Mediterranean diet lowers Alzheimer’s and depression.

The Mediterranean diet has been associated with lower risk of various age-related diseases including CVD, some cancers and Alzhiemer’s. A recent review of twelve studies found that following a Mediterranean diet is associated with slower cognitive decline and a significantly lower risk of developing Alzheimer disease. In an older study of 2258 elderly New Yorkers with no dementia they found a higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with significantly lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. More importantly the more they followed the Mediterranean diet the lower the risk. They found that each increasing point on the Mediterranean diet score was linked with a 10 per cent drop in Alzheimer's risk and individuals whose diet closely resembled the Mediterranean diet had a 40 per cent lower risk of Alzheimer's than those who adhered the least to the diet (Scarmeas et al, 2006).  In support of this a number of studies have also reported the benefits of eating fruit, vegetables and oily fish for reducing your risk of Alzheimer's disease.

In other research following a Mediterranean-style diet is also associated with lower risk for developing depression. After a 4 year follow-up, people who followed the Mediterranean diet had lower hazard ratios for incident self-reported depression. High consumption of fruits and nuts, legumes, monounsaturated- to saturated-fatty-acids ratio and fish were each separately associated with lower depression risk (Sánchez-Villegas et al 2009).

However, the Mediterranean diet is not pasta, pizza and lots of cheese. The Mediterranean dietary is high in fruits, vegetables, fish, nuts and legumes; low in dairy, meat, junk food, trans fatty acids; moderate alcohol intake; and high ratio of monounsaturated-to-saturated fatty acids. Moreover, a particular feature of the diet is the abundant use of virgin olive oil in everything from cooking to spreading on bread and salads. Not vegetable oils or margarine. In fact, the exact opposite. The diet's is rich in many nutrients including beta-carotene, vitamin C, tocopherols, polyphenols, and essential minerals.

Margarine is toxic

-->

In the 1970s, I was instructed to swap from butter to margarine. Fortunately, I did not like the taste of margarine and, over the years, the more research I conducted on the topic the more I realised that we were being lead astray and even lied to about this. Today, when I ask any of my audiences, sometimes in the hundreds, “Who thinks margarine is better for you than butter?” I rarely get a positive response. It seems most people already know that margarine is a dangerous substitute.

It appears that there is no scientific evidence that margarine is healthier than butter. In fact, evidence suggests the exact opposite is true. This is summed up first of all in one of my earlier articles that showed saturated fat is not the demon it is made out to be and may even be associated with reduced heart attack (another myth shattered). At least that is what the biggest and best studies show. Furthermore, we consume many more Omega 6 (vegetable) oils today than our ancestors did and this is having a negative impact on our health. These oils are not just in our margarine but also hidden in most of our food. We ate margarine for 50 years thinking it was made up of so-called “good fats” only to find out it was laden with the deadliest form of fat: trans fats. Finally, there is emerging evidence that margarine may not be good for our health, with or without trans fats, and is nowhere near a natural food; the push to sell more margarine has come from organisations like the Heart Foundations around the world and branches of margarine companies with strong vested interests in promoting margarine sales.

I think one of the best things to have happened to the Australian cuisine is Master Chef. It has inspired a whole generation to go back to the kitchen and start cooking again. It has also encouraged the increased use of butter over vegetable oils, something the Heart Foundation and the margarine manufacturers did not like so they had to come up with campaigns to sway people back to margarine. Interestingly one of the foundation’s ploys was to create, through a public relations company, a group called “Mums United” which pretends to be a grassroots mothers campaign against evil butter. According to David Gillespe (Sweet Poison) and the “duck test” of inductive reasoning, “It walks like a margarine advertisement and quacks like a margarine advertisement, so guess what it I think it is?” And the margarine companies fund it! Some of the group’s tactics have included offering financial support to people who pledged not to eat butter. So much for it being a grassroots organisation. It seems that margarine interests have taken some of the old tactics taught to us by the tobacco industry and big drug companies.

I want to make it very clear that I have no vested interests in anything other than people’s health and the truth.

Various heart associations around the world recommend increasing Omega 6 (vegetable) oil consumption and reducing saturated fats, based on flawed studies that have been seriously questioned due to data manipulation. This includes the omission of relevant trials with unfavourable outcomes—that is, leaving out any negative studies ^1,2,3 and including studies that combine both Omega 3 (fish oils, which are good for you) and Omega 6 consumption together under the title of “polyunsaturated fats.” The associations even included poorly done studies as long as the studies showed the desired results. This type of publication bias is well known in the research literature particularly with big drug companies trying to show that their drugs work better than they really do.

