Food Reward: a Dominant Factor in Obesity, Part III

Low-Fat Diets

In 2000, the International Journal of Obesity published a nice review article of low-fat diet trials.  It included data from 16 controlled trials lasting from 2-12 months and enrolling 1,910 participants (1).  What sets this review apart is it only covered studies that did not include instructions to restrict calorie intake (ad libitum diets).  On average, low-fat dieters reduced their fat intake from 37.7 to 27.5 percent of calories.  Here's what they found:
Read more »

Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin

My statements about carbohydrate and insulin in the previous post seem to have kicked up some dust!  Some people are even suggesting I've gone low-fat!  I'm going to take this opportunity to be more specific about my positions.

I do not think that post-meal insulin spikes contribute to obesity, and they may even oppose it.  I'm not aware of anyone who researches metabolism for a living who thinks post-meal insulin spikes contribute to obesity, and after having looked into it, I understand why.  It's not a controversial issue in my field as far as I can tell. Elevated fasting insulin is a separate issue-- that's a marker of insulin resistance.  It's important not to confuse the two.  Does insulin resistance contribute to obesity?  I don't know, but it's hypothetically possible since insulin acts like leptin's kid brother in some ways.  As far as I can tell, starch per se and post-meal insulin spikes do not lead to insulin resistance.
Read more »

Healthy Skeptic Podcast and Reader Questions

Chris Kresser, Danny Roddy and I just finished recording the podcast that will be released on May 24th.  It went really well, and we think you'll find it informative and maybe even practical!

Unfortunately, we only got around to answering three of the questions I had selected:

1. How does one lose fat?
2. What do I (Stephan) eat?
3. Why do many people gain fat with age, especially postmenopausal women?

I feel guilty about that, so I'm going to answer three more right now.

Read more »

US Omega-6 and Omega-3 Fat Consumption over the Last Century

Omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) are essential nutrients that play many important roles in the body. They are highly bioactive, and so any deviation from ancestral intake norms should probably be viewed with suspicion. I've expressed my opinion many times on this blog that omega-6 consumption is currently too high due to our high intake of refined seed oils (corn, soybean, sunflower, etc.) in industrial nations. Although it's clear that the quantity of omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fat have changed over the last century, no one had ever published a paper that attempted to systematically quantify it until last month (1).

Drs. Chris Ramsden and Joseph Hibbeln worked on this paper (the first author was Dr. Tanya Blasbalg and the senior author was Dr. Robert Rawlings)-- they were the first and second authors of a different review article I reviewed recently (2). Their new paper is a great reference that I'm sure I'll cite many times. I'm going to briefly review it and highlight a few key points.

1. The intake of omega-6 linoleic acid has increased quite a bit since 1909. It would have been roughly 2.3% of calories in 1909, while in 1999 it was 7.2%. That represents an increase of 213%. Linoleic acid is the form of omega-6 that predominates in seed oils.

2. The intake of omega-3 alpha-linolenic acid has also increased, for reasons that I'll explain below. It changed from 0.35% of calories to 0.72%, an increase of 109%.

3. The intake of long-chain omega-6 and omega-3 fats have decreased. These are the highly bioactive fats for which linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid are precursors. Arachidonic acid, DHA, DPA and EPA intakes have declined. This mostly has to do with changing husbandry practices and the replacement of animal fats with seed oils in the diet.

4. The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats has increased. There is still quite a bit of debate over whether the ratios matter, or simply the absolute amount of each. I maintain that there is enough evidence from highly controlled animal studies and the basic biochemistry of PUFAs to tentatively conclude that the ratio is important. At a minimum, we know that excess linoleic acid inhibits omega-3 metabolism (3, 4, 5, 6). The omega-6:3 ratio increased from 5.4:1 to 9.6:1 between 1909 and 2009, a 78% increase.

5. The biggest factor in both linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake changes was the astonishing rise in soybean oil consumption. Soybean oil consumption increased from virtually nothing to 7.4% of total calories, eclipsing all sources of calories besides sugar, dairy and grains! That's because processed food is stuffed with it. It's essentially a byproduct of defatted soybean meal-- the second most important animal feed after corn. Check out this graph from the paper:

I think this paper is an important piece of the puzzle as we try to figure out what happened to nutrition and health in the US over the last century.

Safflower Oil Study

A few people have sent me a new study claiming to demonstrate that half a tablespoon of safflower oil a day improves insulin sensitivity, increases HDL and decreases inflammation in diabetics (1). Let me explain why this study does not show what it claims.

It all comes down to a little thing called a control group, which is the basis for comparison that you use to determine if your intervention had an effect. This study didn't have one for the safflower group. What it had was two intervention groups, one given 6.4g conjugated linoleic acid (CLA; 50% c9t11 and 50% t10c12-CLA) per day, and one given 8g safflower oil. I have to guess that this study was originally designed to test the effects of the CLA, with the safflower oil group as the control group, and that the interpretation of the data changed after the results came in. Otherwise, I don't understand why they would conduct a study like this without a control group.

Anyway, they found that the safflower oil group did better than the CLA group over 16 weeks, showing a higher insulin sensitivity, higher HDL, lower HbA1c (a marker of average blood glucose levels) and lower CRP (a marker of inflammation). But they also found that the safflower group improved slightly compared to baseline, therefore they decided to attribute the difference to a beneficial effect of safflower oil. The problem is that without a control (placebo) group for comparison, there's no way to know if the improvement would have occurred regardless of treatment, due to the season changing, more regular check-ups at the doctor's office due to participating in a study, or countless other unforeseen factors. A control group is essential for the accurate interpretation of results, which is why drug studies always have placebo groups.

What we can say is that the safflower oil group fared better than the CLA group, because there was a difference between the two. However, what I think really happened is that the CLA supplement was harmful and the small dose of safflower oil had no effect. Why? Because the t10c12 isomer of CLA, which was half their pill, has already been shown by previous well-controlled studies to reduce insulin sensitivity, decrease HDL and increase inflammatory markers at a similar dose and for a similar duration (2, 3). The safflower oil group only looked good by comparison. We can add this study to the "research bloopers" file.

It's worth noting that naturally occurring CLA mixtures, similar to those found in pastured dairy and ruminant fat, have not been shown to cause metabolic problems such as those caused by isolated t10c12 CLA.

Does Dietary Saturated Fat Increase Blood Cholesterol? An Informal Review of Observational Studies

The diet-heart hypothesis states three things:

1. Dietary saturated fat increases blood cholesterol
   
2. Elevated blood cholesterol increases the risk of having a heart attack
3. Therefore, dietary saturated fat increases the risk of having a heart attack
   

To evaluate the second contention, investigators have examined the relationship between blood cholesterol and heart attack risk. Many studies including MRFIT have shown that the two are related (1):

The relationship becomes much more complex when you consider lipoprotein subtypes, density and oxidation level, among other factors, but at the very least there is an association between habitual blood cholesterol level and heart attack risk. This is what you would want to see if your hypothesis states that high blood cholesterol causes heart attacks.

Now let's turn to the first contention, the hypothesis that dietary saturated fat increases serum cholesterol. This idea is so deeply ingrained in the scientific literature that many authors don't even bother providing references for it anymore. When references are provided, they nearly always point to the same type of study: short-term controlled diet trials, in which volunteers are fed different fats for 2-13 weeks and their blood cholesterol measured (2)*. These are the studies on which the diet-heart hypothesis was built.

