One of the times I interviewed Dr. Mike Eades for Fat Head, he told me (after we were done shooting) that the usual treatment pattern for type 2 diabetes and other diet-related ailments goes something like this:

• Doctor puts patient on a low-fat diet
• Patient’s condition doesn’t get any better or gets even worse
• Doctor declares that diet won’t fix the problem and prescribes a drug

I’m afraid we’ll soon be seeing more and more of an alternate version of that treatment pattern:

• Doctor puts patient on a low-fat diet
• Patient’s condition doesn’t get any better or gets even worse
• Doctor declares that diet won’t fix the problem and recommends surgery

There were some dramatic headlines this week about a new study showing that weight-loss surgery works even better than diet or drugs (wow!) for reversing type 2 diabetes. Here are some quotes from a news story in the New York Times:

Two studies have found that weight-loss operations worked much better than the standard therapies for Type 2 diabetes in obese and overweight people whose blood sugar was out of control. Those who had surgery, which stapled the stomach and rerouted the small intestine, were much more likely to have a complete remission of diabetes, or to need less medicine, than people who were given the typical regimen of drugs, diet and exercise.

Hmm, I wonder what the typical regimen of drugs, diet and exercise would be? We’ll come back to that.

The new studies, published on Monday by The New England Journal of Medicine, are the first to rigorously compare medical treatment with these particular stomach and intestinal operations as ways to control diabetes. Doctors had been noticing for years that weight-loss operations, also called bariatric surgery, could sometimes get rid of Type 2 diabetes. But they had no hard data.

Experts say better treatments are desperately needed for the disease.

“Type 2 diabetes is one of the fastest growing epidemics in human history,” according to an editorial published with the two studies.

Yes indeed, rates of type 2 diabetes have been skyrocketing in the past few decades. Now … what’s changed in the population since, say, 1980? Have we been suffering from a shortage of bariatric surgery, whereas our grandparents all had their stomachs stapled as part of their high-school graduation ceremonies? I don’t think so.

One of the studies, conducted at the Catholic University in Rome, compared two types of surgery with usual medical treatment. After two years, the surgical groups had complete remission rates of 75 percent and 95 percent; there were no remissions in patients who received medical treatment.

The second study, at the Cleveland Clinic, compared two types of surgery with an intensive medical regimen. The remission rates one year after surgery were lower than in the Italian study — 42 percent and 37 percent — at least in part because the American study used a stricter definition of remission.

Sounds as if those Italians need to tighten up their definitions a bit. Otherwise we’ll have diabetics moving to Italy so they can become non-diabetics. The Italian Tourism Board may even start a new campaign.

Come to Italy! The scenery is a-lovely, the people are a-nice, and your fasting glucose will-a drop by 30 points!

I looked up the study conducted in the U.S. to see what “typical” regimen produced such lousy results compared to hacking up the digestive system. Can’t say I was surprised:

All patients received intensive medical therapy, as defined by American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, including lifestyle counseling, weight management, frequent home glucose monitoring, and the use of newer drug therapies (e.g., incretin analogues) approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Fabulous. The non-surgical patients were told to follow the ADA guidelines … you know, the guidelines that explain how carbohydrates drive up your blood sugar and therefore you should base your diet on them. Talk about rigging the game in your favor. That’s like spiking one team’s Gatorade with vodka before the Super Bowl.

Tom Brady is having a rough day out there. He’s been sacked six times, he’s been knocked down three times, and he’s fallen down 22 times for no apparent reason. I guess the Giants are just a better team, folks.

Every 3 months for the first 12 months, patients returned for study visits with a diabetes specialist at the Cleveland Clinic. Patients were counseled by a diabetes educator and evaluated for bariatric surgery by a psychologist and encouraged to participate in the Weight Watchers program.

Double fabulous. The patients were counseled by a diabetes educator. Here’s all you need to know about that: Hope Warshaw is a diabetes educator.

Then they were encouraged to follow the Weight Watchers diet – another low-fat diet. The researchers not only spiked the opposing team’s Gatorade with vodka, they added a few sleeping pills as well.

