[Tyson]

I initially posted this in reply to another post, but it grew so large  and off-topic that I wanted to split it off for separate discussion. 
 
 We keep hearing that meat is bad for you, eggs are bad for you, butter  is bad for you, that wheat is good for you, that veggies will protect  you, that PUFA's are heart healthy.  Well, below is the data that shows  our consumption levels over several decades in each of these food  categories.  The source of the data is the USDA, so it comes straight  from the government.
 
 So, we  all know that diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are trending  strongly  upward.  If this were related to red meat consumption (ie,  beef, pork,  lamb), we should see it trending up at the same time.   Let's take a  look:



Well, look at that - Red meat trended up slightly, but has trended right   back down to 1950's levels.  And egg consumption has decreased   significantly.  These are our sources of saturated fat and cholesterol,   and they are either flat or declining over time.  Hmm, seems like heart   disease, diabetes, and obesity should also be flat or downward   trending.  Hmmmm......
 
 OK, lets look at some other trends.  Maybe we don't eat enough veggies. 



 Nope, fruit and veggie consumption is up all across the board. 
 
 Well, maybe it's that we eat too much butter and lard, and not enough healthy vegetable oil. 
 


 Oops,  butter consumption is way down.  So is lard consumptions.  And  veggie  oil consumption is way up.  If butter is so bad and veggie oil  so good,  why is our dramatic change in veggie oil consumption not  protecting us?
 
 Aha!  I can hear you saying that it's that we just don't eat enough healthy whole grains.  But lets take a look.
 
 
 
 Well,  look at that, wheat consumption is way up too!  And corn, and  rice.   Jeez, no protective effect by eating more of this stuff either.   
 
 So  the DATA shows that we are eating much more of the foods we "should"  be  eating, and about the same or less of the foods we should not be   eating.  They told us to change our eating habits AND WE DID.  Net   result?  More heart disease, more diabetes, and more obesity than EVER.   
 
 Now, one thing I've not touched on that almost certainly drives  these  bad outcomes in a big way is SUGAR.  Lets take a look at that:
 
 
 
 
 Holy  sweet tooth, Batman!  Massive increase!  It seems very, very  likely  that sugar is one of the primary drivers of our current health  problems  and they rest of the "positive" changes we made to the other  aspects of  our diet have not protected us at all.  If those other  changes did not  protect us, then they are likely worthless.
 
 This data all comes  FROM THE GOVERNMENT - the analysis I just did is  incredibly  straightforward, so it begs the question - why are they  piddling around  with fat, oil, meat, and veggies, and not GOING AFTER  SUGAR IN A BIG WAY?   Hell, there's even a plausible biological  mechanism that shows how sugar  can do damage to the liver and to the  pancrease, both of with play  major roles in heart disease, diabetes,  and obesity. 
 
 Sorry I  ranted a bit here, if the data were unclear or ambiguous, I  could  understand (maybe) the recommendations the government has been  handing  out, but the data is NOT AMBIGUOUS, IT IS VERY CLEAR.  If I can  see this  from looking at the data for 10 minutes, why can't they?    Especially  since IT IS THEIR JOB!  I can only conclude that the people  making these  recommendations are either stupid, incompetent, or have a  hidden agenda.

Source of the data is the www.usda.gov  website - just click on "News", then on "Publications".  That takes you  to the page with their "Agriculture Factbooks".  The data I posted above  is taken directly from Chapter 2 of the latest Factbook.
 
 Or, you can access it directly via this link - www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm

[geezer]

Did you notice:

Total meats, total poultry, total seafood, total vegetables and fruits, total fats and oils, total grain products, and total sugars are ALL trending up together. Do you think that might have something to do with the unhealthy trends? If you are obese, no matter what you're eating, you will be much more susceptible to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, and many other problems.

I've seen many  signs that the sugar problem is being highlighted. For example, there are attempts in various locations to reduce the intake of sugary drinks and deserts in schools.

