Saturated Fats are not so bad for us: Truth and Lies

We are, without a doubt, facing a nutritional crisis in Australia and the U.S. One manifestation is confusion as to what constitutes sound nutritional principles ^1,2. Recent scientific advances have not led to consensus, but rather to substantial disagreement among experts and further uncertainty for the public. The public are confused. One such area of uncertainty is that there really is no credible scientific evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease or, more generally, cardiovascular disease. Although we are constantly told that saturated fats are “bad” and that margarine is better than butter (which it is not), there is no evidence to support this “bad fat” myth.

Unfortunately there are many myths perpetuated by certain members of the food and drug industry as well as so-called reputable groups who have strong vested interests in margarine. For example the position paper by the Heart Foundation ³ states that:

· Saturated fatty acids (SFA) intake is associated with coronary heart disease (CHD); and

· Replacing SFA with omega-6 PUFA (vegetable oils) to achieve a ratio of PUFA to SFA of greater than 1 will reduce the risk of CHD.

The foundation also states, “Our position on dietary fats and dietary cholesterol was developed from a review of the latest scientific evidence and incorporates recommendations from our previous papers.” In truth, though, all of this is out of date and absolutely wrong. The first thing to note is that this evidence is based on research from1999 that has never been updated. All the research over the past decade and even more recent findings, including our own research below, has shown exactly the opposite of these claims. Most importantly if you look at our evolution it just does not make sense.

Despite half a century of rigorous research, dietary advice from governments and doctors alike, and public campaigns urging the reduction of dietary fat, cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death in developed countries ⁴. We have consistently heard that saturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease while polyunsaturated fats like vegetable oils and margarine have a protective effect in reducing fat overall (in particular saturated fat) and, as such, are supposed to be good for our health. During the past 40 years the dietary instructions from governments and other authoritative bodies have told us to avoid all animal fats. Average fat consumption decreased, average blood cholesterol levels decreased but the rate of heart disease and the cost of its treatment continued to rise. Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, overwhelming research shows that cholesterol is not the public enemy it has been made out to be, it is just a warning that you liver (and body) are under stress and you need to take some action to reduce that stress, not the warning signs.

By contrast, replacement of cholesterol with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrates, can exacerbate the build-up of plaque in the arteries (atherosclerosis) associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. Dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherosclerosis should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.

Unfortunately, poor studies and vested interests have led us astray. For example, some older broad based (ecological) studies found, through cross-examining per capita intake of saturated fatty acids and other dietary fat items, a correlation with the death rate from coronary heart disease ⁴. However, in some studies, equally as strong coefficients were found in the number of radio and TV licences, and almost equally as strong as the number of registered motor vehicles, suggesting the implausibility of ecological-based study conclusions ⁴. The evidence against saturated fat has at best always been circumstantial. That is, saturated fat was said to elevate blood cholesterol and elevated blood cholesterol was said to cause heart disease therefore saturated fat would cause heart disease. There never has been any direct evidence that cholesterol or saturated fat cause heart disease or even of a mechanism whereby heart disease would occur.

Bias very likely exists in the findings of the studies, with researchers choosing particular countries or data sets to indicate a preferred result ⁴. An example of this is the early work of Dr Ancel Keys, which launched this attack on saturated fat and, at the same time, introduced the cholesterol myth back in the 1960s. In the Seven Countries Study, Keys looked at Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Finland, the United States and Japan reporting a strong straight-line relationship between saturated fat intake, heart disease and cholesterol levels ⁵. He chose to ignore 14 countries that had good data available. Choosing another seven countries—Finland, Israel, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, France and Sweden—shows the exact opposite results and thus reveals the bias in the early studies ⁵.

When we review theses studies, we find no relationship with saturated fat and heart disease of any type. When we review updated data, this lack of relationship clear. The top seven consumers of saturated fats (France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Iceland, Finland, Austria and Germany), with saturated fat energy percentage ranging from 15.5% to 13.7 %, all have a lower death rate from CHD than the seven bottom consumers of saturated fats (Georgia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Croatia, Armenia and Macedonia)—with saturated fat energy percentage ranging from 7.5% to 5.2%. Similarly, countries with the top five highest cardiovascular death rates (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Ukraine and Azerbaijan) are in the lowest 50% of saturated fat consumers. These facts appear to be the exact opposite of what we are told by governments and doctors.

