Do I Need Blood Pressure Medication?

Roughly one out of three adults in the United States have high blood pressure. Only half of those with high blood pressure have it under control. High blood pressure can be a serious problem. It can damage your blood vessels, particularly in your kidneys and your brain. Eventually, it can also damage the valves in your heart. Pregnant women are prone to a form of high blood pressure called preeclampsia, which is dangerous to the woman and her baby. For these reasons, millions of people are taking medications to control their blood pressure. Yet medication is not necessarily the best way to control blood pressure. Yes, it can reduce the blood pressure. However, the medications do not cure the underlying problem that caused the high blood pressure. The best way to solve the blood pressure problem is to solve the circulatory problem by eating a low-fat vegan diet.

Blood pressure results from the force exerted by the heart as it beats. Blood pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) because blood pressure was originally measured with a tube that contained mercury, which is a liquid metal. The higher the pressure, the higher the column of mercury in the tube would be. A blood pressure measurement consists of two numbers: the systolic and diastolic pressure. The systolic pressure represents the pressure that is exerted when the heart contracts and pushes the blood into the arteries. The diastolic pressure represents the pressure when the heart is relaxing and refilling between beats.

To understand blood pressure, you need to understand that the heart is trying to keep enough blood flowing through the blood vessels to serve the body’s needs. High blood pressure is a sign that the heart is struggling to overcome high resistance in the circulatory system. You can use medication to bring down the pressure; however, the blood pressure medication does not correct the problem of resistance in he circulatory system. Fortunately, you can often solve the circulatory problem through a change in diet.

Blood is a fluid. Like other fluids, it follows the basic rules of physics, including a relationship called Poiseuille’s Law. Poiseuille’s Law is a mathematical equation that describes the relationship between the rate of flow of a fluid through a tube and the radius of the tube, the length of the tube, the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, and the change in pressure from the beginning to the end of the tube. This relationship is usually shown as follows:

Pressure drop = (8 × viscosity × length × flow rate) / (π × radius4)

You can also express Poiseuille’s Law as follows:

Flow rate = (π × radius4 × pressure drop)/(8 × viscosity × length)

From this equation, you can make some important predictions:

  • If you double the pressure, but kept everything else the same, you would double the flow.
  • If you double the viscosity of the blood (i.e., make the blood twice as thick) but kept everything else the same, you would cut blood flow in half.
  • If you doubled the length of the blood vessels (which happens if the person gains a lot of weight) but kept everything else the same, you would cut the blood flow in half.
  • If you doubled the radius of the blood vessel, but kept everything else the same, you would increase the flow by 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16-fold! Likewise, if you decreased the radius of the blood vessel by half, you would decrease the flow by 93.75%!

Once you understand these relationships, you can see why people get high blood pressure. If you eat a fatty diet, you will likely gain some weight and make your blood a bit thicker. As a result, your heart will have to beat a little bit harder to keep your blood flowing. However, a fatty diet also clogs your arteries. Also, even a single fatty meal can make your blood vessels constrict. As a result, your heart will have to beat a lot harder to keep blood flowing. The weight gain and the thickening of the blood will make your blood pressure go up a little, while clogged arteries and vasoconstriction will make it go up a lot!

You can take medication to make your blood pressure go down, but this medication will not solve the underlying problem of poor circulation. To solve your circulatory problem, you need to keep your blood fluid and keep your arteries clean and flexible. The best way to do that is to eat a low-fat vegan diet. This kind of diet works so fast to reduce blood pressure that many people can immediately stop taking their blood pressure medication.

The high blood pressure that occurs in late pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) is a different problem. It results from a shortage of protein in the blood plasma. This problem occurs if the woman is not getting enough to eat or if she is eating way too much fat. Either way, she will end up converting too much of her plasma proteins to sugar. As a result, she will not have enough plasma protein to maintain an adequate blood volume to support a healthy pregnancy. To try to correct this problem, the kidneys will release renin, which will activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The angiotensin will make the arteries constrict. The aldosterone will make the woman retain salt and water. But since she does not have enough protein in her blood to keep that fluid inside her blood vessels, this extra fluid will leak out into her tissue. As a result, she will have dangerously high blood pressure as well as swelling. The surprising solution to this problem is to eat a lot of starch and very little fat. Women who eat a lot of carbohydrate will convert very little protein to sugar. As a result, they will have normal blood pressure as well as stable blood sugar levels.

Science journal spreads false rumors about vegan diet

An article published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) claims that it would be a disaster for public health if the population of the United States suddenly went vegan. Yet the authors are not experts on human nutrition or public health. Instead, they are experts on how to feed livestock. Their conclusions were not based on any actual studies of the health of vegan human beings. The study’s authors even freely admit that plant-based diets have several important advantages:

  • Shifting to a plant-based diet would increase the amount of food available for human beings.
  • A plant-based diet requires people to eat a greater volume of food, to maintain the same weight. [As I have explained in two of my books, this is why a vegan diet is the key to solving our epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes.]
  • The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded that plant-based diets would improve health and improve long-term sustainability of the US food supply.

