Not shunning fat and still keeping good health-Another obesity control theory

Food and nutrition sciences seem to be turning upside down if a latest report by a charitable trust in the UK is to be believed! In essence the "scientists" in the trust are saying the eating more fat is the solution to overcome obesity epidemic that is ravaging wealthy nations in the world! It is not that the main stream health experts are sitting quite without challenging this new theory which does not appear to be based on any great scientific study and they have cautioned consumers not to "trust" this Trust for changing their food habits. Here is a take on this report and readers can come to their own conclusions regarding the credibility of the claims made. 

Thirty years of official health advice urging people to adopt low-fat diets and to lower their cholesterol is having "disastrous health consequences," a leading obesity charity warned yesterday. "Eating fat does not make you fat," argues a new report by the National Obesity Forum (NOF) and the Public Health Collaboration, as they demanded a major overhaul of official dietary guidelines. Promoting low-fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history according to Dr Aseem Malhotra, consultant cardiologist. The report says the low-fat and low-cholesterol message, which has been official policy in the UK since 1983, was based on "flawed science" and had resulted in an increased consumption of junk food and carbohydrates. The document also accuses major public health bodies of colluding with the food industry, said the misplaced focus meant Britain was failing to address an obesity crisis which is costing the NHS £6 billion a year. The authors call for a return to "whole foods" such as meat, fish and dairy, as well as high-fat healthy foods like avocados. The report, which has provoked a broad backlash among the scientific community, also argues that saturated fat does not cause heart disease while full fat dairy products such as milk, yoghurt and cheese, can actually protect the heart. Professor David Haslam, NOF chairman, said: "As a clinician treating patients all day every day, I quickly realised that guidelines from on high suggesting high carbohydrate, low-fat diets were the universal panacea, where deeply flawed."Current efforts have failed, the proof being that obesity levels are higher than they have ever been, and show no chance of reducing despite the best efforts of government and scientists." Processed foods labelled "low-fat", "lite", "low cholesterol" should be avoided at all costs and people with Type 2 diabetes should eat a fat-rich diet rather than one based on carbohydrates, the report urges. Dr Aseem Malhotra, consultant cardiologist and member of the Public Health Collaboration, a group of medics, said dietary guidelines promoting low-fat foods "is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history, resulting in devastating consequences for public health". "Sadly this unhelpful advice continues to be perpetuated," he said. Eat fat to get slim. Don't fear fat; fat is your friend says Dr Aseem Malhotra. The current Eatwell guide from Public Health England is in my view more like a metabolic timebomb than a dietary pattern conducive for good health." Dr Malhotra also suggested the scientific integrity of the PHE advice had been compromised by commercial interests. "We must urgently change the message to the public to reverse obesity and Type 2 diabetes," he added. "Eat fat to get slim," he concludes. "Don't fear fat; fat is your friend." Snacking between meals is one of the main causes of the current obesity crisis, the report argues, while added sugar should be avoided because it has "no nutritional value whatsoever".Snacking will make you fat, the report warns. Calorie counting is also a damaging red herring when it comes to controlling obesity, said the NOF report, as calories from different foods have "entirely different metabolic effects on the human body, rendering that definition useless". Similarly, "you cannot outrun a bad diet" the authors state, citing the "incorrect" assumption among the public that the solution to obesity is to burn more calories than are consumed. Our populations for almost 40 years have been subjected to an uncontrolled global experiment that has gone drastically wrong Prof Iain Broom. "Obesity is a hormonal disorder leading to abnormal energy partitioning which cannot be solely fixed by increasing exercise," the report says. Responding to the NOF document, Professor Iain Broom, from Robert Gordon University, said: "The continuation of a food policy recommending high carbohydrate, low fat, low calorie intakes as healthy eating is fatally flawed. "Our populations for almost 40 years have been subjected to an uncontrolled global experiment that has gone drastically wrong."
However, scientists from a range of fields have criticised the report and questioned its evidential basis. Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), said the NOF findings were "full of ideas and opinion" but could not be counted as a comprehensive review of the evidence. The report's main headline – simply to eat more fat – is highly contentious and could have adverse public health consequences says Dr Mike Knapton. "This country's obesity epidemic is not caused by poor dietary guidelines; it is that we are not meeting them," he said. Professor Naveed Sattar, Professor of Metabolic Medicine at Glasgow University, said: "The report's main headline – simply to eat more fat – is highly contentious and could have adverse public health consequences."