Margarine is far from being a natural product—well, as much as you can claim that plastic is natural. The major components of margarine are “vegetable” oils, obtained from foods such as sunflower seeds, rapeseed, or potentially genetically modified canola and soya beans. These oils are usually extracted using the application of pressure, heat and possibly solvents and then treated with sodium hydroxide to “neutralise” certain fats in the oil. It is then bleached, filtered and steam-treated to produce what is essentially a colourless, flavourless murky looking liquid. The liquid is converted into a solid at room temperature through esterifcation, which uses high temperature and pressure, along with enzymes or acids, to harden the oil—this is also called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation produces trans fats that are strongly linked with heart disease, cancer and other chronic illnesses. The final product is coloured and flavoured with various agents to make it feel and look like butter. Then finally ingredients like plant sterols and stanols and alpha linolenic acid is added to make it appear healthy. The finished product is not natural or healthy.

Plant stanols and sterols are added to reduce cholesterol. However, overwhelming evidence now shows cholesterol is just a poor indicator of heart attack, not the cause ⁴. It is just the warning sign or, if I can use an analogy, like a fire alarm in your home, it is not the problem itself, but a warning about the problem. You can get plenty of stanol and sterols in nuts, beans and seeds, which are not only natural but also full of other healthful benefits including vitamins, antioxidants, minerals and so much more and reduce all forms chronic illness. Margarine manufacturers can trumpet the presence of “heart-healthy” Omega 3 fats on the label, however they are putting plant-based Omega 3 fats (alpha linolenic acid) that do not act like Omega 3 from fish sources. They still have to be converted in our body to fish-like Omega 3s. It is also questionable whether they will be oxidised or not and therefore of any value. Adding a nutrient to toxic food does not make it healthy. Do you really believe the advertising?

Margarine is a major source of trans fatty acids, the intake of which has risen since the early 20th century. Trans fatty acids are synthetic fats produced as a byproduct of the hydrogenation of liquid vegetable oils, making them into solid margarine. An abundance of data indicates that consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), cancer, diabetes and other chronic illnesses. Margarine companies are now obliged to list the amount of trans fats on the side of the packet. Until recently however, margarine has been the single biggest source of these very toxic fats.

In a study of women, long-term margarine and trans fat consumption was associated with a 67% increased risk of heart disease ⁵. The decrease in intake of trans fatty acids in Denmark saw a 50% reduction in the number of deaths from ischemic heart disease ⁶. A recent study found that trans fatty acids promote cardiovascular disease by triggering inflammatory processes in the cells lining blood vessels ⁷. Increased intake of trans fatty acids has also been linked with an increase in the risk of colorectal tumours by about 86% ⁸. The potentially damaging effects of trans fats may also be passed from a mother to her child during breast feeding and can lead to an increase in cardiac insulin resistance when the kids become adults ⁹.

During the past 150 years, the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of agribusiness with processed foods, grain-fattened livestock, and hydrogenation of vegetable fats have considerably reduced the available content of Omega 3 fatty acids and increased that of Omega 6 fatty acids. While Omega 6 and 3 oils are considered essential fatty acids, the research is now showing that it is important to get the correct balance of the fats. An imbalance leads to various metabolic diseases. Western diets are now deficient in Omega 3 fatty acids and are laden with excessive amounts of Omega 6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Our diets now have 14 to 20 times more Omega 6 (vegetable oil) than Omega 3 fatty acids. This imbalance is now linked with diseases such as heart attack, stroke, cancer, obesity, insulin resistance, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease and even premature ageing. The ideal balance is less than 4:1 or even 1:1 Omega 6 and 3, respectively.

Omega 6 oils such as corn, safflower, cottonseed, sunflower, and soya are now in nearly all our foods. Apart from the obvious consumption of vegetable oils and margarine you buy in the supermarket—which I hope you are now not going to buy—Omega 6 oils are hidden in most foods. You will find vegetable oils in just about every processed and semi-processed food including bread, cakes, and breakfast cereals and in lots of the plant-based drinks like almond or soya milk the main ingredient is often vegetable oil. All the takeaway foods, frozen and packaged dinners have Omega 6 oils. Even the “new” Mediterranean diet is laden with Omega 6 oils. When you buy olives, pesto sauce, sundried tomatoes or anything soaking in oil it is now vegetable oil in which it is soaked, not olive oil because vegetable oil is cheaper, unless you go to Italy where most foods are still soaked in olive oil. It is almost impossible to get away from the excess of Omega 6 oils. Time to read the labels! Factory produced eggs have 20 times more Omega 6 than Omega 3 compared to free-range eggs, which have a ratio of 1:1. Similarly, grain-fed beef (which I do not recommend you eat) has around 20:1 Omega 6 to Omega 3 oils because the cows are fed grains rich in Omega 6 oils. Alpha linolenic acid is found in the grass and is converted into the important Omega 3 oils by the animals. It is found only in grass-fed animals. Grass-fed cows are also a lot less stressed and have as a result lower levels of inflammation.

