Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Prologue: This is a follow-up to a series of five essays that discussed ongoing scientific controversies, a specific type of which are often referred to in the science press and elsewhere as “Wars” – for instance, one essay covered the “Salt Wars1” and another the “Obesity War”. The purpose of the series was to illuminate the similarities and differences involved in these ongoing controversies, with the final part (Part 5) showing the commonalities with the Climate Wars. This essay illuminates two important new, potentially paradigm-shifting papers in the field of Human Nutrition and new findings in the Salt Wars that turn that entire field on its head.
Warning: This is not a short essay. Dig in when you have time to read a longer piece.
Human Nutrition — the field of human physiology and health that concerns itself with the question:
What is the ideal diet for free-living human beings for optimum health and maximum longevity?
Human nutrition and its continued onslaught of sensational news stories about the “latest research findings” — each one touting the benefits or harms of some item of the human diet, or the life-enhancing, lifetime-expanding benefits (or life-shortening harm) of a particular type of diet — has caused more damage to the reputation of Science as an enterprise than any other topic. The continual series of whipsawing stories from the field has turned human nutrition into a public joke.2
“Coffee: a poisonous carcinogen” last month, and now a “Coffee found good for your heart”. “Butter is a killer, eat margarine for long life” last year, “Margarine causes heart attacks, avoid at all costs” this year. “Alcohol is bad for you”, “Red wine is good for heart health”.3
For several years now, there has been a constant drumbeat of demand to reduce the amount of fats of all kinds from recommended diets — health insurers4, medical associations, and the governmental health agencies in the West all urge reduced fat diets, with some fats being particularly targeted. The stated reasons are many: heart disease, obesity, trans-fat phobia, “artery clogging fats”, etc. US FDA and Australian Health ministry both have issued recommended balanced diets in the last several years that included reduced fats.
So, what’s not to like about that? ………. Science — unbiased carefully crafted and executed research — says differently, challenging three sacred cows of dietary science.
The PURE Study
The PURE Study (NIH link) has been making big news since last week, having issued two new papers laying out their results accompanied by presentations at the ongoing meeting of the European Society of Cardiology. McMaster University issued a Press Release on the 29th of August, covered by ScienceDaily here.
“Research with more than 135,000 people across five continents has shown that a diet which includes a moderate intake of fat and fruits and vegetables, and avoidance of high carbohydrates, is associated with lower risk of death.
To be specific about moderate, the lowest risk of death was in those people who consume three to four servings (or a total of 375 to 500 grams) of fruits, vegetables and legumes a day, with little additional benefit from more.”
“As well, contrary to popular belief, consuming a higher amount of fat (about 35 per cent of energy) is associated with a lower risk of death compared to lower intakes. However, a diet high in carbohydrates (of more than 60 per cent of energy) is related to higher mortality, although not with the risk of cardiovascular disease.”
Online headlines tell how the papers were received:
European Society of Cardiology: Revisiting dietary fat guidelines? (PURE)
CardioBrief: Huge Diet Study Questions Conventional Wisdom About Carbs And Fats
TCTMD: PURE Investigators: Rethink Diet Guidance to Plug More Fats, Fewer Carbs
STAT: Huge new study casts doubt on conventional wisdom about fat and carbs
The Lancet: PURE study challenges the definition of a healthy diet: but key questions remain (paywalled)
Jo Nova: Low Fat consensus was wrong: High carb diets increase death rates
Two and three days later, the backlash has begun to appear in the press and on the web:
The Atlantic: New Nutrition Study Changes Nothing (James Hamblin)
HuffPost: Diet And Health: Puzzling Past Paradox To PURE Understanding (Dr. David Katz)
The PURE study warrants some skepticism (by Marion Nestle)
Those readers who have been following this series on Science Wars will recognize the pattern immediately. A new finding is published that challenges an existing consensus in a scientific or medical field. Almost immediately, within days, the new findings are attacked (there is no other word for it), denigrated, and downplayed by advocates of the consensus position with supporting salvos from their allies. If you think this sounds like politics, you are right.
The first PURE paper itself gives this simple language summary:
“Consistent with most data, but in contrast to dietary guidelines, we found fats, including saturated fatty acids, are not harmful and diets high in carbohydrate have adverse effects on total mortality. We did not observe any detrimental effect of higher fat intake on cardiovascular events. Our data across 18 countries adds to the large and growing body of evidence that increased fats are not associated with higher cardiovascular disease or mortality. …
Removing current restrictions on fat intake but limiting carbohydrate intake (when high) might improve health. Dietary guidelines might need to be reconsidered in light of consistent findings from the present study, especially in countries outside of Europe and North America.”
The PURE Study’s first paper covers two points:
- Increased fats in the human diet do not lead to increased cardiovascular disease and do not cause increased mortality.
- Diets too high in carbohydrates (starches and sugars), above 60-70 % of total calories, increase mortality. (“Carbohydrates are the sugars, starches and fibers found in fruits, grains, vegetables and milk products.”)
and thus concludes that dietary guidelines, especially outside of the US and Europe, might be reconsidered in light of this new evidence.