Nevertheless, the authors of the PNAS article claimed that the plant-based diet would be deficient in several important nutrients. Yet they did not back up this claim with any studies that showed that vegans are really likely to have health problems as a result of nutrient deficiencies. The authors wrote, “However, without animal-derived foods, domestic supplies of Ca [calcium]; arachidonic, eicosapentaenoic, and docosahexaenoic fatty acids; and vitamins A and B12 were insufficient to meet the requirements of the US population.” That claim is absolutely ridiculous, for the following reasons:

    • Although you do need to get some calcium from your diet, it is practically impossible to find actual cases of people who did not get enough calcium from their food. Problems with calcium balance in the body usually result from lack of vitamin D or from long-term consumption of high-protein, high-calcium diets.
    • The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences does not consider arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, or docosahexaenoic acid to be essential in human nutrition. In other words, human beings do not need to get them from their food. The only essential fatty acids are an omega-6 fatty acid called linoleic acid and an omega-3 fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid. Linoleic acid is plentiful in grains, nuts, and seeds. Alpha-linoleic acid comes from the chloroplasts in green plants and is plentiful in fresh vegetables. The requirement for both of these essential fatty acids is so small that it was not even discovered until hospitalized patients were being fed nothing but fat-free intravenous solutions for a long time.
    • Human beings can easily meet their requirements for vitamin A by eating beta-carotene, which is plentiful in dark green, orange, or yellow vegetables.
    • Vitamin B12 is the only true vitamin that is likely to be deficient in plant-based diets. Vitamin B12 is made by bacteria, not by animals, and can be obtained from a cheap supplement.
    • The article also warns about dietary deficiency of vitamin D. Yet vitamin D is not a true vitamin. It is a hormone that your body can make for itself, for free, if you expose your skin to sunshine. You don’t need to get “the sunshine vitamin” from your food.

The PNAS article warns us that a shift to a vegan diet would cause big changes to the economy. In particular, it would be disastrous for the livestock industry. (Note that the authors of the PNAS article are academics who have devoted their careers to serving the livestock industry, not to studying human health. This explains why they know so little about human nutrition and nutritional epidemiology.) A switch to a vegan diet would also be a disaster for the pharmaceutical industry. Many people who shift to a low-fat, plant-based diet can stop taking most or all of their prescription medications. These changes would be good for public health, though bad for industry.

PNAS is a prestigious journal. Yet like other prestigious journals, it occasionally publishes articles that are full of nonsense. Likewise, I imagine that PNAS probably also rejects some good articles for stupid reasons. I have worked for peer-reviewed journals, and I have also submitted articles to other peer-reviewed journals, so I have seen the problem from both sides, as I explain in this blog post. The mistake that the editors of PNAS made in this case was to fail to have this article reviewed by someone who is a genuine expert in human nutrition and nutritional epidemiology. As a result, they ended up spreading livestock industry propaganda.

Is Coconut Oil Good for You?

Lately, food faddists have been claiming that coconut oil is a health food. They claim that it will help you lose weight. In reality, coconut oil is as fattening as any other fat. Some people even claim that coconut oil can cure Alzheimer’s disease. In reality, coconut oil can promote atherosclerosis, which is an important cause of vascular dementia. Also, fats of any kind, including coconut oil, tend to make your body less sensitive to insulin. For this reason, eating coconut oil would probably make type 2 diabetes worse. Coconut oil could even make Alzheimer’s disease worse, since Alzheimer’s disease seems to be related to insulin resistance in the brain. So why are people promoting coconut oil for brain health? The idea that coconut oil is good for your brain came out of the fact that some of the fatty acids from coconut oil are useful as part of a diet for children with severe epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a condition in which people suffer from seizures. A seizure is an electrical storm within the brain. In ancient times, epilepsy was called “the falling sickness” because it often causes people to lose consciousness suddenly. However, “partial” seizures may simply cause altered mental states or uncontrolled movements of the body. Many ancient people thought that epilepsy was caused by the gods or by evil spirits. However, the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates explained that epilepsy was an ordinary physical disease, with physical causes. The ancient Greeks knew that some people with epilepsy did not have seizures while they were fasting. Of course, you cannot fast forever. You have to eat something eventually, or you will starve to death. Once the person with epilepsy resumed eating food, the seizures would start up again.

By the 1920s, physicians were looking for a way to mimic some of the effects of fasting, without starving the patient to death. They knew that fasting causes ketosis, which is the buildup of chemicals called ketone bodies in the bloodstream. But they knew that you could also get ketosis from eating an extremely low-carbohydrate diet. For reasons that are still unclear, ketosis suppresses seizures in many people with epilepsy. For this reason, an extremely high-fat, low-carbohydrate “ketogenic” diet has been used since the early 1920s for the management of treatment-resistant epilepsy in children.