On the topic of animals fats, I have highlighted in earlier articles that despite claims by the Heart Foundation there is no scientific evidence to suggest that saturated fat through dairy consumption is associated with increased heart attack. By contrast, in a 16-year prospective study of 1,529 adult Australians, researchers found a possible beneficial association between intake of full-fat dairy and cardiovascular mortality ¹⁰. Whoops… the Heart Foundation got it wrong again.

By contrast, the Framingham study, which followed people for 20 years (a very long and comprehensive study) and recorded heart attack incidence, found margarine intake increased coronary heart disease in men ¹¹. The scientists in their very conservative language wrote, “These data offer modest support to the hypothesis that margarine intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.” Not the opposite. In the second ten-year period of the study, the group eating the most margarine had 77% more heart attacks than the group eating none.

Studies that investigated increasing the amount of Omega 6 without a subsequent increase in animal-based Omega 3 (fish oil) consistently found an increase in coronary heart disease (CHD) and all-cause mortality. In an early study, published in 1965, researchers found that people consuming corn oil, a rich source of Omega 6, had a 4.64 times (over 400%) increased risk for both chronic heart disease and death from all causes ¹². In the conservative language of scientists, the authors of the study concluded that corn oil is “possibly harmful.” In another study, in which participants consumed more safflower oil and a safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine, participants had a 49% increased risk of death from all causes including a 91% increase from chronic heart disease and 96% from CVD ¹³.

In one study specifically on Omega 6 consumption in more than 9,000 people, the risk of non-fatal heart attack and death from coronary heart disease was significantly increased among women consuming the n-6 specific polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) diet for one year or less ¹⁴. Women consuming this n-6 specific PUFA diet for any duration had non-significant trends to increased risk of non-fatal heart attack and coronary heart disease and any cardiovascular event including death and stroke ¹⁴. In fact the Lyon Diet Heart Study found that after follow up of 27 months, non-fatal heart attack and coronary heart disease death and overall mortality were 73% and 70% lower in the experimental group who consumed lower Omega 6 oils and replaced vegetable oils with olive oil. This study also demonstrated that lowering linoleic acid (Omega 6 vegetable oil) below 50% is not harmful and may even be beneficial, producing a profound risk reduction in coronary heart disease.

A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating polyunsaturated Omega 6 oil consumption (vegetable oils and margarine) found that there is absolutely no scientific justification for recommending the increased consumption of Omega 6 oils ². Or, to quote their conclusion, “Advice to specifically increase n-6 PUFA intake … is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of CHD and death.” The study found for non-fatal myocardial infarction (heart attack) and death from coronary heart disease there was an increased risk of 13% for diets with increased Omega 6. The studies that substituted Omega 6 for saturated fatty acids without simultaneously increasing Omega 3 oils also produced an increase in risk of death. It seems the vegetable oils are just as bad as the trans fats and what we are really lacking are the Omega 3 fish oils.

More research shows that omega 6 fatty acids (vegetable oils-margarine) have no health benefit and in fact might be worse for you than saturated fats. This study showed people on the ‘heart-healthy’ diet were at increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and heart disease (increases of 70 and 74 per cent respectively).

"Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit."

The Heart Foundation continues to educate people to swap to margarine. Why do they continue to do this?
this information is so widespread it is dangerous. I recently spoke to and AFL footballer who was told not to have butter and to use margarine by the club dietician.

The study also found that lower cholesterol as a result of the omega 6 heart healthy diet was also associated with more deaths not fewer. Cholesterol is not the killer. It is just a symptom of an illness.

Arachidonic acid is produced in the body from too much Omega 6 and produces chemical messengers that lead to inflammation in the body called eicosanoids and cytokines. The increase in linoleic acid (Omega 6) has been shown to increase the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol) ¹⁵. There is nothing wrong with cholesterol until it is oxidised. The evidence from animal studies also shows that a high linoleic acid diet can promote certain cancers ¹⁶ and other inflammatory diseases. In a study of 203,193 men and women, increased intakes of Omega 6 fatty acid (linoleic acid) doubled the risk of ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, which has seen a rapid increase during recent decades. By contrast the highest intakes of Omega 3 were associated with 77% reduction in the risk of the disease ¹⁷. Omega 6 fatty acids are present in the cell membrane of colon cells in the form of arachidonic acid. This can be metabolised to chemical messengers in the body called prostaglandin E2, leukotriene B4 and thromboxane A2, all of which are associated with inflammation. On the other hand, Omega 3 fatty acids, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) may prevent colonic inflammation.

