising this product) for allowing companies like Swanson vitamins to sell products without any health warnings or reference to evidence in support of implied or stated health claims for the product in question.

Final Comment

So, I hope you found this example of critical thinking of some interest. I would suggest that it is a good idea to apply similar analytical approaches to anything you come across, written or verbal, that makes claims about your health.

You only have one life, and I hope you do all you can to live it to the fullest, healthiest and happiest…seeing through the empty promises of organisations and individuals who would sell you anything just to make a quite profit.

A Fat to Forget

Eating cakes and biscuits appears to impair memory.

Research (1.) suggests that there is relationship between consumption of dietary trans-fats and word-memory.

1018 individuals were given word recall tests that were scored and matched against the amount of trans-fats consumed by each individual.

The results are worth remembering next time you reach for the cookie jar. Every gram of dietary trans-fats consumed per day was associated with an estimated 0.76 fewer words recalled.

Is this causation or just correlation? The researchers consider that the pro-oxidant (2.) and energetic detriments of dietary trans-fats (3.) are evidence of causation. They used triangulation (4.) with other evidence to ensure that other causal factors were not being mistakenly included. (See charts below if you are interested in the statistical data).

Trans-fats are found in many biscuits, cakes and other processed foods. They are made by pumping hydrogen into liquid vegetable oil so that the oil becomes more solid. Food manufacturers do this in order to increase the shelf life of the products and to improve flavour and texture. You will know that they are present in products if you see the words “partially hydrogenated oils” on the ingredients list.

The leader of this study, Dr Beatrice Golomb, said: “Trans fats were most strongly linked to worse memory, in young and middle-aged men, during their working and career building years…From a health standpoint, trans fat consumption has been linked to higher body weight, more aggression and heart disease…As I tell my patients, while trans fats increase the shelf life of foods, they reduce the shelf life of people.” (5.)

What does this mean for our love affair with biscuits and cakes?

Well, it appears that we love them but they don’t love us. Maybe the best thing to do is to forget about eating them before they make us forget that we have eaten them…

 

References, Definitions & Data

1. Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, Alexis K. Bui. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128129. June 17, 2015. A Fat to Forget: Trans Fat Consumption and Memory.
2. Pro-oxidants are substances that accelerate the oxidation of another substance. This process can produce free radicals which are associated with many chronic health problems such as cardiovascular and inflammatory disease, cataract, and cancer. Antioxidants prevent free radical induced tissue damage by preventing the formation of radicals, scavenging them, or by promoting their decomposition. Berries are a great source of antioxidants.
3. Ascherio A, Willett WC. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Oct;66(4 Suppl):1006S-1010S. Health effects of trans fatty acids.
4. Triangulation means using more than one method to collect data on the same topic. This is a way of assuring the validity of research through the use of a variety of methods to collect data on the same topic, which involves different types of samples as well as methods of data collection.
5. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/52263.

Hard to Find a Healthier Bread…

 

This is one the healthiest bread recipes I have come up with. It may not have the oily and salty attraction of some other breads – because, well… it has NO OIL OR SALT!

We can all get rather addicted to the convenience, texture and taste of commercially-prepared breads. The tastier and more “spongy” they make the bread, the more they will sell.

But I wanted a bread that provides most of the convenience, texture and taste that we expect from bread, but without the fragmented food elements and chemicals that may be added, including: salt (1.), sugar, (my recipe contains a small amount but commercial bread can contain lots), trans fats (“partially hydrogenated oils” – linked to serious health risks (2., 3.)), potassium bromate (oxidising agent), azodicarbonamide (dough conditioner/bleacher), monoglycerides & diglycerides (emulsifiers E471), butylated hydrocyanisole (BHA preservative linked to cancer (4., 5.)), caramel colouring (linked to cancer (6., 7.)), high fructose corn syrup (HFCS linked to heart disease and diabetes (8.)), Undeclared GMO Soy oil (9.), vegetable oils (10,. 11,. 12,). And this is not a definitive list..

And if you still think that adding vegetable oils (even really expensive extra virgin olive oil) is a healthy option, you may want to check out some of my future blogs. In the meantime, a brief word from Dr Caldwell Esselstyn.

So, after all that waffle, here’s the recipe:

Whole Wheat Seeded Health Bread.