The second PURE paper covers dietary intake of vegetables, fruits and legumes (peas and beans), finding:
“The results showed that non-cardiovascular mortality and total mortality are decreased with high intake of fruits, vegetables, and legumes compared with low intake. …
Many dietary guidelines recommend a minimum of 400 g/day of fruits and vegetables, which might not be achievable globally since fruits and vegetables have previously been shown to be unaffordable in low-income and lower-middle income countries. Our findings that even three servings per day (375 g/day) show similar benefit against the risk of non-cardiovascular and total mortality as higher intakes indicates that optimal health benefits can be achieved with a more modest level of consumption, an approach that is likely to be more affordable in poor countries.”
This is, at first glance, an entirely noncontroversial finding. Eating more fruits, vegetables, and legumes is better for your health. Here’s the “but”….
- Eating more fruits, veggies, and legumes is better…but…
- Just three servings a day maxes out the benefit and is an achievable target for the poor, eating more is not that much better. (These are also primarily carbohydrates.)
These two papers have stepped on a lot of toes and caused quite an uproar.
The consensus positions in human diet, set by such august bodies as the American Heart Association, the FDA, and the Health Fad Industry maintain, we could say “insist”, that:
- Fat is bad and should be nearly eliminated from human diets — meats must be lean, dairy must be low- or non-fat.
- Grains, vegetables and fruits should be the bulk of human diet — over 3/4s of total diet in both the US FDA and the Australian governmental recommendations.
Thus, these two papers directly contradict the consensus positions on fats, carbs in general, and vegetables and fruit.
On the “this is big important news” and “a paradigm changing study” side comes the always insightful Jo Nova from down under: “Low Fat consensus was wrong: High carb diets increase death rates. How many people have died prematurely because they swapped their fats for carbohydrates? New research published in the Lancet shows that low fat diets could increase your risk of death.”
On the other side, the Health Triad — David Katz, Marion Nestle, and James Hamblin — immediately issued Rapid Response attacks, in the Atlantic and the Huffington Post. They quote one another, of course. David Katz, promoter of “integrative medicine” and plant-based diets, infamously accused of writing positive book reviews for the HuffPost under a pseudonym for his own Sci-Fi novels — Marion Nestle, prolific author on Food Politics with a blog by that name, active anti-sugar, anti-soda campaigner — James Hamblin, media darling doctor and health writer for The Atlantic.
Katz says “I appreciate the good intentions- but the message is, simply, wrong.”
Hamblin, whose discussion is the best from the consensus viewpoint, in the end insists “People are complex, and the ways we perceive and communicate and relate to one another are complex… But the basic agreement on what to eat for the health of people and the planet is not: diverse, naturally high-fiber, minimally processed foods, mostly plants.”
Nestle quotes both Hamblin and Katz and tries the “wrong by association” attack: “Drug companies have a big interest in this topic, especially if dietary approaches to heart disease prevention aren’t proven.” (The PURE Study is funded by hundreds of groups, from many nations, starting with lots of governmental agencies and ending with “unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies”). (List of funders in .docx format)
Bottom Line:
- Prospective epidemiological health studies cannot, do not, say anything about causes. They can, however, be used to rule out public health issues — like the demonized high-fat diets, as the PURE study does in this case. These types of studies cannot be adjusted for all confounders, despite all claims of authors and statisticians to the contrary, thus their findings are best taken ONLY as indicators of overall health outcome trends and point to interesting areas for further investigation.
- The PURE study found that internationally, poor and wealthy, rural and urban, humans are not harmed by higher fat diets — they do not die prematurely and do not suffer from more cardiovascular disease.
My opinion?: The low-fat diet mantra has always been bias-driven. This is just one more large study confirming this point.
- Overall, diets above 60-70% carbohydrates can lead to premature death.
My opinion?: Diets that high in carbohydrates lack other important foods and are unbalanced, leading to poorer health. The nit-picking “good carbs, bad carbs, processed carbs” is just that – nit-picking.
- Three to four servings of VFL (veggies, fruits, legumes) is generally sufficient for good health.
My opinion?: Probably correct. The western idea of “more is always better” is nonsensical – in the US fresh apples and oranges cost $1.50/lb, tomatoes and broccoli almost $2.00/lb (June 2017 average) — out of reach for many low income families.
- The response to the studies indicates that what we see as Human Nutrition is not real science — it is yet another Science Controversy, The Nutrition Wars. All public information about human nutrition should be viewed with this in mind.
- In the United States, Europe and ANZO, the major diet problem is that people generally eat too much of everything — there is almost zero incidence of clinical deficiencies of any vitamin, mineral, fat, protein, or carbohydrate — despite the constant clamoring cacophony of alarm from the Food Faddists.
The Salt Wars Continue
Back in May 2017, Gina Kolata wrote an article for the New York Times’ Health section titled: “Why Everything We Know About Salt May Be Wrong”. It is very well done and is a fascinating read — and represents a new beginning for the study of salt (sodium chloride, table salt) in the human diet. It details the years-long quest of a little known German scientist, Dr. Jens Titze. Kolata relates this story:
“In 1991, as a medical student in Berlin, he took a class on human physiology in extreme environments. The professor who taught the course worked with the European space program and presented data from a simulated 28-day mission in which a crew lived in a small capsule.