But now we have a problem. Nearly every high-quality (prospective) observational study ever conducted found that saturated fat intake is not associated with heart attack risk (3). So if saturated fat increases blood cholesterol, and higher blood cholesterol is associated with an increased risk of having a heart attack, then why don't people who eat more saturated fat have more heart attacks?

I'll begin to answer that question with another question: why do researchers almost never cite observational studies to support the idea that dietary saturated fat increases blood cholesterol? Surely if the hypothesis is correct, then people who habitually eat a lot of saturated fat should have high cholesterol, right? One reason may be that in most instances, when researchers have looked for a relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol, they haven't found one. Those findings have essentially been ignored, but let's have a look...

The Studies

It's difficult to do a complete accounting of these studies, but I've done my best to round them up. I can't claim this post is comprehensive, but I doubt I missed very many, and I certainly didn't exclude any that I came across. If you know of any I missed, please add them to the comments.

The earliest and perhaps most interesting study I found was published in the British Medical Journal in 1963 and is titled "Diet and Plasma Cholesterol in 99 Bank Men" (4). Investigators asked volunteers to weigh all food consumed at home for 1-2 weeks, and describe in detail all food consumed away from home. Compliance was good. This dietary accounting method was much more thorough than in most observational studies today**. Animal fat intake ranged from 55 to 173 grams per day, and blood cholesterol ranged from 154 to 324 mg/dL, yet there was no relationship whatsoever between the two. I'm looking at a graph of animal fat intake vs. blood cholesterol as I write this, and it looks like someone shot it with a shotgun at 50 yards. They twisted the data every which way, but were never able to squeeze even a hint of an association out of it:

Making the most out of the data in other ways- for example, by analysis of the men very stable in their diets, or in whom weighing of food intake was maximal, or where blood was taken close to the diet [measurement]- did not increase the correlation. Because the correlation coefficient is almost as often negative as positive, moreover, what is being discussed mostly is the absence of association, not merely association that is unexpectedly small.

The next study to discuss is the 1976 Tecumseh study (5). This was a large cardiovascular observational study conducted in Tecumseh, Michigan, which is often used as the basis for comparison for other cardiovascular studies in the literature. Using the 24 hour dietary recall method, including an analysis of saturated fat, the investigators found that:

Cholesterol and triglyceride levels were unrelated to quality, quantity, or proportions of fat, carbohydrate or protein consumed in the 24-hr recall period.

They also noted that the result was consistent with what had been reported in other previously published studies, including the Evans county study (6), the massive Israel Ischemic Heart Disease Study (7) and the Framingham study. One of the longest-running, most comprehensive and most highly cited observational studies, the Framingham study was organized by Harvard investigators and continues to this day. When investigators analyzed the relationship between saturated fat intake, serum cholesterol and heart attack risk, they were so disappointed that they never formally published the results. We know from multiple sources that they found no significant relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol or heart attack risk***.

The next study is the Bogalusa Heart Study, published in 1978, which studied the diet and health of 10 year old American children (8). This study found an association by one statistical method, and none by a second method****. They found that the dietary factors they analyzed explained no more than 4% of the variation in blood cholesterol. Overall, I think this study lends little or no support to the hypothesis.

Next is the Western Electric study, published in 1981 (9). This study found an association between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol in middle-aged men in Chicago. However, the correlation was small, and there was no association between saturated fat intake and heart attack deaths. They cited two other studies that found an association between dietary saturated fat and blood cholesterol (and did not cite any of the numerous studies that found no association). One was a very small study conducted in young men doing research in Antarctica, which did not measure saturated fat but found an association between total fat intake and blood cholesterol (10). The other studied Japanese (Nagasaki and Hiroshima) and Japanese Americans in Japan, Hawai'i and California respectively (11).

This study requires some discussion. Published in 1973, it found a correlation between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol in Japan, Hawai'i but not in California. The strongest association was in Japan, where going from 5 to 75 g/day of saturated fat (a 15-fold change!) was associated with an increase in blood cholesterol from about 175 to 200 mg/dL. However, I don't think this study offers much support to the hypothesis upon closer examination. Food intake in Japan was collected by 24-hour recall in 1965-1967, when the diet was mostly white rice in some areas. The lower limit of saturated fat intake in Japan was 5g/day, 1/12th what was typically eaten in Hawai'i and California, and the Japanese average was 16g, with most people falling below 10g. That is an extraordinarily low saturated fat intake. I think a significant portion of the Japanese in this study, living in the war-ravaged cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, were over-reliant on white rice and perhaps bordering on malnourishment.

In Japanese-Americans living in Hawai'i, over a range of saturated fat intakes between 5 and 110 g/day, cholesterol went from 210 to 220 mg/dL. That was statistically significant but it's not exactly knocking my socks off, considering it's a 22-fold change in saturated fat intake. In California, going from 15 to 110 g/day of saturated fat (7.3-fold change) was not associated with a change in blood cholesterol. Blood cholesterol was 20-30 mg/dL lower in Japan than in Hawai'i or California at any given level of saturated fat intake (e.g., Japanese eating 30g per day vs. Hawai'ians eating 30g per day). I think it's probable that saturated fat is not the relevant factor here, or at least it's being trumped by other factors. An equally plausible explanation is that people in the very low range of saturated fat intake are the rural poor who eat an impoverished diet that differs in many ways from the diets at the upper end of the range.

The most recent study was the Health Professional Follow-up study, published in 1996 (12). This was a massive, well funded study that found no hint of a relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol.

Conclusion

Of all the studies I came across, only the Western Electric study found a clear association between habitual saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol, and even that association was weak. The Bogalusa Heart study and the Japanese study provided inconsistent evidence for a weak association. The other studies I cited, including the bank workers' study, the Tecumseh study, the Evans county study, the Israel Ischemic Heart study, the Framingham study and the Health Professionals Follow-up study, found no association between the two factors.

Overall, the literature does not offer much support for the idea that long term saturated fat intake has a significant effect on the concentration of blood cholesterol. If it's a factor at all, it must be rather weak, which is consistent with what has been observed in multiple non-human species (13). I think it's likely that the diet-heart hypothesis rests in part on an over-interpretation of short-term controlled feeding studies. I'd like to see a more open discussion of this in the scientific literature. In any case, these controlled studies have typically shown that saturated fat increases both LDL and HDL, so even if saturated fat did have a small long-term effect on blood cholesterol, as hinted at by some of the observational studies, its effect on heart attack risk would still be difficult to predict.

The Diet-heart Hypothesis: Stuck at the Starting Gate
Animal Models of Atherosclerosis: LDL


* As a side note, many of these studies were of poor quality, and were designed in ways that artificially inflated the effects of saturated fat on blood lipids. For example, using a run-in period high in linoleic acid, or comparing a saturated fat-rich diet to a linoleic acid-rich diet, and attributing the differences in blood cholesterol to the saturated fat. Some of them used hydrogenated seed oils as the saturated fat. Although not always consistent, I do think that overall these studies support the idea that saturated fat does have a modest ability to increase blood cholesterol in the short term.

** Although I would love to hear comments from anyone who has done controlled diet trials. I'm sure this method had flaws, as it was applied in the 1960s.

*** Reference cited in the Tecumseh paper: Kannel, W et al. The Framingham Study. An epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Diseases. Section 24: The Framingham Diet Study: Diet and the Regulation of Serum Cholesterol. US Government Printing Office, 1970.

