Serious Tip to Help Women Cheat Death
Posted by: Dr. Mercola | March 30 2012
Story at-a-glance
Breast cancer patients who start exercising regularly within six months of being diagnosed with the disease can lower their chances of dying by up to 30 percent
If you’re undergoing conventional cancer treatment, exercise may help to lessen your symptoms and generally improve how you feel, which means you'll be able to get back to your normal life more quickly
Exercise is also one of the most powerful strategies available to reduce your cancer risk, by positively impacting DNA repair, hormone levels, immune function, antioxidant status and more
If you have cancer, your fitness program should be like any other -- comprehensive, providing activities that will improve your strength, flexibility, cardiovascular fitness and fat-burning capabilities with high-intensity Peak Fitness exercises; however, it’s imperative that you listen to your body to determine exercise intensity and frequency, and take time to rest and recover in between workouts
By Dr. Mercola
If you're diagnosed with breast cancer, new research suggests that one of the best strategies to improve your chances of recovery is to start a regular exercise program.
This is a radical departure from the now-outdated advice that cancer patients should rest and take it easy the way heart attack patients were treated fifty years ago.
If your oncologist is not yet up to speed on the healing power of exercise, you may want to consider finding one who is …
Exercise after Cancer Diagnosis Improves Survival
A new study has shown that breast cancer patients who start exercising regularly within six months of diagnosis can lower their chances of dying by up to 30 percent.
The researchers found a benefit among those who exercised a minimum of 2.5 hours a week for 18 consecutive months, although the best results came to those who exercised almost every day.
The physical activity supported the women's ability to fight off the disease, improving both overall and disease-free survival.
A separate, earlier study by Harvard Medical School researchers found similar benefits … breast cancer patients who exercise moderately -- 3-5 hours a week -- reduce their odds of dying from breast cancer by about half as compared to sedentary women.i
In fact, any amount of weekly exercise increased a patient's odds of surviving breast cancer, and this held true regardless of whether women were diagnosed early on or after their cancer had spread.
The new recommendation -- that cancer patients and cancer survivors should exercise at least 2.5 hours a week (an amount that should be easily attainable) -- was buttressed in a report by Macmillan Cancer Support.ii As Jane Maher, chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Support and clinical oncologist, told BBC News:iii
"The advice that I would have previously given to one of my patients would have been to 'take it easy'. This has now changed significantly because of the recognition that if physical exercise were a drug, it would be hitting the headlines."
Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, echoed these sentiments:iv
"Cancer patients would be shocked if they knew just how much of a benefit physical activity could have on their recovery and long term health … "
You Can Get BETTER Results with FAR Less Exercise
It is important to understand that these researchers were not aware of the superior results of using high-intensity interval Peak Fitness type exercises. That was not part of the study design, but if it were, my guess is that it would have been FAR more effective than the 2.5 hours of exercise they found to be effective. More than likely one hour per week of high intensity would be far more beneficial. But that one hour is TOTAL time including warm up, recovery and cool down. The actual amount of high intensity exercise is only TWELVE MINUTES per week, which is quite extraordinary.
The report noted that evidence is growing to support the role of physical activity at all stages of cancer, both during and after treatment:
"Physical activity is important for cancer patients at all stages of the cancer care pathway. There is evidence to support the role of physical activity for the following stages of the cancer care pathway:
During cancer treatment – physical activity improves, or prevents the decline of physical function without increasing fatigue.
After cancer treatment – physical activity helps recover physical function.
During and after cancer treatment – physical activity can reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and mortality for some cancers and can reduce the risk of developing other long-term conditions.
Advanced cancer – physical activity can help maintain independence and wellbeing."
Exercise Can Help You Feel Like Yourself Again
A cancer diagnosis is mentally and physically exhausting, and if you are undergoing radiation or chemotherapy as a form of treatment, this can be particularly debilitating (you may want to look into some of the natural cancer treatments available, which do not cause the serious, sometimes deadly, side effects associated with conventional cancer treatment). Exercise can be invaluable here, helping to lessen your symptoms and generally improve how you feel, which means you'll be able to get back to your normal life more quickly.
The Macmillan Cancer Support report highlighted the following ways that exercise can help you to mitigate some of the common side effects of conventional cancer treatment, including the ability to:
Reduce fatigue and improve your energy levels Manage stress, anxiety, low mood or depression Improve bone health
Improve heart health (some chemotherapy drugs and radiotherapy can cause heart problems later in life) Build muscle strength, relieve pain and improve range of movement Maintain a healthy weight
Sleep better Improve your appetite Prevent constipation
Why You Should Start Exercising Even if You're Cancer-Free...
Exercise is one of the most powerful strategies available to reduce your cancer risk, so starting a program while you're cancer-free should increase your chances of staying that way.
The notion that exercise may help prevent cancer dates back to 1922, when two independent studies observed that cancer deaths declined among men working occupations that required higher amounts of physical activity. Since then a paper in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise reported that "more than a hundred epidemiologic studies on the role of physical activity and cancer prevention have been published."v
In the same paper, which reviewed published epidemiologic studies on physical activity and the risk of developing cancer, it's noted that:
"The data are clear in showing that physically active men and women have about a 30-40% reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer, compared with inactive persons … With regard to breast cancer, there is reasonably clear evidence that physically active women have about a 20-30% reduction in risk, compared with inactive women. It also appears that 30-60 min·d-1 of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity is needed to decrease the risk of breast cancer, and that there is likely a dose-response relation."
How Does Exercise Fight and Prevent Cancer?
One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it decreases your insulin receptor sensitivity thus lowering your insulin and leptin levels. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risk. It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is enhanced by exercise, increasingly the likelihood that cancer cells will die. Exercise also improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood, as well as your lymphatic system, which has no "pump" other than your bodily movements. The job of these cells is to neutralize pathogens throughout your body, as well as destroy precancerous cells before they become cancerous.
According to a study published in the British Medical Journal,vi which explored the relationship between exercise and cancer, exercise affects several biological functions that may directly influence your cancer risk. These effects include changes in:
Cardiovascular capacity Energy balance
Pulmonary capacity Immune function
Bowel motility Antioxidant defense
Hormone levels DNA repair
Tips for Exercising Safely if You Have Cancer
You may find that you're able to take part in a regular exercise program -- one that involves a variety of exercises like strength training, core-building, stretching, aerobic and anaerobic -- with very little changes necessary. Ideally your fitness program should be like any other -- comprehensive, providing activities that will improve your strength, flexibility, cardiovascular fitness and fat-burning capabilities with high-intensity Peak Fitness exercises.
However, you may find that you need to exercise at a lower intensity or for shorter durations at times. Always listen to your body and if you feel you need a break, take time to rest. Even exercising for a few minutes a day is better than not exercising at all, and you'll likely find that your stamina increases and you're able to complete more challenging workouts with each passing day. In the event you are suffering from a very weakened immune system, you may want to exercise in your home instead of visiting a public gym.
What Else Can You do to Help Prevent Breast Cancer?
It's estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices. This is not intended to place blame but rather to empower you to take control of your health. I believe these estimates are even far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the following recommendations.
Eat healthy. This means avoid sugar, especially fructose, as all forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Also, focus on eating whole, organic foods and fresh vegetables while avoiding cancer-causing foods.
Vitamin D. There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. You can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with adequate sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated.
Get proper sleep both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you're 'riding the wave' so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations. It's also important to sleep in complete darkness, as this is what allows your body to produce melatonin, a natural cancer fighter.vii
According to Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general and plastic surgeon:
"If we, for instance, go to bed by 10, we have higher levels of our sleep hormone melatonin; there's a spike that occurs between midnight and 1am, which you don't want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only our sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. It also boosts your immune system … And it interacts with the other hormones. So, if you go to bed after 10 … it significantly increases your risk of breast cancer."
Effectively address your stress. The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years. So be sure you tend to your emotional health, not just your physical health.
I recently interviewed Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general and plastic surgeon, who shared her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro's and con's of various screening methods. I suggest you listen to that interview now, in addition to learning about the many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies listed above.
Download Interview Transcript
References:
i JAMA. 2005;293(20):2479-2486.
ii Macmillan Cancer Support "The Importance of Physical Activity for People Living With and Beyond Cancer" (PDF)
iii BBC News August 7, 2011
iv BBC News August 7, 2011
v Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise November 2003 - Volume 35 - Issue 11 - pp 1823-1827
vi BMJ 2000;321:1424
vii GreenMedInfo.com, Melatonin Research
Source: Global Times March 7, 2012
Source: Cancer Prevention Research September 2011; 4(9): 1409–1418
Related Links:
The New Natural Wonder Drug for Cancer
Simple Activity to Radically Decrease Breast Cancer Risk
What Surprising Exercise Cuts Your Cancer Risk by 40 Percent?
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
More and more info on the deadly attributes of GMO
Eating This Common Food Could Damage Your Kidneys
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 27 2012 |
Corn rootworm has developed resistance to one of the genes inserted in the genetically engineered (GE) corn crop that is designed to kill them. Twenty-two of the top experts on corn pests are urging the US Environmental Protection Agency to take action to halt the use of such GE crops
Roundup-ready crops are also producing resistance; in this case herbicide-resistant superweeds. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. In an effort to keep on top of the growing weed problem, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of toxic herbicides to their crops, which of course dramatically increases the amount of pesticides you ingest from consuming such foods
According to a new study, low doses of the Bt biopesticide CryA1b, and the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, kill human kidney cells. Glyphosate at 57.2 parts per million -- 200 times below agricultural use – killed half the cells.
You can avoid exposure to several toxins by boycotting genetically engineered foods of all kinds, and joining in the fight for mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients
By Dr. Mercola
After years of assurance that genetically engineered (GE) crops are the answer to pesky pest problems, corn rootworm is now turning into a nightmare for America's agricultural biotech companies.
These insects have developed resistance to an inserted gene in the genetically altered corn crop that is designed to kill them.
In a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 22 of the nation's top experts on corn pests are calling for the agency to take action "with a sense of some urgency."i
The researchers want seed companies to stop routinely inserting anti-rootworm genes into their corn lines.
Overuse of the gene increases the chances that insects will become resistant to it.
According to the NPRii:
“The researchers are calling on farmers in some parts of the country to stop planting corn with anti-rootworm genes altogether, or to plant such corn only intermittently ...
If the recommendations in this letter were, in fact, put into practice, it would compel wrenching changes in the way that major seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont breed and market their corn seed.”
Why Monsanto Thought Weeds Would Never Defeat Roundup
The issue of resistance is a growing problem, not only is there growing resistance of pests, but also of weeds. There are now a number of different types of genetically engineered crops. Some are genetically altered to produce internal pesticides to ward off insects while others are altered to withstand otherwise deadly doses of weed killer.
Each is virtually guaranteed to eventually produce resistance.
In the U.S., the majority of all soybeans, cotton, and corn planted yearly are genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant and/or “stacked” with one or more genes to kill insectsiii. Such crops receive numerous applications of Roundup each and every year. As a result, glyphosate resistance is on the rise, and has produced super-hardy weeds that are nearly impossible to get rid of. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. In an effort to keep on top of the growing weed problem, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of toxic herbicides to their crops.
Logic will tell you this is not a solution; it’s only deepening the problem. Surprisingly enough, Monsanto's scientists were atrociously ignorant and did not believe or predict that weeds would become resistant to glyphosate, the weed-killing chemical in their herbicide Roundupiv.
In 1993, when they were requesting government approval for the herbicide, they claimed that "glyphosate is considered to be an herbicide with low risk for weed resistance," and that several university scientists agreed that "it is highly unlikely that weed resistance to glyphosate will become a problem." Today, the errors of their conclusions are obvious. According to NPR:
“Monsanto began a "massive effort" to figure out how the weeds withstand glyphosate. Some weeds ... appear to keep glyphosate from entering the plant at all; others sequester the herbicide in a spot where it can't do much damage. Monsanto's genetically engineered crops use a different technique entirely.”
Can Genetically Engineered Foods Destroy Your Kidneys?
According to a new study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, low doses of the Bt biopesticide CryA1b, and the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, kill human kidney cellsv. The Bt biopesticide, which confers insect resistance, and the glyphosate tolerance trait tied to the use of glyphosate herbicides, can be found in nearly all genetically engineered crops grown worldwide.
Researchers tested the effects of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins as well as their combined effects with the herbicide Roundup. They found that Cry1Ab caused cell death at concentrations of 100 parts per million. Glyphosate at 57.2 parts per million -- 200 times below agricultural use – killed half the cells. According to the Institute of Science in Societyvi:
“This study indicates that Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, and may indeed be toxic ... Bt crops have previously been shown to induce hepatorenal abnormalities ... as well as immune responses that may be responsible for allergies”.
This is in addition to previous evidence showing that the Bt-toxin produced in genetically engineered corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses... Disturbingly, Bt-toxin has been detected in the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women tested; 80 percent of babies; and 67 percent of non-pregnant women. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the U.S. since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.
Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods
Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S., because while genetically engineered seeds are banned in several European countries, several U.S. states have passed legislation that protects the use of such seeds and allows for unabated expansion!
Such legislation is bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the U.S. government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter. Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.
Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the 2012 ballot. Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaignsvii.
Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry
Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the U.S.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogensviii:
“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California.”
This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:
“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”
Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods
Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same. To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:
Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods
Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!
In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GMO labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired, but we aim to make it happen!
Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has already submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on this year's ballot.
I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.
References:
i EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0922,
ii NPR March 11, 2012,
iii USDA Data Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.,
iv NPR March 11, 2012,
v Journal of Applied Toxicology February 15, 2012,
vi Institute of Science in Society March 13, 2012,
vii http://gmolabeling.webs.com/
vii USA Today March 8, 2012,
Source: NPR March 9, 2012
Source: Institute of Science in Society March 13, 2012
Source: Journal of Applied Toxicology February 15, 2012
Source: NPR March 9, 2012,
Related Links:
Latest GMO News
The "Safe" Garden Product that Can Destroy Your DNA
Do This - or You Could Soon be Eating an "Agent Orange" for Dinner
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 27 2012 |
Corn rootworm has developed resistance to one of the genes inserted in the genetically engineered (GE) corn crop that is designed to kill them. Twenty-two of the top experts on corn pests are urging the US Environmental Protection Agency to take action to halt the use of such GE crops
Roundup-ready crops are also producing resistance; in this case herbicide-resistant superweeds. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. In an effort to keep on top of the growing weed problem, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of toxic herbicides to their crops, which of course dramatically increases the amount of pesticides you ingest from consuming such foods
According to a new study, low doses of the Bt biopesticide CryA1b, and the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, kill human kidney cells. Glyphosate at 57.2 parts per million -- 200 times below agricultural use – killed half the cells.
You can avoid exposure to several toxins by boycotting genetically engineered foods of all kinds, and joining in the fight for mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients
By Dr. Mercola
After years of assurance that genetically engineered (GE) crops are the answer to pesky pest problems, corn rootworm is now turning into a nightmare for America's agricultural biotech companies.
These insects have developed resistance to an inserted gene in the genetically altered corn crop that is designed to kill them.
In a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 22 of the nation's top experts on corn pests are calling for the agency to take action "with a sense of some urgency."i
The researchers want seed companies to stop routinely inserting anti-rootworm genes into their corn lines.
Overuse of the gene increases the chances that insects will become resistant to it.
According to the NPRii:
“The researchers are calling on farmers in some parts of the country to stop planting corn with anti-rootworm genes altogether, or to plant such corn only intermittently ...
If the recommendations in this letter were, in fact, put into practice, it would compel wrenching changes in the way that major seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont breed and market their corn seed.”
Why Monsanto Thought Weeds Would Never Defeat Roundup
The issue of resistance is a growing problem, not only is there growing resistance of pests, but also of weeds. There are now a number of different types of genetically engineered crops. Some are genetically altered to produce internal pesticides to ward off insects while others are altered to withstand otherwise deadly doses of weed killer.
Each is virtually guaranteed to eventually produce resistance.
In the U.S., the majority of all soybeans, cotton, and corn planted yearly are genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant and/or “stacked” with one or more genes to kill insectsiii. Such crops receive numerous applications of Roundup each and every year. As a result, glyphosate resistance is on the rise, and has produced super-hardy weeds that are nearly impossible to get rid of. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. In an effort to keep on top of the growing weed problem, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of toxic herbicides to their crops.
Logic will tell you this is not a solution; it’s only deepening the problem. Surprisingly enough, Monsanto's scientists were atrociously ignorant and did not believe or predict that weeds would become resistant to glyphosate, the weed-killing chemical in their herbicide Roundupiv.
In 1993, when they were requesting government approval for the herbicide, they claimed that "glyphosate is considered to be an herbicide with low risk for weed resistance," and that several university scientists agreed that "it is highly unlikely that weed resistance to glyphosate will become a problem." Today, the errors of their conclusions are obvious. According to NPR:
“Monsanto began a "massive effort" to figure out how the weeds withstand glyphosate. Some weeds ... appear to keep glyphosate from entering the plant at all; others sequester the herbicide in a spot where it can't do much damage. Monsanto's genetically engineered crops use a different technique entirely.”
Can Genetically Engineered Foods Destroy Your Kidneys?
According to a new study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, low doses of the Bt biopesticide CryA1b, and the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, kill human kidney cellsv. The Bt biopesticide, which confers insect resistance, and the glyphosate tolerance trait tied to the use of glyphosate herbicides, can be found in nearly all genetically engineered crops grown worldwide.
Researchers tested the effects of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins as well as their combined effects with the herbicide Roundup. They found that Cry1Ab caused cell death at concentrations of 100 parts per million. Glyphosate at 57.2 parts per million -- 200 times below agricultural use – killed half the cells. According to the Institute of Science in Societyvi:
“This study indicates that Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, and may indeed be toxic ... Bt crops have previously been shown to induce hepatorenal abnormalities ... as well as immune responses that may be responsible for allergies”.
This is in addition to previous evidence showing that the Bt-toxin produced in genetically engineered corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses... Disturbingly, Bt-toxin has been detected in the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women tested; 80 percent of babies; and 67 percent of non-pregnant women. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the U.S. since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.
Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods
Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S., because while genetically engineered seeds are banned in several European countries, several U.S. states have passed legislation that protects the use of such seeds and allows for unabated expansion!
Such legislation is bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the U.S. government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter. Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.
Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the 2012 ballot. Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaignsvii.
Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry
Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the U.S.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogensviii:
“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California.”
This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:
“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”
Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods
Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same. To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:
Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods
Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!
In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GMO labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired, but we aim to make it happen!
Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has already submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on this year's ballot.
I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.
References:
i EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0922,
ii NPR March 11, 2012,
iii USDA Data Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.,
iv NPR March 11, 2012,
v Journal of Applied Toxicology February 15, 2012,
vi Institute of Science in Society March 13, 2012,
vii http://gmolabeling.webs.com/
vii USA Today March 8, 2012,
Source: NPR March 9, 2012
Source: Institute of Science in Society March 13, 2012
Source: Journal of Applied Toxicology February 15, 2012
Source: NPR March 9, 2012,
Related Links:
Latest GMO News
The "Safe" Garden Product that Can Destroy Your DNA
Do This - or You Could Soon be Eating an "Agent Orange" for Dinner
Monday, March 26, 2012
Sunshine and Vit D
Little Sunshine Mistakes that Can Give You Cancer Instead of Vitamin D
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 26 2012 |
Safe sun exposure is essential for optimal health, but incorrect exposure can raise your risk of skin cancer while not providing any health benefits. Sunburn should be avoided at all cost. Detailed guidelines are provided for safely increasing your vitamin D stores through proper sun exposure are included
While sunlight is composed of about 1,500 wavelengths, UVB is the only wavelength that will produce vitamin D when hitting unexposed skin. UVA’s increase your risk of skin cancer and causes photoaging of your skin. Therefore, it’s important to determine the ideal times of year for safe and effective sun exposure, and avoid exposure during times that UVB rays are not present. Instructions are included
Vitamin D3 is an oil soluble steroid hormone that forms when your skin is exposed to UVB radiation from the sun (or a safe tanning bed). When UVB strikes the surface of your skin, your skin converts a cholesterol derivative into vitamin D3. It takes up to 48 hours for this vitamin D3 to be absorbed into your bloodstream to elevate your vitamin D levels. Therefore, it’s important to avoid washing your skin with soap after sun exposure
In case you do develop a sun burn, immediately apply raw aloe vera. It’s one of the best remedies to help accelerate skin healing
By Dr. Mercola
Unfortunately, due to decades of professional and media misinformation, the typical American believes they should avoid the midday sun and need to use sunscreen before, and several times during, sun exposure.
Unfortunately, this is a prescription for minimizing vitamin D levels and all its widely appreciated benefits.
The purpose of this article is to provide you with some practical guidelines on how to use natural sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D benefits.
Your Initial Exposure
The first few days, you should limit your exposure to the sun to allow your body's melanocyte cells to rev up the ability to produce protective pigmentation that not only gives you a tan, but also serves to help protect you against overexposure to the sun.
If you are a fairly light skinned individual that tends to burn, you will want to limit your initial exposure to a few minutes, especially if it is in the middle of summer.
The more tanned your skin will get, and/or the more tanned you want to become, the longer you can stay in the sun. If it is early or late in the season and/or you are a dark skinned individual, you could likely safely have 30 minutes on your initial exposure. If you are deeply pigmented and your immediate ancestors are from Africa, India or the Middle East, it is possible you may not even have to worry about the timing of your exposure.
Always err on the side of caution however, and let it be your primary goal to never get sun burned.
You can use a moisturizing, safe, NON-SPF cream to moisturize your skin, or use something as simple as organic coconut oil to moisturize your skin as this will also benefit you metabolically. Remember if the moisturizer you use has an SPF value, it will block UVB rays and will not allow your body to produce any vitamin D. The rest of the day, you can spend in the shade, wear clothes, and, if you still want to be in the open sun, use a non-toxic lotion with SPF15 for uncovered skin. Just be sure to be on the safe side of burning!
Protect Your Face and Eyes
The skin around your eyes and your face is typically much thinner than other areas on your body and is a relatively small surface area so will not contribute much to vitamin D production. It is strongly recommended to protect this fragile area of your body as is at a much higher risk for cosmetic photo damage and premature wrinkling. You can use a safe sun block in this area or wear a cap that always keeps your eyes in the shade like I do when I am outside seeking to increase my vitamin D levels.
Prepare Your Skin and Keep Your Vitamin-D Supply Constant
Before you travel, prepare your skin by having sessions (1-2 times per week) in a solarium with low-pressure UV-lamps that has a reasonable percentage UVB. This will also protect you against vitamin D deficit between your vacations. The time for each session depends on how strong the tubes in the solarium are. In countries that follow the EU-norm you probably will need 15-20 minutes, while in less regulated countries, 5-10 minutes might be enough. The operator of the tanning place should be able to advice you.
How Do You Know if You Are Getting Enough Vitamin D?
The key point to understand is that sunlight is composed of about 1500 wavelengths, but the only wavelength that will have your body make vitamin D are UVB-rays when they shine on unexposed skin. The key is that the UVB-rays from the sun actually have to pass through the atmosphere and reach where you are on the earth. This obviously does not occur in the winter for most of us, but the sun's rays are also impeded during a fair amount of the year for people living in temperate climates.
So how do you know if you have entered into the summer season and into the time of year, for your location, where enough UVB is actually able to penetrate the atmosphere to allow for vitamin D production in your skin?
It should be noted that this represents a very small portion of the total radiation from the sun that reaches the earth's surface. Much is filtered out by our atmosphere. So due to the physics and wavelength of UVB rays it will only penetrate the atmosphere when the sun is above an angle of about 50° from the horizon. When the sun is lower than 50°, the ozone layer reflects the UVB-rays but let through the longer UVA-rays.
Ultraviolet Spectrum
The first step is to determine the latitude and longitude of your location. You can easily do this on Google Earth, or if you are in the U.S. you can use the TravelMath Latitude Longitude Calculator to find your latitude and longitude i. Once you have obtained that you can go to the U.S. Navy site to calculate a table to determine the times and days of the year that the sun is above 50 degrees from the horizon ii. Please view the video at the top of this page. The URL for the US Naval Observatory Azimuth table is http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php
For a more detailed understanding of this you can visit the University of Colorado State's page iii that discusses this in more detail. If you read the paper you will see that there are other factors, such as ozone concentration, altitude, air pollution, ground covered by snow or ice, and cloud cover that also contribute to the amount of UVB that is ultimately reaching your skin.
Translated to the date and time of some places on the globe, it means for example: In my hometown of Chicago, the UVB rays are not potentially present until March 25, and by September 16th it is not possible to produce any vitamin D from the sun in Chicago. Please understand it is only theoretically possible to get UVB rays during those times. If it happens to be cloudy or raining, the clouds will also block the UVB rays.
This is one of the reasons I now spend most of my winters in the sunshine state of Florida because in the center of the state there are more than two extra months of UVB as the sun doesn't disappear for winter until October 23 and comes back again much earlier, around February.
When NOT to Tan
From a health perspective it doesn't make much sense to expose your skin to the sun when it is lower than 50 degrees above the horizon because you will not receive any valuable UVB rays, but you will expose yourself to the more dangerous and potentially deadly UVA rays. UVA's have a longer wavelength than UVB and can more easily penetrate the ozone layer and other obstacles (like clouds and pollution) on their way from the sun to the earth. UVA is what radically increases your risk of skin cancer and photoaging of your skin. So while it will give you a tan, unless the companion UVB rays are available you're likely doing more harm than good and should probably stay out of the sun to protect your skin.
During the times of the year when UVB rays are not present where you live you essentially have two options: You can use a safe tanning bed or you can swallow oral vitamin D3.
After Sun Exposure, Be Careful about Showering!
It's important to understand that vitamin D3 is an oil soluble steroid hormone. It's formed when your skin is exposed to ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation from the sun (or a safe tanning bed). When UVB strikes the surface of your skin, your skin converts a cholesterol derivative in your skin into vitamin D3.
However, the vitamin D3 that is formed is on the surface of your skin does not immediately penetrate into your bloodstream. It actually needs to be absorbed from the surface of your skin into your bloodstream. The critical question then is: how long does it take the vitamin D3 to penetrate your skin and reach your bloodstream? If you're thinking about an hour or two, like I did until recently, you're wrong. Because new evidence shows it takes up to 48 hours before you absorb the majority of the vitamin D that was generated by exposing your skin to the sun!
Therefore, if you shower with soap, you will simply wash away much of the vitamin D3 your skin generated, and decrease the benefits of your sun exposure. So to optimize your vitamin D level, you need to delay washing your body with soap for about two full days after sun exposure. Now, few are not going to bathe for two full days. However you really only need to use soap underneath your arms and your groin area, so this is not a major hygiene issue. You'll just want to avoid soaping up the larger areas of your body that were exposed to the sun.
Many will dispute this recommendation as "conventional" thinking teaches that vitamin D is formed in the skin, but this research is based on Dr. Michael Hollick's work, which is over 25 years old. New evidence suggests the current view on how vitamin D is formed is inaccurate. At this time no one has ever tested whether vitamin D is formed in human sebum, the fat that your skin produces. The only study that supports that vitamin D3 is formed in the dermal epidermal junction was done in humans where the sebum was removed from the skin.
However, this has been extensively tested in animals and that is precisely where the vitamin D3 is formed. In fact that is where most of the oral vitamin D3 in supplements comes from—the lanolin and the sebum-like material in the skin of sheep and cows.
Additionally, you can rub vitamin D3 on your skin and it easily penetrates into your bloodstream (assuming you don't wash it off for 48 hours). This is also likely the reason why surfers in Hawaii who are in the sun and water continuously don't have vitamin D levels comparable to lifeguards that don't go in the water. The surfers typically have levels in the 70s while the lifeguards and others who are in the sun as much without going into the water will have vitamin D levels around 100. The bottom line is that washing the sebum off of your skin is NOT ideal and should be avoided when possible. You were NOT designed to use soap on your entire body. It is fine to wash areas that are prone to bacterial overgrowth such as your axilla (armpits) and groin, but it is in your best interest to leave the sebum that was designed to be on your skin, on your skin.
Obviously you can do as you wish, but it is my STRONG recommendation to avoid soap on most of your skin.
Avoid Tanning through a Window as it Will Increase Your Skin Cancer Risk
Because the UVA has a longer wavelength, it penetrates materials more easily, such as the earth's atmosphere and window glass which will effectively filter out the majority of UVB radiation, but only minimally filters out UVAs. What's the significance of that, you ask?
It's important to remember that vitamin D3 is formed from exposure to UVB rays, whereas UVA radiation actually destroys vitamin D. This helps keep your body in balance; it's one of the protective mechanisms your body has to avoid overdosing on vitamin D when you're outside. However, when you're exposed to sunlight through windows -- in your office, your home or your car -- you get the UVA but virtually none of the beneficial UVB.
This can lead to significant health problems, because in addition to destroying vitamin D3, UVA's also increase oxidative stress. UVA is one of the primary culprits behind skin cancer, and it increases photo aging of your skin. It's also what causes you to tan. You can actually get vitamin D without significantly darkening your skin, because the UVB wavelength does not stimulate the melanin pigment to produce a tan.
Normally, of course, when you get tanned from outdoor sun exposure you're getting both UVA and UVB at the same time, so it's not a problem. But when you are indoors and expose yourself to sunlight filtered through window glass, you are increasing your risk of a variety of conditions, primarily skin cancer, because the UVA's are effectively destroying your vitamin D3 levels while you're getting none of the benefits from UVB, and this can significantly increase your risk of skin cancer. This is one of the reasons why many that drive long hours in their cars develop skin cancer on the arm next to the car window.
The Antioxidant that Reverses Skin Aging from the Inside Out
An excellent adjunct to vitamin D is the antioxidant astaxanthin. Not only can it act as an internal sunscreen, protecting your skin from harmful radiation—both solar and medical radiation—but it also appears to have a rejuvenating effect on skin in general. Two human clinical studiesiv were recently performed to test the effects of astaxanthin on skin aging. In the first, 30 healthy female subjects were given six mg per day of oral astaxanthin plus two ml per day topical astaxanthin application, for eight weeks. The women showed improvement in:
Skin wrinkle size
Age spot size
Elasticity
Skin texture, and
Corneocyte layer moisture content
The second study was a similar test on 36 healthy male subjects for 6 weeks. The men showed improvement in crow's feet wrinkle size and elasticity, transepidermal water loss, moisture content and sebum oil level. According to the authors:
“These results suggest that astaxanthin derived from Haematococcus pluvialis may improve the skin condition in not only in women but also in men.”
What to Do if You Get Sunburned
If you ever develop a sunburn it is important to realize that aloe vera is one of the best remedies to help repair your skin as it is loaded with powerful glyconutrients that accelerate healing. Ideally, it is best to use the gel from a fresh plant, but there are commercial products available that have active aloe in them. Ideally you would never need it because you are using these safe tanning guidelines, but accidents do happen and it is important to have contingency plans for them.
Testing Your Blood is the Only Way to Know Your Vitamin D Levels
The above guidelines are the most comprehensive details that I know of that will allow you to optimize your vitamin D levels by natural sun exposure. However, there are other variables that you can't control, such as the darkness of your skin and your age, which can add further confusion to the ability to accurately predict what your vitamin D level will be after appropriate sun exposure.
I can tell you that these guidelines work and have personally used them to maximize my vitamin D levels. I have not taken any oral vitamin D for years now. Last spring, with one to two hours of sun exposure regularly, I was able to get my vitamin D level to 105, which is typical of lifeguards that are not using sun screens.
I would strongly encourage you to have your blood level checked to confirm that your sun exposure is putting you in the right level. If it isn't, or if sun exposure is not a practical option for you, then you should consider supplementing with oral vitamin D3. (You want to avoid vitamin D2 as it is clearly inferior to D3.) The following chart shows the therapeutic levels of vitamin D you'll want to reach and maintain.
Vitamin D Levels
References:
i TravelMath Latitude Longitude Calculator
ii US Navy Azimuth Table
iii UVB Radiation, Colorado State University
iv Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2012 Mar 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Source: Latitude Longitude Calculator
Source: US Navy Azimuth Table
Related Links:
The Latest Vitamin D News
My One Hour FREE Vitamin D Lecture to Clear Up All Your Confusion on this Vital Nutrient
Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 26 2012 |
Safe sun exposure is essential for optimal health, but incorrect exposure can raise your risk of skin cancer while not providing any health benefits. Sunburn should be avoided at all cost. Detailed guidelines are provided for safely increasing your vitamin D stores through proper sun exposure are included
While sunlight is composed of about 1,500 wavelengths, UVB is the only wavelength that will produce vitamin D when hitting unexposed skin. UVA’s increase your risk of skin cancer and causes photoaging of your skin. Therefore, it’s important to determine the ideal times of year for safe and effective sun exposure, and avoid exposure during times that UVB rays are not present. Instructions are included
Vitamin D3 is an oil soluble steroid hormone that forms when your skin is exposed to UVB radiation from the sun (or a safe tanning bed). When UVB strikes the surface of your skin, your skin converts a cholesterol derivative into vitamin D3. It takes up to 48 hours for this vitamin D3 to be absorbed into your bloodstream to elevate your vitamin D levels. Therefore, it’s important to avoid washing your skin with soap after sun exposure
In case you do develop a sun burn, immediately apply raw aloe vera. It’s one of the best remedies to help accelerate skin healing
By Dr. Mercola
Unfortunately, due to decades of professional and media misinformation, the typical American believes they should avoid the midday sun and need to use sunscreen before, and several times during, sun exposure.
Unfortunately, this is a prescription for minimizing vitamin D levels and all its widely appreciated benefits.
The purpose of this article is to provide you with some practical guidelines on how to use natural sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D benefits.
Your Initial Exposure
The first few days, you should limit your exposure to the sun to allow your body's melanocyte cells to rev up the ability to produce protective pigmentation that not only gives you a tan, but also serves to help protect you against overexposure to the sun.
If you are a fairly light skinned individual that tends to burn, you will want to limit your initial exposure to a few minutes, especially if it is in the middle of summer.
The more tanned your skin will get, and/or the more tanned you want to become, the longer you can stay in the sun. If it is early or late in the season and/or you are a dark skinned individual, you could likely safely have 30 minutes on your initial exposure. If you are deeply pigmented and your immediate ancestors are from Africa, India or the Middle East, it is possible you may not even have to worry about the timing of your exposure.
Always err on the side of caution however, and let it be your primary goal to never get sun burned.
You can use a moisturizing, safe, NON-SPF cream to moisturize your skin, or use something as simple as organic coconut oil to moisturize your skin as this will also benefit you metabolically. Remember if the moisturizer you use has an SPF value, it will block UVB rays and will not allow your body to produce any vitamin D. The rest of the day, you can spend in the shade, wear clothes, and, if you still want to be in the open sun, use a non-toxic lotion with SPF15 for uncovered skin. Just be sure to be on the safe side of burning!
Protect Your Face and Eyes
The skin around your eyes and your face is typically much thinner than other areas on your body and is a relatively small surface area so will not contribute much to vitamin D production. It is strongly recommended to protect this fragile area of your body as is at a much higher risk for cosmetic photo damage and premature wrinkling. You can use a safe sun block in this area or wear a cap that always keeps your eyes in the shade like I do when I am outside seeking to increase my vitamin D levels.