Why does an extremely low-carb diet cause ketosis? Even in the 1920s, it was obvious that ketosis meant that the liver was making huge amounts of sugar. Much of the sugar in the bloodstream of someone with untreated diabetes does not come from the starch or sugar in the food. Instead, it has been made out of protein from the food and from the body’s tissues. If the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas stop making insulin, the alpha cells in the pancreas assume that the blood sugar level must be low. As a result, the alpha cells will make huge amounts of a hormone called glucagon. Glucagon tells the liver to make glucose, to bring blood sugar levels back up to normal. An overdose of insulin kills people by preventing their pancreas from releasing glucagon, which would tell the liver to release glucose to correct the low blood sugar. That’s why glucagon is used as an antidote to insulin overdose.

The liver makes a lot of glucose out of its stores of a starch called glycogen. However, the liver can also make glucose out of amino acids (the building blocks of protein) and other noncarbohydrates. When the liver is making a lot of glucose, it may start to use up one of the materials that it needs for breaking fat down completely into carbon dioxide and water. As a result, more of the fat is processed through an alternative pathway that produces ketone bodies as byproducts.

If you are fasting, a little bit of ketosis is a good thing. Some of your brain cells can use some of the ketone bodies as an alternative fuel source. But the severe ketosis that goes along with severely high blood sugar in someone with untreated type 1 diabetes is a life-threatening emergency.
You can get ketosis from fasting, but you can also get it from an extremely low-carbohydrate diet. That is why children with severe epilepsy are sometimes fed an extremely low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diet. This ketogenic diet has some important drawbacks. For one thing, it tends to stunt children’s growth, and it can lead to some severe side effects, including inflammation of the pancreas. Another drawback is that children do not like the diet, mainly because their food choices are limited. Eating even a little bit of carbohydrate stops the ketosis. For this reason, it is hard to get children to stick to the diet well enough to get benefits.

Most of the fats in our food contain mainly long-chain fatty acids. However, nutrition researchers realized that short- and medium-chain fatty acids are better at producing ketosis. Perhaps it is because the shorter-chain fatty acids go straight to the liver from the intestine. The longer fatty acids are absorbed through a different pathway, which does not go through the liver before it reaches the general circulation. Coconut oil is a relatively rich source of medium-chain fatty acids. So if you feed an epileptic child coconut oil, you can let them eat a bit more carbohydrate and protein, while still keeping them in ketosis.

Since coconut oil is so good at generating ketone bodies, there has been some interest in it for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In Alzheimer’s disease, the brain is having some trouble with using glucose for energy. For this reason, some researchers suspect that the brain of someone with Alzheimer’s disease might work better if some ketone bodies were available. Yet this theory remains unproven.

The ketogenic diet is useful in cases of childhood epilepsy that do not respond to any other treatment. However, it is not a health-promoting diet for the general public. No society on earth has ever subsisted on a ketogenic diet for any length of time. Even Inuit (Eskimo) people, who lived on nothing but fatty meats and fish during the winter, did not go into ketosis unless they were fasting. Also, there is plenty of evidence that high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets lead to rapid aging and early death, even if they do not produce ketosis.

Like antiseizure drugs, a ketogenic diet may be good for some children with epilepsy but should not be routinely given to people who do not have epilepsy. Unless you have treatment-resistant epilepsy, you would be better off eating an extremely low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet based on starches and vegetables. The societies that have traditionally used coconut oil tend to have low rates of heart disease. However, that is usually because their overall intake of fat and cholesterol is low. Most of their calories came from carbohydrates (starches and sugars) in the rice and starchy vegetables (such as sweet potatoes and poi) that made up the bulk of their diet. Since these people lived in the tropics, they also ate a lot of fruit and vegetables. Some Polynesians eat a lot of coconut. However, they are generally eating whole coconut, rather than coconut oil. As a result, they get a lot of protection from the fiber content of the coconut. In the intestine, fiber binds to the cholesterol that the liver produces to help you digest fat. As a result, the cholesterol can leave the body with the feces, rather than being reabsorbed into the bloodstream.

If you want to lose weight and protect your heart and brain, don’t add coconut oil to your diet. Instead, remove oils and animal-source foods from your diet. The populations that eat a starchy, high-fiber diet based on low-fat plant-source foods have the cleanest arteries and the best chance at a long and healthy life.

What Does Ketosis Mean?

 

Ketosis does not mean that you are losing weight. It really just means that your liver is turning a lot of protein and other noncarbohydrates to sugar. Today, many people on the Internet are urging people to eat a ketogenic diet: a diet that is so high in fat and so low in carbohydrates that it causes people to go into a state of ketosis. Ketosis means that “ketone bodies,” which are the chemical byproducts of an alternative method of burning fat, build up in the bloodstream. Ketogenic diets are often described as “Paleo” because many laymen imagine that human beings must have eaten ketogenic diets during the Paleolithic era (early stone age). Yet there is no reason to believe that stone age people ate a ketogenic diet.