It is true that all the actions and programs taken by the countries suffering from obesity have not brought any positive results so far and on the contrary the obesity population is surging at an unprecedented rate. Whether it is low carbohydrate diet or massive promotion of low fat food products, there is no dent in the galloping growth of overweight people. Naturally this has given opportunity to some "queer" people to try to swim against the tide and gain some popularity and attention. But the damage such unproven claims on the health of the people is forgotten by them while propagating such outlandish claims. It is understandable that those practicing low fat diets have to depend on carbohydrates for bulk of their energy needs and white sugar and HFCS provide the same. There are scientific evidence to show that too much carbohydrates in the diet can be a worrisome factor that can precipitate metabolic syndrome disease and other disorders. The lesson that is to be learned is that there is no sure recipe or quick fix for maintaining healthy weight and following a balanced diet giving importance to fat, proteins and carbohydrates derived through natural diet ingredients combined with regular physical activity is the best approach for good health

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Cholesterol is no more a villain, so say the experts now!-Can we believe it?

After fat in the food was exonerated from its villainous role in CVD, Obesity and other life style disorders, it is now the turn of the Cholesterol to be liberated from the plethora of indictments in the past implicating it in heart disease. It was a gospel truth till recently that Cholesterol containing foods like meat and egg must be consumed very moderately and if possible must be avoided all together if one has to maintain good health. Same is true with dairy products like butter and cheese also avoided altogether or consumed less frequently for fear of Cholesterol build up and the consequent presumed arterial plaque development. It was only recently that health experts came out with a clear cut stand that butter and cheese need not be considered as unhealthy food and therefore can be consumed regularly by normal healthy consumers. The Cholesterol story also follows essentially the same logic and scientists seem to have realized rather late that after all Cholesterol is a biological nutrient present in the cells required for making Vitamin D by the sun light. Here is a commentary on this new twist in the nutrition science making people more comfortable with foods like egg without any guilty feeling.    . 

"(TRFW News) For over decades the nation's top nutrition advisory panel has debated the health benefits of cholesterol. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a group that provides dietary guidelines based on scientific findings, has portrayed cholesterol as the worst food one can consume, but several other studies have conflicted their notion. The guidelines for cholesterol have been recommended to keep it as low as possible in order to avoid potential consequences. However, recently the DGAC reconvened for their meetings to examine the recommendations on cholesterol and they reported that cholesterol should no longer be considered as a "nutrient of concern for overconsumption," which is a stark contrast from five years ago. (1) Eggs may no longer have to be feared Ever since 1961, cholesterol has been established in the dietary warnings developed by the American Heart Association. Years later, the federal government adopted the guidelines a,h these guidelines, a single yolk of an egg contains 200 milligrams leaving only a small amount to spare. (1,2) As a result, eating habits among Americans have shifted. Per capita egg consumption dropped about 30% and the egg farmers' business suffered. In addition, through various studies, the scientific community still remains divided due to differential research conclusions. (1) It is still unclear what the final decision for the new guidelines that will be due by the end of this year. According to Reuters, Dr. Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, stated that there is not enough evidence to make a good recommendation yet, however, "no evidence doesn't mean the evidence is no." (2) For a long while, fats were feared and the guidelines established with cholesterol levels came as a result. It is unfortunate that the myths of cholesterol is actually harming people's health since biologically cholesterol is one of the most important molecules in the human body. It's vital for building of cells, and producing vitamin D, stress, and sex hormones. (3,4) Over the years, the recommendation for low-fat, low-cholesterol, and cholesterol lowering medications including statins, has been doing more harm than good. (3) When viewing cholesterol, one must consider the following:
    1. Vital for health. Cholesterol is found the body cells, which helps produce cell membranes, hormones, and bile acids, as well as in the bloodstreams. It helps the skin convert sun into vitamin D. It also insulates the nerve cells and protects brain health.
    2. No such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol. Cholesterol is divided into two parts HDL and LDL, containing lipoproteins, which are fats combined with proteins. Rather, there are "good" or "bad" lipoproteins and large LDL particles can be harmful causing damage and inflammation. It's good to focus on raising HDL levels.
    3. Focus on food quality. Replace processed foods with whole, plant-based foods. Stop obsessing on low-fat or no-fat foods and increase healthy consumption of fats. Optimize your vitamin D levels with sun exposure or good quality supplements. Consume plenty of fermented foods to keep your gut healthy. Get plenty of exercise (a good way to get more sun exposure is to go outdoors). Avoid statin drugs. And if you must, consume meat and eggs that come from organic, grass-fed sources. (5)"

