How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer

Sept 19 Doctors copy.jpeg

In my video Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure, I profiled a paper that added up all the deaths caused by medical care in this country, including the hundred thousand deaths from medication side effects, all the deaths caused by errors, and so on. The author of the paper concluded that the third leading cause of death in America is the American medical system.

What was the medical community's reaction to this revelation? After all, the paper was published in one of the most prestigious medical journals, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and was authored by one of our most prestigious physicians, Barbara Starfield, who literally wrote the book on primary care. When she was asked in an interview what the response was, Starfield replied that her primary care work had been widely embraced, but her findings on how harmful and ineffective healthcare could be received almost no attention.

This inspires the recollection of "the dark dystopia of George Orwell's 1984, where awkward facts are swallowed up by the 'memory hole' as if they had never existed at all." Report after report has come out, and the response has been a deafening silence both in deed and in word, failing to even openly discuss the problem, leading to thousands of additional deaths. We can't just keep putting out reports, we have to actually do something.

As I discuss in my video How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer, the first report was published in 1978, suggesting about 120,000 preventable hospital deaths a year. The response? Silence for another 16 years until another scathing reminder was published. If we multiply 120,000 by those 16 years, we get 1.9 million preventable deaths, about which there was near total doctor silence. There was no substantial effort to reduce the number of those deaths. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) then released its landmark study in 1999, asserting that yet another 600,000 patients died during that time when providers could have acted.

Some things have finally changed. Work hour limits were instituted for medical trainees. Interns and residents could no longer be worked more than 80 hours a week, at least on paper, and the shifts couldn't be more than 30 hours long. That may not sound like a big step, but when I started out my internship, I worked 36 hour shifts every three days, 117-hour work weeks.

When interns and residents are forced to pull all-nighters, they make 36% more serious medical errors, five times more diagnostic errors, and have twice as many "attentional failures." That doesn't sound so bad, until you realize that means things like nodding off during surgery.

The patient is supposed to be asleep during surgery, not the surgeon.

Performance is impaired as much as a blood alcohol level that would make it illegal to drive a car--but these overworked interns and residents can still do surgery. No surprise there were 300% more patient deaths. Residents consider themselves lucky if they get through training without killing anyone. Not that the family would ever find out. With rare exceptions, doctors are unaccountable for their actions.

The IOM report did break the silence and prompted widespread promises of change, but what they did not do is act as if they really believed their own findings. If we truly believed that a minimum of 120 people every day were dying preventable deaths in hospitals, we would draw a line in the sand. If an airliner was crashing every day, we'd expect that the FAA would step in and do something. The Institute of Medicine could insistently demand that doctors and hospitals immediately adopt at least a minimum set of preventive practices--for example, bar-coding drugs so there aren't any mix-ups, like they do for even a pack of Tic Tacs at the grocery store. Rather than just going on to write yet another report, they could bluntly warn colleagues they would publicly censure those who resisted implementing these minimum practices, calling for some kind of stringent sanctions.

Instead, we get silence. But not for Barbara Starfield, who is unfortunately no longer with us. Ironically, she may have died from one of the adverse drug reactions she so vociferously warned us about. She was placed on aspirin and the blood-thinner Plavix to keep a stent she had to have placed in her coronary artery from clogging up. She told her cardiologist she was bruising more, bleeding longer, but those side effects are the risks you hope don't outweigh the benefits. Starfield apparently hit her head while swimming and bled into her brain.

The question for me is not whether she should have been on two blood-thinners for that long or even whether she should have had the stent inserted. Instead, I question whether or not she could have outright avoided the heart disease, which is 96% avoidable in women.

The number-one killer of women need almost never happen.


For those curious about my time in medical training, you can read my memoir of sorts, Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student.

It isn't just medical treatment that can be harmful. Even medical diagnosis can be dangerous, as I discuss in my video Cancer Risk From CT Scan Radiation.

And, just as we're (finally) seeing some changes in training protocols, the times, they are a-changin' with the emergence of the field of lifestyle medicine, as I present in several videos, including:

I recently made some videos to give people a closer look at why I believe it's so important for us to take responsibility for our own health. You can see all of them on our new Introductory Videos page.

I'm excited to be part of this revolution in medicine. Please consider joining me by supporting the 501c3 nonprofit organization that keeps NutritionFacts.org alive by making a tax-deductible donation. Thank you so much for helping me help so many others.