**** Table 5 shows that the Pearson correlation coefficient for saturated fat intake vs. blood cholesterol is not significant; table 6 shows that children in the two highest tertiles of blood cholesterol have a significantly higher intake of saturated fat, unsaturated fat, total fat and sodium than the lowest tertile. The relationship between saturated fat and blood cholesterol shows no evidence of dose-dependence (cholesterol tertiles= 15.6g, 18.4g, 18.5g saturated fat). The investigators made no effort to adjust for confounding variables.

Dairy Fat and Diabetes

Introduction

Having access to embargoed news from the Annals of Internal Medicine is really fun. I get to report on important studies at the same time as the news media. But this week, I got my hands on a study that I'm not sure will be widely reported (Mozaffarian et al. Trans-palmitoleic Acid, Metabolic Risk Factors, and New-Onset Diabetes in US Adults. Ann Internal Med. 2010). Why? Because it suggests that dairy fat may protect against diabetes.

The lead author is Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, whose meta-analysis of diet-heart controlled trials I recently criticized (1). I think this is a good opportunity for me to acknowledge that Dr. Mozaffarian and his colleagues have published some brave papers in the past that challenged conventional wisdom. For example, in a 2005 study, they found that postmenopausal women who ate the most saturated fat had the slowest rate of narrowing of their coronary arteries over time (2). It wasn't a popular finding but he has defended it. His colleague Dr. Walter Willett thinks dietary fat is fine (although he favors corn oil), whole eggs can be part of a healthy diet, and there are worse things than eating coconut from time to time. Dr. Willett is also a strong advocate of unrefined foods and home cooking, which I believe are two of the main pillars of healthy eating.

Let's hit the data

Investigators collected two measures of dairy fat intake in 3,736 Americans:

1. 24 hour dietary recall questionnaires, six times. This records volunteers' food intake at the beginning of the study.
2. Blood (plasma phospholipid) content of trans-palmitoleate. Dairy fat and red meat fat are virtually the only sources of this fatty acid, so it reflects the intake of these foods. Most of the trans-palmitoleate came from dairy in this study, although red meat was also a significant source.

After adjustment for confounding factors, trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with a smaller waist circumference, higher HDL cholesterol, lower serum triglycerides, lower C-reactive protein, lower fasting insulin and lower calculated insulin resistance. Furthermore, people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Keep in mind, however, that this is an observational study and does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes.

Even though certain blood fatty acids partially represent food intake, they can also represent metabolic conditions. For example, people on their way to type II diabetes tend to have more saturated blood lipids, independent of diet (3, 4)*. So it's reassuring to see that dietary trans-palmitoleate intake was closely related to the serum level. The investigators also noted that "greater whole-fat dairy consumption was associated with lower risk for diabetes," which increases my confidence that serum trans-palmitoleate is actually measuring dairy fat intake to some degree. However, in the end, I think the striking association they observed was partially due to dairy fat intake, but mostly due to metabolic factors that had nothing to do with dairy fat**.

Here's a nice quote:

Our findings support potential metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and suggest that trans-palmitoleate may mediate these effects***. They also suggest that efforts to promote exclusive consumption of low-fat and nonfat dairy products, which would lower population exposure to trans-palmitoleate, may be premature until the mediators of the health effects of dairy consumption are better established.

Never thought I'd see the day! Not bad, but I can do better:

Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don't waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We're sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.

What are these studies suggesting that dairy fat may be protective, you ask? That will be the topic of another post, my friends.


*Probably due to uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis because of insulin resistance. Many studies find that serum saturated fatty acids are higher in those with metabolic dysfunction, independent of diet. They sometimes interpret that as showing that people are lying about their diet, rather than that serum saturated fatty acids don't reflect diet very well. For example, in one study I cited, investigators found no relationship between dietary saturated fat and diabetes risk, but they did find a relationship between serum saturated fatty acids and diabetes risk (5). They then proceeded to refer to the serum measurements as "objective measurements" that can tease apart "important associations with diabetes incidence that may be missed when assessed by [food questionnaires]." They go on to say that serum fatty acids are "useful as biomarkers for fatty acid intake," which is true for some fatty acids but not remotely for most of the saturated ones, according to their own study. Basically, they try to insinuate that dietary saturated fat is the culprit, and the only reason they couldn't measure that association directly is that people who went on to develop diabetes inaccurately reported their diets! A more likely explanation is that elevated serum saturated fatty acids are simply a marker of insulin resistance (and thus uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis), and had nothing to do with diet.

**Why do I say that? Because mathematically adjusting for dairy and meat fat intake did not substantially weaken the association between phospholipid trans-palmitoleate and reduced diabetes risk (Table 4). In other words, if you believe their math, dairy/meat fat intake only accounted for a small part of the protective association. That implies that healthy people maintain a higher serum phospholipid trans-palmitoleate level than unhealthy people, even if both groups eat the same amount of trans-palmitoleate. If they hadn't mentioned that full-fat dairy fat intake was directly associated with a lower risk of diabetes, I would not find the study very interesting because I'd have my doubts that it was relevant to diet.

***I find it highly doubtful that trans-palmitoleate entirely mediates the positive health outcomes associated with dairy fat intake. I think it's more likely to simply be a marker of milk fat, which contains a number of potentially protective substances such as CLA, vitamin K2, butyric acid, and the natural trans fats including trans-palmitoleate. In addition, dairy fat is low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. I find it unlikely that their fancy math was able to tease those factors apart, because those substances all travel together in dairy fat. trans-palmitoleate pills are not going to replace butter.

****That's a joke. I think butter can be part of healthy diet, but that doesn't mean gorging on it is a good idea. This study does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes, it simply suggests that it may.

Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review

Many controlled studies have measured the cardiovascular effects of replacing animal ("saturated") fats with seed oils (predominantly the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid) in humans. A number of these studies recorded heart attacks and total mortality during the following 1-8 years. Several investigators have done meta-analyses (literature reviews) to try to tease out overall conclusions from these studies.

I'm pleased to point out a new meta-analysis of these controlled trials by Dr. Christopher Ramsden and colleagues (1). This paper finally cleans up the mess that previous meta-analyses have made of the diet-heart literature. One recent paper in particular by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian and colleagues concluded that overall, the controlled trials show that replacing animal fat with linoleic acid (LA)-rich seed oils reduces heart attack risk (2). I disagreed strongly with their conclusion because I felt their methods were faulty (3).

Dr. Ramsden and colleagues pointed out several fundamental flaws in the review paper by Dr. Mozaffarian and colleagues, as well as in the prevailing interpretation of these studies in the scientific literature in general. These overlap with the concerns that I voiced in my post (4):

1. Omission of unfavorable studies, including the Rose corn oil trial and the Sydney diet-heart trial.
2. Inclusion of weak trials with major confounding variables, such as the Finnish mental hospital trial.
3. Failure to distinguish between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids.
4. Failure to acknowledge that seed oils often replaced large quantities of industrial trans fats in addition to animal fat in these trials.
   

Dr. Ramsden and colleagues accounted for all of these factors in their analysis, which has never been done before. They chose inclusion criteria* that made sense, and stuck with them. In addition, they did an impressive amount of historical work, digging up old unpublished data from these trials to determine the exact composition of the control and experimental diets. The paper is published in the British Journal of Nutrition, an excellent journal, and overall is written in a scientific and professional manner.

What did they find?

• Interventions that replaced animal and trans fat with seed oils that were rich in LA but low in omega-3 caused a non-significant trend toward increased heart attacks (13% increase) and overall mortality.
  
