The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public

NF-Sept29 The Saturated Fat Studies Buttering Up the Public.jpeg

Time magazine's cover exhorting people to eat butter could be viewed as a desperate attempt to revive dwindling print sales, but they claimed to be reporting on real science--a systematic review and meta-analysis published in a prestigious journal that concluded that current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage cutting down on saturated fat, like the kind found in meat and dairy products like butter.

No wonder it got so much press, since reducing saturated fat intake is a major focus of most dietary recommendations worldwide, aiming to prevent chronic diseases including coronary heart disease. So, to quote the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "What gives? Evidently, shaky science...and a mission by the global dairy industry to boost sales."

They interviewed an academic insider, who noted that some researchers are intent on showing saturated fat does not cause heart disease, which can be seen in my video The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public. In 2008, the global dairy industry held a meeting where they decided that one of their main priorities was to "neutralize the negative impact of milk fat by regulators and medical professionals." And when they want to do something, they get it done. So they set up a major, well-funded campaign to come up with proof that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. They assembled scientists who were sympathetic to the dairy industry, provided them with funding, encouraged them to put out statements on milk fat and heart disease, and arranged to have them speak at scientific meetings. And the scientific publications we've seen emerging since the Mexico meeting have done just what they set out to do.

During this meeting, the dairy industry discussed what is the key barrier to increasing worldwide demand for dairy. There's global warming issues and other milks competing out there, but number one on the list is the "Negative messages and intense pressure to reduce saturated fats by governments and non- governmental organizations." In short, the negative messages are outweighing the positive, so indeed, their number one priority is to neutralize the negative image of milk fat among regulators and health professionals as related to heart disease.

So if we are the dairy industry, how are we going to do it? Imagine we work for Big Butter. We've got quite the challenge ahead of us. If we look at recommendations from around the globe, there is a global scientific consensus to limit saturated fat intake with most authoritative bodies recommending getting saturated fat at least under 10% of calories, with the prestigious U.S. Institute of Medicine and the European Food Safety Authority recommending to push saturated fat consumption down as low as possible.

The latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology recommend reducing trans fat intake, giving it their strongest A-grade level of evidence. And they say the same same for reducing saturated fat intake. Since saturated and trans fats are found in the same place, meat and dairy, cutting down on foods with saturated fat will have the additional benefit of lowering trans fat intake. They recommend pushing saturated fat intake down to 5 or 6%. People don't realize how small that is. One KFC chicken breast could take us over the top. Or, two pats of butter and two cubes of cheese and we're done for the day--no more dairy, meat, or eggs. That'd be about 200 calories, so they are in effect saying 90% of our diet should be free of saturated fat-containing foods. That's like the American Heart Association saying, "two meals a week can be packed with meat, dairy, and junk, but the entire rest of the week should be unprocessed plant-foods." That's how stringent the new recommendations are.

So this poses a problem for Big Cheese and Chicken. The top contributors of cholesterol-raising saturated fat is cheese, ice cream, chicken, non-ice cream desserts like cake and pie, and then pork. So what are these industries to do? See The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

For those unfamiliar with Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy (and refined vegetable oils), that's why I made a video about it.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine "as low as possible" position, echoed by the European Food Safety Authority, is described in my video: Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

What happened when a country tried to put the lower saturated fat guidance into practice? See the remarkable results in Dietary Guidelines: From Dairies to Berries.

Don't think the dietary guidelines process could be undermined by underhanded corporate tactics? Sad but true:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: Johnathan Nightingale / Flickr

Original Link

How Fatty Foods May Affect Our Love Life

NF-Oct23 Are Fatty Foods Addictive?.jpg

The food industry, like the tobacco companies and other drug lords, has been able to come up with products that tap into the same dopamine reward system that keeps people smoking cigarettes, using marijuana, and eating candy bars (See Are Sugary Foods Addictive?). New research, highlighted in my video Are Fatty Foods Addictive? suggests that fat may have similar effects on the brain. If people are fed yogurt packed with butter fat, within 30 minutes they exhibit the same brain activity as those who just drank sugar water.

People who regularly eat ice cream (sugar and fat) have a deadened dopamine response in their brains in response to drinking a milkshake. It's similar to when drug abusers have to use more and more to get the same high. Frequent ice cream consumption "is related to a reduction in reward-region (pleasure center) responsivity in humans, paralleling the tolerance observed in drug addiction." Once we've so dulled our dopamine response, we may subsequently overeat in an effort to achieve the degree of satisfaction experienced previously, contributing to unhealthy weight gain.

What do fatty and sugary foods have in common? They are energy-dense. It may be less about the number of calories than their concentration. Consumption of a calorie-dilute diet doesn't lead to deadened dopamine responsivity, but a calorie-dense diet with the same number of calories does. It's like the difference between cocaine and crack: same stuff chemically, but by smoking crack cocaine we can deliver a higher dose quicker to our brain.

As an aside, I found it interesting that the control drink in these milkshake studies wasn't just water. They can't use water because our brain actually tastes water on the tongue (who knew!). So instead the researchers had people drink a solution "designed to mimic the natural taste of saliva." Ew!