Most people in the stone age would have eaten the starchy plant material, especially roots and tubers, that they could safely and easily obtain from their environment. As a result, stone age people would have gotten more than enough carbohydrate to keep them from going into ketosis. In fact, when anthropologists look at the skeletal remains of stone age people, they find starch grains embedded in the tartar on their teeth. Even the Inuit’s (Eskimos’) traditional winter diet, which consisted entirely of fatty meats and fish, did not produce ketosis. Studies done in the early 20th century found that the Inuit did not get ketosis unless they were fasting. The Inuit were eating raw meat that was either freshly killed or frozen immediately after being killed. Unlike the meat you would buy at a supermarket, this fresh or rapidly frozen meat still contained a starch called glycogen. The Inuit also used a method of meat preservation that converted some protein to sugar. As a result, the Inuit’s traditional diet contained a surprisingly large amount of carbohydrate: enough to keep people out of ketosis.

It is good that the Inuit diet did not cause ketosis. The Inuit already had extremely high rates of osteoporosis, because of the metabolic acidosis caused by their high-protein diet. Adding even more acid, in the form of ketone bodies, would have made this problem even worse. Eating a lot of calcium, in the form of fish bones, did not solve this problem.

Some “Paleo” advocates claim that ketosis means that you are burning fat and are therefore losing weight. Some of them even claim that you cannot lose weight or burn fat unless you are in ketosis, which is total nonsense. The Krebs cycle, which is the body’s normal way of burning fat, does not produce ketone bodies. Having ketones in your urine does not even guarantee that you are losing weight. To lose weight, even on a ketogenic diet, you must burn up more calories than you take in. Even on a ketogenic diet, you can still gain weight. The burst of insulin that is released in response to eating foods that contain protein could drive the fat from the food into the fat cells.

The ketosis does not mean that you are losing weight. It is simply a sign that your liver is turning a lot of noncarbohydrate substances, including protein, into a sugar called glucose. Your liver is working so hard to make glucose, to compensate for your low carbohydrate intake, that it is even using up oxaloacetate, which is one of the chemicals involved in the Krebs cycle. As a result, some of the fat gets broken down through an abnormal pathway that produces ketone bodies.

During a fast, a little bit of ketosis is a good thing. Your brain can use a little bit of the ketone bodies as an alternative fuel source. In contrast, the severe ketosis that results from a severe shortage of insulin in people with untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus is life-threatening. Before the discovery of insulin, people with what is now called type 1 diabetes would always progress to ketoacidosis, coma, and death. Ketoacidosis means that the ketosis is so bad that it lowers the blood pH. Patients with diabetic ketoacidosis have four problems at once: high blood sugar, dehydration, low blood pH, and an electrolyte imbalance. These problems must be corrected carefully, in an intensive care unit.

In a healthy person, the total amount of ketone bodies in the blood is usually less than 1 mg/dL. The amount of ketone bodies in the urine is normally too low to be detected by routine urine tests. You can boost your production of ketone bodies by fasting or by eating a low-carbohydrate diet. You can get into a state of ketosis either way. However, the effects of a fast are far different from the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet. Scientists are only beginning to understand the potential benefits of periodic fasting. Besides being a sure-fire way to lose weight, fasting can help to suppress a runaway inflammatory response. A medically supervised water-only fast is also a useful first step in identifying which foods might be triggering a patient’s health problems. The Paleo advocates are hoping that eating bacon and eggs—but no toast—would produce the same effect as eating nothing at all. It is a foolish hope.

Many people swear by the Paleo diet. They have managed to survive on it for months or even years, and they claim that they have achieved other benefits, such as weight loss. Yet these testimonials should be viewed with great skepticism. No populations anywhere on earth have managed to achieve good health statistics or a long life span on a ketogenic diet. The populations who eat a diet that is most like the ketogenic diet may seem healthy while they are young, but they have long been known to suffer from rapid aging and a short life expectancy. In contrast, the populations with the longest, healthiest lives are the ones who are eating the opposite of a ketogenic diet: they eat a diet based on low-fat plant-based foods. One of the important findings of an enormous epidemiologic study called the China-Cornell Oxford Project was that the less animal-source food a population eats, the lower its average cholesterol level is and the lower its risk of death from chronic disease is. There did not seem to be any safe level of intake of animal-source foods.

A ketogenic diet may be a useful as a desperate attempt to suppress seizures in children with some severe forms of epilepsy. Yet in those children, the diet can have side effects. It can cause dehydration, constipation, vomiting, high cholesterol, and kidney stones. Some children have had severe side effects, such as heart rhythm problems, inflammation of the pancreas, and possibly loss of calcium from the bones. In short, a ketogenic diet may be useful as a way to treat some rare but serious diseases that respond poorly to any other available treatment. However, it is unlikely to improve health for the general public in the long run.