The lowest death rate in the bottom seven consumers of saturated fats (Croatia) of 17 per 100, 000 is same as the highest death rate in the top seven consumers (United Kingdom and Ireland). This may also be confounded by socioeconomic differences with the more developed countries being closer to the top with better health care facilities and less poverty. As in the men, the highest consumer of saturated fat (France) also has the lowest death rate from cardiovascular disease with 4 per 100, 000 for women and 22 per 100,000 for men. For years this was called the French paradox and was an excuse to make up another myth that alcohol is good for you. The bottom five death rates (France, Switzerland, Iceland, Italy and Spain ) are all in the top 50% consumers of saturated fat. The top five highest death rates (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Moldova) are in the bottom 50% consumers of saturated fat. The death rates for coronary heart disease in women are also significantly less than for men in comparison of the two graphs, indicating a possible gender difference. This is not reflected in Australian data with both a higher prevalence (20% of women and 17% of males) and death percentage (37% for women 32% for men) of CVD existing in women ⁶.

Even the famous Framingham study, which originally hinted at a problem with saturated fats, now shows there is no association between dietary fat and heart disease and indeed the association of elevated cholesterol and heart disease is limited to a small segment of the study population ⁹. In the Framingham Heart Study, researchers working with a population-based cohort study, a total of 832 men, aged 45 through 65 years, found the risk of ischemic stroke declined with total fat, saturated fat and monounsaturated fat (e.g., olive oil) but not polyunsaturated fat such as margarine and vegetable oils ¹⁰. In effect, increased intakes of fat, saturated fat, and monounsaturated fat (olive oil) were associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke in men. The exact opposite of what we have been told.

The evidence continues to mount that there’s no benefit and, in fact, probable harm from a low-fat diet. I cringe when I hear people talking about a low fat diet and laugh at all the marketing around low fat foods which are usually both full of sugars and low nutrient density carbohydrates. Two recent studies underscoring this finding are the Women’s Health Initiative and the Nurses’ Health Study. The Women’s Health Initiative studied 48,835 women and demonstrated no benefit from a low-fat diet in terms of heart disease or breast cancer ¹¹. The Nurses’ Health Study, which has followed 90,000 female health professionals, demonstrated no reduction in heart disease or cancer as a result of a low-fat diet ¹².

A meta-analysis of the research of 27 separate studies found that modification of dietary fat did not lead to a significant reduction in either deaths due to cardiovascular disease or overall risk of death ¹³. Ten years later, the same researchers examined another 21 studies and found exactly the same results ¹⁴. The researchers reported that pooled results of all the studies showed low-fat eating or replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats had no benefit whatsoever and may even be harmful. Similarly, examination of the 33 data sets from prospective cohort studies in a meta-analysis found no plausible evidence for a consistent association between saturated fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) ⁴. A separate analysis which examined 16 studies with CHD as the focus and eight studies with stroke as the focus, showed no association between dietary saturated fat intake and prevalence of disease ¹⁵.

The most recent definitive examination of all the competent studies on saturated fats and heart disease shows that over a five- to 23-year follow-up of 347,747 subjects, there is no association between the intake of saturated fat and heart disease or stroke. The meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or cardio vascular disease (CVD)  ¹⁶.

Even in animal trials, evidence shows positive effects of saturated fat. One study published in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology investigated heart functioning by evaluating gene expression profiles of rats fed high dietary fat after a heart attack ¹⁷. The research demonstrated that a high-fat diet improved overall cardiac mechanical function (the heart’s ability to pump)—that is, heart functioning was seen to improve on the high-fat diet.

The links between dietary fat, saturated fatty acids, serum cholesterol and cardiovascular disease are all part of the same “diet-heart hypothesis” with milk and dairy products—especially those with high fat content (butter, whole milk, cheese)—being publicly demonised due to saturated fats’ association with increased serum cholesterol ^4,15,19-21. This, despite the fact that numerous studies found that overall consumption of dairy products (typically high saturated fat content) was not associated with mortality ^21,22.

