Just came from the Cardiologist

lol lol lol lol wrote:

1) Modern (dwarf) wheat is uniquely inflammatory and promotes small, dense LDL to a remarkable degree. As a result, it is generally very unhealthy, and specifically promotes heart disease more, perhaps, than any other foodstuff commonly thought to be "healthy." In addition to Davis (and if you read his blog, read his book, and check on youtube you will learn more about the hazards of wheat that you ever wished to know), Denise Minger has done some great work crunching the numbers

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/http://rawfoodsos.com/category/wheat-2/

I crack up and pull out my hair every time you fad nutrition folks link to "Denise Minger." Seriously?? Please tell me, why on earth, she is a better source than world renowned doctors and nutritionists on the topic of nutrition? Is it because:

a) she was an english major in college, with no advanced degrees in anything, and has taken ZERO classes in nutrition, health science, or medicine??? Or is it because....

b) she, like all serious scientists, has her website full of pictures of her smiling pretty face, in all sorts of poses, and has "articles" like "SUCKY science! boo! " Yes, very professional and serious!

I am not all impressed with any of her analyses, and have no reason whatsoever to take her opinion on the topic of nutrition. So let's see what ACTUAL experts have to say about wheat:

The below is from the 2010 Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Scientific Advisory committee

(yes, an entirely superior source of advice compared to your rogue health blogs)-

CARBOHYDRATES AND HEALTH OUTCOMES

Question 1: What are the Health Benefits of Dietary Fiber?

(** My comment**: Whole wheat is one of the best sources of dietary fiber, and, is in fact linked to good health outcomes a GREAT DEAL MORE than fiber from other food sources, even fruits and vegetables. So when one hears “fiber is healthy”, think whole wheat and other whole grains. I will support and cite this fact shortly in my next post)

Conclusion

A moderate body of evidence suggests that dietary fiber from whole foods protects against cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes and is essential for optimal digestive health.

Implications

Dietary fiber is under-consumed across all segments of the American population. The development of many risk factors that are associated with incidence of several highly prevalent chronic diseases could be reduced by increasing consumption of naturally-occurring plant-based foods that are high in dietary fiber, including whole grain foods, cooked dry beans and peas, vegetables, fruits, and nuts.

dietary fiber from whole foods or supplements may lower blood pressure, improve serum lipids, and reduce indicators of inflammation”

Other recent studies reported a range of cardiovascular benefits associated with dietary fiber. Demoura et al. (2009) evaluated the effect of applying the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA, 2006) definition of whole grains to the strength of scientific evidence that supports whole grain health claims for CVD risk and concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a CVD health claim. Flint (2009) reported that cereal fiber was associated with reduced blood pressure in adults. The longitudinal STRIP study in children (Ruottinen, 2010) found that serum cholesterol concentrations decreased with increasing fiber intake.

According to the ADA position paper (Slavin, 2008), high-fiber diets provide bulk, are more satiating, and have been linked to lower body weights. Three recent prospective studies and two cross-sectional studies provide additional support for the role of dietary fiber in obesity prevention. Du et al. (2010) followed a large cohort for 6.5 years and found that total fiber and cereal fiber were inversely associated with subsequent increases in weight and waist circumference.

Question 2: What is the Relationship between Whole Grain Intake and Selected Health Outcomes?

Conclusion

A moderate body of evidence from large prospective cohort studies shows that whole grain intake, which includes cereal fiber, protects against cardiovascular disease. Limited evidence shows that consumption of whole grains is associated with a reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes in large prospective cohort studies. Moderate evidence shows that intake of whole grains and grain fiber is associated with lower body weight.

