Fat is not Bad part ..uhhh a lot

Fat is not Bad part ..uhhh a lot

Little to no association between butter consumption and chronic disease or total mortality
TUFTS UNIVERSITY, HEALTH SCIENCES CAMPUS

BOSTON (Embargoed until 2 PM EDT, June 29, 2016)–Butter consumption was only weakly associated with total mortality, not associated with cardiovascular disease, and slightly inversely associated (protective) with diabetes, according to a new epidemiological study which analyzed the association of butter consumption with chronic disease and all-cause mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis, published in PLOS ONE, was led by Tufts scientists including Laura Pimpin, Ph.D., former postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts in Boston, and senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., Dr.P.H., dean of the School.

Based on a systematic review and search of multiple online academic and medical databases, the researchers identified nine eligible research studies including 15 country-specific cohorts representing 636,151 unique individuals with a total of 6.5 million person-years of follow-up. Over the total follow-up period, the combined group of studies included 28,271 deaths, 9,783 cases of cardiovascular disease, and 23,954 cases of new-onset type 2 diabetes. The researchers combined the nine studies into a meta-analysis of relative risk.

Butter consumption was standardized across all nine studies to 14 grams/day, which corresponds to one U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated serving of butter (or roughly one tablespoon). Overall, the average butter consumption across the nine studies ranged from roughly one-third of a serving per day to 3.2 servings per day. The study found mostly small or insignificant associations of each daily serving of butter with total mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.

“Even though people who eat more butter generally have worse diets and lifestyles, it seemed to be pretty neutral overall,” said Pimpin, now a data analyst in public health modelling for the UK Health Forum. “This suggests that butter may be a “middle-of-the-road” food: a more healthful choice than sugar or starch, such as the white bread or potato on which butter is commonly spread and which have been linked to higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease; and a worse choice than many margarines and cooking oils – those rich in healthy fats such as soybean, canola, flaxseed, and extra virgin olive oils – which would likely lower risk compared with either butter or refined grains, starches, and sugars.”

“Overall, our results suggest that butter should neither be demonized nor considered “back” as a route to good health,” said Mozaffarian. “More research is needed to better understand the observed potential lower risk of diabetes, which has also been suggested in some other studies of dairy fat. This could be real, or due to other factors linked to eating butter – our study does not prove cause-and-effect.”

###

Additional authors of this study are Jason HY Wu, M.Sc., Ph.D., and Hila Haskelberg, Ph.D., both of The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Australia; and Liana Del Gobbo, Ph.D., formerly a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School and currently a research fellow in cardiovascular medicine at Stanford School of Medicine.

This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, under award number 5R01HL085710. For conflicts of interest disclosure, please see the study.

Pimpin L, Wu JHY, Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L, Mozaffarian D (2016) Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158118

High cholesterol ‘does not cause heart disease’ new research find

High cholesterol ‘does not cause heart disease’ new research find

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.

A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.

Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.

Lowering cholesterol with medications is a total waste of timeProfessor Sherif Sultan, University of Ireland

The authors have called for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, a hardening and narrowing of the arteries, because “the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated”.

Source

Fat is not Bad

The disease FAT does not exist

Fat is not Bad part: (lost count)

Fat is not Bad part: (lost count)

Revised UK ‘Eatwell Guide’ promotes industry wealth not public health, argues expert

“The emphasis on carbs is the result of dietary advice to restrict fat, but this was not based on the evidence, while the advice on carbs has never been tested.”

The media release is below.

###

Revised UK ‘Eatwell Guide’ promotes industry wealth not public health, argues expert
It lacks evidence base; high carb-low fat approach has parallelled rises in obesity and diabetes

BMJ

The revised UK ‘Eatwell Guide,’ which visually represents the government’s recommendations on food groups for a ‘healthy, balanced diet,’ is not evidence based, and has been formulated by too many people with industry ties, insists a dietary expert in an editorial published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

And the continuation of the high carb-low fat approach it purveys has been accompanied by continuing rises in obesity and diabetes, points out Dr Zoe Harcombe of the Institute of Clinical Exercise and Health Science, University of West of Scotland.

The Eatwell Guide started out in 1994 as The Balance of Good Health — a segmented plate of the daily proportions of food groups needed for a healthy diet — issued by the Department of Health.

The Food Standards Agency relaunched it with “cosmetic changes” as the Eatwell Plate in 2007, until its current reincarnation in March of this year as The Eatwell Guide, under the stewardship of Public Health England — again with many of the changes purely cosmetic, says Dr Harcombe.

In its latest guise, the segment proportions have changed, with starchy foods rising from 33% to 38% and fruit and veg up from 33% to 40%, while milk and dairy have almost halved from 15% to 8%, for example.

The previous segment of foods high in fat and sugars has morphed into unsaturated oils and spreads, which prompted one of the UK’s largest food manufacturers to take out ads in national newspapers celebrating their “dedicated section,” Dr Harcombe points out.

And she insists: “The Eatwell Guide was formulated by a group appointed by Public Health England, consisting primarily of members of the food and drink industry rather than independent experts.”