The cholesterol hypothesis separates cholesterol into two types for the sake of simplicity, low-density lipoproteins (LDL) or “bad cholesterol” and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) or “good cholesterol” ²³. Cholesterol has been so successfully publicly demonised that lowering cholesterol is earning pharmaceutical companies more than 20 billion dollars annually in the US with the sale of the top two statin drugs, Zocor (simvastatin) and Lipitor (atorvastatin), alone ²³. Despite this, supporters of the diet-heart hypothesis seem to have forgotten cholesterol’s essential and natural role in human biochemistry, with 80% of total body cholesterol being manufactured by the liver ²⁴. They also ignore the basic science studies demonstrating that blood fat profiles, the presumed cause for concern, is largely determined by consumption of carbohydrates, not fat consumption ^25,26.

In a recent review of dietary guidelines, researchers were scathing of the guidelines for critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. This is a mild way of saying scientific lying. The researchers also said that it “does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fibre and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes” ²⁷. It seems that dietary guidelines around the world are lead by the money not the science.

This is all summed up in a major independent, international review by The Expert Consultation held jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in late 2008 which found no evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. The WHO/FAO report states: “Intake of SFA [saturated fatty acids] was not significantly associated with CHD mortality…. SFA intake was not significantly associated CHD events [e.g., heart attacks]…. fatal CHD was not reduced by… low-fat diets.”

For the sake of our health, and the health of our parents and children, it’s time to change our thinking and start questioning what we are told about saturated fats and for that matter a lot of the information we are spoon fed.

References

1.     Boyle et al. 2008;

2.     Nestle 2007

3.     Heart Foundation (October 2012

4.     Parodi 2009

5.     Kendrick 2007

6.     Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010

7.     Luzzi (1998

8.     European Heart Network (2008).

9.     http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org

10.  Gillman et al. 1997

11.  Howard et al. 2006

12.  http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs).

13.  Hooper et al. 2001

14.  Hooper et al. 2011

15.  Hu et al. 2010

16.  Siri-Tarino et al. 2010

17.  Berthiaume et al. 2010

18.  Hu et al. 2010;

19.  Bonthuis et al. 2010;

20.  Elwood et al. 2010;

21.  Gibson et al. 2009

22.  Bonthuis et al. 2010;

23.  Bowden 2010

24.  The Great Cholesterol Deception, 2011

25.  Volek et al. 2008;

26.  Forsythe et al. 2008

27.  Hite et al. 2010

 Acknowledgements Matthew Partridge

More Cholesterol lies

Last month (August 6) in the West Australian newspaper they parroted an article from the age which suggested more people should be taking statins. Of course the Age just parroted the news brief from the drug company PR machine without asking who funded the study (drug companies of course). What they said was people with even a low level of heart attack risk of around 10% had a 15% reduction in the risk of heart attack. Sounds good doesnt it. What they did not tell you is that to get that 15% relative risk reduction or 0.1% absolute risk reduction, one person only, they had to treat around 1000 people with a drug that has serious side effects. That is why the studies are to tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. If the drug worked well, say 10% they would only need to treat 100 or 200 people.

Here is how they do it. On the statin treatment group 7 people out of 1000 have a heart attack over the period of 5 or more years. In the other control group 8 people out of 1000 have a heart attack. Using relative statistics we compare 7 to 8 and there is close to a 15 percent reduction. A bit confusing isn’t it. Using absolute statistics which is what we are all used to using it is a 0.1% reduction from 8 to 7. So we had to treat around 100 people to get a 1% real reduction or 0.1%.  That is a lot of drug for a very small benefit. Someone is making a lot of money

University of Sydney researchers had to review 27 studies to come up with enough people whose life may be saved.  Again 1 in 1000 who were treated. And someone forgot to tell the drug representatives how to do statistics that don't lie.

The media also just cherry-pick the scientific literature and never report the science that shows they just don’t work or the 75% of people who drop out of trial due to serious adverse side effects

They also forgot to mention that the benefits of statin drugs is only as a result that it acts like a nutrient. It is a molecule synthetically derived from red rice yeast which by the way has next to no negative side effects. Other types of drugs that lower cholesterol just as well as statins don't even have the 0.3% benefit. So it is not lowering cholesterol that has this very small benefit. Rather, statin drugs mimic some nutrient properties of red rice yeast (available at most health food stores until banned). But if that is the case we can use some safe nutrients to derive the same benefit as statins (one or two almonds a day) with no negative side effects and at a cost of a few cents a day. Not $6 billion a year in Australia.