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:

Original Link

How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer

Sept 19 Doctors copy.jpeg

In my video Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure, I profiled a paper that added up all the deaths caused by medical care in this country, including the hundred thousand deaths from medication side effects, all the deaths caused by errors, and so on. The author of the paper concluded that the third leading cause of death in America is the American medical system.

What was the medical community's reaction to this revelation? After all, the paper was published in one of the most prestigious medical journals, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and was authored by one of our most prestigious physicians, Barbara Starfield, who literally wrote the book on primary care. When she was asked in an interview what the response was, Starfield replied that her primary care work had been widely embraced, but her findings on how harmful and ineffective healthcare could be received almost no attention.

This inspires the recollection of "the dark dystopia of George Orwell's 1984, where awkward facts are swallowed up by the 'memory hole' as if they had never existed at all." Report after report has come out, and the response has been a deafening silence both in deed and in word, failing to even openly discuss the problem, leading to thousands of additional deaths. We can't just keep putting out reports, we have to actually do something.

As I discuss in my video How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer, the first report was published in 1978, suggesting about 120,000 preventable hospital deaths a year. The response? Silence for another 16 years until another scathing reminder was published. If we multiply 120,000 by those 16 years, we get 1.9 million preventable deaths, about which there was near total doctor silence. There was no substantial effort to reduce the number of those deaths. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) then released its landmark study in 1999, asserting that yet another 600,000 patients died during that time when providers could have acted.

Some things have finally changed. Work hour limits were instituted for medical trainees. Interns and residents could no longer be worked more than 80 hours a week, at least on paper, and the shifts couldn't be more than 30 hours long. That may not sound like a big step, but when I started out my internship, I worked 36 hour shifts every three days, 117-hour work weeks.

When interns and residents are forced to pull all-nighters, they make 36% more serious medical errors, five times more diagnostic errors, and have twice as many "attentional failures." That doesn't sound so bad, until you realize that means things like nodding off during surgery.

The patient is supposed to be asleep during surgery, not the surgeon.

Performance is impaired as much as a blood alcohol level that would make it illegal to drive a car--but these overworked interns and residents can still do surgery. No surprise there were 300% more patient deaths. Residents consider themselves lucky if they get through training without killing anyone. Not that the family would ever find out. With rare exceptions, doctors are unaccountable for their actions.

The IOM report did break the silence and prompted widespread promises of change, but what they did not do is act as if they really believed their own findings. If we truly believed that a minimum of 120 people every day were dying preventable deaths in hospitals, we would draw a line in the sand. If an airliner was crashing every day, we'd expect that the FAA would step in and do something. The Institute of Medicine could insistently demand that doctors and hospitals immediately adopt at least a minimum set of preventive practices--for example, bar-coding drugs so there aren't any mix-ups, like they do for even a pack of Tic Tacs at the grocery store. Rather than just going on to write yet another report, they could bluntly warn colleagues they would publicly censure those who resisted implementing these minimum practices, calling for some kind of stringent sanctions.

Instead, we get silence. But not for Barbara Starfield, who is unfortunately no longer with us. Ironically, she may have died from one of the adverse drug reactions she so vociferously warned us about. She was placed on aspirin and the blood-thinner Plavix to keep a stent she had to have placed in her coronary artery from clogging up. She told her cardiologist she was bruising more, bleeding longer, but those side effects are the risks you hope don't outweigh the benefits. Starfield apparently hit her head while swimming and bled into her brain.

The question for me is not whether she should have been on two blood-thinners for that long or even whether she should have had the stent inserted. Instead, I question whether or not she could have outright avoided the heart disease, which is 96% avoidable in women.

The number-one killer of women need almost never happen.


For those curious about my time in medical training, you can read my memoir of sorts, Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student.

It isn't just medical treatment that can be harmful. Even medical diagnosis can be dangerous, as I discuss in my video Cancer Risk From CT Scan Radiation.

And, just as we're (finally) seeing some changes in training protocols, the times, they are a-changin' with the emergence of the field of lifestyle medicine, as I present in several videos, including:

I recently made some videos to give people a closer look at why I believe it's so important for us to take responsibility for our own health. You can see all of them on our new Introductory Videos page.

I'm excited to be part of this revolution in medicine. Please consider joining me by supporting the 501c3 nonprofit organization that keeps NutritionFacts.org alive by making a tax-deductible donation. Thank you so much for helping me help so many others.