Folks, Brady just went down again despite not being touched, and I don’t think he’s getting up. This Giants defense is on fire today!

So we had one group of patients who were encouraged to follow a low-fat, high-carb diet and another group of patients who underwent surgery and – surprise! – the surgery group had higher rates of remission. Boy, mangling the digestive system Mother Nature gave us must perform some biological miracles.

It’s been nearly three years since I wrote about gastric bypass and lap-band surgery, so here’s a review of what patients are told to eat afterwards:

The second phase of the Lap-Band diet consists of 5 to 6 weeks of a modified full liquid diet; the key component of this phase is consuming two ounces of a protein shake every hour for ten to twelve hours a day with two ounces of other liquids such as soup, baby food, or sugar-free gelatin three times a day.

During the second six weeks following Lap-Band surgery patients may eat food that is shredded in a food processor prior to eating. The basic foods on the Lap-Band diet include meats or other forms of protein, vegetables, and salads.

After Lap-Band surgery the stomach will never hold more than 4 to 6 ounces per meal, so making every bite count is essential for healthy and nutritionally rounded weight loss success. Protein is especially important following Lap-Band surgery. The Lap-Band diet does not include most bread, potatoes and other starchy vegetables.

Surgeons reduce your stomach to an itty-bitty pouch, so you’re encouraged to base your itty-bitty meals on protein foods and vegetables while skipping the bread, potatoes and other starchy vegetables. In other words, it’s a low-carb diet … the itty-bitty version. Even if you ignored the advice and wanted to eat a big bowl of Kellogg’s Krave, you couldn’t. The itty-bitty pouch wouldn’t hold more than few ounces.

So we’re supposed to be impressed that people who undergo surgery and are limited afterwards to a few ounces of protein and vegetables end up reversing diabetes? Based on this rigged result, we’re perhaps going to start treating more diabetics with surgery – without first comparing surgery to a simple low-carb diet? What kind of doctors would promote that idea? Perhaps we should look at the disclosures in this (ahem) study:

Dr. Schauer reports receiving payment for board membership from Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Surgiquest, Barosense, RemedyMD, and Stryker, consulting fees from Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Stryker, Gore, and Carefusion, payment for expert testimony from Physicians Review of Surgery, and lecture fees from Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Allergan, Cinemed, and Quadrant Healthcare, holding a patent for a medical device to enhance weight loss in codevelopment with the Cleveland Clinic, royalties from Springer, having an equity interest in Intuitive Surgical, Barosense, Surgiquest, and RemedyMD, and receiving institutional grant support (to the Cleveland Clinic) from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Bard Davol; Dr. Kashyap, receiving consulting fees from Ethicon; Dr. Brethauer, receiving consulting fees, lecture fees, and payment for board membership from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and lecture fees from Covidien; Dr. Kirwan, receiving grant support from Nestle and ScottCare.

Ah, I see. The study was conducted by a bunch of doctors who are paid by firms in the weight-loss surgery industry.

No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Oh, that’s okay. I think the conflicts already reported were quite enough.

Time to catch up on some of the interesting news items readers have sent me lately.

Maybe they should just ban the consumption of their own product …

You’re probably aware that some companies are trying to keep their health-care costs down by charging overweight and obese employees more for health insurance.  I think that’s a dumb idea.  It’s based on the (mistaken) belief that the overweight employees know how to lose weight, but just don’t care to make the effort.

But when this company charges unhealthy employees extra, it seems double-stupid:

Four years ago, PepsiCo began rolling out a wellness program that charges its employees $50 a month if they smoke or have obesity-related medical problems such as diabetes, hypertension, and high blood pressure. Workers can avoid the surcharge if they attend classes to learn how to break their nicotine addictions or lose weight. When about 400 unionized PepsiCo bottlers and truck drivers in central New York learned early last year they’d be subject to the fee, they rebelled.

So we’ve got a company producing a sugary drink that can cause obesity-related medical conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure, and they’re going to levy a sin tax on employees who developed obesity-related medical conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure.  Why don’t they just send out a memo:

Dear employee,

Please stop drinking our product.  We don’t want to have to charge you extra for insurance.