Though this 180 degree turn by the health pundits can cause some outrage among consumers, it is better late than never. The erstwhile "guidelines" seem to have helped the pharmaceutical industry which have been hawking its Statin formulations to unsuspecting consumers based on certain maximum levels fixed arbitrarily by safety agencies few years ago.Between 1994 and 2006 massive promotion of statin drugs brought down the high cholesterol population (65-74 age bracket) from 87% to 54% in the US but did it bring down the number of people dying because of CVD? Absolutely not! It remained almost the same! However the statin industry world over increased their business reaching $ 29 billion per year at present. Probably most people taking statin drugs regularly may not need them at all but massive promotions, motivated or well financed scientific "findings" put out by the industry and unwary physicians have contributed this euphoria or mysteries about cholesterol! Will the 200 mg maximum limit under the present guidelines continue to be held as "sacred" as before? Probably we will have to wait to achieve unanimity on this issue before throwing our much revered statin drugs from the medicine chest at home.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Is glycemic index of foods becoming irrelevant? Some think so!

Ever since the Glycemic Index (GI) and Glycemic Load (GL) concepts became acceptable for differentiating carbohydrates in terms of their ability to release glucose into the blood and the pace at which blood glucose spikes after food consumption, no serious challenge was made against it. Now comes a report originating from the reputed National Institute of Health at Bethesda, USA (NIH) indicating that for a normal person GI and GL do not make much difference in spawning heart disease, blood pressure and diabetes. According to this new findings, high GI foods do not cause these diseases and on the contrary low GI foods can increase insulin insensitivity which is not desirable. Original GI innovators who pioneered the study in 1988 ultimately coming out with the GI yardstick, do not seem to be agreeing to the conclusion of the latest NIH study and here is this issue discussed threadbare.