This basic recipe forms the canvas on which the rest of the health bread recipes I use are formed. This recipe is incredibly versatile, and makes a delicious, moist health bread that can be enjoyed with any kind of meal. It is also delicious served with natural fruit preserves and organic, natural nut butters. These health breads don’t require kneading, as the ingredients form more of a batter than a dough once mixed together.

Preheat the oven to 390 degrees (200 degrees Celsius gas mark 6). This recipe yields three loaves, so you will need three silicon medium-sized loaf tins – silicon so that they do not stick, being that no grease or oils are used.

Ingredients:

4 cups (1kg) organic wholewheat flour. I vary this from time to time by adding differing amounts of wholemeal ancient flours – usually rye and spelt, but also sometimes Khorasan also called kamut (adds sweetness) or einkorn.

35-75ml organic raw brown sugar (I use as little as possible and let it rise for longer).

2 tablespoons (30ml) instant dried yeast.

0.5-1.5 cups (75-200g) mixed seeds (can include pumpkin, poppy, sunflower, sesame, flax, chia).

4 cups (1 litre) lukewarm water.

Instructions:

Dissolve the sugar in the lukewarm water and sprinkle the yeast over the top. Cover tightly with cling film and a dish towel, and set aside for the yeast to activate, it will start to bubble when it has activated.

In a large mixing bowl, mix together the flour and seeds. Add the water, sugar and yeast mixture and mix very well to form a slightly runny batter. Divide the batter equally amongst the loaf tins which should be on a firm metal baking tray. Place the bread tins somewhere warm and draught-free until the batter has risen and the loaves have doubled in size. Bake for 45-50 minutes, until a dark crust has formed and the bread sounds hollow when tapped. You can also check that they are completely baked by using a skewer or knife. If there is any batter sticking to the latter, put them back in the oven for another 10 mins or so. Allow the loaves to cool in the tins for ten minutes before turning out onto a cooling rack.

Try it. Vary it. Improve on it. And let me know how you get on.

The following is Yuri’s “Flower Bread” – basically the same recipe with added red pepper and garlic, but made in a wonderful flower-shaped silicone bread/cake tin that he found in Italy.

Fantastico!

 

References

  1. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/salt/ “Dozens of similar studies demonstrate that if you reduce your salt intake, you may reduce your blood pressure. And the greater the reduction, the greater the benefit may be. But if you don’t cut down, chronic high salt intake can lead to a gradual increase in blood pressure throughout life.”
  2. Vandana Dhaka, Neelam Gulia, Kulveer Singh Ahlawat, and Bhupender Singh Khatkarcorresponding. J Food Sci Technol. 2011 Oct; 48(5): 534–541. Published online 2011 Jan 28. doi: 10.1007/s13197-010-0225-8. Trans fats—sources, health risks and alternative approach – A review
  3. Trattner S, Becker W, Wretling S, Öhrvik V, Mattisson I. Food Chem. 2015 May 15;175:423-30. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.145. Epub 2014 Dec 3. Fatty acid composition of Swedish bakery products, with emphasis on trans-fatty acids.
  4. Otterweck AA, Verhagen H, Goldbohm RA, Kleinjans J, van den Brandt PA. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000 Jul;38(7):599-605. Intake of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene and stomach cancer risk: results from analyses in the Netherlands Cohort Study.
  5. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/butylatedhydroxyanisole.pdf.
  6. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/UCM517402.pdf.
  7. Garima Sengarcorresponding author and Harish Kumar Sharma. J Food Sci Technol. 2014 Sep; 51(9): 1686–1696.
    Published online 2012 Feb 9. doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0633-z. Food caramels: a review.
  8. James M. Rippe Theodore J. Angelopoulos. Advances in Nutrition, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1 March 2013, Pages 236–245, https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002824. Sucrose, High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and Fructose, Their Metabolism and Potential Health Effects: What Do We Really Know? N.B. The symposium was supported in part by an educational grant from the Corn Refiners Association (I ALWAYS SUSPECT BIAS WHEN THUS FUNDED).
  9. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gmo-soy-and-breast-cancer/. “The bottomline is that there is no direct human data suggesting harm from eating GMOs, though in fairness such studies haven’t been done, which is exactly the point, critics counter. That’s why we need mandatory labeling on GMO products so that public health researchers can track whether GMOs are having any adverse effects.”
  10. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegetable-oil/. “Research confirms that ingestion of oil, no matter which type of oil or whether it was fresh or deep fried, showed a significant and constant decrease in arterial function.”
  11. https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/aug/oils.htm.
  12. http://nutritionstudies.org/plant-oils-are-not-a-healthy-alternative-to-saturated-fat/

The Problem with Protein

 

“How do you plant-eaters get enough protein?”