There is a lot more information on this in my earlier blogs and even more in my book “The great cholesterol deception”

Feed Your Brain

Children have lots of study to do but are rarely shown effective study techniques, let alone how to study without stress. As an ex- school teacher, academic and a life long student, I've spent a great deal of time refining my study habits to make them not only effective, but good for my health! I've also spent time teaching myself learning skills such as speed-reading and improving my memory and note taking skills using mind maps and another technique a friend of mine taught me called CapMaps. The little bit of time I've spent learning these techniques has been repaid many times over. I now teach these skills to my students, pensioner groups and corporate executives.

So to begin, let's get rid of words like home work and make it home play. We'll do a whole lot more and a lot more easily if we enjoy doing it, so let's make it as pleasurable as possible - starting with the words we use.

To study effectively you need good health and a good blood supply. Your brain uses more than 20 per cent of your body's energy, so it has to have the right nutrients all the time. When you study, don't scrunch up over the desk. It stops you breathing deeply and slows oxygen getting to your brain. Remember to stretch frequently, put your shoulders back and take a deep breath. This will help feed your brain.

Food for Thought

A nourishing diet is essential to give your brain the right nutrition and will increase your levels of concentration. Even small decreases in glucose can cause significant "brain fog", while shortages of antioxidants and excess bad fats lead to short-term and long-term memory problems. Not good for study. Here are some useful pointers to ensuring you eat well to make your study time effective:

* Eat breakfast. It provides glucose for your brain. In fact, not eating breakfast causes you to be 20 - 40 per cent "dumber" in studying and exams. People who don't eat breakfast also put on more weight and are unhealthier than people who do.  Raw muesli or porridge with nuts is a terrific way to fire up your brain. Add a piece of chopped fruit. Don't add sugar, but add as much fruit and crushed nuts and seeds as you like. Or maybe even an old fashioned cooked breakfast with some tomato, mushroom, spinach and beans thrown in.

* Don't eat and study at the same time. Take a break. Focus on one task at a time.

* In between meals nibbling on raw (not cooked) nuts and dried fruit will feed your brain. Leave the chocolate for after the exams and forget the potato chips.

* Decrease bad oils including butter and margarine, oils in bread and greasy foods such as takeaways. They block your arteries and thicken your blood, slowing the amount of fuel getting to your brain (ie oxygen and glucose). They also contribute to some long-term damage in the brain.

* Decrease sugar and processed foods. They create a short-term glucose high in the blood and a long-term glucose low, causing foggy thinking.

* Increase good oils high in Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs) and include fish oils and flaxseed. Sixty per cent of your healthy brain is made up of fats and these EFAs are the biggest part.  Good fats = good thinking. They provide the building blocks for the brain, the infrastructure for you to be smarter.

* Increase dark green vegetables such as spinach, silver beet, broccoli and bok choy. They provide essential vitamins and minerals for your brain to function and think clearly. One study found better memory results from eating greens. They put muscles in your brain.

* Eliminate over processed grain products.  Eat only wholegrain and wholemeal grains; they contain essential minerals and vitamins for your brain. Rye bread gives you the lowest sugar hit. Even better go for the new range of sprouted breads.

* A little coffee or tea is okay, but don't have it after 4 pm to keep you awake and certainly don't have it at night to keep studying. If you need coffee to keep you awake at night in order to keep studying, you're fooling yourself about your level of effectiveness. Good sleep is the best way of dealing with exams. If you have a deadline, wake early and start when your mind is really alert.

* Drink lots of water

* Avoid sugary soft drinks, particularly just before an exam.

* Supplement with brain vitamins and minerals (speak to your naturopath or health food store), especially Vitamin C for it's antioxidant action

* Gingko Biloba taken for two to three weeks has been shown to improve memory and thinking.

* Vitamin Bs are very good for feeding your nervous system, especially if you're feeling stressed.

During  periods of study, exercise at least 45 minutes each day. Exercise gets blood flowing to your brain, supplying oxygen, antioxidants and glucose.  It also releases substances such as noradrenalin in your body to prepare you for exams and reduce stress. Research shows that small bouts of exercise in between study and before exams can make a significant difference in performance.

During periods of intensive study you need hourly breaks (or even 30 minute breaks). Make your break a brisk 10 minutes walk. It will help everything you have done sink into the powerful, subconscious part of your brain.  After two hours, take a 20 minute brisk walk and give yourself a good break. Don't fool yourself that you're still working well. You're probably functioning at around or less than 50 per cent. It's okay for mundane tasks, but not if you need really focused concentration.