The main goal was to learn how the crew members would get along. But the scientists also had collected the astronauts’ urine and other physiological markers.
Dr. Titze noticed something puzzling in the crew members’ data: Their urine volumes went up and down in a seven-day cycle. That contradicted all he’d been taught in medical school: There should be no such temporal cycle.”
Dr. Titze followed-up his interest in 1994, with the Russian cosmonaut program, sbtudying salt in the diets of simulated space travelers, and found:
“a 28-day rhythm in the amount of sodium the cosmonauts’ bodies retained that was not linked to the amount of urine they produced. And the sodium rhythms were much more pronounced than the urine patterns”…… The conclusion, he realized, “was heresy.”
Exhibiting patience and perseverance that would be far beyond me, it was in 2006, twelve years later, that Dr. Titze had the opportunity to carry out the research required to find out what was happening. “In 2006, the Russian space program announced two more simulation studies, one lasting 105 days and the other 520 days.” The simulated cosmonauts would be fed diets controlled in all aspects, all intakes carefully monitored, bodily outputs of urine would be monitored, blood samples taken daily.
What he found was: “When the crew ate more salt, they excreted more salt; the amount of sodium in their blood remained constant, and their urine volume increased…..Instead of drinking more, the crew were drinking less in the long run when getting more salt. So where was the excreted water coming from?” And again, the cyclical nature of salt excretion, regardless of intake.
“New studies of Russian cosmonauts, held in isolation to simulate space travel, show that eating more salt made them less thirsty but somehow hungrier. Subsequent experiments found that mice burned more calories when they got more salt, eating 25 percent more just to maintain their weight.”
Dr. Titze has followed that work up with years of lab experimentation to delve into this mystery.
The results are in these two (admittedly very dense, very technical) papers:
High salt intake reprioritizes osmolyte and energy metabolism for body fluid conservation (pdf here)
Increased salt consumption induces body water conservation and decreases fluid intake (pdf here)
The problem? These findings kick the underpinnings out from under the Salt Consensus, as Gina Kolata points out:
“The salt equation taught to doctors for more than 200 years is not hard to understand.
The body relies on this essential mineral for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses. Sodium levels in the blood must be carefully maintained.
If you eat a lot of salt — sodium chloride — you will become thirsty and drink water, diluting your blood enough to maintain the proper concentration of sodium. Ultimately you will excrete much of the excess salt and water in urine.
The theory is intuitive and simple. And it may be completely wrong.”
The long-taught truth about salt is that too much salt causes the body to take on extra water in the blood, increasing blood volume thus increasing blood pressure. This “truth” just isn’t so for most people. Titze’s findings, unchallengeable, show that this is not how the human body regulates salt and fluid.
If we were not stepping in the middle of a long-running Science War — the Salt Wars — this would be hailed as a major advance for medical science and human physiology. Instead, we get denial, equivocation, and dismissal.
Reduced Salt is a battle cry of nearly every medical association — and they influence the FDA and other governmental agencies, not only in the US, but worldwide, through the UN’s World Health Organization. All of which have been promoting “reduced salt for all” based on the idea that “too much salt => high blood pressure => heart disease => death”.
It appears, from Titze and earlier studies, that this simply is not true.
As covered in my previous essay on the Salt Wars, Mente et al., in a 2014 finding based on the PURE data, found the same results. As an editorial in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine reported:
“The authors concluded from the findings that a very small proportion of the worldwide population consumes a low-sodium diet and that sodium intake is not related to blood pressure in these persons, calling into question the feasibility and usefulness of reducing dietary sodium as a population- based strategy for reducing blood pressure.”
Mente et al. agreed with other previous huge salt studies, all of which have been attacked and dismissed by the proponents of “Reduced Salt for All”.
Now, with the twin Titze studies casting (put mildly) very serious doubts on the consensus position on dietary salt, we find that not a single anti-salt advocate organization has made any statement of a change of position.
To the contrary, Gina Kolata reports:
“This is just very novel and fascinating,” said Dr. Melanie Hoenig, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. [and a go-to expert relied on by many a MSM journalist on the topic of salt] “The work was meticulously done.”
The work suggests that we really do not understand the effect of sodium chloride on the body,” said Dr. Hoenig.
“These effects may be far more complex and far-reaching than the relatively simple laws that dictate movement of fluid, based on pressures and particles.”
She and others have not abandoned their conviction that high-salt diets can raise blood pressure in some people.**
But now, Dr. Hoenig said, “I suspect that when it comes to the adverse effects of high sodium intake, we are right for all the wrong reasons.”
** — this conviction statement does not reflect the actual position of anti-salt advocates — who, like the American Heart Assoc., demand lowering salt intake for everyone, not just those sensitive to salt.
Bottom Line:
The Salt Wars roll on, taking their toll on the general public as anti-salt advocates refuse to abandon a public health-policy based on demonstrably false understandings of human physiology that attempts to enforce harmful advice on the broad general public.