You might think that this is a question only asked by people who don’t know much about nutrition; but it is surprising just how many nutritionists, GP’s and writers of nutrition courses ask the same question. In this article, I would like to look at two aspects of protein: firstly, a comparison of protein content in animal and plant foods and, secondly, a look at the dangers of too much (animal) protein in the diet. But first, a quick definition of what protein actually is.

What is protein?

Protein is a nitrogen-containing chemical used to create body tissue as well as other chemicals (for instance, enzymes and hormones) that are very important in terms of participating in metabolism and maintaining the body in working order. Protein molecules are large and composed of long chains (polymers) of carefully sequenced amino acids. There are a huge number of different kinds of proteins, all of which are distinguished by the order that exists for the amino acids in that chain or polymer. The primary function of protein is as the basis for the almost unlimited number of enzymes, and enzymes are the molecules within the body that control metabolism. It is one of the three so-called macronutrients, the other two being fats (lipids) and carbohydrates which are composed of hydrogen and carbon.

It’s useful to understand that these macronutrients – and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), for that matter – do not exist or function in isolation within the body. They work together as combinations, not as distinctly different entities, also working together within individual molecules. For example, glycoproteins are molecules where proteins and carbohydrates are joined together, while glycolipids are molecules where carbohydrates and lipid-containing substances are joined together. And, of course, you will be familiar with molecules that have a combination of lipids and proteins (lipoproteins) – namely, cholesterol in the form of LDL (low density lipoprotein) and HDL (high density lipoprotein) known as “bad” and “good” cholesterol respectively.

How much protein do I need?

Probably less than you would imagine. Opinions differ from authority to authority, but Professor T Colin Campbell, an expert in the field co-author of The China Study, suggests that calories derived from protein should ideally represent around 8-10% of total daily calorie (kcal) intake. So, for instance, if your daily calorie intake is 2000 calories, this would mean between 160 and 200 calories from protein. And since a gram of protein has 4 kcal of energy, this would be 40-50 grams of protein. Again, as a general rule, most authorities recommend we consume around 0.75 grams of protein for each kilogram of lean body weight. So, if you weigh 60 kilograms, this would imply that you need 45 grams (or 180 kcal) of protein a day. I will cover this subject in more detail in future articles – particularly whether protein intake has to be increased when you increase your levels of physical exercise.

What about protein-deficiency?

As far as my research goes, I have never found a single medical recording of protein deficiency within average western populations. The biggest problem is quite the opposite – excessive protein intake. Regarding the traditional and misinformed idea that people eating an exclusively plant-based diet should be very careful about combining proteins in order to get the right balance of essential amino acids, this is covered in my video The Protein Combining Myth – A Rat’s Tale.

COMPARISON OF PROTEIN CONTENT IN ANIMAL AND PLANT FOODS

For those of you who are making the transition from animal foods to plant foods, the following may well encourage you to ignore the ill-informed warnings about protein deficiency – especially in light of the fact that the greatest danger related to protein is over- not under-consumption.

To show how easy it is to get more than enough protein from plants, the following is a list of the foods and drinks taken from my diary three days ago. You will see that I consumed only 1420 kcal on this particular day, whilst on normal days my calorie intake would be between 2000 and 2500 kcal:

The above foods contained a total of 51.2 grams of protein, which represented 12% of total calories (fats made up 21% and carbohydrates 66%). I chose this day as an example because of the relatively low intake of calories. Normally, even with my usual macronutrient ratios (protein 10%/fat 20%/carbohydrate 70%), my protein intake from plant foods is more than necessary for optimal health and energy levels.

THE DANGERS OF TOO MUCH (ANIMAL) PROTEIN IN THE DIET

Kidney Disease

Most people don’t realise that high animal protein intake and kidney disease have been clearly linked for over 100 years (1., 2.). It’s one of the oldest known nutrition links and it has been proven repeatedly that if you take animals with reduced kidney function and give them extra amounts of protein, there is a significant acceleration in the decline of their kidney function. Research has also shown a relationship between increased protein consumption and increased development of kidney cancer. And the relationship between kidney cancer and animal protein consumption is about as strong as any other nutrition cancer linkage. This is why, for a long time, a recommendation for kidney health has been to reduce protein intake.