Prepare Your Skin and Keep Your Vitamin-D Supply Constant
Before you travel, prepare your skin by having sessions (1-2 times per week) in a solarium with low-pressure UV-lamps that has a reasonable percentage UVB. This will also protect you against vitamin D deficit between your vacations. The time for each session depends on how strong the tubes in the solarium are. In countries that follow the EU-norm you probably will need 15-20 minutes, while in less regulated countries, 5-10 minutes might be enough. The operator of the tanning place should be able to advice you.
How Do You Know if You Are Getting Enough Vitamin D?
The key point to understand is that sunlight is composed of about 1500 wavelengths, but the only wavelength that will have your body make vitamin D are UVB-rays when they shine on unexposed skin. The key is that the UVB-rays from the sun actually have to pass through the atmosphere and reach where you are on the earth. This obviously does not occur in the winter for most of us, but the sun's rays are also impeded during a fair amount of the year for people living in temperate climates.
So how do you know if you have entered into the summer season and into the time of year, for your location, where enough UVB is actually able to penetrate the atmosphere to allow for vitamin D production in your skin?
It should be noted that this represents a very small portion of the total radiation from the sun that reaches the earth's surface. Much is filtered out by our atmosphere. So due to the physics and wavelength of UVB rays it will only penetrate the atmosphere when the sun is above an angle of about 50° from the horizon. When the sun is lower than 50°, the ozone layer reflects the UVB-rays but let through the longer UVA-rays.
Ultraviolet Spectrum
The first step is to determine the latitude and longitude of your location. You can easily do this on Google Earth, or if you are in the U.S. you can use the TravelMath Latitude Longitude Calculator to find your latitude and longitude i. Once you have obtained that you can go to the U.S. Navy site to calculate a table to determine the times and days of the year that the sun is above 50 degrees from the horizon ii. Please view the video at the top of this page. The URL for the US Naval Observatory Azimuth table is http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php
For a more detailed understanding of this you can visit the University of Colorado State's page iii that discusses this in more detail. If you read the paper you will see that there are other factors, such as ozone concentration, altitude, air pollution, ground covered by snow or ice, and cloud cover that also contribute to the amount of UVB that is ultimately reaching your skin.
Translated to the date and time of some places on the globe, it means for example: In my hometown of Chicago, the UVB rays are not potentially present until March 25, and by September 16th it is not possible to produce any vitamin D from the sun in Chicago. Please understand it is only theoretically possible to get UVB rays during those times. If it happens to be cloudy or raining, the clouds will also block the UVB rays.
This is one of the reasons I now spend most of my winters in the sunshine state of Florida because in the center of the state there are more than two extra months of UVB as the sun doesn't disappear for winter until October 23 and comes back again much earlier, around February.
When NOT to Tan
From a health perspective it doesn't make much sense to expose your skin to the sun when it is lower than 50 degrees above the horizon because you will not receive any valuable UVB rays, but you will expose yourself to the more dangerous and potentially deadly UVA rays. UVA's have a longer wavelength than UVB and can more easily penetrate the ozone layer and other obstacles (like clouds and pollution) on their way from the sun to the earth. UVA is what radically increases your risk of skin cancer and photoaging of your skin. So while it will give you a tan, unless the companion UVB rays are available you're likely doing more harm than good and should probably stay out of the sun to protect your skin.
During the times of the year when UVB rays are not present where you live you essentially have two options: You can use a safe tanning bed or you can swallow oral vitamin D3.
After Sun Exposure, Be Careful about Showering!
It's important to understand that vitamin D3 is an oil soluble steroid hormone. It's formed when your skin is exposed to ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation from the sun (or a safe tanning bed). When UVB strikes the surface of your skin, your skin converts a cholesterol derivative in your skin into vitamin D3.
However, the vitamin D3 that is formed is on the surface of your skin does not immediately penetrate into your bloodstream. It actually needs to be absorbed from the surface of your skin into your bloodstream. The critical question then is: how long does it take the vitamin D3 to penetrate your skin and reach your bloodstream? If you're thinking about an hour or two, like I did until recently, you're wrong. Because new evidence shows it takes up to 48 hours before you absorb the majority of the vitamin D that was generated by exposing your skin to the sun!
Therefore, if you shower with soap, you will simply wash away much of the vitamin D3 your skin generated, and decrease the benefits of your sun exposure. So to optimize your vitamin D level, you need to delay washing your body with soap for about two full days after sun exposure. Now, few are not going to bathe for two full days. However you really only need to use soap underneath your arms and your groin area, so this is not a major hygiene issue. You'll just want to avoid soaping up the larger areas of your body that were exposed to the sun.
Many will dispute this recommendation as "conventional" thinking teaches that vitamin D is formed in the skin, but this research is based on Dr. Michael Hollick's work, which is over 25 years old. New evidence suggests the current view on how vitamin D is formed is inaccurate. At this time no one has ever tested whether vitamin D is formed in human sebum, the fat that your skin produces. The only study that supports that vitamin D3 is formed in the dermal epidermal junction was done in humans where the sebum was removed from the skin.
However, this has been extensively tested in animals and that is precisely where the vitamin D3 is formed. In fact that is where most of the oral vitamin D3 in supplements comes from—the lanolin and the sebum-like material in the skin of sheep and cows.
Additionally, you can rub vitamin D3 on your skin and it easily penetrates into your bloodstream (assuming you don't wash it off for 48 hours). This is also likely the reason why surfers in Hawaii who are in the sun and water continuously don't have vitamin D levels comparable to lifeguards that don't go in the water. The surfers typically have levels in the 70s while the lifeguards and others who are in the sun as much without going into the water will have vitamin D levels around 100. The bottom line is that washing the sebum off of your skin is NOT ideal and should be avoided when possible. You were NOT designed to use soap on your entire body. It is fine to wash areas that are prone to bacterial overgrowth such as your axilla (armpits) and groin, but it is in your best interest to leave the sebum that was designed to be on your skin, on your skin.
Obviously you can do as you wish, but it is my STRONG recommendation to avoid soap on most of your skin.
Avoid Tanning through a Window as it Will Increase Your Skin Cancer Risk
Because the UVA has a longer wavelength, it penetrates materials more easily, such as the earth's atmosphere and window glass which will effectively filter out the majority of UVB radiation, but only minimally filters out UVAs. What's the significance of that, you ask?
It's important to remember that vitamin D3 is formed from exposure to UVB rays, whereas UVA radiation actually destroys vitamin D. This helps keep your body in balance; it's one of the protective mechanisms your body has to avoid overdosing on vitamin D when you're outside. However, when you're exposed to sunlight through windows -- in your office, your home or your car -- you get the UVA but virtually none of the beneficial UVB.
This can lead to significant health problems, because in addition to destroying vitamin D3, UVA's also increase oxidative stress. UVA is one of the primary culprits behind skin cancer, and it increases photo aging of your skin. It's also what causes you to tan. You can actually get vitamin D without significantly darkening your skin, because the UVB wavelength does not stimulate the melanin pigment to produce a tan.
Normally, of course, when you get tanned from outdoor sun exposure you're getting both UVA and UVB at the same time, so it's not a problem. But when you are indoors and expose yourself to sunlight filtered through window glass, you are increasing your risk of a variety of conditions, primarily skin cancer, because the UVA's are effectively destroying your vitamin D3 levels while you're getting none of the benefits from UVB, and this can significantly increase your risk of skin cancer. This is one of the reasons why many that drive long hours in their cars develop skin cancer on the arm next to the car window.
The Antioxidant that Reverses Skin Aging from the Inside Out
An excellent adjunct to vitamin D is the antioxidant astaxanthin. Not only can it act as an internal sunscreen, protecting your skin from harmful radiation—both solar and medical radiation—but it also appears to have a rejuvenating effect on skin in general. Two human clinical studiesiv were recently performed to test the effects of astaxanthin on skin aging. In the first, 30 healthy female subjects were given six mg per day of oral astaxanthin plus two ml per day topical astaxanthin application, for eight weeks. The women showed improvement in:
Skin wrinkle size
Age spot size
Elasticity
Skin texture, and
Corneocyte layer moisture content
The second study was a similar test on 36 healthy male subjects for 6 weeks. The men showed improvement in crow's feet wrinkle size and elasticity, transepidermal water loss, moisture content and sebum oil level. According to the authors:
“These results suggest that astaxanthin derived from Haematococcus pluvialis may improve the skin condition in not only in women but also in men.”
What to Do if You Get Sunburned
If you ever develop a sunburn it is important to realize that aloe vera is one of the best remedies to help repair your skin as it is loaded with powerful glyconutrients that accelerate healing. Ideally, it is best to use the gel from a fresh plant, but there are commercial products available that have active aloe in them. Ideally you would never need it because you are using these safe tanning guidelines, but accidents do happen and it is important to have contingency plans for them.
Testing Your Blood is the Only Way to Know Your Vitamin D Levels
The above guidelines are the most comprehensive details that I know of that will allow you to optimize your vitamin D levels by natural sun exposure. However, there are other variables that you can't control, such as the darkness of your skin and your age, which can add further confusion to the ability to accurately predict what your vitamin D level will be after appropriate sun exposure.
I can tell you that these guidelines work and have personally used them to maximize my vitamin D levels. I have not taken any oral vitamin D for years now. Last spring, with one to two hours of sun exposure regularly, I was able to get my vitamin D level to 105, which is typical of lifeguards that are not using sun screens.
I would strongly encourage you to have your blood level checked to confirm that your sun exposure is putting you in the right level. If it isn't, or if sun exposure is not a practical option for you, then you should consider supplementing with oral vitamin D3. (You want to avoid vitamin D2 as it is clearly inferior to D3.) The following chart shows the therapeutic levels of vitamin D you'll want to reach and maintain.
Vitamin D Levels
References:
i TravelMath Latitude Longitude Calculator
ii US Navy Azimuth Table
iii UVB Radiation, Colorado State University
iv Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2012 Mar 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Source: Latitude Longitude Calculator
Source: US Navy Azimuth Table
Related Links:
The Latest Vitamin D News
My One Hour FREE Vitamin D Lecture to Clear Up All Your Confusion on this Vital Nutrient
Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight
Sunday, March 25, 2012
There are healthy protocols that work, every time.
GRAY MATTER
The Case for Sleep Medicine
By GAYLE GREENE
ACCORDING to a new study in the journal BMJ that has received wide media coverage, people who regularly took sleeping pills were nearly five times more likely to die over a two and a half year period than those who didn’t take them.
Enlarge This Image
Gérard DuBois
Related
The Consumer: New Worries About Sleeping Pills (March 12, 2012)
Oh no, I groaned, reading the headlines, not another scare story about sleeping pills. As a lifelong insomniac who has extensively researched the topic, I find such stories alarming — but not because of the information they present. Rather, I’m afraid that they will cause doctors to stop prescribing these medications to people who need them.
The risks of sleeping pills are real, as I well know, having taken them for three decades. But so are the risks of chronic sleep loss. As the pioneering sleep scientist William Dement has argued, sleep is “the most important predictor of how long you will live — perhaps more important than smoking, exercise or high blood pressure.”
Sleep deprivation ratchets up the stress system, leaving you more susceptible to even relatively mild sources of strain. When University of Chicago researchers led by Eve Van Cauter deprived young, healthy people of a few hours of sleep for six nights, they produced in them the hormonal profiles of much older people: higher levels of stress hormones and lower levels of growth hormone (essential to cell repair). The study’s participants developed hormonal imbalances conducive to weight gain and levels of insulin resistance like those of people with diabetes.
Loss of sleep also compromises immune resistance and leaves you more vulnerable to everything from the common cold to cancer. In a University of Chicago study led by Karine Spiegel, participants whose sleep was restricted to four hours a night for six nights had, when vaccinated for influenza, less than half the immune response of those who had slept well. Michael Irwin and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles found that even modest sleep loss — only one night, between 3 and 6 a.m. — significantly reduced white blood cell activity, a crucial line of defense against infection and cancer.
Then there are the ravages of sleep deprivation on the mind and mood. After a night with four hours sleep or less, I can’t think, can’t work, can barely string words together to make a sentence. Sleep deprivation undermines focus, creativity, motivation and judgment, and leads to a wide range of emotional disturbances including volatility, impulsivity and depression. Studies show that insomniacs have a hard time getting jobs, performing at jobs and holding on to jobs, let alone building careers. No wonder so many people make the trade-off that I’ve made: medication for functionality.
The recent study in BMJ about the dangers of sleep medications had methodological shortcomings: It compared a large group of people who had been prescribed sleep medication with a large group that had not, matching them in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, smoking and drinking — but not in terms of how well they slept. Given that those taking the medications had more hypertension, heart failure, obesity, asthma and other health problems associated with poor sleep to begin with, it’s not surprising they had higher mortality rates.
Which is not to say that the drawbacks to sleep medication aren’t real; they are. These medications alter sleep cycles, so that the sleep they provide may not have the deep restorative benefits of natural sleep. They adversely affect memory and coordination, which can be bad news for the elderly, the group that takes them most. And you can develop a tolerance to them, causing you to take larger and larger doses to get the same effect. But the sleep they provide may make the difference between having a life or not.
The study in BMJ alludes to “the meager benefits” of sleep medications and the greater success of behavioral methods of dealing with insomnia, which include things like going to bed and getting up at set times and using the bed only for sleep. But such strategies are not as effective as is sometimes claimed: studies that demonstrate their efficacy tend to look at small numbers of carefully screened, self-selected and highly motivated subjects. Face it, if behavioral modification were that simple, there wouldn’t be so many of us taking medications.
It’s not fun to rely on medications that carry risks. Nor is it fun to rely on doctors who are often not very sympathetic or knowledgeable about sleep, whose medical training is a hazing in sleep deprivation, and who often pride themselves on how little sleep they need. Insomniacs need doctors who will work with us to troubleshoot our condition; we do not need doctors who have been scared into a one-size-fits-all solution, when one size so obviously does not fit all.
We need to be allowed to work out our own terms with sleep and balance one set of risks against the other, so we can get on with our lives.
Gayle Greene, a professor of English at Scripps College, is the author of “Insomniac.”
The Case for Sleep Medicine
By GAYLE GREENE
ACCORDING to a new study in the journal BMJ that has received wide media coverage, people who regularly took sleeping pills were nearly five times more likely to die over a two and a half year period than those who didn’t take them.
Enlarge This Image
Gérard DuBois
Related
The Consumer: New Worries About Sleeping Pills (March 12, 2012)
Oh no, I groaned, reading the headlines, not another scare story about sleeping pills. As a lifelong insomniac who has extensively researched the topic, I find such stories alarming — but not because of the information they present. Rather, I’m afraid that they will cause doctors to stop prescribing these medications to people who need them.
The risks of sleeping pills are real, as I well know, having taken them for three decades. But so are the risks of chronic sleep loss. As the pioneering sleep scientist William Dement has argued, sleep is “the most important predictor of how long you will live — perhaps more important than smoking, exercise or high blood pressure.”
Sleep deprivation ratchets up the stress system, leaving you more susceptible to even relatively mild sources of strain. When University of Chicago researchers led by Eve Van Cauter deprived young, healthy people of a few hours of sleep for six nights, they produced in them the hormonal profiles of much older people: higher levels of stress hormones and lower levels of growth hormone (essential to cell repair). The study’s participants developed hormonal imbalances conducive to weight gain and levels of insulin resistance like those of people with diabetes.
Loss of sleep also compromises immune resistance and leaves you more vulnerable to everything from the common cold to cancer. In a University of Chicago study led by Karine Spiegel, participants whose sleep was restricted to four hours a night for six nights had, when vaccinated for influenza, less than half the immune response of those who had slept well. Michael Irwin and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles found that even modest sleep loss — only one night, between 3 and 6 a.m. — significantly reduced white blood cell activity, a crucial line of defense against infection and cancer.
Then there are the ravages of sleep deprivation on the mind and mood. After a night with four hours sleep or less, I can’t think, can’t work, can barely string words together to make a sentence. Sleep deprivation undermines focus, creativity, motivation and judgment, and leads to a wide range of emotional disturbances including volatility, impulsivity and depression. Studies show that insomniacs have a hard time getting jobs, performing at jobs and holding on to jobs, let alone building careers. No wonder so many people make the trade-off that I’ve made: medication for functionality.
The recent study in BMJ about the dangers of sleep medications had methodological shortcomings: It compared a large group of people who had been prescribed sleep medication with a large group that had not, matching them in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, smoking and drinking — but not in terms of how well they slept. Given that those taking the medications had more hypertension, heart failure, obesity, asthma and other health problems associated with poor sleep to begin with, it’s not surprising they had higher mortality rates.
Which is not to say that the drawbacks to sleep medication aren’t real; they are. These medications alter sleep cycles, so that the sleep they provide may not have the deep restorative benefits of natural sleep. They adversely affect memory and coordination, which can be bad news for the elderly, the group that takes them most. And you can develop a tolerance to them, causing you to take larger and larger doses to get the same effect. But the sleep they provide may make the difference between having a life or not.
The study in BMJ alludes to “the meager benefits” of sleep medications and the greater success of behavioral methods of dealing with insomnia, which include things like going to bed and getting up at set times and using the bed only for sleep. But such strategies are not as effective as is sometimes claimed: studies that demonstrate their efficacy tend to look at small numbers of carefully screened, self-selected and highly motivated subjects. Face it, if behavioral modification were that simple, there wouldn’t be so many of us taking medications.
It’s not fun to rely on medications that carry risks. Nor is it fun to rely on doctors who are often not very sympathetic or knowledgeable about sleep, whose medical training is a hazing in sleep deprivation, and who often pride themselves on how little sleep they need. Insomniacs need doctors who will work with us to troubleshoot our condition; we do not need doctors who have been scared into a one-size-fits-all solution, when one size so obviously does not fit all.
We need to be allowed to work out our own terms with sleep and balance one set of risks against the other, so we can get on with our lives.
Gayle Greene, a professor of English at Scripps College, is the author of “Insomniac.”
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Artificial sweeteners
Addictive and Toxic: Found in Bread, Pasta Sauce and Salad Dressing
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 24 2012
Important! Hungryforchange.tv is offering this full and FREE preview for a limited time!
Please tell everyone you know to watch this film in its entirety and be the first to see this new film featuring Dr Mercola! This Free Viewing Ends March 31, 2012!
Visit the Mercola Video Library
Story at-a-glance
Hungry for Change, the sequel to the popular documentary Food Matters, continues the story about how you can create vibrant health, abundant energy, and achieve your ideal body weight without dieting
Leading medical experts explain the reasons you crave certain foods, and how the food industry has secretly engineered foods to be addictive, as well as what you can do to eliminate food cravings once and for all
Food additives, such as artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and MSG, can lead you down a path of food addiction, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, while increasing your risk for chronic disease
You can escape the diet trap and optimize your health naturally by gradually replacing processed “faux-food” with organic, nutrient-dense real foods, and other lifestyle changes such as regular exercise and proactively reducing your daily stress
By Dr. Mercola
Hungry for Change is a 90-minute film from the creators of Food Matters, the documentary that expertly showed the basics of how food is your true medicine and the key to good health.
Hungry for Change continues the story about how you can create vibrant health, abundant energy, and achieve your ideal body weight without dieting.
If you enjoyed Food Matters, you will love this important sequel, as the film's creators expose deceptive tactics the food industry employs, but would rather you not know about… ways they create products that actually CAUSE cravings and keep you coming back for more.
The film features bestselling authors and leading medical experts on the cutting edge of nutritional science, plus several powerful testimonials by individuals who know what it's like to be sick and overweight.
What You Can Learn from this Film
In the film, you'll discover which dietary choices could be keeping you stuck, what's keeping you from having the healthy body you deserve, and how to escape the diet trap forever.
You will learn:
How to overcome food addictions and cravings
Why fad diets don't work
Which food additives to avoid and how to read labels, including the real truth behind "DIET," "SUGAR-FREE" and "FAT-FREE" products
What fat is, and how you can get rid of it for good
The most effective strategies for detoxifying and cleansing
You aren't Eating FOOD Anymore—You're Eating Food-Like Products
The foods eaten by most Westerners today bear little resemblance to the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. And our lifestyles are equally non-reflective of our roots. Our bodies evolved to weather the cycles of feast and famine; to accumulate body fat easily in order to make it through times when food was scarce. But the famine never comes now, so all we have is the feast. And feast upon feast upon feast adds up to a LOT of extra body fat.
The documentary points out that 68 percent of U.S. adults are now overweight or obese.
Hunter-gatherers consumed foods with high nutrition and low calories. Today, most Americans are getting the converse—high calories and low nutrition. Many are overfed, yet starving to death. Their bodies are accumulating fat and pollutants from intentional AND unintentional contaminants in our food supply, causing their biological systems to shut down and be vulnerable to a variety of chronic diseases.
Adding to the caloric excess is an exercise deficit.
As a culture, we've gotten away from farms and moved to cities, adopting an indoor lifestyle that expends far fewer calories. Instead of walking, we ride in cars. Instead of running from tigers, we chase cursors around a screen. We have completely lost touch with where our food comes from and what goes into creating it. Our very relationship with food has changed, and not for the better.
Are You Addicted to Additives?
Processed food has become a multi-billion dollar industry that dangles the carrot of "convenience." However, the price you pay for convenience is your very health and vitality. Hungry For Change exposes the dark side of the food industry's marketing plan—namely, the addition of certain chemicals that secretly can get you addicted and make you a perpetual customer (they hope). You can probably already see the parallels with the tobacco industry that, in the 1960s, began increasing the nicotine level in cigarettes, which kept smokers coming back for more.
One example of an addictive food additive is MSG (monosodium glutamate), which is added to 80 percent of all flavored foods. MSG excites the part of your brain that's in charge of your fat programs. MSG is what's known as an excitotoxin, but it's also used to fatten up mice for scientific study. Yes, MSG is the perfect obesity drug. If you want to achieve your ideal body weight and health, avoid MSG at all costs.
Artificial Sweeteners: The Worst of the Worst
Sweeteners, both artificial and sugar-derived, top the list of addictive additives. But artificial sweeteners are the absolute WORST things you can put in your body. Consider aspartame, sold under the brand names NutraSweet and Equal. Diet cola, which often combines aspartame and caffeine, is the perfectly addictive beverage. These two agents create a very unique but deadly combination of excitotoxins that kill off your brain cells. However, before they do so, they go out with a bang by giving you something akin to a buzz. It's the perfect plan to get you to go back to the store to buy another soda. And maybe a supersized soda—after all, it has ZERO calories, no matter how much you consume!
But not so fast. You are sipping your way into a trap.
Studies now show that, in spite of their zero-calorie status, many artificial sweeteners actually cause weight GAIN because they stimulate your body to crave carbohydrates. But weight gain may be the least of your worries. Aspartame causes formaldehyde to build up in your brain, which results in all sorts of potentially serious medical problems, including:
Frontal lobe inflammation Visual disturbances Migraines
A syndrome similar to multiple sclerosis Seizures Cognitive problems
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia Symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease Symptoms similar to attention deficit disorder
In fact, pilots' associations are aware of the visual disturbances and caution pilots to avoid using aspartame due to its potential to compromise their ability to pilot a plane.
The food industry claims that aspartame is safe. However, if you look at the studies that claim to support aspartame's safety, you will see that 90 percent of them were funded by the food and beverage industry. When you examine independent aspartame studies, it's a totally different story. Ninety percent of those have found serious health problems related to aspartame. The FDA merely evaluates the studies that the industry submits—it doesn't have a team of researchers conducting those studies itself, contrary to what you might think.
Feeding Your Child Sugar Can Be a Highly Addictive Habit
American children are consuming about ten times as much sugar as they were a century ago, especially in the form of fructose (primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup). Fructose is the average American's largest source of calories. This comes as no surprise, as it's highly addictive. The prevalence of fructose in the Western diet is a very significant factor driving today's obesity epidemic.
Much of the fructose in processed foods and beverages is in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
You'll find high fructose corn syrup in an alarming number of everyday products—bread, salad dressing, pasta sauce, infant formula, and nearly all processed foods. In these highly concentrated, highly refined forms, fructose can have some very serious metabolic effects that wreak havoc on your body and make it difficult to escape the addictive cycle. Because it's so energy-dense, putting HFCS in your body is like putting jet fuel into an automobile engine—you'll burn it out.
When you consume something so high in sugar, your pancreas must secrete large amounts of insulin to bring down your bloodsugar level. And all of that sugar is turned into fat so it can be stored. Insulin is in fact a fat-producing hormone. But the problems from sugar don't stop there.
Sugar is a drug. It causes a beta-endorphin rush in your brain, stimulating the production of morphine-like chemicals. When you're feeling down or under stress, it's natural to want to eat foods that lift your mood. Sugar fits the bill as a "comfort food," given its morphine-like physiological effects. And like any drug, your body can become habituated, meaning you will require more sugar over time to get the same sugar high.
Sugar is actually is similar to cocaine in many respects.
Both are highly refined, chemically manipulated agents that are derived from natural, harmless plants—it's the extremely concentrated forms that are dangerous and addictive to your body. Cocaine is made from coca leaves, which are not in and of themselves harmful and have been used nutritionally for hundreds of years in South Americai. If you want to be healthy, you MUST take control of your sugar intake so that it doesn't take control over you.
Diets Don't Work
Diets really don't work. Although most people have heard this admonition before, many are still unable to resist the temptation. "Dieting" is a multi-million dollar industry itself and does some powerful marketing to lure you in. However, studies are clear that 90 to 95 percent of dieters gain back the weight they lose, and THEN some. Dieting is a temporary fix… do you want to be temporarily healthy? Of course not! You want to be permanently healthy. So, you have to make some permanent lifestyle changes.
Every time you lose weight by dieting, your body will be triggered into trying to protect you from the effects of another "famine" in the future, so it will add some extra body fat as insurance. You may lose 10 pounds on a diet, but you'll gain back 15 or 20. Dieting is a physiologically flawed concept and sets you up for failure.
Fake-Foods of the Western World
People of vastly different cultures and environments thrive on all sorts of diets, from high fat and high protein to high carbohydrate; some mostly animal products and others largely vegetarian. Yet, as varied as native diets are, most native populations have very low rates of chronic disease when compared with Americans and other Western cultures. Eskimos thrive on diets rich in animal fat and muscle and organ meats, but tropical natives thrive on abundant fresh plants, fish and fruit. Yet both cultures are healthy!
So what's the common denominator?
Native diets consist mostly of natural, whole foods (whether plant- or animal-based) rather than processed foods that come in a box or a can. Americans are eating overcooked, overprocessed and chemically manipulated fake foods, instead of REAL foods.
Native diets, in general, are largely made up of whole vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, and meats. Not cooked down, refined, dehydrated and reconstituted, boxed-up pretend foods that aren't really foods at all. Eating wisely requires a gradual transition toward the consumption of natural, whole foods that are unaltered by a lab. The closer to nature a food is, the more nutritious it will be. A change away from the cultural "norm" won't be accomplished over night. Start gradually. As good foods are added into your diet, bad foods will eventually be crowded out.
Four Other Critical Factors for Achieving Optimal Health
Choosing which foods to eat is important, but other lifestyle factors must be addressed as well. Besides making better food choices, there are four other key factors you must consider if you want to achieve your optimal level of health.
Exercise: Exercise creates the same mood-elevating chemicals that sugar does—but with positive metabolic effects. Exercise helps metabolize your stress hormones, reduces hunger, improves sleep, strengthens bones and joints, and causes your body to release growth hormone—and many other health benefits.
Detoxification/Cleansing: As you burn off body fat, you must also detoxify, because most chemicals are lipophilic (fat-loving) and are lodged in fat cells. If you don't do something to remove these toxins from your body while losing weight, toxins can be reabsorbed into your bloodstream and potentially cause health problems.
Fortunately, your body will detoxify itself if there is no toxicity coming in. Chlorophyll-rich foods such as organic green vegetables, gelatinous plant foods like aloe and chia seeds, seaweeds, chlorella, cilantro and parsley can help with this. Make sure to drink plenty of pure water, as this is essential to your body's cleansing processes. Juicing may also be of benefit. Avoid all chemicals, additives, and preservatives. If a product's shelf life is longer than your life, don't eat it!
Sleep: Sleep allows your body to repair and rebuild. Deep sleep is a great way to neutralize stress hormones. Stress increases fluid retention—you can gain two pounds in body fluids just from one night of poor sleep due to stress.
Stress Management: Stress changes your body chemistry, and will prompt you to eat, out of your body's not knowing what else to do. It's one of your body's ways of protecting you. Stress raises your levels of cortisol and epinephrine, which can result in weight gain. If you don't believe this, just talk to anyone taking prednisone, a pharmaceutical steroid similar to cortisol. They often gain 20 to 30 pounds, no matter what they're eating.
My favorite overall tool to manage stress is EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique), which is like acupuncture without the needles. It's a handy tool for unloading emotional baggage quickly and painlessly, and so easy that children can learn it. And it's FREE! Also free, laughter is great medicine because it decreases stress chemicals and pain.
Another powerful tool for creating positive change in your life is visualization, which is the "language" of the subconscious. When you create a visual image of how you'd like to look or feel, your subconscious will understand and begin to help you by making the needed biochemical and neurological changes.
These are just some of the suggestions that will help you along your way. I recommend taking the time to watch Hungry for Change, which offers you even more information than what I've presented above. Remember that if you treat your body well, it will return the favor.
References:
i Transnational Institute February 2011
Related Links:
How Ultra-Processed Foods are Killing Us
Flood Your Body With This "Youth Hormone" in Just 20 Minutes
Why Do People Really Get Sick?
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 24 2012
Important! Hungryforchange.tv is offering this full and FREE preview for a limited time!
Please tell everyone you know to watch this film in its entirety and be the first to see this new film featuring Dr Mercola! This Free Viewing Ends March 31, 2012!
Visit the Mercola Video Library
Story at-a-glance
Hungry for Change, the sequel to the popular documentary Food Matters, continues the story about how you can create vibrant health, abundant energy, and achieve your ideal body weight without dieting
Leading medical experts explain the reasons you crave certain foods, and how the food industry has secretly engineered foods to be addictive, as well as what you can do to eliminate food cravings once and for all
Food additives, such as artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and MSG, can lead you down a path of food addiction, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, while increasing your risk for chronic disease
You can escape the diet trap and optimize your health naturally by gradually replacing processed “faux-food” with organic, nutrient-dense real foods, and other lifestyle changes such as regular exercise and proactively reducing your daily stress
By Dr. Mercola
Hungry for Change is a 90-minute film from the creators of Food Matters, the documentary that expertly showed the basics of how food is your true medicine and the key to good health.
Hungry for Change continues the story about how you can create vibrant health, abundant energy, and achieve your ideal body weight without dieting.
If you enjoyed Food Matters, you will love this important sequel, as the film's creators expose deceptive tactics the food industry employs, but would rather you not know about… ways they create products that actually CAUSE cravings and keep you coming back for more.
The film features bestselling authors and leading medical experts on the cutting edge of nutritional science, plus several powerful testimonials by individuals who know what it's like to be sick and overweight.
What You Can Learn from this Film
In the film, you'll discover which dietary choices could be keeping you stuck, what's keeping you from having the healthy body you deserve, and how to escape the diet trap forever.
You will learn:
How to overcome food addictions and cravings
Why fad diets don't work
Which food additives to avoid and how to read labels, including the real truth behind "DIET," "SUGAR-FREE" and "FAT-FREE" products
What fat is, and how you can get rid of it for good
The most effective strategies for detoxifying and cleansing
You aren't Eating FOOD Anymore—You're Eating Food-Like Products
The foods eaten by most Westerners today bear little resemblance to the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. And our lifestyles are equally non-reflective of our roots. Our bodies evolved to weather the cycles of feast and famine; to accumulate body fat easily in order to make it through times when food was scarce. But the famine never comes now, so all we have is the feast. And feast upon feast upon feast adds up to a LOT of extra body fat.
The documentary points out that 68 percent of U.S. adults are now overweight or obese.
Hunter-gatherers consumed foods with high nutrition and low calories. Today, most Americans are getting the converse—high calories and low nutrition. Many are overfed, yet starving to death. Their bodies are accumulating fat and pollutants from intentional AND unintentional contaminants in our food supply, causing their biological systems to shut down and be vulnerable to a variety of chronic diseases.
Adding to the caloric excess is an exercise deficit.
As a culture, we've gotten away from farms and moved to cities, adopting an indoor lifestyle that expends far fewer calories. Instead of walking, we ride in cars. Instead of running from tigers, we chase cursors around a screen. We have completely lost touch with where our food comes from and what goes into creating it. Our very relationship with food has changed, and not for the better.
Are You Addicted to Additives?
Processed food has become a multi-billion dollar industry that dangles the carrot of "convenience." However, the price you pay for convenience is your very health and vitality. Hungry For Change exposes the dark side of the food industry's marketing plan—namely, the addition of certain chemicals that secretly can get you addicted and make you a perpetual customer (they hope). You can probably already see the parallels with the tobacco industry that, in the 1960s, began increasing the nicotine level in cigarettes, which kept smokers coming back for more.
One example of an addictive food additive is MSG (monosodium glutamate), which is added to 80 percent of all flavored foods. MSG excites the part of your brain that's in charge of your fat programs. MSG is what's known as an excitotoxin, but it's also used to fatten up mice for scientific study. Yes, MSG is the perfect obesity drug. If you want to achieve your ideal body weight and health, avoid MSG at all costs.
Artificial Sweeteners: The Worst of the Worst
Sweeteners, both artificial and sugar-derived, top the list of addictive additives. But artificial sweeteners are the absolute WORST things you can put in your body. Consider aspartame, sold under the brand names NutraSweet and Equal. Diet cola, which often combines aspartame and caffeine, is the perfectly addictive beverage. These two agents create a very unique but deadly combination of excitotoxins that kill off your brain cells. However, before they do so, they go out with a bang by giving you something akin to a buzz. It's the perfect plan to get you to go back to the store to buy another soda. And maybe a supersized soda—after all, it has ZERO calories, no matter how much you consume!
But not so fast. You are sipping your way into a trap.
Studies now show that, in spite of their zero-calorie status, many artificial sweeteners actually cause weight GAIN because they stimulate your body to crave carbohydrates. But weight gain may be the least of your worries. Aspartame causes formaldehyde to build up in your brain, which results in all sorts of potentially serious medical problems, including:
Frontal lobe inflammation Visual disturbances Migraines
A syndrome similar to multiple sclerosis Seizures Cognitive problems
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia Symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease Symptoms similar to attention deficit disorder
In fact, pilots' associations are aware of the visual disturbances and caution pilots to avoid using aspartame due to its potential to compromise their ability to pilot a plane.
The food industry claims that aspartame is safe. However, if you look at the studies that claim to support aspartame's safety, you will see that 90 percent of them were funded by the food and beverage industry. When you examine independent aspartame studies, it's a totally different story. Ninety percent of those have found serious health problems related to aspartame. The FDA merely evaluates the studies that the industry submits—it doesn't have a team of researchers conducting those studies itself, contrary to what you might think.