• Interventions that replaced animal and trans fat with a combination of LA and omega-3 fats significantly reduced heart attacks (by 22%). The numbers for total mortality followed a similar trend.

In other words, LA-rich seed oils do not prevent heart attacks (and may actually promote them), but correcting an omega-3 deficiency and reducing industrial trans fat intake may be protective. This is similar to what I've been saying for a while now, based on my own interpretation of the same studies and others. However, Dr. Ramsden and colleagues have taken the idea to a new level by their thorough and sophisticated detective work and analysis. For example, I didn't realize that in virtually all of these controlled trials, the intervention group reduced its trans fat intake substantially in addition to reducing animal fat. From the paper:

...experimental diets replaced common ‘hard’ margarines, industrial shortenings and other sources of [trans fat] in all seven of the [controlled trials] included in the meta-analysis by Mozaffarian et al. The mean estimated [trans fat] content of the seven control diets was 3·0 [% of calories] (range 1·5–9·6 [%]).
...the displacement of [trans fat], rather than the substitution of mixed n-3/n-6 [polyunsaturated fat] for [saturated fat], may account for some or all of the 22% reduction in non-fatal [heart attacks and heart attack] death in our meta-analysis. By contrast, the increased [heart attack] risks from n-6 specific [polyunsaturated fat] diets in our meta-analysis may be underestimated as n-6 [polyunsaturated fat] also replaced substantial quantities of [trans fat] (Table 3). The consistent trends towards increased [heart attack] risk of n-6 specific [polyunsaturated fat] diets may have become significant if the n-6 [polyunsaturated fat] replaced only [saturated fat], instead of a combination of [saturated fat] and [trans fat].

In other words, it looks like trans fat is probably the issue, not animal fat, but these trials replaced both simultaneously so we can't know for sure. I will note here that trans fat does not generally promote atherosclerosis (thickening and hardening of arteries) in animal models, so if it does truly increase heart attack risk as many studies suggest, it's probably through a mechanism that is independent of atherosclerosis.

The article also contains an excellent discussion of the Finnish mental hospital trial (5, 6) and why it was excluded from the meta-analysis, in which Dr. Ramsden and colleagues point out major design flaws, some of which I was not aware of. For example, trans fat intake was on average 13 times higher in the control groups than in the experimental groups. In addition, one of the control groups received more than twice as much of the antipsychotic drug thioridazine, which is known to be highly toxic to the heart, as any other group. Ouch. I'm glad to see this study finally discussed in an open and honest manner. I discussed my own problems with the Finnish trial in an earlier post (7).

I was also glad to see an open discussion of the Oslo Diet-heart study (8), in which diet changes led to a reduction in heart attack risk over five years. Dr. Mozaffarian and colleagues included it in their analysis as if it were a controlled trial in which animal fat was replaced by seed oils only. In reality, the investigators changed many variables at once, which I had also pointed out in my critique of Dr. Mozaffarian's meta-analysis (9). Here's what Dr. Ramsden and colleagues had to say about it:

First, experimental dieters were instructed to substitute fish, shellfish and ‘whale beef’ for meats and eggs, and were actually supplied with ‘considerable quantities of Norwegian sardines canned in cod liver oil, which proved to be popular as a bread spread’(32)... Second, the experimental group consumed massive amounts of soybean oil, which provided large quantities of both LA (15·6 en %) and ALA (2·7 en %). ALA consumption was about 4·5 times average US intake(42), or about twelve typical flax oil pills (1 g pill ¼ 560 mg ALA) per d. In addition, the fish and cod liver oil consumption provided Oslo (598N latitude) dieters with 610 IU (15·25 mg) of daily vitamin D3, recently linked to lower blood pressure, plaque stabilisation, and reduced [heart attack risk] (64). Furthermore, experimental dieters were encouraged to eat more nuts, fruits, and vegetables; to limit animal fats; and to restrict their intake of refined grains and sugar.

trans fat intake was also reduced substantially by excluding margarine in the experimental group. Other review papers have used this trial as a justification to replace animal fat with seed oils. Hmm... The only reason they get away with this is because the trial was published in 1966 and almost no one today has actually read it.

One criticism I have of Dr. Ramsden's paper is that they used the Oslo trial in their analysis, despite the major limitation described above. However, they were extremely open about it and discussed the problem in detail. Furthermore, the overall result would have been essentially the same even if they had excluded the Oslo trial from the analysis.

Overall, the paper is an excellent addition to the literature, and I hope it will bring a new level of sophistication to the dialogue on dietary prevention of cardiovascular disease. In the meantime, brace yourselves for an avalanche of criticism from the seed oil brigade.


* Guidelines that determine which studies to include in the analysis. For example, you want to exclude any study that wasn't randomized, because it will not be interpretable from a statistical standpoint. You also want to exclude trials where major variables differ between groups besides the specific variable you're trying to test. The Finnish mental hospital trial fails by both criteria.

Saturated Fat, Glycemic Index and Insulin Sensitivity: Another Nail in the Coffin

Insulin is a hormone that drives glucose and other nutrients from the bloodstream into cells, among other things. A loss of sensitivity to the insulin signal, called insulin resistance, is a core feature of modern metabolic dysfunction and can lead to type II diabetes and other health problems. Insulin resistance affects a large percentage of people in affluent nations, in fact the majority of people in some places. What causes insulin resistance? Researchers have been trying to figure this out for decades.*

Since saturated fat is blamed for everything from cardiovascular disease to diabetes, it's no surprise that a number of controlled trials have asked if saturated fat feeding causes insulin resistance when compared to other fats. From the way the evidence is sometimes portrayed, you might think it does. However, a careful review of the literature reveals that this position is exaggerated, to put it mildly (1).

The glycemic index, a measure of how much a specific carbohydrate food raises blood sugar, is another darling of the diet-health literature. On the surface, it makes sense: if excess blood sugar is harmful, then foods that increase blood sugar should be harmful. Despite evidence from observational studies, controlled trials as long as 1.5 years have shown that the glycemic index does not influence insulin sensitivity or body fat gain (2, 3, 4). The observational studies may be confounded by the fact that white flour and sugar are the two main high-glycemic foods in most Western diets. Most industrially processed carbohydrate foods also have a high glycemic index, but that doesn't imply that their high glycemic index is the reason they're harmful.

All of this is easy for me to accept, because I'm familiar with examples of traditional cultures eating absurd amounts of saturated fat and/or high-glycemic carbohydrate, and not developing metabolic disease (5, 6, 7). I believe the key is that their food is not industrially processed (along with exercise, sunlight exposure, and probably other factors).

A large new study just published in the American Journal of Clinical nutrition has placed the final nail in the coffin: neither saturated fat nor high glycemic carbohydrate influence insulin sensitivity in humans, at least on the timescale of most controlled trials (8). At 6 months and 720 participants, it was both the largest and one of the longest studies to address the question. Participants were assigned to one of the following diets:

1. High saturated fat, high glycemic index
2. High monounsaturated fat, high glycemic index
3. High monounsaturated fat, low glycemic index
4. Low fat, high glycemic index
5. Low fat, low glycemic index

Compliance to the diets was pretty good. From the nature of the study design, I suspect the authors were expecting participants on diet #1 to fare the worst. They were eating a deadly combination of saturated fat and high glycemic carbohydrate! Well to everyone's dismay except cranks like me, there were no differences in insulin sensitivity between groups at 6 months. Blood pressure also didn't differ between groups, although the low-fat groups lost more weight than the monounsaturated fat groups. The investigators didn't attempt to determine whether the weight loss was fat, lean mass or both. The low-fat groups also saw an increase in the microalbumin:creatinine ratio compared to other groups, indicating a possible deterioration of kidney function.