There is also research showing that too much Omega 6 oil is contributing to premature ageing. Telomeres, which are in all our cells, are thought to be markers of our ageing because they reflect cumulative oxidative stress and inflammation. The shorter they are, the more we have aged. Because the metabolites of Omega 6 promote inflammation, it is believed that an increase in Omega 6 fatty acid content in our diet decreases the leukocyte telomere length ^18,19 and hence speeds up the ageing process.

It is time to rethink our fat consumption. The research shows that fat in itself is not bad—in fact, it is essential and the move away from fat has lead to a more obese and sicker population. What we need to do however is decrease our consumption of processed oils like margarine and vegetable oils and increase our Omega 3 fish oils along with Omega 9 oils, including olive oil.

References

1.     Ramsden 2009;

2.     Ramsden et al. 2010,

3.     Ramsden et al. 2011

4.     Dingle 2011 The Great Cholesterol Deception

5.     Willett et al. 1993

6.     Stender and Dyerberg 2004

7.     Harvey et al 2008

8.     Vinikoor et al. 2010

9.     Osso et al. 2008

10. Bonthuis et al. 2010

11. Gillman 1997

12. Rose et al. 1965

13. Woodhill et al. 1978

14. Frantz et al. 1989

15. Tsimikas et al. 1999

16. Welsh 1992

17. Hart 2008

18. Kang 2010;

19. Kiecolt-Glaser 2012

Acidosis and chronic illness

Although inflammation, oxidation and acidosis are natural they can be seriously problematic if they are reoccurring as a result of our body being out of balance. Recent studies have established that all three conditions, the triad, are a leading pathogenic force in the development, of chronic diseases, including diabetes, cancers, cardiovascular disease, auto immune diseases (including asthma and arthritis) osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, dementia and even depression, obesity and premature aging can all be attributed to this triad of conditions. A cancer or CVD does not just happen it is because these conditions prevail in the body over a long period of time and create the preconditions for these disease states. On the other hand if you want to reduce the risk of these disease states you reduce the levels of the disease triad, inflammation, oxidation and acidosis

Acid refers to one of the fundamental principals of science. All chemical reactions require numerous conditions to be present for the process to occur. For example if you warm up the temperature reactions usually go faster. Fever is a classic example of this, whereby the body’s metabolism is running faster as a result of the fever. The same occurs with acid levels. The level of acid, known as the pH (potential Hydrogen) determines the speed at which chemical reactions occur. Some reactions need higher acid levels (lower pH) while most chemical reactions in our body require neutral to alkaline (the opposite to acid) to occur. An example of this is in the stomach which requires a pH as low as 1 or 2 for certain digestive enzymes to work (pepsin the main protein digestive enzyme in the stomach works at a pH  of 1-2.4 that is why the consumption of antacids only reduce digestion and create more digestive problems) but in the small intestine the pH has to be alkaline for the other digestive enzymes to work so the body injects in bicarbonate (HCO3) into the small intestine.

The pH scale ranges from 1 to 14. 1 being highly acidic and 14 being highly alkaline. So the lower the number the higher the acidity. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic/alkaline. The pH scale is also logarithmic which means, each whole pH value below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. Not just one. For example, pH 6 (acidic) is ten times more acidic than pH 7 (neutral) and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 8. Similarly a pH 8 is ten times more alkaline than pH 7.

When we refer to acidosis we are freeing to the pH level in the internal body fluids. When the body fluids such as the blood and the fluid between the cells and in the cells becomes slightly acidic it is so smart it sets up a triage system to rebalance the pH (acid/alkali levels) to maintain homeostasis. The pH of the blood is between 7.35-7.45. When the blood pH falls below 7.35, this is called “acidosis,” (too much acid) and our death can occur at a blood pH of 7.0. So we want to avoid this. If the pH varies slightly from this level it dramatically affects many of the 90 or so enzyme functions in the blood. These enzymes literally do all the work, repair, cleaning up, immune function, transport etc in the blood. If they slow down too much we get very sick and die quickly. To make sure this doesn’t happen the body has a few mechanisms to keep the pH in perfect balance. These include buffers, respiratory regulation and renal regulation of pH.

Unfortunately, many of the body’s natural process produce acid waste by products so we have a constant requirement to balance out the pH. Each cell, in the presence of Oxygen performs its task of respiration (the chemical and physical process in which oxygen is delivered to tissues or cells in an organism), it also creates acidic end products that are used for energy and function. The residue of these products and functions is known as metabolic wastes, and these are acidic in nature. This acidic waste must not be allowed to build up as it becomes increasingly toxic to the body. One example of the short term waste build-up is the often painful lactic acid which is created through extreme exercise.