I’m waiting for a news story describing how cigarette manufacturers are going to charge higher insurance rates for employees who smoke.

The soda maker doesn’t think of its $50 assessment as a sin tax. Says [PepsiCo spokesman Dave] DeCecco: “What company wouldn’t want a healthy, engaged workforce?”

Oh, I don’t know … maybe a company that sells big bottles of sugar-water for less than a dollar apiece?

Truth in advertising

You’ve got to love the name of this new cereal:

Yup, I’m sure lots of kids will krave Kellogg’s Krave.  They’ll probably toss back big ol’ bowls of the stuff before going to school and attending the special classes for kids with ADHD.  But hey, it’s okay … as you can see from the label, Kellogg’s Krave contains fiber and whole grains!

“Johnny, where were you?  You missed Social Studies and English!”

“I’m sorry, Mrs. Worthington.  I had to make a number two.  Again.”

“Well, that shouldn’t take two class periods to accomplish, young man.”

“It does if you fall asleep on the toilet.”

Paleo bagel-eaters

Okay, this isn’t exactly a news item, but a reader who happens to be a teacher sent me a copy of the guidelines she was given to teach 7th graders about the Paleolithic era and the “stone-age” diet.  Here are some quotes from an assignment for the kiddies:

No one expects you to eat raw mammoth brains, or even thistle, twigs, or your hamster. In fact, many species eaten by early hominids are now extinct. To duplicate the same foods our ancestors ate is almost impossible. Imagine trying to find in the local supermarket such foods as reindeer, fox, caribou, giant sloth, flamingos, bear, catmint, grubs, or quail eggs. Nevertheless, many foods exist that are similar to foods eaten during the Stone Age.

Yup … steaks, organ meats, chicken eggs, chickens, fish, a wide variety of vegetables, fruits …

Approved “Stone Age” foods to eat
• fish and seafood
• small game (e.g., rabbit, chicken)
• bison (buffalo meat)
• seeds and nuts (raw, without salt)
• lots of fruits (including figs)
• lots of vegetables (including beans)
• lots of water (eight to 10 glasses per day)
• whole grains such as barley, bulgar, oat bran, corn bran, rice, millet, buckwheat, and rye
• tubers (potatoes and sweet potatoes)
• small amounts of cereal grains
• pita bread and whole grain breads
• honey—the only sweetener allowed in your Stone Age diet!
• berries
• shoots and roots
• edible leaves and flowers
• lean red meats (sparingly)
• whole wheat bagels and rolls
• rice cakes

Whole grains, cereal grains, rice cakes and bagels – in the STONE AGE?!!  Do these goofballs have any idea when farming actually began?

Your goal is to eat an abundance of natural, wholesome food with few or no chemical additives. Keep track of what you eat on the STONE AGE DIET RECORD. Why not do one more thing your ancestors did—exercise by walking or running outside each day. The combination of wholesome, low-fat foods and daily vigorous exercise will make a difference in your life!

Yup, that was life in the stone age:  whole-wheat bagels, rice cakes, cereal and other low-fat foods.   Those paleo hunters were very concerned about saturated fat and cholesterol.

Well, at least the lesson planners probably explained how anthropologists have found that hunter-gatherers spent an average of 20 hours per week obtaining food, then spent their remaining time playing games, telling stories, and engaging in ceremonies.

For 2.5 million years, humans lived nomadic lives of hunters and gatherers. This era of human existence was one of continual scarcity. All human energy had to be devoted to daily securing the food necessary to survival.

Head.  Bang.  On.  Desk.

Yes, let’s get those cholesterol levels even lower!

I just knew that when the patents on statin drugs began to expire, something even (ahem) better would come along.  I’m sorry to say I was right:

A possible revolutionary way to fight cholesterol is expected to cause a big stir among thousands of heart doctors gathering in Chicago starting this weekend for the annual American College of Cardiology meeting.

No doubt. You mention fighting cholesterol, and cardiologists get all stirred up.  Fighting cholesterol makes them feel good about themselves.  That’s because they believe – despite all the contrary evidence – that high cholesterol causes heart disease.