Feeding Your Child Sugar Can Be a Highly Addictive Habit
American children are consuming about ten times as much sugar as they were a century ago, especially in the form of fructose (primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup). Fructose is the average American's largest source of calories. This comes as no surprise, as it's highly addictive. The prevalence of fructose in the Western diet is a very significant factor driving today's obesity epidemic.
Much of the fructose in processed foods and beverages is in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
You'll find high fructose corn syrup in an alarming number of everyday products—bread, salad dressing, pasta sauce, infant formula, and nearly all processed foods. In these highly concentrated, highly refined forms, fructose can have some very serious metabolic effects that wreak havoc on your body and make it difficult to escape the addictive cycle. Because it's so energy-dense, putting HFCS in your body is like putting jet fuel into an automobile engine—you'll burn it out.
When you consume something so high in sugar, your pancreas must secrete large amounts of insulin to bring down your bloodsugar level. And all of that sugar is turned into fat so it can be stored. Insulin is in fact a fat-producing hormone. But the problems from sugar don't stop there.
Sugar is a drug. It causes a beta-endorphin rush in your brain, stimulating the production of morphine-like chemicals. When you're feeling down or under stress, it's natural to want to eat foods that lift your mood. Sugar fits the bill as a "comfort food," given its morphine-like physiological effects. And like any drug, your body can become habituated, meaning you will require more sugar over time to get the same sugar high.
Sugar is actually is similar to cocaine in many respects.
Both are highly refined, chemically manipulated agents that are derived from natural, harmless plants—it's the extremely concentrated forms that are dangerous and addictive to your body. Cocaine is made from coca leaves, which are not in and of themselves harmful and have been used nutritionally for hundreds of years in South Americai. If you want to be healthy, you MUST take control of your sugar intake so that it doesn't take control over you.
Diets Don't Work
Diets really don't work. Although most people have heard this admonition before, many are still unable to resist the temptation. "Dieting" is a multi-million dollar industry itself and does some powerful marketing to lure you in. However, studies are clear that 90 to 95 percent of dieters gain back the weight they lose, and THEN some. Dieting is a temporary fix… do you want to be temporarily healthy? Of course not! You want to be permanently healthy. So, you have to make some permanent lifestyle changes.
Every time you lose weight by dieting, your body will be triggered into trying to protect you from the effects of another "famine" in the future, so it will add some extra body fat as insurance. You may lose 10 pounds on a diet, but you'll gain back 15 or 20. Dieting is a physiologically flawed concept and sets you up for failure.
Fake-Foods of the Western World
People of vastly different cultures and environments thrive on all sorts of diets, from high fat and high protein to high carbohydrate; some mostly animal products and others largely vegetarian. Yet, as varied as native diets are, most native populations have very low rates of chronic disease when compared with Americans and other Western cultures. Eskimos thrive on diets rich in animal fat and muscle and organ meats, but tropical natives thrive on abundant fresh plants, fish and fruit. Yet both cultures are healthy!
So what's the common denominator?
Native diets consist mostly of natural, whole foods (whether plant- or animal-based) rather than processed foods that come in a box or a can. Americans are eating overcooked, overprocessed and chemically manipulated fake foods, instead of REAL foods.
Native diets, in general, are largely made up of whole vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, and meats. Not cooked down, refined, dehydrated and reconstituted, boxed-up pretend foods that aren't really foods at all. Eating wisely requires a gradual transition toward the consumption of natural, whole foods that are unaltered by a lab. The closer to nature a food is, the more nutritious it will be. A change away from the cultural "norm" won't be accomplished over night. Start gradually. As good foods are added into your diet, bad foods will eventually be crowded out.
Four Other Critical Factors for Achieving Optimal Health
Choosing which foods to eat is important, but other lifestyle factors must be addressed as well. Besides making better food choices, there are four other key factors you must consider if you want to achieve your optimal level of health.
Exercise: Exercise creates the same mood-elevating chemicals that sugar does—but with positive metabolic effects. Exercise helps metabolize your stress hormones, reduces hunger, improves sleep, strengthens bones and joints, and causes your body to release growth hormone—and many other health benefits.
Detoxification/Cleansing: As you burn off body fat, you must also detoxify, because most chemicals are lipophilic (fat-loving) and are lodged in fat cells. If you don't do something to remove these toxins from your body while losing weight, toxins can be reabsorbed into your bloodstream and potentially cause health problems.
Fortunately, your body will detoxify itself if there is no toxicity coming in. Chlorophyll-rich foods such as organic green vegetables, gelatinous plant foods like aloe and chia seeds, seaweeds, chlorella, cilantro and parsley can help with this. Make sure to drink plenty of pure water, as this is essential to your body's cleansing processes. Juicing may also be of benefit. Avoid all chemicals, additives, and preservatives. If a product's shelf life is longer than your life, don't eat it!
Sleep: Sleep allows your body to repair and rebuild. Deep sleep is a great way to neutralize stress hormones. Stress increases fluid retention—you can gain two pounds in body fluids just from one night of poor sleep due to stress.
Stress Management: Stress changes your body chemistry, and will prompt you to eat, out of your body's not knowing what else to do. It's one of your body's ways of protecting you. Stress raises your levels of cortisol and epinephrine, which can result in weight gain. If you don't believe this, just talk to anyone taking prednisone, a pharmaceutical steroid similar to cortisol. They often gain 20 to 30 pounds, no matter what they're eating.
My favorite overall tool to manage stress is EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique), which is like acupuncture without the needles. It's a handy tool for unloading emotional baggage quickly and painlessly, and so easy that children can learn it. And it's FREE! Also free, laughter is great medicine because it decreases stress chemicals and pain.
Another powerful tool for creating positive change in your life is visualization, which is the "language" of the subconscious. When you create a visual image of how you'd like to look or feel, your subconscious will understand and begin to help you by making the needed biochemical and neurological changes.
These are just some of the suggestions that will help you along your way. I recommend taking the time to watch Hungry for Change, which offers you even more information than what I've presented above. Remember that if you treat your body well, it will return the favor.
References:
i Transnational Institute February 2011
Related Links:
How Ultra-Processed Foods are Killing Us
Flood Your Body With This "Youth Hormone" in Just 20 Minutes
Why Do People Really Get Sick?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Improve your your DNA through EXERCISE
Boost Your Metabolism, Burn Pounds - With This "DNA Changer"
Posted by: Dr. Mercola | March 23 2012
Story at-a-glance
New research shows that when healthy but inactive men and women exercise even briefly, it produces an immediate change in their DNA—early genetic events readying your body for creating muscle strength and increased fat burning
When it comes to boosting metabolism, increasing muscle mass, and maximizing fat burning, high intensity interval training has been identified as being one of the most effective. Previous research has shown that just 20 minutes of high intensity training, two to three times a week, can yield greater results than slow and steady conventional aerobics done five times a week
Exercise is like medicine, and should be “taken as prescribed” to optimize your health. Time, frequency and intensity are three important variables to keep in mind when creating your fitness program. And, while high intensity interval training is the most effective, you still need variety to reap maximum results. A well rounded fitness program would include all of the following: aerobic, anaerobic (interval training), strength training, core exercises, and stretching
By Dr. Mercola
New research published in the journal Cell Metabolism shows that when healthy but inactive men and women exercise even briefly, it produces an immediate change in their DNAi.
Although the underlying genetic code in human muscle doesn't change, exercise causes important structural and chemical changes to the DNA molecules within those muscles.
This contraction-induced gene activation, which modifies DNA at precise locations, appears to be early events leading to the genetic reprogramming of muscle for strength, and to the structural and metabolic benefits of exercise.
According to Science Dailyii:
"The DNA changes in question are known as epigenetic modifications and involve the gain or loss of chemical marks on DNA over and above the familiar sequence of As, Gs, Ts, and Cs.
The new study shows that the DNA within skeletal muscle taken from people after a burst of exercise bears fewer chemical marks (specifically methyl groups) than it did before exercise.
Those changes take place in stretches of DNA that are involved in turning "on" genes important for muscles' adaptation to exercise...
Broadly speaking, the findings offer more evidence that our genomes are much more dynamic than they are often given credit for."
Exercise Changes Your Biochemistry
Previous studies have identified and measured the biochemical changes that occur during exercise and found alterations in more than 20 different metabolitesiii. Some of these compounds help you burn calories and fat, while others help stabilize your blood sugar, among other things.
What all of this tells us is that exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy weight creates a positive feedback loop. One of the key health benefits of exercise is that it helps normalize your glucose and insulin levels, by optimizing insulin receptor sensitivity. This is perhaps the most important factor for optimizing your overall health and preventing disease of all kinds, from diabetes, to heart disease, to cancer, and everything in between.
On Caffeine... Can Coffee Boost Exercise Benefits?
Interestingly, and as a bit of a side note, exposing muscle cells to caffeine had a similar effect on DNA methyl groups as the muscle contractions in the featured study. However, this does not imply that you can trade exercise for a few cups of coffee and get the same results. There's a lot more involved. Coffee has both potential health benefits and potential hazards, so it needs to be consumed with some caution. For more detailed information about coffee, please see my interview with Ori Hofmekler, who has studied the health impact of coffee in depth.
The most important factor to keep in mind is that coffee is a 'whole food,' and quality is everything. Coffee is one of the most heavily sprayed crops, so this is definitely an instance when you'll want to buy organic.
That said, the reason I include the mention of coffee here is because recent research, which Ori has written about in his book Unlock Your Muscle Geneiv, has shown that coffee also triggers a mechanism in your brain that releases a growth factor called Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF), which in turn:
Activates brain stem cells to convert into new neurons, and
Expresses itself in your muscles by supporting the neuromotor, which is the most critical element in your muscle. Without the neuromotor, your muscle is like an engine without ignition, and neuro-motor degradation is part of the process that explains age-related muscle atrophy
What this means is that caffeine may help rejuvenate both brain- and muscle tissue! Research has also found that consuming the equivalent of two cups of coffee an hour before training can also help reduce post-workout muscle soreness by up to 48 percent, beating out both naproxen and aspirin in terms of effectivenessv. Coffee increases your metabolism by up to 20 percent, according to Ori's research. And according to Ori, it can actually be quite beneficial if consumed before exercise. Ori has experimented using it before training, and claims it works.
"Coffee before training allows you fast energy to initiate your workout. For people who train in the morning, having coffee before training is a great advantage," he says.
However, you do want to be careful and moderate in the amounts you drink. Coffee can affect your adrenal glands so if you have an issue with decreased adrenal function, use care with coffee. Also remember we're talking about black coffee—no sugar added. Ori recommends having just one cup of coffee or one shot of espresso in the morning or before training, and that's it for the day. If you exercise in the morning, have your coffee prior to your workout, not after.
Exercise Boosts Fat Burning in Multiple Ways...
Going back to the featured study, several of the genes affected by an acute bout of exercise are genes involved in fat metabolism. (Demethylation allows genes to more easily make proteins, such as the proteins involved in the breakdown of fat.) Needless to say, exercising in general is an important factor for successful weight management—especially exercises that help you gain muscle. The study suggests that when you exercise, your body almost immediately experiences genetic activation that increases the production of fat-busting proteins.
Now, when it comes to boosting your metabolism, increasing muscle mass, and maximizing fat burning, one type of exercise stands out above all others and that is high intensity interval training. Research has shown that just 20 minutes of high intensity training, two to three times a week, can yield greater results than slow and steady conventional aerobics done five times a week.
It's also a potent "anti-aging" strategy as it will naturally increase your body's production of human growth hormone (HGH).
As you reach your 30s, you enter what's called "somatopause." At this time your levels of HGH begin to drop off quite dramatically, and this is part of what drives your aging process. Your HGH levels decrease naturally as you age, but people in this age group also tend to fall into increasingly sedentary life styles, which further exacerbate matters. Regardless of your age, incorporating high intensity interval exercises—which are an integral part of my Peak Fitness program—can have a dramatic impact on your overall health by improving metabolism and boosting your levels of HGH, also known as "the fitness hormone." Once you regularly participate in these 20 minute exercises about twice a week, most people notice the following benefits:
Decrease in body fat Firmer skin Improved athletic speed and performance
Improved muscle tone Increase in energy and libido Ability to achieve your fitness goals much faster
How to Maximize the Health Benefits of Interval Training
High intensity interval training can be performed with virtually any type of exercise; with or without equipment. You can just as easily perform interval training by walking or running outdoors as you can using a recumbent bike or an elliptical. As mentioned earlier, you only need to do these types of exercises two or three times a week. As a matter of fact, doing it more frequently than that could be counterproductive.
Rather than increasing frequency, focus on making sure you're really pushing yourself as hard as you can during those two or three weekly sessions, because intensity is KEY for reaping all the benefits interval training can offer. You want to raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold. Keep pushing at maximum effort for 20 to 30 seconds, and then rest for 90 seconds. Repeat this cycle for a total of eight repetitions. When you're first starting out, depending on your level of fitness, you may only be able to do two or three repetitions. Just keep working your way up to about eight.
In this video, Phil Campbell and I demonstrate the proper technique.
Here's a summary of what a typical interval routine might look like using an elliptical:
Warm up for three minutes
Exercise as hard and fast as you can for 30 seconds. You should be gasping for breath and feel like you couldn't possibly go on another few seconds. It is better to use lower resistance and higher repetitions to increase your heart rate
Recover for 90 seconds, still moving, but at slower pace and decreased resistance
Repeat the high intensity exercise and recovery 7 more times
Exercise is Medicine
"Epigenetic modifications that turn genes on and back off again can be incredibly flexible events. They allow the DNA in our cells to adjust as the environment shifts," Science Daily reports. ""Exercise is medicine," Zierath says, and it seems the means to alter our genomes for better health may be only a jog away."vi
I couldn't agree more, and I've often likened exercise to medicine that needs to be taken as prescribed, meaning in the appropriate frequency and amount. I look forward to the day when every doctor will hand out a prescription for exercise before deciding on a drug. But there's no reason to wait; I urge you to take control of your own health and implement a comprehensive exercise program sooner rather than later, if you haven't started already.
There are three important variables to keep in mind when exercising:
Length of time
Frequency
Intensity
As mentioned earlier, high intensity interval exercises accomplish greater benefits in a fraction of the time compared to slow, endurance-type exercises like jogging. The frequency is also reduced by about half. However, while interval training is one of the most effective types of exercise there is, you still want to incorporate other types of exercise to reap all the health benefits exercise has to offer. Another key to success is variety. Otherwise, your body will quickly adapt to your program. Whenever exercise becomes easy to complete, it's a sign you need to increase the intensity and/or give your body a new challenge.
So when you're planning your exercise routine, make sure it incorporates the following types of exercise:
Aerobic: Jogging, using an elliptical machine, and walking fast are all examples of aerobic exercise. As you get your heart pumping, the amount of oxygen in your blood improves, and endorphins, which act as natural painkillers, increase. Meanwhile, aerobic exercise activates your immune system, helps your heart pump blood more efficiently, and increases your stamina over time.
Interval (Anaerobic) Training: Again, this is when you alternate short bursts of high-intensity exercise with gentle recovery periods.
Strength Training: Rounding out your exercise program with a 1-set strength training routine will ensure that you're really optimizing the possible health benefits of a regular exercise program.
You can also "up" the intensity by slowing it down. For more information about using super slow weight training as a form of high intensity interval exercise, please see my interview with Dr. Doug McGuff.
Core Exercises: Your body has 29 core muscles located mostly in your back, abdomen and pelvis. This group of muscles provides the foundation for movement throughout your entire body, and strengthening them can help protect and support your back, make your spine and body less prone to injury and help you gain greater balance and stability. You need enough repetitions to exhaust your muscles. The weight should be heavy enough that this can be done in fewer than 12 repetitions, yet light enough to do a minimum of four repetitions. It is also important NOT to exercise the same muscle groups every day. They need at least two days of rest to recover, repair and rebuild.
Exercise programs like Pilates and yoga are also great for strengthening your core muscles, as are specific exercises you can learn from a personal trainer.
Stretching: My favorite type of stretching is active isolated stretches developed by Aaron Mattes. With Active Isolated Stretching, you hold each stretch for only two seconds, which works with your body's natural physiological makeup to improve circulation and increase the elasticity of muscle joints. This technique also allows your body to repair itself and prepare for daily activity. You can also use devices like the Power Plate to help you stretch.
References:
i Cell MetabolismMarch 7, 2012: 15(3);405-411
ii Science Daily March 6, 2012
iii Science Translational Medicine May 26, 2010; 2(33):33ra37
iv Unlock Your Muscle Gene by Ori Hofmekler
v The Journal of Pain March 2007: 8(3); 237-243
vi Science Daily March 6, 2012
Source: Science Daily March 6, 2012
Source: Cell Metabolism March 7, 2012; 15(3): 405-411
Source: New Scientist March 6, 2012
Source: Conditioning Research March 6, 2012
Related Links:
Latest Fitness News
The Major Exercise Mistake I Made for Over 30 Years...
Two Foods You Should Never, Ever Eat After Exercise
Posted by: Dr. Mercola | March 23 2012
Story at-a-glance
New research shows that when healthy but inactive men and women exercise even briefly, it produces an immediate change in their DNA—early genetic events readying your body for creating muscle strength and increased fat burning
When it comes to boosting metabolism, increasing muscle mass, and maximizing fat burning, high intensity interval training has been identified as being one of the most effective. Previous research has shown that just 20 minutes of high intensity training, two to three times a week, can yield greater results than slow and steady conventional aerobics done five times a week
Exercise is like medicine, and should be “taken as prescribed” to optimize your health. Time, frequency and intensity are three important variables to keep in mind when creating your fitness program. And, while high intensity interval training is the most effective, you still need variety to reap maximum results. A well rounded fitness program would include all of the following: aerobic, anaerobic (interval training), strength training, core exercises, and stretching
By Dr. Mercola
New research published in the journal Cell Metabolism shows that when healthy but inactive men and women exercise even briefly, it produces an immediate change in their DNAi.
Although the underlying genetic code in human muscle doesn't change, exercise causes important structural and chemical changes to the DNA molecules within those muscles.
This contraction-induced gene activation, which modifies DNA at precise locations, appears to be early events leading to the genetic reprogramming of muscle for strength, and to the structural and metabolic benefits of exercise.
According to Science Dailyii:
"The DNA changes in question are known as epigenetic modifications and involve the gain or loss of chemical marks on DNA over and above the familiar sequence of As, Gs, Ts, and Cs.
The new study shows that the DNA within skeletal muscle taken from people after a burst of exercise bears fewer chemical marks (specifically methyl groups) than it did before exercise.
Those changes take place in stretches of DNA that are involved in turning "on" genes important for muscles' adaptation to exercise...
Broadly speaking, the findings offer more evidence that our genomes are much more dynamic than they are often given credit for."
Exercise Changes Your Biochemistry
Previous studies have identified and measured the biochemical changes that occur during exercise and found alterations in more than 20 different metabolitesiii. Some of these compounds help you burn calories and fat, while others help stabilize your blood sugar, among other things.
What all of this tells us is that exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy weight creates a positive feedback loop. One of the key health benefits of exercise is that it helps normalize your glucose and insulin levels, by optimizing insulin receptor sensitivity. This is perhaps the most important factor for optimizing your overall health and preventing disease of all kinds, from diabetes, to heart disease, to cancer, and everything in between.
On Caffeine... Can Coffee Boost Exercise Benefits?
Interestingly, and as a bit of a side note, exposing muscle cells to caffeine had a similar effect on DNA methyl groups as the muscle contractions in the featured study. However, this does not imply that you can trade exercise for a few cups of coffee and get the same results. There's a lot more involved. Coffee has both potential health benefits and potential hazards, so it needs to be consumed with some caution. For more detailed information about coffee, please see my interview with Ori Hofmekler, who has studied the health impact of coffee in depth.
The most important factor to keep in mind is that coffee is a 'whole food,' and quality is everything. Coffee is one of the most heavily sprayed crops, so this is definitely an instance when you'll want to buy organic.
That said, the reason I include the mention of coffee here is because recent research, which Ori has written about in his book Unlock Your Muscle Geneiv, has shown that coffee also triggers a mechanism in your brain that releases a growth factor called Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF), which in turn:
Activates brain stem cells to convert into new neurons, and
Expresses itself in your muscles by supporting the neuromotor, which is the most critical element in your muscle. Without the neuromotor, your muscle is like an engine without ignition, and neuro-motor degradation is part of the process that explains age-related muscle atrophy
What this means is that caffeine may help rejuvenate both brain- and muscle tissue! Research has also found that consuming the equivalent of two cups of coffee an hour before training can also help reduce post-workout muscle soreness by up to 48 percent, beating out both naproxen and aspirin in terms of effectivenessv. Coffee increases your metabolism by up to 20 percent, according to Ori's research. And according to Ori, it can actually be quite beneficial if consumed before exercise. Ori has experimented using it before training, and claims it works.
"Coffee before training allows you fast energy to initiate your workout. For people who train in the morning, having coffee before training is a great advantage," he says.
However, you do want to be careful and moderate in the amounts you drink. Coffee can affect your adrenal glands so if you have an issue with decreased adrenal function, use care with coffee. Also remember we're talking about black coffee—no sugar added. Ori recommends having just one cup of coffee or one shot of espresso in the morning or before training, and that's it for the day. If you exercise in the morning, have your coffee prior to your workout, not after.
Exercise Boosts Fat Burning in Multiple Ways...
Going back to the featured study, several of the genes affected by an acute bout of exercise are genes involved in fat metabolism. (Demethylation allows genes to more easily make proteins, such as the proteins involved in the breakdown of fat.) Needless to say, exercising in general is an important factor for successful weight management—especially exercises that help you gain muscle. The study suggests that when you exercise, your body almost immediately experiences genetic activation that increases the production of fat-busting proteins.
Now, when it comes to boosting your metabolism, increasing muscle mass, and maximizing fat burning, one type of exercise stands out above all others and that is high intensity interval training. Research has shown that just 20 minutes of high intensity training, two to three times a week, can yield greater results than slow and steady conventional aerobics done five times a week.
It's also a potent "anti-aging" strategy as it will naturally increase your body's production of human growth hormone (HGH).
As you reach your 30s, you enter what's called "somatopause." At this time your levels of HGH begin to drop off quite dramatically, and this is part of what drives your aging process. Your HGH levels decrease naturally as you age, but people in this age group also tend to fall into increasingly sedentary life styles, which further exacerbate matters. Regardless of your age, incorporating high intensity interval exercises—which are an integral part of my Peak Fitness program—can have a dramatic impact on your overall health by improving metabolism and boosting your levels of HGH, also known as "the fitness hormone." Once you regularly participate in these 20 minute exercises about twice a week, most people notice the following benefits:
Decrease in body fat Firmer skin Improved athletic speed and performance
Improved muscle tone Increase in energy and libido Ability to achieve your fitness goals much faster
How to Maximize the Health Benefits of Interval Training
High intensity interval training can be performed with virtually any type of exercise; with or without equipment. You can just as easily perform interval training by walking or running outdoors as you can using a recumbent bike or an elliptical. As mentioned earlier, you only need to do these types of exercises two or three times a week. As a matter of fact, doing it more frequently than that could be counterproductive.
Rather than increasing frequency, focus on making sure you're really pushing yourself as hard as you can during those two or three weekly sessions, because intensity is KEY for reaping all the benefits interval training can offer. You want to raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold. Keep pushing at maximum effort for 20 to 30 seconds, and then rest for 90 seconds. Repeat this cycle for a total of eight repetitions. When you're first starting out, depending on your level of fitness, you may only be able to do two or three repetitions. Just keep working your way up to about eight.
In this video, Phil Campbell and I demonstrate the proper technique.
Here's a summary of what a typical interval routine might look like using an elliptical:
Warm up for three minutes
Exercise as hard and fast as you can for 30 seconds. You should be gasping for breath and feel like you couldn't possibly go on another few seconds. It is better to use lower resistance and higher repetitions to increase your heart rate
Recover for 90 seconds, still moving, but at slower pace and decreased resistance
Repeat the high intensity exercise and recovery 7 more times
Exercise is Medicine
"Epigenetic modifications that turn genes on and back off again can be incredibly flexible events. They allow the DNA in our cells to adjust as the environment shifts," Science Daily reports. ""Exercise is medicine," Zierath says, and it seems the means to alter our genomes for better health may be only a jog away."vi
I couldn't agree more, and I've often likened exercise to medicine that needs to be taken as prescribed, meaning in the appropriate frequency and amount. I look forward to the day when every doctor will hand out a prescription for exercise before deciding on a drug. But there's no reason to wait; I urge you to take control of your own health and implement a comprehensive exercise program sooner rather than later, if you haven't started already.
There are three important variables to keep in mind when exercising:
Length of time
Frequency
Intensity
As mentioned earlier, high intensity interval exercises accomplish greater benefits in a fraction of the time compared to slow, endurance-type exercises like jogging. The frequency is also reduced by about half. However, while interval training is one of the most effective types of exercise there is, you still want to incorporate other types of exercise to reap all the health benefits exercise has to offer. Another key to success is variety. Otherwise, your body will quickly adapt to your program. Whenever exercise becomes easy to complete, it's a sign you need to increase the intensity and/or give your body a new challenge.
So when you're planning your exercise routine, make sure it incorporates the following types of exercise:
Aerobic: Jogging, using an elliptical machine, and walking fast are all examples of aerobic exercise. As you get your heart pumping, the amount of oxygen in your blood improves, and endorphins, which act as natural painkillers, increase. Meanwhile, aerobic exercise activates your immune system, helps your heart pump blood more efficiently, and increases your stamina over time.
Interval (Anaerobic) Training: Again, this is when you alternate short bursts of high-intensity exercise with gentle recovery periods.
Strength Training: Rounding out your exercise program with a 1-set strength training routine will ensure that you're really optimizing the possible health benefits of a regular exercise program.
You can also "up" the intensity by slowing it down. For more information about using super slow weight training as a form of high intensity interval exercise, please see my interview with Dr. Doug McGuff.
Core Exercises: Your body has 29 core muscles located mostly in your back, abdomen and pelvis. This group of muscles provides the foundation for movement throughout your entire body, and strengthening them can help protect and support your back, make your spine and body less prone to injury and help you gain greater balance and stability. You need enough repetitions to exhaust your muscles. The weight should be heavy enough that this can be done in fewer than 12 repetitions, yet light enough to do a minimum of four repetitions. It is also important NOT to exercise the same muscle groups every day. They need at least two days of rest to recover, repair and rebuild.
Exercise programs like Pilates and yoga are also great for strengthening your core muscles, as are specific exercises you can learn from a personal trainer.
Stretching: My favorite type of stretching is active isolated stretches developed by Aaron Mattes. With Active Isolated Stretching, you hold each stretch for only two seconds, which works with your body's natural physiological makeup to improve circulation and increase the elasticity of muscle joints. This technique also allows your body to repair itself and prepare for daily activity. You can also use devices like the Power Plate to help you stretch.
References:
i Cell MetabolismMarch 7, 2012: 15(3);405-411
ii Science Daily March 6, 2012
iii Science Translational Medicine May 26, 2010; 2(33):33ra37
iv Unlock Your Muscle Gene by Ori Hofmekler
v The Journal of Pain March 2007: 8(3); 237-243
vi Science Daily March 6, 2012
Source: Science Daily March 6, 2012
Source: Cell Metabolism March 7, 2012; 15(3): 405-411
Source: New Scientist March 6, 2012
Source: Conditioning Research March 6, 2012
Related Links:
Latest Fitness News
The Major Exercise Mistake I Made for Over 30 Years...
Two Foods You Should Never, Ever Eat After Exercise
Monday, March 19, 2012
Bad science, great blog atricle
GARY TAUBES
author of Why We Get Fat
and Good Calories, Bad Calories
I’m writing this post with a little more haste than is my wont. I’ve received dozens of e-mails asking me to comment on the recent news — ala the the New York Times — that meat-eating apparently causes premature death and disease. So this post is likely to contain more than my usual number of typos, egregious spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, etc. Bear with me. Rather than spend a week rewriting and editing, as I usually do, I’m going to do my best to get this up and out in a few hours.
Back in 2007 when I first published Good Calories, Bad Calories I also wrote a cover story in the New York Times Magazine on the problems with observational epidemiology. The article was called “Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?” and I made the argument that even the better epidemiologists in the world consider this stuff closer to a pseudoscience than a real science. I used as a case study the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, led by Walter Willett, who runs the Nurses’ Health Study. In doing so, I wanted to point out one of the main reasons why nutritionists and public health authorities have gone off the rails in their advice about what constitutes a healthy diet. The article itself pointed out that every time in the past that these researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship, and that causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation — i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time. No exception. Their batting average circa 2007, at least, was .000.
Now it’s these very same Harvard researchers — Walter Willett and his colleagues — who have authored this new article claiming that red meat and processed meat consumption is deadly; that eating it regularly raises our risk of dying prematurely and contracting a host of chronic diseases. Zoe Harcombe has done a wonderful job dissecting the paper at her site. I want to talk about the bigger picture (in a less concise way).
This is an issue about science itself and the quality of research done in nutrition. Those of you who have read Good Calories, Bad Calories (The Diet Delusion in the UK) know that in the epilogue I make a point to say that I never used the word scientist to describe the people doing nutrition and obesity research, except in very rare and specific cases. Simply put, I don’t believe these people do science as it needs to be done; it would not be recognized as science by scientists in any functioning discipline.
Science is ultimately about establishing cause and effect. It’s not about guessing. You come up with a hypothesis — force x causes observation y — and then you do your best to prove that it’s wrong. If you can’t, you tentatively accept the possibility that your hypothesis was right. Peter Medawar, the Nobel Laureate immunologist, described this proving-it’s-wrong step as the ”the critical or rectifying episode in scientific reasoning.” Here’s Karl Popper saying the same thing: “The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them.” The bold conjectures, the hypotheses, making the observations that lead to your conjectures… that’s the easy part. The critical or rectifying episode, which is to say, the ingenious and severe attempts to refute your conjectures, is the hard part. Anyone can make a bold conjecture. (Here’s one: space aliens cause heart disease.) Making the observations and crafting them into a hypothesis is easy. Testing them ingeniously and severely to see if they’re right is the rest of the job — say 99 percent of the job of doing science, of being a scientist.
The problem with observational studies like those run by Willett and his colleagues is that they do none of this. That’s why it’s so frustrating. The hard part of science is left out and they skip straight to the endpoint, insisting that their interpretation of the association is the correct one and we should all change our diets accordingly.
In these observational studies, the epidemiologists establish a cohort of subjects to follow (tens of thousands of nurses and physicians, in this case) and then ask them about what they eat. The fact that they use questionnaires that are notoriously fallible is almost irrelevant here because the rest of the science is so flawed. Then they follow the subjects for decades — 28 years in this case. Now they have a database of diseases, deaths and foods consumed, and they can draw associations between what these people were eating and the diseases and deaths.
The end result is an association. In the latest report, eating a lot of red meat and processed meat is associated with premature death and increased risk of chronic disease. That’s what they observed in the cohorts — the observation. The subjects who ate the most meat (the top quintile) had a 20 percent greater risk of dying over the course of the study than the subjects who ate the least meat (the bottom quintile). This association then generates a hypothesis, which is why these associations used to be known as “hypothesis-generating data” (before Willett and his colleagues and others like them decided they got tired of their hypotheses being shot down by experiments and they’d skip this step). Because of the association that we’ve observed, so this thinking goes, we now hypothesize that eating red meat and particularly processed meat is bad for our health and we will live longer and prosper more if we don’t do it. We hypothesize that the cause of the association we’ve observed is that red and processed meat is unhealthy stuff.
Terrific. We have our bold conjecture. What should we do next?
Well, because this is supposed to be a science, we ask the question whether we can imagine other less newsworthy explanations for the association we’ve observed. What else might cause it? An association by itself contains no causal information. There are an infinite number of associations that are not causally related for every association that is, so the fact of the association itself doesn’t tell us much.
Moreover, this meat-eating association with disease is a tiny association. Tiny. It’s not the 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer that pack-a-day smokers have compared to non-smokers. It’s a 0.2-fold increased risk — 1/100th the size. So with lung cancer we could buy as a society the observation that cigarettes cause lung cancer because it was and remains virtually impossible to imagine what other factor could explain an association so huge and dramatic. Experiments didn’t need to be done to test the hypothesis because, well, the signal was just so big that the epidemiologists of the time could safely believe it was real. And then experiments were, in effect, done anyway. People quit smoking and lung cancer rates came down, or at least I assume they did. (If not, we’re in trouble here.) When I first wrote about the pseudoscience of epidemiology in Science back in 1995, “Epidemiology Faces It’s Limits”, I noted that very few epidemiologists would ever take seriously an association smaller than a 3- or 4-fold increase in risk. These Harvard people are discussing, and getting an extraordinary amount of media attention, over a 0.2-fold increased risk. (Horn-blowing alert: my Science article has since been cited by over 400 articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature, according to Thomson Reuter’s Web of Knowledge.)
So how can we explain this tiny association between the risk of eating a lot of red and processed meat — the 1/100th-the-size-of-the-lung-cancer-cigarette effect–compared to eating virtually none? Again, we have an observation — or an association, two or more things happening in concert; let’s think of all the possible reasons that might explain why these two variables, meat-eating and disease, associate together in our cohorts of nurses and physicians. Here’s how the great German pathologist Rudolph Virchow phrased this in 1849: How, he said, can we “with certainty decide which of two coexistent phenomena is the cause and which the effect, whether one of them is the cause at all instead of both being effects of a third cause, or even whether both are effects of two entirely unrelated causes”? This is the hard part.
The answer ultimately is that we do experiments, which is what Virchow went on to discuss. But we’ll get back to this in a minute. Before we get around to doing the experiments, we must rack our brains to figure out if there are other causal explanations for this association beside the the meat-eating one. Another way to think of this is that we’re looking for all the myriad possible ways our methodology and equipment might have fooled us. The first principle of good science, as Richard Feynman liked to say, is that you must not fool yourself because you’re the easiest person to fool. And so before we go public and commit ourselves to believing this association is meaningful and causal, let’s think of all the ways we might be fooled. Once we’ve thought up every possible, reasonable alternative hypotheses (space aliens are out on this account), we can then go about testing them to see which ones survive the tests: our preferred hypothesis (meat-eating causes disease, in this case) or one of the many others we’ve considered.
So let’s think of reasonable ways in which people who eat a lot of meat might be different from people who don’t, looking specifically for differences that might also explain some or all of the association we observed between meat-eating, disease and premature death. What else can explain this association, which might have nothing to do with whatever happens when we consume meat or processed meat?
Zoe Harcombe made this point beautifully using the Harvard data. The obvious clue is that as we move from the bottom quintile of meat-eaters (those who are effectively vegetarians) to the top quintile of meat-eaters we see an increase in virtually every accepted unhealthy behavior — smoking goes up, drinking goes up, sedentary behavior (or lack of physical activity) goes up — and we also see an increase in markers for unhealthy behaviors — BMI goes up, blood pressure, etc. So what could be happening here?