The idea that all carbohydrates are not created equal has become the foundation of many popular diets. Some argue that foods like white bread and potatoes, which have a high so-called glycemic index because they spike blood sugar and insulin, should be avoided in favour of  healthful carbs like whole grains and non-starchy vegetables. But rigorous new research from the National Institutes of Health suggests that for people who already follow a healthful diet, the glycemic index (GI) may not be very important. The study found that diets containing low glycemic foods did not lower cholesterol compared to diets containing mostly high glycemic foods. Nutrition experts argue that low glycemic diets improve blood sugar levels and insulin sensitivity. But the new study found that low glycemic diets actually made insulin sensitivity worse. "The dogma out there is that a high glycemic index is bad," said Dr Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association, who was not involved in the research. "I hope that ultimately the glycemic index will be left on the shelf." Developed in 1981, the glycemic index reflects the extent to which carbohydrate-containing foods raise a person's blood sugar and subsequent need for insulin. The idea is that low glycemic foods are better for health, warding off diabetes and weight gain, because the carbs they contain are digested at a slower rate. The glycemic index indicates how quickly a particular carbohydrate raises blood sugar, but not how much of it is in a typical serving of a given food. So proponents of the index have also come up with another system, known as glycemic load, which takes portion sizes into account. Last year, a committee of scientists led by the chair of the Harvard School of Public Health called for glycemic values to be included on food labels and emphasised in dietary guidelines. The committee said it was crucial that the public understand the glycemic response to foods "given the rapid rise in diabetes and obesity." In the new study, researchers wanted to find out whether diets that were similar in calories and carbohydrates but composed of either high or low glycemic foods had different effects on cardiovascular health. So they recruited 163 people who were mostly overweight and had high blood pressure, putting them at greater risk of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. The subjects were rotated through four diets for five weeks at a time, with all of their food provided to them. The researchers said they devised each diet to be heart healthy, with plenty of fruit, vegetables, beans, fish, poultry, lean meat and grains. Two of the diets were slightly higher in carbs than what an average American eats, and two were slightly lower. Researchers then altered the types of carbs they contained. The low glycemic diets included things like whole grain bread and cereal, apples, steel-cut oats, and non-starchy vegetables. The high glycemic diets allowed things like white bread, carrot and bran muffins, instant rice and instant oatmeal, and sweet snacks like honey, bananas, and apricots in heavy syrup. When the overall amount of carb intake was lowered, cardiovascular risk factors like cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure moved in the right direction. But when two diets had similar amounts of carbs and calories, the low glycemic approach did not improve insulin sensitivity, cholesterol or blood pressure levels. Unnecessary fuss over GI Dr Frank M Sacks, the lead author of the study and a professor at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, said that other trials carried out even longer had reached similar results. He said that people should eat whole grains, fresh produce and high fibre foods because of the nutrients they contain. But unless someone has diabetes and must monitor their blood sugar levels, people who are already following a health-ful diet do not need to worry about the blood-sugar impact of one type of fruit or grain versus another. "The takeaway is a good message for people," he said. "They can pick foods that are part of a healthy dietary pattern without wondering if they're high or low glycemic. They don't have to learn that system." The developer of the glycemic index, Dr David Jenkins, a professor of nutrition at the University of Toronto, added that the study was limited because it did not include people with Type 2 diabetes, a rapidly growing population that has the most problems with blood sugar control. "If they had done that," he said, "they would have made it easier to see some of the cardiovascular benefits."
It may be recalled that there have been demands from some section of the nutritionists about the urgent need to declare GI of each food on the label as they feel that provides an option to the consumer to select low GI foods. But if the latest study is confirmed and there is unanimity among the peers regarding the limited role GI plays in life style diseases for a normally healthy person, including GI values may have opposite effect viz such foods' potential to worsen insulin insensitivity. The rider contained in the study in NIH that their findings apply only to those consuming a "healthy" diet regularly makes it again controversial because most Americans do not have the habit of eating such foods containing predominantly whole food grains, fruits and vegetables. If this is so are they not better of sticking to low GI foods? Of course ideal thing would be to change the diet to include more and more high fiber foods derived from unrefined grains and fruits and vegetables. GI and GL definitely will play a role in the lives of people affected by Type II diabetes as it is essential for them to prevent glucose spikes for which low GI foods are a better bet.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE NEW CHOLESTEROL PHOBIA-WHY THIS AGRESSIVENESS?

The multi billion dollar Statin industry must be elated by the latest recommendations from an expert panel in the US regarding compulsory screening of children for high triglycerides and cholesterol in their blood to detect early signals for development of obesity.  It is true that in the US the single most critical health issue today is the wide scale prevalence of obesity with one third of the population obese and another one third over weight based on the yardstick of Body Mass Index ( BMI). If Statin industry has reached where it is now generating billions of dollars of business, thanks are due to the aggressive program of lipid profiling of the adult population pursued as an annual health check up effort. The present attempt to expand the lipid screening to young kids is a logical extension of the efforts of the industry to ramp up its financial health at the expense of the citizen! The fact that some of the members of the medical panel that made the above recommendations have had financial connection with drug industry raises the needle of suspicion regarding the intent of this exercise. Here is an analysis of this latest development vis-a-vis cholesterol screening in the US.    