(And by the way, as I understand it, eggs are not really bad for you. Researchers have found that the cholesterol in eggs does not convert to cholesterol in the blood in significant quantities. I have even read claims from medical types saying they can even be considered a health food.)

[WGH]

Our local PBS station just broadcast Food, Inc last night. Big agri-businesses have given us cheap food but not necessarily healthy food. All the stuff they make has no appeal for me but obviously a lot of people like it. Corn is used one way or another in almost every food product you buy, agri-businesses support our elected officials, who in turn support corn subsidies, which gives us high fructose corn syrup. And cheap chickens, cheap beef, cheap pork, etc.

On average we still live longer than our Grandparents so it ain't all bad.

Check out Food, Inc to find out where most food comes from,
 "You'll never look at dinner the same way".

[Tyson]

We do live longer, but we get sicker at a younger age, so we live with disease for a greater portion of our lives than our grandparents did.

geezer,
One way to limit sugar intake is to tax the sh!t out of it.  Make it ridiculously expensive to eat crap foods and it will definitely affect people eating it. 

Also, for obesity, you have a point that total calories has increased, but my point was that cholesterol and saturated fats have NOT increase, in fact have decreased dramatically in consumption.  So the hypothesis that these 2 things "caused" heart disease or diabetes is just flat out wrong (not congruent with the data). 

[Tyson]

Oh, and I have heart disease and I am not obese.  My father in law has Type 2 diabetes and is not obese, same with my aunt.  However my uncle and my dad are both obese and neither have heart disease or diabetes.  So, again, I think the issue of saturated fat and cholesterol consumption trending has to be looked at in terms of relation to heart disease and diabetes.  Clearly sat fat and cholesterol took a nose dive at exactly the same time that heart disease and diabetes skyrocketed. 

[SlushPuppy]

We do live longer, but we get sicker at a younger age, so we live with disease for a greater portion of our lives than our grandparents did.

geezer,
One way to limit sugar intake is to tax the sh!t out of it.  Make it ridiculously expensive to eat crap foods and it will definitely affect people eating it. 

Also, for obesity, you have a point that total calories has increased, but my point was that cholesterol and saturated fats have NOT increase, in fact have decreased dramatically in consumption.  So the hypothesis that these 2 things "caused" heart disease or diabetes is just flat out wrong (not congruent with the data).

Tax sugar because it's bad for the body - and do what with it?

Tax gasoline because the CO2 emissions are bad for the environment - and do what with it?

Tax the number of children we have because of the Earth's limited resources - and do what with it?

When will we realize that education makes much more sense than taxes?

Why can't we just educate people instead of taxing them? Good grief 

You brought up some very good points until you brought up taxes. I don't want that kind of "Nanny State". There is nothing illegal about someone that eats too much high-fructose corn syrup. If they want to kill themselves prematurely, that's their decision. That's the same decision that's made by the person who drinks too much or sits in front of their television for 18 hours a day. Should we tax people for not exercising? Maybe we should have everyone in the country hook-up to a national grid for 20 minutes three times a week to make sure they're doing their required cardio exercise. Suddenly sounds silly - doesn't it?

[Tyson]

OK, how's this - remove all subsidies for corn and wheat and watch their prices soar, and then the "crap food" they drive will become more expensive.  Subsidies keep these foods artificially cheap. 

[SlushPuppy]

OK, hows this - remove all subsidies for corn and wheat and watch their prices soar, and then the "crap food" they drive will become more expensive.  Subsidies keep these foods artificially cheap.

Yes! Absolutely! Now we're talking!

[Tyson]

I never understood the subsidies in the first place.  They were put in place to protect farmers, but the fact is that wheat, corn, even soy are all grown by large corporations, for the most part.  So the subsidies go to the people that least need them - large corporations.  Hell, if I was Monsanto I'd have lobbyists too, making sure we didn't lose those very nice subsidies....

[JakeJ]

Your data is from the gov't?  Well then, it's gotta be true!  Phffft!

I'm with SlushPuppy, I'll pass on the socialism, thanks.