Whole Grain Intake and Body Weight

Eight studies were reviewed to examine the relationship between whole grain consumption and body weight (Harland and Garton, 2007; Williams, 2008; Behall, 2006; Katcher, 2008; Brownlee, 2010; Lutsey, 2007; McKeown, 2009; Van der Vijver, 2009). The two large systematic reviews provide evidence that whole grain intake is associated with lower body mass index (BMI) and protects against weight gain and adiposity. Pooled analysis of 15 observational studies found a difference in BMI (p<0.0001), reduced waist circumference (p= 0.03), and lower waist:hip ratio (p=0.0001) with higher whole grain intakes (Harland and Garton, 2007). Williams et al. (2008) examined 20 studies, including 11 studies of dietary patterns, 5 RCTs, and 4 observational studies and concluded that there was strong evidence that a diet high in whole grains was associated with lower BMI, smaller waist circumference, and reduced risk of being overweight. "

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Denise Minger is a true genius. Next year she is scheduled to publish her 1st book

I've not heard of her.

Do you have a cliff note's version of what she advocates.

She's a PR person with no substance.

Regarding my claim that when one hears "dietary fiber is healthy, think whole wheat and whole grains even more than fruits and veggies" , here is some strong support from that:

This is from the Archives of Internal Medicine, published in 2011. It's recent, and from an outstanding journal. I know know, it might not have the approval of pretty Denise Minger or whatever her name is, but you know, to silly old me it is still a good source of information:

----------------------------------------

" Dietary Fiber Intake and Mortality

in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Background:

Dietary fiber has been hypothesized to

lower the risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes, and

some cancers. However, little is known of the effect of

dietary fiber intake on total death and cause-specific

deaths.

Methods: We examined dietary fiber intake in relation

to total mortality and death from specific causes in the

NIH (National Institutes of Health)-AARP Diet and Health

Study, a prospective cohort study. Diet was assessed using

a food-frequency questionnaire at baseline. Cause of death

was identified using the National Death Index Plus. Cox

proportional hazard models were used to estimate relative

risks and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: During an average of 9 years of follow-up, we

identified 20 126 deaths in men and 11 330 deaths in

women.

Dietary fiber intake was associated with a significantly

lowered risk of total death in both men and

women (multivariate relative risk comparing the highest

highest with the lowest quintile, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.73-0.82; P

for trend, .001] in men and 0.78 [95% CI, 0.73-0.85;

P for trend, .001] in women). Dietary fiber intake also

lowered the risk of death from cardiovascular, infectious,

and respiratory diseases by 24% to 56% in men and

by 34% to 59% in women. Inverse association between

dietary fiber intake and cancer death was observed in men

but not in women. Dietary fiber from grains, but not from

other sources, was significantly inversely related to total

and cause-specific death in both men and women.

Conclusions: Dietary fiber may reduce the risk of death

from cardiovascular, infectious, and respiratory diseases.

Making fiber-rich food choices (**especially whole grains**) more often may provide significant health benefits. "

---------------------------

Now while I understand that these epidemiological studies are not perfect, this studies contained many years of follow-up, large amounts of participants, and ran many models controlling for all sorts of potential confounders. In every one of their statistical analyses, highest intakes of dietary fiber resulted in quite significant decreases in mortality from several different causes of death:

*******

"We also performed the propensity score

analysis to better control for confounding and found that

the results did not materially change. Comparing the highest

quintile of dietary fiber intake with the lowest, the RR

for total death was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84) in men and

0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87) in women. Because smoking was

a strong confounder in our analysis, we performed analyses

stratified by smoking status. The inverse association between

dietary fiber intake and total death remained significant

in never smokers in bothmen(multivariateRRQ5 vs Q1, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P for trend,.001]) and women

(multivariateRRQ5 vs Q1,0.83[95%CI,0.72-0.97;P for trend,

.05]). Dietary fiber intake was also significantly inversely

related to total death in formerandcurrent smokers in both

men and women. A significant association with dietary fiber

intake was also observed across categories of BMI. Furthermore,

we examined the association stratified by age at

baseline (60 and60 years), self-rated health condition

(excellent/good and fair/poor), and menopausal hormone

therapy use inwomen(neverandever)andobserved a consistently

inverse associationbetweendietary fiber intakeand

total death across all categories examined(data not shown)."