# # # # #
Footnotes:
- Please note that in all instances, the word salt in this essay, and in all included quotes, refers to common table salt, sodium chloride, in all of its customary forms found in kitchens, restaurants, grocery stores and food processing plants.bb
The use of the term “Salt Wars” does not originate with me but has been in common usage in science journalism for some time. I offer this link: Scientific American – Health – The Salt Wars Rage On: A Chat with Nutrition Professor Marion Nestle in support of its use. (Nestle is pronounced like the action “to nestle”, Dr. Nestle is not related to the famous chocolate fortune family). The term’s use in this essay (and SA) is not to be confused with the many actual armed conflicts over the ages and around the world that have shared the title Salt War. (back to essay)
“And it’s no wonder people are confused. Every day there’s a new headline: Eat more fiber. Drink less milk. Eggs are bad. Eggs are good. As eaters, we feel whipsawed by the changes in the nutritional advice we’re getting.” (back to essay)
“For years, doctors warned people to avoid coffee because it might increase the risk of heart disease and stunt growth.” “All of this concern emerged from studies done decades ago that compared coffee drinkers to non-drinkers on a number of health measures, including heart problems and mortality. Coffee drinkers, it seemed, were always worse off.” “But it turns out that coffee wasn’t really to blame. Those studies didn’t always control for the many other factors that could account for poor health, such as smoking, drinking and a lack of physical activity.” “Studies show that people who drink coffee regularly may have an 11% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than non-drinkers….people who drank several cups a day—anywhere from two to four cups—actually had a lower risk of stroke….Coffee may even help you live longer.” (back to essay)
- https://www.medmutual.com/For-Individuals-and-Families/Healthy-Living/Nutrition-And-Dieting/Easy-Ways-to-Reduce-Fat.aspx (back to essay)
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I enjoy reading and responding to your comments and am happy to answer your on-topic questions.
Please remember, I am an essayist, not a medical researcher or doctor. My opinions are just that, opinions based on my research of publicly available data.
I continue to be fascinated by the Science Wars — and am always anxious to hear of new entries into the field.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“there is almost zero incidence of clinical deficiencies of any vitamin, mineral, fat, protein, or carbohydrate ”
I was under the impression that Vitamin D was a problem for a significant population.
Vitamin D is the only one I take based on my reading. I try to get it from food or sun, not pill form.
jeanparisot and Mary ==> Vit D deficiencies are beginning to show up in the United States, but only very recently. The human body does not, generally, get Vit D from foods, but rather manufactures it in the skin from cholesterol.
Vit D deficiency causes rickets in children, the reason your store-bought milk is Vit D fortified.
It is suspected, unproved as yet, that the resurfacing of Vit D deficiency in modern western populations is the result of the “avoid the sun” mania promoted by the Cancer Cabal — children are slathered in sun screen creams every time they leave the house, forced to wear long sleeved shirts and blouses, and hats.
Unless one is purposefully selecting Vt D fortified foods (foods with Vit D added), you need sunshine on you skin to stay healthy.
Hi Kip, – Possibly 1 thing about getting at least some vegetables/fruit, but no neccessarily unlimited quantities daily, being beneficial relates to vitamin D. The food trace element boron
stops vitamin D3 catabolism (& also foster it’s hydroxylation to the form D25); the net effect is to raise levels of D3 inside a cell.
The most significant boron in food for human metabolism is not the free boron in the plant matter, but rather the smaller portion of boron conjugated with fructose called fructo-borate. The fructose component takes it’s boron along with it into our system via a sugar transporter & then our cells’ transporter of neutral amino acids (LAT-1 ) carries it across the interior cell membranes.
gringo ==> Varied diet, a bit of this and a bit of that, don’t eat too much == Eat Your Chow!
How did they factor dental hygiene from the dietary causes of heart disease?
jean ==> “There’s no conclusive evidence that preventing gum disease — periodontitis — can prevent heart disease or that treating gum disease can lessen atherosclerosis, the buildup of artery-clogging plaque that can result in a heart attack or stroke, according to an American Heart Association statement.” AHA
Both are strongly (actually entirely, in the case of dental caries) associated with sugar consumption. Or as my dentist put it bluntly to me, “No sugar = no dental problems.”
goldrider ==> Tooth decay caused by bacteria — bacteria feed on sugars in the mouth. All sugars — fructose, lactose, sucrose.
Despite 7.3 billion people eating everyday, we still have shockingly little conclusive evidence of what is good for you.
Pretty clear that cigarettes are no good as are most drug addictions. Exercise and vegetables generally good for you but probably overrated.
Beyond that? Eat drink and beat Larry and don’t worry about it.
Mary you seem conflicted. Your goverment tells you something is ‘no good’ but yet millions seem to enjoy doing it.
It is a matter of degree. I am glad I did not become a smoker and our children were raised is a smoke free home. I was also glad when my work place was smoke free.
However, what is the criteria for deciding what is ‘no good’.
It is like this, the goverment should enforce wearing seat belt and car seats for children. The goverment should not be mandating low flow shower nozzles to save energy.
The media and dietary community bury under a rock the fact that in all but the poorest countries, with all our imperfections like obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc. STILL our life expectancies increase every year. We may be dumber and uglier, but we’re living longer.
If you have to do a study, it is not a problem.
The risk of dying is one.
One real problem is being obsessed with irrational fear of risk. It is junk science if a number is not provided.
For example, the risk from accidental death from riding a bike can be quantified but the health benefit can not.