Oh, and I have heart disease and I am not obese.  My father in law has Type 2 diabetes and is not obese, same with my aunt.  However my uncle and my dad are both obese and neither have heart disease or diabetes.  So, again, I think the issue of saturated fat and cholesterol consumption trending has to be looked at in terms of relation to heart disease and diabetes.  Clearly sat fat and cholesterol took a nose dive at exactly the same time that heart disease and diabetes skyrocketed. 

I had sextuple bypass in May 2010.  My thoracic surgeon with 35 years of experience and board certified in India (his birthplace), France, and the US and has made a lifetime of studying this subject and he told me eating habits have far less to do with heart disease than simple genetics.  As to diabetes, I'll defer as that is not one of my issues nor anyone in my family.  But I would wager a dollar that genetics play a big role in that as well.


My .02 FWIW

[Tyson]

The genetic argument makes no sense to me.  If genetics drives heart disease, then the fact that we have MUCH more heart disease now than 100 years ago means that our genes have degraded massively in the last 100 years?  That's crap, IMO.

[SlushPuppy]

I never understood the subsidies in the first place.  They were put in place to protect farmers, but the fact is that wheat, corn, even soy are all grown by large corporations, for the most part.  So the subsidies go to the people that least need them - large corporations.  Hell, if I was Monsanto I'd have lobbyists too, making sure we didn't lose those very nice subsidies....

Where's the "Like" button 

[WGH]

Tyson,

Sorry to hear about your heart disease, can it be controlled by diet and exercise or is it just bad body parts? My Dad had a heart attack when he was in his early 40's but survived another 26 years in fine health until he gained a lot of weight, never exercised and died from another heart attack at 68 years old. It kind of got my attention that I should adapt a different lifestyle than how I was raised.

As long as you are on a rant have your seen King Corn?



From IMDB:
King Corn is a feature documentary about two friends, one acre of corn, and the subsidized crop that drives our fast-food nation. In King Corn, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, best friends from college on the east coast, move to the heartland to learn where their food comes from. With the help of friendly neighbors, genetically modified seeds, and powerful herbicides, they plant and grow a bumper crop of America's most-productive, most-subsidized grain on one acre of Iowa soil. But when they try to follow their pile of corn into the food system, what they find raises troubling questions about how we eat-and how we farm.

[Tyson]

WGH - I read a lot of current research on heart disease and it's pretty clear now what's driving it.  In the old days they thought it was elevated cholesterol.  But the problem was that half the people with heart attacks had normal or low cholesterol (I had low cholesterol when I had mine).  Then they broke it up to HDL, LDL, and Triglycerides.  That was somewhat more predictive, but not a whole lot.  Then the dived into the LDL a bit more and discovered subfractions.  Turns out that large LDL is moderately predictive, but small, dense ldl is highly predictive.  Even more recently they have discovered that oxidized LDL is even more predictive than the small dense ldl. 

So, what drives small ldl?  Refined carbs and sugar.  What causes oxyLDL?  It's still under investigation, but it seems to be that the LDL is not cleared from the system effectively. 

Actually, to fully explain it, I need to back up a bit.  All ldl starts life as VLDL, or Very Low Density LDL (or Very Large LDL).  It's job is to transport stuff like fat-soluble vitamins to your cells, along with cholesterol and other fat based nutrients (cholesterol is actually used by your cells to maintain cell integrity).  After depositing it, then it becomes IDL, or intermediate density LDL, which still has some payload to drop off to different cells.  Finally it becomes plain old LDL, and at that point should be recycled by the liver to become VLDL again.  In people with heart disease, this doesn't happen, the LDL particles remain in the blood stream and become small, dense ldl.  This small LDL is then highly prone to oxidation, and it is the oxidized ldl which penetrates the artery walls (because it is smaller than the endothelial barrier), and once imbedded there it starts to rot.  This rot is seen as an infection by the body, so it sends white T-cells, which attack the necrosis.  As part of this attack the become foam cells and leave plaque residue as part of their programmed cell death.