The importance of acid-base homeostasis (balance) in the maintenance of normal cellular responses and physiological integrity has long been recognized. Many cellular responses are diminished at lowered extracellular pH, including intracellular fluid and membrane-associated enzyme activities, ion transport activity, protein and DNA synthesis, metabolism and calcium levels. Even at low levels of acidosis it decreases the body’s ability to absorb minerals and other nutrients, lowers energy production in the cells and the body’s ability to repair damaged cells. Essentially, it stops all the normal functioning, growth and repair in the cells so we slowly start to decay. Acidosis also increases the body’s ability to grow abnormal cells, increases fatigue and susceptibility to infections and also contributes to cardiovascular disease, weight gain, diabetes, kidney and gall bladder stones, hormonal problems, premature ageing and much more. An acid environment is also required for cancer cells to survive and increases the inflammation in the body, which feeds cancers. Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 and 1946 for his studies on how cancer can not thrive in an alkaline medium and the interstitial fluid of tumors has shown pH values of less than 6.0, 0.2–0.6 units lower than mean pH of normal tissues. In fact a major by product of cancers due to their incomplete metabolism is high levels of acid.

In the case of chronic acidosis the main mechanism is to allocate or triage alkali minerals like magnesium and calcium from where they should be working in optimal conditions, such as in the muscle cells and in bones, to balance the pH in the blood. Acidosis literally causes physicochemical dissolution of bone and cell-mediated bone resorption (inhibition of osteoblast – which cause bone to be laid down- and stimulation of osteoclast function – which breaks down the bone). While this protects our urgent health requirements and keeps us alive today it increases our long risk of chronic health conditions such as osteoporosis heart attack and cancer as a result of the shortage of these minerals. The body allocates the nutrients for short-term survival, the “essential,” functions are protected from nutrient deficiency over other “nonessential, non immediate” functions needed only for long-term health. As a result acidosis does not refer to the body becoming full of acid but the conditions that are created around the body by chronic low-grade metabolic acidosis.

 

What causes acidosis

Under normal conditions the body produces acid as a byproduct of metabolism and breakdown of other molecules. In a healthy body with a nutritious diet and well-balanced healthy lifestyle our body eliminates the wastes. Unfortunately, a nutritious diet and well-balanced healthy lifestyle are relatively rare now.

When food is altered from its natural state, the way it interacts with the body also changes. It is not the organic matter of foods (whether the food itself is acidic or alkaline such as in the case of lemon juice being acidic), but their inorganic matter, how they break down in our bodies into minerals, that determines either the acidity or alkalinity of our internal body. Following digestion, absorption and metabolism, nearly all foods release either acid or base into the systemic circulation. The pH of the body is determined and measured by the mineral residues in the blood and tissue. Acid and alkaline minerals bind to each other to neutralise the pH and bring about balance. If there is not enough alkaline minerals it will draw on minerals from the bone and other organs as described earlier.

Alkalising elements include

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Manganese

Zinc

Iodine

Borax

Acidic elements include

Phosphorus

Sulphur

Chlorine

Bromide

Fluoride

Copper

Silica

Hydrogen

There is significant differences between modern diets and those typical of our Homo sapiens ancestors. Studies in hunter – gatherer tribes suggest a relatively high intake of plant foods compared with modern-day humans. In a recent study estimating the net acid load 87% of 159 pre-agricultural diets were found to be alkaline compared with the average American diet was acid producing. This represents a major switch from the alkaline producing diet we ate for the majority of our evolutionary history to the acid producing diet we now eat.

The adoption of a diet which is high in alkaline foods has been shown to reduce the occurrence of diseases such as osteoporosis, age- related muscle degeneration, kidney stones, hypertension, asthma and kidney degeneration. The adoption of a predominantly acidic diet can lead to a condition called pathogenic metabolic acidosis which causes degeneration of the kidneys.

Acidic foods include:

Meats and seafood

Dairy products

Drinks:  coffee, tea, alcohol, processed fruit juice

Fats and Oils

Sugar

Pasta, bread,

Artificial sweeteners

Acidity within the body can also occur as a result of dehydration and/or the quality of liquids we drink. While liquids are needed to flush out the wastes, including the acid wastes the different drinks we consume can have a big impact on our internal pH. Acid forming drinks include coffee, alcohol and soft drinks. The worst of these is without doubt is soft drinks. Not just because of the pH of the drinks but the sheer amount some people use and the fact they are consumed mainly by young people, even infants.

When soft drinks are consumed, pH regulatory mechanisms come into force to reduce the acidity of the soft drink. Soft drinks have a high buffering capacity, which means that more pressure is placed on the body to neutralise the pH, as the soft drink is resistant to small changes in the pH. The lower the pH (more acidic), the more alkaline needed to make the soft drink return to a neutral pH. Therefore not only is the initial pH of the soft drink bad, but also the corresponding buffering capacity results in greater stress on the body. Soft drinks are associated with many adverse health effects as well as osteoporosis and tooth decay. If the minerals are drawn out of the bone they are also removed from the teeth with acidosis, leading to an increased risk of tooth decay. Literally from the inside out.

