The Best Fat-Loss Workout of All Time

Your Lean-Body Plan

What is the quickest way to shed weight, build lean muscle, and reveal a toned and sexy physique? The answer is simple: A combo of strength training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT). It's not revolutionary, but this regimen has been proven time and again to be the best training method to get a lean body in the least amount of time. You'll crush calories, build fat-burning muscle, and avoid plateaus.

I'll admit that as a woman, I was hesitant to start lifting heavy weights. In my mind, weight lifting equated to a "bulky" and "thick" body. But I quickly learned that this couldn't be farther from the truth. Muscle is metabolically active, meaning that it burns calories even at rest. The more muscle you have, the more fat you will burn. Just remember that muscle is more dense than fat so don't rely on the scale to track your progress. You will see the amazing results in the mirror and feel them every time you pull on your skinny jeans.

This workout combines strength training and HIIT to give you a rock-solid core, lean legs, and defined arms.

You'll need: A pair of dumbbells (10-20lbs), a jump rope.

How it works: Do 1 set of each exercise without resting between moves. Repeat the entire circuit 3 times. If you're short on time, you'll still get a great workout by doing 1 full circuit. For best results, do this workout 3 days per week. To make it more challenging, increase the weight for each exercise.

Single-Leg Deadlift

This exercise targets the glutes and hamstrings, giving perfect definition and lift to your booty.

How to do it: Grab a pair of dumbbells with an overhand grip and hold them at arm's length in front of your thighs. Stand with your feet hip-width apart and your knees slightly bent. Shift your weight into one leg. Without changing the bend in your knee, bend at your hips and lower your torso until it's almost parallel to the floor (keep the weight as close to your body as possible). Pause, then return to standing. Your back should stay naturally arched during the entire movement. Do 8 reps each side.

Split Squat Jumps

These powerful jumps blast calories and engage every muscle in your body.

How to do it: Come into a lunge position with both knees bent. Make sure your front knee is directly above the ankle. Bring both arms back as you lower down into a lunge. Explosively, jump off the ground and switch feet in the air. Land softly in a lunge position with your other foot forward. Keep switching at a quick pace. Make sure to keep your chest lifted and swing your arms forward as you jump. Do 5 jumps per side.

Squat to Press

Squats are excellent for slim thighs, a tight butt, and sculpted hamstrings. By adding the press, the core and shoulders are engaged the entire time.

How to do it: Grab a set of dumbbells and stand with your feet hip-width apart. Bend your elbows and bring the weights to shoulder height. Lower down into a squat by shifting hips back, like you are sitting in a chair. Come back to standing and press weights directly overhead. Lower the weights back to shoulder height as you immediately lower into your next squat. Continue the movement at a quick pace for 10 reps.

Broad Jumps

Similar to other jumps, this exercise burns calories quickly, keeps your heart rate up, and engages every muscle. Broad jumps will also improve overall athletic performance.

How to do it: Stand with your feet hip-width apart, knees slightly bent. Quickly extend your arms behind you while bending knees even more. Explosively jump forward (as far as you can) while swinging your arms forward. Land softly (by bending your knees) in a solid, athletic position. Try not to bounce or wobble at all and use your core to stay solid. Do 8 reps.

Plank with Dumbbell Row

Nothing beats planks when it comes to strengthening your deepest abdominal muscles, which flatten out the stomach. Plus, the row builds strength and definition in upper back, shoulders, biceps, and triceps.

How to do it: Grab a set of dumbbells and come into plank position with your feet slightly wider than hip-width apart. Brace your core as you lift one dumbbell off the ground in a rowing movement. Bring the weight back to the ground and switch sides. Continue alternating at a quick pace. Make sure to keep hips as still as possible and legs engaged the entire time. Do 8 reps per side.

Jump Rope

Jumping rope is a quick way to get the benefits of cardio without spending a lot of time on it.

How to do it: Make sure to stay light on your feet and keep your chest lifted. Use your wrists more than your arms to swing the rope. Try to keep elbows fixed in place. Jump rope for 1 minute.

Walking Lunge with Bicep Curl

his exercise builds strength in the quadriceps, core, glutes, and upper body. Doing single-leg exercises like this improves balance and stability, as well as dynamic flexibility in the knee, ankle, and hip joints.

How to do it: Grab a pair of dumbbells and stand tall, holding the weights by your sides. Take a big step out into a lunge. Bend both knees, keeping front knee directly above ankle. Drive off the ball of your big toe to come up in a standing position. Keep your foot off the ground as you curl the dumbbells up toward your shoulders. Keep elbows fixed in place. Continue by stepping the foot that is lifted forward into a lunge. Do 10 reps on each leg.

Sprints

Sprints are a very efficient way to improve athletic performance and keep the entire body lean and strong.

How to do it: Start in a lunge position with your back at a 45-degree angle, weight shifted forward. Drive through your big toe to take bounding steps forward. After about 10 yards, rest for 30 seconds before starting your next sprint. Quickly shift your hips forward to repeat the forward movement again. Do 5 sprints.

by Nora Tobin

 

Your 5 Worst Gluten-Free Mistakes

After experiencing some wacky symptoms, I was recently tested for celiac disease, and while the report came back negative, I’ve noticed that I do feel better when I avoid gluten. Many of my clients are in the same boat, but others seek me out after going gluten free and feeling worse, or even gaining weight, which seems to be increasingly common. The truth is, navigating the gluten-free landscape can be pretty darn tricky. Here are five common missteps I see, and how to resolve them.

Not “getting” gluten
One client recently said to me, “I’m not really sure what gluten is, but I know it’s bad, right?” I think a lot of people are a little in the dark about the issue at large, and it is complicated, but in a nutshell, here’s what you need to know: gluten is a type of protein naturally found in wheat (including spelt, kamut, farro, and bulgur) and other grains, like barley and rye. In people who have celiac disease, consuming even small amounts of gluten triggers unwelcome symptoms, including belly pain and bloating. This happens because gluten causes the immune system to damage or destroy villi, the tiny, fingerlike structures that line the small intestine like a microscopic plush carpet. Healthy villi absorb nutrients through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream, so when they become damaged, chronic malnutrition occurs, which is typically accompanied by weight loss and exhaustion. Other symptoms may include bone or joint pain, depression, and skin problems. In people with this diagnosis, the only way to reverse the damage, and the accompanying symptoms, is to completely avoid gluten. People like me, who test negative for celiac disease, may be experiencing a condition called gluten intolerance, or gluten sensitivity, which means that while not celiac, consuming gluten causes bothersome side effects, which can include flu-like feelings, bloating, and other gastrointestinal problems, mental fogginess, and fatigue. Unfortunately, there is no real test for gluten sensitivity at this time, and the symptoms may be related to other issues, including stress (who doesn’t have that?!), which makes it a not-so-black-and-white issue.

Confusing gluten free with wheat free or refined grains
As I noted above, gluten isn’t only found in wheat. I’ve heard numerous people say they eat gluten free, but all they’ve really done is replace foods like white bread with hearty whole grain versions, which may include spelt (in the wheat family), and rye (which, while not wheat, also contains gluten). If you don’t have celiac disease or gluten intolerance, these swaps may make you feel great, and lead to weight loss, because trading refined grains for whole grains ups your intake of fiber, boosts satiety, so you feel fuller longer, and better regulates blood sugar and insulin levels. These are all good things, but, in this case, totally unrelated to gluten.

Thinking gluten free equals weight loss
You may have seen a friend, co-worker, or celebrity suddenly slim down after proclaiming to give up gluten. And while going gluten free may absolutely lead to dropping a dress size (or more), the weight loss is generally caused by giving up foods that contain gluten, which are loaded with dense amounts of refined carbs, like bagels, pasta, crackers, pretzels, and baked goods. Axing these foods altogether, or replaced them with more veggies and healthy gluten-free whole grains, like quinoa and wild rice, automatically cuts excess carbs (which may have been feeding fat cells), ups fiber and nutrients, and results in soaring energy. However, going gluten free can also lead to weight gain.

Loading up on gluten-free junk food
Because gluten free has exploded in popularity, there are dozens of gluten-free options in markets these days, including carb-laden (but gluten free) versions of… bagels, pasta, crackers, pretzels, and baked goods! One popular brand of gluten free cookies pack 60 calories each, more than a “regular” sandwich cookie. And some gluten-free foods are made with refined gluten-free grains, which have been stripped of their fiber and nutrients, like white rice. The bottom line is, simply going gluten free doesn’t guarantee the loss of pounds and inches – quality and quantity still matter most.

Ignoring the rest of your diet
In addition to quality and quantity, balance is critical for feeling well and achieving weight loss. I’ve seen people trade white pasta for healthy whole grains like quinoa or wild rice, but still eat portions that are far too large, and therefore not see weight loss results. Others believe it’s OK to eat unlimited amounts of healthy gluten-free foods, like fruit and nuts. But sadly, any time you eat more than your body can use or burn, even from healthy foods, you create surpluses, which get shuttled straight to your body’s storage units – fat cells.

If you have celiac disease (get tested if you suspect you do, but you’re not sure), you absolutely must avoid gluten, and it’s important to note that it lurks in many products, from salad dressings and seasoning mixes, to vitamins, and even lip balm, so eliminating it completely is a big commitment. And if you think you may be gluten intolerant, try to avoid gluten, and monitor your how you feel. But in either case, the single most important thing you can do is to strive for a healthy, balanced, whole foods diet, the true keys to both optimal health and weight loss.

By Cynthia Sass, MPH, RD

Why You Need to Eat Fat to Burn Fat

It gets a bad rap, but adding some fat to your diet may be the key to a slimmer you

Overview

For a long time, we thought avocados were good for nothing but ready-made guac and a decent California burger every now and then. But these little nutritional hand grenades were having an explosive impact on our diets for all that time. How so?

They’re infused with a key nutrient for maintaining healthy weight: fat.

Wait…fat can help us maintain our weight? Fat doesn’t make us fat? In a word: exactly.

Fat is not something to avoid. For starters, it’s essential for normal growth and development. Dietary fat also provides energy, protects our organs, maintains cell membranes, and helps the body absorb and process nutrients. Even better, it helps the body burn fat, says nutritionist and owner of Nutritious Life meal system, Keri Glassman, RD, who recommends that about a third of any weight-loss plan’s calories come from dietary fat.

BUT: Not all fatty foods are created equal. While pizza, French fries and hamburgers can contribute to weight gain and deterioration of health, the dietetic community is learning that the overall nutritional content of these foods — not their saturated fat — is what’s to blame. Sure, research from 50 years ago found that saturated fatty acids, a type of fat that’s “saturated” with hydrogen and typically solid at room temperature, raised LDL (bad) cholesterol levels.

But a reevaluation of that research has shown that they raise HDL (good) cholesterol just as much, if not more, protecting the body from unhealthy cholesterol levels and heart disease, says nutritionist and national spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association Tara Gidus, RD. “Instead of making any one thing in the diet a villain, we need to look at total caloric content as well as quality of food, what are we eating that is ‘good’ and helping our body’s immune system and cells to stay healthy.”

Most of the fat that you eat — especially if you want to lose weight — should come from unsaturated sources, both monounsaturated (MUFA) and polyunsaturated (PUFA), Glassman says. Why?

These good-for-you foods (like fish, seeds, nuts, leafy vegetables, olive oil, and of course, avocados) pack tons of nutrients. Besides removing LDL cholesterol from arteries and promoting a healthier heart, unsaturated fat can help you burn fat big time without cutting calories.