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:

Original Link

The Natural Human Diet

NF-Nov15 The Problem with the Paleo Diet Argument copy.jpg

Our epidemics of dietary disease have prompted a great deal of research into what humans are meant to eat for optimal health. In 1985, an influential article highlighted in my video The Problem With the Paleo Diet Argument was published proposing that our chronic diseases stem from a disconnect between what our bodies ate while evolving during the Stone Age (about 2 million years ago) and what we're stuffing our face with today. The proposal advocated for a return towards a hunter-gatherer type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

It's reasonable to assume our nutritional requirements were established in the prehistoric past. However, the question of which prehistoric past we should emulate remains. Why just the last 2 million? We've been evolving for about 20 million years since our last common great ape ancestor, during which our nutrient requirements and digestive physiology were set down. Therefore our hunter-gatherer days at the tail end probably had little effect. What were we eating for the first 90% of our evolution? What the rest of the great apes ended up eating--95 percent or more plants.

This may explain why we're so susceptible to heart disease. For most of human evolution, cholesterol may have been virtually absent from the diet. No bacon, butter, or trans fats; and massive amounts of fiber, which pulls cholesterol from the body. This could have been a problem since our body needs a certain amount of cholesterol, but our bodies evolve not only to make cholesterol, but also to preserve it and recycle it.

If we think of the human body as a cholesterol-conserving machine, then plop it into the modern world of bacon, eggs, cheese, chicken, pork, and pastry; it's no wonder artery-clogging heart disease is our #1 cause of death. What used to be adaptive for 90% of our evolution--holding on to cholesterol at all costs since we weren't getting much in our diet--is today maladaptive, a liability leading to the clogging of our arteries. Our bodies just can't handle it.

As the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology noted 25 years ago, no matter how much fat and cholesterol carnivores eat, they do not develop atherosclerosis. We can feed a dog 500 eggs worth of cholesterol and they just wag their tail; a dog's body is used to eating and getting rid of excess cholesterol. Conversely, within months a fraction of that cholesterol can start clogging the arteries of animals adapted to eating a more plant-based diet.

Even if our bodies were designed by natural selection to eat mostly fruit, greens and seeds for 90% of our evolution, why didn't we better adapt to meat-eating in the last 10%, during the Paleolithic? We've had nearly 2 million years to get used to all that extra saturated fat and cholesterol. If a lifetime of eating like that clogs up nearly everyone's arteries, why didn't the genes of those who got heart attacks die off and get replaced by those that could live to a ripe old age with clean arteries regardless of what they ate? Because most didn't survive into old age.

Most prehistoric peoples didn't live long enough to get heart attacks. When the average life expectancy is 25 years old, then the genes that get passed along are those that can live to reproductive age by any means necessary, and that means not dying of starvation. The more calories in food, the better. Eating lots of bone marrow and brains, human or otherwise, would have a selective advantage (as would discovering a time machine stash of Twinkies for that matter!). If we only have to live long enough to get our kids to puberty to pass along our genes, then we don't have to evolve any protections against the ravages of chronic disease.

To find a population nearly free of chronic disease in old age, we don't have to go back a million years. In the 20th century, networks of missionary hospitals in rural Africa found coronary artery disease virtually absent, and not just heart disease, but high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, common cancers, and more. In a sense, these populations in rural China and Africa were eating the type of diet we've been eating for 90% of the last 20 million years, a diet almost exclusively of plant foods.

How do we know it was their diet and not something else? In the 25 year update to their original paleo paper, the authors tried to clarify that they did not then and do not now propose that people adopt a particular diet just based on what our ancient ancestors ate. Dietary recommendations must be put to the test. That's why the pioneering research from Pritikin, Ornish, and Esselstyn is so important, showing that plant-based diets can not only stop heart disease but have been proven to reverse it in the majority of patients. Indeed, it's the only diet that ever has.

For more on the absence of Western diseases in plant-based rural populations, see for example:

I've touched on "paleo" diets in the past:

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:

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert / Flickr

Original Link

The Natural Human Diet

NF-Nov15 The Problem with the Paleo Diet Argument copy.jpg

Our epidemics of dietary disease have prompted a great deal of research into what humans are meant to eat for optimal health. In 1985, an influential article highlighted in my video The Problem With the Paleo Diet Argument was published proposing that our chronic diseases stem from a disconnect between what our bodies ate while evolving during the Stone Age (about 2 million years ago) and what we're stuffing our face with today. The proposal advocated for a return towards a hunter-gatherer type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

It's reasonable to assume our nutritional requirements were established in the prehistoric past. However, the question of which prehistoric past we should emulate remains. Why just the last 2 million? We've been evolving for about 20 million years since our last common great ape ancestor, during which our nutrient requirements and digestive physiology were set down. Therefore our hunter-gatherer days at the tail end probably had little effect. What were we eating for the first 90% of our evolution? What the rest of the great apes ended up eating--95 percent or more plants.