Cardiovascular Disease

Dr Thomas Campbell mentions a 2016 study (3.) which shows that “among two very large American study populations (female nurses and male health professionals), those that consumed the most animal protein compared to plant protein had a higher risk of death, particularly cardiovascular disease. Researchers found that when 3% of energy from plant protein was substituted for an equivalent amount of processed red meat protein, there was a 34% lower risk of death.

These findings are even more impressive when you consider the fact that researchers controlled for age, intake of different types of fat, total energy intake, glycemic index, and intake of whole grains, fiber, fruits and vegetables, smoking, body mass index, vitamin use, physical activity, alcohol intake, history of high blood pressure. In other words, they statistically eliminated many of the beneficial components of plant-based diets to try to isolate the sole effect of dietary protein and still found an effect. When data was adjusted only for age, total energy and fat intake, those consuming the most plant protein were found to have 33% reduced risk of death, 40% reduced risk of cardiovascular death, and 28% reduced risk of cancer death.

This is even more remarkable given the meat-centered diets that study subjects were consuming. Researchers divided the population into groups based on the amount of protein consumed. Even those consuming the most plant-protein consumed almost 60% more animal protein than they did plant protein. None of these groups were consuming anything remotely similar to the whole-food plant-based diet that has been shown to halt or reverse advanced heart disease, diabetes, and early stage prostate cancer.”

Osteoporosis

Can protein have a detrimental effect on bone? Optimal amounts of protein are not only beneficial but essential for bone health since they improve bone mass – as long as sufficient calcium is also in the diet – and thus reduce potential fractures. However, too much dietary protein can have a detrimental effect on bone – that is if protein (in meat, fish and dairy products) is consumed well in excess of bodily needs. This is because excess protein will increase the acidity of bodily fluids and compartments. The knock-on effect of this is that, over an extended period of time, the alkaline minerals (including calcium and phosphorus) will leach from the bones in an attempt to recreate the ideal state of pH homeostasis. During this process some of this calcium released into the bloodstream will be lost in the urine. This situation is further complicated by factors such as the acid/base status of other foods in the diet, the source of the proteins consumed, and the amount of overall calcium intake.

SAD (Stand American Diets) or modern western diets increase the risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures (4.) because they are so high in animal proteins – affecting the pH balance as indicated above. Not all proteins are equal in relation to the effect they have on bone. Meat, fish and eggs are thought to be particularly linked to increased urinary excretion of calcium because they are particularly acid-forming in their effects on the body. However, consuming alkaline plant-based foods (which will still contain protein) has a decreasing effect on the amount of calcium excreted as urine. Another factor is the calcium-potassium balance: being found mainly in fruits and vegetables, potassium has an additional alkalising effect, thereby reducing calcium excretion and maintaining bone health. Thus, it is not just a matter of reducing the amount of protein consumed, but ensuring that the appropriate sources and amounts of proteins are balanced with increased fruit and vegetable consumption.

References

1. Robertson, W. G. Miner Electrolyte Metab., 13: 228-234, 1987.

2. Robertson, W. G. et al. Chron. Dis., 32: 469-476, 1979.

3. Song M, Fung T, Hu FB, et al.Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality. JAMA Intern Med 2016.

4. Sellmeyer DE , Stone KL , Sebastian A , Cummings SR. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [01 Jan 2001, 73(1):118-122]. A high ratio of dietary animal to vegetable protein increases the rate of bone loss and the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

 

Diabetes – The Medical Facts. (WARNING – Disturbing Images)

You hear a lot about diabetes, but you possibly do not get detailed information about the actual processes involved in its development, nor about the specific and, frankly, disturbing consequences of living with this debilitating disease.

This blog goes into some detail and shows some disturbing photos of the results of diabetes. If you do not wish to see these images, you can contact me for a copy of this blog without any images.

I have a very specific reason for covering this issue in such vivid detail: It is no exaggeration to claim that diabetes, particularly but not exclusively type 2 diabetes, is becoming an epidemic in the western world, and not just starting in middle age, but appearing in younger generations. There is solid and reliable evidence that this is due to the western diet – dependent on animal products, low-fibre, high-sugar and fat processed foods, and deficient in whole plant foods.