A 2009 study in the British Journal of Nutrition, found that participants who consumed the most unsaturated fatty acids have lower body-mass indexes and less abdominal fat than those who consumed the least. Why?

The unsaturated folks ate higher-quality foods. Not long ago, manufacturers marketed low-fat and no-fat everything, and consumers responded by chowing down. It’s healthy, right?

Wrong. All wrong. Besides stripping our bodies of a much-needed nutrient, low- and no-fat diet movements have increased obesity rates. Why?

It turns out that fat provides a big component to the foods we love: Taste. When food manufacturers removed fat from their foods, they had to load the foods with sugar and salt, which are nutrient-free, to increase flavor.

Here are other crucial ways fat can help you slim down:

Fat Burns Fat

The body needs three macronutrients for energy: Carbohydrates, protein, and fat. A gram of fat packs more than twice the energy of a gram of the other two. “When you don’t have any fat in your diet its like you don’t have fuel to burn calories,” Glassman says. The body requires energy to keep its metabolism properly functioning, and a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that consuming fatty acids can boost metabolic health.

What’s more, “old” fat stored in the body’s peripheral tissues—around the belly, thighs, or butt (also called subcutaneous fat)—can’t be burned efficiently without “new” fat to help the process, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dietary fat helps break down existing fat by activating PPAR-alpha and fat-burning pathways through the liver.

Think of mealtime like baseball spring training: young, hungry players (new fat) hit the field and show the general manger (the liver) that it’s time to send the old, worn-out players (subcutaneous fat) home. And away they go.

Fat Keeps You Full

Fat isn’t the easiest nutrient to digest, so it sticks around in the digestive system for more time than many other nutrients. MUFAs may also help stabilize blood sugar levels, according to Mayo Clinic. That means you feel full longer, and you won’t feel the stomach-growling urge to raid the refrigerator after mealtime.

In fact, diets with high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, a type of PUFA that the body can only acquire through food, create a greater sense of fullness both immediately following and two hours after dinner than do meals with low levels of the fatty acids, according to a 2008 study from University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain. It’s no surprise that dieters who consume moderate levels of fat are more likely to stick with their eating plans than dieters who consume low levels of fat.

The result? More weight lost.

Fat Makes You Happy

Everyone says that dieting, not to put too fine a point on it, stinks. Eating yummy foods makes you happy, and it turns out low-fat versions just don’t do the trick for one surprising reason: We can taste the fat — not just the salt, sugar and other goodies in food.

Recent research from Purdue University shows that our taste buds can detect fat in food, which helps explain why low-fat foods don’t curb our fat cravings. According to the research, fat may be an entirely different basic taste than what we’ve long considered the four mainstays: sweet, salty, sour and bitter.

On an even happier fat note, omega-3 fatty acids can boost serotonin levels in the brain, helping to improve mood, increase motivation and keep you from devouring a large pizza like it’s your job. 3.5 percent of women and 2 percent of men have suffered from diagnosed binge-eating disorders, while millions more people are occasional emotional eaters, according to the National Institutes of Mental Health.

Fat Builds Muscle

“Eating good fats along with an effective exercise program can increase muscle,” says trainer and owner of Results Fitness, Rachel Cosgrove, CSCS, who notes that increasing muscle mass is vital to increasing metabolism and burning calories both in and out of the gym. In a 2011 study published in Clinical Science, researchers examined the effects of eight weeks of PUFA supplementation in adults ages 25 to 45 and found that the fat increases protein concentration and the size of muscular cells in the body. Previous studies have found that omega-3 fatty acids stimulate muscle protein synthesis in older adults and can mediate muscle mass loss due to aging.

Fat Makes Food Better for You

Many nutrients including vitamins A, D, E, and K are fat-soluble, meaning that the body can’t absorb them without fat. If your body isn’t absorbing nutrients properly, that can lead to vitamin deficiencies and bring on dry skin, blindness, brittle bones, muscle pains, and abnormal blood clotting, according to Gidus.

These vitamins are also key to maintaining energy, focus, and muscle health, all of which contribute to a healthy weight. Vitamin E, for example is a powerful antioxidant and helps maintain your metabolism, while the body’s levels of vitamin D predicts its ability to lose fat, especially in the abdominal region, according to a clinical trial from the University of Minnesota Medical School.

So while you can pile your salad high with nutrient-rich spinach, tomatoes and carrots, you really need to thank the olive oil for sending the salad’s vitamins your way.

by K. ALEISHA FETTERS

Low Carb Stuffing

LOW CARB STUFFING

Ingredients

  • 1 loaflow-carb bread, crumbled or cut into cubes (Sami's Bakery)
  • 1 T coconut or avocado oil
  • 1 large onion, chopped
  • 6-7 cups chopped celery - about 2 small bunches
  • 1 green Bell pepper, chopped
  • 1 bunch parsley, chopped (about 2 cups)
  • 4 teaspoons poultry seasoning, such as Bells
  • 1/2 teaspoon pepper
  • Sea salt - start with 1/2 teaspoon, or 1 T chicken or turkey soup base (see below)
  • 1 cup low sodium organic chicken broth, plus more according to moisture needed
  • 1egg (if a loaf like stuffing is desired)

Preparation

1) 1 - 1½ lb loaf of low-carb bread if you have access to it. Different types of bread will bring different results, so you may have to adjust the amount of liquid, seasonings, etc. Allow the bread to dry out for a while, either on the counter on in a low heat oven. It doesn't have to be totally dry, just kind of stale-level dry.

2) Sauté onion, celery, and pepper in oil until soft. Add parsley and cook for a minute or so, until wilted. Add seasonings.

3) Mix together the vegetables and the bread. Add a cup of broth, stir, and taste. Adjust seasoning and moisture. If you're going to stuff poultry with it, leave it on the dry side because it will absorb a lot of juices during cooking. You can eat it just as it is, but if you bake it, the flavors will come together better. Adding egg will make it come together in more of a melded-together form. Mix well and bake at 350 F. for about half an hour, or until browned on top.

 

To keep the weight off, keep tracking your diet

NEW ORLEANS — Keeping track of the foods you eat is an important strategy for weight loss, but continuing to monitor what you eat is also important to prevent regaining that weight. Now, a new study finds that stopping food tracking is linked to regaining weight.

In order to prevent re-gaining weight, people should make an effort four months after starting a diet to refocus on food tracking, according to the study, presented here Sunday (Nov. 13) at the American Heart Association's annual meeting called the Scientific Sessions.

The researchers found that people tended to stop dietary monitoring after about four months, and that this was followed by regaining weight, said Qianheng Ma, a public health researcher at the University of Pittsburgh and the lead author of the study. 

The effects of food tracking, or "dietary self-monitoring," on weight loss have been well-studied, and the technique is a key component of what researchers call the "standard behavioral treatment" for people who want to lose weight and keep it off, Ma told Live Science. This type of treatment is the most effective non-medical approach to weight loss, according to the study.

In the study, the researchers looked at data from 137 people who had participated in a one-year weight loss intervention called EMPOWER. The majority of the people in the study were white women. The participants were, on average, 51 years old and had a BMI of 34.1. (People with a BMI of 30 or higher are generally considered obese.) The people in the study were asked to weigh themselves regularly with a digital scale that uploaded data in real time and to monitor their diet using a smartphone app.

Although everyone in the study initially lost weight, nearly three-quarters of the people in the study ultimately regained some of that weight. In addition, 62 percent of the participants stopped tracking what they were eating at some point during the study.

The researchers found that a greater percentage of the people who regained weight had stopped tracking what they ate, compared with those who were able to maintain their weight. 

The average time that people tracked their diet before they stopped was 126 days — in other words, they were about four months into their diet when they stopped, Ma told Live Science. It's unclear why food tracking stopped at this point, she added.

People did not begin gaining weight immediately after they stopped tracking what they ate, the researchers noted. Rather, people started to gain weight, on average, about two months after they stopped tracking their food, the study found.

Now that the researchers have identified the point at which people tend to stop tracking their food, they intend to study whether strategically reminding people to keep tracking will help them to keep the weight off, Ma said.

The new findings have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Originally published on Live Science.

The Weight Gain-Inflammation Connection

When we think about inflammation, we often think of it as helping us heal from an obvious injury (like a wound) or fighting harmful bacteria. This is good inflammation working in our favor to keep us healthy. But on the flip side, when the immune system is too active, it can make us sick.

We know that major chronic illnesses, such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, are linked to weight gain, but did you ever wonder how those diseases and inflammation are all intertwined?

Understanding inflammation, especially “bad” inflammation, will help explain this link.

Read More

Should we consider skipping breakfast?

For years we have always been told that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.  It is the meal that jump starts our metabolism.

Where is all this evidence?

In a recent paper, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers approached the breakfast question with a healthy dose of skepticism.

They analyzed dozens of studies looking at one particularly interesting relationship: breakfast and body weight. And asked the question: Is the evidence really that strong?

A little background first.

Many nutrition experts claim that breakfast is so important because it helps with weight management. (They also think that skipping breakfast leads to weight gain and obesity.)

Interestingly, it’s this supposed causal relationship between breakfast and body weight that forms a cornerstone belief of the “most important meal of the day” movement.

Unfortunately for this movement, the link is weak. And it’s correlational, not causal.

In essence, we know there’s some relationship between breakfast and body weight. But we don’t know what the relationship is. Or whether it’s important.

With that said, back to the study.

In analyzing dozens of individual papers — called a meta-analysis — the researchers concluded that the link between breakfast and body weight is “only presumed true.”

In other words, the idea that “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” is more of a “shared belief” than a research proven conclusion.

Here’s how it works.

Since we’ve heard it so often — heck, some of us have even said it — the phrase “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” becomes part of our cultural lexicon.

Then, because we believe in it culturally, any information that runs counter it is assumed to be wrong. Even before we evaluate the evidence.

Interestingly, according to this published research, it’s not just regular people who commit this error. Nutrition experts and researchers do the same thing.

In fact, when they really dug into the literature, they found four extremely serious problems:

1) researchers were offering biased interpretation of their own results,
2) researchers were improperly using causal language to describe their results,
3) researchers were misleadingly citing others’ results, and
4) researchers were improperly using causal language when citing others’ work.

All this to say that researchers aren’t immune to bias.

In fact, when it comes to the relationship between breakfast and body weight, many researchers are so committed to the shared belief that eating breakfast is the right thing to do that they — often unintentionally — misrepresent their results and the work of others.

How important is breakfast really?

Of course, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Just because some research is biased — or incomplete — doesn’t mean that it’s meaningless. So let’s start with some of the proposed benefits of eating breakfast.

In the literature, eating breakfast is consistently associated with:

· decreased overall appetite
· decreased overall food consumption
· decreased body weight
· improved academic performance
· improved blood sugar control

If we stopped there, of course we’d presume that breakfast skipping is a dumb move.

However, we can’t stop there. Because the majority of this evidence is observational. It suggests there’s a relationship — a correlation — without proving cause.

For example: It could be that people who are “healthy” for other reasons — like the fact that they work out more or benefit from a higher socioeconomic status — also eat breakfast. While those who are “unhealthy” — because they don’t exercise or live below the poverty line — skip it.

In this case, breakfast just happens to co-exist with health rather than cause it.