In my opinion, the literature as a whole consistently shows that if saturated fat or high glycemic carbohydrate influence insulin sensitivity, they do so on a very long timescale, as no effect is detectable in controlled trails of fairly long duration. While it is possible that the controlled trials just didn't last long enough to detect an effect, I think it's more likely that both factors are irrelevant.

Fats were provided by the industrial manufacturer Unilever, and were incorporated into margarines, which I'm sure were just lovely to eat. Carbohydrate was also provided, including "bread, pasta, rice, and cereals." In other words, all participants were eating industrial food. I think these types of investigations often run into problems due to reductionist thinking. I prefer studies like Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's paleolithic diet trials (9, 10, 11). The key difference? They focus mostly on diet quality, not calories or specific nutrients. And they have shown that quality is king!


* Excess body fat is almost certainly a major cause. When fat mass increases beyond a certain point, particularly abdominal fat, the fat tissue typically becomes inflamed. Inflamed fat tissue secretes factors which reduce whole-body insulin sensitivity (12, 13). The big question is: what caused the fat gain?

Can a Statin Neutralize the Cardiovascular Risk of Unhealthy Dietary Choices?

The title of this post is the exact title of a recent editorial in the American Journal of Cardiology (1). Investigators calculated the "risk for cardiovascular disease associated with the total fat and trans fat content of fast foods", and compared it to the "risk decrease provided by daily statin consumption". Here's what they found:

The risk reduction associated with the daily consumption of most statins, with the exception of pravastatin, is more powerful than the risk increase caused by the daily extra fat intake associated with a 7-oz hamburger (Quarter Pounder®) with cheese and a small milkshake. In conclusion, statin therapy can neutralize the cardiovascular risk caused by harmful diet choices.

Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals. A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments. Although no substitute for systematic lifestyle improvements, including healthy diet, regular exercise, weight loss, and smoking cessation, complimentary statin packets would add, at little cost, 1 positive choice to a panoply of negative ones.

Wow. Later in the editorial, they recommend "a new and protective packet, “MacStatin,” which could be sprinkled onto a Quarter Pounder or into a milkshake." I'm not making this up!

I can't be sure, but I think there's a pretty good chance the authors were being facetious in this editorial, in which case I think a) it's hilarious, b) most people aren't going to get the joke. If they are joking, the editorial is designed to shine a light on the sad state of mainstream preventive healthcare. Rather than trying to educate people and change the deadly industrial food system, which is at the root of a constellation of health problems, many people think it's acceptable to partially correct one health risk by tinkering with the human metabolism using drugs. To be fair, most people aren't willing to change their diet and lifestyle habits (and perhaps for some it's even too late), so frustrated physicians prescribe drugs to mitigate the risk. I accept that. But if our society is really committed to its own health and well-being, we'll remove the artificial incentives that favor industrial food, and educate children from a young age on how to eat well.

I think one of the main challenges we face is that our current system is immensely lucrative for powerful financial interests. Industrial agriculture lines the pockets of a few large farmers and executives (while smaller farmers go broke and get bought out), industrial food processing concentrates profit among a handful of mega-manufacturers, and then people who are made ill by the resulting food spend an exorbitant amount of money on increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) healthcare. It's a system that effectively milks US citizens for a huge amount of money, and keeps the economy rolling at the expense of the average person's well-being. All of these groups have powerful lobbies that ensure the continuity of the current system. Litigation isn't the main reason our healthcare is so expensive in the US; high levels of chronic disease, expensive new technology, a "kitchen sink" treatment approach, and inefficient private companies are the real reasons.

If the editorial is serious, there are so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. Here are a few problems:

1. They assume the risk of heart attack conveyed by eating fast food is due to its total and trans fat content, which is simplistic. To support that supposition, they cite one study: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (2). This is one of the best diet-health observational studies conducted to date. The authors of the editorial appear not to have read the study carefully, because it found no association between total or saturated fat intake and heart attack risk, when adjusted for confounding variables. The number they quoted (relative risk = 1.23) was before adjustment for fiber intake (relative risk = 1.02 after adjustment), and in any case, it was not statistically significant even before adjustment. How did that get past peer review? Answer: reviewers aren't critical of hypotheses they like.
   
2. Statins mostly work in middle-aged men, and reduce the risk of heart attack by about one quarter. The authors excluded several recent unsupportive trials from their analysis. Dr. Michel de Lorgeril reviewed these trials recently (3). For these reasons, adding a statin to fast food would probably have a negligible effect on the heart attack risk of the general population.
   
3. "Statins rarely cause negative side effects." BS. Of the half dozen people I know who have gone on statins, all of them have had some kind of negative side effect, two of them unpleasant enough that they discontinued treatment against their doctor's wishes. Several of them who remained on statins are unlikely to benefit because of their demographic, yet they remain on statins on their doctors' advice.
   
4. Industrial food is probably the main contributor to heart attack risk. Cultures that don't eat industrial food are almost totally free of heart attacks, as demonstrated by a variety of high-quality studies (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). No drug can replicate that, not even close.
   

I have an alternative proposal. Rather than giving people statins along with their Big Mac, why don't we change the incentive structure that artificially favors the Big Mac, french fries and soft drink? If it weren't for corn, soybean and wheat subsidies, fast food wouldn't be so cheap. Neither would any other processed food. Fresh, whole food would be price competitive with industrial food, particularly if we applied the grain subsidies to more wholesome foods. Grass-fed beef and dairy would cost the same as grain-fed. I'm no economist, so I don't know how realistic this really is. However, my central point still stands: we can change the incentive structure so that it no longer artificially favors industrial food. That will require that the American public get fed up and finally butt heads with special interest groups.

Saturated Fat Consumption Still isn't Associated with Cardiovascular Disease

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition just published the results of a major Japanese study on saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease (1). Investigators measured dietary habits, then followed 58,453 men and women for 14.1 years. They found that people who ate the most saturated fat had the same heart attack risk as those who ate the least*. Furthermore, people who ate the most saturated fat had a lower risk of stroke than those who ate the least. It's notable that stroke is a larger public health threat in Japan than heart attacks.

This is broadly consistent with the rest of the observational studies examining saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease risk. A recent review paper by Dr. Ronald Krauss's group summed up what is obvious to any unbiased person who is familiar with the literature, that saturated fat consumption doesn't associate with heart attack risk (2). In a series of editorials, some of his colleagues attempted to discredit and intimidate him after its publication (3, 4). No meta-analysis is perfect, but their criticisms were largely unfounded (5, 6).


*Actually, people who ate the most saturated fat had a lower risk but it wasn't statistically significant.

Saturated Fat and Health: a Brief Literature Review, Part II

I'm aware of twelve major controlled trials designed to evaluate the relationship between saturated fat and risk of death, without changing other variables at the same time (e.g., increased vegetable intake, omega-3 fats, exercise, etc.). Here is a summary of the results:

• Two trials found that replacing saturated animal fat with polyunsaturated vegetable fat decreased total mortality.
• Two trials found that replacing saturated animal fat with polyunsaturated vegetable fat increased total mortality.
• Eight trials found that reducing saturated fat had no effect on total mortality.