But the primary flaw of the Eatwell Guide “as with its predecessors, is that it is not evidence based,” she says. “There has been no randomised controlled trial of a diet based on the Eatwell Plate or Guide, let alone one large enough, long enough, with whole population generalisability,” she writes.

The emphasis on carbs is the result of dietary advice to restrict fat, but this was not based on the evidence, while the advice on carbs has never been tested, she says. “Not even the hydration message [to drink 6-8 glasses of sugar-free fluid] holds water,” she suggests.

Furthermore, in private correspondence with the Food Standards Agency in 2009, the Agency confirmed that the food group percentages for the Eatwell Plate were based on weight.

But food weight doesn’t matter to the human body; what counts are calories, macro and micronutrients, she says.

“Given the vastly different calorie content of 100 g of fruit and vegetables vs 100 g of oils, the plate proportions change substantially when calories are counted,” she writes.

It could be said that the high carb-low fat diet has been tested on the UK population, but with negative impact, as the rates of obesity and diabetes have soared since the 70s and 80s, she says.

“The association between the introduction of the dietary guidelines, and concomitant increases in obesity and diabetes, deserves examination,” particularly as several recent reviews have suggested a causal relationship between the two, she suggests.

“The greatest flaw of the latest public health dietary advice might be the missed opportunity to deliver a simple and powerful message to return people to the diets we enjoyed before carbohydrate conditions convened. But when the who’s who of the food industry were represented on the group, ‘Eat Real Food!’ was never a likely outcome,” she concludes.

###

High blood pressure linked to short-, long-term exposure to some air pollutants

High blood pressure linked to short-, long-term exposure to some air pollutants

Another ridiculous “study.”

The researchers have no idea how much of any air pollutant any study subject inhaled. The causes of hypertension are not well understood. This “study” is just statistical malpractice with shoddy data. Also, there is no evidence from extensive EPA human experiments that air quality has any discernible effect on blood pressure.

The media release is below.

###

High blood pressure linked to short-, long-term exposure to some air pollutants
American Heart Association rapid access journal report

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION

DALLAS, May 31, 2016 – Both short- and long-term exposure to some air pollutants commonly associated with coal burning, vehicle exhaust, airborne dust and dirt are associated with the development of high blood pressure, according to new research in the American Heart Association’s journal Hypertension.

“In our analysis of 17 previously-published studies we discovered a significant risk of developing high blood pressure due to exposure to air pollution,” said Tao Liu, Ph.D., lead study author and deputy director and epidemiologist of the environmental health division at Guangdong Provincial Institute of Public Health in China. “People should limit their exposure on days with higher air pollution levels, especially for those with high blood pressure, even very short-term exposure can aggravate their conditions.”

Researchers performed a meta-analysis of available published studies in the world assessing the health effects of all air pollution on hypertension risk. Meta-analyses combine results from previous studies to estimate the overall effect of a particular variable on a result. In the first study to simultaneously estimate the effects of short-term and long-term exposure to air pollutants on hypertension by meta-analysis, researchers focused on these air pollutants:

sulfur dioxide (SO2), which mainly comes from the burning of fossil fuel;
nitrogen oxide (NOx), which comes from fossil fuels burned at power plants and vehicle exhaust;
Particulate matter (PM) are particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, smoke and liquid droplets. (PM 2.5 is smaller than a speck of dust, and the most common and hazardous type of air pollution. PM10 includes both PM2.5 and PM2.5-10).
The meta-analysis found high blood pressure was significantly associated with:

short-term exposure to SO2, PM2.5 and PM10; and
long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is produced from combustion, and PM10.
For the portion of the study that assessed short-term effects of ozone and carbon monoxide exposure, no significant associations were found. Researchers said ozone and carbon monoxide’s links to high blood pressure requires further study.

Of the 5,687 air pollution studies initially identified, 17 were the focus of this – which involves more than 108,000 hypertension patients and 220,000 non-hypertensive controls. High blood pressure was defined as systolic blood pressure more than 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure over 90 mm Hg or by antihypertensive drug use. Air pollution exposure was assessed by averaging data from nearest air pollution monitoring stations, or using complex dispersion models or land use regression models.

High blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke.

Previous studies have indicated that air pollution might be a risk factor for hypertension but the results were controversial, Liu said. The mechanism by which air pollution could contribute to the development of high blood pressure includes inflammation and oxidative stress, which may lead to changes in the arteries.

“Next we plan to further delve into the effects of particulate matter and their sources on hypertension risk, which we hope will inform air-pollution control policy-makers,” Liu said.

###

Genetically modified crops are safe, healthy, and good for the environment

Genetically modified crops are safe, healthy, and good for the environment

Advocates for genetically modified crops depict them as a futuristic boon to humanity and the environment. Opponents call them “Frankenfoods” and demand governments ban their use. What does the data tell us? According to a new review of a large number of studies from across the spectrum, the truth falls much closer to the position of the advocates:

Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a reportreleased Tuesday.

But the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are not just asking people to take their word for it. They’re putting the evidence up on a website so skeptics — and they know there are plenty of them — can check for themselves.