If you go back and read my New York Times Magazine article on this research, you’ll see that I discussed a whole host of effects, known technically as confounders — they confound the interpretation of the association — that could explain associations between two variables but have nothing to do biologically with the variables themselves. One of these confounders is called the compliance or adherer effect. Heres’ what I said about it in the article:
The Bias of Compliance
A still more subtle component of healthy-user bias has to be confronted. This is the compliance or adherer effect. Quite simply, people who comply with their doctors’ orders when given a prescription are different and healthier than people who don’t. This difference may be ultimately unquantifiable. The compliance effect is another plausible explanation for many of the beneficial associations that epidemiologists commonly report, which means this alone is a reason to wonder if much of what we hear about what constitutes a healthful diet and lifestyle is misconceived.
The lesson comes from an ambitious clinical trial called the Coronary Drug Project that set out in the 1970s to test whether any of five different drugs might prevent heart attacks. The subjects were some 8,500 middle-aged men with established heart problems. Two-thirds of them were randomly assigned to take one of the five drugs and the other third a placebo. Because one of the drugs, clofibrate, lowered cholesterol levels, the researchers had high hopes that it would ward off heart disease. But when the results were tabulated after five years, clofibrate showed no beneficial effect. The researchers then considered the possibility that clofibrate appeared to fail only because the subjects failed to faithfully take their prescriptions.
As it turned out, those men who said they took more than 80 percent of the pills prescribed fared substantially better than those who didn’t. Only 15 percent of these faithful “adherers” died, compared with almost 25 percent of what the project researchers called “poor adherers.” This might have been taken as reason to believe that clofibrate actually did cut heart-disease deaths almost by half, but then the researchers looked at those men who faithfully took their placebos. And those men, too, seemed to benefit from adhering closely to their prescription: only 15 percent of them died compared with 28 percent who were less conscientious. “So faithfully taking the placebo cuts the death rate by a factor of two,” says David Freedman, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley [who passed away, regrettably, in 2008]. “How can this be? Well, people who take their placebo regularly are just different than the others. The rest is a little speculative. Maybe they take better care of themselves in general. But this compliance effect is quite a big effect.”
The moral of the story, says Freedman, is that whenever epidemiologists compare people who faithfully engage in some activity with those who don’t — whether taking prescription pills or vitamins or exercising regularly or eating what they consider a healthful diet — the researchers need to account for this compliance effect or they will most likely infer the wrong answer. They’ll conclude that this behavior, whatever it is, prevents disease and saves lives, when all they’re really doing is comparing two different types of people who are, in effect, incomparable.
This phenomenon is a particularly compelling explanation for why the Nurses’ Health Study and other cohort studies saw a benefit of H.R.T. [hormone replacement therapy, one subject of the article] in current users of the drugs, but not necessarily in past users. By distinguishing among women who never used H.R.T., those who used it but then stopped and current users (who were the only ones for which a consistent benefit appeared), these observational studies may have inadvertently focused their attention specifically on, as Jerry Avorn says, the “Girl Scouts in the group, the compliant ongoing users, who are probably doing a lot of other preventive things as well.”
It’s this compliance effect that makes these observational studies the equivalent of conventional wisdom-confirmation machines. Our public health authorities were doling out pretty much the same dietary advice in the 1970s and 1980s, when these observational studies were starting up, as they are now. The conventional health-conscious wisdom of the era had it that we should eat less fat and saturated fat, and so less red meat, which also was supposed to cause colon cancer, less processed meat (those damn nitrates) and more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, etc. And so the people who are studied in the cohorts could be divided into two groups: those who complied with this advice — the Girl Scouts, as Avorn put it — and those who didn’t.
Now when we’re looking at the subjects who avoided red meat and processed meat and comparing them to the subjects who ate them in quantity, we can think of it as effectively comparing the Girl Scouts to the non-Girl Scouts, the compliers to the conventional wisdom to the non-compliers. And the compliance effect tells us right there that we should see an association — that the Girl Scouts should appear to be healthier. Significantly healthier. Actually they should be even healthier than Willet et al. are now reporting, which suggests that there’s something else working against them (not eating enough red meat?). In other words, the people who avoided red meat and processed meats were the ones who fundamentally cared about their health and had the energy (and maybe the health) to act on it. And the people who ate a lot of red meat and processed meat in the 1980s and 1990s were the ones who didn’t.
Here’s another way to look at it: let’s say we wanted to identify markers of people who were too poor or too ignorant to behave in a health conscious manner in the 1980s and 1990s or just didn’t, if you’ll pardon the scatological terminology, give a sh*t. Well, we might look at people who continued to eat a lot of bacon and red meat after Time magazine ran this cover image in 1984 — “Cholesterol, and now the bad news”. I’m going to use myself as an example here, realizing it’s always dangerous and I’m probably an extreme case. But I lived in LA in the 1990s where health conscious behavior was and is the norm, and I’d bet that I didn’t have more than half a dozen servings of bacon or more than two steaks a year through the 1990s. It was all skinless chicken breasts and fish and way too much pasta and cereal (oatmeal or some other non-fat grain) and thousands upon thousands of egg whites without the yolks. Because that’s what I thought was healthy.
So when we compare people who ate a lot of meat and processed meat in this period to those who were effectively vegetarians, we’re comparing people who are inherently incomparable. We’re comparing health conscious compliers to non-compliers; people who cared about their health and had the income and energy to do something about it and people who didn’t. And the compliers will almost always appear to be healthier in these cohorts because of the compliance effect if nothing else. No amount of “correcting” for BMI and blood pressure, smoking status, etc. can correct for this compliance effect, which is the product of all these health conscious behaviors that can’t be measured, or just haven’t been measured. And we know this because they’re even present in randomized controlled trials. When the Harvard people insist they can “correct” for this, or that it’s not a factor, they’re fooling themselves. And we know they’re fooling themselves because the experimental trials keep confirming that.
That was the message of my 2007 article. As one friend put it years ago to me (and I wish I could remember who so I could credit him or her properly), when these cohort studies compare mostly health advice compliers to non-compliers, they might as well be comparing Berkeley vegetarians who eat at Alice Water’s famous Chez Panisse restaurant once a week after their yoga practice to redneck truck drivers from West Virginia whose idea of a night on the town is chicken-fried steak (and potatoes and beer and who knows what else) at the local truck stop. The researchers can imply, as Willett and his colleagues do, that the most likely reason these people have different levels of morbidity and mortality is the amount of meat they eat; but that’s only because that’s what Willett and his colleagues have to believe to justify the decades of work and tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars that have been spent on these trials. Not because it’s the most likely explanation. It’s far more likely that the difference is caused by all the behaviors that associate with meat-eating or effective vegetarianism — whether you are, in effect, a Girl Scout or not.
This is why the best epidemiologists — the one’s I quote in the NYT Magazine article — think this nutritional epidemiology business is a pseudoscience at best. Observational studies like the Nurses’ Health Study can come up with the right hypothesis of causality about as often as a stopped clock gives you the right time. It’s bound to happen on occasion, but there’s no way to tell when that is without doing experiments to test all your competing hypotheses. And what makes this all so frustrating is that the Harvard people don’t see the need to look for alternative explanations of the data — for all the possible confounders — and to test them rigorously, which means they don’t actually see the need to do real science.
As I said, it’s a sad state of affairs.
Now we’re back to doing experiments — i.e., how we ultimately settle this difference of opinion. This is science. Do the experiments. We have alternative causal explanations for the tiny association between meat-eating and morbidity and mortality. One is that it’s the meat itself. The other is that it’s the behaviors that associate with meat-eating. So do an experiment to see which is right. How do we do it? Well you can do it with an N of 1. Switch your diet, see what happens. Or we can get more meaningful information by starting with your cohort of subjects and assigning them at random either to a diet rich red meat and processed meat, or to a diet that’s not — a mostly vegetarian diet. By assigning subjects at random to one of these two interventions, we mostly get rid of the behavioral (and socio-economic and educational…) factors that might associate with choosing of your own free will whether to be a vegetarian (or a mostly-vegetarian) or a meat-eater.
So we do a randomized-controlled trial. Take as many people as we can afford, randomize them into two groups — one that eats a lot of red meat and bacon, one that eats a lot of vegetables and whole grains and pulses-and very little red meat and bacon — and see what happens. These experiments have effectively been done. They’re the trials that compare Atkins-like diets to other more conventional weight loss diets — AHA Step 1 diets, Mediterranean diets, Zone diets, Ornish diets, etc. These conventional weight loss diets tend to restrict meat consumption to different extents because they restrict fat and/or saturated fat consumption and meat has a lot of fat and saturated fat in it. Ornish’s diet is the extreme example. And when these experiments have been done, the meat-rich, bacon-rich Atkins diet almost invariably comes out ahead, not just in weight loss but also in heart disease and diabetes risk factors. I discuss this in detail in chapter 18 of Why We Get Fat, ”The Nature of a Healthy Diet.” The Stanford A TO Z Study is a good example of these experiments. Over the course of the experiment — two years in this case — the subjects randomized to the Atkins-like meat- and bacon-heavy diet were healthier. That’s what we want to know.
Now Willett and his colleagues at Harvard would challenge this by saying somewhere along the line, as we go from two years out to decades, this health benefit must turn into a health detriment. How else can they explain why their associations are the opposite of what the experimental trials conclude? And if they don’t explain this away somehow, they might have to acknowledge that they’ve been doing pseudoscience for their entire careers. And maybe they’re right, but I certainly wouldn’t bet my life on it.
Ultimately we’re left with a decision about what we’re going to believe: the observations, or the experiments designed to test those observations. Good scientists will always tell you to believe the experiments. That’s why they do them.
Egregious (and embarrassing) error correction: In an early version of the post, I suggested that if you read the chapter on nutritional epidemiology in the textbook Modern Epidemiology, you’d see that the best epidemiologists agree that this pursuit is pathological. A reader from my institution — a UC Berkeley grad student — pointed out that the chapter on nutritional epi in the textbook was actually written by Walter Willett and that, not surprisingly, it does not agree with this position. Here’s how Willett ends that chapter:
The last two decades have seen enormous progress in the development of nutritional epidemiology methods. Work by many investigators has provided clear support for the essential underpinnings of this field. Substantial between-person variation in consumption of most dietary factors in populations has been demonstrated, methods to measure diet applicable to epidemiologic studies have been developed, and their validity has been documented. Based on this evidence, many large prospective cohort studies have been established that are providing a wealth of data on many outcomes that will be reported during the next decade. In addition, methods to account for errors in measurement of dietary intake have been developed and are beginning to be applied in reporting findings from studies of diet and disease.
Nutritional epidemiology has contributed importantly to understanding the etiology of many diseases. Low intake of fruits and vegetables has been shown to be related to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Also, a substantial amount of epidemiologic evidence has accumulated indicating that replacing saturated and trans fats with unsaturated fats can play an important role in the prevention of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Many diseases—as diverse as cataracts, neural-tube defects, and macular degeneration—that were not thought to be nutritionally related have been found to have important dietary determinants. Nonetheless, much more needs to be learned regarding other diet and disease relations, and the dimensions of time and ranges of dietary intakes need to be expanded further. Furthermore, new products are constantly being introduced into the food supply, which will require continued epidemiologic vigilance.
The development and evaluation of additional methods to measure dietary factors, particularly those using biochemical methods to assess long-term intake, can contribute substantially to improvements in the capacity to assess diet and disease relations. Also, the capacity to identify those persons at genetically increased risk of disease will allow the study of gene–nutrient interactions that are almost sure to exist. The challenges posed by the complexities of nutritional exposures are likely to spur methodologic developments. Such developments have already occurred with respect to measurement error. The insights gained will have benefits throughout the field of epidemiology.
Now the reason I made this mistake is because I was rushing (no excuse, despite the warning up front) and so working from memory about a chapter that the UCLA epidemiologist Sander Greenland, one of the editor/authors of Modern Epidemiology, sent me when I was writing the New York Times Magazine article in 2007. The chapter Greenland was discussing and that he had sent me at the time was one he had authored, chapter 19 — “Bias Analysis” — and it was discussing observational epidemiology in general.
Here’s Greenland on the problem with all these studies — nutritional epi included — and how they’re interpreted:
Conventional methods assume all errors are random and that any modeling assumptions (such as homogeneity) are correct. With these assumptions, all uncertainty about the impact of errors on estimates is subsumed within conventional standard deviations for the estimates (standard errors), such as those given in earlier chapters (which assume no measurement error), and any discrepancy between an observed association and the target effect may be attributed to chance alone. When the assumptions are incorrect, however, the logical foundation for conventional statistical methods is absent, and those methods may yield highly misleading inferences. Epidemiologists recognize the possibility of incorrect assumptions in conventional analyses when they talk of residual confounding (from nonrandom exposure assignment), selection bias (from nonrandom subject selection), and information bias (from imperfect measurement). These biases rarely receive quantitative analysis, a situation that is understandable given that the analysis requires specifying values (such as amount of selection bias) for which little or no data may be available. An unfortunate consequence of this lack of quantification is the switch in focus to those aspects of error that are more readily quantified, namely the random components.
Systematic errors can be and often are larger than random errors, and failure to appreciate their impact is potentially disastrous. The problem is magnified in large studies and pooling projects, for in those studies the large size reduces the amount of random error, and as a result the random error may be but a small component of total error. In such studies, a focus on “statistical significance” or even on confidence limits may amount to nothing more than a decision to focus on artifacts of systematic error as if they reflected a real causal effect.
FILED UNDER: BAD SCIENCE, GENERAL
Speak Your Mind
Name *
Email *
Website
Comments
Morgan M says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm
After reading this – and both of your books on nutrition – I’m amazed that I used to follow Michael Pollan’s word as if it were gospel. It felt like he was preaching to me: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.” Eat what your grandma used to eat! No need for this “science,” just eat what healthful and traditional, it’s all so very obvious, he said! We know in our souls what is healthy (like grandma!). And I ate it up.
Now I see Pollan’s work for what it is: a denunciation of science. And while he is right to criticize what passes for science in the field of nutrition as you do here, his message–that we don’t need science–is so, so wrong. Pollan’s little mantra only “feels” right (he presents so little proof) because it fits within a dogma that we’ve all embraced, one that has never been held to any degree of scientific rigor.
I’m so glad you’re out there–the anti-Pollan–reminding us that nutrition needs to be treated like a proper science if we’re ever going to make progress. Science, not gospel. Experimental evidence, not feelings or anecdotes. We can’t rely on common sense. Science never does, and only science can save, improve, and lengthen our lives. Bravo, Gary!
REPLY
js290 says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Other than Food Inc and a few of his lectures, I don’t know Pollan’s work that well. However, it should be noted that the purpose of science is to explain nature. And, if science hasn’t figured it out yet, it may be safer (at least nutritionally) to default to nature.
REPLY
Brian says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Great point. I follow Pollan’s writing often and he doesn’t preach an agenda i.e. vegetarianism. Most of what he puts out there is honest and true regarding food etc. I agree with him that we don’t need nutritionism to figure out what is healthy, in nature it’s clear: whole fresh foods, grown locally, sustainably, unprocessed etc.
However, when Big Media comments on flawed studies, it’s important to address the bias in the study like GT and Zoe Harcombe have done.
REPLY
Pamela says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Of course, Pollan fails to understand that some French Canadian grandmas ate food like pigs feet, blood sausages and poutine! I follow his advice to eat like my Grandma (albeit not too much poutine) and buy humanely-raised meat, but ditched the rest.
REPLY
Marc Brazeau says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:07 am
Pollan’s take is that the science of nutrition is so rudimentary in what we actually know, that traditional foodways provide a more reliable algorithm to answer the question of how to eat healthfully. He says that the science is important and needs to be done, but in its current form it doesn’t provide a useful guide for the average lay person.
REPLY
Charly says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm
If I ate what my grandma ate, I would eat very little in plant based foods. She grew up in Norway, where the diet is heavy in fish, dairy, meat, eggs and only seasonal fruits and vegetables. Vegetables and fruits in the winter were preserved with salt, vinegar, as were out of season animal products, and sugar, lots of it. Lamb, goat meat, chicken and fish, butter, sour cream, contributed the most calories. Cheese extremely important. She never heard of Michael Pollan, probably would have shrugged her shoulders and ignored him, or called him an elitist fool. My grandmother lived to be 100, was only in the hospital once in her life, and only for a day and a half. She introduced me to my favorite breakfast treat – pumpernickel rye bread topped with brown-sugar-sweetened sour cream. Yum.
REPLY
Jeffrey of Troy says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm
My reaction upon first reading GCBC was that it was the first time anybody had actually applied the scientific method to the relationship between diet and health. It makes apparent that all the claims and assurances of the authorities before then were (and are, sadly) insane gibberish.
REPLY
England says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm
I just started rereading Omnivores Dilemma when the NYT article came out. I noted in Pollan’s Introduction he gives Dr. Atkins a backhanded slam by mentioning him with the phrase, “…the formly discredited Dr. Atkins…” Then on the next page he says that we are surprised by the “French paradox” for how could the French eat foie gras and triple cream cheese and stay slim. Well, to me, Atkins clearly explained why the French or anyone could do that.
REPLY
Ben Atlas says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Thank you very much for this post, I was waiting for it. I find it peculiar that they lumped together meat with the processed meat. What if the additives in the processed products account for the entire variable?
REPLY
Warren Dew says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:21 pm
The study actually provides separate numbers for processed and unprocessed meat. There are a lot of things wrong with the study, but that’s not one of them this time around.
REPLY
Sam Mackrill says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:25 am
Only if you classify hamburgers as unprocessed meat. And you think that people can accurately assess this when filling-in dietary questionnaires every four years (four!)
REPLY
George Henderson says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Lucid as always (not bad for a vomit draft). All this low-risk stuff, if you take it seriously, is a form of gambling.
Gambling with health, as opposed to investment in it.
One quibble; you called the paper a trial – too kind, as nothing was trialed. I’d call it a study.
The problem I have with processed meats is that vegetable contaminants often creep into them, especially that filthy soy, and that rat gluten.
REPLY
George Henderson says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm
“Eat Animals. Mostly fat. Enjoy”
- the anti-Pollan
REPLY
Galina L. says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I just started to use the Fitday after more than 4 years of being on a weight-loss diet. It is almost amazing how little veggies add to the nutritional content when listed. It is mostly fiber and a some carbs, also a lot of flavor and texture.
I personally think there is something strange in human interest in strong favors. Why wild life attacking my garden can’t stand orange jest and rosemary essential oils, but I gladly put it on my food? Why raccoon thinks it is a poison, but it makes food more rewarding and palatable for me? It is boring to eat only meat, of course, but from nutritional perspective it looks less questionable than veggies.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:36 am
Love that, @ George Henderson. Think I’m going to use it in the future. I’m not totally anti Pollan–he has done a lot to steer people away from factory farmed meat and monocultured crops. And he is right that, in the absence of scientific information, what Grandma ate is a good guide–if one’s metabolism has not been broken. But we have scientific information–from GT, Atkins, Phinney, Wortman, etc. So we don’t need to use Pollan as a guide.
REPLY
Drew @ WIllpower Is For Fat People says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm
I’ve been waiting to see what you’d say about this one. And I’m not disappointed.
I’m hoping you might have pointers to some good references for diet compliance. I’ve been searching for weeks and can’t find any good statistics for how many people stick with different diets, how often the diets are effective, and total weight loss.
The A TO Z addresses the outcomes; are you aware of any that address compliance and effectiveness in a non-clinical setting?
REPLY
Bawdy says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:00 am
I’ve been wondering about this, too. I just finished reading Primal Body, Primal Mind by Nora Gedgaudas. In the foreword written by Brent Pottenger is a reference to the psychological concept of “overshadowing.” He writes that overshadowing “occurs when the initial stimulus is so strong that it blocks the perception of a second, downstream effect. For example, when people drink a soda, the initial stimulus from the sugar is so great that it overshadows the energy crash and feelings of poor health that follow shortly after consumption. In this way, overshadowing inhibits people from responding appropriately to the poisons they ingest and inhibits their ability to learn via conditioning degrade as a result.”
Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find the discussion of this in the book. I was hoping to learn some new coping mechanisms or something that would help me make better choices. I don’t have an issue avoiding sugars, starches, or grains, but I do like a “wee nip o’ the Irish” in the evenings. If I have one, I’m fine. If I have two, I’ll fall asleep with no problem but then wake up at 1:30 or 2:00 am and not be able to fall asleep again until around 4:30 am.
And yet, does knowing this stop me from having that second drink? Uh, no. It’s the classic example of the initial stimulus blocking perception of the second, downstream effect.
As I said the other day to someone, “Why do I do what I do when I know what I know?” It’s the ultimate disconnect.
REPLY
Mason McClellan, LAc says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Thanks Gary, I hope one day the Nobel crowd will acknowledge your efforts and contribution to the world of science and obesity research!
REPLY
Elenor says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:37 am
The heck with Nobel (well, okay, in *addition* to the Nobel….), Gary should get a McArthur Genius Grant! (Higher prize money…. and does he ever deserve it!)
Bravo Gary — excellent, amazing, wonderful essay — as always!
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:05 am
Not to criticize Gary; he’s worthy of the award. I just think Gary should share it with other intellectual giants: Denise Minger, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, Dr. Richard Fineman, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Stephen Finney, and probably a few others I can’t think of at the moment.
REPLY
Paula says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Hi jake3_14! Just so people don’t miss him due to the spelling error, I have to point out it’s Richard Feiman – Richard D. Feinman no less with a great blog at rdfeinman.wordpress.com. He is very funny. Also, tho it will dilute the award monetarily, let’s divvy up a bit for the Drs. Eades (Mike and Mary Dan) and Mark Sisson. And what about Richard Bernstein?
REPLY
Sue says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:55 am
Speaking of intellectual giants, make sure to read what Denise Minger wrote about this study on Mark’s Daily Apple (dated March 14), too–eye-opening, funny, witty.
REPLY
Mary says:
March 14, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Thanks for the post Gary. When I heard the NPR story on this article I thought — sounds like a bunch of epidemiologists published a paper. Then, I kept hitting your blog looking for your commentary. The work you have done to shed light on the poor science around nutrition is having an effect — I have anecdotal evidence. ;-D The commercial from a local supermarket that is going to label shelves for carb-smart food. The people in my daily life I run into who are avoiding carbs. The number of low or no carb choices in the supermarket or at a restaurant. It will be interesting to see what the “recommended diet” is in 5 or 10 years…
REPLY
Sam says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Thanks Gary for another great post; Just another biased “study” meat is evil; from the usual suspects. Making scientific inferences from large retrospective studies using the p-value is not the best way to evaluate the evidence. Steve Goodman, professor of biostats and oncology at Johns Hopkins makes that point in this paper:
http://www.annals.org/content/130/12/995.abstract
REPLY
G-man says:
March 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I’m currently reading Robb Wolf’s book, “the Paleo Solution, the Original Human Diet.” Much of what he says coincides with your findings. My one concern/question is whenever he mentions meat, he specifically states “lean” meat. He states to stay away from eggs if you have autoimmunity issues. What is your take on this and in general, Mr. Wolf’s approach and recommendations?
REPLY
Robert M says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:38 am
You should listen to Robb Wolfs latest pod cast. He goes into the reasons he suggests lean meats in his book. It basically boils down to not wanting to scare people off, he wants to reach as many people as possible and get them hooked before they’re introduced to the suggestion that fatty meat is not something to avoid. Not sure I agree with the approach tbh.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:54 am
I like Robb Wolfe, but I think he’s wrong on this one. Rational people can be very easily and quickly persuaded to lose their fear of fat when presented with the proper scientific evidence. I was. On the other hand, eating lean meat, even if you’re eating Paleo, is an invitation to either get too much protein or continue to eat too many carbs from potatoes and such. There are non grain sources of carbs. And if you go low carb and low fat, that’s dangerous and the very people whom he is trying to convince to go Paleo may soon quit because they don’t feel good/have enough energy with all that protein.
REPLY
Steak & eggs says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:18 am
Robb wolf using the term “Lean Meats” is just a ploy. He doesent want to scare off fat fobic people who have been following the SAD. Listen to his latest podcast and he explains it better than I. bacon = awesome
REPLY
Steak & eggs says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:20 am
Robert beat me to the punch!
REPLY
Todd says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:23 am
G man, go to Robb’s website and listen to his latest podcast. Or read the transcript. He addresses this issue in question number 7. He actually doesn’t have a problem with fatty cuts of meat. But, his main objective is to get people off of grains, vegetable oils, sugars, packaged food, etc. He fears that if he also tells people (at least in the beginning) that eating fat is healthy, it will be too much of a “shock” for people to accept and they won’t give it a try. Here are some quotes:
“it’s so easy to disseminate information that it’s
easy to then create the firewall that is so complex that then people just
bail and they’re done. That’s where the lean meat part comes in. People
in the beginning need to hear lean meat. They just do because if they
don’t, they’re going to freak out. They’re going to be like, “Oh, it’s
Atkins,” and they’re gone.
So what this is, is just learning over the course of time to tell people what
they need to hear so that we get them bought in long enough so that
their life is transformed. Then we can say, “Oh, by the way, the real story
is this.” Like, “You don’t have to worry so much. You can have bacon with
breakfast, and it’s not going to be the end of the world. That’s all cool.” If
we lead with that, we’re not going to get any type of buy in. We’re going
to peel people out and it’s not going to serve them in the long run.”
…
“That’s why I still say lean meat because when you think about
the people entering the site, they need to hear these things because they
need to be pacified long enough to be able to buy in enough. To be able
to make some progress and it kind of sucks. I’m definitely iconoclastic
about some things, but I’ve just learned over the course of time that
you’ve got to tell people what they want to hear long enough to actually
get them what they want. Even though the route that they used to get
there isn’t necessarily the one that they thought it was going to be.”
REPLY
Todd says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:24 am
Doh! Beat me to the punch too!
REPLY
elton says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I don’t know anything about Robb, but there is a danger of getting too much protein if you only consume large amounts of Lean Meat. I would be careful as a lot people may have issues with too much protein and not enough fat.
REPLY
G-man says:
March 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Thanks to all who replied to my inquiry. Makes me feel better about having my bacon with eggs. LOL Seriously, I’m sold on what Gary Taubes has to say and so far (if any of you have read Robb Wolf’s book) I like what Mr. Wolf has to say as well and good to see they’re not in contradiction. It appears Mr. Wolf too talks about the influence of carbs on hormones. He does take it a step farther with the exercise component and seems to be even a bit more restrictive diet-wise than Gary.
REPLY
David Pryor says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:16 am
I’m sorry I cannot remember the exact quote, or source, but I think there is another reason Robb Wolf discusses “lean” red meats. If you are not buying grass-fed meat, the FAT of the feed-lot animals you are eating is going to have a less-than-optimal content of “bad” fats, hormones, and other dietary hazards. Under those conditions, you are better off getting your fat calories from things like coconut oil, avocadoes, etc.
REPLY
Mloader says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:09 am
This type of work is having an effect, no doubt. Ten years ago all fat was bad now they are hanging on to saturated fat as a killer. We have “healthy picks” food labels at our cafeteria at work and the hard boiled eggs are tagged. Ten years ago, you would never have seen that.
It is interesting to me that many people who are champions of dietary fat, and are also interested in science, cite so much of Gary’s work. And they will say they became enlightened in mid 2000′s right around the time Gary started getting the word out.
I think the reason Gary’s work isn’t having a larger impact is he offers information, not a product. People want to work 40 hours a day and use the money they earn to solve other issues. He isn’t selling a box or a diet plan, nor should he. Every time I evangelize his work, people always say ‘what can I eat?’ and I tell them the most important part is knowing why, not what or how. If you only know the how without the why, it really is not meaningful.
On the other hand, this kind of stuff is useful, it is inspiring to see all the responses. One quote I saw on Twitter was great:
@terrysimpson:
@MloaderGraphics the only way red meat will kill you is if it is alive and bigger, faster and hungry – oh, and also eats red meat
REPLY
Kuma says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:14 am
Spot on! I love that quote you found too, @MloaderGraphics the only way red meat will kill you is if it is alive and bigger, faster and hungry – oh, and also eats red meat.
REPLY
Hillary Anderson says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:45 am
Somebody needs to make a bumper sticker with this quote and I want one! or maybe I will market it myself. Love it!
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:57 am
Me, too!
REPLY
J. Stanton says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:31 am
I hope it’s not pedantic to point out that, in addition to all the other problems of epidemiology Gary has mentioned, the reported food intake data from the Nurses’ Health Study is not just suspected to be shaky — it’s been studied, validated, and found to be almost completely unrelated to actual food intake.
Specifically, for unprocessed animal meat, the data is anywhere from 1.5% to 15% accurate…i.e. worthless. Furthermore, the intake of foods thought to be healthy was dramatically exaggerated, and the intake of foods thought to be unhealthy was dramatically underreported.
“Always Be Skeptical Of Nutrition Headlines: What Pan et.al Really Tells Us”
JS
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:32 am
I don’t understand what this “Food-based validation of a dietary questionnaire” analysis was comparing the FFQ to — was it another self-reporting mechanism (“recorded their food consumption for seven consecutive days, four times during the one-year interval”)? If so, why would we expect the second questionnaire to be an accurate benchmark?
REPLY
J. Stanton says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Yes, the verification is still self-reported — the subjects themselves measured the foods they were eating. This is clearly far more accurate than simply mailing in a survey once every four years that asks “On average, what did you eat last year?” However, you’re correct that the act of self-reporting still changes one’s habits, usually for the better: if we know we’ll have to write down that we ate a whole tub of ice cream, we’re less likely to actually do it. And, of course, we might just fudge the numbers or lie completely.
In conclusion, yes, a tiny 1.4%-15% correlation is the best possible case. The reality is probably even worse.
JS
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:54 am
J Stanton writes:
This is clearly far more accurate than simply mailing in a survey once every four years that asks “On average, what did you eat last year?”
We could only wish that the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was that open-ended and even-handed… Denise Minger supplied a link to the FFQ http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/questionnaires/pdfs/NHSI/2002.PDF and what ;lea[t straight out at me were leading questions like “What brand and type of cold breakfast cereal do you usually eat?” and “What form of margarine do you usually use?”… not even do you eat these items but straight to what brand?!?
REPLY
Stipetic says:
March 15, 2012 at 2:25 am
Attaboy, Gary.
REPLY
Alan Sausse says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:08 am
Gary – an outstanding article. I think you’ve pretty much put this one to bed, and plenty of other nutrition-based scare stories with it. Thanks and best wishes from Merrie England.
REPLY
mark glen says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:16 am
Rhetorical question: Is it more likely a study will be swayed in favor of a meat diet by the 99% of the population and industries that stands to gainfrom meat consumption OR is it more likely a study wlil be swayed against meat because someone cares about animals or wants to gain attention?
REPLY
Lanie says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:06 am
Nice post, Gary. Thanks for your quick response to this media hype.
REPLY
Mike says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:26 am
Great job on the interview with Tom Woods. Thanks!
REPLY
Andrea Hilborn ND says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:16 am
Alas, it would be more convenient for me as a healthcare provider making nutrition recommendations if I could just go with the crowd.
Instead I will tweet your article and hope my colleagues read it and do not make a complaint against me to my Board.
Thank you!
REPLY
Thor Falk says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:00 am
Great article! You forgot two points though (or were you just being nice?)
(1) The people at Harvard are not generally stupid, and what you have explained here is really statistics and scientific reasoning 101 – there is no way this did not come up in their own studies (and if it did not, someone would by now have explained it to them); on the other hand there is “publish or perish” – who would accept a paper that says “there is an association between red meat and mortality, but we think it is because of the Girl Scout effect
(2) if you throw enough hypothesis at a given set of data, some will always be statistically significant; by definition, if you test 100 “random” hypothesis, then 5 out of them will be “statistically significant (at the 95 level)”, meaning five papers that can be written
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Answer to #1: There was barely any association between red meat and mortality. There’s more association, frankly, between being born and mortality. A lot, lot more.
And that should take care of #2.
Criminey, man… there’s more of a connection between wheat and mortality, as shown in the China Study data (see also Denise Minger). How many Harvard experts do you see telling us all to ditch wheat?
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Re: point 2.
When significance is set at 95% (alpha = 0.05), it is a statement regarding type I error; that is, rejecting the null hypothesis when it should not be rejected.
More accurately, when the SAME hypothesis is tested 100 times, the true relationship will be divulged about 95 times and a false conclusion will be made about 5 times.
ie.
hypothesis: smoking causes lung cancer
therefore, null hypothesis: smoking is not the cause of lung cancer
(for the purposes of this example, let’s say the true relationship reflects our hypothesis: smoking causes lung cancer)
when the same study is repeated 100 times, the true relationship (causative) will be concluded about 95 times and the false relationship (not causative) will be concluded about 5 times.
It is not practical to repeat an experiment 100 times, so in any ONE study that (correctly) concludes that smoking causes lung cancer, it is understood that there’s a 5% chance that the conclusion is incorrect.
Not all significant research is published. Specifically, research performed in industry as opposed to academia.
REPLY
Chris Beeby says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:08 am
Hi Gary
I’ve long been a fan of yours.
It occurred to me some years ago that our current “obesity epidemic” started at approximately the same time that high-carb, low-fat diets became the orthodoxy.
It also occurs to me that a cheapish experiment could be conducted with pigs rather than humans as the subjects. Am I not right in thinking that pigs (like humans) are omnivores and in many ways biologically very similar to humans – so much so that (if memory serves) heart valves from swine were once considered possibly suitable for transplantation into people? The results of feeding high-carb diets to one group of porkers and high animal fat diets to another might be instructive, though not, of course, conclusive.
Keep up the good work!
Chris
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
I believe that experiment has been done, though not exactly in a laboratory, @Chris. They used to feed pigs coconut oil in the hopes of fattening them up. Instead, they got lean and now they feed them coconut oil when they want a source of lean meat for all the fat phobes. When they want to fatten them up, they feed them corn and soy.
REPLY
Tracy says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:21 am
Thank you for this, Gary. My local news reported on this ‘study’, and interviewed 2 nutritionists for the supporting side – and not one for the dissenting view. For that, they interviewed people on the street about how much they liked meat (and eating crap from food trucks)… basically, making it seem like scientists etc know the truth, but regular folk are rebellious know-nothings who are going to do what we want regardless, and that’s why we’re all so damn fat and unhealthy.
My n=1 tells me otherwise.
REPLY
Anthony from TheKetogenicDiet.org says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:30 am
So glad you decided to put out this article, Gary. This is exactly what I was waiting for. I’ve been telling everyone I’ve talked to that this “study” holds no water and is nothing to be concerned about. Finally I have a legitimate resource to reference. Thanks again!
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:51 am
That’s a joke, right?
If I post my opinion on johnmiklavcic.com, it is the furthest thing from legitimate. It is 100% subjective.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Except that what Gary has posted above is not just his personal (subjective) opinion but things that are verifiable by independent (objective) 3rd party sources — several of which he has already detailed.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Are you referring to 3 of the citations in the article that HE authored?
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
No, I’m not
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm
In all of my future writings, I can cite my own articles indefinitely from http://www.sweatrxmag.com and I’d be infinitely correct.