The new drugs in development by top pharmaceutical makers and up-and-coming biotechs are injectable medications that block a protein called PCSK9.

They have shown promise in early clinical trials for slashing “bad” LDL cholesterol further than widely used statins can alone. Their biggest advocates say PCSK9 blockers have the potential to be the next multibillion-dollar class of heart drugs.

I’m sure they will be.  The makers of those drugs will sponsor educational conferences for doctors (in really nice locations) and present some dazzling, highly-manipulated evidence that these new drugs can save millions of lives.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc last year disclosed that its product slashed levels of LDL cholesterol up to 65 percent beyond reductions seen alone with statins – pills like Pfizer Inc’s Lipitor and AstraZeneca Plc’s Crestor that are today’s standard treatments.

Outstanding!  If we can just get people’s LDL levels down to, say, 20 or 30, we’ll make a fortune!  Granted, the people taking the drugs will be impotent, sore, tired, cranky, too weak to move and suffering from serious cognitive decline, but – here’s the important thing – their lab scores will make doctors feel good about themselves.

“PCSK9 is one of the most exciting targets in cardiovascular drug development today,” Michael Severino, Amgen’s chief medical officer, said in an interview. Severino said a large number of patients – some studies suggest 40 to 50 percent – fail to reach their cholesterol-lowering goals despite being on statins, and that PCSK9 inhibitors could give them the needed extra push.

Yup, right into the home for Alzheimer’s patients.  But – this is the important  thing – their lab scores will make doctors feel good about themselves.

Sure, you’ll lose weight … but then you’ll die

In my recent ORI speech, I listed this as the fifth ingredient for cooking up a crisis in nutrition:

Doctors, researchers, medical industry trade groups, government agencies and other authorities insisting that while the alternative advice may occasionally help some stupid, lazy, or gluttonous people lose weight and get their blood sugar under control, it will also kill them.

We had another example this week.  Take a look at this dramatic headline:

Low carb diets imperil people prone to heart disease

No ifs, ands or buts in that headline, by gosh.  There’s not even a maybe.  If you’re prone to heart disease, going on a low-carb diet is risky, period, end of story.  Surely a bold headline like is the result of a well-designed clinical study of how low-carb diets affect humans.

A low-carb, high-fat diet might help some people lose weight, but it could be deadly to those with a family history of heart disease, according to research presented March 25 at a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

Hey … that would be the same meeting where cardiologists were dazzled by the news that some new drugs can beat down cholesterol levels even more than statins!  I’m starting to see pattern here:  going on a diet that makes you feel great and lose weight will kill you, but the drugs we sell are fantastic and will save your life.  So forget the diet and take your drugs.

Anyway, back to the article:

Researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham found that obese rats fed a high-fat, low-carb diet — comparable to what many humans consume — had more damaging and deadly heart attacks than obese rats fed a low-fat diet.

Got that?  Obese rats fed a high-fat diet had more heart attacks than rats on a low-fat diet, so this proves (according to the headline) that low-carb diets imperil people with heart disease.  And you wonder why I think the average media health writer is a flippin’ moron?

I couldn’t find the study online (it may not be published yet) and therefore couldn’t determine what was in that “high-fat” diet the rats consumed, but I did find a spec sheet awhile back for something called the Atkins-Style Diet that’s frequently used in rodent studies.  Here are some of the top ingredients:

• Casein
• Corn Starch
• Milk Fat
• Crisco
• Lard
• Dextrin
• Sucrose
• Soybean Oil
• Corn Oil
• Blue Dye

Boy, that sounds exactly like the average Atkins dieter’s dinner, doesn’t it?  The lard is good, but I urge all of you to avoid basing your meals on corn starch, Crisco, dextrin, sucrose, soybean oil and corn oil.

In other words, don’t eat the typical school lunch, even if the USDA approves.

Quick update on the sciency stuff. I thought maybe Tom would dissect the latest “death by red meat” story when he returns.

Maybe he will, but the most awesomeful Denise Minger, who hit the Fat Head radar with her blistering analysis of The China Study, has done another superb piece on this new assault on real science as a guest post on primal guru Mark Sisson’s blog at marksdailyapple.com.