Set regular study patterns. Don't do everything late at night.  Your brain is already getting tired. The morning is the best time to study and that is not just after midnight. Learn how to use your brain effectively.

Do a memory course or a mind-mapping course. It can make remembering specific information so much easier, and will improve your general memory as well. After a memory course you can learn more than a hundred facts and figures in less than an hour, have fun doing it and have perfect recall.

Talk about the ideas and information you have learnt with friends, a study buddy. It will help lock it into your long-term memory and you'll learn new information from each other.

Learn to Relax

Taking deep breaths is an important start, because it sends relaxation messages to your brain. There are many other things you can do. Best learning occurs in the alpha and theta brain wave states. These are when you are most relaxed and not stressed. When you are in a stressed busy state you are in an beta state and you cant learn well. A simple meditation can take only five to ten minutes and can prevent you stressing and get you into an alpha brain wave learning state. Try sitting still, and slowly, with each breath, count from 50 to one. Focus on the numbers only. If you get distracted, go back to the last number and keep going.

Be aware of your posture while you're studying - don't hunch over the desk. It stops you breathing deeply and slows down the flow of oxygen to your brain. Remember to stretch. Put your shoulders back and take a deep breath regularly. Being hunched over a desk also tells your brain that you are tired and not very positive, so that's how it starts to respond.

I always tell my students to start studying and exams with the biggest smile you can make. Sounds strange, maybe even funny, but it sends positive messages to your brain. It increases the feel good chemicals in the brain, increases blood flow to the brain and immediately reduces stress. Research shows it also increases your creativity, and it's fun.

Plan your study and plan to study well.  By having the right attitude and planning your study, you can save hours and hours of what may otherwise be wasted time.

* Set goals for the amount of time and the quality of time for your period of study. 

* Set goals for each study period, the exams and for the year. These will help to focus and motivate you.

* Write down your goals - what you want to achieve, how you are going to achieve it and why it's important to achieve it.

* Put your list of goals on the wall in your study.

* Don't wait for deadlines to motivate you, get in early.

* Visualise yourself being successful when you study.

* Visualise yourself in the exam feeling positive and writing the right answers. See yourself coming out of the exam and feeling really positive.

* After your exams or long periods of study reward yourself (but not with junk foods).

* There are many other things you can do to improve your thinking but the best one is to use your logic and commonsense.

To learn effectively you need to have a study environment that's positive, enjoyable and free from distractions. It also has to be a healthy environment.

* Study in an enjoyable environment. 

* Put on some gentle music. Baroque music, such as Bach and the music of Mozart has a very positive effect on brain waves and helps you to learn. It may not be cool but you will be smarter.

* Open the doors and windows to the study. Fresh air is critical to good brain function. Stuffy air or chemical smells will affect your brain's ability to focus. One gas in particular, carbon monoxide, reduces the oxygen available to the brain. Carbon monoxide is found in high concentrations in car exhaust and tobacco smoke.

* Don't smoke, and especially don't smoke in your study.  It has hundreds of chemicals that attack your brain cells.

* Get rid of distractions. Despite what you may think, you can only concentrate on one thing at a time. Don't waste your time by studying at 10 per cent. Turn off  the phone, television and all other distractions, with the exception of quiet, light background music.

* Wherever you study, make it a positive place. Decorate it in pleasing colours, have good light, pictures and photographs on the walls, and put up messages, quotes and photographs that inspire you.

Omega oils for the brain

More fish oils for the brain. Researchers found that a diet lacking in omega-3 fatty acids may cause your brain to age faster and lose some of its memory and cognitive capabilities. This is consistent with thousands of other studies. A word of warning, you wont get omega 3 from any processed foods like cereals as they will all be oxidised.
Best sources are from a mix of plant (flax and chia) and animal (krill and cold water fish). Plant sources still have to be processed in our body to a form (EPA and DHA) to be effective. Unfortunately our conversion rate is very low, around 5% and it needs lots of coenzymes (vitamins). if you are missing the vitamins then it cant be converted.
There is a growing body of evidence linking DHA to cognitive function and various studies have reported that regular consumption of omega-3-rich food could prevent age-related cognitive decline. The studies consistently show a dose-dependent inverse association between dementia and fish consumption. That is, the more omega 3 you consume the lower the risk.