One of the things that drove me crazy in California was the irrational fear of everything. For example, organic wine to reduce the risk of pesticides when consuming alcohol.
A little common sense is better than all the ‘peer’ reviewed studies. No alcohol is consumed on my boat when underway. If you need a substance to help you relax when boating then you have a problem.
Our drinking club has a boating problem. Earlier this year I got injured while rendering aid during heavy weather. I happened to be sober at the time the distress call came it. Several other experienced sailors declined to help because they were not sober. I did find a sober novice and off we went.
The crew of the sail boat with a broken rudder also sober. The boat owner was a retired from commercial fishing in Alaska. His quick thinking prevented me from being seriously injured.
The point here is that you are going to die and spending time think about how you enjoy life is better than trying to avoid insignificant risk.
+1
“His quick thinking prevented me from being seriously injured.”
And your friends’ quick drinking also prevented them from getting injured as they chose to remain safe on terra firma. 🙂
I find it funny. They talk about how weird it is to find that increased salt increases water retention and decreased salt reduces it.
THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR YEARS! The Quick Weight Loss company is notorious for exploiting this to obtain rapid weight loss in their new clients, which is of course not sustainable.
Ben ==> I believe you have this backwards. What Titze found is that the body does not retain water with high salt intake, thusa salt intake does not cause increasing blood pressure.
What Titze found related to weight loss was that “Subsequent experiments found that mice burned more calories when they got more salt, eating 25 percent more just to maintain their weight.” Implying that eating more salt and less calories could lead to weight loss.
It’s not about the fat, it’s about the source of the fat. Animal products are the problem. There are dozens of peer reviewed studies that show that animal products are the causal danger. That’s why fruits and vegetables have a mitigating effect because the more you are eating plants, the less you are eating animals.
Think about it. No other specie on earth consumes the breast milk of another specie. And if you study the physiology of humans, we are clearly much closer to that our our distant primate cousins, all of whom are herbivores than we are to true omnivores like bears.
Anecdotally I lost 25 pounds, have the lowest blood pressure I have ever had, have the best blood work numbers I have ever had, and at 50, feel like I am 25. All because I switched to a plant based diet.
But don’t believe me, get your blood work done, try a plant based diet for a month and get your blood work done again. See for yourself. Those in the know, no longer eat animal products.
If you need more evidence, Google nutritionfacts.org and read all the papers there as presented by Dr. Greger.
Jeff B. “There are dozens of peer reviewed studies that show that animal products are the causal danger.” Dozens? Perhaps you would care to name your top 3 studies. I would like to know more. Most nutrition studies demonstrate correlation and the most recent I’ve read give saturated fats a pass. There are too many confounding variables. Is it the “red meat” or the “red meat lifestyle” eg smoking, drinking, sedentary, etc.?
mairon62 ==> Yes, you are absolutely right — there is a lot of junk science demonizing meat, red meat, animal products, and animal fats. This study (The PURE fats/carbs) shows that eating animal fats, even in what we would consider excess, does not increase CVD (cardio-vascular diseases) — which is the claim in all the anti-meat propaganda.
The value of the PURE multi-national study is that it is outside of the US/EU affluence zone, and a lot of the confounders that allowed the anti-meat/anti-fats researchers to demonize meats/fats are absent in these other countries — and magically, all the “fats = CVD” simply disappears.
And just how did Inuits and other people living in the Arctic and the taiga zone survive for many millenia on a virtually 100% animal diet (perhaps a few cloudberries in autumn did it?).
They ate the flesh raw or dried at low temperatures, thereby getting plenty of fats that have not been rendered harmful by cooking. Denatured fats do not make healthy cells, they make weak links and an inability to pass adequate oxygen via the membranes. Unless you buy oils that are cold pressed, there are virtually none in the standard American diet
“The response to the studies indicates that what we see as Human Nutrition is not real science — it is yet another Science Controversy, The Nutrition Wars. All public information about human nutrition should be viewed with this in mind.”
But it sounds like science, pleases other activists, and also allows for regulatory actions and for making decisions for others, and for controlling the economy — just a little perk that come with the territory.
Although, the one area of nutrition that I do pay attention to, and that I try to make sure my kids understand, are the symptoms of various deficiencies. Since Kip Hanson is discussing salt, then I suggest it is solid science to understand hyponatremia.
It took people a very long time to understand micronutrients and the problems with dietary deficiencies, even for animals. And the truth is that a good diet that has salt, meat, eggs and dairy supports the body and allows for better learning and concentration. The poor and the people who were considered to be inferior by the racial Darwinists always disproved that theory once they were free, enjoyed a real diet, and were literate.
“The body relies on this essential mineral [sodium] for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses.”
Actually the four chemical ions that are used by the body to maintain potential difference and propagate electrical signals in the nervous system are sodium, chlorine, potassium and calcium. So deficiencies are not an option. If you like your nerve impulses and brain activity that is.
Zeke ==> As you know, anyone eating any kind of a varied diet, especially in our affluent western societies, is not going to be deficient in any of those four necessary elements, Old foiks sometimes have trouble absorbing sufficient calcium, though.
Socialstyrelsen vill att vi äter 6-8 skivor bröd varje dag.