I took an amatuer stab at the Science for Smart People thing as lots of folks were commenting about the study here, and I felt really good seeing that I caught the main points Denise hit. But if you want to read a breakdown by a real genius, get over there for a good read. Sorry I can’t stick a link in here – I’m pecking away at this on my nook and my finger is killing me!

Cheers,

The Older Brother

Okay, This isn’t really my strong suit, and I don’t usually climb up into the big chair two days in a row, but there’s been several folks asking about the latest study proving that red meat will kill you.

Sigh.

Firstly, keep in mind that these things crop up like spring mushrooms after a rain. Tom just finished debunking one a couple of months ago here.

If you’ve checked out my blog, you know I’m more of an economics nerd.  The equivalent in that realm is every other year or so, some liberal think tank or university releases a dramatic new study proving that increasing the minimum wage actually raises employment.  It’s always trumpeted on the front page.  Once it gets peer review, if they even bother, it gets shredded.  Those stories never seem to make the editorial cut, much less get front page attention:

Startling Review of Study Shows Higher Prices Mean People Buy Less, Even for Labor!!!

The irritating part is if you look at them, it seems like they just took the last one that was discredited, then rerun the same plan, then go to press.

So I figured I’d take a look at this one not because I think I can do an original analysis and takedown ala Tom on a fresh study done by “experts,” but because I guessed we could spot some of the same doo-doo that are the hallmark of bogus science.

I hit paydirt pretty quickly and thought I’d pass some easy observations along.

First of all, this isn’t a new study, it’s a meta-analysis where they cherry-pick some studies that have data they want to use.  It’s also “observational” in the worst way — from the study’s description of its methodology:

“Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years.”

Okay, if you really insist on good science, you could stop reading right there.  Long-term food questionnaires are the hallmark of bogus nutritional science.  How many servings of red meat did you eat last Thursday?  How about January 12, 2010?  You simply can’t invent less reliable information.  And fortunately for hacks, with food questionnaires you don’t have to!

Also:

“Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index.”

Can anyone say “Confounding Variables?”  The researchers said they adjusted for these.

“We also stopped updating the dietary information after a diagnosis of major chronic disease assuming that participants could have changed their diet after receiving the diagnosis.”

So, instead of actually gathering data, you assume it would’ve changed and stopped asking.  Huh?  I can’t help but wonder what kind of data they would’ve wanted to not include.  Here’s one that popped into my mind:

Meat eater gets diagnosis of chronic disease and, at the insistence of doctor and experts, changes diet to hearthealthywholegrains, avoids arterycloggingsaturatedfat, starts chronic cardio exercise program.  Drops dead two years later.  Wouldn’t want to show he’d changed his diet, would we?  Let’s count him in the red meat column!

Here’s the thing that did it for me.  The authors made a statement that “red meat has been shown to increase diabetes.”  Again, Huh? The reference for this statement was a study the same authors had conducted.  The methodologies and verbiage where the same boilerplate as the current study in question.  Their conclusion on that one was this:

“We estimated that substitutions of one serving of nuts, low-fat dairy, and whole grains per day for one serving of red meat per day were associated with a 16–35% lower risk of [Type 2 Diabetes].”

Here’s the thing, kids.  If you believe people can dramatically drop their incidence of diabetes by swapping grain in for protein, then I say all we have to do is raise the minimum wage to $500 an hour; we’ll all be millionaires and this whole little economic downturn will be solved overnight.

I don’t know what the authors of this study’s motivation or cause or agenda is, but it sure as hell isn’t the pursuit of good science.

The ironic thing is that the reason Tom isn’t here to respond to this latest step on the slow road to idiocracy is because he’s in Washington D.C. on a mission to get bureaucrats to understand why people don’t trust doctors, scientists, nutritionists, government committees and the panalopy of “experts” who’ve been making us fatter, more diabetic, more arthritic, and more lots of bad stuff while making tons of money for their “owners.”

So, please pass that study on to anybody you don’t like.  Then enjoy your bacon and repeat after me,

Scientists are Freaking Liars!