Mark Weaver says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:48 am
Exactly right, Gary, thank you! And right on about the “no amount of ‘correcting’ for BMI and blood pressure… can correct for this.” Nassim Taleb said “Multiple regression is plain, dressed up bullsh*t.” As a PhD-level statistician (but one who actually understands the true values of randomization), I completely agree. And if multiple regression is bad, “time-dependent proportional hazards” regression is even worse. If people knew the assumptions behind this method, they’d realize how insane these models are, coupled with the fact that they’re almost always, *virtually 100% of the time*, done incorrectly! Sheesh.
REPLY
Mark Weaver says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:49 am
Sorry, should have made it clear that the time-dependent PH models are what were used in the Willet paper.
REPLY
Agentzero says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:23 am
Do the authors of these papers ever make their underlying calculations available? Shouldn’t they have to, so that other statisticians can examine their work? If they don’t, should we give their conclusions any more weight than “because I said so”?
REPLY
Mark Weaver says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:33 am
Agentzero,
Great questions, here are my personal answers: not often, yes, and it wouldn’t really matter too much because it’s still an observational study… regardless of who does the calculations, hypothesis generation should be the name of the game.
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:46 am
Mark,
You should team up with Denise Minger to co-author more critiques. It’s always wonderful to have people who can explain the statistics to those of us who don’t have the training to understand the raw information.
REPLY
BlueEyesSf says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:00 am
This is great GB but the elephant in the room is Marion Nestle’s new book “proving” CI/CO. No one has th guts or ability to take that one on. These bad studies are easily attacked. Marion’s the real deal. Can anyone take her down? If not, the insulin hypothesis will truly be dead.
REPLY
Adam says:
March 15, 2012 at 11:23 am
BlueEyes,
You’re right. CI/CO is the enemy not only of the insulin hypothesis but also of humankind. Unless/until the Calorie Wizards’ spell is broken, America is doomed.
It’s high time that all of us who care about good health and justice coalesce around Taubes’ idea that our problem is Overstoring not Overeating. It’s a simple mantra. Arguably as simple as “Eat less exercise more.”
We need “simple smart” to fight “simple stupid.” So say it with me now, everyone!
It’s Overstoring, Not Overeating
It’s Overstoring, Not Overeating
It’s Overstoring, Not Overeating
IONO not CICO!
REPLY
Chris H says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:39 am
Adam,
Spot on. Very much agree we need a snappy response and this is great.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
I like it Adam. ONO!
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
Oops. I mean IONO.
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Marion’s a human being with letters after her name. I don’t care about human beings with letters after their names. I care about the words said human beings are speaking. If the words can be independently tested and verified, fine. If not, no amount of alphabet soup after one’s name ought to save one’s career.
Marion’s gone around telling people it’s fine to be vegan if you’re an adult. I can think of four vitamins off the top of my head that you absolutely positively cannot get on a vegan diet, which should have laid veganism to rest a long, long time ago, but some people can’t let go of the notion that a diet *requiring* vitamin supplementation to avoid *death from deficiency* could be anything but healthy.
That’s pretty much becoming my gold standard. If veganism is OK with you (and by “OK with you” I mean you’re going around saying it’s healthy, *ever*–I wouldn’t outlaw veganism, if you want to adopt a dumb diet then that’s your business) then I pretty much dismiss anything else you’ve got to say unless you can back it up with good science. You could tell me the sky’s blue at noon on a cloudless day and I think I’d have to go outside and see for myself.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:12 am
Agreed, @Dana. 100%.
REPLY
Jim Bowron says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:19 am
GT does not dispute that you will gain weight if you input more calories than you expend- his issue is that you have to go to the next step, and find out why you are inputting more calories. His basic position, as I understand it, is that because insulin blocks export of fat stores from cells, when your body burns all the ‘fuel’ from the carbohydrates that you just ate, it goes looking for more energy sources. Since it can’t access fat stores, your cells demands more fuel, and thus you overeat.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
Yes, @Jim Brown, and Marion Nestle doesn’t do that next step. She thinks that it doesn’t matter where the calories come from–at least according to her blog. I haven’t read the book. Yet. Don’t know that I won’t, but if I do, I will read it with skepticism engendered by reading the works of GT, Drs. Eades, Phinney, Wortman, Attia, and others.
REPLY
Stephen Harris says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:46 am
What’s CI/CO?
REPLY
Michael says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:17 am
Calories in/ calories out
REPLY
mhanch says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:26 am
Thanks for the write-up Gary. This has been a hot-button issue and it, as always, is great to hear your take on the issue.
REPLY
Matthew @ Fig & Fork says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:53 am
I appreciate the both sides offered on this topic. I enjoyed reading the depth of this.
REPLY
Fritz Ziegler says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:03 am
Thank you for this, Gary. I feel better. The popular reporting about nutritional received wisdom is so against low-carb-high-fat eating that I need constant reminders, even though my personal N=1 experiment has been going so well since I read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” more than three years ago.
What distinguishes your work is the lack of nihilism. You point out the problems with nutritional “science” while showing the way to good science. It’s like the difference between PBS NewsHour and all the network news shows. You and Jim Lehrer give me hope.
Fritz
REPLY
Matt Taylor says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:40 am
This flawed observational epidemiology remind me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Sir Belvedere teaches the villagers how to tell if a women is a witch:
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: …because they’re made of… wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!… It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: …Exactly. So, logically…
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore…
Peasant 2: …A witch!
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Witch: It’s a fair cop…
REPLY
Mike says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:48 am
Epidemiology studies smell a lot like looking for Bible codes or stock-picking schemes. Past results are not indicative of future returns.
REPLY
Jose Marti says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:59 am
Great post.A lot of the problems with these Studies is that they always fail to isolate an independent variable,in this case meat eating,and then test it.I wonder how difficult or costly would be to do an experiment like the one done on Stefansson in 1928.Pick 50 subjects,preferably with Metabolc Syndrome,measure all Health Indicators and then put them in a controlled environment eating meat and fat only for say six months.Experiments like that would go a long way to shed light upon all these nutritional issues.And the cost would certainly be within the range of the Major Universities and Research Centres.
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
“I wonder how difficult or costly would be to do an experiment like the one done on Stefansson in 1928.”
Very difficult and extremely costly. In addition, there would be political penalties and a loss of future funding for reporting the truth. That’s why no major institution does experiments like these. Gary and Dr. Peter Attia are trying to get funding for their NuSi Institute, which will do good experiments on a smaller scale.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm
In Stefansson’s case didn’t he get backing from the Meat Packers? Along with the strict caveat that they would have no say in the study design etc… ?
REPLY
tess says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:03 am
It occurs to me that, by Medawar/Popper standards, Guyenet is NOT “DOING” SCIENCE AT ALL. He certainly isn’t paying attention to arguments which knock holes in his HYPOTHESIS (because it hasn’t been tested properly, it can’t be the “theory” that so many people label it)….
REPLY
Donna E says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:16 am
Terrific arguments, Gary, as always. But I sure would like to know what you think of Ajit Varki et.al.’s research on neu5gc: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596253/?tool=pubmed
REPLY
Exceptionally Brash says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:17 am
Uh oh, I am going to probably drop dead soon, I haven’t been all that good about listening to my doctor lately. He wants me to eat less, move more, and cut out the saturated fats! Thank you!
REPLY
John Bailey says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:31 am
Gary, I am a N=1 experiment. In March 2011 I beagen to reduce carbs and increased red meats.
During this last year, there were no other key lifetsyle changes. Due to back pain, overall I exercised somewhat less. Here are the results one year later:
Weight: From 199 lbs to 176 lbs; my doctor says I should be no more than 185 lbs. Average since 2000 was 193 lbs.
Blood Pressure: 130/85, normal, same as since 2000;
HDL: up to 2.17 from 1.63 ; report says that ideal HDL is more than 1.6.
LDL: 1.91, unchanged;
Triglycerides; decreased signficantly , from 1.87 down to 0.54, half the level of the average since 2000.
My doctor’s report says that “cardiac aerobic exercise and certain medications increase HDL”. I had neither.
I believe your book indicated that fatty meats may increase good cholesterol – HDL. This is what happened to me. I also believe many think that waist size for men and HDL are two strong indicatos of healthiness. All of my wieght loss was from my gut, and I have dropped 4-5 inches in waist size.
I hope my experiment can help your arguments about red meats and carbs.
REPLY
Katie P says:
March 15, 2012 at 10:10 am
We eat mostly red meat in our house. My husband recently had his blood work done and his cholesterol is 110, triglycerides are on the very low end of normal/healthy, his blood pressure is right where it needs to be and his doctor says he has the healthiest heart he’s ever seen! My numbers are similar to his. We don’t eat fast food, however, don’t smoke, drink rarely and exercise every day. The red meat we do eat is lean and we always balance our meals. Lots of fruits and vegetables too. We don’t eat any synthetic food or processed food. Just what nature gives us, including copious amounts of red meat.
REPLY
Stephanie says:
March 15, 2012 at 10:11 am
Or, as I put it:
surveys+statistics NOT=science.
Interesting post as always. I wish the media would report that these same “scientists” were the ones who told us to take HRT to prevent heart attacks! WTF Harvard, get some standards!
REPLY
Sue says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Thanks for your tell it like it is insights! Over the years I’ve worked for a couple of marketing research companies and I can tell you first hand that studies that have people filling out lengthy questionnaires are notoriously flawed! Especially the kind that are done at home and mailed in over long periods of time. I could spend the next several hours stating all the ways these studies are flawed and still wouldn’t even scratch the surface.
You need to keep reminding people that these studies are based on just such questionnaires. Until people really get it drummed into their heads that THIS ISN’T SCIENCE, they will keep being led like sheep to believe almost anything an observational study tells them to believe….as long as it’s in the media of course, because if it’s in the media it must be true!!!! Keep telling it like it is Gary!
REPLY
fred hahn says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Good one Gary.
REPLY
Greg says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Thanks for a great post Gary. I do have some issue with your assertion that seems to imply that the only good science comes from a type of Popperian falsification. Granted, the study in question is BAD science, but it is a form of science nonetheless. As you say, even an N=1 offers some form of data that adds knowledge. We just must understand its limits–as the authors of the Harvard study did not!
REPLY
Stabby says:
March 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Brilliant article, thanks for this. And the first part of Good Calories Bad Calories. Debunking bad methods as it pertains to nutrition research is where you shine. Possible confounding factors that Walter Willet would agree absolutely influence mortality:
Trans fat intake. Is the meat coming from a grass-fed rancher or from Mcdonalds? The latter has partially-hydrogenated oils. But these studies don’t even try to control for trans fats and I’m skeptical of their ability to do it even if they tried.
Cooking intensity: Meat that is cooked too much is carcinogenic. Is it reasonable to believe that those eating the most red meat are also going to have the highest intake of heat-formed mutagens and toxins, which can probably be tied to any degenerative disease? I’d say so. But this isn’t a criticism of meat, per se. Just the technique used to prepare it.
Drug use: Okay it’s not polite to talk about it but isn’t it a factor in mortality? Is this controlled for at all? Sure it is probably associated with non-compliance to the government-knows-best program but to try to say that it is accounted for when we control for whole grains and exercise is going to be inaccurate.
I’m sure we could sit around and come up with more. But will we ever be able to accurately control for all of this? If you think people are inaccurate about their meat intake (which they are) then just think of how much they will tuck their drug intake into the back of their minds.
Oh well, we do have controlled trials and actual knowledge. And we have Gary Taubes and some other good minds
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Until they control for every other factor that is known to lead to early mortality I’m not even going to try to surmise what in red meat could be cutting lifespans short. We’ve been eating red meat for a good couple million years now and, until the advent of agriculture, it was accidents and infections killing us early, not our diets.
By the way, because you’ll hear this at some point and it might freak you out, there are trans fats in red meat whether it’s cooked at McDonald’s or not. Trans fats that occur naturally in beef and dairy are actually good for you. Conjugated linoleic acid is one of them and there’s another whose name I have not yet committed to memory. But the press is reporting that they are implicated in *decreasing* heart disease and type 2 diabetes risk–which is *odd*, given their other brash statement that red meat kills you.
As for nitrates in processed meat, those exist in vegetables too. They’re thought to be one reason vegetable-eating reduces your blood pressure. Uncomfortable implications for eating processed meats, if so. I just don’t worry about it, especially given that processed meats are more likely to contain organ meats, which most of us don’t eat at all anymore and which have been keeping human beings healthy for a very long time now.
REPLY
Stabby says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Yep I’m familiar with CLA. It does seem to combat cancer and heart disease in the lab, although that isn’t necessarily an argument for red meat if this association actually represents the truth. It could be that the CLA in meat is beneficial but just not as good as red meat is bad. I doubt it, though. Grassfed meat has a lot more of it so whether or not the beef that most Americans eat is protective or not, grassfed meat would be expected to be better.
Nitrites are indeed present in vegetables, however I think that there is an important distinction but an easy solution. Vegetables have vitamin c which if present facilitates the reduction of nirites to nitric oxide rather than what they would end up otherwise, the damaging nitrosamines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1860156
Thinking about it we might be able to say that bacon + an orange is a more heart-healthy breakfast than an orange alone!
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:22 am
Actually, I think it’s nitrites that exist in vegetables, more than nitrates.
REPLY
Josef Boberg says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Wi have to eat “real food” to feel good – as I see it.
REPLY
Melinda S says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Another plausible explanation, that goes along well with your point about not being able to compare the groups well, would be that many people who eat the standard American diet eat almost no vegetables and little fruit. Compared to vegetarians, they might actually fare worse. But that is not necessarily the meat’s fault.
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:46 pm
The Inuit also ate almost no vegetables or fruit on their traditional diet. I don’t think the lack of plant foods is the problem. It *is* worth noting that people who eat red meat are also very likely to eat more refined carbs such as hamburger buns, French fries and potato chips. They’re probably also more likely to smoke.
REPLY
LowCarbGran says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:47 am
Yes indeed Dana. And Cokes, 7Up and sweet sauces. To not measure these burger-variables means they cannot be controlled for. To then say that “..we have controlled for all other variables..” is outrageous. This “study” stinks. Because 50% of red US meat is consumed as burgers the study actually measured the (diluted) effect of junkfood on health. Junkfood, the worst known offender was not controlled for or even mentioned in spite of it significant prevalence in possibly 50% of the red meat consumed.
But to mix variables is a well used trick by so called “scientists” that produced this study, or its conclusions. I call them charlatans.
REPLY
mezzo says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:35 am
And why are they more likely to smoke and have other unfortunate habits? Because as long as red meat is demonized only people who like to misbehave will eat substantial quantities of. People who try to lead a so-called “clean” life usually try to eat mostly vegetarian, will not smoke and try to exercise regularly. Had this study been conducted in, say, Argentina, where a meal without red meat is not seen as a proper meal the outcomes might have been mighty different.
REPLY
Tony M says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Gary – this is exactly what you shuld be doing more of on your blog. I get it that you want to be careful and considered, but it’s a blog, not an academic paper. It’s invaluable to have you delvier your insight when the discussion is current. Thank you.
REPLY
Nathan Ton says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Gary Tabes thanks for the informative email Ive had lots of Co-worker telling me I’m going to DIE! I’m hardcore Meat Eater I eat almost exclusivley meat/fat/cheese in that order. I’m a machine lean strong could not feel better Thanks for your books I wish I could pass on the message as you have….. Almost nobody wants to listen its very sad state we live in.
REPLY
Tom Bunnell says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:28 am
“I have found the “devil”. Genuinely. — I know that you don’t believe that. Nobody does. — It’s the “adrenaline like effects” of sugars and hybrid carbohydrates”. This is the devil, for sure and for true. — My discovery, I share with you. Thank you.
-Tom Bunnell
REPLY
Lolly McIver says:
March 16, 2012 at 6:22 am
I’m so thankful that you are obsessive about this issue.
REPLY
Tom Bunnell says:
March 16, 2012 at 7:19 am
Yes, Thank you. Little did we know..
REPLY
Emily says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:28 am
Awe Gary!
Your writing makes it look like an epidemiologist ran over your dog.
In case you haven’t read it, the original article is here: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287 . I think your issue is with the media portrayal of the study, which gave it a causal spin (nowhere in the article does it claim causality). Epidemiologists are well aware of the strengths and limitations of their tools, and discussion is generally restricted within those confines. Often the interpretation of results can be confused/sensationalized by people external to the field. I think you might have meant to aim your lengthy diatribe towards them.
….but wait, that sounds very familiar. Someone who is external to the field but who communicates broadly with the public, putting their spin on things…..ah now I see why you’ve chosen to criticize the scientists rather than the media.
REPLY
Agentzero says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:41 am
Emily,
Perhaps you did not read the article. For your convenience, I excerpt below the phrases in which the authors let slip that they have confused correlation with causation:
“the adverse effect of red meat intake on mortality risk;” “we could not assess whether lean meat has the same health risks as meat with higher fat content;” “the additional harm of processed meats;” “replacement of red meat with alternative healthy dietary components may lower the mortality risk.”
In other words, while the authors (mostly) speak in terms of correlation, they are not consistent about it, and I have no doubt that they believe — and want their readers to believe — they have identified a causal link.
Did you notice the paragraph in the article in which the authors state that they have only observed a correlation and that experiments would be warranted to attempt to determine whether there is a causal relationship? Me neither … it isn’t there.
REPLY
GT says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:46 am
Hi Emily,
Regrettably, and not surprisingly. I disagree with you. Here’s the last line of the abstract: “We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.” If that isn’t an implication of causality, I don’t know what is. Yes, they’re not saying this would happen, only that it could, but they shouldn’t even be doing this. At best they should be suggesting that tests be done to check this hypothesis. And, yes, the journalists are to blame as well, but if the journals didn’t put out press releases, if the universities didn’t put out press releases, and if the researchers refused to speak to the journalists, the journalists would not be able to over-interpret the data and would have little motivation to do so. I discussed this point in my Science article back in the mid-1990s. The epidemiologists would like to blame it on the press coverage, but they’re pushing this stuff as well. So, yes, I’m external to the field, but that doesn’t make my criticisms invalid. And when I do criticize in these articles, I’m only echoing the better researchers in the field and giving voice to their criticisms.
A last note, after I wrote the NYT Magazine article in 2007, I was invited out to Berkeley to lecture at the School of Public Health and also to meet with the epidemiology doctoral students for two hours, no other faculty present. The students gave me a list of questions they were going to ask in advance about the NYTM article. One of them, perhaps the only serious criticism of the article, was why did I focus the article on the Nurses’ Health Study and the Harvard group because “everyone knows they’re terrible.” (This is being recalled from memory after four-plus years, so that quote may not be verbatim but it’s certainly close.) My response when I met with the students in Berkeley was that it’s not good enough in a functioning field of science to know other researchers are terrible. Researchers have to police their own fields. They have to weed out the, well, weeds. And so they had to expose the bad science of the Harvard group and get them out of the field. I don’t know how that would be done, but I think about it a lot.
gt
REPLY
Mark Weaver says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Emily,
Agentzero and Gary already replied more than adequately to your comment, but I’ll just add that if that phoney baloney, piss poor methodology “substitution association” analysis that they did wasn’t aimed at causality, then what was its purpose? If you substitute one thing for another (which is exactly the kind of manipulation that one would assess within a randomized trial), then how much longer will you live… that’s obviously all about causality even if they play with words like “association” within the manuscript. Yes, the reporting was overblown, but the “research” was complete garbage in the first place.
REPLY
Stipetic says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:10 am
This is a quote from the New York Times’ article about them deadly red meat:
“When you have these numbers in front of you, it’s pretty staggering,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of medicine at Harvard.
I mean, what is the public, or anyone for that matter, suppose to make of this? Just sayin’.
REPLY
Natalie says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:31 am
Perhaps the compliance effect is not anything in particular that the ‘Girl Scouts’ do – but rather, the fact that Girl Scouts believe they have the power to improve their health. Studies on well-being would indicate that people – children, pregnant women, pensioners, etc. – do better when they are more involved in processes and have more responsibility. Remember the nursing home studies that found giving patients a potted plant to care for seemed to be correlated with better health? Maybe compliance effect measures the same thing – not only do ‘Girl Scouts’ care about their health, but they believe it is in their power to do something about it (as opposed to feeling overwhelmed and helpless).
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:42 am
Gary suggests that compliance is an issue is observational studies. This is a misplaced critique. Compliance, by definition, cannot be an issue in retrospective observational studies since there is no intervention; there is no treatment or placebo group that requires a protocol in which to adhere.
The intervention that Gary suggests does not adequately test whether a diet high in red meat impacts mortality. He suggests a study in which one group is randomized to high meat, and the other to low meat, high vegetables, and high whole grains. The objective of science is to test one independent variable only, but there are 3 variables which have been altered (meat, vegetables, grains). Gary’s study design has introduced confounders- and in his article, Gary also suggests that no amount of correction can adequately adjust for confounders in studies. Gary’s logic is paradoxical. As such, the conclusion of such a study would not definitely ascertain whether red meat is a culprit. If the high red meat group was found to have increased mortality upon completion of the study, interpretations could include that diet high in phytonutrients or fibre decreases mortality, since the comparison group was consuming more vegetables and whole grain. Another issue is that the composition of protein, fat and carbohydrate is radically different between both test groups. Therefore, one is not necessarily testing whether red meat consumption causes an increase in mortality, but whether higher protein and fat (characteristics of red meat) diet causes an increase in mortality.
There are ethics review panels needed for approval of research. Literature to date suggests that red meat is associated with increased mortality, therefore, no review panel will approve a research study that proposes intervention with high red meat content.
Gary critiques a (Harvard) study that measures mortality as the outcome. Gary addresses “successful” Atkins’ intervention studies which measure weight loss as an outcome. As weight correlates to obesity, this a measure of morbidity, not mortality. Apples and oranges. It is also important to note that in scientific literature, just about ANY diet intervention is successful in short-term, clinically-measured weight loss.
REPLY
Agentzero says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm
What John says Gary says:
” Gary addresses “successful” Atkins’ intervention studies which measure weight loss as an outcome.”
What Gary actually says:
“And when these experiments have been done, the meat-rich, bacon-rich Atkins diet almost invariably comes out ahead, not just in weight loss but also in heart disease and diabetes risk factors.”
Please try again.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Agentzero effectively supports my point. The focus of the article is a critique of a study in which the outcome is mortality. Gary’s suggestion to discern the true relationship between red meat consumption and mortality (death) is to “Do the experiments,” and Gary suggests “These experiments have effectively been done.” Yet he references (as Agentzero adequately cited above) a dietary invention which measures morbidity (weight, heart disease, diabetes) outcomes.
He is saying that these intervention studies address his perceived “flaw” or the (Harvard) study. Yet, he is looking a completely different outcome, morbidity instead of mortality.
REPLY
Sam says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm
To me all Gary is saying is common sense if health markers improve in these trials were meat is eaten, why meat will cause increase mortality.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:37 am
And does “morbidity” not affect “mortality”? Are you saying it’s not reasonable to assume that people with more morbidity will also have a higher rate of mortality? I think you’re reaching for straws and missing the overarching point of Gary’s analysis. There are many “studies” out there that equate increased morbidity with increased mortality. Sicker people do tend to die off sooner (of natural causes, I mean) than the healthy ones, no?
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The major cause of death in North America is heart disease, not natural causes.
Morbidity does not necessarily correlate with mortality; rather, there are varying associations. Inflammatory bowel diseases are a set of disorders characterized as a co-morbidity and very low mortality. Death rates between IBD patients and healthy individuals do not differ significantly.
Let’s look at the case of prostate cancer morbidity.
In an 11-year period, prostate cancer mortality is 107/100,000 afflicted persons (0.11%/11 years; Schroder et al. NEJM 2012. 366(11):981-90).
All-cause mortality rate for men in Canada is 748/100,000 (0.75%/year; StatsCanada, 2005). Over an 11-year period, that equates to 8228 deaths (748*11 = 8228). 107 of these deaths can be attributed to prostate cancer, meaning 8121 deaths are caused by something else (8228 – 107).
In the case of prostate cancer, there is a 76x greater chance (8121/76) of dying WITH prostate cancer than dying OF prostate cancer. I hope this helps answer your question above.
brittany says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Thanks Gary. You are always a trusted source of reason. I especially like this point “The hard part of science is left out and they skip straight to the endpoint, insisting that their interpretation of the association is the correct one and we should all change our diets accordingly.” How very true and very concerning.
REPLY
A Country Farmer says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Seems like there should be a 30 year, randomized trial study comparing the atkins vs USDA.
REPLY
Joshua Bey says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:37 pm
The compliance-effect is a good way to explain this. I’ve always called it the “Flanders” effect, which makes sense to any fan of The Simpsons out there:
“The family goes to the car wash to get rid of the dust, and when Homer is there, he sees that Ned Flanders gets a senior discount. At church, Flanders admits to Homer that he is sixty years old. After he is exposed by Homer in the church, Ned says that he follows the three “c”s of success: clean living, chewing thoroughly, and “a daily dose of vitamin Church!” However, he also has never lived impulsively, and never really had any fun in life. The rest of the town stops admiring Ned for living so well, and begins to pity him for having never truly lived at all.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Ned_Flanders
REPLY
jesse says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Hi Gary,
Appreciate the article, rushed as it was it was still valuable. For this particular set of cohorts is socioeconomic status a valid confounder? I thought they were all doctors and nurses.
Jesse
REPLY
Joe says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Just a few concerns:
- How could an RCT be done to study this exact question (to get individual level inference) ?
- These so-called girl scouts and truckers all graduated from either medical school or nursing school (and so obviously gave enough of a s**t about their health education to complete it, and also to show up for 20+ years follow-up for these studies). Although I am not naive enough to believe that this is a homogenous group (when it comes to lifestyle behaviors); I also don’t think that these 2 groups (meat eaters and non meat eaters) are incomparable.
- As the authors of the study pointed out, bias as a result of measurement error is likely towards the null (hence the 0.2 fold increase in risk is likely an underestimate). But even if it wasn’t an underestimate, considering the number of people who eat meat around the world, the implications are still huge!!
- Finally, Walter Willet is a scientist (perhaps the best nutritional epidemiologist in the world). He does research and puts himself out there. It is easy to shoot down his and others work, but can you design a better study?
Ultimately, red meat is one factor (out of about a billion) that exists in our world and that may or may not be associated with health. We shouldn’t be too quick to rush and alert the media (and the entire world) that eating red meat will kill them, but should remind them that: the poison is almost always in the dose!
REPLY
Heike T says:
March 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I have not heard of any studies that compare the impact grass-fed/grass-finished meat has on our health as opposed to the factory-farmed, antibiotic-laden, hormone-injected, pesticide and herbicide-containing, GMO-tainted garbage that is being sold as meat these days. It doesn’t need much genius to figure out that that kind of meat is the problem. Wouldn’t it be great if our mainstream media would occasionally show some remote capacity for critical thinking? Pink slime? You bet you will get chronically ill when eating that stuff. A ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s that is way out of proportion and contributes to high levels of inflammation? No CLA that typically can only be found in grass-fed beef and has been shown to have a role in reducing the risk for cancer? We are not talking about what nature has designed for us. It is not the nature of red meat that is to blame for disease; it is the man-made alteration, manipulation, and distortion of what should be a staple in our diet. Unfortunately, what is being called “science” these days is so heavily shaped by conflict of interest that I think it is high time that we start thinking on our own again and occasionally trust our own intuition again. On a different note, the whole cholesterol question is also a complete marketing ploy. Cholesterol is a symptom of an underlying condition your body is attempting to repair. To lower cholesterol means to interrupt a healing process. Wow, do we have it all backwards….
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Gary suggests that a 0.2-fold (20%) increase in mortality is too modest to warrant media attention. He also cites other epidemiologists who suggest that 3- to 4-fold (300-400%) differences also do no justify attention.
See the abstract of a study published in 1986: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2871418
Vitamin A intervention study was performed and it was found to decrease all-cause mortality by upwards of 34% in Sumatran children.
As concerned citizens of the world, we’d be unreasonable not to think that we should get vitamin A to kids in 3rd world countries. On the other hand, Gary and the epidemiologists he cites would consider this a small fold difference, not worthy to note.
Gary is quick to address limitations in methods of epidemiology, but doesn’t give credit to its strength as highlighted above. Small percentage (fold) differences mean monumental impact in huge populations where life and death are concerned.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I read that abstract as stating “…mortality in control villages … was 49% greater than in those where supplements were given”, so you are really just adding to my initial suspicions that you are either having trouble with reading comprehension or are being deliberately misleading.
The study you cite was a random controlled intervention trial (RCT) that set out to test a specific hypothesis (real science in other words) and apparently it did so.
On the other hand the retrospective observational study that triggered the discussion in this blog post was not even designed to test if red meat increases health risks… the best it could be used for would be to propose hypotheses that could then be tested in RCTs.
A 49% increased mortality in the control group for an RCT bears no comparison to an estimated 20% risk based on a four yearly questionnaire whicj has some very dubious data such as: the group with the lowest reported red meat consumption claiming an average of 1,200 calories per day — hard working nurses, on their feet for 12 hour shifts at 1,200 calories per day… seriously?
But nice tug at the heart strings ;-( those poor Sumatran children won’t convince me that read meat kills.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm
The start of the sentence you refer to says “at baseline.” That means before the intervention. Intervention with vitamin A decreased mortality.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:34 pm
50 villages in northern Sumatra were randomly assigned to either participate in a vitamin A supplementation scheme (n = 229) or serve for 1 year as a control (n = 221). 25 939 preschool children were examined at baseline and again 11 to 13 months later. Capsules containing 200 000 IU vitamin A were distributed to preschool children aged over 1 year by local volunteers 1 to 3 months after baseline enumeration and again 6 months later. Among children aged 12-71 months at baseline, mortality in control villages (75/10 231, 7.3 per 1000) was 49% greater than in those where supplements were given (53/10 919, 4.9 per 1000) (p less than 0.05). The impact of vitamin A supplementation seemed to be greater in boys than in girls. These results support earlier observations linking mild vitamin A deficiency to increased mortality and suggest that supplements given to vitamin A deficient populations may decrease mortality by as much as 34%.
I read that as “the children were aged 12-71 at baseline” and that among this group of children “mortality was 49% greater where supplements were not given”
I do see where you get the 34% although that figure seems to take into consideration other studies and only specifies “vitamin A deficient populations” which may include adults for all we know; based on just this abstract.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 5:16 pm
I get 34% from inverse proportions.
Consider that relative to 0.67, 1.00 is a 49% increase (0.67 * 1.49 is approximately equal to 1.00).
Consider that going down to 0.67 from 1.00 is a 33% decrease (1.00 – 0.67 = 0.33), hence, why I specified upwards of 34%, it’s also written in the last sentence of the abstract. Am abstract needs to respect brevity and therefore does not present that above calculations.
I’m glad you found a passion regarding the injustice of basic nutrition is 3rd world countries. There are several great NGOs set up to help kids in such cases, one or another may resonate strongly with you and compel you to action.
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:37 pm
…“the children were aged 12-71 months at baseline”* obviously
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm
As a personal aside I am furious and saddened to live in a world where nearly half of these children could die for lack of basic nutrition… I’d suggest that any need for vitamin A supplementation is just indicative of lack of decent food.
REPLY
Bill Barendse says:
March 18, 2012 at 6:40 pm
A 20% increase in risk is not the same as a 20% increase in incidence. So we are all worried if the incidence goes up by 20% but not if the risk goes up by that amount. If the relative risk (RR) is 1.2 (ie., 20% higher) then the increased incidence in the subset is the overall incidence times the RR. So let’s say that death from coronary heart disease (CHD) has an overall incidence of 25%, then in the subpopulation the incidence is 1.2 times 0.25 = 0.30, so the overall incidence has gone up 5%. Had the overall incidence of CHD been 5% then the incidence in the subpopulation would have been 1.2 x 0.05 = 0.06 or 6%, and increase of 1% in the incidence. Clearly, the overall incidence of the disease and the RR determine how important the observation is.
The main point about RR of >= 3 being a standard for observation has more to do with reproducibility than importance. The smaller the sample the more likely it is that a RR will need to be large to be detected in the first place, the more likely it will be to be overestimated in the first place to be statistically significant, and the more likely for it not to be observed in the next study. But RR > 3 tend to be relatively stable unless the first study was dreadfully small in size. With the giant studies dealing with tens of thousands of observations this is less of a problem, although the GIGO law will always hold.
REPLY
England says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Thanks Gary. I enjoyed your article as I continued my n=1 experiment by eating a good amount of meat. Specially, while reading your blog at lunch time today, I had about 2 oz. of roast beef, 2 oz. of liverwurst and 2 oz. of Andouille sausage with several olives and pile of pumpkin sweetened with cinnamon and Stevia – a la Bernstein.
You are a confident man. Calling out a top tenured professor of nutritional science at one of the top university in the world! And saying that he does not do proper science implying that he does not know how and/or is lazy and/or has other egotistical and/or financial reasons not to do proper science. I’m glad you did. And I agree that it is a sad state of affairs.
REPLY
Scott says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:44 am
I too am skeptical of the recent research on red meat — above all because, even if we take it at face value, the effect is minuscule. Moving from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile increases your chance of dying of heart disease from 0.8% to 0.9%. Meh…
However, I’m not sure that this critique really nails it.
It’s never possible to control for every possible confound. But the researchers do seem to have controlled for most of the obvious ones. And, more to the point, adding lots of other factors wouldn’t necessarily make much difference. A generally “health conscious” person might do lots of things that improve their health, but all these things are likely to be correlated with each other (ie health conscious people walk more, and smoke less, and buy more organic food, and watch less TV and so on). And because they correlate, adding them to the statistical model doesn’t add any extra information. (For the geeks out there, this is the problem of multicollinearity.)
Also, it’s not really fair to say that the study was the equivalent to comparing “Berkeley vegetarians” and “redneck truck drivers”. After all, the participants in the study were all doctors and nurses. I’m sure they varied in their degree of compliance, but not as much as is implied.
This is not to say that I agree with the study’s findings, just to say that by dismissing it on weak grounds unnecessarily weakens the case for real food.
II’m not sure what an ideal critique would look like… they would certainly include the unreliability (and social desirability effects) of the food questionnaires that were used). But my main objection is that these studies are not putting low-carb / primal / paleo claims to the test. After all, what distinguishes the paleo diet is not its reliance on meat. Rather, it is about replacing bad quality meat with good quality meat, and replacing grains with vegetables and fat. These studies don’t tell us anything about whether this diet is better (or not). So, who cares what they say?! (Who wants to defend the consumption of factory-farmed meat!) But, as Taubes points out, there are plenty of other studies that have tested versions of these claims, with good results. That’s what you should be citing next time some SADsack upbraids you for ordering the steak.
REPLY
Mark says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
Scott,
Two points here. First, there is indeed a way to control for every possible confounder, it’s called randomization. You’ll probably say something like “confounding is even possible with randomization”, but that’s just not true. Random covariate imbalance is indeed possible (and ubiquitous) with randomization, but it doesn’t induce a stochastic bias like true confounding does. As the most excellent statistician Stephen Senn has said, there are “two incontrovertible facts about a randomized trial: 1) over all randomizations the groups are [always] balanced; 2) for a particular randomization they are unbalanced.” This is no big deal, it all comes out in the randomized wash.