Anyway, with this new understanding of the neural correlates of food addiction, there have been calls to include obesity as an official mental disorder. After all, both obesity and addiction share the inability to restrain behavior in spite of an awareness of detrimental health consequences, one of the defining criteria of substance abuse. We keep putting crap in our bodies despite the knowledge that we have a problem that is likely caused by the crap, yet we can't stop (a phenomena called the "pleasure trap").

Redefining obesity as an addiction, a psychiatric disease, would be a boon to the drug companies that are already working on a whole bunch of drugs to muck with our brain chemistry. For example, subjects given an opiate blocker (like what's done for people with heroin overdoses to block the effects of the drug) eat significantly less cheese -- it just doesn't do as much for them anymore when their opiate receptors are blocked.

Rather than taking drugs, though, we can prevent the deadening of our pleasure center in the first place by sticking to foods that are naturally calorically dilute, like whole plant foods. This can help bring back our dopamine sensitivity such that we can again derive the same pleasure from the simplest of foods (see Changing Our Taste Buds). And this is not just for people who are obese. When we regularly eat calorie dense animal and junk foods like ice cream, we can blunt our pleasure so that we may overeat to compensate. When our brain down-regulates dopamine receptors to deal with all these jolts of fat and sugar, we may experience less enjoyment from other activities as well.

That's why cocaine addicts may have an impaired neurological capacity to enjoy sex, and why smokers have an impaired ability to respond to positive stimuli. Since these all involve the same dopamine pathways, what we put into our body--what we eat--can affect how we experience all of life's pleasures.

So to live life to the fullest, what should we do? The food industry, according to some addiction specialists, "should be given incentives to develop low calorie foods that are more attractive, palatable and affordable so that people can adhere to diet programs for a long time." No need! Mother Nature beat them to it--that's what the produce aisle is for.

By starting to eat healthfully, we can actually change how things taste. Healthiest means whole plant foods, which tend to be naturally dilute given their water and fiber content. Not only is fiber also calorie-free, but one might think of it as having "negative" calories, given the fermentation of fiber in our bowel into anti-obesity compounds (as well as anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer compounds). For this reason, those eating plant-based diets eat hundreds of fewer calories without even trying. (See my video Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management).

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Images thanks to Burger Austin / Flickr

Original Link

How to Get Kids to Eat Their Vegetables

How to Get Kids to Eat Their Vegetables

What happens if we give one group of kids a plate of cookies and the other group the same number of cookies, but cut in half, and tell both groups they can eat as many as they want? Researchers reported that decreasing cookie size led to 25% fewer cookie calories eaten.

The goal of that study was to help counter obesity-promoting eating behaviors facilitated by the availability of large portions of junk food. The findings "suggest that reducing the size of cookies (without altering the total amount of food) decreases children's short-term caloric intake," a dietary strategy for parents to discreetly decrease unhealthy behaviors. But they were using sugar wafers- what's in those things? Partially hydrogenated oil (trans fats). What's so bad about trans fats? See Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy, Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero, and Breast Cancer Survival and Trans Fat. No one should be eating those cookies. In fact, I can think of another "dietary strategy" to decrease kid's intake--don't give them any!

Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Even in the 'granola crunchy' San Francisco Bay Area, a proposed ban on junk food suggested by parents and school administrators sent a faction of teachers into an apoplectic fit. In Texas, there was so much parental outrage that they got lawmakers to pass a Safe Cupcake Amendment. The amendment, known as Lauren's Law, ensures that parents and grandparents of schoolchildren celebrating a birthday can bring whatever they want to school.

Fine. What if we just offered fruit in addition to the cupcakes at classroom celebrations? In a study outlined in my video, Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at School, researchers provided bowls of fresh, cut-up fruit in addition to the party food brought by the parents at two of four kindergarten or preschool celebrations to observe student response. No special effort was made to encourage students to choose the fruit: they just put it out there. Would kids actually eat fruit when there was birthday cake, ice cream, and cheese puffs taking up nearly a whopping third of their daily caloric intake? Yes! On average each kid ate a full fruit serving. Take that, cheesy puffs!

There are entire curricula available now for schools, such as "Veggiecation," where for a whole year classrooms feature a new "veggie of the month," sprinkled with nutrition mantras like "Fiber equals a happy tummy." And they work! "The active engagement of students in tasting and rating vegetable dishes seemed to have contributed to higher consumption of featured vegetables."

One school was able in some cases to double vegetable consumption just by giving them attractive names. Elementary students ate twice the number of carrots if they were called "X-ray Vision Carrots," compared to when they were just "carrots" or generically named "Food of the Day."

How about "Power Punch Broccoli, Silly Dilly Green Beans, or Tiny Tasty Tree Tops?" Selection of broccoli increased by 109.4%, and green beans by 177%. Conclusion: "these studies demonstrate that using an attractive name to describe a healthy food in a cafeteria is robustly effective, persistent, and scalable with little or no money or experience. These names were not carefully crafted, discussed in focus groups, and then pre-tested." They just thought them up out of thin air. And kids were suckered into eating healthier for months by putting out silly little signs. In this school, vegetable intake was up nearly 100%, while in the control school without signs, vegetable consumption started low and actually got worse. So why isn't every single school in the country doing this right now?! Bring it up at your next PTA meeting.