This may explain why we're so susceptible to heart disease. For most of human evolution, cholesterol may have been virtually absent from the diet. No bacon, butter, or trans fats; and massive amounts of fiber, which pulls cholesterol from the body. This could have been a problem since our body needs a certain amount of cholesterol, but our bodies evolve not only to make cholesterol, but also to preserve it and recycle it.

If we think of the human body as a cholesterol-conserving machine, then plop it into the modern world of bacon, eggs, cheese, chicken, pork, and pastry; it's no wonder artery-clogging heart disease is our #1 cause of death. What used to be adaptive for 90% of our evolution--holding on to cholesterol at all costs since we weren't getting much in our diet--is today maladaptive, a liability leading to the clogging of our arteries. Our bodies just can't handle it.

As the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology noted 25 years ago, no matter how much fat and cholesterol carnivores eat, they do not develop atherosclerosis. We can feed a dog 500 eggs worth of cholesterol and they just wag their tail; a dog's body is used to eating and getting rid of excess cholesterol. Conversely, within months a fraction of that cholesterol can start clogging the arteries of animals adapted to eating a more plant-based diet.

Even if our bodies were designed by natural selection to eat mostly fruit, greens and seeds for 90% of our evolution, why didn't we better adapt to meat-eating in the last 10%, during the Paleolithic? We've had nearly 2 million years to get used to all that extra saturated fat and cholesterol. If a lifetime of eating like that clogs up nearly everyone's arteries, why didn't the genes of those who got heart attacks die off and get replaced by those that could live to a ripe old age with clean arteries regardless of what they ate? Because most didn't survive into old age.

Most prehistoric peoples didn't live long enough to get heart attacks. When the average life expectancy is 25 years old, then the genes that get passed along are those that can live to reproductive age by any means necessary, and that means not dying of starvation. The more calories in food, the better. Eating lots of bone marrow and brains, human or otherwise, would have a selective advantage (as would discovering a time machine stash of Twinkies for that matter!). If we only have to live long enough to get our kids to puberty to pass along our genes, then we don't have to evolve any protections against the ravages of chronic disease.

To find a population nearly free of chronic disease in old age, we don't have to go back a million years. In the 20th century, networks of missionary hospitals in rural Africa found coronary artery disease virtually absent, and not just heart disease, but high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, common cancers, and more. In a sense, these populations in rural China and Africa were eating the type of diet we've been eating for 90% of the last 20 million years, a diet almost exclusively of plant foods.

How do we know it was their diet and not something else? In the 25 year update to their original paleo paper, the authors tried to clarify that they did not then and do not now propose that people adopt a particular diet just based on what our ancient ancestors ate. Dietary recommendations must be put to the test. That's why the pioneering research from Pritikin, Ornish, and Esselstyn is so important, showing that plant-based diets can not only stop heart disease but have been proven to reverse it in the majority of patients. Indeed, it's the only diet that ever has.

For more on the absence of Western diseases in plant-based rural populations, see for example:

I've touched on "paleo" diets in the past:

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:

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert / Flickr

Original Link

What To Do if You Suspect Gluten Problems

NF-Mar1 How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance.jpeg

Symptoms of gluten sensitivity include irritable bowel type symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain, and changes in bowel habits, as well as systemic manifestations such as brain fog, headache, fatigue, depression, joint and muscle aches, numbness in the extremities, skin rash, or anemia. I previously discussed why people who suspect they might be gluten sensitive should not go on a gluten-free diet. But if that's true, what should they do?

The first thing is a formal evaluation for celiac disease, which currently involves blood tests and a small intestinal biopsy. If the evaluation is positive, then a gluten-free diet is necessary. If it's negative, it's best to try a healthier diet with more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans while avoiding processed junk. In the past, a gluten-free diet had many benefits over the traditional American diet because it required increasing fruit and vegetable intake--so no wonder people felt better eating gluten-free: no more unhealthy bread products, no more fast food restaurants. Now, there is just as much gluten-free junk out there.