Second, epidemiologists really need to understand that controlling for all known or “obvious” confounders does not necessarily reduce the overall confounding bias, it can actually increase bias. Confounding, like any bias, can be either positive or negative. This is the fundamental reason why any causal inference based on observational data should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, regardless of how fancy the mathematical models were.
Sorry, one more thing… multicollinearity is completely irrelevant here, much as it usually is.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:06 am
Thanks, Gary, for injecting a bit of sanity into this nonsense. Please keep doing what you are doing. Dr. Marion Nestle’s new book, “Why Calories Count” is out and has just been reviewed (positively, I presume) by Nature. I confess I haven’t read the book–yet–but I read her blog and honestly, she doesn’t have a clue. Thinks it doesn’t matter where our calories come from, it’s all about CICO, etc. etc. How someone with an advanced degree in Biochemistry can still carry on with that stuff is totally beyond me. She does indict sugar, however, and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, she has apparently not made the connection that healthywholegrains are a source of sugar as well. One can only hope that people who have read your books and articles will take what she says with a grain of salt. I know you are very busy, but I hope some day to see a review of her book by you in the NYTimes or elsewhere. Dr. Nestle is quite popular and has a pretty large following (not that you don’t) and some of us worry that this will be a big setback to the LCHF movement.
REPLY
Ida Fiorella says:
March 18, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Living a low-carb lifestyle for over 10 years, I can attest to the health benefits of eating proteins (including red meat and bacon!), healthy fats, and lots of green vegetables. My doctors have stated that my cholesterol is perfect, and I am in excellent health according to check-ups. This was not the case before I started low-carb. Several friends are now following the same low-carb plan, and they are experiencing the same health benefits. I am very thankful, Gary, that you are able to so articulately and patiently explain what the true studies show, and that you don’t let the researchers in their ivory towers get away with serving us “conclusions” that don’t even respect the basic “scientific method” they learned in grammar school. I truly enjoy your blog.
Ida (co-author of Thin and Thinner)
REPLY
Elsa says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:03 pm
I love your analytic mind and scientific approach to the whole issue. You inspire confidence. Whatever the studies say; the proof is in the pudding, not so? People, like me, who have become obese by eating high carbohydrate/low fat all their life and have consequently suffered the effects of this way of eating healthwise can and will testify that their health in general has improved hundred-fold – amazingly, for me, in only 3 months! What more proof does one require?
REPLY
Tom Bunnell says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:36 am
Better said: Revised and Edited:
”I have found the “devil”. Genuinely. — I know that you don’t believe that. Nobody does. — Stimulants. — It’s the “adrenaline like effects” of sugars and hybrid carbohydrates”. This is the devil, for sure and for true. “It’s God, too”. — Not just the profound effects on our bodies and body chemistry, like diabetes and heart disease and cancer and mental disease and obesity and anorexia and whatnot, our entire earths population. But the adrenaline like effects and high energy that fuels and effects our minds and intelligence and emotions and feelings and senses and sexuality and thought processes, profoundly. Our being. — Our thoughts and our decisions and our perceptions. What we see and what we think and what we feel. Our spirits, our souls, our psyche, our ego, our self esteem, our aggressiveness, our passivity. — Alcohol is the highest form of sugar. All are stimulant drugs that make us crazy. But we don’t know that and when we hear it, we think of it as absurd and we don’t believe it. We think it’s laughable. Man’s taking over of the whole world, and effecting what we see and think and feel, by stimulants. Wheat and flour and fruit and vegetables and milk, being stimulants. “This is whacko rants and raves of a lunatic madman. Foolishness, personified. Idiocy. Idiosyncrasy. Extremism, Ignorance, Myth, Imagination, Fantasy, Dreams, Hallucinations, Paranoia. — My discovery, I share with you. Yes, it is all of the above, and more. Sugar and hybrid carbohydrates. Man made stimulant drugs. Thank you.
-Tom Bunnell
REPLY
elaine bergstrom says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:47 am
As the daughter of a butcher, I ate my share of steaks and chops. But in his last years, my father lamented that he could not find a decent pork chop (the other white meat had been leaned to the state of shoe leather). The point is, my father bought his lambs (in his case) from a local farmer, had them slaughtered locally and cut the meat himself. So did the beef dealers in his coop market. The point is, maybe this study had some credence, but it may not be the red meat itself but all the junk that is fed these poor beefers at their feedlots, all the chemicals in their bodies, all the stress hormones of their last days. I don’t want to sound like a PETA person, but really so much of what we eat is no longer natural. Now most chicken is grown without hormones or antibiotics. Wish the beefers were, too, and sadly I can’t afford free range.
REPLY
Thire says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:20 am
Thank you for these insights. As a nutritionist myself, I have often struggled with what constitutes science when doing nutrition research and the demonizing of foods based on statistics that can be easily manipulated to tell the story the scientist wants to tell. I will use this article to help clients, family and friends to help better understand nutrition ” facts” reported in the media.
REPLY
Nigel Tanner says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:42 am
As you admitted at the beginning of the article on the red meat controversy, spelling errors are not always detected by the author. An example is in the title of an article quoted by you:
‘When I first wrote about the pseudoscience of epidemiology in Science back in 1995, “Epidemiology Faces It’s Limits”, … ‘
The error as you’re probably aware is that “it’s” is a contraction of “it is” and so is incorrect in this context.
REPLY
Trackbacks
Does Red Meat Cause Early Death? | Sans Carbs says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:57 am
[...] and early death. I was about to do a Random Research Dissection on it, but then I went over to Gary Taubes site and it turns out he’s already done it. And he links to Zoe Harcombe, who has done a [...]
REPLY
Will Eating Red Meat Kill You? says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:35 am
[...] Interesting to see that Denise included a link to the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) used for the Nurses Health Study… I was expecting a fairly free-form "what have you been eating for the last 4 years?" but instead found the questions to be quite leading… rather than "do you eat breakfast cereal or margarine?" they ask "What brand and type of cold breakfast cereal do you usually eat?" and "What form of margarine do you usually use?" — then going on to ask for specific brand details. Is it just a given that everyone eats cereal for breakfast and uses margarine? — Gary Taubes has also posted a blog entry about this study announcement, Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat… [...]
REPLY
Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat « Thor's Reads says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:01 am
[...] Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat. Share this:FacebookTwitterRedditMoreLinkedInDiggStumbleUponTumblrPinterestPrintEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
REPLY
Transterrestrial Musings - That Latest Meat Study says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:56 am
[...] Taubes comments on the pseudoscience behind [...]
REPLY
The Paleo Rag | Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:51 am
[...] and editing, as I usually do, I’m going to do my best to get this up and out in a few hours. Read More » Be Sociable, [...]
REPLY
Köttlarm, dålig vetenskap och varför de som äter placebo blir friskare | Kostdoktorn.se says:
March 15, 2012 at 10:52 am
[...] mycket läsvärt nytt blogginlägg av Gary Taubes om hur osäkra observationsstudier verkligen är:Taubes blogg: Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat (Inlägget är kort, för att vara Taubes)Läs merCissi Wallin, LCHF och gallstenen [...]
REPLY
Meat, Pseudoscience and Why People Who Eat Their Placebo Are Healthier | Dietdoctor.com says:
March 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
[...] nice blog post by Gary Taubes about how uncertain the observational science behind them really is:Taubes blogg: Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat (a short post, for Taubes) Print This entry was posted Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 19:13 and is [...]
REPLY
Paleo Diet News: Gary Taubes on the Red Meat Study » Your source for Paleo Diet information says:
March 15, 2012 at 11:54 am
[...] it was wrong, I didn’t see the need to beat it up here. But I would like to share with you Gary Taubes’ take on the red meat study done by the Harvard School for Public Health.. He goes deeper into the [...]
REPLY
Gary Taubes weighs in on the “Meat Kills” article | Gym C2 says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm
[...] a big fan of meat so I really enjoyed Gary Taubes’s response on the recent “Meat Kills” article. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to [...]
REPLY
Karen De Coster » Nutritional McCarthyism: Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm
[...] is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as “nutritional McCarthyism.” Gary Taubes also commented on the horrendous science behind the study: The problem with observational studies like those run by [...]
REPLY
Nutritional McCarthyism: Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks « LewRockwell.com Blog says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm
[...] is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as "nutritional McCarthyism." Gary Taubes also commented on the horrendous science behind the study: The problem with observational studies like those run by [...]
REPLY
Thursday, March 15th, 2012a : CrossFit Costa Mesa says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:09 pm
[...] Link Love Read, I’m serious, read this – Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat [...]
REPLY
Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks – WNYTruthers.org says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:56 am
[...] there is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as “nutritional McCarthyism.” Gary Taubes also commented on the horrendous science behind the study: The problem with observational studies like those run by [...]
REPLY
Not so fast with my bacon, ya Hah-vard barnies. | says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
[...] Here‘s a great article on the faults of the recent Harvard media release Red Meat Consumption Linked to Increased Risk of Total, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality. The article author, Gary Taubes, also wrote Why We Get Fat; a book we highly recommend. An exerpt from the article: This is an issue about science itself and the quality of research done in nutrition. Those of you who have read Good Calories, Bad Calories know that in the epilogue I make a point to say that I never used the word scientist to describe the people doing nutrition and obesity research, except in very rare and specific cases. Simply put, I don’t believe these people do science as it needs to be done; it would not be recognized as science by scientists in any functioning discipline. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged clayton, crossfit, disease, fitness, Gary Taubes, gateway crossfit, gym, meat, missouri, nutrition, personal training, st louis. Bookmark the permalink. ← Biggest Loser Winner Goes CrossFit! [...]
REPLY
Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:33 pm
[...] [...]
REPLY
Cave CrossFit says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:35 am
[...] the article in the New York Times about red meat? Well read it and then get a reality check from Gary Taubes here and a great response from Roxy Richardson of Function 5 Fitness [...]
REPLY
Weekend Link Love - Edition 182 | Mark's Daily Apple says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:01 am
[...] Taubes tackles the latest red meat scare study, and discusses the problems with epidemiology in [...]
REPLY
Bad Science Again – Red Meat « Maximum Wellness says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:56 am
[...] Gary’s article teaches us why the study is flawed. It is a great article, but a little dense. It will give you a good foundation in understanding good and bad science. Read More [...]
REPLY
Weekend Link Love | TrenchPress says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
[...] Taubes tackles the latest red meat scare study, and discusses the problems with epidemiology in [...]
REPLY
The Harvard Evil Red Meat Study is Actually the Harvard Red Bullshit Study | Daily Pundit says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:15 am
[...] Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat [...]
REPLY
Weekly Round Up « Highbrow Paleo says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
[...] links for your reading pleasure: original journal article, here is what Zoe Harcombe has to say, Gary Taubes says this, Anthony Colpo weighs in here, Dean Ornish does his thing here, Mark Sisson hires a Minger to [...]
REPLY
A fictiony Sunday « jacobceaton says:
March 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm
[...] writers acknowledge imperfection, inaccuracy or haste in prefacing their work? Gary Taubes’ latest blog post is the most recent example I can recall. Is it better to come off strong or modest? Regardless, [...]
REPLY
Monday 120319 | | DEKA CROSSFITDEKA CROSSFIT says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm
[...] Gary Taubes reacts to the bad science rampant in public nutrition: “Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat“. [...]
REPLY
New 6:30am class! « says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:36 pm
[...] Red Meat Linked to Cancer Flaws in the Study Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology and Meat [...]
REPLY
Monday 120319 | CrossFit Scottsdale says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:05 am
[...] Gary Taubes reacts to the bad science rampant in public nutrition: “Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat“. [...]
REPLY
Monday 120319 | coachricheng.com says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:21 am
[...] Taubes reacts to the bad science rampant in public nutrition: “Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat“. designed by elegant themes [...]
REPLY
Fat Head » The ORI Speech says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:22 am
[...] gave it a worthy whack and pointed readers to Denise Minger’s slice-and-dice. Gary Taubes also took the study apart and made the remaining points I would have made (and then some), so I won’t bother weighing in on [...]
REPLY
SUBSCRIBE
To receive updates to Gary's blog, enter your email address:
Follow Gary on Twitter @GaryTaubes
BOOKS
Why We Get Fat (2011)
An eye-opening, paradigm-shattering examination of what makes us fat. In the New York Times best seller Good Calories, Bad Calories, acclaimed science writer Gary Taubes argues that certain kinds of carbohydrates—not fats and not simply excess calories—have led to our current obesity epidemic. Now he brings that message to a wider, nonscientific audience in this … [Read more]
Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007)
[released as The Diet Delusion in the U.K.] In Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes tries to bury the idea that a low-fat diet promotes weight loss and better health. Obesity is caused, he argues, not by the quantity of calories you eat but by the quality. Carbohydrates, particularly refined ones like white bread and pasta, raise insulin … [Read more]
ABOUT
Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American science writer. He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993), and Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), which is titled The Diet Delusion in the UK. … [Read More...]
CONNECT
Gary Taubes is available for media contacts and speaking engagements. Feel free to send him a message.
ARTICLES
Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?
Is Sugar Toxic?
Is This Any Way to Lose Weight? (Reader's Digest)
Letter to the Editor: Response to Dr. George Bray’s Review of Good Calories, Bad Calories
Letter to the Editor: Response to Tara Parker-Pope's article "The Fat Trap" (NYTimes Magazine)
The (Political) Science of Salt
The Scientist and the Stairmaster
The Soft Science of Dietary Fat
What If It’s All Been A Big Fat Lie?
RECENT POSTS
Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat
On the greatly-exaggerated demise of the insulin-hypothesis
Updates for 2012
ARCHIVES
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
September 2011
April 2011
March 2011
December 2010
Return to top of page
© 2012 Gary Taubes • built on the Genesis Framework • Powered by WordPress & WDS
author of Why We Get Fat
and Good Calories, Bad Calories
I’m writing this post with a little more haste than is my wont. I’ve received dozens of e-mails asking me to comment on the recent news — ala the the New York Times — that meat-eating apparently causes premature death and disease. So this post is likely to contain more than my usual number of typos, egregious spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, etc. Bear with me. Rather than spend a week rewriting and editing, as I usually do, I’m going to do my best to get this up and out in a few hours.
Back in 2007 when I first published Good Calories, Bad Calories I also wrote a cover story in the New York Times Magazine on the problems with observational epidemiology. The article was called “Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?” and I made the argument that even the better epidemiologists in the world consider this stuff closer to a pseudoscience than a real science. I used as a case study the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, led by Walter Willett, who runs the Nurses’ Health Study. In doing so, I wanted to point out one of the main reasons why nutritionists and public health authorities have gone off the rails in their advice about what constitutes a healthy diet. The article itself pointed out that every time in the past that these researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship, and that causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation — i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time. No exception. Their batting average circa 2007, at least, was .000.
Now it’s these very same Harvard researchers — Walter Willett and his colleagues — who have authored this new article claiming that red meat and processed meat consumption is deadly; that eating it regularly raises our risk of dying prematurely and contracting a host of chronic diseases. Zoe Harcombe has done a wonderful job dissecting the paper at her site. I want to talk about the bigger picture (in a less concise way).
This is an issue about science itself and the quality of research done in nutrition. Those of you who have read Good Calories, Bad Calories (The Diet Delusion in the UK) know that in the epilogue I make a point to say that I never used the word scientist to describe the people doing nutrition and obesity research, except in very rare and specific cases. Simply put, I don’t believe these people do science as it needs to be done; it would not be recognized as science by scientists in any functioning discipline.
Science is ultimately about establishing cause and effect. It’s not about guessing. You come up with a hypothesis — force x causes observation y — and then you do your best to prove that it’s wrong. If you can’t, you tentatively accept the possibility that your hypothesis was right. Peter Medawar, the Nobel Laureate immunologist, described this proving-it’s-wrong step as the ”the critical or rectifying episode in scientific reasoning.” Here’s Karl Popper saying the same thing: “The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them.” The bold conjectures, the hypotheses, making the observations that lead to your conjectures… that’s the easy part. The critical or rectifying episode, which is to say, the ingenious and severe attempts to refute your conjectures, is the hard part. Anyone can make a bold conjecture. (Here’s one: space aliens cause heart disease.) Making the observations and crafting them into a hypothesis is easy. Testing them ingeniously and severely to see if they’re right is the rest of the job — say 99 percent of the job of doing science, of being a scientist.
The problem with observational studies like those run by Willett and his colleagues is that they do none of this. That’s why it’s so frustrating. The hard part of science is left out and they skip straight to the endpoint, insisting that their interpretation of the association is the correct one and we should all change our diets accordingly.
In these observational studies, the epidemiologists establish a cohort of subjects to follow (tens of thousands of nurses and physicians, in this case) and then ask them about what they eat. The fact that they use questionnaires that are notoriously fallible is almost irrelevant here because the rest of the science is so flawed. Then they follow the subjects for decades — 28 years in this case. Now they have a database of diseases, deaths and foods consumed, and they can draw associations between what these people were eating and the diseases and deaths.
The end result is an association. In the latest report, eating a lot of red meat and processed meat is associated with premature death and increased risk of chronic disease. That’s what they observed in the cohorts — the observation. The subjects who ate the most meat (the top quintile) had a 20 percent greater risk of dying over the course of the study than the subjects who ate the least meat (the bottom quintile). This association then generates a hypothesis, which is why these associations used to be known as “hypothesis-generating data” (before Willett and his colleagues and others like them decided they got tired of their hypotheses being shot down by experiments and they’d skip this step). Because of the association that we’ve observed, so this thinking goes, we now hypothesize that eating red meat and particularly processed meat is bad for our health and we will live longer and prosper more if we don’t do it. We hypothesize that the cause of the association we’ve observed is that red and processed meat is unhealthy stuff.
Terrific. We have our bold conjecture. What should we do next?
Well, because this is supposed to be a science, we ask the question whether we can imagine other less newsworthy explanations for the association we’ve observed. What else might cause it? An association by itself contains no causal information. There are an infinite number of associations that are not causally related for every association that is, so the fact of the association itself doesn’t tell us much.
Moreover, this meat-eating association with disease is a tiny association. Tiny. It’s not the 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer that pack-a-day smokers have compared to non-smokers. It’s a 0.2-fold increased risk — 1/100th the size. So with lung cancer we could buy as a society the observation that cigarettes cause lung cancer because it was and remains virtually impossible to imagine what other factor could explain an association so huge and dramatic. Experiments didn’t need to be done to test the hypothesis because, well, the signal was just so big that the epidemiologists of the time could safely believe it was real. And then experiments were, in effect, done anyway. People quit smoking and lung cancer rates came down, or at least I assume they did. (If not, we’re in trouble here.) When I first wrote about the pseudoscience of epidemiology in Science back in 1995, “Epidemiology Faces It’s Limits”, I noted that very few epidemiologists would ever take seriously an association smaller than a 3- or 4-fold increase in risk. These Harvard people are discussing, and getting an extraordinary amount of media attention, over a 0.2-fold increased risk. (Horn-blowing alert: my Science article has since been cited by over 400 articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature, according to Thomson Reuter’s Web of Knowledge.)
So how can we explain this tiny association between the risk of eating a lot of red and processed meat — the 1/100th-the-size-of-the-lung-cancer-cigarette effect–compared to eating virtually none? Again, we have an observation — or an association, two or more things happening in concert; let’s think of all the possible reasons that might explain why these two variables, meat-eating and disease, associate together in our cohorts of nurses and physicians. Here’s how the great German pathologist Rudolph Virchow phrased this in 1849: How, he said, can we “with certainty decide which of two coexistent phenomena is the cause and which the effect, whether one of them is the cause at all instead of both being effects of a third cause, or even whether both are effects of two entirely unrelated causes”? This is the hard part.
The answer ultimately is that we do experiments, which is what Virchow went on to discuss. But we’ll get back to this in a minute. Before we get around to doing the experiments, we must rack our brains to figure out if there are other causal explanations for this association beside the the meat-eating one. Another way to think of this is that we’re looking for all the myriad possible ways our methodology and equipment might have fooled us. The first principle of good science, as Richard Feynman liked to say, is that you must not fool yourself because you’re the easiest person to fool. And so before we go public and commit ourselves to believing this association is meaningful and causal, let’s think of all the ways we might be fooled. Once we’ve thought up every possible, reasonable alternative hypotheses (space aliens are out on this account), we can then go about testing them to see which ones survive the tests: our preferred hypothesis (meat-eating causes disease, in this case) or one of the many others we’ve considered.
So let’s think of reasonable ways in which people who eat a lot of meat might be different from people who don’t, looking specifically for differences that might also explain some or all of the association we observed between meat-eating, disease and premature death. What else can explain this association, which might have nothing to do with whatever happens when we consume meat or processed meat?
Zoe Harcombe made this point beautifully using the Harvard data. The obvious clue is that as we move from the bottom quintile of meat-eaters (those who are effectively vegetarians) to the top quintile of meat-eaters we see an increase in virtually every accepted unhealthy behavior — smoking goes up, drinking goes up, sedentary behavior (or lack of physical activity) goes up — and we also see an increase in markers for unhealthy behaviors — BMI goes up, blood pressure, etc. So what could be happening here?
If you go back and read my New York Times Magazine article on this research, you’ll see that I discussed a whole host of effects, known technically as confounders — they confound the interpretation of the association — that could explain associations between two variables but have nothing to do biologically with the variables themselves. One of these confounders is called the compliance or adherer effect. Heres’ what I said about it in the article:
The Bias of Compliance
A still more subtle component of healthy-user bias has to be confronted. This is the compliance or adherer effect. Quite simply, people who comply with their doctors’ orders when given a prescription are different and healthier than people who don’t. This difference may be ultimately unquantifiable. The compliance effect is another plausible explanation for many of the beneficial associations that epidemiologists commonly report, which means this alone is a reason to wonder if much of what we hear about what constitutes a healthful diet and lifestyle is misconceived.
The lesson comes from an ambitious clinical trial called the Coronary Drug Project that set out in the 1970s to test whether any of five different drugs might prevent heart attacks. The subjects were some 8,500 middle-aged men with established heart problems. Two-thirds of them were randomly assigned to take one of the five drugs and the other third a placebo. Because one of the drugs, clofibrate, lowered cholesterol levels, the researchers had high hopes that it would ward off heart disease. But when the results were tabulated after five years, clofibrate showed no beneficial effect. The researchers then considered the possibility that clofibrate appeared to fail only because the subjects failed to faithfully take their prescriptions.
As it turned out, those men who said they took more than 80 percent of the pills prescribed fared substantially better than those who didn’t. Only 15 percent of these faithful “adherers” died, compared with almost 25 percent of what the project researchers called “poor adherers.” This might have been taken as reason to believe that clofibrate actually did cut heart-disease deaths almost by half, but then the researchers looked at those men who faithfully took their placebos. And those men, too, seemed to benefit from adhering closely to their prescription: only 15 percent of them died compared with 28 percent who were less conscientious. “So faithfully taking the placebo cuts the death rate by a factor of two,” says David Freedman, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley [who passed away, regrettably, in 2008]. “How can this be? Well, people who take their placebo regularly are just different than the others. The rest is a little speculative. Maybe they take better care of themselves in general. But this compliance effect is quite a big effect.”
The moral of the story, says Freedman, is that whenever epidemiologists compare people who faithfully engage in some activity with those who don’t — whether taking prescription pills or vitamins or exercising regularly or eating what they consider a healthful diet — the researchers need to account for this compliance effect or they will most likely infer the wrong answer. They’ll conclude that this behavior, whatever it is, prevents disease and saves lives, when all they’re really doing is comparing two different types of people who are, in effect, incomparable.
This phenomenon is a particularly compelling explanation for why the Nurses’ Health Study and other cohort studies saw a benefit of H.R.T. [hormone replacement therapy, one subject of the article] in current users of the drugs, but not necessarily in past users. By distinguishing among women who never used H.R.T., those who used it but then stopped and current users (who were the only ones for which a consistent benefit appeared), these observational studies may have inadvertently focused their attention specifically on, as Jerry Avorn says, the “Girl Scouts in the group, the compliant ongoing users, who are probably doing a lot of other preventive things as well.”
It’s this compliance effect that makes these observational studies the equivalent of conventional wisdom-confirmation machines. Our public health authorities were doling out pretty much the same dietary advice in the 1970s and 1980s, when these observational studies were starting up, as they are now. The conventional health-conscious wisdom of the era had it that we should eat less fat and saturated fat, and so less red meat, which also was supposed to cause colon cancer, less processed meat (those damn nitrates) and more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, etc. And so the people who are studied in the cohorts could be divided into two groups: those who complied with this advice — the Girl Scouts, as Avorn put it — and those who didn’t.
Now when we’re looking at the subjects who avoided red meat and processed meat and comparing them to the subjects who ate them in quantity, we can think of it as effectively comparing the Girl Scouts to the non-Girl Scouts, the compliers to the conventional wisdom to the non-compliers. And the compliance effect tells us right there that we should see an association — that the Girl Scouts should appear to be healthier. Significantly healthier. Actually they should be even healthier than Willet et al. are now reporting, which suggests that there’s something else working against them (not eating enough red meat?). In other words, the people who avoided red meat and processed meats were the ones who fundamentally cared about their health and had the energy (and maybe the health) to act on it. And the people who ate a lot of red meat and processed meat in the 1980s and 1990s were the ones who didn’t.
Here’s another way to look at it: let’s say we wanted to identify markers of people who were too poor or too ignorant to behave in a health conscious manner in the 1980s and 1990s or just didn’t, if you’ll pardon the scatological terminology, give a sh*t. Well, we might look at people who continued to eat a lot of bacon and red meat after Time magazine ran this cover image in 1984 — “Cholesterol, and now the bad news”. I’m going to use myself as an example here, realizing it’s always dangerous and I’m probably an extreme case. But I lived in LA in the 1990s where health conscious behavior was and is the norm, and I’d bet that I didn’t have more than half a dozen servings of bacon or more than two steaks a year through the 1990s. It was all skinless chicken breasts and fish and way too much pasta and cereal (oatmeal or some other non-fat grain) and thousands upon thousands of egg whites without the yolks. Because that’s what I thought was healthy.
So when we compare people who ate a lot of meat and processed meat in this period to those who were effectively vegetarians, we’re comparing people who are inherently incomparable. We’re comparing health conscious compliers to non-compliers; people who cared about their health and had the income and energy to do something about it and people who didn’t. And the compliers will almost always appear to be healthier in these cohorts because of the compliance effect if nothing else. No amount of “correcting” for BMI and blood pressure, smoking status, etc. can correct for this compliance effect, which is the product of all these health conscious behaviors that can’t be measured, or just haven’t been measured. And we know this because they’re even present in randomized controlled trials. When the Harvard people insist they can “correct” for this, or that it’s not a factor, they’re fooling themselves. And we know they’re fooling themselves because the experimental trials keep confirming that.
That was the message of my 2007 article. As one friend put it years ago to me (and I wish I could remember who so I could credit him or her properly), when these cohort studies compare mostly health advice compliers to non-compliers, they might as well be comparing Berkeley vegetarians who eat at Alice Water’s famous Chez Panisse restaurant once a week after their yoga practice to redneck truck drivers from West Virginia whose idea of a night on the town is chicken-fried steak (and potatoes and beer and who knows what else) at the local truck stop. The researchers can imply, as Willett and his colleagues do, that the most likely reason these people have different levels of morbidity and mortality is the amount of meat they eat; but that’s only because that’s what Willett and his colleagues have to believe to justify the decades of work and tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars that have been spent on these trials. Not because it’s the most likely explanation. It’s far more likely that the difference is caused by all the behaviors that associate with meat-eating or effective vegetarianism — whether you are, in effect, a Girl Scout or not.
This is why the best epidemiologists — the one’s I quote in the NYT Magazine article — think this nutritional epidemiology business is a pseudoscience at best. Observational studies like the Nurses’ Health Study can come up with the right hypothesis of causality about as often as a stopped clock gives you the right time. It’s bound to happen on occasion, but there’s no way to tell when that is without doing experiments to test all your competing hypotheses. And what makes this all so frustrating is that the Harvard people don’t see the need to look for alternative explanations of the data — for all the possible confounders — and to test them rigorously, which means they don’t actually see the need to do real science.
As I said, it’s a sad state of affairs.
Now we’re back to doing experiments — i.e., how we ultimately settle this difference of opinion. This is science. Do the experiments. We have alternative causal explanations for the tiny association between meat-eating and morbidity and mortality. One is that it’s the meat itself. The other is that it’s the behaviors that associate with meat-eating. So do an experiment to see which is right. How do we do it? Well you can do it with an N of 1. Switch your diet, see what happens. Or we can get more meaningful information by starting with your cohort of subjects and assigning them at random either to a diet rich red meat and processed meat, or to a diet that’s not — a mostly vegetarian diet. By assigning subjects at random to one of these two interventions, we mostly get rid of the behavioral (and socio-economic and educational…) factors that might associate with choosing of your own free will whether to be a vegetarian (or a mostly-vegetarian) or a meat-eater.
So we do a randomized-controlled trial. Take as many people as we can afford, randomize them into two groups — one that eats a lot of red meat and bacon, one that eats a lot of vegetables and whole grains and pulses-and very little red meat and bacon — and see what happens. These experiments have effectively been done. They’re the trials that compare Atkins-like diets to other more conventional weight loss diets — AHA Step 1 diets, Mediterranean diets, Zone diets, Ornish diets, etc. These conventional weight loss diets tend to restrict meat consumption to different extents because they restrict fat and/or saturated fat consumption and meat has a lot of fat and saturated fat in it. Ornish’s diet is the extreme example. And when these experiments have been done, the meat-rich, bacon-rich Atkins diet almost invariably comes out ahead, not just in weight loss but also in heart disease and diabetes risk factors. I discuss this in detail in chapter 18 of Why We Get Fat, ”The Nature of a Healthy Diet.” The Stanford A TO Z Study is a good example of these experiments. Over the course of the experiment — two years in this case — the subjects randomized to the Atkins-like meat- and bacon-heavy diet were healthier. That’s what we want to know.
Now Willett and his colleagues at Harvard would challenge this by saying somewhere along the line, as we go from two years out to decades, this health benefit must turn into a health detriment. How else can they explain why their associations are the opposite of what the experimental trials conclude? And if they don’t explain this away somehow, they might have to acknowledge that they’ve been doing pseudoscience for their entire careers. And maybe they’re right, but I certainly wouldn’t bet my life on it.
Ultimately we’re left with a decision about what we’re going to believe: the observations, or the experiments designed to test those observations. Good scientists will always tell you to believe the experiments. That’s why they do them.
Egregious (and embarrassing) error correction: In an early version of the post, I suggested that if you read the chapter on nutritional epidemiology in the textbook Modern Epidemiology, you’d see that the best epidemiologists agree that this pursuit is pathological. A reader from my institution — a UC Berkeley grad student — pointed out that the chapter on nutritional epi in the textbook was actually written by Walter Willett and that, not surprisingly, it does not agree with this position. Here’s how Willett ends that chapter:
The last two decades have seen enormous progress in the development of nutritional epidemiology methods. Work by many investigators has provided clear support for the essential underpinnings of this field. Substantial between-person variation in consumption of most dietary factors in populations has been demonstrated, methods to measure diet applicable to epidemiologic studies have been developed, and their validity has been documented. Based on this evidence, many large prospective cohort studies have been established that are providing a wealth of data on many outcomes that will be reported during the next decade. In addition, methods to account for errors in measurement of dietary intake have been developed and are beginning to be applied in reporting findings from studies of diet and disease.
Nutritional epidemiology has contributed importantly to understanding the etiology of many diseases. Low intake of fruits and vegetables has been shown to be related to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Also, a substantial amount of epidemiologic evidence has accumulated indicating that replacing saturated and trans fats with unsaturated fats can play an important role in the prevention of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Many diseases—as diverse as cataracts, neural-tube defects, and macular degeneration—that were not thought to be nutritionally related have been found to have important dietary determinants. Nonetheless, much more needs to be learned regarding other diet and disease relations, and the dimensions of time and ranges of dietary intakes need to be expanded further. Furthermore, new products are constantly being introduced into the food supply, which will require continued epidemiologic vigilance.
The development and evaluation of additional methods to measure dietary factors, particularly those using biochemical methods to assess long-term intake, can contribute substantially to improvements in the capacity to assess diet and disease relations. Also, the capacity to identify those persons at genetically increased risk of disease will allow the study of gene–nutrient interactions that are almost sure to exist. The challenges posed by the complexities of nutritional exposures are likely to spur methodologic developments. Such developments have already occurred with respect to measurement error. The insights gained will have benefits throughout the field of epidemiology.
Now the reason I made this mistake is because I was rushing (no excuse, despite the warning up front) and so working from memory about a chapter that the UCLA epidemiologist Sander Greenland, one of the editor/authors of Modern Epidemiology, sent me when I was writing the New York Times Magazine article in 2007. The chapter Greenland was discussing and that he had sent me at the time was one he had authored, chapter 19 — “Bias Analysis” — and it was discussing observational epidemiology in general.
Here’s Greenland on the problem with all these studies — nutritional epi included — and how they’re interpreted:
Conventional methods assume all errors are random and that any modeling assumptions (such as homogeneity) are correct. With these assumptions, all uncertainty about the impact of errors on estimates is subsumed within conventional standard deviations for the estimates (standard errors), such as those given in earlier chapters (which assume no measurement error), and any discrepancy between an observed association and the target effect may be attributed to chance alone. When the assumptions are incorrect, however, the logical foundation for conventional statistical methods is absent, and those methods may yield highly misleading inferences. Epidemiologists recognize the possibility of incorrect assumptions in conventional analyses when they talk of residual confounding (from nonrandom exposure assignment), selection bias (from nonrandom subject selection), and information bias (from imperfect measurement). These biases rarely receive quantitative analysis, a situation that is understandable given that the analysis requires specifying values (such as amount of selection bias) for which little or no data may be available. An unfortunate consequence of this lack of quantification is the switch in focus to those aspects of error that are more readily quantified, namely the random components.
Systematic errors can be and often are larger than random errors, and failure to appreciate their impact is potentially disastrous. The problem is magnified in large studies and pooling projects, for in those studies the large size reduces the amount of random error, and as a result the random error may be but a small component of total error. In such studies, a focus on “statistical significance” or even on confidence limits may amount to nothing more than a decision to focus on artifacts of systematic error as if they reflected a real causal effect.
FILED UNDER: BAD SCIENCE, GENERAL
Speak Your Mind
Name *
Email *
Website
Comments
Morgan M says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm
After reading this – and both of your books on nutrition – I’m amazed that I used to follow Michael Pollan’s word as if it were gospel. It felt like he was preaching to me: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.” Eat what your grandma used to eat! No need for this “science,” just eat what healthful and traditional, it’s all so very obvious, he said! We know in our souls what is healthy (like grandma!). And I ate it up.
Now I see Pollan’s work for what it is: a denunciation of science. And while he is right to criticize what passes for science in the field of nutrition as you do here, his message–that we don’t need science–is so, so wrong. Pollan’s little mantra only “feels” right (he presents so little proof) because it fits within a dogma that we’ve all embraced, one that has never been held to any degree of scientific rigor.