Of the two trials that found a benefit of saturated fat reduction, neither was properly controlled. The first was conducted in Sweden and published in 1965. The intervention group reduced saturated animal fat and increased polyunsaturated vegetable fat. The control group was significantly older than the intervention group, confounding the results. In addition, physicians regularly monitored the intervention group while the control group went off their radar, thus the intervention group was getting better care. This is the definition of an improperly controlled trial.

The second study to "support" the idea that saturated fat increases total mortality was the Finnish mental hospitals trial. In this trial, two mental hospitals in different towns fed their patients different diets and monitored their health. One diet was low in animal fat and high in polyunsaturated vegetable fat, while the other was higher in saturated fat. Patients eating the polyunsaturated diet had a greatly reduced death rate, mostly due to a reduction in heart attacks. The study design was pitiful. They included all patients in their analysis, even those who stayed at the hospital for only one month or who checked in and out repeatedly. Furthermore, they used a "crossover" design where the hospitals switched diets halfway through the study. This was designed to control for location, but it means we don't know whether the increase in deaths after switching to the control diet was due to the saturated fat or the vegetable oil diet that preceded it for 6 years! The only reason I included this poor study in my list is that it's commonly cited as evidence against saturated fat.

The first study to show an increase in deaths from replacing saturated animal fat with polyunsaturated vegetable fat was the tragically named Anti-Coronary Club study. After four years, despite lowering their cholesterol substantially, the intervention group saw more than twice the number of deaths as the control group. Amazingly, rather than emphasizing the increased mortality, the study authors instead focused on the cholesterol reduction. This study was not properly controlled, but if anything, that should have biased it in favor of the intervention group.

The second study to show an increase in deaths from replacing saturated animal fats with polyunsaturated vegetable fats was the Sydney Diet-Heart study. This was one of the larger, longer, better-conducted trials. After five years, the intervention group saw about 50% more deaths than the control group.

I should also mention that one of the studies in the "no effect" category actually saw more than a four-fold increase in deaths after replacing saturated fat with corn oil, but somehow the result didn't achieve statistical significance (the paper states that p= 0.05-0.1, whatever that means). It may have simply been due to the small size of the study.

Overall, the data from controlled trials are clear: replacing animal fat with vegetable oil does not reduce your risk of dying! The same is true of reducing total fat. The main counterpoint to this conclusion is that the trials may have been too short to pick up the effect of saturated fat. However, two years was enough time to detect the effect of fish oil on death in the DART trial, and the trials I'm writing about lasted up to 8 years (not including the Finnish mental hospital trial or the Swedish one). There's also the fact that the greatest consumers of saturated fat in the world eat it for their entire lives and don't seem to suffer from it. Proponents of the theory that saturated fat is unhealthy have the burden of proof on their shoulders, and the data have failed to deliver.

Most trials of this nature are designed with cardiovascular outcomes in mind. Out of the twelve studies mentioned above, nine measured coronary heart disease mortality.

• Two found it was reduced when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated vegetable fat.
• One found that is was increased when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated vegetable fat.
• Six found no effect.

Of the two that found an effect, the first was the Finnish mental hospital study. See above. The second was the L.A. Veterans Administration study, which was actually a good, eight-year study. However, it's worth noting three things about it: first, there were significantly more heavy smokers in the control group; second, overall mortality was the same in both groups, partly because of an increased cancer risk in the diet group; and third, it's the only well-conducted study of its kind to find such a result.

The study to find an increase in cardiovascular deaths was again the unfortunately-named Anti-Coronary Club trial. The Sydney Diet-Heart trial did not report cardiovascular mortality, which was almost certainly increased. Also, the study mentioned above that saw a "non-significant" four-fold increase in deaths on corn oil also saw a similar increase in cardiovascular deaths. I included it in the "no effect" category.

So not only do the best data not support the idea that saturated fat increases the overall risk of death, they don't even support the idea that it causes heart disease! In fact, the body seems to prefer saturated fat to unsaturated fats in the bloodstream. Guess what your liver does with carbohydrate when you eat a low-fat diet? It turns it into saturated fat (palmitic acid) and then pumps it into your bloodstream. We have the enzymes necessary to desaturate palmitic acid, so why does the liver choose to secrete it into the blood in its saturated form? Kitavan lipoproteins contain a lot of palmitic acid, which is not found in their diet. Are their livers trying to kill them? Apparently they aren't succeeding.

Eat the fat on your steaks folks. Just like your great-grandparents did, and everyone who came before.

Saturated Fat and Health: a Brief Literature Review, Part I

Even years ago, when I watched my saturated fat intake, I always had a certain level of cognitive dissonance about it. I knew that healthy non-industrial cultures often consumed large amounts of saturated fat. For example, the Masai of East Africa, who traditionally subsist on extremely fatty milk, blood and meat, do not appear to experience heart attacks. Their electrocardiogram readings are excellent and they have the lowest level of arterial plaque during the time of their lives when they are restricted (for cultural reasons) to their three traditional foods. They get an estimated 33% of their calories from saturated animal fat.

Then there are the Pacific islanders, who often eat large amounts of highly saturated coconut. Kitavans get 17% of their calories from saturated fat (Americans get about 10% on average), yet show no trace of heart disease, stroke or overweight. The inhabitants of the island of Tokelau, who I learned about recently, eat more saturated fat than any other culture I'm aware of. They get a whopping 55% of their calories from saturated fat! Are they keeling over from heart attacks or any of the other diseases that kill people in modern societies? Apparently not. So from the very beginning, the theory faces the problem that the cultures consuming the most saturated fat on Earth have an undetectable frequency of heart attacks and other modern non-communicable diseases.

Humans have eaten saturated animal fat since our species first evolved, and historical hunter-gatherers subsisted mostly on animal foods. Our closest recent relatives, neanderthals, were practically carnivores. Thus, the burden of proof is on proponents of the theory that saturated fat is unhealthy.

There have been countless studies on the relationship between saturated fat and health. The first studies were epidemiological. Epidemiological studies involve collecting data from one or more populations and seeing if any specific factors associate with the disease in question. For example, the Framingham Heart study collected data on diet, lifestyle and mortality from various diseases and attempted to connect diseases to lifestyle factors. This type of study is useful for creating hypotheses, but it can only determine associations. For example, it can establish that smokers tend to die more often from heart disease than non-smokers, but it can't determine that smoking is actually the cause of heart disease. This is because multiple factors often travel together. For example, maybe smokers also tend to take care of themselves less in other ways, sleeping less, eating more sugar, etc.

Epidemiological data are often incorrectly used to demonstrate causality. This is a big problem, and it irritates me to no end. There's only one way to show conclusively that a diet or lifestyle factor actually causes something else: a controlled trial. In a controlled trial, researchers break participants into two groups: an intervention group and a control group. If they want to know the effect of saturated fat on health, they will advise the participants in each group to eat different amounts of saturated fat, and keep everything else the same. At the end of the trial, they can determine the effect of saturated fat on health because it was the only factor that differed between groups. In practice, reducing saturated fat also involves either increasing unsaturated fat or decreasing total fat intake, so it's not perfect.

I'm not going to review the epidemiological data because they are contradictory and they are "lesser evidence" compared to the controlled trials that have been conducted. However, I will note that Dr. Ancel Keys' major epidemiological study linking saturated fat consumption to heart disease, the "Seven Countries" study, has been thoroughly discredited due to the omission of contradictory data (read: the other 15 countries where data were available). This was the study that sparked the anti-saturated fat movement. Older epidemiological studies and those conducted internationally tend to find nonexistent or weak links between saturated fat and health problems, while more recent American studies, such as the Nurses' Health study, have sometimes found strong associations. I'll address this phenomenon in another post.