It is not just our diet. Stress and anxiety are acid generators aside outside of our diet. An over active adrenal gland caused by high levels of stress can release a hormone called aldosterone into the blood stream causing large quantities of potassium and magnesium, alkaline minerals, to be excreted into the urine.

Pollution and nutrition

A recent study ¹ of adults with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) found that those with lower levels of certain antioxidants in their blood were more vulnerable to the harmful effects of air pollution. Air pollution can aggravate both asthma and COPD, producing symptoms that can be strong enough to lead to hospitalization. This study is important because it indicates that improved nutrition may protect against the common health threat of air pollution and that the low levels recommended for the average person (RDA/I’s) may not be enough.

The study found smokers and those older than 75 years of age were especially vulnerable to air pollution effects but also participants with low levels of vitamin C in their blood were also more vulnerable to PM10. This effect was not seen with other antioxidants and genes.

Air, water and soil pollution place increased demands on protective nutrients, due to these pollutants’ ability to generate free radicals, oxidation and inflammation. They also have the ability to block nutrient digestion, absorption and utilisation, as well as to drain the body of existing nutrients. In fact, many of the negative effects of toxins influence nutrient cycles in the body. For example, selenium and cysteine are necessary for the production and function of glutathione, which detoxifies and helps eliminate heavy metals such as mercury from the body. An elevated mercury load puts extra demand on the body’s supply of selenium and cysteine, to name just two of its anti-nutrient effects. So considering nutritional needs without considering the toxic load of an individual would seem ridiculous and, incidentally, is the reason for the growing field of nutritional toxicology.

With increasing technology and especially the expanding industrialisation of the last century, humans are exposed to a larger number of new potential toxins at greater concentrations. Living in the world today, it is impossible to avoid exposure to environmental toxins such as xenoestrogens (which include the organochlorine pesticides, heavy metals and plastics), cigarette smoke, pesticides, industrial poisons, heavy metals and even food additives (preservatives, colours and flavours). Inhalation, ingestion and absorption of heavy metals as well as inorganic and organic chemical compounds can lead to a build-up of toxins in the body. This is not to mention the hundreds of toxic ingredients we now have in our homes masquerading as cleaning products, personal care products and cosmetics. This accumulation of toxins can alter biochemical balance by chelating nutrients (making them bio-unavailable), mimicking hormones and altering proteins, resulting in metabolic dysfunction. The most disruptive and dangerous effect upon oestrogen receptors. Furthermore, toxic compounds interfere with each other’s exit pathways. If alternative pathways aren’t available, this will create a metabolic “gridlock.”

Studies suggest that an increased intake of particular nutrients may benefit the body and protect it against damage from pollution. These include beta-carotene, vitamins C, A, E, folic acid and selenium. These nutrients are called antioxidants. For the first stage (phase 1) of detoxification to be effective, high levels of N acetyl cysteine and vitamins B2, B3, B6 and B12, folate, flavonoids, vitamin C and iron are required.

1            Canova C, C Dunster, FJ Kelly, C Minelli, PL Shah, C Caneja, MK Tumilty, P Burneya. 2012. PM10-induced hospital admissions for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The modifying effect of individual characteristics. Epidemiology http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182572563

The truth about nutrition

Despite years millions of dollars the Government-sponsored (and industry-influenced) food guidelines are not changing food consumption patterns, as many people do not meet current dietary recommendations,¹ and fruit and vegetable consumption (which is linked to greater protection from chronic diseases) remains low.^2,3 Two in three people in Australia don’t eat the recommended intake of fruit and four in five are not consuming the recommended vegetable intake, with children consuming less fruit and vegetables today than a decade ago.⁴ A recent U.K. Food Standards Agency report found that, among adults between the ages of 19 and 64, only 13% of men and 15% of women eat the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. At the present time only 32% of Americans consume five servings of fruit and vegetables per day with only 20% and adolescents meeting this goal.⁵ Instead, our diet is being replaced with significantly increased amounts of sugar,⁶ refined carbohydrates⁷ and processed fats.