So here’s the bottom line: When examining research that actually controls for all the variables and looks at cause and effect, the results are pretty mixed.

In other words, breakfast looks to be beneficial for some of us. But not for others.

The strongest of this evidence suggests that breakfast is most important for malnourished or impoverished children. But, for other populations, it seems to bejust another meal. No better. No worse. Completely negotiable.

Are there benefits to skipping breakfast?

There’s also the new data showing that skipping breakfast might not be so bad after all.

Folks with Type 2 diabeties, for example, did better in this study when they skipped breakfast altogether and ate a larger lunch.

Other folks who were told to skip breakfast ended up eating less overall compared to breakfast eaters.

And skipping breakfast is also just as effective as eating breakfast for weight loss.

Of course, we can play dueling studies all day long. I can show a study suggesting one thing. You can find a study suggesting the opposite. And, in the end, when it comes to the value of breakfast, we’d be at a scientific stalemate.

Which is why I often look at what’s happening outside of the literature.

The breakfast skipping movement.

In the popular media and across the web, an interesting breakfast counter-culture is cropping up. A virtual army of people intentionally skipping breakfast are sharing a host of health benefits they’ve experienced since getting rid of their morning meal.

This movement is part of a larger one known as intermittent fasting; the most popular form involves skipping breakfast each day, extending the overnight fast from dinner the night before until lunch the next day.

There are other types of fasting that involve even longer fasts each day, extending the overnight fast from dinner the night before to dinner the next day. And other types that even suggest skipping meals for one or two entire days each week.

And the reported health effects of an intelligently designed intermittent fasting program read like a laundry list of live longer, live better benefits including:

Reduced:
blood lipids, blood pressure, markers of inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer

Increased:
Cell turnover and repair, fat burning, growth hormone release, and metabolic rate

Improved:
Appetite control, blood sugar control, cardiovascular function, and neuronal plasticity

And, yes, many experts believe that skipping breakfast is part of the magic here.

(To read more about intermittent fasting, including a review of the most popular types and a summary of my own personal experiments, click here.)

So, will skipping breakfast be better for me?

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

Preliminary evidence suggests that skipping breakfast can:

· increase fat breakdown
· increase the release of growth hormone (which has anti-aging and fat loss benefits)
· improve blood glucose control
· improve cardiovascular function
· decrease food intake

However, the truth is, most of this research has been done in animals, with only a few conclusive human studies. So, while intriguing, there’s certainly no guarantee that these changes in our physiology will actually lead to long-term benefits.

In fact, many times, immediate changes are corrected for, and balanced out, later. That’s why acute changes don’t always lead to chronic ones.

Also, anecdotally, skipping breakfast seems to be a mixed bag.

Many report great results from skipping breakfast and having fewer, but larger, meals each day. Others report that it provides no benefit. Yet others report some really negative effects, such as decreased energy, lack of focus, and disrupted sleep.

Clearly eating breakfast — or skipping it — is not a panacea. Of course, no nutritional solution ever is.

What to do now.

The take-home message here is pretty simple: Breakfast is optional.

(Which means it’s not “the most important meal of the day.”)

  • If you love breakfast, are doing well with eating it, and feel like it’s helping you accomplish your health and/or fitness goals: Keep at it!
  • If you’re not a breakfast person, function really well without it, and are accomplishing your health and/or fitness goals: there’s no harm in waiting until later.

Of course, I’d also be remiss if I didn’t remind you that  matters too. But that’s another topic for another day.

By: John Berardi, Ph.D.

 

Interview with Dr. Jason Fung: Author of Unlocking the Obesity Code

Good news -- all those diets you've been on that didn't work were set up to fail. Dr. Jason Fung is the author of "The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss," and says counting calories and cutting fat aren't the keys to losing weight.

Ditch that scale!

To a lot of people the number on the scale can be disturbing; physically, mentally and emotionally or they wouldn’t be seeking help, but usually it is so much more than that.  We encourage clients to abstain from weighing too often at home and would prefer they weigh once a week here at the clinic. For several reasons: 

1. The number is influenced by so many things that are outside of your control - Time of day, recent food/liquid intake, hormonal fluctuations, and muscle fatigue/inflammation are just a few.

2. The scale does fluctuate from day to day and, for some, that leads to mind games, frustration and, self-sabotage.   I explain that the scale is only part of the equation and is only one way to measure progress.    The tape measure, clothing fit, body composition analysis, energy and activity level and overall health improvements are all measures of progress/ success as well.
 
As a formerly obese person myself, I can definitely say that I felt really bad about the number on the scale when I’d reached 210#.  I was very unhealthy; having a diagnosis of pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, high cholesterol, fibromyalgia among other things.  Many of my clients are suffering with health problems that are considered “weight related” when, in my opinion and experience, they are actually dietary lifestyle related.  In other words, I believe excess weight/obesity are more the symptom than the source of the problem.  Early in my weight loss journey, before losing the majority of the excess weight I carried, all of those ailments went away.  Due to majorly changing my dietary habits, my body felt better before it began to “look” better.  Eventually, finding out which foods caused inflammation, and thus illness, for me was crucial, which is why we now offer a food intolerance test for someone doing their very best to eat “healthy” and are still struggling to lose the weight.   

Being dedicated to my lifestyle change has enabled me to stay healthy and keep my weight where I want it.  Happily, in addition to weight loss on the scale, clients report their NSVs (non-scale victories); better energy, no more bloating, clearer skin, lower blood pressure and blood sugar, improved lab results, medication dose changes or cessation by their doctors etc.  All of those things, in addition to a smaller number on the scale, spell success to us!

 

Death By Fructose: The Toxin to Avoid

 

Casey Thaler, B.A., NASM-CPT, FNS is an NASM® certified personal trainer and NASM® certified fitness nutrition specialist. He writes for Paleo Magazine® , The Paleo Diet® and Greatist® . He is also an advisor for Bone Broths Co. and runs his own nutrition and fitness consulting company, Eat Clean, Train Clean® .

Everyone knows that excess sugar in your diet is bad for you. But would you go as far to consider sugar a poisonous drug?

People often forget that there are many different types of sugar, and surprisingly, fructose is by far the most detrimental to your health. I would argue that excess fructose could be classified as chronically toxic (1), meaning that a small, infrequent overdose of fructose likely won’t cause problems, but a lifetime of fructose in excess can cause a variety of diseases.

Well, to answer that question, we need to get into a little bit of chemistry. There is glucose, which is used by every cell in the body. And then there is fructose, which is processed almost entirely by your liver. The main transporter for fructose is called GLUT5.

There are many parallels between fructose and alcohol, which everyone recognizes as toxic (2). It strikes me as continuously odd that fructose remains largely unrecognized as a potential toxin, even though nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, sugar consumption and diabetes rates continue to climb, fructose is largely ignored.

Furthermore, when one looks at diets that are successful, they all have one common denominator. What is this? They all eliminate large amounts of dietary fructose. Fructose was initially thought to be advisable because it does have a low glycemic index. This was before we understood its negative biochemical effects. It was also shown that chronically high consumption of fructose leads to hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance (3). Fructose has also been linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure. This infographic shows all the negative effects of fructose on human physiology:

The Dangers of Fructose

The problem with fructose is that it does not lend the same satiety signal to your brain, meaning that you don’t realize you just ingested all the calories that you actually did. The best example of this is seen in a can of soda, which typically contains 70g (!) of sugar.

What’s more disturbing is that companies flat out LIE about the amount of fructose in their products (4). Right on the labels! Drinks advertised as containing no high fructose corn syrup sometimes contain MORE fructose than the drinks that DID list it on the label. And if you think fructose is only a problem in soda, think again.

The main reason why we eat so much of it is because fructose is the sweetest tasting of all sugars. Its sweet taste can be found in foods like honey, bananas, apples, dates and many other fruits and fruit juices.

Fructose is most widely known for its use in high fructose corn syrup, made from a mixture of glucose and fructose. If you think this blend is only found in desserts and drinks, think again! Just about everything in our food supply contains high fructose corn syrup, from deli meats and condiments to bread and cereal.

Because of its biochemistry, high fructose corn syrup has become a real threat to maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Since its addition to our foods in the 1970s, our diet has changed from more traditional meals of meat and vegetables to ones based on refined carbohydrates.

Our genome was arguably not set up for this. Over time, we likely ate a low-ish carbohydrate diet, at times likely even ketogenic, when food wasn’t available for periods of time. Now we have convenience stores on every corner, offering liquid sugar, high carbohydrate “franken-foods” and high fat, high sugar foods.

Unsurprisingly, fructose consumption has been correlated with cancer (5). While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, there are many causative problems with fructose consumption. The cross-linking of proteins is one problem (6). As this process occurs, diseases related to aging become inevitable.

High fructose consumption can result in a plethora of age-related diseases, like atherosclerosis, hypertension, erectile dysfunction, kidney disease, stiffness of joints and skin, arthritis, cataracts, retinopathy, neuropathy, Alzheimer’s and many, many more. Here is a graph, showing exactly how high levels of sugar correlate with dementia.

That’s right…lots of fructose may lead directly to dementia. Have I scared you off of that sugar water you may be consuming? In 2010, it was very clearly stated by scientific researchers that “in the amounts currently consumed, fructose is hazardous to the cardiometabolic health of many children, adolescents and adults.” In those 4 years, the data has only gotten worse.

Here’s a schematic that shows EXACTLY how fructose factors in to our now-diseased population. Stopping this cycle is easiest when you simply limit your dietary amount of fructose. All other possible interventions are more complicated, or impossible. It is quite a simple solution, but the rewarding nature of food makes it hard for some individuals to stop.

The liver-damaging effects of fructose are also well-documented. Hepatic dysfunction is not desirable, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in children is rising. NAFLD is directly linked to fructose consumption, either by ingestion of soda or fruit juice (7). Fructose is somewhat similar to grains in that it is largely useless for the body to consume the substance. However, it is actually worse than grains, because fructose in large amounts becomes toxic.

Sadly, I see this misunderstood in the Paleo community all the time. Just because it is Paleo doesn’t mean you should consume 10 pieces of fruit per day. The same thing happens with nuts. People tend to overdose on these items, when in reality, a balanced, well-rounded diet would work much better.

So, have I convinced you to stay away from fructose yet? Does it make you feel good that fructose is one of the most likely suspects for the current $245 billion per year that we spend on diabetes? I wouldn’t imagine so. Sugar, mainly fructose, is also quite heavily marketed towards children (8). We need to stop that practice, immediately, if we have any hope for a healthy future.

As Dr. Robert Lustig has stated, fructose is simply alcohol “without the buzz” (9). Nearly everything else about the substance is the same. Fructose does not generate an insulin response, which is part of why it’s so dangerous. When we don’t know we’ve eaten something, such as in the case of the body’s hormonal response to fructose, we run the increased risk of overconsumption. Hormonally, fructose causes reductions in insulin, a reduction in leptin (so you feel less full), and increases the expression of the hormone ghrelin (so you feel hungrier). Not a good combination.

Here we see the leptin resistance, dyslipidemia, increased triglycerides, muscle insulin resistance, and other negative effects all from the biochemistry of fructose ingestion. Fructose offers no benefits and only negative consequences, but it’s difficult to limit our intake of the stuff. That’s because its sweetness, which evolutionarily meant nutrient-rich foods, is hard for humans to simply consume in moderation.