I will present other articles in defence of this assertion but, for the time being, I want to focus on the disturbing reality of those people who live with diabetes – a largely avoidable chronic disease which has been shown to be both avoidable and reversible by eating a whole food plant-based diet.

Diabetes mellitus (1.) (DM) is caused by complete absence, relative deficiency of, or resistance to the hormone insulin.

The most common forms of DM are categorised as type 1 diabetes mellitus or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Definitions

Type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • previously known as insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM)
  • mainly occurring in children and young adults
  • onset is usually sudden and can be life threatening
  • severe deficiency or absence of insulin secretion due to destruction of β-islet cells of the pancreas
  • treatment with injections of insulin is required
  • usually evidence of an autoimmune mechanism that destroys the β-islet cells
  • genetic predisposition and environmental factors, including viral infections. Diet/lifestyle are also implicated

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • previously known as non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM)
  • most common form of diabetes, accounting for about 90% of cases
  • causes are multifactorial and predisposing factors include:
    • obesity
    • sedentary lifestyle
    • increasing age: predominantly affecting middle-aged and older adults but increasingly affecting younger groups
    • genetic factors
  • onset is gradual, often over many years
  • frequently undetected until signs are found on routine investigation or a complication occurs
  • insulin secretion may be below or above normal
  • deficiency of glucose inside body cells occurs despite hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) and high insulin level, possibly because of:
    • insulin resistance, i.e. changes in cell membranes that block insulin-assisted movement of glucose into cells.
  • treatment involves diet and/ or drugs, although sometimes insulin injections are required

Pathophysiology (disease processes) (2.) of DM

1. Raised plasma glucose level

After eating a carbohydrate-rich meal the plasma glucose level remains high because:

  • cells are unable to take up and use glucose from the bloodstream, despite high plasma levels
  • conversion of glucose to glycogen in the liver and muscles is diminished
  • gluconeogenesis (non-carbohydrate glucose production) (3.) from protein, in response to deficiency of intracellular glucose.

2a. Glycosuria (sugar in urine) (4.) and 2b. Polyuria (excessive urination) (5.)

a. Glycosuria results in electrolyte imbalance and excretion of urine with a high specific gravity.

b. Polyuria leads to dehydration, extreme thirst (polydipsia) and increased fluid intake.

3. Weight loss

Cells “starved” of glucose – leading to:

  • gluconeogenesis from amino acids/body protein, causing muscle wasting/tissue breakdown/further increases in blood glucose
  • catabolism of body fat, releasing some of its energy and excess production of ketone bodies (6.)
    • very common in type 1 DM
    • sometimes occurs in type 2 DM

4. Ketosis (7.)and ketoacidosis (8.)

  • generally affects people with type 1 DM – in absence of insulin to promote normal intracellular glucose metabolism, alternative energy sources must be used instead and increased breakdown of fat occurs. Results in:
    • excessive production of weakly acidic ketone bodies, which can be used for metabolism by the liver
    • ketosis develops as ketone bodies accumulate.
    • excretion of ketones is via the urine (ketonuria) and/ or the lungs giving the breath a characteristic smell of acetone or ‘pear drops’.
    • ketoacidosis develops owing to increased insulin requirement or increased resistance to insulin.
    • if untreated it can lead to:
      • increasing acidosis (↓ blood pH) due to accumulation of ketoacids
      • increasing hyperglycaemia
      • hyperventilation as the lungs excrete excess hydrogen ions as CO2
      • acidification of urine – the result of kidney buffering
      • polyuria as the renal threshold for glucose is exceeded
      • dehydration and hypovolaemia (9.) (↓ BP and ↑ pulse) – caused by polyuria
      • disturbances of electrolyte balance accompanying fluid loss:
        • hyponatraemia (10.) (↓ plasma sodium) and hypokalaemia (11.) (↓ plasma potassium)
        • confusion, coma and death

5, Acute complications of DM

  • Effects and consequences of diabetic ketoacidosis are outlined above
  • Hypoglycaemic coma:
    • occurs when insulin administered is in excess of that needed to balance the food intake and expenditure of energy
    • sudden onset and may be the result of:
      • accidental overdose of insulin
      • delay in eating after insulin administration
      • drinking alcohol on an empty stomach
      • strenuous exercise
      • insulin-secreting tumour
    • Common signs and symptoms of hypoglycaemia include:
      • drowsiness
      • confusion
      • speech difficulty
      • sweating
      • trembling
      • anxiety
      • rapid pulse.
      • May progress rapidly to coma without treatment
      • Rapid recovery with treatment M