CONCLUSIONS:

"In this large prospective cohort study, we found that dietary

fiber intake was significantly inversely associated with the risk of total death and death from CVD, infectious

diseases, and respiratory diseases in both men and

women. Dietary fiber intake was also related to a lower

risk of death from cancer in men but not in women.

Among specific sources of dietary fiber, fiber from grains

showed the most consistent inverse association with risk

of total and cause-specific deaths.

Three of 4 previous studies that examined dietary fiber

intake in relation to total mortality reported a 9% to 43%

lowered risk of total death among persons with a higher

consumption of dietary fiber in various populations.4-6 Consistent

with most of these studies, our study found a 22%

lower risk of total death comparing the highest with the

lowest quintile of intake in both men and women. Furthermore,

the association was not modified by smoking status

or BMI. The findings remained robust when we corrected

for dietary intake measurement errorusing calibration

study data; in fact, the association was even stronger with

measurement error correction.

In conclusion, our study shows that dietary fiber may

reduce the risk of premature death from all causes, especially

from CVD and infectious and respiratory diseases.

The current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend

choosing fiber-rich fruits, vegetables, and whole

grains frequently and consuming 14 g/1000 calories of

dietary fiber. A diet rich in dietary fiber from whole plant

foods may provide significant health benefits."

quick summary wrote:

She's a PR person with no substance.

It doesn't matter who she is at all. It matters that her statistical analysis is correct, and it is.

Sir Lance-alot thanks for all the great info.

Also: "I guarantee you that ANY answer or "fact" that you want to hear concerning ANY subject will be out there on some blog or book or website." And I can guarantee you that there always seems to be money involved, ie someone trying to get their grubby hands on ours.

One of the reasons why this study is bad, and why the China Study data is more useful, is that the data for the study above came from the West, where for decades we have been told that eating a fiber-rich diet is healthful, and that eating less fiber is unhealthful. This causes

. Furthermore, looking at the data, we see that while they did attempt to control for some variables, they obviously missed some confounding variables:

One obviously huge problem, of course, is that they are not primarily comparing grain eaters (or wheat eaters) to non-grain or non-wheat eaters. They are comparing whole grain eaters to refined grain eaters. And, in the process, not doing a good job of controlling variables. Analogy: I compare those who smoke hand-rolled cigarettes to those who smoke filtered cigarettes, find the latter lives longer, and write that filtered cigs confer a protective benefit Re cardiovascular disease.

J.R. wrote:

I've not heard of her.

Do you have a cliff note's version of what she advocates.

This is a good place to start:

You can email her or post on her blog for more info.

Pretty interesting stuff, particularly from Sir Lancolet. However, a couple of things. 1. No matter how good your diet, we will all die sometime, some earlier, some later. 2. Genetics plays a major role in how long you will live. 3. Hard exercise after a certain age, especially when starting up again after a layoff can prove to be deadly, no matter what diet you may be consuming. Age is a factor in how supple your blood vessels are and how much stress they can take from intense workouts.

I have a family history of longevity (90+) on both sides of the family with no special diet or exercise being part of the lifestyle. Genetics seem to play a greater role as relatives more distant also have long lives.

I would prefer to eat well balanced, tasty food, do moderate exercise that makes my life enjoyable rather than eat things that I don't enjoy eating and push myself in workouts until I pass out just to set some age group record or personal best. I also don't look forward to being over 90, not being able to walk very well, forgetting the last time I went to the bathroom and having to rely on my grandkids to make sure I take all my medications to stay alive.