Dietary Protein, Not Sugar, Promotes the Growth of Cancer

Some researchers in Belgium just did an interesting study about how cancer cells use sugar. The researchers found that one of the byproducts produced as a result of cancer cells’ abnormal metabolism could be promoting the growth of the cancer. In short, the researchers have figured out a plausible explanation for something that had been known since the 1920s: most cancer cells use anaerobic metabolism, even when plenty of oxygen is available. By the 1950s, it was clear that tumors that are most likely to use anaerobic metabolism tend to be the most aggressive. Unfortunately, the reporters who have been covering this study for the popular press do not understand what the study is about or what its results really mean. Many of the reporters have falsely concluded that the study shows that something in sugar is somehow causing cancer. As a result, they are urging people to avoid eating carbohydrates. Unfortunately, if people avoid carbohydrates, they will end up eating more fat and more protein, and we know that high-protein diets are the real culprit in promoting the growth of cancer.

Continue reading “Dietary Protein, Not Sugar, Promotes the Growth of Cancer”

Jane Brody’s Misleading Attack on What the Health

New York Times columnist Jane E. Brody has written a silly attack on the documentary What the Health. Germany’s Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck supposedly once quipped, “Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.” Since the New York Times is regarded as the “Newspaper of Record” in the United States, we could amend this saying to “Never believe anything in American politics until it has been officially denied in the New York Times.”

Brody focused on one alarming statement about the harmful effects of eating eggs. She then concluded that the entire documentary was full of bad science. Somehow, she failed to mention the main message of the documentary, which is that the major health-focused nonprofits are taking money from the food industry. Not coincidentally, those nonprofits are systematically failing to warn people of the health risks posed by the foods that their sponsors are selling. What the Health even showed that these nonprofit organizations have sometimes been urging people to eat the very foods that are known to contribute to the disease that the nonprofit is supposedly trying to fight. If the New York Times were really serving as the “watchdog press,” then it would have been sounding similar warnings for many years. (I sound that warning in my book Where Do Gorillas Get Their Protein? What We Really Know About Diet and Health.) Instead, the public had to wait for an independent documentary filmmaker to articulate this message, and for Netflix to broadcast it.

What the Health is reporting on a story that the Newspaper of Record presumably finds “not fit to print.” Word about What the Health is spreading via social media. Since our Newspaper of Record can no longer ignore the documentary, it is time for one of its columnists to tell us to “move along, there’s nothing to see here.” Brody claimed that several of her “well-meaning, health conscious young friends” (a description that simply drips with condescension) urged her to watch the documentary, but that she had to quit watching it partway through, supposedly because the science reporting was intolerably bad. Yet several of the people interviewed in the documentary are prominent scientists, while Brody is just a newspaper columnist.

The online version of Brody’s screed was entitled “Good Vegan, Bad Vegan.” The “bad vegans” are presumably “those who distort science.” Yet Brody herself is guilty of that offense. The research really does show that egg consumption, like cigarette smoking, is correlated with the buildup of plaque in the arteries. If the effect of eating two eggs a day is equivalent to half of the effect of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, that would work out to a five cigarettes per egg ratio, which is not unrealistic. The research also shows that eating processed meats really is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. As a consumer of eggs and meat, Brody is presumably unhappy about those findings, but her unhappiness does not make those findings untrue.

Although Brody rails against bad science, she promoted some of the worst of it in her column. In particular, she put forth the long-discredited myth that plant proteins are incomplete and that vegans must therefore combine different plant proteins in the same meal to get a complete protein. In reality, nutrition scientists have known for more than 100 years that any practical plant-based diet would automatically provide enough protein for a human being, as long as the person ate enough food to get enough calories. In the 1950s, William Cumming Rose showed that ordinary staples, such as rice and potatoes, provide more than enough of all of the amino acids that are essential in human nutrition. There has never been any evidence that human beings need to combine different plant-based foods to “complement the proteins.” If Brody had read even an introductory-level textbook on nutrition, she would know this.

Brody concedes that “responsible, well-informed sources” already recommend a plant-based diet. Then she assures us, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that a plant-based diet can be “fleshed out” with low-fat protein sources from animals. In contrast, one of the major findings of the China-Cornell-Oxford project was that even a small amount of animal-source food in the diet was associated with an increased risk of death from degenerative disease. There did not seem to be any safe level of intake. T. Colin Campbell, who is a nutritional biochemist and a professor emeritus of Brody’s alma mater, Cornell University, was the lead author of the article that reported that finding. Brody has no excuse for being ignorant of it. If Brody is willing to run the increased risk of early death that results from eating foods from animal sources, that is her choice. But as a journalist, Brody has a professional and humanitarian responsibility to tell people that the risk exists, so that they can make informed decisions.

