Addictive Foods 25. June 2007 William Davis (3) Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits. Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player. While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer. More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined. In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same. Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry? If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it. Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different? If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.
Heart Scan Curiosities #7 25. June 2007 William Davis (1) Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans. The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta. In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke. In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack. This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location. Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.
The nutrition counterculture 23. June 2007 William Davis (2) When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA. Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme. Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people. The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy. Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.
Prescription vitamin D 23. June 2007 William Davis (32) Niacin:Over-the-counter: $2-5 per monthPrescription: $120 per monthFish oil:Over-the-counter: $3-6 per monthPrescription: $120 per monthVitamin D:Over-the-counter: $2 per monthPrescription: $70 per monthWith vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol. When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits. Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive? It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?
Nutrition activist Mike Adams 20. June 2007 William Davis (1) I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise. I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings. But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.
CT scans and radiation exposure 19. June 2007 William Davis (8) The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA “This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”Where do CT heart scans fall?Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:Typical effective radiation dose valuesComputed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)Head CT 1 – 2 mSvPelvis CT 3 – 4 mSvChest CT 5 – 7 mSvAbdomen CT 5 – 7 mSvAbdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSvCoronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSvNon-CT Milliseverts (mSv)Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSvChest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSvMammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSvBarium enema exam 3 – 6 mSvCoronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSvSestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSvThallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSvSource: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MNIf you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays. A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now that's a problem. The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legimate medical questions. They are not screen Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet 17. September 2009 William Davis (59) Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits. I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies. A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops. People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours. --Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat. --Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings. --Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops. --Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people. Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome? Is Lp(a) part of your legacy to your children? 15. September 2009 William Davis (21) If you have lipoprotein(a), Lp(a)--the most aggressive known cause of heart disease that no one has heard of--then you need to tell your children. Lp(a) is a "cleanly" inherited genetic pattern: If either parent has it, there's a 50% chance that you have it. If you have it, then there's a 50% likelihood that each of your children has it. (Note that each child experiences a likelihood of 50%, not 50% of your children. This is because each child is conceived as an independent statistical event. So much for romance!)The atherogenicity (plaque-causing potential) of Lp(a) also tends to get transmitted. In other words, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 50 due to Lp(a) and you share Lp(a), then you likely share a similar magnitude of risk as your Dad. If your Mom had Lp(a), though passed quietly at age 89 without any overt evidence of heart disease, then you are likely to share the relatively benign form of Lp(a). For most of us with Lp(a), however, it is best to assume that it has at least some potential for causing heart disease, being the most aggressive cause known. (That is, until we have the ability in everyday clinical practice to characterize Lp(a) by assessing such factors as the size of the apoprotein(a) molecule, the number of kringle "repeats" on the tail, etc. Until then, we need to rely on the crude, though helpful, observation of family history.) At what age should you inform your children? There's no hard-and-fast rule. However, I generally suggest to patients that they talk about Lp(a) with their children when they reach their 20s or 30s, old enough to begin to understand the implications and begin to think about adopting healthier lifestyles. Is treatment required at, say, age 35? That depends on the pattern of Lp(a)-related heart disease in the family: With exceptionally aggressive forms, it might be reasonable to begin treatment at this relatively early age. Do "Heart Healthy" sterols cause heart disease? 9. September 2009 William Davis (19) The sterol question continues to pop up.Sterols are an ingredient widely added by food manufacturers that allows a "heart healthy" claim, since sterols have been shown to reduce LDL cholesterol (at least transiently). HOWEVER, sterols have also been implicated in possibly increasing risk for heart disease. After all, people with the genetic condition called sitosterolemia absorb sterols into the blood and develop coronary heart disease in their teens and twenties. Those of us without sitosterolemia who increase sterol intake with sterol-enriched foods increase blood levels of sterols several-fold. Is this healthy, or does it contribute to coronary plaque as it does in people with sitosterolemia? Below, I've reprinted a previous Heart Scan Blog post on sterols. Sterols should be outlawedWhile sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.Though the data are mixed:Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products. Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? . Why obese people can't fast 9. September 2009 William Davis (21) Why do obese people claim it is impossible to fast?Most overweight people are terrified at the prospect of facing any period of time without ready access to food. Persuading them to begin a program of intermittent fasting is a hopeless cause. They just refuse. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not just glutonny at work. It is the effect of what I call "the cycle of hunger," the 2-hour up and down cycle of rising sugar and insulin, followed by their inevitable fall. The precipitous fall of sugar and insulin triggers mental fogginess, fatigue, and insatiable hunger. (By the way, this is the same phenomenon underlying the silly notion of "grazing.") According to an LA Times article, fasting may be difficult to impossible for some people: "Ruth Frechman, a registered dietitian in Burbank and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn., says she frequently sees such extreme strategies backfire. 'You're hungry, fatigued, irritable. Fasting is not very comfortable. People try to cut back one day and the next day they're starving and they overeat.'" (Not surprising, coming from the American Diatetic Assn. They, along with such agencies as the American Diabetes Association, are vocal proponents of low-fat, high-carbohydrate, "healthy whole grain" diets--you know, the diets that make us fat and diabetic.)Ms. Frechman is correct: Having someone engage in a period of fasting, no matter how brief, when the diet leading up to the fast is
Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet 17. September 2009 William Davis (59) Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits. I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies. A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops. People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours. --Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat. --Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings. --Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops. --Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people. Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome?