I see little purpose in living to be 100 when all my friends have passed away long ago and I have little interest in what the "youngsters" of the world are doing to screw up the world. So, I prefer to enjoy my life and not worry whether it's whole wheat or white rice or should I eat fish or beef that is filled with steroids. Let me die in peace, as I have had a pretty good life so far without worrying if the next workout or piece of toast is going to kill me.

cowboybob wrote:

I would prefer to eat well balanced

Remember, "balanced" is a word that is meaningless with regard to diet. It is an artificial marketing construct created by industry groups in order to pressure consumers into eating certain specific foods which may or may not be healthy.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Remember, "balanced" is a word that is meaningless with regard to diet. It is an artificial marketing construct created by industry groups in order to pressure consumers into eating certain specific foods which may or may not be healthy.

I see from her website that she's greatly enthused about meat, corn, soybeans, and high fat in the diet, and says fat and cholesterol don't have any relationship to breast cancer. She does sound like a corporate shill.

Corn and soybeans are the two most genetically altered crops.

Meat is butchered from heavily chemicalized sick confined cows.

Cheese is high fat and hard to digest. There is so much about high fat being bad that no further reply is warranted. Likewise most dairy is full of antibiotics, hormones and bacteria.

cowboybob wrote:

should I eat fish or beef that is filled with steroids.

Ignorant statement. There is a huge difference between worrying about which foods are healthier and which foods are poisoned with steroids and antibiotics.

This is correct:

lol lol lol lol wrote:

cowboybob wrote:

I would prefer to eat well balanced

Remember, "balanced" is a word that is meaningless with regard to diet. It is an artificial marketing construct created by industry groups in order to pressure consumers into eating certain specific foods which may or may not be healthy.

You are taking my words out of context or misinterpreting. Well balanced means I eat things in moderation, not overdoing anything and definitely not worrying about what I eat. I am fortunate to only weigh 6 pounds over my college running weight. My body seems to agree, as I feel pretty good for being old and my blood readings are all in the excellent range, based on my annual checkups over the last 10 years.

Too many of you read too much on the internet and go crazy thinking you are going to get poisoned by the food industry. Last time I looked at statistics we are living longer than our ancestors and continue to do so. When I was young the average life expectancy for a male was around 66 and now its around 78. Blame that on the food industry.

Keep in mind that if the entire world were to try and live only on organic foods, we would all starve to death, because farmers yield of organic food is quite a bit lower than produce that is "poisoned" (sorry, I haven't checked to see what the percentages might be.)

uly 28, 2011 — Investigators have identified new evidence from the Northern Manhattan Study connecting low vitamin D levels to atherosclerosis. They found that low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were associated with increased intima-media and maximal carotid thickness in those with plaque.

"Our report demonstrates an independent effect of low vitamin D on subclinical indices of carotid atherosclerosis," senior investigator Shonni Silverberg, MD, from the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, told Medscape Medical News. "It is, however, important to note that our observations do not provide insight into the nature of the interaction of low vitamin D with the atherosclerotic process."

The work will be published in the August issue of Stroke but was released early online.

The investigators studied 203 adults from the Northern Manhattan Study who had serum measurements and carotid ultrasonography. They looked at 25-hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, calcium, phosphorus, and parathyroid hormone.

After adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors, the researchers found that plaque number was associated with phosphorus levels (beta, 0.39 per 1-mg/dL increase; P = .02) and calcium-phosphorus product (beta, 0.36 per 10-U increase; P = .03).

The majority of those studied — 57% — had plaque, and investigators found the association of plaque number with phosphorus and calcium-phosphorus product persisted.

Vitamin D and Carotid Thickness

They found that 25-hydroxyvitamin D was inversely associated with both intima-media thickness (beta, -0.01 per 10-ng/mL increase; P = .05) and maximal carotid plaque thickness (beta, -0.10 per 10-ng/mL increase; P = .03).

In a model containing traditional cardiac risk factors and indices of mineral metabolism, 25-hydroxyvitamin D accounted for 13% of the variance in both intima-media thickness and maximal carotid plaque thickness. Calcium, parathyroid hormone, and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels were not associated with carotid measures.

"We confirmed prior data showing a relationship of carotid measures with calcium-phosphorus product," Dr. Silverberg said. "More importantly, we found a robust association of vitamin D levels with subclinical markers of carotid atherosclerosis."