While food guidelines aim to be simplistic to reduce confusion;  this often fails. The food guidelines are too general for chronic disease prevention; if the guidelines were adjusted to be more specific, chronic disease risk could be reduced.^8,9,10

A similar problem occurs within the food pyramid, which was developed in 1992 by advertising and marketing researchers to develop an image the consumer could identify with and easily understand. The pyramid was then widely distributed and has been used as an educational tool, basis for dietary assessment, and part of policy documents. It has succeeded in creating high levels of consumer awareness and is recognised by 67% or more of American adults.¹¹ This wasn’t the first time that government and industry had made attempts to influence how Americans eat: the first U.S. guide, “Food for Young Children,” dates back to 1916. And the “four food groups” developed in the 1950s were strongly influenced by the food industry—after all, the regulators invited the food industry to help shape the guidelines. To highlight the strong influence of industry on US food guidelines, in 2011 the US Department of Agriculture, the same organisation who created the food pyramid, labeled pizza as a vegetable because it has tomato paste. Any wonder the food pyramid was so wrong.

Figure 5. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Pyramid.

Source: Chiuve and Willet 2007.¹²

The 1992 food pyramid encouraged consumers to eat a huge amount of breads, cereal products and potatoes. This could very well have resulted in a greater risk of chronic disease (including CVD, obesity and type 2 diabetes), due to the fact it lacked emphasis and detail on the recommended type of carbohydrates.^13,14 This resulted in consumer confusion^15,16 and poor eating habits.¹⁷ Food guidelines, such as the food pyramid, advocate bread consumption numerous times a day.¹⁸ Bread is a contributing factor to a higher glycaemic load, promoting chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.^19,20 Therefore bread consumption should be limited or even eliminated to promote better health. In the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating²¹ it is recommended to eat plenty of cereals (including breads, rice, pasta and noodles) but we did not evolve eating these foods.

In 2005 the food pyramid was revised into an abstract version of a pyramid called MyPyramid. This new pyramid still encouraged the consumption of grains; one of the differences was that it advised consumers to choose grains that have the word “whole” in front of the grain name. Sure it changed a little, but not enough to reflect what we should really be eating. The Harvard School of Public Health made a scathing criticism of this iteration of the food pyramid.²²

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture replaced MyPyramid with a new icon called MyPlate. The plate is divided roughly into quarters, with the largest section again being grains. Dr Andrew Weil, founder of the Arizona Centre for Integrative Medicine, wrote “there are some conceptual chips and cracks in this new dinnerware. Overall, I fear another opportunity has been lost to give Americans the best up-to-date information about what constitutes an ideal diet.”²³ Dr Weil offers as an alternative the Anti-inflammatory Food Pyramid, which promotes optimum nutrition and thus optimum health.²⁴

Another are of concern is the Recommended Daily Intakes/ Allowances (RDI/A’s) also known as the percentage of daily values on the side of your breakfast food packet depending on the country in which they are used. As nutritional research and knowledge evolves, food guidelines can become redundant if updates and revisions are not continually made. The Australian RDIs have been updated only a few times since 1954, yet the Japanese, Canadian and U.S. dietary recommendations are updated every five years to match the current scientific research.^25-28

By updating food guidelines in line with scientific research, chronic diseases can be reduced.²⁹ At the same time, not updating with current research may result in ineffective food guidelines that misinform and fail to protect the public. An example is the change in recognising the importance of omega 3 essential fatty acids for chronic disease prevention. In the 1960s it was thought that both omega 3 and omega 6 were equally important, however more recent research highlights the importance of omega 3 over omega 6³⁰ and that we are consuming far too many omega 6 oils in our diet. A food guideline that is updated regularly can make the necessary changes to promote omega 3 over omega 6; however, if updates are not made regularly, the health of consumers will suffer.

Recommended Daily Intake/Allowance (RDI/A)

Many professionals suggest that our food is o.k. because it provides the RDI. This argument has probably led people to eat poor quality food and think that’s o.k. The Recommended Dietary Intake (RDI) values were established by authorities more than 50 years ago with the aim of preventing gross nutrient deficiency diseases such as scurvy and beriberi. They provide the equivalent of the nutrient bare minimum, the lowest common denominator for health, and have no relevance at all for optimum health and the avoidance of chronic illness. Optimum health cannot be obtained by following the RDI/A. These were passable as a guideline 50 years ago but were never meant to protect us from chronic illness. Yet authorities now repeatedly refer to them as the definitive levels to achieve. They are in fact the lowest common denominator of nutrition and aiming just to achieve them is likely a major contributing factor to chronic illness in Australia.

The RDI system shows a serious lack of sensitivity toward individuals with elevated nutrient demands.³¹ It does not allow for differences in people’s nutritional needs. Various groups, including the elderly, people who experience increased physical or emotional stress, people who are of above average body weight, or pregnant women may exhibit elevated nutrient demands. The recommendations also fail to take into account geographic differences such as living in areas with nutrient-deficient soils or high levels of environmental pollution.³²

Socioeconomic factors may also affect the adequacy of RDI/A values for certain groups. For example, the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowances (U.S. RDAs) claim to represent the daily intake levels sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of 97% to 98% of all healthy individuals in a group. However, the homeless and poor are not healthy as groups and inadequate dietary quality has been documented in these sectors of society.³³

Recommended intakes don’t take into account the interactions of nutrients or toxins—in particular, the synergy and the fact that a shortage of one nutrient may bring about inefficient use of other nutrients. While most people know of vitamin C’s antioxidant effects, very few are aware of the benefits of it consumed with other antioxidants. Extra vitamin C spares the destruction of other nutrients in the body.