 

5 Intermittent Fasting Methods: Which One Is Right for You?

We’ve all heard of the latest fad diets: The no-fat, all-fat, cabbage-soup, six-small-meals, raw-veggies-no-dressing, gluten-free eating plans supposedly proven to help you lose weight fast.

What if we told you that the answer to losing weight, improving body composition, and feeling better overall might not even really be about dieting, but instead just skipping meals every once in a while? For some, intermittent fasting, or going a longer period of time — usually between 14 and 36 hours — with very few to no calories, can actually be a lot easier than you may think, and the benefits might be worth it. If you think about it, all of us “fast” every single day — we just call it sleeping. Intermittent fasting just means extending that fasting period, and being a bit more conscious of your eating schedule overall. But is it right for you? And which method is best?

The Science of Fasting

As far back as the 1930s, scientists have been exploring the benefits of reducing calories by skipping meals. During that time, one American scientist found that significantly reducing calories helped mice live longer, healthier lives. More recently, researches have found the same in fruit flies, roundworms and monkeys. Studies have also shown that decreasing calorie consumption by 30 to 40 percent (regardless of how it’s done) can extend life span by a third or more. Plus, there’s data to suggest that limiting food intake may reduce the risk of many common diseases. And some believe fasting may also increase the body’s responsiveness to insulin, which regulates blood sugar, helping to control feelings of hunger and food cravings.

The five most common methods of intermittent fasting try to take advantage of each of these benefits, but different methods will yield better results for different people. “If you’re going to force yourself to follow a certain method, it’s not going to work,” says trainer and fitness expert Nia Shanks. “Choose a method that makes your life easier,” she says. Otherwise, it’s not sustainable and the benefits of your fasting may be short-lived.

So what’s the first step in getting started? Each method has its own guidelines for how long to fast and what to eat during the “feeding” phase. Below, you’ll find the five most popular methods and the basics of how they work. Keep in mind, intermittent fasting isn’t for everyone, and those with health conditions of any kind should check with their doctor before changing up their usual routine. It’s also important to note that personal goals and lifestyle are key factors to consider when choosing a fasting method.

1. Leangains

Started by: Martain Berkhan
Best for: Dedicated gym-goers who want to lose body fat and build muscle.

How It Works: Fast for 14 (women) to 16 (men) hours each day, and then “feed” for the remaining eight to 10 hours. During the fasting period, you consume no calories, though black coffee, calorie-free sweeteners, diet soda and sugar-free gum are permitted. (A splash of milk in your coffee won’t hurt, either.) Most practitioners will find it easiest to fast through the night and into the morning, breaking the fast roughly six hours after waking up. This schedule is adaptable to any person’s lifestyle, but maintaining a consistent feeding window time is important. Otherwise, hormones in the body can get thrown out of whack and make sticking to the program harder, Berkhan says.

What and when you eat during the feeding window also depends on when you work out. On days you exercise, carbs are more important than fat. On rest days, fat intake should be higher. Protein consumption should be fairly high every day, though it will vary based on goals, gender, age, body fat and activity levels. Regardless of your specific program, whole, unprocessed foods should make up the majority of your calorie intake. However, when there isn’t time for a meal, a protein shake or meal replacement bar is acceptable (in moderation).

Pros: For many, the highlight of this program is that on most days, meal frequency is irrelevant — you can really eat whenever you want to within the eight-hour “feeding” period. That said, most people find breaking it up into three meals easier to stick to (since we’re typically already programmed to eat this way).

Cons: Even though there is flexibility in when you eat, Leangains has pretty specific guidelines for what to eat, especially in relation to when you’re working out. The strict nutrition plan and scheduling meals perfectly around workouts can make the program a bit tougher to adhere to. (You can learn more about the specifics — as well as when to time these meals — directly from Leangains here and here.)

2. Eat Stop Eat

Started by: Brad Pilon
Best for: Healthy eaters looking for an extra boost.

How It Works: Fast for 24 hours once or twice per week. During the 24 hour fast, which creator Brad Pilon prefers to call a “24 break from eating,” no food is consumed, but you can drink calorie-free beverages. After the fast is over, you then go back to eating normally. “Act like you didn’t fast,” Pilon says. “Some people need to finish the fast at a normal mealtime with a big meal, while others are OK ending the fast with an afternoon snack. Time it however works best for you, and adjust your timing as your schedule changes,” he says.

The main rationale? Eating this way will reduce overall calorie intake without really limiting what you’re able to eat — just how often, according to Eat Stop Eat. It’s important to note that incorporating regular workouts, particularly resistance training, is key to succeeding on this plan if weight loss or improved body composition are goals.

Pros: While 24 hours may seem like a long time to go without food, the good news is that this program is flexible. You don’t have to go all-or-nothing at the beginning. Go as long as you can without food the first day and gradually increase fasting phase over time to help your body adjust. Pilon suggests starting the fast when you are busy, and on a day where you have no eating obligations (like a work lunch or happy hour).

Another perk? There are no “forbidden foods,” and no counting calories, weighing food or restricting your diet, which makes it a bit easier to follow. That said, this isn’t a free-for-all. “You still have to eat like a grown-up,” Pilon says. It’s all about moderation: You can still eat whatever you want, but maybe not as much of it. (A slice of birthday cake is OK, he says, but the whole cake isn’t.)

Cons: Going 24 hours without any calories may be too difficult for some — especially at first. Many people struggle with going extended periods of time with no food, citing annoying symptoms including headaches, fatigue, or feeling cranky or anxious (though these side effects can dimish over time). The long fasting period can also make it more tempting to binge after a fast. This can be easily fixed… but it takes a lot of self-control, which some people lack.

3. The Warrior Diet

Started by: Ori Hofmekler
Best for: People who like following rules. The devoted.

How It Works: Warriors-in-training can expect to fast for about 20 hours every day and eatone large meal every night. What you eat and when you eat it within that large meal is also key to this method. The philosophy here is based on feeding the body the nutrients it needs in sync with circadian rhythms and that our species are “nocturnal eaters, inherently programmed for night eating.”

The fasting phase of The Warrior Diet is really more about “undereating.” During the 20-hour fast, you can eat a few servings of raw fruit or veggies, fresh juice, and a few servings of protein, if desired. This is supposed to maximize the Sympathetic Nervous System’s “fight or flight” response, which is intended to promote alertness, boost energy, and stimulate fat burning. The four-hour eating window — which Hofmekler refers to as the “overeating” phase — is at night in order to maximize the Parasympathetic Nervous System’s ability to help the body recuperate, promoting calm, relaxation and digestion, while also allowing the body to use the nutrients consumed for repair and growth. Eating at night may also help the body produce hormones and burn fat during the day, according to Hofmekler. During these four hours, the order in which you eat specific food groups matters, too. Hofmelker says to start with veggies, protein and fat. After finishing those groups, only if you are still hungry should you tack on some carbohydrates.

Pros: Many have gravitated toward this diet because the “fasting” period still allows you to eat a few small snacks, which can make it easier to get through. As the methodology explains (and the “success stories” section of The Warrior Diet website supports), many practitioners also report increased energy levels and fat loss.

Cons: Even though it’s nice to eat a few snacks rather than go without any food for 20-plus hours, the guidelines for what needs to be eaten (and when) can be hard to follow long-term. The strict schedule and meal plan may also interfere with social gatherings, which can be tricky for some. Additionally, eating one main meal at night — while following strict guidelines of what to eat, and in what order — can be tough, especially for those who prefer not to eat large meals late in the day.

4. Fat Loss Forever

Started by: John Romaniello and Dan Go
Best for: Gym rats who love cheat days.

How It Works: Not completely satisfied with the IF diets listed above? This method takes the best parts of Eat Stop Eat, The Warrior Diet and Leangains, and combines it all into one plan. You also get one cheat day each week (yay!) — followed by a 36-hour fast (which may be not-so-yay for some). After that, the remainder of the seven-day cycle is split up between the different fasting protocols.

Romaniello and Go suggest saving the longest fasts for your busiest days, allowing you to focus on being productive and avoid focusing on potential hunger. The plan, which can be purchased on their website, also includes training programs (using bodyweight and free weights) to help participants reach maximum fat loss in the simplest way possible.

Pros: According to the founders, while everyone is technically fasting every day — during the hours when we’re not eating — most of us do so haphazardly, which makes it harder to reap the rewards. Fat Loss Forever offers a seven-day schedule for fasting so that the body can get used to this structured timetable and reap the most benefit from the fasting periods. (Plus, you get a full-fledged cheat day. And who doesn’t love that?)

Cons: On the flip side, if you have a hard time handling cheat days the healthy way (i.e. being able to indulge in moderation and turn off that green light when it’s time), this method might not be for you. Additionally, because the plan is pretty specific and the fasting/feeding schedule varies from day to day, this method can be a bit confusing to follow. (However, the plan does come with a calendar, noting how to fast and exercise each day, which may make it easier.)

5. UpDayDownDay ™ Diet (aka The Alternate-Day Diet or Alternate-Day Fasting)

Started by: James Johnson, M.D.
Best for: Disciplined dieters with a specific goal weight.

How It Works: This one’s easy: Eat very little one day, and eat like normal the next. On the low-calorie days, that means one fifth of your normal calorie intake. So using 2,000 or 2,500 calories (for women and men, respectively) as a guide, that means a “fasting” (or “down”) day should be 400 to 500 calories. Followers can use this tool to figure out how many calories to consume on “low-calorie” days.

To make “down” days easier to stick to, Johnson recommends opting for meal replacement shakes because they’re fortified with essential nutrients and can be sipped throughout the day rather than split into small meals. However, meal replacement shakes should only be used during the first two weeks of the diet — after that, you should start eating real food on “down” days. The next day, eat like normal. Rinse and repeat! (Note: If working out is part of your routine, you may find it harder to hit the gym on the lower calorie days. It may be smart to keep any workouts on these days on the tamer side, or save sweat sessions for your normal calorie days.)

Pros: This method is all about weight loss, so if that’s your main goal, this is one to take a closer look at. On average, those who cut calories by 20 to 35 percent see a loss of about two and a half pounds per week, according to the Johnson UpDayDownDay Diet website.

Cons: While the method is pretty easy to follow, it can be easy to binge on the “normal” day. The best way to stay on track is planning your meals ahead of time as often as possible, so you’re not caught at the drive-through or all-you-can-eat buffet with a grumbling belly.

Food for Thought

While these five methods are the most well-known in terms of integrating periods of fasting into your eating schedule, there are many other similar philosophies based on meal timing. For those who prefer a more fluid, less rigid method, there’s also the concept of eating intuitively. Primal Diet proponentMark Sisson is a supporter of the Eat WHEN (When Hunger Ensues Naturally) method, where dieters simply eat whenever their bodies ask them to. However, some believe this can also lead to overeating or overconsumption of calories, since our bodies’ hunger-induced choices may be more caloric than otherwise.

Of course, fasting — regardless of the method — isn’t for everyone. If you have any medical conditions, special dietary requirements, or chronic diseases, it’s smart to consult a doctor before giving intermittent fasting a shot. Anyone who tries it should also plan to be highly self-aware while fasting — if it’s not agreeing with you, or if you need to eat a little something to hold you over and avoid an even more serious problem, that’s just fine. It takes our bodies time to adjust, and some require more than others. And for the ladies out there: Keep in mind that hormones can make it harder for women to follow a fasting plan than for men. “Be cautious at first, and start slowly [with a shorter fast],” Shanks recommends. If it doesn’t make you feel better, try something different, or accept the fact that maybe fasting isn’t for you.