Dr. Silverberg pointed out that some of the prior literature in this area did not adequately control for cardiovascular risk factors and renal function, and most of the available data did not account for the interaction of vitamin D with other indices of mineral metabolism.

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Michal Melamed, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, said she was glad the authors looked at multiple bone minerals and not just vitamin D. "The sample size was small, but it is encouraging they still found an association."

Limitations

Dr. Melamed complimented the study but acknowledged that more work is needed. "This is a nice study, but it is still cross-sectional. We cannot establish a causal relationship and many questions remain regarding optimum vitamin D levels."

Dr. Melamed says she hopes some of these questions will be answered by the VITAL study. Also known as the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial, the research study is designed to include 20,000 men and women across the United States.

Investigators from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, are studying whether daily dietary supplements of vitamin D3 or omega-3 fatty acids reduce the risk for developing heart disease, stroke, and cancer in people who do not have a history of these illnesses. Recruitment began in January 2010 and is continuing through 2011.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Tatjana Rundek reports receiving speaking fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Stroke. 2011;42:2240-2245. Abstract

More on the perils of wheat just posted:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/#comments

cowboybob wrote:

Last time I looked at statistics we are living longer than our ancestors and continue to do so. When I was young the average life expectancy for a male was around 66 and now its around 78. Blame that on the food industry.

We are living longer than we were decades ago, but that is in spite of, not because of, our current diets. In case you've been living in a cave, obesity in the US has gone through the roof since @1980.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

More on the perils of wheat just posted:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/#comments

STOP LINKING TO HER. Is she your only source of information? She contradicts herself left and right and her logic is horrendous. One second she bashes peer review process, the next second she says the China Study wasn't even peer reviewed, then she praises a new book coming out that she had something to do with (and how the author has great abs.... ?!? What is she, 13?) , THEN she states that health books "don't even have to pass the peer review process" (oh, like the one she and mark sisson just put out? Yeah, exactly like that one) and on and on ad nauseum. So let's get this straight: peer review process is suspect, china study was not high quality because it was NOT even peer reviewed and health books are suspect because they are not peer reviewed, but read my great new health book because....even though it wasn't peer reviewed (which matters sometimes, but doesn't matter other times), I'm pretty and witty and the main author has great abs! Ohhhh-kaaay.

Wow. Sad, very sad. And you think she is a "genius" ?? Talk about tossing that word around a little too generously. Geesh.

You think she is smart because she tells you what you WANT TO HEAR, and comes up with some pretty graphs. You are waaaaay too easily impressed.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

We are living longer than we were decades ago, but that is in spite of, not because of, our current diets. In case you've been living in a cave, obesity in the US has gone through the roof since @1980.

http://youtu.be/ZaAt8gfRF5A

So prior to 1980 you say that obesity levels weren't too bad, correct? I agree. And did people eat lots of grains and carbs before 1980. Absolutely, and in fact were even eating the less healthy refined grains for the most part. Yet obesity levels weren't bad. Wait, how can this be?? I thought that grains and wheat and carbs were basically the sole cause of obesity! Oh, that was just a figment of your imagination.

too many calories and too much inactivity are the true culprits, NOT grains per se. And yes, eating high sugar AND high fat (especially sat fat) meals are part of the "too many calorie" dynamic (sugar drinks can be quickly and easily consumed, and as we all know, fat is very dense calorically). So think: fast food meals like high fat burgers, mega-sized soft drinks, and high fat/high carb fries. Also think lots of pizza which is both high fat and high processed carbs, ie very calorically dense and not nutritionally dense. Furthermore think: desserts which have high sugar AND high fat/high sat fat. THESE are the types of foods that americans have been eating more and more over the last 30 years, while becoming more inactive.

But no, you and others (like that clown Gary Taubes) have decided the whole problem boils down to carbs and grains/wheat. Very, very silly.