6. Long-term complications of DM (Type 1 and type 2)

  • Cardiovascular disturbances
    • DM is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disorders
    • Blood vessel abnormalities (angiopathies) may still occur even when the disease is well controlled by medication
    • Diabetic macroangiopathy (12.). Most common lesions are:
      • atheroma
      • calcification of the tunica media of the large arteries. Resulting in:
        • Often serious and fatal consequences for Type 1 diabetes at a relatively early age.
        • For both Type 1 and Type 2, the most common consequences are serious and often fatal:
          • ischaemic heart disease (angina and myocardial infarction)
          • stroke
          • peripheral vascular disease.

  • Diabetic microangiopathy (13.). This affects small blood vessels and can result in:
    • thickening of the epithelial basement membrane of arterioles, capillaries and, sometimes, venules. Leading to:
      • Peripheral vascular disease, progressing to gangrene and ‘diabetic foot’
      • Diabetic retinopathy (14.)
      • Visual impairment
      • Diabetic nephropathy (15.) and chronic renal failure
      • Peripheral neuropathy (16.) causing sensory deficits and motor weakness
    • Infection
      • DM predisposes to infection, especially by bacteria and fungi, possibly because phagocyte activity is depressed by insufficient intracellular glucose. Infection may cause:
        • boils and carbuncles
        • vaginal candidiasis (17.)
        • pyelonephritis (18.)
        • diabetic foot
    • Renal failure
      • This is due to diabetic nephropathy (15.) and is a common cause of death.

  • Visual impairment and blindness
    • Diabetic retinopathy (14.)
      • commonest cause of blindness in adults between 30 and 65 years in developed countries
      • increases the risk of early development of cataracts
      • increase the risk of early development of other visual disorders

 

 

  • Diabetic foot
    • Many factors commonly present in DM contribute to the development of this serious situation:
      • disease of large and small blood vessels impairs blood supply to and around the extremities
      • if peripheral neuropathy (16.) is present:
        • sensation is reduced
        • a small injury to the foot may go unnoticed, especially when there is visual impairment
        • in DM healing is slower and injuries easily worsen if aggravated, e.g. by chafing shoes
        • often become infected
        • an ulcer may form
        • healing process is lengthy, if at all
        • in severe cases the injured area ulcerates and enlarges
        • may become gangrenous
        • sometimes to the extent that amputation is required.

Why risk or suffer from this truly dreadful disease if the most effective prevention and cure (a WFPB diet) has no side-effects other than improved overall health?

What an unfathomable species we are…

 

 

Glossary

  1. ” Of or pertaining to honey” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mellitus.
  2. “The physiological processes associated with disease or injury” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pathophysiology
  3. “The metabolic process in which glucose is formed, mostly in the liver, from non-carbohydrate precursors” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gluconeogenesis
  4. “The presence of sugars (especially glucose) in the urine, often as a result of diabetes mellitus” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/glycosuria
  5. “The production of an abnormally large amount of urine; one symptom of diabetes” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polyuria
  6. “Any of several compounds that are intermediates in the metabolism of fatty acids” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ketone_body#English.
  7. “A metabolic state in which the body produces ketones to be used as fuel by some organs so that glycogen can be reserved for organs that depend on it. This condition occurs during times of fasting, starvation, or while on a ketogenic weight-loss diet” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ketosis.
  8. “A severe form of ketosis, most commonly seen in diabetics, in which so much ketone is produced that acidosis occurs” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ketoacidosis.
  9. “A state of decreased blood volume” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypovolemia#English.
  10. “An abnormally low concentration of sodium (or salt) in blood plasma” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyponatremia#English.
  11. “The condition of having an abnormally low concentration of potassium ions in the blood” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypokalemia#English.
  12. “Angiopathy of the larger blood vessels” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macroangiopathy.
  13. “Angiopathy of the small blood vessels” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/microangiopathy.
  14. “Non-inflammatory disease of the retina” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retinopathy.
  15. “Damage to, disease of, or abnormality of the kidneys” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nephropathy.
  16. “Any disease of the peripheral nervous system” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neuropathy.
  17. “A fungal infection of any of the Candida (yeast) species” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/candidiasis. Also called “thrush”.
  18. “An ascending urinary tract infection that has reached the pelvis of the kidney” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pyelonephritis.