5 Tips for Starting Your First Fast

If you do give fasting a try, keep these general tips in mind:

  • Drink plenty of water. Staying well hydrated will make the fasting periods much easier to get through, Pilon says.
  • Fast overnight. Throw yourself a bone and aim to fast through the night, so that you’re (hopefully) sleeping during at least eight of those hours.
  • Rewire your thought process. “Think of fasting as taking a break from eating,” Pilon says, not as a period of deprivation. It can be a way to break up the monotony of worrying about what you need to eat next and when. This is the mindset that will allow you do follow a fasting plan long-term, he says.
  • Overcommit. It may seem counterintuitive, but the best plan is often to start when you’re busy — not on a day when you’ll be sitting on the couch wanting to snack.
  • Hit the gym. Pairing intermittent fasting with consistent exercise will help you get better results. “It doesn’t have to be hardcore or crazy; it can be  something as simple as a full-body strength training routine two or three times per week,” Shanks says.

by: Kate Morin

Trying to lose weight, but crave pasta?

Shirataki Noodles — An Incredibly Healthy High-Fiber, No-Carb Food

By Dr. Mercola

One of the fastest ways to destroy your health is to eat a diet high in net carbs and protein and low in healthy fats. Considering the fact that 80 percent of Americans are insulin resistant and eat in this way, it's no surprise that obesity rates are on a steady climb.

While no one diet is perfect for everyone, as a general rule, most people could benefit by restricting net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) to less than 50 grams per day. If you exercise a lot or are very active, you might be able to increase it to 100 grams.

For example, grains, rice, pasta, potatoes and vegetables are all carbohydrates. However, because vegetables are so high in fiber, they're very low in net carbs. This is why you can eat virtually unlimited amounts of veggies on a low-carb diet. It's really the fiber content that differentiates "good" carbs from the "bad."

To determine your net carbs, simply subtract the fiber from the total carbs, and that's your total non-fiber or "net" carbs.

Shirataki Noodles — An Exceptional High-Fiber Food

Vegetables aren't the only high-fiber food though. A food you may never have heard of is shirataki noodles, which may be the epitome of a low net carb food, containing about 97 percent water and 3 percent fiber, zero calories, and no digestible carbs.

They're long, white, and translucent noodles, sometimes referred to as konjac noodles or miracle noodles. They're made from glucomannan fiber from the root of the konjac plant (aka devil's tongue yam). As explained by Authority Nutrition:1

"Glucomannan is a highly viscous fiber. Viscous fiber is a type of soluble fiber, and one of its main characteristics is the ability to absorb water and form a gel. In fact, glucomannan can absorb up to 50 times its weight in water, as reflected in shirataki noodles' extremely high water content.

These noodles move through the digestive system very slowly, which helps you feel full and delays nutrient absorption into the bloodstream. In addition, viscous fiber functions as a prebiotic. It nourishes the bacteria living in your colon, also known as the gut flora or microbiome."

The Importance of Fiber for Health

The microbes in your body consume the same foods you do, and as a general rule, the beneficial ones tend to feed on foods that are known to benefit health, and vice versa.

Some of the microbes in your gut specialize in fermenting soluble fiber found not only in shirataki noodles but also in fruits and vegetables, and the byproducts of this fermenting activity help nourish the cells lining your colon. This helps prevent health problems associated with leaky gut syndrome.

The most important fermentation byproducts are short-chain fatty acids like butyrate, propionate, and acetate. These short-chain fats:

  • Help nourish and recalibrate your immune system, thereby helping to prevent inflammatory disorders such as asthma and Crohn's disease2,3
  • Increase specialized immune cells called T regulatory cells, which help prevent autoimmune responses. Via a process called hematopoiesis, they're also involved in the formation of other types of blood cells in your body
  • Serve as easy substrates for your liver to produce ketones that efficiently fuel your mitochondria and serve as important and powerful metabolic signals
  • Stimulate the release of a gut hormone known as peptide YY (PYY), which increases satiety, meaning it helps you feel fuller4
  • Butyrate in particular affects gene expression and induces apoptosis (normal programmed cell death), thereby decreasing your risk of colon cancer

Leaky Gut Is Real, and a Major Contributor to Chronic Disease

Unfortunately, few Americans get the recommended 30 to 32 grams of fiber per day, and when fiber is lacking, it starves these beneficial bacteria, thereby setting your health into a downward spiral.

In the past, there have been questions about whether leaky gut syndrome is a "real" condition or not. Recent research5 has confirmed the reality of leaky gut, showing that, indeed, physical gaps between the cells that line your intestinal barrier can develop, allowing undigested food particles into your blood stream.

A gut protein called zonulin regulates the opening and closing of these holes in the cell wall of your intestine. When a gap develops, larger molecules such as food particles can get through, thereby causing allergic reactions and other problems such as type-1 diabetes, Celiac disease, and irritable bowel syndrome.

It can also contribute to neurological problems. For example, research by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride has revealed that nearly all mothers of autistic children have abnormal gut flora. This is significant because newborns inherit their gut flora from their mothers at the time of birth.

Gut dysfunction is also a factor in depression and various behavioral problems, both in children and adults.

Health Benefits of Glucomannan

Glucomannan — the fiber found in shirataki noodles — has been linked to a number of health benefits, including:

  • Weight loss. Research has shown that taking glucomannan before eating a high-carb meal reduces levels of the "hunger hormone" ghrelin. When taken daily for one month, it also reduced fasting ghrelin levels
  • Reduced blood sugar and insulin levels
  • Lowered cholesterol levels, in part by increasing the amount of cholesterol excreted in the stool, leaving less to be reabsorbed into your bloodstream. One meta-analysis found glucomannan lowered LDL cholesterol by an average of 16 mg/dL and triglycerides by an average of 11 mg/dl6
  • Constipation relief and improved bowel movements

Shirataki Noodles Are a Resistant Starch

Fiber is typically classified as either soluble or insoluble. However, other properties, such as fermentability, are of greater importance when it comes to actual health benefits.

As noted in Today's Dietitian,7 "Naturally occurring resistant starches are a group of low-viscous fibers that are slowly fermented in the large intestine. As their name suggests, resistant starches are starches that resist digestion in the small intestine."

They're the types of fiber that act as prebiotics, feeding healthy bacteria in your gut. Because resistant starches are fermented very slowly, they won't make you gassy, allowing you to eat far more of them without suffering discomfort.

They also add significant bulk to your stools, and help you maintain regular bowel movements. Since they're not digested, resistant starches also do not result in blood sugar spikes.

Research also suggests resistant starches8 help improve insulin regulation, reducing your risk of insulin resistance. Interest in resistant starches is so high, scientists are even looking at ways to engineer plants and other foods to produce or incorporate them.9 As noted by Time Magazine:10

"Those benefits — getting digested slower, being converted into fatty acids and sustaining colonies of gut bacteria — set resistant starch apart.

Resistant starch is being explored as a healthy food for people with type 2 diabetes; eating it improved certain measures of inflammation, a condition that often precedes type 2 diabetes, and lipid profiles in women with the condition, showed one 2015 study.11

'Certain populations and cultures have been benefiting from resistant starches for a long time,' says Paul Arciero, professor in the Health and Exercise Sciences department of Skidmore College. 'In my belief, that's what's protected them against some of the ravages of the more modern-day high carbohydrate diet.'

Examples of foods high in resistant starch12 include under ripe banana, rolled oats, white beans, lentils, seeds, and products like potato starch, tapioca starch, and brown rice flour. Interestingly, cooking a normally digestible starch such as potato or pasta and then cooling it in the refrigerator will alter the chemistry of the food, transforming more of it into resistant-type starch.13

Cooking With Shirataki Noodles

Shirataki noodles are a prime example of a resistant starch. High in fiber with no digestible carbs, they not only benefit your gut microbiome but also help you lose weight and ward off conditions like diabetes and colon cancer. The noodles, which are virtually tasteless on their own, readily take on the flavor of whatever seasoning or sauce you use.

Many enjoy their consistency, and the fact that they won't stick together like regular wheat pasta noodles. They're also a great "convenience food," as they require very little preparation. To eat cold, simply drain, rinse (this will remove most of the konjac root odor, which has a slight fishy smell), and dress with your favorite seasoning.

For a hot meal, you can add them to a pot of broth (homemade broth would be ideal), which will allow the noodles to soak up the flavor of the broth. If you want a more regular noodle texture, heat them in an ungreased skillet for a few minutes. This will evaporate some of the water in the noodles, removing some of that mushy, gel-like consistency.

Serious Eats14 and Authority Nutrition15 offer some recipes and simple tips for cooking with shirataki noodles. You can also find all sorts of recipes on YouTube. While they're ideal for Asian recipes, they can replace rice or pasta in just about any dish.

Increasing Your Fiber Intake May Help Prolong Your Life

Mounting research suggests that a high-fiber diet can help reduce your risk of premature death from any cause, likely because it helps to reduce your risk of a number of chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Again, these benefits are in part due to the fermenting action of certain beneficial microbes in your intestine, and the health-promoting byproducts produced from this process.

Avoiding sugar and processed food is equally important, as they promote the growth of fungi and other harmful microbes that can easily take over, given half a chance. The nice thing about shirataki noodles is that they're ALL fiber and NO digestible carb at all. In essence, they're a perfect no-net-carb pasta replacement you can enjoy in generous amounts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends getting 14 grams of fiber per 1,000 calories consumed. I believe about 25 to 50 grams per 1,000 calories consumed is probably a better goal. A more general recommendation is to make sure you get 20 to 30 grams of fiber per day. Besides shirataki noodles, other healthy sources of soluble and insoluble fiber include:

Processed food: long-term pain for short-term gain

Anyone aiming to live a long healthy life should stay away from processed foods, or they will have to contend with obesity, heart problems and diabetes, nutrition expert Robert Lustig has warned.

“Fifty years of global processed food consumption has shown that its short-term gains in terms of cost and preparation are completely eclipsed by long-term health complications which are accentuated by its high sugar content.”

This stern warning was delivered yesterday morning at a jam-packed hall at the Mediterranean Conference Centre in Valletta at a half-day seminar where Prof. Lustig delivered the keynote speech.

The event was organised by Narrative Structures PR in collaboration with the Health Parliamentary Secretary and the Health Disease and Promotion Directorate.

In his opening address Prof. Lustig did not mince words: Malta had a huge obesity problem. “Having been away from the island for 12 years, the first thing I noticed when coming back to Malta for this conference was the increase in the number of fat people. Even on my way in Valletta this morning, I could not help noticing the ever-increasing number of fast-food and take-away outlets, which seem to be thriving,” he said.

During a detailed one-hour presentation, Prof. Lustig said the processed food “experiment” had failed spectacularly on various counts.

“If tobacco causes lung cancer, sugar, of which processed foods contain plenty, causes diabetes,” he said. While acknowledging that Malta’s insularity had the added challenge of a reliance on imports when it came to food, he said that the authorities could take the first step through simple measures.

“Let’s start by eliminating processed foods from hospital canteens and the university,” he suggested in what could be deemed to be a dig at the local authorities’ reluctance to start moving. Renaming type 2 diabetes “processed food disease” and removing subsidies on corn, wheat, soya and sugar might also help, the expert said.