Cheers,

The Older Brother

Take a look at this PBS video sent to me by one of our readers – and try not to punch your monitor near the end:

So close …

Okay, let’s focus on the positive for now. I was delighted to hear one of the on-screen experts explain that high glucose levels appear to cause repeated injury to the kidneys.

Well-meaning people have tried to warn me over that a “high protein” diet is hard on the kidneys.  Why? Because damaged kidneys leak protein.  But that doesn’t mean protein is causing the damage.  If your kitchen pipes start leaking water, do you assume the damage was caused by water?  Of course not.  The kidneys are damaged by excess glucose, and then they leak protein.

I was delighted again to hear a researcher explain that ketones can be used as an alternate energy source by most cells in the body, and that on a ketogenic diet  the body switches from being primarily a glucose-metabolizing machine to a fat-and-ketone metabolizing machine.

As I like to explain it to people, you can be sugar-burner or a fat-burner. I find life as a fat-burner much more pleasant … more consistent energy, better mood, no more creeping weight gain, and no more ravenous hunger if I skip a meal. As I write this, I’m 23 hours into a 24-hour intermittent fasting day, and I feel fine.

I was delighted yet again when the researchers speculated that removing glucose from the picture might help the kidneys recover, then discovered that putting mice on a ketogenic diet did indeed reverse the kidney damage caused by diabetes. Sure, it’s just a rodent study with results that may or may not apply to humans, but as the researcher said, it’s a proof of principle, an avenue to be explored.

All right!  Cool!  Great story so far. I was anxiously waiting for the part where he suggests we try the same diet on diabetic humans with damaged kidneys in a clinical trial.

And that’s when it all went south:

But the researchers are quick to point out that what happened to the mice does not mean that people with kidney disease should switch to a high fat diet, which could cause other health problems.

Say what?!  A diet that reverses kidney damage is going to kill you by … doing what, exactly?  Giving you heart disesae?  Are you telling me we’re going to examine these startling results through the lens of the ancient and discredited Lipid Hypothesis?

Yes, apparently we are.

“We don’t want to put anyone on the diet itself.  We just want to figure out how the diet works so that we can replicate the effects of the diet in a drug.”

Head.  Bang.  On.  Desk.

Here are more “this is what we’re up against” items from the news sent to me by readers:

The Diabetic Diet

By the diabetic diet, I of course mean a diet that will help you become a diabetic … even though that’s not quite what the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse had in mind when designing it.

In case you somehow overlooked it among the many other federal health agencies, the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NCD) is a division of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), which is a division of National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Ya know, I think what would really improve the nation’s health (NH) would be to add a few more layers (FML) to the federal government’s health bureaucracy (FGHB).  After all, they’ve done such a bang-up job (BUJ) reversing obesity and diabetes over the years.

Anyway, here’s how NCD (a division of NIDDK) is telling people to eat to manage their diabetes:

Healthful eating helps keep your blood glucose, also called blood sugar, in your target range. Physical activity and, if needed, diabetes medicines also help. The diabetes target range is the blood glucose level suggested by diabetes experts for good health. You can help prevent health problems by keeping your blood glucose levels on target.

So far, so good.  But what exactly is the target glucose level suggested by experts?

Target Blood Glucose Levels for People with Diabetes
Before meals: 70 to 130
1 to 2 hours after a meal: less than 180

Well, there you have it, folks:  Diabetics should aim for post-meal glucose levels that are well into the “diabetic” range.  I guess that “if needed, diabetes medicines also help” statement is more like a prediction than a suggestion.  Of course, you pretty much have to set high blood sugar targets when your recommended diet looks like this:

Choose this many servings from these food groups to have 2,000 to 2,400 calories a day:

• 10 starches
• 4 vegetables
• 5 to 7 ounces meat and meat substitutes
• 2 milks
• 4 fruits
• up to 5 fats

Ten starches and four fruits.  Good luck keeping your blood sugar below 180 if you’re already battling diabetes or pre-diabetes.  For the diabetics who are more visually oriented, the NCD (a division of NIDDK) provided this helpful graphic as well:

Well, I can see why they grouped fats and sweets in the same category.  They have nearly opposite effects on your blood sugar, but the important thing is that they both have an S and a T in their names.  Put a couple more letters in between those, and you can spell out what I think of the advice handed out by NCD (a division of NIDDK).