On the other hand, meat consumption was found to increase dementia risk .

Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia and currently affects over 13 million people worldwide. This number is increasing and we know how to reduce it. Increase your omega 3, lower your meat and sugar.

Red meat is a mans poison

I recently saw an ad on television with Sam Neill of Jurassic Park fame telling the audience that red meat is essential to good health and even promotes brain development. Unfortunately the claims were extremely exaggerated and misleading and failed to mention any of the numerous adverse health effects of eating meat. So I thought I would set the books straight based on science, not profit.

Human genetic makeup, shaped through millions of years of evolution, has determined our nutritional and activity needs. We have not evolved as meat eaters; we are omnivores who get a small amount of our calories from wild meat including insects and rodents. As such we do not have the body or digestive system of a big meat eater. Without tools, we would not even be able to hunt big game. Our teeth are naturally shaped for grinding—they are not sharp teeth designed for tearing and ripping. Our digestive organs and teeth most closely resemble those of our closest evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas and orangutans. Our intestines are proportionally two to three times longer than those of cats or dogs (meat eaters by nature) and about half the length of the intestines of grazing animals such as cows and horses.

Until recently, meat made up a small part of our diet and, even then, was consumed only intermittently. In early times we ate our meat straight from the wild. We devoured rats and other rodents (we sure did, a bunny is a rodent), large insects (ever tried a Witchetty grub?), birds, small game and the occasional feast of big game. The meat meal was so precious that we made sure to eat the entire animal, including the organs and whatever we could suck from the bones. For thousands of years, humans prized the organ meats of animals more highly than a cut of steak from the muscle.

The meat was 4% to 6% fat, rich in minerals and Omega 3 oils and low in arachidonic acid (AA). The wild animals that humans consumed were forced to hunt for food and at times had to cover great distances to ensure their survival. In contrast, modern breeding practices have focused on selecting for animal breeds that accumulate large quantities of fat and on keeping animals relatively inactive to encourage weight gain ¹. This trend is based partly on consumer demand and reinforced by agricultural grading processes ²

The meat we eat today is very different; it is high in saturated fat, high in arachidonic acid (which causes inflammation) and low in nutrients. Today’s meat is approximately 25% to 30% fat by weight, of which 50% to 60% is saturated and low in beneficial Omega 3 oils—despite advertising claims that meat is a good source of Omega 3 oils. Even low-fat farmed meat is higher in fat than game meat.

The problems caused by eating meat are further compounded by the fact that animals bred to become “edible” meat have been manipulated with hormones, antibiotics and diet to make them grow big (and fat). They are increasingly being grain-fed due to the consumptive demand by our supermarkets. Cattle were not designed to eat grain; they were designed to eat grasses with a very small amount of grain. Grass-fed beef is one-third to three times leaner than grain-fed beef. Grass-fed beef also provides two to four times more essential Omega 3 fatty acids than feedlot beef. Researchers have found grass-fed beef contains two newly discovered “good” fats: conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and trans-vaccenic acid (TVA) (our bodies turn TVA into CLA) ³. Grass-fed beef also provides more beta-carotene, vitamin E and folic acid as well as some important antioxidants.

To the hungry eye, grain-fed meat may look better on the shelf but it is worse for you and for your family. Let’s not forget that it is also far worse for the welfare of the cattle and the environment. My experience of feedlot cattle is that the entire process is very inhumane. Particular culprits here are the big supermarket chains like Coles and Woolworths that demand grain-fed animals. Then growth hormones are added to some beef, but not others. To find out which ones, you can begin by asking your butcher (who may or may not know).

Meat and disease

Red meat consumption is associated with a wide range of chronic inflammatory illnesses including cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and shortened life expectancy. There are countless published studies that confirm increased rates of certain cancers with high red meat consumption ^4,5,6,7. More than three or four servings of meat per week is linked with an increase in cancers, particularly colorectal cancer and breast cancer. In a major US study, people with the highest intake of red meat experienced a statistically significant elevated risk of aesophageal, colorectal, liver and lung cancers ⁸. For processed meat consumption, people with the highest average intake of these meats (22.6 g per 1,000 kcal) were calculated to be at a 16 and 20 percent increased risk of lung and colorectal cancer, respectively. Possible reasons for this include dietary fat from the meat, compounds like N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formed during high temperature cooking. By contrast, eating poultry and fish in place of red meat did not increase the risk of colon cancer, but rather decreased the risk significantly ⁴.