Net result, you end up with plaque because your liver stops handling LDL properly.  So, the question is, what causes the liver to stop working right?  Being overwhelmed by toxins.  If you consider that alcohol and fructose act on the liver in the exact same manner, the mechanism becomes clear.  If you drink lots of alcohol, obviously it damages your liver and you die young.  Well, we now know that fructose acts on the liver in the same manner. 

To put this in perspective, consider that a 12 oz can of coca cola contains 39 grams of sugar, and about half of that breaks down to fructose, that's 20 grams of fructose hitting your liver hard, and fast.  Now compare that to wine - a glass of wine has about 8 grams of alcohol.  So, you'd have to drink more than 2 glasses of wine to equal a single coke.  And so it goes, with cookies, cake, fruit juice, flavored yogurt, candy bars, etc, etc, etc....

Wheat also hits the liver pretty hard via lectins, which are natural pesticides.  Modern wheat is bread with higher amounts of lectins, which are toxins to us and are detoxed in the liver.  People who have gluten intolerance are actually sensitive to the lectins that are bound into the proteins in wheat.  Gluten is one protein (of at least 32!!) that have to be detoxed by the liver.  Consider that we eat massive amount of wheat based cereal, pasta, bread, crackers, and baked goods like cupcakes, brownies, donuts, etc... and it's clear that sugar and wheat pack a 1-2 punch that's quite potent and does real damage, particularly since we tend to eat these things several times a day, every day of the week, for year after year.  It's amazing our livers don't break down sooner, it's pretty damn resilient when you consider what we do to it.

PS, I should also mention glycated LDL - this seems to go hand in hand with oxyLDL in the smLDL subfraction.  What is glycated LDL?  Well, glycation is protien that has been modified (damaged) by bonding to sugar!  This is the reason that diabetics have WAY more heart disease risk than any other group - they produce glycated LDL like crazy.  Glycated LDL, oxydized LDL, small dense LDL - it all comes back to sugar (and wheat).

[mamba315]

I've been waiting to see charts with this data for some time.  Awesome!

A year ago I realized that my dietary beliefs were completely flawed.  I changed over to a very low/ no carb diet.  I eat almost exclusively meat now, with small amounts of eggs/dairy type products occasionally.  Never felt more stable or had more energy.  I feel better than when I was a teenager, literally.  My immune system seems impenetrable at times.  My skin has never been more even and problem free.

I'm not trying to convince anybody here.  I've already been in many "heated" conversations about my current diet and they go absolutely nowhere.  But I'm never going back to a "standard" diet and I would encourage anybody curious to do their own research and approach such issues with an open mind.  Cutting/eliminating carbs is difficult (they are addictive in every sense of the word) but worthwhile IME.

[Tyson]

I'm not a carb nazi, I think that sugar and wheat are probably the main drivers of disease (for the reasons outlined above), but potato's, yams, carrots, etc... are probably fairly neutral once you have eliminated wheat and sugar and gotten down to your ideal weight.  There's too many healthy populations out there that eat yams, rice, carrots, to condemn them outright.

On the other hand, if you are actively trying to lose weight, eliminating all starches and all sugar is a good strategy.  But once you've lost the weight, it's probably OK to add back in a moderate amount of non-wheat starches.  Same with fruit - it's probably best to eliminate them while trying to lose weight, but OK to have a moderate amount once you are weight stable.  Because the sugar in fruit is bound up with so much fiber it tends to assault the liver (and pancreas) more slowly, mitigating the damage. 

Also, I've been diving in a bit more to the literature and it seems that sugar by itself is bad, and wheat by itself is bad, but when you combine them they are not 2x as bad, but more like 4x as bad.  Avoid, avoid, avoid!