I’m so glad you’re out there–the anti-Pollan–reminding us that nutrition needs to be treated like a proper science if we’re ever going to make progress. Science, not gospel. Experimental evidence, not feelings or anecdotes. We can’t rely on common sense. Science never does, and only science can save, improve, and lengthen our lives. Bravo, Gary!
REPLY
js290 says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Other than Food Inc and a few of his lectures, I don’t know Pollan’s work that well. However, it should be noted that the purpose of science is to explain nature. And, if science hasn’t figured it out yet, it may be safer (at least nutritionally) to default to nature.
REPLY
Brian says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Great point. I follow Pollan’s writing often and he doesn’t preach an agenda i.e. vegetarianism. Most of what he puts out there is honest and true regarding food etc. I agree with him that we don’t need nutritionism to figure out what is healthy, in nature it’s clear: whole fresh foods, grown locally, sustainably, unprocessed etc.
However, when Big Media comments on flawed studies, it’s important to address the bias in the study like GT and Zoe Harcombe have done.
REPLY
Pamela says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Of course, Pollan fails to understand that some French Canadian grandmas ate food like pigs feet, blood sausages and poutine! I follow his advice to eat like my Grandma (albeit not too much poutine) and buy humanely-raised meat, but ditched the rest.
REPLY
Marc Brazeau says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:07 am
Pollan’s take is that the science of nutrition is so rudimentary in what we actually know, that traditional foodways provide a more reliable algorithm to answer the question of how to eat healthfully. He says that the science is important and needs to be done, but in its current form it doesn’t provide a useful guide for the average lay person.
REPLY
Charly says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm
If I ate what my grandma ate, I would eat very little in plant based foods. She grew up in Norway, where the diet is heavy in fish, dairy, meat, eggs and only seasonal fruits and vegetables. Vegetables and fruits in the winter were preserved with salt, vinegar, as were out of season animal products, and sugar, lots of it. Lamb, goat meat, chicken and fish, butter, sour cream, contributed the most calories. Cheese extremely important. She never heard of Michael Pollan, probably would have shrugged her shoulders and ignored him, or called him an elitist fool. My grandmother lived to be 100, was only in the hospital once in her life, and only for a day and a half. She introduced me to my favorite breakfast treat – pumpernickel rye bread topped with brown-sugar-sweetened sour cream. Yum.
REPLY
Jeffrey of Troy says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm
My reaction upon first reading GCBC was that it was the first time anybody had actually applied the scientific method to the relationship between diet and health. It makes apparent that all the claims and assurances of the authorities before then were (and are, sadly) insane gibberish.
REPLY
England says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm
I just started rereading Omnivores Dilemma when the NYT article came out. I noted in Pollan’s Introduction he gives Dr. Atkins a backhanded slam by mentioning him with the phrase, “…the formly discredited Dr. Atkins…” Then on the next page he says that we are surprised by the “French paradox” for how could the French eat foie gras and triple cream cheese and stay slim. Well, to me, Atkins clearly explained why the French or anyone could do that.
REPLY
Ben Atlas says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Thank you very much for this post, I was waiting for it. I find it peculiar that they lumped together meat with the processed meat. What if the additives in the processed products account for the entire variable?
REPLY
Warren Dew says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:21 pm
The study actually provides separate numbers for processed and unprocessed meat. There are a lot of things wrong with the study, but that’s not one of them this time around.
REPLY
Sam Mackrill says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:25 am
Only if you classify hamburgers as unprocessed meat. And you think that people can accurately assess this when filling-in dietary questionnaires every four years (four!)
REPLY
George Henderson says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Lucid as always (not bad for a vomit draft). All this low-risk stuff, if you take it seriously, is a form of gambling.
Gambling with health, as opposed to investment in it.
One quibble; you called the paper a trial – too kind, as nothing was trialed. I’d call it a study.
The problem I have with processed meats is that vegetable contaminants often creep into them, especially that filthy soy, and that rat gluten.
REPLY
George Henderson says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm
“Eat Animals. Mostly fat. Enjoy”
- the anti-Pollan
REPLY
Galina L. says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I just started to use the Fitday after more than 4 years of being on a weight-loss diet. It is almost amazing how little veggies add to the nutritional content when listed. It is mostly fiber and a some carbs, also a lot of flavor and texture.
I personally think there is something strange in human interest in strong favors. Why wild life attacking my garden can’t stand orange jest and rosemary essential oils, but I gladly put it on my food? Why raccoon thinks it is a poison, but it makes food more rewarding and palatable for me? It is boring to eat only meat, of course, but from nutritional perspective it looks less questionable than veggies.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:36 am
Love that, @ George Henderson. Think I’m going to use it in the future. I’m not totally anti Pollan–he has done a lot to steer people away from factory farmed meat and monocultured crops. And he is right that, in the absence of scientific information, what Grandma ate is a good guide–if one’s metabolism has not been broken. But we have scientific information–from GT, Atkins, Phinney, Wortman, etc. So we don’t need to use Pollan as a guide.
REPLY
Drew @ WIllpower Is For Fat People says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm
I’ve been waiting to see what you’d say about this one. And I’m not disappointed.
I’m hoping you might have pointers to some good references for diet compliance. I’ve been searching for weeks and can’t find any good statistics for how many people stick with different diets, how often the diets are effective, and total weight loss.
The A TO Z addresses the outcomes; are you aware of any that address compliance and effectiveness in a non-clinical setting?
REPLY
Bawdy says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:00 am
I’ve been wondering about this, too. I just finished reading Primal Body, Primal Mind by Nora Gedgaudas. In the foreword written by Brent Pottenger is a reference to the psychological concept of “overshadowing.” He writes that overshadowing “occurs when the initial stimulus is so strong that it blocks the perception of a second, downstream effect. For example, when people drink a soda, the initial stimulus from the sugar is so great that it overshadows the energy crash and feelings of poor health that follow shortly after consumption. In this way, overshadowing inhibits people from responding appropriately to the poisons they ingest and inhibits their ability to learn via conditioning degrade as a result.”
Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find the discussion of this in the book. I was hoping to learn some new coping mechanisms or something that would help me make better choices. I don’t have an issue avoiding sugars, starches, or grains, but I do like a “wee nip o’ the Irish” in the evenings. If I have one, I’m fine. If I have two, I’ll fall asleep with no problem but then wake up at 1:30 or 2:00 am and not be able to fall asleep again until around 4:30 am.
And yet, does knowing this stop me from having that second drink? Uh, no. It’s the classic example of the initial stimulus blocking perception of the second, downstream effect.
As I said the other day to someone, “Why do I do what I do when I know what I know?” It’s the ultimate disconnect.
REPLY
Mason McClellan, LAc says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Thanks Gary, I hope one day the Nobel crowd will acknowledge your efforts and contribution to the world of science and obesity research!
REPLY
Elenor says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:37 am
The heck with Nobel (well, okay, in *addition* to the Nobel….), Gary should get a McArthur Genius Grant! (Higher prize money…. and does he ever deserve it!)
Bravo Gary — excellent, amazing, wonderful essay — as always!
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:05 am
Not to criticize Gary; he’s worthy of the award. I just think Gary should share it with other intellectual giants: Denise Minger, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, Dr. Richard Fineman, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Stephen Finney, and probably a few others I can’t think of at the moment.
REPLY
Paula says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Hi jake3_14! Just so people don’t miss him due to the spelling error, I have to point out it’s Richard Feiman – Richard D. Feinman no less with a great blog at rdfeinman.wordpress.com. He is very funny. Also, tho it will dilute the award monetarily, let’s divvy up a bit for the Drs. Eades (Mike and Mary Dan) and Mark Sisson. And what about Richard Bernstein?
REPLY
Sue says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:55 am
Speaking of intellectual giants, make sure to read what Denise Minger wrote about this study on Mark’s Daily Apple (dated March 14), too–eye-opening, funny, witty.
REPLY
Mary says:
March 14, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Thanks for the post Gary. When I heard the NPR story on this article I thought — sounds like a bunch of epidemiologists published a paper. Then, I kept hitting your blog looking for your commentary. The work you have done to shed light on the poor science around nutrition is having an effect — I have anecdotal evidence. ;-D The commercial from a local supermarket that is going to label shelves for carb-smart food. The people in my daily life I run into who are avoiding carbs. The number of low or no carb choices in the supermarket or at a restaurant. It will be interesting to see what the “recommended diet” is in 5 or 10 years…
REPLY
Sam says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Thanks Gary for another great post; Just another biased “study” meat is evil; from the usual suspects. Making scientific inferences from large retrospective studies using the p-value is not the best way to evaluate the evidence. Steve Goodman, professor of biostats and oncology at Johns Hopkins makes that point in this paper:
http://www.annals.org/content/130/12/995.abstract
REPLY
G-man says:
March 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I’m currently reading Robb Wolf’s book, “the Paleo Solution, the Original Human Diet.” Much of what he says coincides with your findings. My one concern/question is whenever he mentions meat, he specifically states “lean” meat. He states to stay away from eggs if you have autoimmunity issues. What is your take on this and in general, Mr. Wolf’s approach and recommendations?
REPLY
Robert M says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:38 am
You should listen to Robb Wolfs latest pod cast. He goes into the reasons he suggests lean meats in his book. It basically boils down to not wanting to scare people off, he wants to reach as many people as possible and get them hooked before they’re introduced to the suggestion that fatty meat is not something to avoid. Not sure I agree with the approach tbh.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:54 am
I like Robb Wolfe, but I think he’s wrong on this one. Rational people can be very easily and quickly persuaded to lose their fear of fat when presented with the proper scientific evidence. I was. On the other hand, eating lean meat, even if you’re eating Paleo, is an invitation to either get too much protein or continue to eat too many carbs from potatoes and such. There are non grain sources of carbs. And if you go low carb and low fat, that’s dangerous and the very people whom he is trying to convince to go Paleo may soon quit because they don’t feel good/have enough energy with all that protein.
REPLY
Steak & eggs says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:18 am
Robb wolf using the term “Lean Meats” is just a ploy. He doesent want to scare off fat fobic people who have been following the SAD. Listen to his latest podcast and he explains it better than I. bacon = awesome
REPLY
Steak & eggs says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:20 am
Robert beat me to the punch!
REPLY
Todd says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:23 am
G man, go to Robb’s website and listen to his latest podcast. Or read the transcript. He addresses this issue in question number 7. He actually doesn’t have a problem with fatty cuts of meat. But, his main objective is to get people off of grains, vegetable oils, sugars, packaged food, etc. He fears that if he also tells people (at least in the beginning) that eating fat is healthy, it will be too much of a “shock” for people to accept and they won’t give it a try. Here are some quotes:
“it’s so easy to disseminate information that it’s
easy to then create the firewall that is so complex that then people just
bail and they’re done. That’s where the lean meat part comes in. People
in the beginning need to hear lean meat. They just do because if they
don’t, they’re going to freak out. They’re going to be like, “Oh, it’s
Atkins,” and they’re gone.
So what this is, is just learning over the course of time to tell people what
they need to hear so that we get them bought in long enough so that
their life is transformed. Then we can say, “Oh, by the way, the real story
is this.” Like, “You don’t have to worry so much. You can have bacon with
breakfast, and it’s not going to be the end of the world. That’s all cool.” If
we lead with that, we’re not going to get any type of buy in. We’re going
to peel people out and it’s not going to serve them in the long run.”
…
“That’s why I still say lean meat because when you think about
the people entering the site, they need to hear these things because they
need to be pacified long enough to be able to buy in enough. To be able
to make some progress and it kind of sucks. I’m definitely iconoclastic
about some things, but I’ve just learned over the course of time that
you’ve got to tell people what they want to hear long enough to actually
get them what they want. Even though the route that they used to get
there isn’t necessarily the one that they thought it was going to be.”
REPLY
Todd says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:24 am
Doh! Beat me to the punch too!
REPLY
elton says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I don’t know anything about Robb, but there is a danger of getting too much protein if you only consume large amounts of Lean Meat. I would be careful as a lot people may have issues with too much protein and not enough fat.
REPLY
G-man says:
March 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Thanks to all who replied to my inquiry. Makes me feel better about having my bacon with eggs. LOL Seriously, I’m sold on what Gary Taubes has to say and so far (if any of you have read Robb Wolf’s book) I like what Mr. Wolf has to say as well and good to see they’re not in contradiction. It appears Mr. Wolf too talks about the influence of carbs on hormones. He does take it a step farther with the exercise component and seems to be even a bit more restrictive diet-wise than Gary.
REPLY
David Pryor says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:16 am
I’m sorry I cannot remember the exact quote, or source, but I think there is another reason Robb Wolf discusses “lean” red meats. If you are not buying grass-fed meat, the FAT of the feed-lot animals you are eating is going to have a less-than-optimal content of “bad” fats, hormones, and other dietary hazards. Under those conditions, you are better off getting your fat calories from things like coconut oil, avocadoes, etc.
REPLY
Mloader says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:09 am
This type of work is having an effect, no doubt. Ten years ago all fat was bad now they are hanging on to saturated fat as a killer. We have “healthy picks” food labels at our cafeteria at work and the hard boiled eggs are tagged. Ten years ago, you would never have seen that.
It is interesting to me that many people who are champions of dietary fat, and are also interested in science, cite so much of Gary’s work. And they will say they became enlightened in mid 2000′s right around the time Gary started getting the word out.
I think the reason Gary’s work isn’t having a larger impact is he offers information, not a product. People want to work 40 hours a day and use the money they earn to solve other issues. He isn’t selling a box or a diet plan, nor should he. Every time I evangelize his work, people always say ‘what can I eat?’ and I tell them the most important part is knowing why, not what or how. If you only know the how without the why, it really is not meaningful.
On the other hand, this kind of stuff is useful, it is inspiring to see all the responses. One quote I saw on Twitter was great:
@terrysimpson:
@MloaderGraphics the only way red meat will kill you is if it is alive and bigger, faster and hungry – oh, and also eats red meat
REPLY
Kuma says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:14 am
Spot on! I love that quote you found too, @MloaderGraphics the only way red meat will kill you is if it is alive and bigger, faster and hungry – oh, and also eats red meat.
REPLY
Hillary Anderson says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:45 am
Somebody needs to make a bumper sticker with this quote and I want one! or maybe I will market it myself. Love it!
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:57 am
Me, too!
REPLY
J. Stanton says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:31 am
I hope it’s not pedantic to point out that, in addition to all the other problems of epidemiology Gary has mentioned, the reported food intake data from the Nurses’ Health Study is not just suspected to be shaky — it’s been studied, validated, and found to be almost completely unrelated to actual food intake.
Specifically, for unprocessed animal meat, the data is anywhere from 1.5% to 15% accurate…i.e. worthless. Furthermore, the intake of foods thought to be healthy was dramatically exaggerated, and the intake of foods thought to be unhealthy was dramatically underreported.
“Always Be Skeptical Of Nutrition Headlines: What Pan et.al Really Tells Us”
JS
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:32 am
I don’t understand what this “Food-based validation of a dietary questionnaire” analysis was comparing the FFQ to — was it another self-reporting mechanism (“recorded their food consumption for seven consecutive days, four times during the one-year interval”)? If so, why would we expect the second questionnaire to be an accurate benchmark?
REPLY
J. Stanton says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Yes, the verification is still self-reported — the subjects themselves measured the foods they were eating. This is clearly far more accurate than simply mailing in a survey once every four years that asks “On average, what did you eat last year?” However, you’re correct that the act of self-reporting still changes one’s habits, usually for the better: if we know we’ll have to write down that we ate a whole tub of ice cream, we’re less likely to actually do it. And, of course, we might just fudge the numbers or lie completely.
In conclusion, yes, a tiny 1.4%-15% correlation is the best possible case. The reality is probably even worse.
JS
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:54 am
J Stanton writes:
This is clearly far more accurate than simply mailing in a survey once every four years that asks “On average, what did you eat last year?”
We could only wish that the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was that open-ended and even-handed… Denise Minger supplied a link to the FFQ http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/questionnaires/pdfs/NHSI/2002.PDF and what ;lea[t straight out at me were leading questions like “What brand and type of cold breakfast cereal do you usually eat?” and “What form of margarine do you usually use?”… not even do you eat these items but straight to what brand?!?
REPLY
Stipetic says:
March 15, 2012 at 2:25 am
Attaboy, Gary.
REPLY
Alan Sausse says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:08 am
Gary – an outstanding article. I think you’ve pretty much put this one to bed, and plenty of other nutrition-based scare stories with it. Thanks and best wishes from Merrie England.
REPLY
mark glen says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:16 am
Rhetorical question: Is it more likely a study will be swayed in favor of a meat diet by the 99% of the population and industries that stands to gainfrom meat consumption OR is it more likely a study wlil be swayed against meat because someone cares about animals or wants to gain attention?
REPLY
Lanie says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:06 am
Nice post, Gary. Thanks for your quick response to this media hype.
REPLY
Mike says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:26 am
Great job on the interview with Tom Woods. Thanks!
REPLY
Andrea Hilborn ND says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:16 am
Alas, it would be more convenient for me as a healthcare provider making nutrition recommendations if I could just go with the crowd.
Instead I will tweet your article and hope my colleagues read it and do not make a complaint against me to my Board.
Thank you!
REPLY
Thor Falk says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:00 am
Great article! You forgot two points though (or were you just being nice?)
(1) The people at Harvard are not generally stupid, and what you have explained here is really statistics and scientific reasoning 101 – there is no way this did not come up in their own studies (and if it did not, someone would by now have explained it to them); on the other hand there is “publish or perish” – who would accept a paper that says “there is an association between red meat and mortality, but we think it is because of the Girl Scout effect
(2) if you throw enough hypothesis at a given set of data, some will always be statistically significant; by definition, if you test 100 “random” hypothesis, then 5 out of them will be “statistically significant (at the 95 level)”, meaning five papers that can be written
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Answer to #1: There was barely any association between red meat and mortality. There’s more association, frankly, between being born and mortality. A lot, lot more.
And that should take care of #2.
Criminey, man… there’s more of a connection between wheat and mortality, as shown in the China Study data (see also Denise Minger). How many Harvard experts do you see telling us all to ditch wheat?
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Re: point 2.
When significance is set at 95% (alpha = 0.05), it is a statement regarding type I error; that is, rejecting the null hypothesis when it should not be rejected.
More accurately, when the SAME hypothesis is tested 100 times, the true relationship will be divulged about 95 times and a false conclusion will be made about 5 times.
ie.
hypothesis: smoking causes lung cancer
therefore, null hypothesis: smoking is not the cause of lung cancer
(for the purposes of this example, let’s say the true relationship reflects our hypothesis: smoking causes lung cancer)
when the same study is repeated 100 times, the true relationship (causative) will be concluded about 95 times and the false relationship (not causative) will be concluded about 5 times.
It is not practical to repeat an experiment 100 times, so in any ONE study that (correctly) concludes that smoking causes lung cancer, it is understood that there’s a 5% chance that the conclusion is incorrect.
Not all significant research is published. Specifically, research performed in industry as opposed to academia.
REPLY
Chris Beeby says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:08 am
Hi Gary
I’ve long been a fan of yours.
It occurred to me some years ago that our current “obesity epidemic” started at approximately the same time that high-carb, low-fat diets became the orthodoxy.
It also occurs to me that a cheapish experiment could be conducted with pigs rather than humans as the subjects. Am I not right in thinking that pigs (like humans) are omnivores and in many ways biologically very similar to humans – so much so that (if memory serves) heart valves from swine were once considered possibly suitable for transplantation into people? The results of feeding high-carb diets to one group of porkers and high animal fat diets to another might be instructive, though not, of course, conclusive.
Keep up the good work!
Chris
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
I believe that experiment has been done, though not exactly in a laboratory, @Chris. They used to feed pigs coconut oil in the hopes of fattening them up. Instead, they got lean and now they feed them coconut oil when they want a source of lean meat for all the fat phobes. When they want to fatten them up, they feed them corn and soy.
REPLY
Tracy says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:21 am
Thank you for this, Gary. My local news reported on this ‘study’, and interviewed 2 nutritionists for the supporting side – and not one for the dissenting view. For that, they interviewed people on the street about how much they liked meat (and eating crap from food trucks)… basically, making it seem like scientists etc know the truth, but regular folk are rebellious know-nothings who are going to do what we want regardless, and that’s why we’re all so damn fat and unhealthy.
My n=1 tells me otherwise.
REPLY
Anthony from TheKetogenicDiet.org says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:30 am
So glad you decided to put out this article, Gary. This is exactly what I was waiting for. I’ve been telling everyone I’ve talked to that this “study” holds no water and is nothing to be concerned about. Finally I have a legitimate resource to reference. Thanks again!
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:51 am
That’s a joke, right?
If I post my opinion on johnmiklavcic.com, it is the furthest thing from legitimate. It is 100% subjective.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Except that what Gary has posted above is not just his personal (subjective) opinion but things that are verifiable by independent (objective) 3rd party sources — several of which he has already detailed.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Are you referring to 3 of the citations in the article that HE authored?
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
No, I’m not
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm
In all of my future writings, I can cite my own articles indefinitely from http://www.sweatrxmag.com and I’d be infinitely correct.
Mark Weaver says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:48 am
Exactly right, Gary, thank you! And right on about the “no amount of ‘correcting’ for BMI and blood pressure… can correct for this.” Nassim Taleb said “Multiple regression is plain, dressed up bullsh*t.” As a PhD-level statistician (but one who actually understands the true values of randomization), I completely agree. And if multiple regression is bad, “time-dependent proportional hazards” regression is even worse. If people knew the assumptions behind this method, they’d realize how insane these models are, coupled with the fact that they’re almost always, *virtually 100% of the time*, done incorrectly! Sheesh.
REPLY
Mark Weaver says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:49 am
Sorry, should have made it clear that the time-dependent PH models are what were used in the Willet paper.
REPLY
Agentzero says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:23 am
Do the authors of these papers ever make their underlying calculations available? Shouldn’t they have to, so that other statisticians can examine their work? If they don’t, should we give their conclusions any more weight than “because I said so”?
REPLY
Mark Weaver says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:33 am
Agentzero,
Great questions, here are my personal answers: not often, yes, and it wouldn’t really matter too much because it’s still an observational study… regardless of who does the calculations, hypothesis generation should be the name of the game.
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:46 am
Mark,
You should team up with Denise Minger to co-author more critiques. It’s always wonderful to have people who can explain the statistics to those of us who don’t have the training to understand the raw information.
REPLY
BlueEyesSf says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:00 am
This is great GB but the elephant in the room is Marion Nestle’s new book “proving” CI/CO. No one has th guts or ability to take that one on. These bad studies are easily attacked. Marion’s the real deal. Can anyone take her down? If not, the insulin hypothesis will truly be dead.
REPLY
Adam says:
March 15, 2012 at 11:23 am
BlueEyes,
You’re right. CI/CO is the enemy not only of the insulin hypothesis but also of humankind. Unless/until the Calorie Wizards’ spell is broken, America is doomed.
It’s high time that all of us who care about good health and justice coalesce around Taubes’ idea that our problem is Overstoring not Overeating. It’s a simple mantra. Arguably as simple as “Eat less exercise more.”
We need “simple smart” to fight “simple stupid.” So say it with me now, everyone!
It’s Overstoring, Not Overeating
It’s Overstoring, Not Overeating
It’s Overstoring, Not Overeating
IONO not CICO!
REPLY
Chris H says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:39 am
Adam,
Spot on. Very much agree we need a snappy response and this is great.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
I like it Adam. ONO!
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
Oops. I mean IONO.
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Marion’s a human being with letters after her name. I don’t care about human beings with letters after their names. I care about the words said human beings are speaking. If the words can be independently tested and verified, fine. If not, no amount of alphabet soup after one’s name ought to save one’s career.
Marion’s gone around telling people it’s fine to be vegan if you’re an adult. I can think of four vitamins off the top of my head that you absolutely positively cannot get on a vegan diet, which should have laid veganism to rest a long, long time ago, but some people can’t let go of the notion that a diet *requiring* vitamin supplementation to avoid *death from deficiency* could be anything but healthy.
That’s pretty much becoming my gold standard. If veganism is OK with you (and by “OK with you” I mean you’re going around saying it’s healthy, *ever*–I wouldn’t outlaw veganism, if you want to adopt a dumb diet then that’s your business) then I pretty much dismiss anything else you’ve got to say unless you can back it up with good science. You could tell me the sky’s blue at noon on a cloudless day and I think I’d have to go outside and see for myself.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:12 am
Agreed, @Dana. 100%.
REPLY
Jim Bowron says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:19 am
GT does not dispute that you will gain weight if you input more calories than you expend- his issue is that you have to go to the next step, and find out why you are inputting more calories. His basic position, as I understand it, is that because insulin blocks export of fat stores from cells, when your body burns all the ‘fuel’ from the carbohydrates that you just ate, it goes looking for more energy sources. Since it can’t access fat stores, your cells demands more fuel, and thus you overeat.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
Yes, @Jim Brown, and Marion Nestle doesn’t do that next step. She thinks that it doesn’t matter where the calories come from–at least according to her blog. I haven’t read the book. Yet. Don’t know that I won’t, but if I do, I will read it with skepticism engendered by reading the works of GT, Drs. Eades, Phinney, Wortman, Attia, and others.
REPLY
Stephen Harris says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:46 am
What’s CI/CO?
REPLY
Michael says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:17 am
Calories in/ calories out
REPLY
mhanch says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:26 am
Thanks for the write-up Gary. This has been a hot-button issue and it, as always, is great to hear your take on the issue.
REPLY
Matthew @ Fig & Fork says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:53 am
I appreciate the both sides offered on this topic. I enjoyed reading the depth of this.
REPLY
Fritz Ziegler says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:03 am
Thank you for this, Gary. I feel better. The popular reporting about nutritional received wisdom is so against low-carb-high-fat eating that I need constant reminders, even though my personal N=1 experiment has been going so well since I read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” more than three years ago.
What distinguishes your work is the lack of nihilism. You point out the problems with nutritional “science” while showing the way to good science. It’s like the difference between PBS NewsHour and all the network news shows. You and Jim Lehrer give me hope.
Fritz
REPLY
Matt Taylor says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:40 am
This flawed observational epidemiology remind me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Sir Belvedere teaches the villagers how to tell if a women is a witch:
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: …because they’re made of… wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!… It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: …Exactly. So, logically…
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore…
Peasant 2: …A witch!
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Witch: It’s a fair cop…
REPLY
Mike says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:48 am
Epidemiology studies smell a lot like looking for Bible codes or stock-picking schemes. Past results are not indicative of future returns.
REPLY
Jose Marti says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:59 am
Great post.A lot of the problems with these Studies is that they always fail to isolate an independent variable,in this case meat eating,and then test it.I wonder how difficult or costly would be to do an experiment like the one done on Stefansson in 1928.Pick 50 subjects,preferably with Metabolc Syndrome,measure all Health Indicators and then put them in a controlled environment eating meat and fat only for say six months.Experiments like that would go a long way to shed light upon all these nutritional issues.And the cost would certainly be within the range of the Major Universities and Research Centres.
REPLY
jake3_14 says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
“I wonder how difficult or costly would be to do an experiment like the one done on Stefansson in 1928.”
Very difficult and extremely costly. In addition, there would be political penalties and a loss of future funding for reporting the truth. That’s why no major institution does experiments like these. Gary and Dr. Peter Attia are trying to get funding for their NuSi Institute, which will do good experiments on a smaller scale.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm
In Stefansson’s case didn’t he get backing from the Meat Packers? Along with the strict caveat that they would have no say in the study design etc… ?
REPLY
tess says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:03 am
It occurs to me that, by Medawar/Popper standards, Guyenet is NOT “DOING” SCIENCE AT ALL. He certainly isn’t paying attention to arguments which knock holes in his HYPOTHESIS (because it hasn’t been tested properly, it can’t be the “theory” that so many people label it)….
REPLY
Donna E says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:16 am
Terrific arguments, Gary, as always. But I sure would like to know what you think of Ajit Varki et.al.’s research on neu5gc: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596253/?tool=pubmed
REPLY
Exceptionally Brash says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:17 am
Uh oh, I am going to probably drop dead soon, I haven’t been all that good about listening to my doctor lately. He wants me to eat less, move more, and cut out the saturated fats! Thank you!
REPLY
John Bailey says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:31 am
Gary, I am a N=1 experiment. In March 2011 I beagen to reduce carbs and increased red meats.
During this last year, there were no other key lifetsyle changes. Due to back pain, overall I exercised somewhat less. Here are the results one year later:
Weight: From 199 lbs to 176 lbs; my doctor says I should be no more than 185 lbs. Average since 2000 was 193 lbs.
Blood Pressure: 130/85, normal, same as since 2000;
HDL: up to 2.17 from 1.63 ; report says that ideal HDL is more than 1.6.
LDL: 1.91, unchanged;
Triglycerides; decreased signficantly , from 1.87 down to 0.54, half the level of the average since 2000.
My doctor’s report says that “cardiac aerobic exercise and certain medications increase HDL”. I had neither.
I believe your book indicated that fatty meats may increase good cholesterol – HDL. This is what happened to me. I also believe many think that waist size for men and HDL are two strong indicatos of healthiness. All of my wieght loss was from my gut, and I have dropped 4-5 inches in waist size.
I hope my experiment can help your arguments about red meats and carbs.
REPLY
Katie P says:
March 15, 2012 at 10:10 am
We eat mostly red meat in our house. My husband recently had his blood work done and his cholesterol is 110, triglycerides are on the very low end of normal/healthy, his blood pressure is right where it needs to be and his doctor says he has the healthiest heart he’s ever seen! My numbers are similar to his. We don’t eat fast food, however, don’t smoke, drink rarely and exercise every day. The red meat we do eat is lean and we always balance our meals. Lots of fruits and vegetables too. We don’t eat any synthetic food or processed food. Just what nature gives us, including copious amounts of red meat.
REPLY
Stephanie says:
March 15, 2012 at 10:11 am
Or, as I put it:
surveys+statistics NOT=science.
Interesting post as always. I wish the media would report that these same “scientists” were the ones who told us to take HRT to prevent heart attacks! WTF Harvard, get some standards!
REPLY
Sue says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Thanks for your tell it like it is insights! Over the years I’ve worked for a couple of marketing research companies and I can tell you first hand that studies that have people filling out lengthy questionnaires are notoriously flawed! Especially the kind that are done at home and mailed in over long periods of time. I could spend the next several hours stating all the ways these studies are flawed and still wouldn’t even scratch the surface.
You need to keep reminding people that these studies are based on just such questionnaires. Until people really get it drummed into their heads that THIS ISN’T SCIENCE, they will keep being led like sheep to believe almost anything an observational study tells them to believe….as long as it’s in the media of course, because if it’s in the media it must be true!!!! Keep telling it like it is Gary!
REPLY
fred hahn says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Good one Gary.
REPLY
Greg says:
March 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Thanks for a great post Gary. I do have some issue with your assertion that seems to imply that the only good science comes from a type of Popperian falsification. Granted, the study in question is BAD science, but it is a form of science nonetheless. As you say, even an N=1 offers some form of data that adds knowledge. We just must understand its limits–as the authors of the Harvard study did not!
REPLY
Stabby says:
March 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Brilliant article, thanks for this. And the first part of Good Calories Bad Calories. Debunking bad methods as it pertains to nutrition research is where you shine. Possible confounding factors that Walter Willet would agree absolutely influence mortality:
Trans fat intake. Is the meat coming from a grass-fed rancher or from Mcdonalds? The latter has partially-hydrogenated oils. But these studies don’t even try to control for trans fats and I’m skeptical of their ability to do it even if they tried.
Cooking intensity: Meat that is cooked too much is carcinogenic. Is it reasonable to believe that those eating the most red meat are also going to have the highest intake of heat-formed mutagens and toxins, which can probably be tied to any degenerative disease? I’d say so. But this isn’t a criticism of meat, per se. Just the technique used to prepare it.
Drug use: Okay it’s not polite to talk about it but isn’t it a factor in mortality? Is this controlled for at all? Sure it is probably associated with non-compliance to the government-knows-best program but to try to say that it is accounted for when we control for whole grains and exercise is going to be inaccurate.
I’m sure we could sit around and come up with more. But will we ever be able to accurately control for all of this? If you think people are inaccurate about their meat intake (which they are) then just think of how much they will tuck their drug intake into the back of their minds.
Oh well, we do have controlled trials and actual knowledge. And we have Gary Taubes and some other good minds
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Until they control for every other factor that is known to lead to early mortality I’m not even going to try to surmise what in red meat could be cutting lifespans short. We’ve been eating red meat for a good couple million years now and, until the advent of agriculture, it was accidents and infections killing us early, not our diets.
By the way, because you’ll hear this at some point and it might freak you out, there are trans fats in red meat whether it’s cooked at McDonald’s or not. Trans fats that occur naturally in beef and dairy are actually good for you. Conjugated linoleic acid is one of them and there’s another whose name I have not yet committed to memory. But the press is reporting that they are implicated in *decreasing* heart disease and type 2 diabetes risk–which is *odd*, given their other brash statement that red meat kills you.
As for nitrates in processed meat, those exist in vegetables too. They’re thought to be one reason vegetable-eating reduces your blood pressure. Uncomfortable implications for eating processed meats, if so. I just don’t worry about it, especially given that processed meats are more likely to contain organ meats, which most of us don’t eat at all anymore and which have been keeping human beings healthy for a very long time now.
REPLY
Stabby says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Yep I’m familiar with CLA. It does seem to combat cancer and heart disease in the lab, although that isn’t necessarily an argument for red meat if this association actually represents the truth. It could be that the CLA in meat is beneficial but just not as good as red meat is bad. I doubt it, though. Grassfed meat has a lot more of it so whether or not the beef that most Americans eat is protective or not, grassfed meat would be expected to be better.
Nitrites are indeed present in vegetables, however I think that there is an important distinction but an easy solution. Vegetables have vitamin c which if present facilitates the reduction of nirites to nitric oxide rather than what they would end up otherwise, the damaging nitrosamines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1860156
Thinking about it we might be able to say that bacon + an orange is a more heart-healthy breakfast than an orange alone!
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:22 am
Actually, I think it’s nitrites that exist in vegetables, more than nitrates.
REPLY
Josef Boberg says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Wi have to eat “real food” to feel good – as I see it.
REPLY
Melinda S says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Another plausible explanation, that goes along well with your point about not being able to compare the groups well, would be that many people who eat the standard American diet eat almost no vegetables and little fruit. Compared to vegetarians, they might actually fare worse. But that is not necessarily the meat’s fault.
REPLY
Dana says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:46 pm
The Inuit also ate almost no vegetables or fruit on their traditional diet. I don’t think the lack of plant foods is the problem. It *is* worth noting that people who eat red meat are also very likely to eat more refined carbs such as hamburger buns, French fries and potato chips. They’re probably also more likely to smoke.