Brody warns, “A vegan diet laden with refined grains like white rice and bread; juices and sweetened drinks; cookies, chips and crackers; and dairy-free ice cream is hardly a healthful way to eat.” Yet that is a straw-man argument. Nobody interviewed in What the Health endorses junk-food veganism. On the other hand, Dr. Walter Kempner of Duke University discovered in the 1930s that he could save the lives of patients with malignant hypertension by having them eat a diet of nothing but white rice, fruit, and sugar. Brody’s audience deserves to know things like that.

Brody’s choice of title is telling. It alludes to Gary Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories. On July 7, 2002, the New York Times Magazine launched Gary Taubes’ career as a nutrition guru by running his article “What if it’s all been a big fat lie?” That article claimed that the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet that doctors had supposedly been recommending was really the cause of our obesity epidemic. Like Brody, Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or dietetics or epidemiology. Thus, like Brody, Taubes does not even recognize the mistakes that he makes in his writings about nutrition. Note that Taubes has been roundly criticized by nutrition scientists for misrepresenting their views by making it seem that they endorsed a low-carbohydrate diet.

Some of the people interviewed in What the Health are famous scientists who did landmark research related to the effects of dietary choices on health. Brody is not a peer of the scientists interviewed in What the Health. Thus, she is not qualified to serve as a reviewer for any of the journals that published their scientific work. Yet because of Brody’s platform at the New York Times, she has been able to encourage a broad readership to “skip” watching a documentary in which these scientists explain their findings to the public. The people who take her advice will miss the chance to hear a potentially life-saving message that they will never read in the Newspaper of Record. Fortunately, they may hear about it through social media.

The Inuit (“Eskimo”) Diet Causes Rapid Aging, Early Death

Since the 1970s, there has been a lot of hype about the diet of the Inuit, who were indigenous people in Greenland as well as northern Canada and Alaska.  (The Inuit were often called Eskimos, but that name is considered offensive. The correct name is Inuit. The singular form of the word is Inuk.) The Inuit had managed to survive in a hostile environment: one that was frozen and covered in snow for many months out of the year. As a result, the Inuit’s traditional diet for most of the year consisted of meat and fish, often eaten raw. Since the 1970s, many food faddists have been claiming that the Inuit’s diet somehow magically protected the Inuit against coronary artery disease. The goal of this propaganda is to encourage people to eat meat and fish and to take fish oil capsules but to shun carbohydrates. Yet even the earliest outside observers of the Inuit noticed something odd about them. The young Inuit seemed hale and hearty, but the Inuit seemed to age quickly, and there were practically no Inuit older than 60 years. Studies of mummified and skeletal remains of Inuit who had died before the arrival of the Europeans confirmed that the traditional Inuit diet caused atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.

The Inuit have always had a remarkably short life expectancy because they were at risk for both of the major categories of causes of death: diseases of poverty and diseases of affluence. The diseases of poverty are the things that tend to afflict the poor: starvation, exposure, accidents, and general lack of medical care and social supports. The diseases of affluence are the things that tend to afflict the rich: mainly a diet that is high in fats and cholesterol. In tropical and temperate regions, only the rich could afford to eat meat and other animal-source foods on a regular basis. But in the Arctic, meat was the only available food for much of the year. Thus, the Inuit were poor people eating a rich diet. As a result, they aged rapidly and died young.

The Inuit’s traditional diet of fatty meats and fish can sustain a young person. Otherwise, the Inuit would not have succeeded in settling in the Arctic region. However, the Inuit diet is bad for your health in the long run, for several reasons:

  • People can catch parasitic diseases by eating raw meat. (More than 12% of elderly Inuit in Greenland had trichinosis).
  • The high fat and cholesterol content of the Inuit diet leads to clogging of the arteries.
  • A high-protein diet increases the risk for liver and kidney disease, as well as osteoporosis.
  • Animal-source food contains a concentrated dose of pollutants from the environment.

Advocates of a ketogenic diet often use the Inuit diet as a model. The goal of a ketogenic diet is to put someone into a state of ketosis. Ketosis means that the person has an abnormally large amount of keto acids in the blood. This condition normally happens during fasting or when the person is eating no carbohydrates. It can also result from insulin deficiency. Since the Inuit were eating practically no plant material for months at a time, many people assume that the Inuit would have been in a state of ketosis most of the time. Yet a study done in the 1920s showed that Inuit who were eating their traditional diet did not have ketosis unless they are fasting. By the 1980s, the explanation was clear: the Inuit were eating far more carbohydrate than you might expect. The Inuit were eating a lot of raw meat that was fresh-killed or had been frozen immediately after being killed. For this reason, the meat that the Inuit were eating contained far more glycogen (animal starch) than you would find in meat that you buy at a butcher’s shop or grocery store. Also, the Inuit had a way of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber. This method of preservation allowed some of the protein in the meat to ferment into carbohydrate.

Back in the 1970s, some scientists from Denmark wrote some articles that claimed that the Inuit of Greenland were being protected from coronary artery disease by the large amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in their diet. In reality, the Inuit have a high risk of coronary artery disease. The earlier research simply underestimated the number of fatal heart attacks because the causes of deaths among the Inuit populations were not being accurately recorded. In the 1970s, the Inuit in Greenland seldom got medical attention while they were alive, and they seldom underwent autopsy after their death. So the true cause of death was seldom recorded.