Main source of material: Waugh, Anne; Grant, Allison. Ross & Wilson Anatomy and Physiology in Health and Illness E-Book (p. 236-8). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.

The Vagaries of Veganuary

“I cheated on being vegan, and it wasn’t even with a rasher of bacon”

She writes:

“…I failed. Nothing to do with the smell of bacon, in the end it was the Cool Doritos that proved to be my downfall.

Didn’t you know? Cool Doritos contain dairy products. As do muesli and Garibaldi biscuits and, as I’ve ranted before, there’s egg in Quorn and also a lot of vegetarian sausages. Some sugar-coated cereals contain hidden gelatin to make the sugar stay on.

I felt healthy and light after an indulgent December, but I simply couldn’t stay the course. Why? Because going vegan is gruelling. It requires a degree of application, vigilance and sheer 24/7 dedication that you can’t fake, not even for a month.

Because you can’t be a vegan and not mention it; in a meat-eating world it’s too central to your character to omit. And because people (like me, before this steep learning curve) tend to treat vegans as jokes, weird aberrations or dinner guests from hell, it inevitably makes them feel a bit defensive.

But numbers are growing, especially among young people, hence you can buy everything from vegan mayonnaise to vegan make up. An estimated 150,000 people will have taken part in Veganuary in the UK, I’m not entirely sure my attempt actually counts, but I hope so.

I tried to stay vegan, I really I did. Not eating meat was the easy part. I had no interest in roast chicken, but the loss of eggs was a blow and the absence of cheese really quite depressing.

Anyway, I have been happily making porridge with soya milk and will continue to do that regardless. I assumed my spouse was putting soya milk in my coffee too, and was very impressed at how much it resembled full fat dairy.

Then I caught him in the act of using real milk and demanded to know why. He showed me why; the soya milk separates in the hot drink and curdles. He felt it was too revolting to serve.

Apparently if you warm the soya gradually it’s less of a problem, which is why coffee shop soya flat whites are more palatable.

Anyway, this unwitting dairy transgression alone transformed me into a chegan (vegan who cheats) and I was already teetering on the brink when Dorito-gate happened.

I’m not even sure I’ll go back to eating meat; vegetarianism is a walk in the park compared to veganism which is more like struggling to reach Everest Base Camp in flip flops only to discover all they have to eat is custard and mince.

For me, Veganuary was an experiment, but in truth I was hobbled by my lackadaisical attitude from the start; “giving it a go” isn’t the same as believing in it as a cause and being prepared to make no compromises.

But some good has come of it: most notably I have not just a new tolerance, but an admiration for vegans.

It takes real strength of character to eschew all animal products, all the time, when so many foods are booby-trapped and irrationally indignant meat eaters constantly grill you about your life choices.

Would I try it again? For an occasional week, absolutely. But even if I don’t, I hereby solemnly swear to never (ever) ask a vegan where they get their protein from.”

Joe’s Comment

“…vegetarianism is a walk in the park compared to veganism which is more like struggling to reach Everest Base Camp in flip flops only to discover all they have to eat is custard and mince.” Brilliant!

However, the transition from being a vegan to eating a whole food plant-based diet (with no salt, oil and very little added sugar) is a whole new experience, and something that takes dedication and planning. Is it worth it? You bet ya! The health benefits of making the quantum leap from veganism (which includes those who tuck into the odd processed vegan sausage and ice-cream to those who hate veggies and “survive” on chocolate and chips) to a WFPB diet are profound and well-documented. (1.)

Eating the modern western diet it like setting a house on fire – but the fire is inside your body. And even if you go 6 days out of 7 without animal protein, on that 7th day of eating meat it’s like pouring petrol on flames that were nicely dying down.

As Dr. Michael Greger points out: “even in a population consuming a really plant-based diet with little meat and fish, true vegetarians who completely avoided animal flesh, while eating more healthy plant foods, have lower odds for prediabetes and diabetes after accounting for other risk factors.” (2., 3.)

References

  1. https://1440.org/case-whole-food-plant-based-diet-interview-t-colin-campbell/
  2. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088547
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21983060

 

Is all scientific research equally valid?