Heart UK’s Ultimate Diet Plan

Britain’s equivalent (I guess) of the American Heart Association refers to itself in press releases as Heart UK – UK’s leading cholesterol charity.  I was of course pleased to see that description.  There are millions of people around the world who can’t afford foods high in cholesterol, and I’m all in favor helping them out.  I’ll happily donate 100 dozen eggs.

Unfortunately, it turns out the cholesterol charity is anti-cholesterol, and they’re promoting a diet to lower cholesterol levels.  Here’s their plan to “revolutionize heart health in the UK”:

Step 1 – Motivational behaviour strategies to drive dietary success and reverse negative consumption patterns.

Here’s the behavior strategy you need to adopt:  go to the pantry and throw out everything that includes sugar or white flour.  Then walk to the fridge and find some meat and eggs.  Cook the eggs and meat and eat them.  Then you’ll feel motivated.

Step 2 – Reducing saturated fat without compromising on treats and taste. Swapping a chocolate éclair for a hot cross bun is not life changing but the 93% saturated fat drop makes the life-saving recommendation to drop our saturated fat intake so much more achievable.

So a chocolate éclair is the key to avoiding heart disease, is it?  Next you’ll be telling me to eat soy.

Steps 3, 4, 5, 6 – A pick ‘n’ mix of four cholesterol-busting foods!

• Soya foods e.g. soya milk and yogurt alternatives
• Products with plant sterols/stanols e.g. Alpro soya plus milk alternative, cholesterol ­lowering spreads, cholesterol-lowering yogurts.
• Nuts
• Soluble fibre from oats, other whole grain foods and beans and pulses.

They should’ve listed “nuts” last -– as a polite commentary on everything above it.  Still, one out of four ain’t a bad hit-to-miss ratio for the typical do-gooder health charity.  (I’m assuming the nuts weren’t roasted in some horrible vegetable oil.)  As for the soy, absolutely, go for it … because what the world needs now is more men with boobs –- they’ll be more understanding when their daughters start puberty.

I must say, though, I can’t help but wonder why Heart UK – the cholesterol charity is so high on soy milk.

The UCLP Ultimate Teaching Tool is available to all health professionals free of charge. The UCLP has been funded by an educational grant from Alpro soya UK.

Boy, it’s really generous of Alpro soya UK to provide health professions with free literature recommending Alpro soya UK products to their patients.  But if they were really smart, they’d team up with whichever company  finally manufactures the manssiere.

Over the Counter Lipitor?

Surprise, surprise … now that the patent on Lipitor is due to expire, Pfizer is hoping to sell the stuff over the counter.

Selling a version of the drug to consumers without a prescription would allow Pfizer to retain some of the $11 billion in annual revenue that Lipitor has been generating.

However, a nonprescription version would not be available immediately after the patent on Lipitor expires because Pfizer would first have to convince the Food and Drug Administration that consumers could take the drug without a doctor’s supervision.

That’s a bit like worrying that heroin addicts may shoot up without a drug-dealer’s supervision.

An over-the-counter version of Lipitor would no doubt be welcomed by insurers because it would cost less.

I can see the advantage there.  Ruining your muscles and your memory shouldn’t be expensive.  You’ll need to save as much money as possible to pay for the walkers and the Alzheimer’s care.

In the past, the F.D.A. advisers have been concerned that over-the counter versions of statins could not be used safely, that some patients who did not need the drugs would take them.

I’d be worried about that too.  It’s much better to have doctors prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs to people who don’t need them.

Since high cholesterol is a symptomless condition, consumers would not know whether the drug was working without having their cholesterol checked periodically.

Don’t be silly … of course consumers will know if the Lipitor is working.  They’ll wake up in the morning and say, “Holy crap, my muscles and joints are killing me!  It must be the … the … Honey, what’s the name of that stuff I’ve been taking?”