[mamba315]

I don't disagree that you can consume some amounts of certain carbs and still live a disease free life.  But to me, health and stereo's have a lot in common    There are so many different levels of health (or sound quality).  Maybe not everyone wants to take it to the nth degree like me.  But there is no such thing as a nutritionally necessary carbohydrate.  All other things equal, consuming carbs will always increase fat, decrease lean muscle, and decrease immune system efficiency.  I've never been more than 10 pounds overweight in my life, and did not adopt this path for weight loss.  It's about maximizing energy and endurance, maximizing the strength of my immune system, and enjoying the mental benefits of stable blood sugar.  There are many other benefits too, but I'm trying to be brief.

Carbs are like passive crossovers between your amp and speakers.  Some may be better and some may be worse, but they will always do some harm.

IME, of course.  YMMV, etc.

[Tyson]

I'm not sure I agree completely - look at the Kitivans, they had zero heart disease, diabetes, or obesity, and they ate like 60% carbs in their diet, mainly from sweet potatoes.  Of course, they never ate sugar or wheat food either, so they didn't damage their pancreas (insulin), liver (lipids), or hypothalmus (leptin) in the first place and thus seemed to tolerate and even thrive on it.

For us in the US, it seems as though we've already done the damage by eating all that wheat and sugar, so we are (seemingly) more sensitized to other starches like potatoes and rice.  So we are kinda between a rock and a hard place.  From a personal standpoint, I get intensive lipid tests on a regular basis (VAP's and NMR's) that let me see detailed lipoprotein analysis at any given time.  So I can see directly what has a positive impact in my diet, exercise, and supplement/drug routine.  For me, the biggest factors were a statin, dropped LDL like a stone, fish oil, which dropped triglycerides even more, and wheat/sugar elimination, which dropped my smLDL like crazy.  Oh, and a combo of niacin, eggs, coconut oil, Vitamin D, daily exercise, and butter all combined to double my HDL. 

IMO, the standard cholesterol panel is almost worthless.  A VAP or an NMR gives a much better idea of what is actually happening in your body.  I'm lucky that my cardiologist is very supportive of my efforts, so I can get tested with each incremental change I make, and can see directly the results of that change. 

[Tyson]

Ah, one other thing I should mention - inflammation.  High Sensitivity CRP is a measure of inflammation in the body, it's part of the standard VAP and NRM panel, so I can always see where mine is at.  Since I changed my diet, medicine, supplements, and exercise, it's been extremely low, which is a very, very good thing.  Why?  Because you can think of plaque as analogous to dynamite, and inflammation as analogous to a match.  Either one by themselves is not too dangerous.  But put them together and BAM!  What drives systemic inflammation, of which hsCRP is one maker?  Sugar.  Chronically elevated glucose goes hand in hand with hsCRP. 

Another thing is (surprisingly) vegetable oils.  The interesting thing is we need poly-unsaturated fats for our bodies to function.  Vegetable oils are PUFA's (Omega 6's, to be precise), and fish oil is also a PUFA (Omega 3, to be exact).  Omega 3's and Omega 6's perform pretty much the same function in the body (because they are both PUFA's), but the Omega 6's tend to be pro-inflammatory, while the Omega 3's are strongly anti-inflammatory.  This is a big part of the reason that fish oil is so good for us - it displaces the inflammatory omega 6's in our bodies.  So, get rid of that wesson oil, crisco, margarine, canola oil, etc... and start eating lots of fish!

[macrojack]

Lettuce is very cooling and therefore reduces inflammation. You can't eat too much of it.

I've received dietary advice from my acupuncturist Bing Lee which coincides with Tyson's findings. Don't wait until you have a heart attack to take this advice to heart (pun intended).

Olive oil and butter, fish oil, flax seed oil, meat portions the size of a deck of cards, vegetables and more vegetables. Don't overeat and try not to ingest any food within 3 hours of bedtime.
Get some exercise, don't dwell excessively on the future, try not to worry (don't watch the news), listen to peaceful music, do something for someone else.

Most of us have already lived more than half our life -- and really enjoyed ourselves -- now we need to enjoy ourselves recovering from the first round of enjoyment.

Too bad youth is wasted on the young. My personal history certainly supports that observation. Thanks to Tyson for bringing something this important to the forum.