In a recent study it was concluded that consumption of red meat was associated with higher risk of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in pre-menopausal women ⁹. In post-menopausal women, another study found red meat to increase the risk of breast cancer among women by up to 50%, specifically those who were overweight ¹⁰. One study of older women found consumption of red meat to increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ¹¹. Several studies have also found a direct correlation between red meat consumption and prostate cancer ⁵ Yet another study found meat intake positively associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer—although the researchers suggest it may be a result of the toxins produced during cooking ¹².

Red meat is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and stroke ^13,14,15. Those who consumed red meat daily had a 60% greater chance of dying from a cardiovascular disease than those consuming red meat less than once a week ⁵. Changing just 5% of total energy intake in calories of adults from saturated fat to unsaturated fat would reduce their risk of heart disease by 42%. Yet the ads on television tell you that meat is essential. Don’t let truth get in the way of a good ad.

Many large epidemiological studies have found that vegetarians are less likely than meat eaters to have high blood pressure. In a study of 28,000 vegetarians and 48,000 non-vegetarians over a period of 10 years, the vegetarians were 24% less likely to die of ischemic heart disease, including heart attacks, compared to the non-vegetarians. Researchers also found that fish eaters had no more heart disease than vegetarians. In a study comparing monks (Trappists are strict vegetarians while Benedictines are not), researchers found lower blood pressure in the monks of the vegetarian Trappist monasteries.

In contrast to meat, nuts reduce the risk of fatal and nonfatal heart disease. Subjects who ate nuts five or more times per week, compared with those who ate nuts less than once a week, reduced their risk by approximately 31% to 37% in male vegetarians compared with those who ate meat three or more times a week ¹⁶.

Other studies have found a strong link between red meat and type 2 diabetes ^17,18. This is thought to be partly due to the health effects of iron overload from red meat, which increases the risk of CHD and other cardiovascular health problems ¹⁹. Obesity, an increasing public health problem worldwide, has been shown to occur repeatedly in those who regularly consume red meat as part of a usual diet ¹⁴. Red meat intake increases the risk of Alzheimer’s disease ¹⁵. Women in the US show a positive association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and red meat intake ⁶. Numerous studies have also associated red meat consumption with osteoporosis and bone fractures ²⁰. This is thought to be associated with an increase in the acid diet of meat eaters. Susceptibility of disease or risk of infection also seems to be lower amongst those avoiding red meat ¹⁴.

The benefits of reducing or eliminating red meat from the diet clearly outweigh keeping it in one’s diet.

Environment

Farming of red meat is one of the most environmentally destructive agricultural practices of modern times. Worldwide agricultural activity, especially livestock production, accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to climate change and resulting adverse health consequences, including the threat to food yields in many regions. By decreasing one’s intake of red meat, the demand for livestock will decrease, lowering the devastating effects of livestock production. Likewise, livestock numbers will not be as high if their meat is not demanded by the human population, and thus the methane produced by livestock which contributes to global warming will also decrease ²¹. Modern meat production is an example of the inefficient use of natural resources. Modern methods of raising cattle use excessive amounts of grain, water and fossil fuels, and create both air and water pollution ²².

To be truly environmentally and globally conscious, one must think about at least cutting down meat consumption. Consider that, according to the organisation Compassion in World Farming, it takes 16 kilos of grain to produce one kilo of meat for consumer consumption (not to mention all the water and other resources used). Meanwhile, the United Nations reports that 160 million children under five are malnourished. Does it make sense that we are feeding grain to cows instead of to children?

The politics of meat

Despite abundant evidence of the toxic effects of meat, the Australian government (and other governments of meat exporting countries) states that daily consumption of red meat is consistent with a healthy diet. The only possible reasons for this are the economic benefits and pressure from very powerful and large lobbying groups. Overall, it is accepted in the scientific journals that those limiting or avoiding red meat in the diet will live a healthy life with decreased risk of many chronic diseases. After a major US study was recently released and recommended reducing dietary consumption of meat, the American Meat Institute (AMI) took an opposing stance, calling the recommendations on meat consumption “extreme” and “unfounded.” According to the institute, “The advice to limit red and processed meats reflected their anti-meat bias.” The real bias, however, is not with the scientists who have nothing to gain or lose from changes in meat consumption.