If a healthy diet doesn't help, then the next step is to try ruling out other causes of chronic gastrointestinal distress. In a study of 84 people who claim gluten causes them adverse reactions (they're referred to in the literature as"PWAWGs," People Who Avoid Wheat and/or Gluten), highlighted in my video, How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance, about a third didn't appear to have gluten sensitivity at all. Instead, they either had an overgrowth of bacteria in their small intestine, were fructose or lactose intolerant, or had a neuromuscular disorder like gastroparesis or pelvic floor dysfunction. Only if those are also ruled out, would I suggest people suffering from chronic suspicious symptoms try a gluten-free diet. If symptoms improve, stick with it and maybe re-challenge with gluten periodically.

Unlike the treatment for celiac disease, a gluten-free diet for gluten sensitivity is ideal not only to prevent serious complications from an autoimmune reaction, but to resolve symptoms and try to improve a patient's quality of life. However, a gluten-free diet itself can also reduce quality of life, so it's a matter of trying to continually strike the balance. For example, gluten-free foods can be expensive, averaging about triple the cost. Most people would benefit from buying an extra bunch of kale or blueberries instead.

No current data suggests that that general population should maintain a gluten-free lifestyle, but for those with celiac disease, a wheat allergy, or a sensitivity diagnosis, gluten-free diets can be a lifesaver.

For more on gluten, check out Is Gluten Sensitivity Real? and Gluten-Free Diets: Separating the Wheat from the Chat.

Some food strategies that may help with irritable bowel symptoms are covered in a few of my previous videos, such as Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion.

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 Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Jeremy Segrott/ Flickr

Original Link

Low Carb Diets Found to Feed Heart Disease

NF-May19 Low Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow.jpg

People going on low carb diets may not see a rise in their cholesterol levels. How is that possible? Because weight loss by any means can drop our cholesterol. We could go on an all-Twinkie diet and lower our cholesterol as long as we didn't eat too many. A good cocaine habit could do it. Anything that drops our weight can drop our cholesterol, but the goal isn't to fit into a skinnier casket; the reason we care about cardiovascular risk factors like cholesterol is because we care about cardiovascular risk, the health of our arteries.

Now we have studies that measure the impact of low carb diets on arteries directly, and a review of all the best studies to date found that low-carb diets impair arterial function, as evidenced by a decrease in flow-mediated dilation, meaning low-carb diets effectively stiffen people's arteries. And since that meta-analysis was published, a new study found the same thing: "A dietary pattern characterized by high protein and fat, but low carbohydrate was associated with poorer peripheral small artery function," again measuring blood flow into people's limbs. But peripheral circulation is not as important as the circulation in the coronary arteries that feed our heart.

There has only been one study ever done measuring actual blood flow to the heart muscles of people eating low-carb diets. Dr. Richard Fleming, an accomplished nuclear cardiologist, enrolled 26 people into a comprehensive study of the effects of diet on cardiac function using the latest in nuclear imaging technology-so-called SPECT scans, enabling him to actually directly measure the blood flow within the coronary arteries.

He then put them all on a healthy vegetarian diet, and a year later the scans were repeated. By that time, however, ten of the patients had jumped ship onto the low carb bandwagon. At first I bet he was disappointed, but surely soon realized he had an unparalleled research opportunity dropped into his lap. Here he had extensive imaging of ten people before and after following a low carb diet and 16 following a high carb diet. What would their hearts look like at the end of the year? We can talk about risk factors all we want, but compared to the veg group, did the coronary heart disease of the patients following the Atkins-like diets improve, worsen, or stay the same?

Those sticking to the vegetarian diet showed a reversal of their heart disease as expected. Their partially clogged arteries literally got cleaned out. They had 20% less atherosclerotic plaque in their arteries at the end of the year than at the beginning. What happened to those who abandoned the treatment diet, and switched over to the low-carb diet? Their condition significantly worsened. 40% to 50% more artery clogging at the end of the year. In heart scans of the patients, as seen in my video, Low Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow, the yellow and particularly red areas represent blood flow through the coronary arteries to the heart muscle. The scan of one of the patients who went on a plant-based diet, shows how their arteries opened right up increasing the blood flow. Another person, however, started out with good flow, but after a year on a low-carb diet, they significantly clogged down their arterial blood flow.