Prof. Lustig warned that in the absence of any drastic measures, the healthcare sector would simply become unsustainable and collapse due to a spike in processed-food-related diseases.

How antibiotic resistance is spread through food

It lacks fibre, omega-3 fatty acids (only found in wild fish) and micronutrients.

It has too much trans-fats (used to make food last longer); branched chain amino acids (normally used by body builders but may cause heart disease); corn-fed meat, chicken and fish; omega-6 fatty acids (cause inflammatory diseases); additives, emulsifiers, salt, nitrates and sugar.

Monday, April 4, 2016, 15:01 by  Keith Micallef

The Benefits of High Cholesterol

People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol.1 Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

But it is not an exception; there are now a large number of findings that contradict the lipid hypothesis. To be more specific, most studies of old people have shown that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for coronary heart disease. This was the result of my search in the Medline database for studies addressing that question.2 Eleven studies of old people came up with that result, and a further seven studies found that high cholesterol did not predict all-cause mortality either.

Now consider that more than 90 % of all cardiovascular disease is seen in people above age 60 also and that almost all studies have found that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women.2 This means that high cholesterol is only a risk factor for less than 5 % of those who die from a heart attack.

But there is more comfort for those who have high cholesterol; six of the studies found that total mortality was inverselyassociated with either total or LDL-cholesterol, or both. This means that it is actually much better to have high than to have low cholesterol if you want to live to be very old.

High Cholesterol Protects Against Infection

Many studies have found that low cholesterol is in certain respects worse than high cholesterol. For instance, in 19 large studies of more than 68,000 deaths, reviewed by Professor David R. Jacobs and his co-workers from the Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, low cholesterol predicted an increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases.3

Most gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases have an infectious origin. Therefore, a relevant question is whether it is the infection that lowers cholesterol or the low cholesterol that predisposes to infection? To answer this question Professor Jacobs and his group, together with Dr. Carlos Iribarren, followed more than 100,000 healthy individuals in the San Francisco area for fifteen years. At the end of the study those who had low cholesterol at the start of the study had more often been admitted to the hospital because of an infectious disease.4,5 This finding cannot be explained away with the argument that the infection had caused cholesterol to go down, because how could low cholesterol, recorded when these people were without any evidence of infection, be caused by a disease they had not yet encountered? Isn´t it more likely that low cholesterol in some way made them more vulnerable to infection, or that high cholesterol protected those who did not become infected? Much evidence exists to support that interpretation.

Low Cholesterol and HIV/AIDS

Young, unmarried men with a previous sexually transmitted disease or liver disease run a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV virus than other people. The Minnesota researchers, now led by Dr. Ami Claxton, followed such individuals for 7-8 years. After having excluded those who became HIV-positive during the first four years, they ended up with a group of 2446 men. At the end of the study, 140 of these people tested positive for HIV; those who had low cholesterol at the beginning of the study were twice as likely to test postitive for HIV compared with those with the highest cholesterol.6

Similar results come from a study of the MRFIT screenees, including more than 300,000 young and middle-aged men, which found that 16 years after the first cholesterol analysis the number of men whose cholesterol was lower than 160 and who had died from AIDS was four times higher than the number of men who had died from AIDS with a cholesterol above 240.7

Cholesterol and Chronic Heart Failure

Heart disease may lead to a weakening of the heart muscle. A weak heart means that less blood and therefore less oxygen is delivered to the arteries. To compensate for the decreased power, the heart beat goes up, but in severe heart failure this is not sufficient. Patients with severe heart failure become short of breath because too little oxygen is delivered to the tissues, the pressure in their veins increases because the heart cannot deliver the blood away from the heart with sufficient power, and they become edematous, meaning that fluid accumulates in the legs and in serious cases also in the lungs and other parts of the body. This condition is called congestive or chronic heart failure.

There are many indications that bacteria or other microorganisms play an important role in chronic heart failure. For instance, patients with severe chronic heart failure have high levels of endotoxin and various types of cytokines in their blood. Endotoxin, also named lipopolysaccharide, is the most toxic substance produced by Gram-negative bacteria such asEscherichia coli, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Serratia and Pseudomonas. Cytokines are hormones secreted by white blood cells in their battle with microorganisms; high levels of cytokines in the blood indicate that inflammatory processes are going on somewhere in the body.

The role of infections in chronic heart failure has been studied by Dr. Mathias Rauchhaus and his team at the Medical Department, Martin-Luther-University in Halle, Germany (Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin III, Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle). They found that the strongest predictor of death for patients with chronic heart failure was the concentration of cytokines in the blood, in particular in patients with heart failure due to coronary heart disease.8 To explain their finding they suggested that bacteria from the gut may more easily penetrate into the tissues when the pressure in the abdominal veins is increased because of heart failure. In accordance with this theory, they found more endotoxin in the blood of patients with congestive heart failure and edema than in patients with non-congestive heart failure without edema, and endotoxin concentrations decreased significantly when the heart’s function was improved by medical treatment.9

A simple way to test the functional state of the immune system is to inject antigens from microorganisms that most people have been exposed to, under the skin. If the immune system is normal, an induration (hard spot) will appear about 48 hours later at the place of the injection. If the induration is very small, with a diameter of less than a few millimeters, this indicates the presence of “anergy,” a reduction in or failure of response to recognize antigens. In accordance, anergy has been found associated with an increased risk of infection and mortality in healthy elderly individuals, in surgical patients and in heart transplant patients.10

Dr. Donna Vredevoe and her group from the School of Nursery and the School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles tested more than 200 patients with severe heart failure with five different antigens and followed them for twelve months. The cause of heart failure was coronary heart disease in half of them and other types of heart disease (such as congenital or infectious valvular heart disease, various cardiomyopathies and endocarditis) in the rest. Almost half of all the patients were anergic, and those who were anergic and had coronary heart disease had a much higher mortality than the rest.10

Now to the salient point: to their surprise the researchers found that mortality was higher, not only in the patients with anergy, but also in the patients with the lowest lipid values, including total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol as well as triglycerides.

The latter finding was confirmed by Dr. Rauchhaus, this time in co-operation with researchers at several German and British university hospitals. They found that the risk of dying for patients with chronic heart failure was strongly and inversely associated with total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and also triglycerides; those with high lipid values lived much longer than those with low values.11,12

Other researchers have made similar observations. The largest study has been performed by Professor Gregg C. Fonorow and his team at the UCLA Department of Medicine and Cardiomyopathy Center in Los Angeles.13 The study, led by Dr. Tamara Horwich, included more than a thousand patients with severe heart failure. After five years 62 percent of the patients with cholesterol below 129 mg/l had died, but only half as many of the patients with cholesterol above 223 mg/l.

When proponents of the cholesterol hypothesis are confronted with findings showing a bad outcome associated with low cholesterol–and there are many such observations–they usually argue that severely ill patients are often malnourished, and malnourishment is therefore said to cause low cholesterol. However, the mortality of the patients in this study was independent of their degree of nourishment; low cholesterol predicted early mortality whether the patients were malnourished or not.

Smith-Lemli-Opitz Syndrome

As discussed in The Cholesterol Myths (see sidebar), much evidence supports the theory that people born with very high cholesterol, so-called familial hypercholesterolemia, are protected against infection. But if inborn high cholesterol protects against infections, inborn low cholesterol should have the opposite effect. Indeed, this seems to be true.

Children with the Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome have very low cholesterol because the enzyme that is necessary for the last step in the body’s synthesis of cholesterol does not function properly. Most children with this syndrome are either stillborn or they die early because of serious malformations of the central nervous system. Those who survive are imbecile, they have extremely low cholesterol and suffer from frequent and severe infections. However, if their diet is supplemented with pure cholesterol or extra eggs, their cholesterol goes up and their bouts of infection become less serious and less frequent.14

Laboratory Evidence

Laboratory studies are crucial for learning more about the mechanisms by which the lipids exert their protective function. One of the first to study this phenomenon was Dr Sucharit Bhakdi from the Institute of Medical Microbiology, University of Giessen (Institut für Medizinsche Mikrobiologie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen), Germany along with his team of researchers from various institutions in Germany and Denmark.15

Staphylococcus aureus α-toxin is the most toxic substance produced by strains of the disease-promoting bacteria called staphylococci. It is able to destroy a wide variety of human cells, including red blood cells. For instance, if minute amounts of the toxin are added to a test tube with red blood cells dissolved in 0.9 percent saline, the blood is hemolyzed, that is the membranes of the red blood cells burst and hemoglobin from the interior of the red blood cells leaks out into the solvent. Dr. Bhakdi and his team mixed purified α-toxin with human serum (the fluid in which the blood cells reside) and saw that 90 percent of its hemolyzing effect disappeared. By various complicated methods they identified the protective substance as LDL, the carrier of the so-called bad cholesterol. In accordance, no hemolysis occurred when they mixed α-toxin with purified human LDL, whereas HDL or other plasma constituents were ineffective in this respect.

Dr. Willy Flegel and his co-workers at the Department of Transfusion Medicine, University of Ulm, and the Institute of Immunology and Genetics at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany (DRK-Blutspendezentrale und Abteilung für Transfusionsmedizin, Universität Ulm, und Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg) studied endotoxin in another way.16 As mentioned, one of the effects of endotoxin is that white blood cells are stimulated to produce cytokines. The German researchers found that the cytokine-stimulating effect of endotoxin on the white blood cells disappeared almost completely if the endotoxin was mixed with human serum for 24 hours before they added the white blood cells to the test tubes. In a subsequent study17 they found that purified LDL from patients with familial hypercholesterolemia had the same inhibitory effect as the serum.

LDL may not only bind and inactivate dangerous bacterial toxins; it seems to have a direct beneficial influence on the immune system also, possibly explaining the observed relationship between low cholesterol and various chronic diseases. This was the starting point for a study by Professor Matthew Muldoon and his team at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They studied healthy young and middle-aged men and found that the total number of white blood cells and the number of various types of white blood cells were significantly lower in the men with LDL-cholesterol below 160 mg/dl (mean 88.3 mg/l),than in men with LDL-cholesterol above 160 mg/l (mean 185.5 mg/l).18 The researchers cautiously concluded that there were immune system differences between men with low and high cholesterol, but that it was too early to state whether these differences had any importance for human health. Now, seven years later with many of the results discussed here, we are allowed to state that the immune-supporting properties of LDL-cholesterol do indeed play an important role in human health.

Animal Experiments

The immune systems in various mammals including human beings have many similarities. Therefore, it is interesting to see what experiments with rats and mice can tell us. Professor Kenneth Feingold at the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and his group have published several interesting results from such research. In one of them they lowered LDL-cholesterol in rats by giving them either a drug that prevents the liver from secreting lipoproteins, or a drug that increases their disappearance. In both models, injection of endotoxin was followed by a much higher mortality in the low-cholesterol rats compared with normal rats. The high mortality was not due to the drugs because, if the drug-treated animals were injected with lipoproteins just before the injection of endotoxin, their mortality was reduced to normal.19

Dr. Mihai Netea and his team from the Departments of Internal and Nuclear Medicine at the University Hospital in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, injected purified endotoxin into normal mice, and into mice with familial hypercholesterolemia that had LDL-cholesterol four times higher than normal. Whereas all normal mice died, they had to inject eight times as much endotoxin to kill the mice with familial hypercholesterolemia. In another experiment they injected live bacteria and found that twice as many mice with familial hypercholesterolemia survived compared with normal mice.20

Other Protecting Lipids

As seen from the above, many of the roles played by LDL-cholesterol are shared by HDL. This should not be too surprising considering that high HDL-cholesterol is associated with cardiovascular health and longevity. But there is more.