NBC News listed the main conclusions from the report, and they all look like pluses:

  • There is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods
  • There is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning
  • Genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths die to vitamin A deficiency
  • Using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects.
  • Sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants – a process called gene flow – but there is no evidence it has caused harm.
  • In general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices.
  • GM crops do reduce losses to pests
  • If farmers use insect-resistant crops but don’t take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance

The “report in brief” on the website offered more details on animal and human safety:

Comparisons with conventional breeding

The committee assessed detailed surveys and experiments comparing GE to non-GE crop yields and also examined changes over time in overall yield per hectare of maize, soybean, and cotton reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before, during, and after the switch from conventionally bred to GE varieties of these crops. Although the sum of experimental evidence indicates that GE herbicide resistance and insect resistance are contributing to actual yield increases, there is no evidence from USDA data that the average historical rate of increase in U.S. yields of cotton, maize, and soybean has changed.

Human Health Effects

GE crops and foods derived from them are tested in three ways: animal testing, compositional analysis, and allergenicity testing and prediction. Although the design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, the many available animal experimental studies taken together provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating foods derived from GE crops. Data on the nutrient and chemical composition of a GE plant compared to a similar non-GE variety of the crop sometimes show statistically significant differences in nutrient and chemical composition, but the differences have been considered to fall within the range of naturally occurring variation found in currently available non-GE crops. Many people are concerned that GE food consumption may lead to higher incidence of specific health problems including cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illnesses, kidney disease, and disorders such as autism spectrum and allergies. In the absence of long-term, case-controlled studies to examine some hypotheses, the committee examined epidemiological datasets over time from the United States and Canada, where GE food has been consumed since the late 1990s, and similar datasets from the United Kingdom and western Europe, where GE food is not widely consumed. No pattern of differences was found among countries in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the 1990s.

Will this put an end to the “Frankenfood” attacks? Don’t bet on it. Despite the potential for keeping both the amount and the strength of herbicides to a minimum, the opposition to GE food has developed into a self-sustaining denialism. The real genius of the National Academies was to make the data available under one umbrella site, which allows everyone access to the evidence and undercuts the more conspiracy-theory-minded opponents from dominating the discussion. Even that, though, won’t keep a significant subset of people from assuming that the corporations are trying to kill you, man. By feeding you more food with less herbicidal content, apparently.

Source

Fat is not Bad part 5

Fat is not Bad part 5


THE JAMA NETWORK JOURNALS

In a study appearing in the May 10, 2016 issue of JAMA, Børge G. Nordestgaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., of Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark and colleagues examined whether the body mass index (BMI) value that is associated with the lowest all-cause mortality has increased in the general population over a period of 3 decades.

Previous findings indicate that while average BMI has increased over time in most countries, the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors may be decreasing among obese individuals. Thus, the BMI associated with lowest all-cause mortality may have changed over time. This study included three groups from the same general population enrolled at different times: the Copenhagen City Heart Study in 1976-1978 (n = 13,704) and 1991-1994 (n = 9,482) and the Copenhagen General Population Study in 2003-2013 (n = 97,362). All participants were followed up from inclusion in the studies to November 2014, emigration, or death, whichever came first.

The researchers found that the BMI value associated with the lowest all-cause mortality has increased by 3.3 over 3 decades from 1976-1978 to 2003-2013, from 23.7 to 27. In addition, the risk for all-cause mortality that was associated with BMI of 30 or greater vs BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 decreased from an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.3 to 1.0 over this 30-year period. “These latter findings were robust in analyses stratified by age, sex, smoking status, and history of cardiovascular disease or cancer.”

The authors write that an interesting finding in this study is that the optimal BMI in relation to mortality is placed in the overweight category in the most recent 2003-2013 cohort. “This finding was consistent in both the whole population sample (optimal BMI, 27), and in a subgroup of never-smokers without history of cardiovascular disease or cancer (optimal BMI, 26.1). If this finding is confirmed in other studies, it would indicate a need to revise the WHO categories presently used to define overweight, which are based on data from before the 1990s.”

Regarding the increase in the BMI value associated with the lowest all-cause mortality, the researchers write that “further investigation is needed to understand the reason for this change and its implications.”

Claim: Exposure to particulate air pollutants associated with numerous cancers

Claim: Exposure to particulate air pollutants associated with numerous cancers

Ridiculous. Here’s a one big reason.

In Beijing and other Chinese cities, PM2.5 levels average 100 µg/m³. This study claims that for every 10 µg/m³ of increased exposure to PM2.5, the risk of dying from any cancer rose by 22 percent. So Chinese cities should be witnessing more than three times as many cancer deaths as low PM2.5 areas. Also, about 50% of Chinese men smoke and cigarette is worth 10,000 to 40,000 µg worth of PM2.5 exposure in 10 minutes. If PM2.5 is so carcinogenic, where’s all the cancer?

And of course, what would this say about EPA’s human testing program which included exposing human guinea pigs to PM2.5 levels as high as 750 µg/m³?

The media release and abstract are here