So this is the best science we have, demonstrating the threat of low-carb diets, not just measuring risk factors, but actual blood flow in people's hearts on different diets. Of course the reason we care about cardiac blood flow, is we don't want to die. Another meta-analysis was recently published that finally went ahead and measured the ultimate end-point, death, and low-carb diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality, meaning living a significantly shorter lifespan.

The reason I have so few videos about low-carb diets is that I already wrote a book about it. Carbophobia is now available free online full-text at AtkinsFacts.org. Atkins' lawyers threatened to sue, leading to a heated exchange you're sure to enjoy that I reprint in the book. I did touch on it Atkins Diet: Trouble Keeping it Up, though low carb diets don't necessarily have to be that unhealthy (see my video Plant-Based Atkins Diet).

Here are some videos I've done on conquering our #1 killer:

-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.

Image Credit: ryan.dowd / Flickr

Original Link

Peeks Behind the Egg Industry Curtain

NF-Mar19 Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?.jpg

The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government whose mission is to "increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers." If an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say pretty much whatever they want. But if an egg corporation wants to dip into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising every year, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. This leads to quite revealing exchanges between egg corporations that want to use that money and the USDA on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course a lot of what I got were pages with nearly all of the text blacked out (you can see these in my video, Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?). But I did find some illuminating correspondence. For example, one email shows an egg company trying to put out a brochure on healthy snacking for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising, the head of the USDA's poultry research and promotion programs reminds the company that eggs or egg products cannot be couched as being healthy or nutritious. "The words nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations, and because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do, plus the fact that they're not low in fat, [the words healthy and nutritious] are problematic." This is the United States Department of Agriculture saying this!

However, the USDA official helpfully suggests, "I believe you can say something that's just as strong if not stronger, that is 'naturally nutrient-dense.'" Why can we say eggs are nutrient-dense but not nutritious? Because there's no legal definition of nutrient-dense. We can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient dense, but legally, we can't say something is nutritious unless it's actually... nutritious.

For example, the egg industry wanted to run an ad calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse that aids in weight loss. The USDA had to remind the industry that they can't portray eggs as a diet food because of the fat and cholesterol content. In fact, eggs have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called "low-calorie."

"Nutritional powerhouse" can't be used either. Fine, the industry said, they'll move to plan B, and headline the ad "Egg-ceptional Nutrition." They couldn't say that either because, again, given the saturated fat and cholesterol you can't legally call eggs nutritious. So the headline ended up as, "Find true satisfaction," and instead of weight loss they had to go with "can reduce hunger." The USDA congratulated them on their cleverness. Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger--what a concept!

They can't even say eggs are "relatively" low in calories. Can't say eggs are low in saturated fat--they're not. Can't say they're relatively low in fat, they're not. Can't even call them a rich source of protein, because, according to the USDA, they're not.

It's illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop, or that they have a high nutritional content. Eggs have so much cholesterol, we can't even say they "contribute nutritionally." Can't say eggs are "healthful," certainly can't say they're "healthy." Can't even say eggs contribute "healthful components."

Since we can't say eggs are a healthy start to the day, the USDA suggests a "satisfying start." Egg corporations can't call eggs a healthy ingredient, but they can call eggs a "recognizable" ingredient. Can't truthfully say eggs are good for us, either. By law, according to the USDA, the egg industry "needs to steer clear of words like 'healthy' or 'nutritious.'"

For a food to be labeled "healthy" under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat (eggs fail that criteria) and have less than 90mg of cholesterol per serving (even half an egg fails that test). For the same reason we can't tout ice cream for strong bones, we can't say eggs are healthy because they exceed the threshold for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren't even allowed to say things like "Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet" on an egg carton because it would be considered misleading according to the USDA's National Egg Supervisor, since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol and therefore can contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can't afford to tell the truth about the eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams five to ten birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media, the American Egg Board instructs, "do not show multiple birds in cages--they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism."

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy, they can't even refer to eggs as safe because more than a hundred thousand Americans are food poisoned by Salmonella from eggs every year.

The egg board's response to this egg-borne epidemic is that Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacterium. An internal egg industry memo didn't think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing that "it may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs altogether."

The food poisoning risk is why the American Egg Board can't even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up--because of the Salmonella risk. The American Egg Board's own research showed that the sunny-side up cooking method should be considered "unsafe."