MSN – the More S@#$ Network

MSN Health is, in my opinion, one of the worst offenders when it comes to handing out lousy dietary advice.  Here are a couple of gems from a recent online article titled Get a Grip! 9 easy ways to help lower your cholesterol right now:

5. Double cholesterol whammy.  Dietary cholesterol can elevate your blood cholesterol levels, but saturated fat has an even worse effect. However, the two are often found in the same foods, including meat, butter and full-fat dairy. So by limiting your intake of foods rich in saturated fat, you’ll also help reduce your intake of cholesterol.

Even Ancel Keys, the Grand Poopah of Lipophobes, admitted that dietary cholesterol has no effect on the cholesterol level if your blood.  As for saturated fat, yes, it will raise your cholesterol … specifically, your HDL and your large, fluffy LDL.  Those are both beneficial.

9. Check for tropical oils. Lots of products are now “trans-fat free” but in some cases, these fats are being replaced with saturated fats, such as palm and coconut oils. You may have heard that palm and coconut oils do not negatively affect cholesterol levels, but the research isn’t conclusive and palm kernel oil contains 80 percent saturated fat. Instead, look for products that use polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower LDL cholesterol.

Hey, now there’s a technique all the bad scientists can applaud:  if a study doesn’t show what you want it to show, simply label the results as “inconclusive.”  I’ve got news for you:  if palm kernel oil and coconut oil did raise cholesterol, the results of those studies would be conclusive.

The Coconut Oil Supermodel

At least someone who spends a lot of time in her underwear knows not to fear coconut oil.

When a Victoria’s Secret runway model confesses her beauty secret, women will undoubtedly listen. Coconut oil is the new buzz in the beauty world, and now it’s been revealed that supermodel Miranda Kerr swears by it. She says that her shiny hair, perfect skin, and svelte body are the results of healthy living and daily use of this good oil.

Miranda Kerr, who famously bounced back to her pre-baby body just weeks after giving birth to her first child with actor Orlando Bloom, confesses in Daily Mail that her beauty secret is coconut oil. The supermodel says she dilutes the oil either in green tea or drizzles it over salads to keep her glowing. “I’ve been drinking it since I was 14 and it’s the one thing I can’t live without,” she tells Daily Mail.

For everyday beauty, coconut oil can be used as an all-over moisturizer, hair conditioner, and as a gentle eye make-up remover.

We’ll just pause here for a moment so the men in the audience can enjoy the idea of a Victoria’s Secret model using coconut oil as an all-over moisturizer.

…

Okay, guys, that’s enough.  Naturally, the anti-saturated-fat hysterics had to reply to Ms. Kerr’s beauty advice:

US experts yesterday warned against consuming large amounts of coconut oil after Australian supermodel Miranda Kerr said the high-fat oil was the key to her clear skin, shiny hair and trim figure.

The World Health Organization has also warned the oil could contribute to an increased risk of coronary heart disease if taken to excess.

Keith Ayoob, director of the nutrition clinic at the Children’s Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said the oil will not give you the body of a supermodel.

It won’t?  Rats!  I’ve been sitting here spreading coconut oil all over myself hoping to look good in a bikini next summer.

“I can’t say I’d want people consuming lots of coconut oil. You should use it sparingly,” Ayoob said.  “You want to cut back on saturated fats in your diet. I don’t know what benefit it would have for weight management because it has just as many calories as any other fat.”

Well, allow me to explain to you, Ayoob the Boob:  the type of fat in coconut oil –- medium-chain triglycerides –  is actually difficult to store in your adipose tissue, so you tend to burn it off instead.  It’s also good for your mood and helps curb your appetite.

Kerr’s dose of four tablespoons a day adds up to about 460 calories, which Ayoob said was too much saturated fat for most people. “She’s getting two and a half times the amount of saturated fat I would recommend for a person consuming 2,000 calories per day,” he said.

Ah, well, if you don’t recommend saturated fat, that proves it’s bad for us.  Sorry I didn’t recognize the logic in that sooner.  I must’ve been distracted by the Ayoobs.