"Moreover, the recommendations are based on expert opinion, rather than solid evidence, the researchers said, which is especially problematic since the guidelines' authors disclosed extensive potential conflicts of interest. The guidelines were written by a panel assembled by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute ( NHLBI) and published in Pediatrics, in November 2011. They also were endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The guidelines call for universal screening of all 9 to 11-year-old children with a non-fasting lipid panel, and targeted screening of 30 to 40 percent of 2 to 8-year-old and 12 to 16-year old children with two fasting lipid profiles. Previous recommendations called only for children considered at high risk of elevated levels to be screened with a simple non-fasting total cholesterol test. The call for a dramatic increase in lipid screening has the potential to transform millions of healthy children into patients labeled with so-called dyslipidemia, or bad lipid levels in the blood, according to the commentary by Thomas Newman, MD, MPH, Mark Pletcher, MD, MPH and Stephen Hulley, MD, MPH, of the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and e-published on July 23 in Pediatrics. "The panel made no attempt to estimate the magnitude of the health benefits or harms of attaching this diagnosis at this young age," said Newman. "They acknowledged that costs are important, but then went ahead and made their recommendations without estimating what the cost would be. And it could be billions of dollars." Some of the push to do more screening comes from concern about the obesity epidemic in U.S. children. But this concern should not lead to more laboratory testing, said Newman. "You don't need a blood test to tell who needs to lose weight. And recommending a healthier diet and exercise is something doctors can do for everybody, not just overweight kids," he said. The requirement of two fasting lipid panels in 30 to 40 percent of all 2 to 8-year olds and 12 to 16 -year- olds represents a particular burden to families, he said."

Cholesterol is considered a villain in most heart disease and build up of this chemical in the arteries leading to atherosclerosis is considered a direct consequence of reckless eating habits evolved in wealthy countries like the US. Vast agriculture subsidies and skewed government food policies have spawned a whole generation of cheap but highly unhealthy foods to which the citizens have ready access while healthy foods like fluid milk and fruits and vegetables are priced out of the reach of the common man. Over eating of meat and related products rich in cholesterol practically every day makes the cholesterol induced "crisis" a formidable one to manage. Recent attempts by the government, though belatedly and half-heartedly to make one day a weak meat free was sabotaged by the meat industry fearing a slide down of its fortunes. The obsession with pre-empting possible diseases during early childhood which is characteristic of the American system seems to have driven the latest proposal of lipid screening for children. But the over weight does not develop over night and those with a tendency with increased BMI only need to be tested sparing most kids the trauma of lipid profiling process unnecessarily. One can only hope that better sense will prevail with the US government eventually after considering the pros and cons of implementing the latest recommendations.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

HDL CHOLESTEROL BENEFITS UNDER THE SCANNER-A PERPLEXING SCENARIO

Cholesterol is a dreaded word for many people because of its perceived association with atherosclerosis and heart attack.  Some people are aware of the differentiation between High Density Lipoproteins (HDL) and Low Density Lipoproteins (LDL). Lay man recognizes HDL as good cholesterol and LDL as its bad cousin, with the latter causing heart disease. Even many physicians advise their clients to work for increasing the HDL level as high as possible imagining that it can protect the heart. There are millions of dollars of investment riding on the above hypothesis to develop drugs that can boost HDL levels in the blood though no appreciable success has yet been achieved. Against such a background comes an earth shaking finding that a high HDL level need not be a guarantee against heart disease and those with high HDL inherited genetically cannot be considered as less prone to heart attack. Here is a take on this new revelation which seems to have turned the clock back regarding the current knowledge about the role of lipo proteins on human health.   