Triglycerides, molecules consisting of three fatty acids linked to glycerol, are insoluble in water and are therefore carried through the blood inside lipoproteins, just as cholesterol. All lipoproteins carry triglycerides, but most of them are carried by a lipoprotein named VLDL (very low-density lipoprotein) and by chylomicrons, a mixture of emulsified triglycerides appearing in large amounts after a fat-rich meal, particularly in the blood that flows from the gut to the liver.

For many years it has been known that sepsis, a life-threatening condition caused by bacterial growth in the blood, is associated with a high level of triglycerides. The serious symptoms of sepsis are due to endotoxin, most often produced by gut bacteria. In a number of studies, Professor Hobart W. Harris at the Surgical Research Laboratory at San Francisco General Hospital and his team found that solutions rich in triglycerides but with practically no cholesterol were able to protect experimental animals from the toxic effects of endotoxin and they concluded that the high level of triglycerides seen in sepsis is a normal immune response to infection.21 Usually the bacteria responsible for sepsis come from the gut. It is therefore fortunate that the blood draining the gut is especially rich in triglycerides.

Exceptions

So far, animal experiments have confirmed the hypothesis that high cholesterol protects against infection, at least against infections caused by bacteria. In a similar experiment using injections of Candida albicans, a common fungus, Dr. Netea and his team found that mice with familial hypercholesterolemia died more easily than normal mice.22 Serious infections caused by Candida albicans are rare in normal human beings; however, they are mainly seen in patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs, but the finding shows that we need more knowledge in this area. However, the many findings mentioned above indicate that the protective effects of the blood lipids against infections in human beings seem to be greater than any possible adverse effects.

Cholesterol as a Risk Factor

Most studies of young and middle-aged men have found high cholesterol to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease, seemingly a contradiction to the idea that high cholesterol is protective. Why is high cholesterol a risk factor in young and middle-aged men? A likely explanation is that men of that age are often in the midst of their professional career. High cholesterol may therefore reflect mental stress, a well-known cause of high cholesterol and also a risk factor for heart disease. Again, high cholesterol is not necessarily the direct cause but may only be a marker. High cholesterol in young and middle-aged men could, for instance, reflect the body’s need for more cholesterol because cholesterol is the building material of many stress hormones. Any possible protective effect of high cholesterol may therefore be counteracted by the negative influence of a stressful life on the vascular system.

Response to Injury

In 1976 one of the most promising theories about the cause of atherosclerosis was the Response-to-Injury Hypothesis, presented by Russell Ross, a professor of pathology, and John Glomset, a professor of biochemistry and medicine at the Medical School, University of Washington in Seattle.23,24 They suggested that atherosclerosis is the consequence of an inflammatory process, where the first step is a localized injury to the thin layer of cells lining the inside of the arteries, the intima. The injury causes inflammation and the raised plaques that form are simply healing lesions.

Their idea is not new. In 1911, two American pathologists from the Pathological Laboratories, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oskar Klotz and M.F. Manning, published a summary of their studies of the human arteries and concluded that “there is every indication that the production of tissue in the intima is the result of a direct irritation of that tissue by the presence of infection or toxins or the stimulation by the products of a primary degeneration in that layer.”25 Other researchers have presented similar theories.26

Researchers have proposed many potential causes of vascular injury, including mechanical stress, exposure to tobacco fumes, high LDL-cholesterol, oxidized cholesterol, homocysteine, the metabolic consequences of diabetes, iron overload, copper deficiency, deficiencies of vitamins A and D, consumption of trans fatty acids, microorganisms and many more. With one exception, there is evidence to support roles for all of these factors, but the degree to which each of them participates remains uncertain. The exception is of course LDL-cholesterol. Much research allows us to exclude high LDL-cholesterol from the list. Whether we look directly with the naked eye at the inside of the arteries at autopsy, or we do it indirectly in living people using x-rays, ultrasound or electron beams, no association worth mentioning has ever been found between the amount of lipid in the blood and the degree of atherosclerosis in the arteries. Also, whether cholesterol goes up or down, by itself or due to medical intervention, the changes of cholesterol have never been followed by parallel changes in the atherosclerotic plaques; there is no dose-response. Proponents of the cholesterol campaign often claim that the trials indeed have found dose-response, but here they refer to calculations between the mean changes of the different trials with the outcome of the whole treatment group. However, true dose-response demands that the individual changes of the putative causal factor are followed by parallel, individual changes of the disease outcome, and this has never occurred in the trials where researchers have calculated true dose-response.

A detailed discussion of the many factors accused of harming the arterial endothelium is beyond the scope of this article. However, the protective role of the blood lipids against infections obviously demands a closer look at the alleged role of one of the alleged causes, the microorganisms.

Is Atherosclerosis an Infectious Disease?

For many years scientists have suspected that viruses and bacteria, in particular cytomegalovirus and Chlamydia pneumonia (also named TWAR bacteria) participate in the development of atherosclerosis. Research within this area has exploded during the last decade and by January 2004, at least 200 reviews of the issue have been published in medical journals. Due to the widespread preoccupation with cholesterol and other lipids, there has been little general interest in the subject, however, and few doctors know much about it. Here I shall mention some of the most interesting findings.26

Electron microscopy, immunofluorescence microscopy and other advanced techniques have allowed us to detect microorganisms and their DNA in the atherosclerotic lesions in a large proportion of patients. Bacterial toxins and cytokines, hormones secreted by the white blood cells during infections, are seen more often in the blood from patients with recent heart disease and stroke, in particular during and after an acute cardiovascular event, and some of them are strong predictors of cardiovascular disease. The same is valid for bacterial and viral antibodies, and a protein secreted by the liver during infections, named C-reactive protein (CRP), is a much stronger risk factor for coronary heart disease than cholesterol.

Clinical evidence also supports this theory. During the weeks preceding an acute cardiovascular attack many patients have had a bacterial or viral infection. For instance, Dr. Armin J. Grau from the Department of Neurology at the University of Heidelberg and his team asked 166 patients with acute stroke, 166 patients hospitalized for other neurological diseases and 166 healthy individuals matched individually for age and sex about recent infectious disease. Within the first week before the stroke, 37 of the stroke patients, but only 14 of the control individuals had had an infectious disease. In half of the patients the infection was of bacterial origin, in the other half of viral origin.27

Similar observations have been made by many others, for patients with acute myocardial infarction (heart attack). For instance, Dr. Kimmo J. Mattila at the Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, found that 11 of 40 male patients with an acute heart attack before age 50 had an influenza-like infection with fever within 36 hours prior to admittance to hospital, but only 4 out of 41 patients with chronic coronary disease (such as recurrent angina or pervious myocardial infarction) and 4 out of 40 control individuals without chronic disease randomly selected from the general population.28

Attempts have been made to prevent cardiovascular disease by treatment with antibiotics. In five trials treatment of patients with coronary heart disease using azithromyzin or roxithromyzin, antibiotics that are effective against Chlamydiapneumonia,yielded successful results; a total of 104 cardiovascular events occurred among the 412 non-treated patients, but only 61 events among the 410 patients in the treatment groups.28a-e In one further trial a significant decreased progression of atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries occurred with antibiotic treatment.28f However, in four other trials,30a-d one of which included more than 7000 patients,28d antibiotic treatment had no significant effect.

The reason for these inconsistent results may be that the treatment was too short (in one of the trials treatment lasted only five days). Also, Chlamydia pneumonia, the TWAR bacteria, can only propagate inside human cells and when located in white blood cells they are resistant to antibiotics.31 Treatment may also have been ineffective because the antibiotics used have no effect on viruses. In this connection it is interesting to mention a controlled trial performed by Dr. Enrique Gurfinkel and his team from Fundación Favaloro in Buenos Aires, Argentina.32 They vaccinated half of 301 patients with coronary heart disease against influenza, a viral disease. After six months 8 percent of the control patients had died, but only 2 percent of the vaccinated patients. It is worth mentioning that this effect was much better than that achieved by any statin trial, and in a much shorter time.

Does High Cholesterol Protect Against Cardiovascular Disease?

Apparently, microorganisms play a role in cardiovascular disease. They may be one of the factors that start the process by injuring the arterial endothelium. A secondary role may be inferred from the association between acute cardiovascular disease and infection. The infectious agent may preferably become located in parts of the arterial walls that have been previously damaged by other agents, initiating local coagulation and the creation of a thrombus (clot) and in this way cause obstruction of the blood flow. But if so, high cholesterol may protect against cardiovascular disease instead of being the cause!

In any case, the diet-heart idea, with its demonizing of high cholesterol, is obviously in conflict with the idea that high cholesterol protects against infections. Both ideas cannot be true. Let me summarize the many facts that conflict with the idea that high cholesterol is bad.

If high cholesterol were the most important cause of atherosclerosis, people with high cholesterol should be more atherosclerotic than people with low cholesterol. But as you know by now this is very far from the truth.

If high cholesterol were the most important cause of atherosclerosis, lowering of cholesterol should influence the atherosclerotic process in proportion to the degree of its lowering.

But as you know by now, this does not happen.

If high cholesterol were the most important cause of cardiovascular disease, it should be a risk factor in all populations, in both sexes, at all ages, in all disease categories, and for both heart disease and stroke. But as you know by now, this is not the case

I have only two arguments for the idea that high cholesterol is good for the blood vessels, but in contrast to the arguments claiming the opposite they are very strong. The first one stems from the statin trials. If high cholesterol were the most important cause of cardiovascular disease, the greatest effect of statin treatment should have been seen in patients with the highest cholesterol, and in patients whose cholesterol was lowered the most. Lack of dose-response cannot be attributed to the knowledge that the statins have other effects on plaque stabilization, as this would not have masked the effect of cholesterol-lowering considering the pronounced lowering that was achieved. On the contrary, if a drug that effectively lowers the concentration of a molecule assumed to be harmful to the cardiovascular system and at the same time exerts several beneficial effects on the same system, a pronounced dose-response should be seen.

On the other hand, if high cholesterol has a protective function, as suggested, its lowering would counterbalance the beneficial effects of the statins and thus work against a dose-response, which would be more in accord with the results from the various trials.

I have already mentioned my second argument, but it can’t be said too often: High cholesterol is associated with longevity in old people. It is difficult to explain away the fact that during the period of life in which most cardiovascular disease occurs and from which most people die (and most of us die from cardiovascular disease), high cholesterol occurs most often in people with the lowest mortality. How is it possible that high cholesterol is harmful to the artery walls and causes fatal coronary heart disease, the commonest cause of death, if those whose cholesterol is the highest, live longer than those whose cholesterol is low?

To the public and the scientific community I say, “Wake up!”

Sidebars

Risk Factor

There is one risk factor that is known to be certain to cause death. It is such a strong risk factor that it has a 100 percent mortality rate. Thus I can guarantee that if we stop this risk factor, which would take no great research and cost nothing in monetary terms, within a century human deaths would be completely eliminated. This risk factor is called “Life.”

Barry Groves, www.second-opinions.co.uk.