I don’t know about you, but I often get into discussions with people and end up citing research that backs up my claims. It is not uncommon for the other person to say something like “Yea, but I bet there’s other research that says the opposite” or “I don’t trust any research – it’s all biased one way or another…”

So, if you do consider that some research is worthy of respect but get a bit frustrated trying to find research that you can really trust, where do you go to find it?

Some of my usual favourites for nutritional research are PubMed, Nutritionfacts.org, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Centre for Nutrition Studies, British Journal of Nutrition, There are also lots of nutrition journals, such as The British Journal of Nutrition, Food and Nutrition Sciences, Nutrition Journal, and the Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science.

But, and it’s a big BUT…There are times when bias can be detected in some of the research that we come across.

For instance, we might discover that the research was funded by an organisation that wanted to see an outcome which was favourable for their purposes – whether academic or financial. Also, it is quite possible that individual researchers within the studies may have had personal or professional bias. And whilst the process of peer-review is meant to ensure a high level of transparency and honesty with the reviewed research, this is sadly not always the case.

However, there is an interesting organisation called the USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) that I would like to talk about with you. I am not stating any opinion about individual research projects that they have covered, nor am I claiming that they are the gold standard in research that everyone should trust implicitly; however, they have a really interesting method of reviewing current research findings on a given subject and it is this that I want to share with you.

It is their function to review all available published research and then publish a paper that states, in their considered opinion, whether the overall results found (for instance, on the effectiveness of mammograms or prostate cancer screening) suggest that current medical/health practices are helpful, harmful or neutral in their impact on individuals in particular and on society in general. Based on this, they then make recommendations to governments, organisations and individuals.

Their way of doing this is as close to people-power (that is, the empowerment of the average person in the street) as I have found recently in this academic field. This is how it works (cartoons are my addition!):

Recommendations Development Process: A Graphic Overview

Step 1. Topic Nomination

Anyone can nominate a new topic or an update to an existing topic at any time, via the Task Force Web site. The Task Force prioritises topics based on several criteria, including the topic’s relevance to prevention and primary care, importance for public health, potential impact of the recommendation, and whether there is new evidence that may change a current recommendation.

Step 2. Draft and Final Research Plans

Once a topic is selected, the Task Force and researchers from an Evidence-based Practice Centre (EPC), develop a draft research plan for the topic. This plan includes key questions to be answered and target populations to be considered. The draft research plan is posted on the Task Force’s Web site for four weeks, during which anyone [that includes you and me] can comment on the plan. The Task Force and the EPC review all comments and consider them while making any necessary revisions to the research plan. The Task Force then finalises the plan and posts it on its Web site.

Step 3. Draft Evidence Review and Draft Recommendation Statement

Using the final research plan as a guide, EPC researchers gather, review, and analyse evidence on the topic from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The EPC then develops one or more draft evidence reviews summarising the evidence on the topic. Members discuss the evidence reviews and use the information to determine the effectiveness of a service by weighing the potential benefits and harms. Members then develop a draft recommendation statement based on this discussion. The draft evidence review and draft recommendation statement are posted on the Task Force Web site for four weeks.

Step 4. Final Evidence Review and Final Recommendation Statement

The Task Force and EPC consider all comments on draft evidence reviews and the Task Force considers all comments on the draft recommendation statement. The EPC revises and finalises the evidence reviewed and the Task Force finalises the recommendation statement based on both the final evidence review and the public comments.

All final recommendation statements and evidence reviews are posted on the Task Force’s Web site. The final recommendation statement and a final evidence summary, a document that outlines the evidence it reviewed, are also published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Interesting eh?

Final Comment

Never underestimate the tactics used by both organisations and individuals to misrepresent information in order to mislead the public for their own agendas.

If you come across conflicting and troubling opinions about nutrition (whether expressed by friends and family, in newspapers and magazine, on the TV or internet sites, in research papers or books), you can send me links to the information and I will take a look at it and help you to analyse it in a way that allows you to form your own opinion about the validity of the claims made.

There’s no better way to ensure that you have the motivation to continue with the optimal WFPB dietthan when you know intellectually that your nutrition and lifestyle decisions are backed-up by solid and reliable scientific research.

In future posts, I will outline and review various research methods, as well as introduce some intriguing alternative opinions about nutritional research as expressed by Prof. T Colin Campbell.