"Now, a new study that makes use of powerful databases of genetic information has found that raising HDL levels may not make any difference to heart disease risk. People who inherit genes that give them naturally higher HDL levels throughout life have no less heart disease than those who inherit genes that give them slightly lower levels. If HDL were protective, those with genes causing higher levels should have had less heart disease. Researchers not associated with the study, published online Wednesday in The Lancet, found the results compelling and disturbing. Companies are actively developing and testing drugs that raise HDL, although three recent studies of such treatments have failed. And patients with low HDL levels are often told to try to raise them by exercising or dieting or even by taking niacin, which raised HDL but failed to lower heart disease risk in a recent clinical trial. "I'd say the HDL hypothesis is on the ropes right now," said Dr. James A. de Lemos, a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Michael Lauer, director of the division of cardiovascular sciences at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, agreed. "The current study tells us that when it comes to HDL we should seriously consider going back to the drawing board, in this case meaning back to the laboratory," said Dr. Lauer, who also was not connected to the research. "We need to encourage basic laboratory scientists to figure out where HDL fits in the puzzle — just what exactly is it a marker for." But Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who is helping conduct studies of HDL-raising drugs, said he remained hopeful. HDL is complex, he said, and it is possible that some types of HDL molecules might in fact protect against heart disease".

The million dollar question is whether high HDL level in blood is maintained due to good health or lower level of HDL heralds changes that lead to heart associated problems. It looks like HDL may not be a sure marker any more for insurance against heart disease while LDL certainly is a marker for bad health. Probably the present approach to cholesterol management will undergo dramatic changes if the above findings are confirmed by future studies. One question that naturally arises out of this development is whether the multi billion dollar Statin drug industry is going to be adversely affected. According to the authors of the above study, it is always healthy if LDL levels are controlled and those who cannot reduce the same will have to resort to drug intervention using Statins.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ANOTHER "MIRACLE" FRUIT WITH FABULOUS CLAIMS!

Weight watching and cholesterol reduction are two of the most discussed health issues world over and the multi billion dollar food supplement industry strives on them. While Statin drugs have created a gigantic industry offering hope for millions of people suffering from hypercholestremic symptoms, there are hundreds of other edible food supplements not going through the medicinal route claiming super performance for improving health. One such supplement, if one may call it so, has hit the headline recently with a claim that it is a "bullet' for weight reduction and no one is really sure whether it is really effective at all. African mango, also commonly known as bush mango is spawning a new line of products which is claimed to reduce weight as well as cholesterol dramatically. Here is a report on its emergence as a miracle fruit for those afflicted by obesity and high blood cholesterol levels.

"A short search for African mango tablets reveals hundreds of sales sites in the U.S. and beyond brashly extolling the virtues of the supplement, which costs around $40 per bottle. But is there any truth behind its miraculous claims? Two studies by Judith L Ngondi and colleagues at the University of Yaounde in Cameroon, published in the Journal of Lipids in Health, support the hype, their data apparently showing the seeds to cause significant weight loss and improve blood flat levels. In a 2005 study, the team studied 28 volunteers, comparing weight loss over four weeks between a group who were given a placebo and a group who were given African mango supplements. Taken before meals, three times a day, the study reported that those who took the African mango supplement lost 5.3% of their body weight, while the control group only lost 1.3%. According to Dr IV van Heerden at Health24.com: 'Considerable reductions in total blood cholesterol (39.2 per cent), triglycerides (44.9 per cent) and "bad" LDL cholesterol (45.6 per cent), were obtained in the treatment group. At the same time, "good" HDL cholesterol levels in the group receiving African mango, increased by 46.9 per cent.' A repeated experiment in 2009 used a more highly developed extract from the African mango seed, IGOB131, and studied its effects on 102 individuals over 10 weeks. Dr can Heerden said: 'The treatment group lost more weight, had improved blood fat and glucose values, lower blood pressure, and other markers of the metabolic syndrome (e.g. lower leptin levels)."