Det vil nok sikkert Pågens også (eller mere)….. 😉
Now I wonder if Kip Hansen has ever noticed a covert war on all sources of iodine in the American diet, such as fish, eggs…
meats, particularly beef…
bread…
dairy products, and
iodized table salt
Iodine deficiency is very nasty, ref 1
http://www.healthline.com/health/iodine-deficiency#symptoms2
and ref 2
Zeke ==> Iodine is one of those trace elements necessary and rare-ish….adding iodized salt (and one doesn’t need very much) and eating seafoods occasionally fills the bill.
What does climate change have in common with the food and drug industry?
They all lead to ‘solutions’ that have high consumer impact economically.
We all need energy. Energy is what we spend more on than anything else. Huge amounts of money are tied up in energy.
We all need to eat. Food is what we spend a large amount of income on.
We all need medical drugs. Next to energy, global pharma is the biggest multinational there is.
Is it any wonder that ‘science’ is being used to sell us what they have, not to develop what we actually need?
And I am afraid the standards of rigour in the medical profession are very very low.
Cause and effect are often interchanged.
Consider these two statements
“Some people with heart failure may also experience feelings of depression and anxiety.”
“if you have coronary heart disease and experience feelings of anxiety or are under lots of stress, it may bring on symptoms like angina.”
So guys, which is it? do heart problems cause anxiety panic attacks and depression, or dos anxiety depression and panic attacks cause heart problems?
“Correlation is not causation” is a statement completely ignored by many medical researchers.
And lest face it, careers and incomes and new drugs are not sold on the back of discovering the truth, but on the back of whatever peole can be induced to believe, and that’s especially so in the case of doctors, whose modus operandi is 99.7% received wisdom.
Or Big Pharma, whose goal is to get you taking something every day of your life whether you need it or not as a prophylactic. Viz statins.
The ‘ideal’ levels of cholesterol are as indistinct as the ideal climate…
From the last paper cited:
However, the accompanying relative predominance of rhythmical glucocorticoid release suggests that the maintenance of water homeostasis in states of surplus salt excretion is intimately coupled with changes in body energy expenditure in humans. Thus, salt-driven changes in energy metabolism may link high salt intake with diabetes mellitus (41–43), osteoporosis (44–48), and increased cardiovascular and neurovascular disease risk (49–54), even in the absence of any salt-sensitive blood pressure responses
From a hypothetical typical climate change paper:
However, the increase in polar bear numbers should not disguise the fact that if Climate Change continues and damages their habitat, the polar bear population may become extinct…
Notice the similarity? If you have a finding that challenges current thinking, you had better state that ‘of course, this does not really mean anything…’. I wonder how Einstein would have presented his Relativity papers today? “These calculations are, of course, hypothetical, and should not be taken to suggest that Newtonian physics is wrong in any way…”?
Open it out a bit, look a bit wider.
Start with the anxiety – high Cortisol in circulation.
People feel that within themselves (and also recognise it in others)
Folks instinctively learn to self-medicate – all they need is something to promote Dopamine release.
So they find that ‘doing something’ alleviates the discomfort – exercise is good. As it was intended for to escape the proverbial sabre-tooth tiger.
But plants ‘came along’ (they were her first of course) and needed a way to disperse seed. Seeing as they didn’t have (still don’t) legs and or wings, took on to ‘borrow’ legs & wings i.e use other critters.
But. How to persuade the critters to do the lending?
And the plants came up with a Reward System. If the critter somehow picked up the seed(s), wandered/flew away somewhere new and then dropped the seed, the plant contrived to make the critter feel good or happy. To give a mental reward.
So they came up with fructose. The sweetest sugar of them all and the one that releases (for whatever reason) the biggest bang of Dopamine you’ll get almost anywhere.
Plants invented fruit – sugar coated seed.
(All sugars do the same, promote Dopamine release)
And Dopamine is an effective antidote to Cortisol – it gives relief from feelings of anxiety/stress.
So. Sugar fixes Stress.
Where are we all now – in The Modern World?
The boss wants more work for less pay. We want more stuff for less money. We want want want. Our kids want want, their moms relay the message to their pops who then have to fulfil their ‘romantic’ duty.
Romance being defined as “The giving of gifts in exchange for sex”
(Think about it – that’s all that happens in EVERY romantic story ever told innit?)
And for boys, being simple creatures as they are, lack of sex is a stressful thing in its own right.
The boys thus venture out into the modern-day world of Sabre-Tooths and they get stressed/anxious and use sugar to help relieve that stress. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine etc also work.
Bur our primitive bodies see the incoming sugar as a sign of ‘bad times ahead’ and turn it into fat.
Then the positive feedback kicks in. The Modern World says ‘fat obese is bad’
The finger wagging do-gooders, loaded with good intentions descend upon the modern hunter/gatherer.
This causes stress/worry, leads to sugar eating leads to fat gain leads to stress and so on.
But too much body fat is ‘not good’
Meanwhile, the plants didn’t want the critters to go too far from home so programmed the sugar to make the critter sleepy – they made it a depressant. Hence the critter would eat the sugar coated seed, wander off for a couple of hours then hopefully deposit said seed somewhere distant, but not too distant, from the parent plant. Neat huh.