Familial Hypercholesterolemia – Not as Risky as You May Think

Many doctors believe that most patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) die from CHD at a young age. Obviously, they do not know the surprising finding of the Scientific Steering Committee at the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England. For several years, these researchers followed more than 500 FH patients between the ages of 20 and 74 and compared patient mortality during this period with that of the general population.

During a three- to four-year period, six of 214 FH patients below age 40 died from CHD. This may not seem particularly frightening but as it is rare to die from CHD before the age of 40, the risk for these FH patients was almost 100 times that of the general population.

During a four- to five-year period, eight of 237 FH patients between ages 40 and 59 died, which was five times more than the general population. But during a similar period of time, only one of 75 FH patients between the ages of 60 and 74 died from CHD, when the expected number was two.

If these results are typical for FH, you could say that between ages 20 and 59, about 3 percent of the patients die from CHD, and between ages 60 and 74, less than 2 percent die, in both cases during a period of 3-4 years. The authors stressed that the patients had been referred because of a personal or family history of premature vascular disease and therefore were at a particularly high risk for CHD. Most patients with FH in the general population are unrecognized and untreated. Had the patients studied been representative for all FH patients, their prognosis would probably have been even better.

This view was recently confirmed by Dr. Eric Sijbrands and his coworkers from various medical departments in Amsterdam and Leiden, Netherlands. Out of a large group they found three individuals with very high cholesterol. A genetic analysis confirmed the diagnosis of FH and by tracing their family members backward in time, they came up with a total of 412 individuals. The coronary and total mortality of these members were compared with the mortality of the general Dutch population.

The striking finding was that those who lived during the 19th and early 20th century had normal mortality and lived a normal life span. In fact, those living in the 19th century had a lower mortality than the general population. After 1915 the mortality rose to a maximum between 1935 and 1964, but even at the peak, mortality was less than twice as high as in the general population.

Again, very high cholesterol levels alone do not lead to a heart attack. In fact, high cholesterol may even be protective against other diseases. This was the conclusion of Dr. Sijbrands and his colleagues. As support they cited the fact that genetically modified mice with high cholesterol are protected against severe bacterial infections.

“Doctor, don’t be afraid because of my high cholesterol.” These were the words of a 36-year-old lawyer who visited me for the first time for a health examination. And indeed, his cholesterol was high, over 400 mg/dl.

“My father’s cholesterol was even higher,” he added. “But he lived happily until he died at age 79 from cancer. And his brother, who also had FH, died at age 83. None of them ever complained of any heart problems.” My “patient” is now 53, his brother is 56 and his cousin 61. All of them have extremely high cholesterol values, but none of them has any heart troubles, and none of them has ever taken cholesterol-lowering drugs.

So, if you happen to have FH, don’t be too anxious. Your chances of surviving are pretty good, even surviving to old age.

Scientific Steering Committee on behalf of the Simon Broome Register Group. Risk of fatal coronary heart disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia. British Medical Journal 303, 893-896, 1991; Sijbrands EJG and others. Mortality over two centuries in large pedigree with familial hypercholesterolaemia: family tree mortality study. British Medical Journal 322, 1019-1023, 2001.

From The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnvskov, MD, PhD, NewTrends Publishing, pp 64-65.

References

  1. Krumholz HM and others. Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in persons older than 70 years. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 1335-1340, 1990.
  2. Ravnskov U. High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis. Quarterly Journal of Medicine 96, 927-934, 2003.
  3. Jacobs D and others. Report of the conference on low blood cholesterol: Mortality associations. Circulation 86, 1046–1060, 1992.
  4. Iribarren C and others. Serum total cholesterol and risk of hospitalization, and death from respiratory disease.International Journal of Epidemiology 26, 1191–1202, 1997.
  5. Iribarren C and others. Cohort study of serum total cholesterol and in-hospital incidence of infectious diseases.Epidemiology and Infection 121, 335–347, 1998.
  6. Claxton AJ and others. Association between serum total cholesterol and HIV infection in a high-risk cohort of young men. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes and human retrovirology 17, 51–57, 1998.
  7. Neaton JD, Wentworth DN. Low serum cholesterol and risk of death from AIDS. AIDS 11, 929–930, 1997.
  8. Rauchhaus M and others. Plasma cytokine parameters and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.Circulation 102, 3060-3067, 2000.
  9. Niebauer J and others. Endotoxin and immune activation in chronic heart failure. Lancet 353, 1838-1842, 1999.
  10. Vredevoe DL and others. Skin test anergy in advanced heart failure secondary to either ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. American Journal of Cardiology 82, 323-328, 1998.
  11. Rauchhaus M, Coats AJ, Anker SD. The endotoxin-lipoprotein hypothesis. Lancet 356, 930–933, 2000.
  12. Rauchhaus M and others. The relationship between cholesterol and survival in patients with chronic heart failure.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 42, 1933-1940, 2003.
  13. Horwich TB and others. Low serum total cholesterol is associated with marked increase in mortality in advanced heart failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure 8, 216-224, 2002.
  14. Elias ER and others. Clinical effects of cholesterol supplementation in six patients with the Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (SLOS). American Journal of Medical Genetics 68, 305–310, 1997.
  15. Bhakdi S and others. Binding and partial inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus a-toxin by human plasma low density lipoprotein. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258, 5899-5904, 1983.
  16. Flegel WA and others. Inhibition of endotoxin-induced activation of human monocytes by human lipoproteins.Infection and Immunity 57, 2237-2245, 1989.
  17. Weinstock CW and others. Low density lipoproteins inhibit endotoxin activation of monocytes. Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis 12, 341-347, 1992.
  18. Muldoon MF and others. Immune system differences in men with hypo- or hypercholesterolemia. Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology 84, 145-149, 1997.
  19. Feingold KR and others. Role for circulating lipoproteins in protection from endotoxin toxicity. Infection and Immunity 63, 2041-2046, 1995.
  20. Netea MG and others. Low-density lipoprotein receptor-deficient mice are protected against lethal endotoxemia and severe gram-negative infections. Journal of Clinical Investigation 97, 1366-1372, 1996.
  21. Harris HW, Gosnell JE, Kumwenda ZL. The lipemia of sepsis: triglyceride-rich lipoproteins as agents of innate immunity. Journal of Endotoxin Research 6, 421-430, 2001.
  22. Netea MG and others. Hyperlipoproteinemia enhances susceptibility to acute disseminated Candida albicans infection in low-density-lipoprotein-receptor-deficient mice. Infection and Immunity 65, 2663-2667, 1997.
  23. Ross R, Glomset JA. The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. New England Journal of Medicine 295, 369-377, 1976.
  24. Ross R. The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and update. New England Journal of Medicine 314, 488-500, 1986.
  25. Klotz O, Manning MF. Fatty streaks in the intima of arteries. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology. 16, 211-220, 1911.
  26. At least 200 reviews about the role of infections in atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease have been published; here are a few of them: a) Grayston JT, Kuo CC, Campbell LA, Benditt EP. Chlamydia pneumoniae strain TWAR and atherosclerosis. European Heart Journal Suppl K, 66-71, 1993. b) Melnick JL, Adam E, Debakey ME. Cytomegalovirus and atherosclerosis. European Heart Journal Suppl K, 30-38, 1993. c) Nicholson AC, Hajjar DP. Herpesviruses in atherosclerosis and thrombosis. Etiologic agents or ubiquitous bystanders? Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology 18, 339-348, 1998. d) Ismail A, Khosravi H, Olson H. The role of infection in atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease. A new therapeutic target. Heart Disease 1, 233-240, 1999. e) Kuvin JT, Kimmelstiel MD. Infectious causes of atherosclerosis. f.) Kalayoglu MV, Libby P, Byrne GI. Chlamydia pneumoniaas an emerging risk factor in cardiovascular disease. Journal of the American Medical Association 288, 2724-2731, 2002.
  27. Grau AJ and others. Recent bacterial and viral infection is a risk factor for cerebrovascular ischemia. Neurology 50, 196-203, 1998.
  28. Mattila KJ. Viral and bacterial infections in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Journal of Internal Medicine225, 293-296, 1989.
  29. The successful trials: a) Gurfinkel E. Lancet 350, 404-407, 1997. b) Gupta S and others. Circulation 96, 404-407, 1997. c) Muhlestein JB and others. Circulation 102, 1755-1760, 2000. d) Stone AFM and others. Circulation 106, 1219-1223, 2002. e) Wiesli P and others. Circulation 105, 2646-2652, 2002. f) Sander D and others. Circulation106, 2428-2433, 2002.
  30. The unsuccessful trials: a) Anderson JL and others. Circulation 99, 1540-1547, 1999. b) Leowattana W and others.Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 84 (Suppl 3), S669-S675, 2001. c) Cercek B and others. Lancet 361, 809-813, 2003. d) O’Connor CM and others. Journal of the American Medical Association. 290, 1459-1466, 2003.
  31. Gieffers J and others. Chlamydia pneumoniae infection in circulating human monocytes is refractory to antibiotic treatment. Circulation 104, 351-356, 2001
  32. Gurfinkel EP and others. Circulation 105, 2143-2147, 2002.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2004.

Diabetes Treatment Linked to Increased Risk of Vitamin B12 Deficiency

Great article by Steve Duffy

Long-term use of metformin may increase the risk of vitamin B12 deficiency and possibly other complications (anemia, neuropathy). These findings come from the Diabetes Prevention Program/Diabetes (DPP)/Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) and were published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. This is the largest study of its kind to investigate the correlation between B12 levels and metformin.

The participants met the criteria of impaired glucose tolerance and fasting blood glucose 95 to 125mg/dL who were at least 25-years of age and had a BMI of 25kg/m2 or higher. They were assigned to a placebo group (n=902), or a metformin group at 850mg twice daily (n=898). The remaining participants were enrolled in an intensive lifestyle program (ILS).

At a 5 year follow-up, mean levels of B12 were 10% lower in the metformin group versus the placebo. The prevalance of B12 deficiency was greater in the metformin group at 4.3% compared to 2.4% for the placebo group (p=0.2), borderline-low vitamin B12 levels were also much higher in the metformin group at 19.1% vs. 9.5% (p<0.01).

Paradoxically, at the year 13 follow-up mean vitamin B12 levels were greater in both groups compared with year 5, yet the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency was also greater in year 13 compared with year 5 in each group. Thirty-eight percent and 45% of the metformin and placebo group, respectively, who were deficient at year 5 remained deficient at year 13.

Tellingly, the 2.4% in the placebo group who were vitamin B12 deficienct at year 5 is the exact same percentage as those in the NHANES report who had type 2 diabetes but weren't taking metformin. Additionally, the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency in the  metformin group (4.3%) was similar to that seen in the NHANES cross-sectional evaluation of individuals with type 2 diabetes using metformin (5.8%), both at the 5 year follow-up point.

Although the presence of anemia was not different between the two groups at year 5, at the year 13 follow-up there were increases in anemia cases in the metformin group, however the authors note that these increases were nonsignificant.

The currently accepted explanation for the B12 deficiency is caused by the interference of metformin on calcium-dependent membrane action responsible for vitamin B12- intrinsic factor absorption in the terminal ileum. The authors note that although evidence points to metformin exposure creating low B12 levels, assessment of levels in individuals treated with metformin has not been incorporated into practice guidelines.

The authors conclude by stating that “understanding the potential adverse consequences of metformin treatment is essential,” and that “routine measurement of vitamin B12 for metformin-treated individuals should be considered.”