In the next post, I'll get into the meaty data: the controlled trails evaluating the effect of saturated fat on health.

Thanks to Rockies for the CC photo.

Beef Tallow: a Good Source of Fat-Soluble Vitamins?

Suet is a traditional cooking fat in the US, which is a country that loves its cows. It's the fat inside a cow's intestinal cavity, and it can be rendered into tallow. Tallow is an extremely stable fat, due to its high degree of saturation (56%) and low level of polyunsaturated fatty acids (3%). This makes it ideal for deep frying. Until it was pressured to abandon suet in favor of hydrogenated vegetable oil around 1990, in part by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, McDonald's used tallow in its deep fryers. Now, tallow is mostly fed to birds and feedlot cows.

I decided to make pemmican recently, which is a mixture of pulverized jerky and tallow that was traditionally eaten by native Americans of many tribes. I bought pasture-raised suet at my farmer's market. It was remarkably cheap at $2/lb. No one wants it because it's so saturated. The first thing I noticed was a yellowish tinge, which I didn't expect.

I rendered it the same way I make lard. It turned into a clear, golden liquid with a beefy aroma. This got me thinking. The difference between deep yellow butter from grass-fed cows and lily-white butter from industrial grain-fed cows has to do with the carotene content. Carotene is also a marker of other nutrients in butter, such as vitamin K2 MK-4, which can vary 50-fold depending on what the cows are eating. So I thought I'd see if suet contains any K2.

And indeed it does. The NutritionData entry for suet says it contains 3.6 micrograms (4% DV) per 100g. 100g is about a quarter pound of suet, more than you would reasonably eat. Unless you were really hungry. But anyway, that's a small amount of K2 per serving. However, the anonymous cow in question is probably a grain-finished animal. You might expect a grass-fed cow to have much more K2 in its suet, as it does in its milkfat. According to Weston Price, butter fat varies 50-fold in its K2 content. If that were true for suet as well, grass-fed suet could conceivably contain up to 180 micrograms per 100g, making it a good source of K2.

Tallow from pasture-raised cows also contains a small amount of vitamin D, similar to lard. Combined with its low omega-6 content and its balanced n-6/n-3 ratio, that puts it near the top of my list of cooking fats.

DART: Many Lessons Learned

The Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART), published in 1989, is one of the most interesting clinical trials I've had the pleasure to read about recently. It included 2,033 British men who had already suffered from an acute myocardial infarction (MI; heart attack), and tested three different strategies to prevent further MIs. Subjects were divided into six groups:

• One group was instructed to reduce total fat to 30% of calories (from about 35%) and replace saturated fat (SFA) with polyunsaturated fat (PUFA).
• The second group was told to double grain fiber intake.
• The third group was instructed to eat more fatty fish or take fish oil if they didn't like fish.
• The remaining three were control groups that were not advised to change diet; one for each of the first three.
  

Researchers followed the six groups for two years, recording deaths and MIs. The fat group reduced their total fat intake from 35.0 to 32.3% of calories, while doubling the ratio of PUFA to SFA (to 0.78). After two years, there was no change in all-cause or cardiac mortality. This is totally consistent with the numerous other controlled trials that have been done on the subject. Here's the mortality curve:

Here's what the authors have to say about it:

Five randomised trials have been published in which a diet low in fat or with a high P/S [polyunsaturated/saturated fat] ratio was given to subjects who had recovered from MI. All these trials contained less than 500 subjects and none showed any reduction in deaths; indeed, one showed an increase in total mortality in the subjects who took the diet.

So... why do we keep banging our heads against the wall if clinical trials have already shown repeatedly that total fat and saturated fat consumption are irrelevant to heart disease and overall risk of dying? Are we going to keep doing these trials until we get a statistical fluke that confirms our favorite theory? This DART paper was published in 1989, and we have not stopped banging our heads against the wall since. The fact is, there has never been a properly controlled clinical trial that has shown an all-cause mortality benefit for reducing total or saturated fat in the diet (without changing other variables at the same time). More than a dozen have been conducted to date.

On to fish. The fish group tripled their omega-3 intake, going from 0.6 grams per week of EPA to 2.4 g (EPA was their proxy for fish intake). This group saw a significant reduction in MI and all-cause deaths, 9.3% vs 12.8% total deaths over two years (a 27% relative risk reduction). Here's the survival chart:

Balancing omega-6 intake with omega-3 has consistently improved cardiac risk in clinical trials. I've discussed that here.

The thing that makes the DART trial really unique is it's the only controlled trial I'm aware of that examined the effect of grain fiber on mortality (without simultaneously changing other factors). The fiber group doubled their grain fiber intake, going from 9 to 17 grams by eating more whole grains. This group saw a non-significant trend toward increased mortality and MI compared to its control group. Deaths went up from 9.9% to 12.1%, a relative risk increase of 18%. I suspect this result was right on the cusp of statistical significance, judging by the numbers and the look of the survival curve:

You can see that the effect is consistent and increases over time. At this rate, it probably would have been statistically significant at 2.5 years. This result is consistent with short term trials I've found showing that wheat bran causes insulin resistance. In one, feeding five healthy subjects wheat bran for 7 weeks in addition to a controlled diet initially reduced blood glucose levels but resulted in insulin resistance, insulin hypersecretion and reactive hypoglycemia by the end of the seven weeks. Other trials show a non-significant trend toward insulin resistance on a whole-grain rich diet. The longer the trial, the stronger the effect.

I think the problem with whole grains is that the bran and germ contain a disproportionate amount of toxins, among which are the lectins. I've speculated before that grain lectins could contribute to leptin and insulin resistance. The bran and germ also contain a disproportionate amount of nutrients. To have your cake and eat it too, soak, sprout or ferment grains. This reduces the toxin load but preserves or enhances nutritional value. Wheat may be a problem whether it's treated this way or not.

Subjects in the studies above were eating grain fiber that was not treated properly, and so they were increasing their intake of some pretty nasty toxins while decreasing their nutrient absorption. Healthy non-industrial cultures would never have made this mistake. Grains must be treated with respect, and whole grains in particular.

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is milder form of NASH, in which the liver becomes enlarged and accumulates fat. Ready for a shocker? The prevalence of NAFLD is thought to be between 20 and 30 percent in the Western world, and rising. It's typically associated with insulin resistance and often with the metabolic syndrome. This has lead some researchers to believe it's caused by insulin resistance. It's a chicken and egg question, but I believe it's the other way around if anything.

There are certain animal models of human disease that are so informative I keep coming back to them again and again. One of my favorites is the LIRKO mouse, or liver-specific insulin receptor knockout mouse. The LIRKO mouse is missing its insulin receptor in the liver only, so it is a model of severe insulin resistance of the liver. It accumulates a small amount of fat in its liver in old age, but nothing that resembles NAFLD. So liver insulin resistance doesn't lead to NAFLD or NASH, at least in this model.

What else happens to the LIRKO mouse? It develops severe whole-body insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, high fasting blood glucose and hyperinsulinemia (chronically elevated insulin). So insulin resistance in the liver is sufficient to cause whole-body insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia and certain other hallmarks of the metabolic syndrome, while liver and whole-body insulin resistance are not sufficient to cause NAFLD or NASH. This is consistent with the fact that nearly everyone with NAFLD is insulin resistant, while many who are insulin resistant do not have NAFLD.