Is Lp(a) part of your legacy to your children? 15. September 2009 William Davis (21) If you have lipoprotein(a), Lp(a)--the most aggressive known cause of heart disease that no one has heard of--then you need to tell your children. Lp(a) is a "cleanly" inherited genetic pattern: If either parent has it, there's a 50% chance that you have it. If you have it, then there's a 50% likelihood that each of your children has it. (Note that each child experiences a likelihood of 50%, not 50% of your children. This is because each child is conceived as an independent statistical event. So much for romance!)The atherogenicity (plaque-causing potential) of Lp(a) also tends to get transmitted. In other words, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 50 due to Lp(a) and you share Lp(a), then you likely share a similar magnitude of risk as your Dad. If your Mom had Lp(a), though passed quietly at age 89 without any overt evidence of heart disease, then you are likely to share the relatively benign form of Lp(a). For most of us with Lp(a), however, it is best to assume that it has at least some potential for causing heart disease, being the most aggressive cause known. (That is, until we have the ability in everyday clinical practice to characterize Lp(a) by assessing such factors as the size of the apoprotein(a) molecule, the number of kringle "repeats" on the tail, etc. Until then, we need to rely on the crude, though helpful, observation of family history.) At what age should you inform your children? There's no hard-and-fast rule. However, I generally suggest to patients that they talk about Lp(a) with their children when they reach their 20s or 30s, old enough to begin to understand the implications and begin to think about adopting healthier lifestyles. Is treatment required at, say, age 35? That depends on the pattern of Lp(a)-related heart disease in the family: With exceptionally aggressive forms, it might be reasonable to begin treatment at this relatively early age.
Do "Heart Healthy" sterols cause heart disease? 9. September 2009 William Davis (19) The sterol question continues to pop up.Sterols are an ingredient widely added by food manufacturers that allows a "heart healthy" claim, since sterols have been shown to reduce LDL cholesterol (at least transiently). HOWEVER, sterols have also been implicated in possibly increasing risk for heart disease. After all, people with the genetic condition called sitosterolemia absorb sterols into the blood and develop coronary heart disease in their teens and twenties. Those of us without sitosterolemia who increase sterol intake with sterol-enriched foods increase blood levels of sterols several-fold. Is this healthy, or does it contribute to coronary plaque as it does in people with sitosterolemia? Below, I've reprinted a previous Heart Scan Blog post on sterols. Sterols should be outlawedWhile sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.Though the data are mixed:Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products. Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .
Why obese people can't fast 9. September 2009 William Davis (21) Why do obese people claim it is impossible to fast?Most overweight people are terrified at the prospect of facing any period of time without ready access to food. Persuading them to begin a program of intermittent fasting is a hopeless cause. They just refuse. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not just glutonny at work. It is the effect of what I call "the cycle of hunger," the 2-hour up and down cycle of rising sugar and insulin, followed by their inevitable fall. The precipitous fall of sugar and insulin triggers mental fogginess, fatigue, and insatiable hunger. (By the way, this is the same phenomenon underlying the silly notion of "grazing.") According to an LA Times article, fasting may be difficult to impossible for some people: "Ruth Frechman, a registered dietitian in Burbank and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn., says she frequently sees such extreme strategies backfire. 'You're hungry, fatigued, irritable. Fasting is not very comfortable. People try to cut back one day and the next day they're starving and they overeat.'" (Not surprising, coming from the American Diatetic Assn. They, along with such agencies as the American Diabetes Association, are vocal proponents of low-fat, high-carbohydrate, "healthy whole grain" diets--you know, the diets that make us fat and diabetic.)Ms. Frechman is correct: Having someone engage in a period of fasting, no matter how brief, when the diet leading up to the fast is