In light of bird flu viruses, both the white and yolk must be cooked firm. The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained to the USDA saying they'd "really like to not have to dictate that the yolks are firm," and cites a Washington Post article saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone except pregnant women, infants, elderly, or those with chronic disease. It turns out it was a misquote--eggs can't be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe, they can call eggs "fresh," the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests. But they can't call eggs safe, and they can't say eggs are "safe to eat." They can't even mention safety at all.

Wait a second, not only can eggs not be called healthy they can't even be called safe? Says who? Says the United States Department of Agriculture.

For more peeks behind the egg industry curtain see:

-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.

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

Original Link

How to Design a Misleading Study

NF-Aug12  How the Meat Industry Designed a Highly Misleading Study.jpg

Imagine working for the now defunct Twinkie division of Hostess and wanting to take the tobacco industry tact of not just downplaying the risk of your product, but actually promoting it as healthy. How would we do that?

Our first problem is that each Twinkie has 2.5 grams of saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, the #1 risk factor of our #1 killer, heart disease. How are we going to get around that?

Well, what if we designed a study in which we took a bunch of people eating our arch-rival, Little Debbie cloud cakes. Now they only have one gram each, so what if we took a group eating five cloud cakes a day -- five grams of saturated fat -- and then cut that saturated fat intake in half by switching them to eating one Twinkie a day. What would happen to their cholesterol levels? Their cholesterol would go down due to their decreased saturated fat consumption. So even though they went from eating five cakes down to one, technically, they went from zero Twinkies a day to one Twinkie a day, and their cholesterol went down (we wouldn't mention the five to one thing).

We publish it and crank out a press release, "New research shows that eating a Twinkie a day can be good for heart health by improving cholesterol levels." The media takes our press release and runs with it: "Consumers can eat a Twinkie every day if they choose, and feel confident that science supports Twinkies' healthy benefits, which now include cholesterol-lowering effects!" Twinkies, we just proved with science, have cholesterol-lowering effects. Too outlandish a scenario? Amazingly, that's exactly what the beef industry did (those above quotes are actual quotes-just replace the word beef for Twinkie).

In a study bought and paid for by the beef industry, beef was added to people's diets. At the same time, the subjects removed so much poultry, pork, fish, and cheese from their diet that they halved their saturated fat intake from 12 percent of their diet, down to 6 percent of their diet, causing their cholesterol levels to go down. If our diet goes from 12 percent saturated fat down to 6 percent saturated fat, it doesn't matter if that 6 percent comes from beef, chicken, lard, or Twinkies. If we cut our total saturated fat in half, our cholesterol will follow, especially if we eat more fiber and vegetable protein as they did in the study.

The researchers conclude: "The results of the BOLD study [standing for Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet] provide convincing evidence that lean beef can be included in a heart-healthy diet that meets current dietary recommendations and reduces cardiovascular disease risk." Crisco could be included. Krispy Crème could be included, as long as we cut our total saturated fat intake. What the researchers fail to mention is that our risk would drop even lower if we dropped the beef, as was pointed out by the chair of nutrition at Harvard in a response to the study.

The subjects in this study went from a high risk of dying from heart disease to... a high risk of dying from heart disease. We need to get our LDL (bad) cholesterol down to 50, 60, or 70 to become essentially heart attack proof (see Eliminating the #1 Cause of Death). For most people, that means eliminating saturated animal fat and cholesterol intake completely.

This study is really just showing how bad saturated fat is from any animal source. Yes, based on saturated fat levels, lean beef is often better than chicken (and Twinkies), but that's like touting the health benefits of Coca Cola because it has less sugar than Pepsi. It does--15 spoonfuls of sugar per bottle instead of 16--but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be better not consuming soda at all. Reminds me of this study: "Cheese Intake Lowers LDL-Cholesterol Compared With Butter Intake...." [emphasis added]

In my video, Bold Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol? you can see the beef industry's release. and how they ended up with the "cholesterol-lowering effects of beef." If we cut out enough poultry, pork, fish, and cheese from our diet, we could replace this with almost anything (bacon grease, candy, frosting, deep-fried snickers bars, sewer sludge, etc.), and still reduce cholesterol levels.

How are Americans exposed to saturated fat? Burgers actually fall well below chicken. See Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

The beef industry is by no means alone in having a corrupting influence on the scientific method. See, for example:

-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: Seth Tisue / Flickr

Original Link