Trouble and especially the main stream media and the interweb (thank you Al Gore), finger wagging do-gooders are everywhere – delivering ‘warnings’ = messages designed to induce stress/anxiety/worry
Climate Science not the very least.
But the positive feedback gets even worse because the finger waggers themselves are stressed sugar eaters and hence depressed. This makes them unwilling to ‘do anything themselves’ so they pass the buck.
The modern way of passing-the-buck is simply to take what others have amassed in their attempts to be romantic.
Its called Tax.
But the tax collectors have wives and kids, who want want want. This is stressful on themselves, they pass on that stress via tax and alleviate it personally by eating sugar, hence falling foul of other finger waggers etc etc etc
It is A Total Mess innit?
Where/how will it finish?
Positive feedback systems never ‘end happily’
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/165227772726/when-to-trust-the-experts-climate-and-otherwise
Scott Adams vs. expertise & red flags in climatology. Good comments follow.
Blah blah blah. Who cares what doctors say about diet? They are always wrong. Just eat what we have been eating for the thousands of years before refined sugar and carbs were developed.
Yes I agree, Pure White and Deadly came out 45 years ago. However it threatened the sugar industry. So they commissioned lawyers and studies to discredit it. It was then that fat became the so called culprit. Now we finally see that sugars are bad for us. Causing early onsets of diabetics, gout and cardiovascular disease. It took 40 years to see through the deliberate sabotage.
The parallels with climate change are striking. If you threaten big business they will go to extreme lengths to discredit the evidence.
To introduce false science. Indeed a few weeks ago I was told that polymeric form of oxygen exists in the upper atmosphere.
Only one problem polymeric oxygen is red and the sky is blue.
Kip, nice article. Would add two caveats. 1. Complexity monster. People vary greatly in stature, physical fitness, and daily activity, hence needed caloric intake. For a physically active person, more complex carbs are probably essential. But not for a couch potato. 2. Diets vary greatly by region and custom. Dr. Black (Harvard Medical School ICU nutritionist) has written extensively on the importance of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) to patient outcomes. That package varies with overall dietary custom.
Perhaps PURE controls sufficiently for both. But I tend to doubt it. The diet ‘war’ positions seem to oversimplify a more complex reality. Just like the climate wars.
ristvan ==> Of course, you are absolutely right, which is why my first Bottom Line is:
People want to believe in a magic bullet that will make them live forever. Exercise in particular is pursued obsessively, with a glassy-eyed fervor that takes its extremists straight to the orthopedic ward. Food fads like pomegranates or kale or juicing or whatever. Truth is we’ve been looking for the Fountain of Youth since the Yellow Emperor in China was a pup, and we haven’t found it yet. The bottom line is that more of us rather than less born to advantage now actually achieve the genetically-programmed lifespan of 85 years + or – in relative comfort, a thing for which we should all be grateful. The real task is not micro-tweaking infinitesimal theoretical “risks,” but making possible that salutary outcome for the economically disadvantaged as well. That’s what’s going to pull the “numbers up,” lowering costs for everyone. TRUTH.
There are essential fats and proteins that we must get from our diet. There are NO essential carbs…at all.
William ==> To the contrary — the carbs, all of them, supply most the energy that we derive from foods. Starches and sugars converted by the body into blood sugars which the body oxidizes to create the energy for movement etc (simplified version). “Organisms capable of aerobic respiration metabolize glucose and oxygen to release energy with carbon dioxide and water as byproducts.”
Sorry, Kip, this one’s over the fault line. It is VERY well-documented that humans live extremely efficiently, possibly even optimally, on fats and proteins alone getting necessary energy, including for brain function, via the process of KETOSIS. This is not to be confused with diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening condition. There is no dietary requirement for any carbohydrates, whatsoever and biologically this is far beyond dispute. References Price, Taubes, Steffanson, others far too numerous to name. Don’t worry, it’s a very common myth perpetrated by “registered dieticians” and their ilk, and we all love you anyway. 🙂
Goldrider ==> We will have to disagree on this one…..Ketosis is usually an abnormal state that the body uses when it runs out of fuel — sugar — generally it is the body eating its fat reserves in desperation, breaking down fat stores to use for energy it normally gets from blood glucose. People in concentration camps, starved, shift to ketosis to burn the bodies fats, eventually converting the bodies own proteins as well in an attempt to stay alive.
Those recommending self-induced, intentional ketonic states for people with normal health are preaching harmful practices.
Adkinson Diet ===> ketosis ???
Was it determined to be unhealthy?
Kip Hansen: “Ketosis is usually an abnormal state that the body uses when it runs out of fuel — sugar — …”
Ketosis is what happened at least every winter for tens of thousands of years before the advent of agriculture. It’s a normal feature of the human body. Without it humans wouldn’t have been able to survive in harsher or colder climates. Looking at the size of these two fuel tanks of the body — small sugar tank vs large fat tank — is enough to realize that the human body didn’t evolve to be dependent on sugar to be able to function properly.