Though there is much hype about this fruit, still there does not appear to be adequate evidence either on its efficacy or safety. Of course as a traditional food supplement consumed by folks in Cameroon there can be some leeway in assessing its safety. But it is necessary that large scale clinical trials are carried out to confirm its credentials as an anti-obesity food supplement. Scientific assessment should also bring out, if it is really effective as claimed, regarding the mechanism of its functioning in the body. "Scavenging" the cholesterol from the body is a property associated with almost all dietary fibers and in what way the fiber from this fruit functions differently needs to be elucidated. Also not clear is the role of many other components in the fruit in bringing out the beneficial functions, if at all there is any.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

HEART AILMENT-A NEW INSIGHT

"Heart attack" is commonly perceived as a result of cholesterol build up on the arterial walls due to excessive consumption of fatty foods, especially the ones rich in saturated fats. But what causes the cholesterol to stick to the arterial tissue is not that well understood. The routine testing of blood cholesterol levels and assessing the value against some notional ranges are considered adequate to conclude whether some body is vulnerable to heart attack or not. Also the relationship between circulating cholesterol and the extent of plaque build up inside the artery is obscure. The argument by a few experts that inflammation is the cause of cholesterol build up inside the arteries is not universally accepted though there is some logic in this proposition. Following is an excerpt from the writings of the reputed cardiac surgeon Dr Dwight Lundell, forwarded by one of the readers of this Blog, Mr Thomas Mathai from Mysore which is quite informative though for a layman it can be some what confusing.

"The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice. It Is Not Working! These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible. The discovery a few years ago that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ailments will be treated. The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences. Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before. Statistics from the American Heart Association show that 75 million Americans currently suffer from heart disease, 20 million have diabetes and 57 million have pre-diabetes. These disorders are affecting younger and younger people in greater numbers every year.Simply stated, without inflammation being present in the body, there is no way that cholesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease and strokes. Without inflammation, cholesterol would move freely throughout the body as nature intended. It is inflammation that causes cholesterol to become trapped".

All said and done, it is common sense that if one lives a life of moderation, the possibility of acquiring any of the life style disorders is indeed remote. A balanced diet containing just enough calories to meet the demands of day to day activities, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals and dietary fiber as evolved over a period of time and avoiding sedentary life style can be expected to maintain the correct BMI and provide reasonable guarantee against serious health ailments as one grows. Overwhelming predominance of factory processed foods over natural foods like whole grains, fruits, vegetables and others can pose a serious challenge in maintaining health in a prime state.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

OATS-AN OVERHYPED FOOD?

Oats, by virtue of the presence of the soluble fiber, beta glucan and low saturated fat has been cleared for making claims about its potential to reduce risk of heart diseases. Pepsico's Quaker Oats Company used to include on the label that it can give guarantee for reducing cholesterol if consumed at the level recommended by them within 30 days. But the manufacturer seems to have carried away by the response from the consumers and started making grossly exaggerated claims which have come to haunt the company

Taken to the courts for these unsubstantiated claims, it sought to settle the case by agreeing that "Quaker will no longer describe its oatmeal as a "unique" whole grain food that "actively finds" cholesterol and removes it from the body, and will no longer display a graph that greatly exaggerated the cholesterol-lowering potential of oatmeal. Under current FDA regulations, products low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in soluble fiber are able to claim that they reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. The fiber contained in whole oat is called beta-glucan soluble fiber, and is found in oat bran, rolled oats and whole oat flour".

It is amazing how industry giants can influence the decisions by the regulatory bodies like FDA, as reflected by the clearance being given to oats with even higher fat content than hitherto permitted to make the same claim!. A look at the studies on cholesterol bashing power of oats, brings out the stark reality that most of the studies were of limited duration not exceeding 8 weeks, the decrease is not dramatic achieving about 3-5% reduction in total cholesterol, the daily consumption has to be above 60 gm and there is no proof it can go down further by prolonged consumption. Of course there is no denying the fact that regular consumption of oats may not do any harm.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com