And if we want to get really bold, we can join the nutritious school lunch revolution led by pioneering organizations like the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food (check out their website at www.healthyschoolfood.org).

Whenever I find myself frustrated by half measures, I am forced to remind myself just how SAD the Standard American Diet is. See Nation's Diet in Crisis for a reality check. One of the problems is that parents may not even realize there is a problem (Mothers Overestimate Dietary Quality).

For more healthy eating tricks check out: Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at Home and Tricks to Get Adults to Eat Healthier.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

Original Link

Food Dyes and ADHD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Dyes and ADHD

There are currently thousands of additives in our food supply. Some are good—like supplementing foods with vitamin B12, for example (See Vitamin B12 Necessary for Arterial Health). Other additives involve weighing the risks and benefits. Take nitrites in processed meats. Yes, they may increase our risk of cancer but, as preservatives, they decrease our risk of dying from botulism (See When Nitrates Go Bad and Bacon and Botulism). Then there are additives used for purely cosmetic purposes, like food dyes, used to provide color to colorless and “fun” foods. According to the FDA, “Without color additives, colas wouldn’t be brown, margarine wouldn’t be yellow and mint ice cream wouldn’t be green.” Heavens forbid! Color additives are now recognized as an important part of practically all processed foods we eat.

Because we’re eating a lot more processed foods, we’re now getting five times more food dyes in our daily diet than we were 50 years ago. Fifteen million pounds of food dyes are used every year in foods, drugs, and cosmetics in the United States.

I always wondered why they called them, for example, Blue #1 instead of their actual chemical name in the list of ingredients. Then, after reading this report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, I realized why. Picture a box of Kraft mac and cheese. It has Yellow #5. Would people be as likely to buy this product if instead of Yellow #5 it listed Trisodium 1-(4-sulfonatophenyl)-4-(4-sulfonatophenylazo)-5-(pyrazolone-3-carboxylate) on the label?

The list of food dyes used to be longer (See Artificial Food Colors and ADHD), but different dyes kept getting banned—including Violet #1, which, ironically, was the color used in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s meat inspection stamp, so they may have been actually further cancer-ing up the meat.

Years ago I featured a landmark study in my video Are Artificial Colors Bad for You?, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world. It showed that artificial colors increased "inattentiveness, impulsivity, and hyperactivity among young children." So what happened? Well, the British government said, OK, there’re no health benefits to these dyes, only health risks, so it’s a no-brainer. They mandated that food manufacturers remove most of the artificial food colors from products. In fact, the whole European Union said that if manufacturers want to keep using the dyes, then they have to put a warning label stating: “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Many international food companies have taken them out of their products in Europe, but continue to use them in the same products here in the U.S. where similar regulations are not currently in place. Why did the U.S. government take steps to get rid of them as well?

The FDA put together a committee that looked at the landmark study and conceded that the food additives may have resulted in changes in behavior, but the “type of treatment effects reported in the study, even though the investigators referred to increases in levels of ‘hyperactivity,’ were not the disruptive excessive hyperactivity behaviors of ADHD but more likely the type of over-activity exhibited occasionally by the general population of preschool and school age children.” A distinguished toxicologist basically responded, “look, low level lead exposure may only shave off a few IQ points off of kids, but just because they’d still fall within a normal range, doesn’t mean it’s OK to expose it to our kids.” And looking back now, the lead in leaded gas may have been causing brain cancer and possibly even urban violence—the aggravated assault rate in cities around the U.S. seemed to closely follow the lead levels in the air.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest continues to call on the FDA to ban food dyes and for food companies to voluntarily stop using them. Good luck with that. In the meantime, some researchers recently suggested a way to see which food colors may be damaging our child’s brain, advising parents to test artificial colors by purchasing little bottles of food dyes at the grocery store. Then have their kid do some homework or something and then have them chug down an artificial color and see if it affects their handwriting/reading/math at 30 minutes, at 90 minutes, and 3 hours. They also see if they get irritable later, have problems sleeping, and so on. If that’s OK, they say you should try even more to see if more will mess with their mind. If I may offer an alternate suggestion, maybe we shouldn’t buy our kids processed junk in the first place.

This whole saga reminds me of the artificial flavor in my video Butter-Flavored Microwave Popcorn or Breathing. It’s amazing what the food industry is able to get away with. There’s even sometimes Artificial Coloring in Fish.

There is a campaign to get Kraft to remove yellow #5 from their mac & cheese, but even if the stuff didn’t glow in the dark it’s still just a blob of sodium (750 mg), saturated fat (4.5 g), and trans fat (2.8 g). The food movement might better spend its time encouraging healthier fare altogether.

How can we get our kids to eat less processed junk? I review some practical tips in my videos Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at School and Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at Home. 

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image Credit: Asif Ali / Flickr

Original Link