In all fairness, there are reasons why NAFLD is believed to be caused by insulin resistance. For example, insulin-sensitizing drugs improve NAFLD. However, that doesn't mean the initial metabolic 'hit' wasn't in the liver. One could imagine a scenario in which liver insulin resistance leads to insulin resistance in other tissues, which creates a positive feedback that aggravates NAFLD. Or perhaps NAFLD requires two 'hits', one to peripheral insulin sensitivity and another directly to the liver.

In any case, I feel that the most plausible mechanism for NAFLD goes something like this: too much n-6 from polyunsaturated vegetable oil (along with insufficient n-3), plus too much fructose from sweeteners, combine to cause NAFLD. The liver becomes insulin resistant at this point, leading to whole-body insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, impaired glucose tolerance and general metabolic havoc.

How to Fatten Your Liver

Steatohepatitis is a condition in which the liver becomes inflamed and accumulates fat. It was formerly found almost exclusively in alcoholics. In the 1980s, a new condition was described called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), basically steatohepatitis without the alcoholism. Today, NASH is thought to affect more than 2% of the adult American population. The liver has many important functions. It's not an organ you want to break.

This week, I've been reading about how to fatten your liver. First up: industrial vegetable oil. The study that initially sent me on this nerd safari was recently published in the Journal of Nutrition. It's titled "Increased Apoptosis in High-Fat Diet–Induced Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in Rats Is Associated with c-Jun NH₂-Terminal Kinase Activation and Elevated Proapoptotic Bax". Quite a mouthful. The important thing for the purpose of this post is that the investigators fed rats a high-fat diet, which induced NASH.

Anytime a study mentions a "high-fat diet", I immediately look to see what they were actually feeding the animals. To my utter amazement, there was no information on the composition of the high-fat diet in the methods section, only a reference to another paper. Apparently fat composition is irrelevant. Despite the fact that a high-fat diet from coconut oil or butter does not produce NASH in rats. Fortunately, I was able to track down the reference. The only difference between the standard diet and the high-fat diet was the addition of a large amount of corn oil and the subtraction of carbohydrate (dextrin maltose).

Corn oil is one of the worst vegetable oils. You've eaten corn so you know it's not an oily seed. To concentrate the oil and make it palatable, manufacturers use organic solvents, high heat, and several rounds of chemical treatment. It's also extremely rich in n-6 linoleic acid. The consumption of corn oil and other n-6 rich oils has risen dramatically in the US in the last 30 years, making them prime suspects in NASH. They have replaced the natural (more saturated) fats we once got from meat and milk.

Next up: fructose. Feeding rats an extreme amount of fructose (60% of calories) gives them nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), NASH's younger sibling, even when the fat in their chow is lard. Given the upward trend of US fructose consumption (mostly from high-fructose corn syrup), and the refined sugar consumed everywhere else (50% fructose), it's also high on my list of suspects.

Here's my prescription for homemade foie gras: take one serving of soybean oil fried french fries, a basket of corn oil fried chicken nuggets, a healthy salad drenched in cottonseed oil ranch dressing, and wash it all down with a tall cup of soda. It's worked for millions of Americans!

A Practical Approach to Omega Fats

Hunter-gatherers and healthy non-industrial cultures didn't know what omega-6 and omega-3 fats were. They didn't balance nutrients precisely; they stayed healthy by eating foods that they knew were available and nourishing. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to bean count omega fats, and I don't think there's likely to be a single ideal ratio of n-6 to n-3. However, I do think there's evidence for an optimal range. To find out what it is, let's look at what's been done by healthy cultures in the past:

• Hunter-gatherers living mostly on land animals: 2:1
• Pacific islanders getting most of their fat from coconut and fish: 1:2 or less
• Inuit and other Pacific coast Americans: 1:4 or less
• Dairy-based cultures: 1:1
• Cultures eating fish and grains: 1:2 or less

It looks like a healthy ratio is between 2:1 and 1:4 n-6 to n-3. Some of these cultures ate a good amount of n-3 polyunsaturated fat, but none of them ate much n-6. There are three basic patterns that I've seen: 1) low fat with low total n-6 and n-3, and a ratio of less than 2:1; 2) high fat with low total n-6 and n-3 and a ratio of 2:1 or less; 3) high fat with low n-6 and high n-3, and a low carbohydrate intake.

I think there's a simple way to interpret all this. Number one, don't eat vegetable oils high in n-6 fats. They are mostly industrial creations that have never supported human health. Number two, find a source of n-3 fats that can approximately balance your n-6 intake. In practical terms, this means minimizing sources of n-6 and eating modest amounts of n-3 to balance it. Some foods are naturally balanced, such as grass-fed dairy and pastured lamb. Others, like coconut oil, have so little n-6 it doesn't take much n-3 to create a proper balance.

Animal sources of n-3 are the best because they provide pre-formed long-chain fats like DHA, which some people have difficulty producing themselves. I don't trust flax because paleolithic humans wouldn't have eaten anything like it, and it's full of phytoestrogens. Fish oil and cod liver oil can be a convenient source of n-3; take them in doses of one teaspoon or less. As usual, whole foods are probably better than isolated oils. Weston Price noted that cultures throughout the world went to great lengths to obtain fresh and dried marine foods. Choose shellfish and wild fish that are low on the food chain so they aren't excessively polluted.

I don't think adding gobs of fish oil on top of the standard American diet to correct a poor n-6:n-3 ratio is optimal. It may be better than no fish oil, but it's probably not the best approach. I just read a study, hot off the presses, that examines this very issue in young pigs. Pigs are similar to humans in many ways, including aspects of their fat metabolism. They were fed three diets: a "deficient" diet containing some n-6 but very little n-3; a "contemporary" diet containing a lot of n-6 and some n-3; an "evolutionary" diet containing a modest, balanced amount of n-6 and n-3; and a "supplemented" diet, which is the contemporary diet plus DHA and arachidonic acid (AA).

Using the evolutionary diet as a benchmark, none of the other diets were able to achieve the same fatty acid profile in the young pigs' brains, blood, liver or heart. They also showed that neurons in culture require DHA for proper development, and excess n-6 interferes with the process.

With that said, here are a few graphs of the proportion of n-6 in common foods. These numbers all come from nutrition data. They reflect the percentage n-6 out of the total fat content. First, animal fats:


Except salmon oil, these are traditional fats suitable for cooking. Except schmaltz (chicken fat), they are relatively low in n-6. Next, vegetable oils:


These range from very low in n-6 to very high. Most of the modern, industrially processed oils are on the right, while most traditional oils are on the left. I don't recommend using anything to the right of olive oil on a regular basis. "HO" sunflower oil is high-oleic, which mealns it has been bred for a high monounsaturated fat content at the expense of n-6. Here are the meats and eggs:

n-3 eggs are from hens fed flax or seaweed, while the other bar refers to conventional eggs.

A few of these foods are good sources of n-3. At the top of the list is fish oil, followed by n-3 eggs, grass-fed butter, and the fat of grass-fed ruminants. It is possible to keep a good balance without seafood, it just requires keeping n-6 fats to an absolute minimum. It's also possible to overdo n-3 fats. The traditional Inuit, despite their excellent health overall, did not clot well. They commonly developed nosebleeds that would last for three days, for example. This is thought to be due to the effect of n-3 on blood clotting. But keep in mind that their n-3 intake was so high it would be difficult to achieve today without drinking wine glasses full of fish oil.