Professor Bruce Ames, one of the most respected names in modern nutrition and one of the early developers of toxicological standards, suggests that we need to move beyond the RDI and that age-related diseases like heart disease, cancer and dementia may be unintended consequences of mechanisms developed during evolution to protect against short-term nutrient shortages. In what he calls the “triage theory,” he suggests that because natural selection favours short-term survival—to escape from a bear or survive a cold winter—over long-term health, short-term survival was achieved by prioritising the use of these scarce nutrients that are also necessary for less urgent, but just as important, functions including healthy ageing. The nutrients are allocated to short-term essential (urgent) tasks versus keeping you healthy in the long term and avoiding chronic illness. The triage theory proposes that modest deficiency of any vitamin or mineral could increase age-related diseases. This theory has important implications for determining the optimum intake of all vitamins and minerals, as well as major implications for preventive medicine.³⁴ Current RDAs and RDIs provide for urgent short-term requirements only and not the nutrients for important tasks and optimal health.

In his recent study of vitamin K, Professor Ames and his colleagues showed that current recommendations for vitamin K, which are based on levels to ensure adequate blood coagulation, fail to ensure long-term optimal levels of the vitamin and may accelerate bone fragility, arterial and kidney calcification, cardiovascular disease and possibly cancer. So the levels approved for the short-term do not help us to avoid chronic illness, which is the biggest burden we face in the 21^st century. In another study the same group investigating selenium, reported that the same set of age-related diseases and conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and immune dysfunction and an increase risk of diseases of aging are associated with modest selenium deficiency ³⁵. The overall conclusion of this growing body of evidence is that optimizing nutrition and metabolism will delay aging and the diseases of aging in humans ^36,37.

Perhaps easier to understand a well-known and good example of the triage system is the pH (acid/alkali levels) of the blood and mineral balance. The optimal pH of the blood is around 7.35. If the pH varies slightly from this level, as a result of eating processed foods which increase the acidity of the blood, it dramatically affects many of the 90 or so enzyme functions in the blood. These enzymes literally do all the work, repair, cleaning up, transport etc in the blood. If they slow down too much we get very sick and die quickly. To make sure this doesn’t happen the body has a few mechanisms to keep the pH in perfect balance. The main mechanism is to allocate or triage alkali minerals like magnesium and calcium from where they should be working in optimal conditions, such as in the cells and in bones, to balance the pH in the blood. While this protects our urgent health requirements it increases our long risk of chronic health conditions such as heart attack, cancer and osteoporosis as a result of the shortage of these minerals. The body allocates the nutrients for short-term survival, the “essential” functions are protected from nutrient deficiency over other “nonessential” functions  needed only for long-term health.

It is time we rethink our nutritional advice to eliminate the vested interests and to come in line with the tens of thousands of nutritional studies that have been done over the past decades. The current standards do not represent the scientific evidence that is currently available.

1.     Ball et al. 2004

2.     Ziegler 1991

3.     AIHW 2002

4.     Magarey et al. 2001

5.     Ames 2001

6.     Cook et al. 2001

7.     Jenkins et al. 2004

8.     McCullogh et al. 2000a

9.     McCullogh et al. 2000b

10.  McCullogh et al. 2000c

11.  Nestle 1998

12.  Chiuve and Willet 2007

13.  Willet 1998

14.  Weinberg 2004

15.  Cotugna et al. 1992

16.  Ferrini et al. 1994

17.  Grifford 2002

18.  Nutrition Australia 2005

19.  Davis et al. 2004

20.  Villegas et al. 2004

21.  NHMRC 2003

22.  http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/pyramid-full-story/index.html

23.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/myplate-nutrition-plate_b_871045.html

24.  http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/PAG00361/anti-inflammatory-food-pyramid.html

25.  Kris-Etherton et al. 2000

26.  Cobiac et al. 1998

27.  Bush and Kirkpatrick 2003

28.  Guthrie and Smallwood 2003

29.  Jacques and Tucker 2001

30.  Holman 1998

31.  Gopalan 1997

32.  Kirchheiner nd

33.  Wiecha et al. 1991

34.  McCann and Ames 2009

35.  McCann and Ames, 2011

36.  Ames 2010

37.  Ashutosh and Ames 2011