Final word

As a general rule animal proteins (meat, dairy and eggs) should not make up any more than 10% of your daily calories. Levels of animal protein above 10% increase the risk of most forms of chronic illness. By contrast plant proteins (nuts and beans) don’t show any negative health effects. Protein from white meat, fish, nuts, beans and legumes offers plenty of choices on the source of protein for a red meat-free diet, with none of the negative consequences.

Red meat is not the best source of protein nor is it essential for our survival. The meat we eat today no longer resembles the meat that was a part of our evolutionary diet. Game meat may have provided an evolutionary advantage to survive in tough times when we struggled to reach 50 years of age but the meat we eat now is what kills us and causes a lot of pain and suffering before we even get to 50. The more red meat you eat the more you get sick. The choice is yours.

References

1. McCollum 1997

2. Lichtenstein 1999

3. Priya et al. 2004

4. Thun 2005;

5. Kushi et al. 2005;

6. Varraso 2007;

7. Skjelbred et al. 2007

8. Cross et al. 2008

9. Miller 2007

10. Taylor et al. 2007

11. Chiu et al. 1996

12. Nothilings et al. 2005

13. Keys 1986;

14. Williamson et al. 2005

15. Phillips 2005

16. Frazer 1999

17. Klotter 2007

18. Prattley 1998

19. Qi et al. 2007

20. Noakes 2007

21. Siegford et al. 2008

22. Grosvenor and Smolin 2002).

Omega 3 Not Drugs For Diabetics

In a recent study by Dr Sapicha and her colleagues, building on their earlier research on the same topic, found that a simple and cheap supplement of omega 3 oils is effective in reducing "pathological retinal neovascularization". That is the damage done to the blood vessels which can lead to an array of complications culminating in blindness. It is a serious condition in diabetes. They reported that their studies on mice suggests "that _-3 PUFAs (omega 3s) may be profitably used as an alternative or supplement to current anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for proliferative retinopathy and points to the therapeutic potential of _-3 PUFAs and metabolites in other diseases of vasoproliferation. She was quoted on ABC radio as saying that the drugs for diabetic retinopathy cost around $4000 a month or $10 for the omega 3 supplements.

This builds on a large amount of research on the benefits of omega 3 oils for both the prevention and treatment of diabetes. For those interested all the details of the study are provided below.

Sci Transl Med 9 February 2011: Vol. 3, Issue 69, p. 69ra12 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001571.

Omega 3 and kid’s brains

A study out just this week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28549) found that supplementing healthy boys with DHA (one of the main omega 3s and the main one in the brain) led to an increase in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex part of the brain (the front part) - an area of the brain associated with working memory. Changes, measure by functional magnetic resonance imaging also occurred in other parts of the brain, including the occipital cortex (visual processing) and the cerebellar cortex (motor control). This builds on a huge amount of evidence on the benefits of DHA for healthy and not so healthy brain function in kids. Note the study above. There are literally hundreds of studies telling us it will help us and our kids. So why aren’t we all supplementing with fish oils? It should be a government education program and mandate. The evidence is overwhelming.

Breast cancer Anti depressants and Fish oils

While growing research shows the SSRI antidepressants (the ones most people take) don’t work beyond that of a placebo another blow occurred to these drugs when a recent (this week) article in the British Medical Journal found the depression drugs paroxetine and probably fluoxetine led to a reduction in the effectiveness of tamoxifen, and an breast cancer mortality for those being treated. The researchers estimated that for every 20 women with treatment overlaps of 41%, and one extra death for every 7 women overlapping 100%.

Interestingly these drugs have been around and used together for decades so how many woman have died in the interim?

By contrast another article this week in the British Journal of Cancer found that Supplements of the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) which can also be used to reduce depression and many other chronic illnesses, improve outcomes for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with no adverse side effects. The study was of advanced cancers with spreading (metastasis) and overall survival of women was 22 months and went to 34 months in women with the highest DHA levels in their blood.
There is a large amount of research on the benefits of using supplements alongside allopathic cancer treatments despite what the chemo therapists say. The research is there that supplementing helps the treatment and minimises the side effects.