REPLY
LowCarbGran says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:47 am
Yes indeed Dana. And Cokes, 7Up and sweet sauces. To not measure these burger-variables means they cannot be controlled for. To then say that “..we have controlled for all other variables..” is outrageous. This “study” stinks. Because 50% of red US meat is consumed as burgers the study actually measured the (diluted) effect of junkfood on health. Junkfood, the worst known offender was not controlled for or even mentioned in spite of it significant prevalence in possibly 50% of the red meat consumed.
But to mix variables is a well used trick by so called “scientists” that produced this study, or its conclusions. I call them charlatans.
REPLY
mezzo says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:35 am
And why are they more likely to smoke and have other unfortunate habits? Because as long as red meat is demonized only people who like to misbehave will eat substantial quantities of. People who try to lead a so-called “clean” life usually try to eat mostly vegetarian, will not smoke and try to exercise regularly. Had this study been conducted in, say, Argentina, where a meal without red meat is not seen as a proper meal the outcomes might have been mighty different.
REPLY
Tony M says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Gary – this is exactly what you shuld be doing more of on your blog. I get it that you want to be careful and considered, but it’s a blog, not an academic paper. It’s invaluable to have you delvier your insight when the discussion is current. Thank you.
REPLY
Nathan Ton says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Gary Tabes thanks for the informative email Ive had lots of Co-worker telling me I’m going to DIE! I’m hardcore Meat Eater I eat almost exclusivley meat/fat/cheese in that order. I’m a machine lean strong could not feel better Thanks for your books I wish I could pass on the message as you have….. Almost nobody wants to listen its very sad state we live in.
REPLY
Tom Bunnell says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:28 am
“I have found the “devil”. Genuinely. — I know that you don’t believe that. Nobody does. — It’s the “adrenaline like effects” of sugars and hybrid carbohydrates”. This is the devil, for sure and for true. — My discovery, I share with you. Thank you.
-Tom Bunnell
REPLY
Lolly McIver says:
March 16, 2012 at 6:22 am
I’m so thankful that you are obsessive about this issue.
REPLY
Tom Bunnell says:
March 16, 2012 at 7:19 am
Yes, Thank you. Little did we know..
REPLY
Emily says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:28 am
Awe Gary!
Your writing makes it look like an epidemiologist ran over your dog.
In case you haven’t read it, the original article is here: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287 . I think your issue is with the media portrayal of the study, which gave it a causal spin (nowhere in the article does it claim causality). Epidemiologists are well aware of the strengths and limitations of their tools, and discussion is generally restricted within those confines. Often the interpretation of results can be confused/sensationalized by people external to the field. I think you might have meant to aim your lengthy diatribe towards them.
….but wait, that sounds very familiar. Someone who is external to the field but who communicates broadly with the public, putting their spin on things…..ah now I see why you’ve chosen to criticize the scientists rather than the media.
REPLY
Agentzero says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:41 am
Emily,
Perhaps you did not read the article. For your convenience, I excerpt below the phrases in which the authors let slip that they have confused correlation with causation:
“the adverse effect of red meat intake on mortality risk;” “we could not assess whether lean meat has the same health risks as meat with higher fat content;” “the additional harm of processed meats;” “replacement of red meat with alternative healthy dietary components may lower the mortality risk.”
In other words, while the authors (mostly) speak in terms of correlation, they are not consistent about it, and I have no doubt that they believe — and want their readers to believe — they have identified a causal link.
Did you notice the paragraph in the article in which the authors state that they have only observed a correlation and that experiments would be warranted to attempt to determine whether there is a causal relationship? Me neither … it isn’t there.
REPLY
GT says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:46 am
Hi Emily,
Regrettably, and not surprisingly. I disagree with you. Here’s the last line of the abstract: “We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.” If that isn’t an implication of causality, I don’t know what is. Yes, they’re not saying this would happen, only that it could, but they shouldn’t even be doing this. At best they should be suggesting that tests be done to check this hypothesis. And, yes, the journalists are to blame as well, but if the journals didn’t put out press releases, if the universities didn’t put out press releases, and if the researchers refused to speak to the journalists, the journalists would not be able to over-interpret the data and would have little motivation to do so. I discussed this point in my Science article back in the mid-1990s. The epidemiologists would like to blame it on the press coverage, but they’re pushing this stuff as well. So, yes, I’m external to the field, but that doesn’t make my criticisms invalid. And when I do criticize in these articles, I’m only echoing the better researchers in the field and giving voice to their criticisms.
A last note, after I wrote the NYT Magazine article in 2007, I was invited out to Berkeley to lecture at the School of Public Health and also to meet with the epidemiology doctoral students for two hours, no other faculty present. The students gave me a list of questions they were going to ask in advance about the NYTM article. One of them, perhaps the only serious criticism of the article, was why did I focus the article on the Nurses’ Health Study and the Harvard group because “everyone knows they’re terrible.” (This is being recalled from memory after four-plus years, so that quote may not be verbatim but it’s certainly close.) My response when I met with the students in Berkeley was that it’s not good enough in a functioning field of science to know other researchers are terrible. Researchers have to police their own fields. They have to weed out the, well, weeds. And so they had to expose the bad science of the Harvard group and get them out of the field. I don’t know how that would be done, but I think about it a lot.
gt
REPLY
Mark Weaver says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Emily,
Agentzero and Gary already replied more than adequately to your comment, but I’ll just add that if that phoney baloney, piss poor methodology “substitution association” analysis that they did wasn’t aimed at causality, then what was its purpose? If you substitute one thing for another (which is exactly the kind of manipulation that one would assess within a randomized trial), then how much longer will you live… that’s obviously all about causality even if they play with words like “association” within the manuscript. Yes, the reporting was overblown, but the “research” was complete garbage in the first place.
REPLY
Stipetic says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:10 am
This is a quote from the New York Times’ article about them deadly red meat:
“When you have these numbers in front of you, it’s pretty staggering,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of medicine at Harvard.
I mean, what is the public, or anyone for that matter, suppose to make of this? Just sayin’.
REPLY
Natalie says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:31 am
Perhaps the compliance effect is not anything in particular that the ‘Girl Scouts’ do – but rather, the fact that Girl Scouts believe they have the power to improve their health. Studies on well-being would indicate that people – children, pregnant women, pensioners, etc. – do better when they are more involved in processes and have more responsibility. Remember the nursing home studies that found giving patients a potted plant to care for seemed to be correlated with better health? Maybe compliance effect measures the same thing – not only do ‘Girl Scouts’ care about their health, but they believe it is in their power to do something about it (as opposed to feeling overwhelmed and helpless).
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 11:42 am
Gary suggests that compliance is an issue is observational studies. This is a misplaced critique. Compliance, by definition, cannot be an issue in retrospective observational studies since there is no intervention; there is no treatment or placebo group that requires a protocol in which to adhere.
The intervention that Gary suggests does not adequately test whether a diet high in red meat impacts mortality. He suggests a study in which one group is randomized to high meat, and the other to low meat, high vegetables, and high whole grains. The objective of science is to test one independent variable only, but there are 3 variables which have been altered (meat, vegetables, grains). Gary’s study design has introduced confounders- and in his article, Gary also suggests that no amount of correction can adequately adjust for confounders in studies. Gary’s logic is paradoxical. As such, the conclusion of such a study would not definitely ascertain whether red meat is a culprit. If the high red meat group was found to have increased mortality upon completion of the study, interpretations could include that diet high in phytonutrients or fibre decreases mortality, since the comparison group was consuming more vegetables and whole grain. Another issue is that the composition of protein, fat and carbohydrate is radically different between both test groups. Therefore, one is not necessarily testing whether red meat consumption causes an increase in mortality, but whether higher protein and fat (characteristics of red meat) diet causes an increase in mortality.
There are ethics review panels needed for approval of research. Literature to date suggests that red meat is associated with increased mortality, therefore, no review panel will approve a research study that proposes intervention with high red meat content.
Gary critiques a (Harvard) study that measures mortality as the outcome. Gary addresses “successful” Atkins’ intervention studies which measure weight loss as an outcome. As weight correlates to obesity, this a measure of morbidity, not mortality. Apples and oranges. It is also important to note that in scientific literature, just about ANY diet intervention is successful in short-term, clinically-measured weight loss.
REPLY
Agentzero says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm
What John says Gary says:
” Gary addresses “successful” Atkins’ intervention studies which measure weight loss as an outcome.”
What Gary actually says:
“And when these experiments have been done, the meat-rich, bacon-rich Atkins diet almost invariably comes out ahead, not just in weight loss but also in heart disease and diabetes risk factors.”
Please try again.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Agentzero effectively supports my point. The focus of the article is a critique of a study in which the outcome is mortality. Gary’s suggestion to discern the true relationship between red meat consumption and mortality (death) is to “Do the experiments,” and Gary suggests “These experiments have effectively been done.” Yet he references (as Agentzero adequately cited above) a dietary invention which measures morbidity (weight, heart disease, diabetes) outcomes.
He is saying that these intervention studies address his perceived “flaw” or the (Harvard) study. Yet, he is looking a completely different outcome, morbidity instead of mortality.
REPLY
Sam says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm
To me all Gary is saying is common sense if health markers improve in these trials were meat is eaten, why meat will cause increase mortality.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:37 am
And does “morbidity” not affect “mortality”? Are you saying it’s not reasonable to assume that people with more morbidity will also have a higher rate of mortality? I think you’re reaching for straws and missing the overarching point of Gary’s analysis. There are many “studies” out there that equate increased morbidity with increased mortality. Sicker people do tend to die off sooner (of natural causes, I mean) than the healthy ones, no?
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The major cause of death in North America is heart disease, not natural causes.
Morbidity does not necessarily correlate with mortality; rather, there are varying associations. Inflammatory bowel diseases are a set of disorders characterized as a co-morbidity and very low mortality. Death rates between IBD patients and healthy individuals do not differ significantly.
Let’s look at the case of prostate cancer morbidity.
In an 11-year period, prostate cancer mortality is 107/100,000 afflicted persons (0.11%/11 years; Schroder et al. NEJM 2012. 366(11):981-90).
All-cause mortality rate for men in Canada is 748/100,000 (0.75%/year; StatsCanada, 2005). Over an 11-year period, that equates to 8228 deaths (748*11 = 8228). 107 of these deaths can be attributed to prostate cancer, meaning 8121 deaths are caused by something else (8228 – 107).
In the case of prostate cancer, there is a 76x greater chance (8121/76) of dying WITH prostate cancer than dying OF prostate cancer. I hope this helps answer your question above.
brittany says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Thanks Gary. You are always a trusted source of reason. I especially like this point “The hard part of science is left out and they skip straight to the endpoint, insisting that their interpretation of the association is the correct one and we should all change our diets accordingly.” How very true and very concerning.
REPLY
A Country Farmer says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Seems like there should be a 30 year, randomized trial study comparing the atkins vs USDA.
REPLY
Joshua Bey says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:37 pm
The compliance-effect is a good way to explain this. I’ve always called it the “Flanders” effect, which makes sense to any fan of The Simpsons out there:
“The family goes to the car wash to get rid of the dust, and when Homer is there, he sees that Ned Flanders gets a senior discount. At church, Flanders admits to Homer that he is sixty years old. After he is exposed by Homer in the church, Ned says that he follows the three “c”s of success: clean living, chewing thoroughly, and “a daily dose of vitamin Church!” However, he also has never lived impulsively, and never really had any fun in life. The rest of the town stops admiring Ned for living so well, and begins to pity him for having never truly lived at all.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Ned_Flanders
REPLY
jesse says:
March 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Hi Gary,
Appreciate the article, rushed as it was it was still valuable. For this particular set of cohorts is socioeconomic status a valid confounder? I thought they were all doctors and nurses.
Jesse
REPLY
Joe says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Just a few concerns:
- How could an RCT be done to study this exact question (to get individual level inference) ?
- These so-called girl scouts and truckers all graduated from either medical school or nursing school (and so obviously gave enough of a s**t about their health education to complete it, and also to show up for 20+ years follow-up for these studies). Although I am not naive enough to believe that this is a homogenous group (when it comes to lifestyle behaviors); I also don’t think that these 2 groups (meat eaters and non meat eaters) are incomparable.
- As the authors of the study pointed out, bias as a result of measurement error is likely towards the null (hence the 0.2 fold increase in risk is likely an underestimate). But even if it wasn’t an underestimate, considering the number of people who eat meat around the world, the implications are still huge!!
- Finally, Walter Willet is a scientist (perhaps the best nutritional epidemiologist in the world). He does research and puts himself out there. It is easy to shoot down his and others work, but can you design a better study?
Ultimately, red meat is one factor (out of about a billion) that exists in our world and that may or may not be associated with health. We shouldn’t be too quick to rush and alert the media (and the entire world) that eating red meat will kill them, but should remind them that: the poison is almost always in the dose!
REPLY
Heike T says:
March 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I have not heard of any studies that compare the impact grass-fed/grass-finished meat has on our health as opposed to the factory-farmed, antibiotic-laden, hormone-injected, pesticide and herbicide-containing, GMO-tainted garbage that is being sold as meat these days. It doesn’t need much genius to figure out that that kind of meat is the problem. Wouldn’t it be great if our mainstream media would occasionally show some remote capacity for critical thinking? Pink slime? You bet you will get chronically ill when eating that stuff. A ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s that is way out of proportion and contributes to high levels of inflammation? No CLA that typically can only be found in grass-fed beef and has been shown to have a role in reducing the risk for cancer? We are not talking about what nature has designed for us. It is not the nature of red meat that is to blame for disease; it is the man-made alteration, manipulation, and distortion of what should be a staple in our diet. Unfortunately, what is being called “science” these days is so heavily shaped by conflict of interest that I think it is high time that we start thinking on our own again and occasionally trust our own intuition again. On a different note, the whole cholesterol question is also a complete marketing ploy. Cholesterol is a symptom of an underlying condition your body is attempting to repair. To lower cholesterol means to interrupt a healing process. Wow, do we have it all backwards….
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Gary suggests that a 0.2-fold (20%) increase in mortality is too modest to warrant media attention. He also cites other epidemiologists who suggest that 3- to 4-fold (300-400%) differences also do no justify attention.
See the abstract of a study published in 1986: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2871418
Vitamin A intervention study was performed and it was found to decrease all-cause mortality by upwards of 34% in Sumatran children.
As concerned citizens of the world, we’d be unreasonable not to think that we should get vitamin A to kids in 3rd world countries. On the other hand, Gary and the epidemiologists he cites would consider this a small fold difference, not worthy to note.
Gary is quick to address limitations in methods of epidemiology, but doesn’t give credit to its strength as highlighted above. Small percentage (fold) differences mean monumental impact in huge populations where life and death are concerned.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I read that abstract as stating “…mortality in control villages … was 49% greater than in those where supplements were given”, so you are really just adding to my initial suspicions that you are either having trouble with reading comprehension or are being deliberately misleading.
The study you cite was a random controlled intervention trial (RCT) that set out to test a specific hypothesis (real science in other words) and apparently it did so.
On the other hand the retrospective observational study that triggered the discussion in this blog post was not even designed to test if red meat increases health risks… the best it could be used for would be to propose hypotheses that could then be tested in RCTs.
A 49% increased mortality in the control group for an RCT bears no comparison to an estimated 20% risk based on a four yearly questionnaire whicj has some very dubious data such as: the group with the lowest reported red meat consumption claiming an average of 1,200 calories per day — hard working nurses, on their feet for 12 hour shifts at 1,200 calories per day… seriously?
But nice tug at the heart strings ;-( those poor Sumatran children won’t convince me that read meat kills.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm
The start of the sentence you refer to says “at baseline.” That means before the intervention. Intervention with vitamin A decreased mortality.
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:34 pm
50 villages in northern Sumatra were randomly assigned to either participate in a vitamin A supplementation scheme (n = 229) or serve for 1 year as a control (n = 221). 25 939 preschool children were examined at baseline and again 11 to 13 months later. Capsules containing 200 000 IU vitamin A were distributed to preschool children aged over 1 year by local volunteers 1 to 3 months after baseline enumeration and again 6 months later. Among children aged 12-71 months at baseline, mortality in control villages (75/10 231, 7.3 per 1000) was 49% greater than in those where supplements were given (53/10 919, 4.9 per 1000) (p less than 0.05). The impact of vitamin A supplementation seemed to be greater in boys than in girls. These results support earlier observations linking mild vitamin A deficiency to increased mortality and suggest that supplements given to vitamin A deficient populations may decrease mortality by as much as 34%.
I read that as “the children were aged 12-71 at baseline” and that among this group of children “mortality was 49% greater where supplements were not given”
I do see where you get the 34% although that figure seems to take into consideration other studies and only specifies “vitamin A deficient populations” which may include adults for all we know; based on just this abstract.
REPLY
John Miklavcic says:
March 16, 2012 at 5:16 pm
I get 34% from inverse proportions.
Consider that relative to 0.67, 1.00 is a 49% increase (0.67 * 1.49 is approximately equal to 1.00).
Consider that going down to 0.67 from 1.00 is a 33% decrease (1.00 – 0.67 = 0.33), hence, why I specified upwards of 34%, it’s also written in the last sentence of the abstract. Am abstract needs to respect brevity and therefore does not present that above calculations.
I’m glad you found a passion regarding the injustice of basic nutrition is 3rd world countries. There are several great NGOs set up to help kids in such cases, one or another may resonate strongly with you and compel you to action.
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:37 pm
…“the children were aged 12-71 months at baseline”* obviously
REPLY
FrankG says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm
As a personal aside I am furious and saddened to live in a world where nearly half of these children could die for lack of basic nutrition… I’d suggest that any need for vitamin A supplementation is just indicative of lack of decent food.
REPLY
Bill Barendse says:
March 18, 2012 at 6:40 pm
A 20% increase in risk is not the same as a 20% increase in incidence. So we are all worried if the incidence goes up by 20% but not if the risk goes up by that amount. If the relative risk (RR) is 1.2 (ie., 20% higher) then the increased incidence in the subset is the overall incidence times the RR. So let’s say that death from coronary heart disease (CHD) has an overall incidence of 25%, then in the subpopulation the incidence is 1.2 times 0.25 = 0.30, so the overall incidence has gone up 5%. Had the overall incidence of CHD been 5% then the incidence in the subpopulation would have been 1.2 x 0.05 = 0.06 or 6%, and increase of 1% in the incidence. Clearly, the overall incidence of the disease and the RR determine how important the observation is.
The main point about RR of >= 3 being a standard for observation has more to do with reproducibility than importance. The smaller the sample the more likely it is that a RR will need to be large to be detected in the first place, the more likely it will be to be overestimated in the first place to be statistically significant, and the more likely for it not to be observed in the next study. But RR > 3 tend to be relatively stable unless the first study was dreadfully small in size. With the giant studies dealing with tens of thousands of observations this is less of a problem, although the GIGO law will always hold.
REPLY
England says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Thanks Gary. I enjoyed your article as I continued my n=1 experiment by eating a good amount of meat. Specially, while reading your blog at lunch time today, I had about 2 oz. of roast beef, 2 oz. of liverwurst and 2 oz. of Andouille sausage with several olives and pile of pumpkin sweetened with cinnamon and Stevia – a la Bernstein.
You are a confident man. Calling out a top tenured professor of nutritional science at one of the top university in the world! And saying that he does not do proper science implying that he does not know how and/or is lazy and/or has other egotistical and/or financial reasons not to do proper science. I’m glad you did. And I agree that it is a sad state of affairs.
REPLY
Scott says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:44 am
I too am skeptical of the recent research on red meat — above all because, even if we take it at face value, the effect is minuscule. Moving from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile increases your chance of dying of heart disease from 0.8% to 0.9%. Meh…
However, I’m not sure that this critique really nails it.
It’s never possible to control for every possible confound. But the researchers do seem to have controlled for most of the obvious ones. And, more to the point, adding lots of other factors wouldn’t necessarily make much difference. A generally “health conscious” person might do lots of things that improve their health, but all these things are likely to be correlated with each other (ie health conscious people walk more, and smoke less, and buy more organic food, and watch less TV and so on). And because they correlate, adding them to the statistical model doesn’t add any extra information. (For the geeks out there, this is the problem of multicollinearity.)
Also, it’s not really fair to say that the study was the equivalent to comparing “Berkeley vegetarians” and “redneck truck drivers”. After all, the participants in the study were all doctors and nurses. I’m sure they varied in their degree of compliance, but not as much as is implied.
This is not to say that I agree with the study’s findings, just to say that by dismissing it on weak grounds unnecessarily weakens the case for real food.
II’m not sure what an ideal critique would look like… they would certainly include the unreliability (and social desirability effects) of the food questionnaires that were used). But my main objection is that these studies are not putting low-carb / primal / paleo claims to the test. After all, what distinguishes the paleo diet is not its reliance on meat. Rather, it is about replacing bad quality meat with good quality meat, and replacing grains with vegetables and fat. These studies don’t tell us anything about whether this diet is better (or not). So, who cares what they say?! (Who wants to defend the consumption of factory-farmed meat!) But, as Taubes points out, there are plenty of other studies that have tested versions of these claims, with good results. That’s what you should be citing next time some SADsack upbraids you for ordering the steak.
REPLY
Mark says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
Scott,
Two points here. First, there is indeed a way to control for every possible confounder, it’s called randomization. You’ll probably say something like “confounding is even possible with randomization”, but that’s just not true. Random covariate imbalance is indeed possible (and ubiquitous) with randomization, but it doesn’t induce a stochastic bias like true confounding does. As the most excellent statistician Stephen Senn has said, there are “two incontrovertible facts about a randomized trial: 1) over all randomizations the groups are [always] balanced; 2) for a particular randomization they are unbalanced.” This is no big deal, it all comes out in the randomized wash.
Second, epidemiologists really need to understand that controlling for all known or “obvious” confounders does not necessarily reduce the overall confounding bias, it can actually increase bias. Confounding, like any bias, can be either positive or negative. This is the fundamental reason why any causal inference based on observational data should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, regardless of how fancy the mathematical models were.
Sorry, one more thing… multicollinearity is completely irrelevant here, much as it usually is.
REPLY
Margaretrc says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:06 am
Thanks, Gary, for injecting a bit of sanity into this nonsense. Please keep doing what you are doing. Dr. Marion Nestle’s new book, “Why Calories Count” is out and has just been reviewed (positively, I presume) by Nature. I confess I haven’t read the book–yet–but I read her blog and honestly, she doesn’t have a clue. Thinks it doesn’t matter where our calories come from, it’s all about CICO, etc. etc. How someone with an advanced degree in Biochemistry can still carry on with that stuff is totally beyond me. She does indict sugar, however, and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, she has apparently not made the connection that healthywholegrains are a source of sugar as well. One can only hope that people who have read your books and articles will take what she says with a grain of salt. I know you are very busy, but I hope some day to see a review of her book by you in the NYTimes or elsewhere. Dr. Nestle is quite popular and has a pretty large following (not that you don’t) and some of us worry that this will be a big setback to the LCHF movement.
REPLY
Ida Fiorella says:
March 18, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Living a low-carb lifestyle for over 10 years, I can attest to the health benefits of eating proteins (including red meat and bacon!), healthy fats, and lots of green vegetables. My doctors have stated that my cholesterol is perfect, and I am in excellent health according to check-ups. This was not the case before I started low-carb. Several friends are now following the same low-carb plan, and they are experiencing the same health benefits. I am very thankful, Gary, that you are able to so articulately and patiently explain what the true studies show, and that you don’t let the researchers in their ivory towers get away with serving us “conclusions” that don’t even respect the basic “scientific method” they learned in grammar school. I truly enjoy your blog.
Ida (co-author of Thin and Thinner)
REPLY
Elsa says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:03 pm
I love your analytic mind and scientific approach to the whole issue. You inspire confidence. Whatever the studies say; the proof is in the pudding, not so? People, like me, who have become obese by eating high carbohydrate/low fat all their life and have consequently suffered the effects of this way of eating healthwise can and will testify that their health in general has improved hundred-fold – amazingly, for me, in only 3 months! What more proof does one require?
REPLY
Tom Bunnell says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:36 am
Better said: Revised and Edited:
”I have found the “devil”. Genuinely. — I know that you don’t believe that. Nobody does. — Stimulants. — It’s the “adrenaline like effects” of sugars and hybrid carbohydrates”. This is the devil, for sure and for true. “It’s God, too”. — Not just the profound effects on our bodies and body chemistry, like diabetes and heart disease and cancer and mental disease and obesity and anorexia and whatnot, our entire earths population. But the adrenaline like effects and high energy that fuels and effects our minds and intelligence and emotions and feelings and senses and sexuality and thought processes, profoundly. Our being. — Our thoughts and our decisions and our perceptions. What we see and what we think and what we feel. Our spirits, our souls, our psyche, our ego, our self esteem, our aggressiveness, our passivity. — Alcohol is the highest form of sugar. All are stimulant drugs that make us crazy. But we don’t know that and when we hear it, we think of it as absurd and we don’t believe it. We think it’s laughable. Man’s taking over of the whole world, and effecting what we see and think and feel, by stimulants. Wheat and flour and fruit and vegetables and milk, being stimulants. “This is whacko rants and raves of a lunatic madman. Foolishness, personified. Idiocy. Idiosyncrasy. Extremism, Ignorance, Myth, Imagination, Fantasy, Dreams, Hallucinations, Paranoia. — My discovery, I share with you. Yes, it is all of the above, and more. Sugar and hybrid carbohydrates. Man made stimulant drugs. Thank you.
-Tom Bunnell
REPLY
elaine bergstrom says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:47 am
As the daughter of a butcher, I ate my share of steaks and chops. But in his last years, my father lamented that he could not find a decent pork chop (the other white meat had been leaned to the state of shoe leather). The point is, my father bought his lambs (in his case) from a local farmer, had them slaughtered locally and cut the meat himself. So did the beef dealers in his coop market. The point is, maybe this study had some credence, but it may not be the red meat itself but all the junk that is fed these poor beefers at their feedlots, all the chemicals in their bodies, all the stress hormones of their last days. I don’t want to sound like a PETA person, but really so much of what we eat is no longer natural. Now most chicken is grown without hormones or antibiotics. Wish the beefers were, too, and sadly I can’t afford free range.
REPLY
Thire says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:20 am
Thank you for these insights. As a nutritionist myself, I have often struggled with what constitutes science when doing nutrition research and the demonizing of foods based on statistics that can be easily manipulated to tell the story the scientist wants to tell. I will use this article to help clients, family and friends to help better understand nutrition ” facts” reported in the media.
REPLY
Nigel Tanner says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:42 am
As you admitted at the beginning of the article on the red meat controversy, spelling errors are not always detected by the author. An example is in the title of an article quoted by you:
‘When I first wrote about the pseudoscience of epidemiology in Science back in 1995, “Epidemiology Faces It’s Limits”, … ‘
The error as you’re probably aware is that “it’s” is a contraction of “it is” and so is incorrect in this context.
REPLY
Trackbacks
Does Red Meat Cause Early Death? | Sans Carbs says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:57 am
[...] and early death. I was about to do a Random Research Dissection on it, but then I went over to Gary Taubes site and it turns out he’s already done it. And he links to Zoe Harcombe, who has done a [...]
REPLY
Will Eating Red Meat Kill You? says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:35 am
[...] Interesting to see that Denise included a link to the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) used for the Nurses Health Study… I was expecting a fairly free-form "what have you been eating for the last 4 years?" but instead found the questions to be quite leading… rather than "do you eat breakfast cereal or margarine?" they ask "What brand and type of cold breakfast cereal do you usually eat?" and "What form of margarine do you usually use?" — then going on to ask for specific brand details. Is it just a given that everyone eats cereal for breakfast and uses margarine? — Gary Taubes has also posted a blog entry about this study announcement, Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat… [...]
REPLY
Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat « Thor's Reads says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:01 am
[...] Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat. Share this:FacebookTwitterRedditMoreLinkedInDiggStumbleUponTumblrPinterestPrintEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
REPLY
Transterrestrial Musings - That Latest Meat Study says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:56 am
[...] Taubes comments on the pseudoscience behind [...]
REPLY
The Paleo Rag | Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:51 am
[...] and editing, as I usually do, I’m going to do my best to get this up and out in a few hours. Read More » Be Sociable, [...]
REPLY
Köttlarm, dålig vetenskap och varför de som äter placebo blir friskare | Kostdoktorn.se says:
March 15, 2012 at 10:52 am
[...] mycket läsvärt nytt blogginlägg av Gary Taubes om hur osäkra observationsstudier verkligen är:Taubes blogg: Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat (Inlägget är kort, för att vara Taubes)Läs merCissi Wallin, LCHF och gallstenen [...]
REPLY
Meat, Pseudoscience and Why People Who Eat Their Placebo Are Healthier | Dietdoctor.com says:
March 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
[...] nice blog post by Gary Taubes about how uncertain the observational science behind them really is:Taubes blogg: Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat (a short post, for Taubes) Print This entry was posted Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 19:13 and is [...]
REPLY
Paleo Diet News: Gary Taubes on the Red Meat Study » Your source for Paleo Diet information says:
March 15, 2012 at 11:54 am
[...] it was wrong, I didn’t see the need to beat it up here. But I would like to share with you Gary Taubes’ take on the red meat study done by the Harvard School for Public Health.. He goes deeper into the [...]
REPLY
Gary Taubes weighs in on the “Meat Kills” article | Gym C2 says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm
[...] a big fan of meat so I really enjoyed Gary Taubes’s response on the recent “Meat Kills” article. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to [...]
REPLY
Karen De Coster » Nutritional McCarthyism: Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm
[...] is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as “nutritional McCarthyism.” Gary Taubes also commented on the horrendous science behind the study: The problem with observational studies like those run by [...]
REPLY
Nutritional McCarthyism: Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks « LewRockwell.com Blog says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm
[...] is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as "nutritional McCarthyism." Gary Taubes also commented on the horrendous science behind the study: The problem with observational studies like those run by [...]
REPLY
Thursday, March 15th, 2012a : CrossFit Costa Mesa says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:09 pm
[...] Link Love Read, I’m serious, read this – Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat [...]
REPLY
Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks – WNYTruthers.org says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:56 am
[...] there is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as “nutritional McCarthyism.” Gary Taubes also commented on the horrendous science behind the study: The problem with observational studies like those run by [...]
REPLY
Not so fast with my bacon, ya Hah-vard barnies. | says:
March 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
[...] Here‘s a great article on the faults of the recent Harvard media release Red Meat Consumption Linked to Increased Risk of Total, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality. The article author, Gary Taubes, also wrote Why We Get Fat; a book we highly recommend. An exerpt from the article: This is an issue about science itself and the quality of research done in nutrition. Those of you who have read Good Calories, Bad Calories know that in the epilogue I make a point to say that I never used the word scientist to describe the people doing nutrition and obesity research, except in very rare and specific cases. Simply put, I don’t believe these people do science as it needs to be done; it would not be recognized as science by scientists in any functioning discipline. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged clayton, crossfit, disease, fitness, Gary Taubes, gateway crossfit, gym, meat, missouri, nutrition, personal training, st louis. Bookmark the permalink. ← Biggest Loser Winner Goes CrossFit! [...]
REPLY
Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks says:
March 16, 2012 at 4:33 pm
[...] [...]
REPLY
Cave CrossFit says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:35 am
[...] the article in the New York Times about red meat? Well read it and then get a reality check from Gary Taubes here and a great response from Roxy Richardson of Function 5 Fitness [...]
REPLY
Weekend Link Love - Edition 182 | Mark's Daily Apple says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:01 am
[...] Taubes tackles the latest red meat scare study, and discusses the problems with epidemiology in [...]
REPLY
Bad Science Again – Red Meat « Maximum Wellness says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:56 am
[...] Gary’s article teaches us why the study is flawed. It is a great article, but a little dense. It will give you a good foundation in understanding good and bad science. Read More [...]
REPLY
Weekend Link Love | TrenchPress says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
[...] Taubes tackles the latest red meat scare study, and discusses the problems with epidemiology in [...]
REPLY
The Harvard Evil Red Meat Study is Actually the Harvard Red Bullshit Study | Daily Pundit says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:15 am
[...] Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat [...]
REPLY
Weekly Round Up « Highbrow Paleo says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
[...] links for your reading pleasure: original journal article, here is what Zoe Harcombe has to say, Gary Taubes says this, Anthony Colpo weighs in here, Dean Ornish does his thing here, Mark Sisson hires a Minger to [...]
REPLY
A fictiony Sunday « jacobceaton says:
March 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm
[...] writers acknowledge imperfection, inaccuracy or haste in prefacing their work? Gary Taubes’ latest blog post is the most recent example I can recall. Is it better to come off strong or modest? Regardless, [...]
REPLY
Monday 120319 | | DEKA CROSSFITDEKA CROSSFIT says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm
[...] Gary Taubes reacts to the bad science rampant in public nutrition: “Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat“. [...]
REPLY
New 6:30am class! « says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:36 pm
[...] Red Meat Linked to Cancer Flaws in the Study Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology and Meat [...]
REPLY
Monday 120319 | CrossFit Scottsdale says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:05 am
[...] Gary Taubes reacts to the bad science rampant in public nutrition: “Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat“. [...]
REPLY
Monday 120319 | coachricheng.com says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:21 am
[...] Taubes reacts to the bad science rampant in public nutrition: “Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat“. designed by elegant themes [...]
REPLY
Fat Head » The ORI Speech says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:22 am
[...] gave it a worthy whack and pointed readers to Denise Minger’s slice-and-dice. Gary Taubes also took the study apart and made the remaining points I would have made (and then some), so I won’t bother weighing in on [...]
REPLY
SUBSCRIBE
To receive updates to Gary's blog, enter your email address:
Follow Gary on Twitter @GaryTaubes
BOOKS
Why We Get Fat (2011)
An eye-opening, paradigm-shattering examination of what makes us fat. In the New York Times best seller Good Calories, Bad Calories, acclaimed science writer Gary Taubes argues that certain kinds of carbohydrates—not fats and not simply excess calories—have led to our current obesity epidemic. Now he brings that message to a wider, nonscientific audience in this … [Read more]
Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007)
[released as The Diet Delusion in the U.K.] In Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes tries to bury the idea that a low-fat diet promotes weight loss and better health. Obesity is caused, he argues, not by the quantity of calories you eat but by the quality. Carbohydrates, particularly refined ones like white bread and pasta, raise insulin … [Read more]
ABOUT
Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American science writer. He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993), and Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), which is titled The Diet Delusion in the UK. … [Read More...]
CONNECT
Gary Taubes is available for media contacts and speaking engagements. Feel free to send him a message.
ARTICLES
Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?
Is Sugar Toxic?
Is This Any Way to Lose Weight? (Reader's Digest)
Letter to the Editor: Response to Dr. George Bray’s Review of Good Calories, Bad Calories
Letter to the Editor: Response to Tara Parker-Pope's article "The Fat Trap" (NYTimes Magazine)
The (Political) Science of Salt
The Scientist and the Stairmaster
The Soft Science of Dietary Fat
What If It’s All Been A Big Fat Lie?
RECENT POSTS
Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat
On the greatly-exaggerated demise of the insulin-hypothesis
Updates for 2012
ARCHIVES
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
September 2011
April 2011
March 2011
December 2010
Return to top of page
© 2012 Gary Taubes • built on the Genesis Framework • Powered by WordPress & WDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