The Inuit’s diet is a model for how Stone Age people can survive in the Arctic. It is not a model for how to live a long and healthy life when you have many food choices. The populations that live the longest, healthiest lives are those who have access to modern medical care but eat a diet similar to that of peasants in the temperate and tropical regions: a practically vegan diet based mainly on starches and vegetables.

Photo by Internet Archive Book Images

Omega-3 Fatty Acids Come From Green Plants

The food industry has been urging me to eat fish. The supplement companies have been urging me to take fish oil supplements. They claim that omega-3 fatty acids prevent heart attacks. Some people even claim that a baby cannot develop a normal brain unless its mother ate fish or took fish oil supplements. In contrast, nutrition scientists tell me that green plants are an excellent source of the only omega-3 fatty acid that is essential in human nutrition. This could explain why populations that rarely if ever eat fish can have healthy hearts and healthy brains. In fact, the healthiest populations are the ones that eat very little fat of any kind and lots of vegetables.

All of the omega-3 fatty acids in the food supply came originally from the green plants and blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that are at the bottom of the food chain. An omega-3 fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid is an important part of the thylakoid membranes that are involved in photosynthesis. No animal can make an omega-3 fatty acid. Animals do not have the enzymes that would be needed to put a double-bond in the omega-3 position in the hydrocarbon chain of a fatty acid. However, animals can lengthen the carbon chain of an omega-3 fatty acid. Thus, fish and other animals (including human beings) can convert alpha-linolenic acid to longer-chain omega-3 fatty acids, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). For this reason, you can find EPA and DHA in fish but not in ordinary plant-source foods.

According to the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences, there is only one omega-3 fatty acid that is essential in human nutrition. It is the alpha-linolenic acid that is found in thylakoid membranes of the chloroplasts of green plants. For this reason, you can get this omega-3 fatty acid from eating green vegetables. Flaxseeds, hempseed, and walnuts are also good sources of alpha-linolenic acid.

You need only a little bit of alpha-linolenic acid from your food. The dietary requirement for the two essential fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid and an omega 6 fatty acid called linoleic acid) was discovered only after hospitalized patients started being fed fat-free solutions for an extended period. Yet even their need for these essential fatty acids could be met by rubbing a little bit of vegetable oil on the skin.

For years, many people have been urging the public to eat fish or take fish oil supplements, to reduce the risk of heart attack. Populations that eat a lot of omega-3 acids, from cold-water fish, do have a somewhat lower-than-expected rate of fatal heart attacks. However, this is probably because of the blood-thinning effects of omega-3 fatty acids, which could also lead to more deaths from major bleeding. If you really want to make yourself heart-attack-proof, eat a low-fat, plant-based diet to keep your total cholesterol below 150 mg/dL.

Some manufacturers of baby formula have been adding DHA so that the formula will have a DHA content similar to that of breast milk. Yet whether the additional DHA provides real benefits to the baby is still unclear. However, these studies do raise concerns about giving too much long-chain omega-3 fatty acid without also providing a supplement of arachidonic acid.

I do not know whether any vegans (such as pregnant women or the elderly) would benefit from supplementation with the longer-chain omega-3 fatty acids. If these supplements are beneficial, it would be best for them to come from a plant source. Plants are less likely to be contaminated by the pollutants that build up in animal tissue.

Photo by albertstraub

Cats Cannot Get Vitamin A From Carrots

Beta-carotene is a yellow pigment that is found in many yellow, orange, and dark-green vegetables. For human beings and many other mammals, beta-carotene is a provitamin of vitamin A. This means that beta-carotene does not have vitamin A effects until the body converts it to retinol. Human beings can convert beta-carotene to retinol. Thus, human beings can get vitamin A from the beta-carotene in fruits and vegetables. In contrast, cats cannot convert beta-carotene to retinol. Retinol is found only in meat and other animal products, such as egg yolk. For this reason, cats cannot survive on a purely plant-based diet. If you want to make a purely plant-based (vegan) cat food, you must add the nutrients, such as retinol, that normally come only from animal sources.

Cats must get their vitamin A in the form of retinol or related compounds (such as retinyl palmitate). In contrast, it is better for human beings to get their vitamin A in the form of beta-carotene. The human body converts beta-carotene to retinol on an as-needed basis. If you eat a huge amount of the fruits and vegetables that contain beta-carotene, some of the extra beta-carotene might build up in your skin. As a result, you will get a healthy golden glow that is more attractive than a suntan. In contrast, if you overdose on retinol, either from taking supplements or from eating polar bear liver, you will get a potentially fatal swelling of the brain. This condition is called pseudotumor cerebri (which literally means fake tumor of the brain). If the brain swelling damages the nerves that connect the eyes to the brain, the result can be permanent blindness.