I was ready to read your whole series of articles on scientific controversies to refresh my memory (I’m already familiar with most of these controversies) until I read your opinion on ketosis. Now I feel like I’m going to be wasting my time because you jumped to a conclusion and called ketosis harmful and you brought up starvation and concentration camps. I saved the links but I’m not as interested as I was 10 minutes ago. I’m not being rude, I’m saying you need to step back, reconsider your conclusion and dig deeper and also listen to scientists who study ketosis and ketogenic diets.
Dominic D’Agostino for example. Researcher at the University of South Florida, worked for the Navy studying how ketogenic diets improved divers’ performance. He’s now studying the effects of ketogenic diets on cancer.
South River ==> “Those recommending self-induced, intentional ketonic states for people with normal health are preaching harmful practices.”
Martin ==> Ketonic diets are being investigated as possible treatments of metabolic diseases and conditions. There is only very iffy evidence that ketonic diets improve medical or disease state conditions (with the possible exception of certain childhood epilepsy cases). Reading reviews of the literature, and critiques of ketonic diet promoters, might give you a more rounded viewpoint. Try Science Based Medicine for another look. On children’s epilepsy try the Cochrane review on the subject.
There is almost no evidence-based support whatever for ketonic diets for cancer treatment.
““Research with more than 135,000 people across five continents has shown that a diet which includes a moderate intake of fat and fruits and vegetables, and avoidance of high carbohydrates, is associated with lower risk of death“. (bold mine)
Perhaps I quibble, but when did the certainty of death suddenly get mitigated to a mere “risk”??
I just realized…no mention in the article of the recently released book The Salt Fix…very interesting reading and the author has lots of free podcasts available as well summarizing the book. Essential for anyone interested in health topics. It goes into many details beyond just Salt.
I’ll take this opportunity to publish my own repeated measures study. Carb vs low carb, n=1 (me). In gad school the nurse noticed I had elevated blood pressure (go figure … ya know with the dissertation and all) …. I formulated a diet based strictly on nutrients ….. lost a ton of weight, but BP still high. A few years later … sugar busters came out, then Atkins …. I lost weight on those too. To my surprise, after low carb, noticed my BP had gone down. Thought nothing of it. As with all diets, you fall off ….. BP went up ….. back on diet BP went down ….. off again and up again. Got to thinking, is it the low carbs that benefited my BP? Got back on low carb, and bought a BP machine. Within 2 days, no weight loss, BP went down to normal. Been keeping my BP in check with low carb ever since.
Nutritionist are EXACTLY like climate scientist. Their results cater to their funding source. Don’t list n to them. They are quacks, and push the no meat agenda ….. probably because they thought no cow farts cause global warming …. but I’ve found more likely because they oppose killing animals and have concluded they are sentient beings that deserve to be protected under the bill of rights.
A very good discussion about saturated fats and the background of the “science” behind the vilification of fats and cholesterol. This is another area where the science was perverted by politics and personal beliefs despite the actual data. Ancel Keys had his own hockey stick moment by simply deleting data that didn’t fit his hypothesis. So, yes, the government dietary guidelines are the basis of many of today’s health issues from obesity to diabetes. Very interesting talk.
[ snipped incorrect YouTube — kh ]
I’m not sure why the wrong video got posted. I’ll try again. It should be Enjoy Eating Saturated Fats. by Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D.
[ snipped incorrect YouTube — kh ]
That is very strange. Is Youtube trying to filter something. Let me try it yet again,. That is very strange.
[ snipped duplicate incorrect YouTube — kh ]
I’ve tried several times and this sugar one keeps coming up. It is very frustrating, Apparently Youtube doesn’t want the video “Enjoy Eating Saturated Fats: They’re Good for You. Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D. to be seen,” .
EE_Dan ==> The link you are trying to post is
https://youtu.be/vRe9z32NZHY
(Intentionally not embedded in this comment.
Kip, Thank you. I’m uncertain why the link didn’t work in my previous attempts.
Something is not a problem if the ‘mitigated’ risk is insignificant. Real problems have smoking guns. Polio and smallpox were real problems. Vaccines, not so much.
Here is my list of commonly accepted problems, that have no smoking gun.
Environmental mercury: Not one American today has blood levels of mercury above the threshold of harm from activities such eating fish. That’s what the studies show.
PCB’s: You should not cook your food with electrical transformer oil. I learned in China that any green vegetable taste better when cooked in animal fat.
DDT: Non toxic for humans but deadly for pest that carry malaria.
Burning coal to make electricity in the US: No study has ever shown actual harm, even before we double the cost of US electricity with pollution controls.
Radiation from US designed nuclear power plants: Not one measurement of off site exposure greater than a chest x-ray.
On the other hand there are many smoking guns. Science has provided me with the knowledge of the level of oxygen to sustain life in a confined space, hydrogen concentration, nitrogen and ammonia concentrations that will immediately kill.
So after a hard day at working surviving all those hazards, I would sometimes throw caution to the wind and have a Phili cheese steak hoagie, fries, and a beer after work.
The “mercury from fish” question is, forgive dreadful pun, a bit of a “red herring.” My friend the retired game warden told me that the measurements of “how much mercury” in various kinds of fish are taken from the animal’s liver–but in nearly all cases people are not eating the liver, they are eating the muscle meat which has vanishingly less than the liver which tends to aggregate heavy metals. Danger overstated, bigly!