Human beings should get their vitamin A in the form of beta-carotene. And they should get their beta-carotene from fruits and vegetables, rather than from pills. People who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables tend to have better health, including lower rates of cancer. You cannot get the same effect by taking the vitamins in pill form. In fact, the vitamin pills might actually increase the risk of cancer.

In the 1980s, the National Cancer Institute launched a major study called the Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET). The purpose of the study was to see whether pills containing beta-carotene and retinol (in the form of retinyl palmitate) could reduce the risk of cancer in people who were at high risk for lung cancer. The study was stopped early because the cancer rate turned out to be higher in the people who got the vitamin A pills than in people who got a placebo.

Photo by mattbuck4950

Teach Doctors Nutrition, Then Let Them Practice Medicine

The major causes of death and disability in the United States today are diet-related diseases. As I explain in my book Where Do Gorillas Get Their Protein?, you can prevent heart attacks and many cancers by eating a low-fat, purely plant-based (vegan) diet. That same diet can also prevent and even cure some serious autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Yet doctors are not being taught about diet. Instead, they learn how to use medications and surgery to treat diet-related diseases. To avoid paying for those expensive treatments, insurance companies are putting restrictions on what kind of care they will cover.

Often, insurance companies refuse to pay for an expensive treatment until the doctor has proved that all of the cheaper treatments have failed to help that patient. This policy is called “fail first” or step therapy. Unfortunately, a patient with a serious condition could die or end up permanently disabled unless the right treatment is used right away. As a result, doctors have been spending more and more of their time in negotiations with insurance company clerks. Tragically, those clerks often end up making the treatment decisions, even though they are not qualified to practice medicine and have never even met the patient. To solve this problem, we must give doctors better training in nutrition, and then let the doctors, rather than insurance company clerks, practice medicine.

Step therapy is a perversion of a good medical idea called stepped care. Stepped care is the idea that patients with a less urgent or less serious case should get treatment of a lower intensity, at least at first. For many illnesses, it makes sense to start with a less-intensive treatment (such as a change in diet) rather than using a more-intensive treatment (such as medication). Even if medication is needed, it may make sense to start with a cheap generic medication with a well-established safety profile, rather than using an expensive new drug whose long-term safety is unknown. Yet even if doctors are using the stepped care model, they do not need to start with the bottom step. They can jump to a middle step or even the top step in serious cases.

In stepped care, the doctor and the patient make the medical decisions. But in “fail first” or step therapy, the bean-counters at the insurance company make the medical decisions. By requiring “fail first,” insurance companies ensure that a lot of patients will have treatment that fails. In contrast, doctors want to pick the therapy that is most likely to succeed.

Since so many deadly and disabling diseases are caused by an overly rich diet, dietary management should be the first step in managing them. Dietary therapy itself can follow a stepped care approach. For arthritis patients, the first step in dietary management is a low-fat vegan (purely plant-based) diet. Animal proteins and fatty foods promote arthritis. If the animal proteins enter the bloodstream before they are broken down into individual amino acids, they can provoke the immune system to make antibodies. Since the animal proteins resemble human proteins, those antibodies can then attack the person’s own tissue. Diets that are high in fat and cholesterol make this problem worse by damaging the lining of the intestine, making it leak. (Some of the medications used to treat arthritis pain also damage the intestine.)

If a low-fat vegan diet does not provide adequate relief within a few weeks, the patient can also eliminate the gluten-containing grains (wheat, rye, and barley). If problems persist, the patient can be taught how to follow a formal elimination diet, which excludes the other plant-source foods that are known to cause problems in some patients (e.g., corn, soy, strawberries, citrus fruits). After the patient feels better, plant-source foods can be carefully reintroduced, one at a time, to identify the foods that were causing problems.

In severe cases, such as a flare of rheumatoid arthritis, the doctor may want to start with a therapeutic fast, which is the top step in dietary management. A therapeutic fast involves taking nothing but water by mouth for days to weeks, in a setting of complete rest. This is the ultimate elimination diet. By eating nothing at all, the patient avoids all possible dietary triggers of disease. A therapeutic fast also causes hormonal changes that stop runaway inflammation. After the fast, foods should be reintroduced carefully, one at a time. Therapeutic fasting should be done only under medical supervision. It is powerful medicine against the diseases of overnutrition, such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension (see chapter 9 of my book Thin Diabetes, Fat Diabetes: Prevent Type 1, Cure Type 2). It has long been known to be a safe and effective treatment for a flare of rheumatoid arthritis.

Insurance companies develop policies to boost their own profits, not to protect their subscribers from getting the wrong treatment. There is a better way to control healthcare spending, while improving public health. Give doctors basic training in nutrition. Teach them how to use diet rather than drugs to solve diet-related problems. Then, let the doctor decide what other kinds of treatment his or her patient needs, even if that treatment is expensive. Let the doctors, not the accountants, practice medicine.