“Reduce your intake of cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat.”
“Use more polyunsaturated fats.”
“Move more and eat less.”
“Oats are heart healthy.”
“Follow a balanced diet.”
“Eat more healthy whole grains.”
Well, add yet another “proven” statement of purported nutritional fact to this sad list of nutritional blunders: “Red meat is a carcinogen,” as was concluded by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. Release of this analysis prompted the usual over-the-top headlines and exaggerations, such as NPR’s Alison Aubrey (a staunch defender of the dietary status quo) claiming that “The conclusion puts processed meats in the same category of cancer risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos.”
By now, I hope that you have acquired a healthy skepticism about any piece of advice that originates from “official” providers, as well as the dramatic headlines that follow. Such misguided advice has, in past, ignited huge growth in the processed food industry (e.g., corn oil, high-fructose corn syrup, pasta, low-cholesterol and low-fat products) and has made a major contribution to creating the worst epidemics of autoimmune disease, senile dementia, type 2 diabetes, and obesity ever witnessed in the history of the world–not reduced risk, but increased risk. A big part of the blundering is due to the fact that many in the nutritional world worship this false god of science: observational epidemiology. The crude observations generated via epidemiology, no matter how big the population studied, no matter how consistent, cannot be used to establish cause and effect. This is not my opinion; this is scientific fact.
Such wrongheaded cause-effect declarations are not unique to nutrition; similar mistakes have been made in healthcare, such as the widespread prescription of horse urine-sourced estrogens–“hormone replacement therapy,” or HRT, such as Premarin–because of apparent reductions in cardiovascular disease initially observed in epidemiological studies. Subsequent randomized, double-blind studies proved the apparent epidemiological benefits entirely untrue–HRT actually increased heart attack risk. Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories, articulated this principle well in a New York Times article back in 2007:
“The catch with observational studies like the Nurses’ Health Study, no matter how well designed and how many tens of thousands of subjects they might include, is that they have a fundamental limitation. They can distinguish associations between two events — that women who take H.R.T. have less heart disease, for instance, than women who don’t. But they cannot inherently determine causation — the conclusion that one event causes the other; that H.R.T. protects against heart disease. As a result, observational studies can only provide what researchers call hypothesis-generating evidence — what a defense attorney would call circumstantial evidence.
“Testing these hypotheses in any definitive way requires a randomized-controlled trial — an experiment, not an observational study — and these clinical trials typically provide the flop to the flip-flop rhythm of medical wisdom. Until August 1998, the faith that H.R.T. prevented heart disease was based primarily on observational evidence, from the Nurses’ Health Study most prominently. Since then, the conventional wisdom has been based on clinical trials — first HERS, which tested H.R.T. against a placebo in 2,700 women with heart disease, and then the Women’s Health Initiative, which tested the therapy against a placebo in 16,500 healthy women. When the Women’s Health Initiative concluded in 2002 that H.R.T. caused far more harm than good, the lesson to be learned . . . was about the ‘disastrous inadequacy of lesser evidence’ for shaping medical and public-health policy.”
But only in nutrition have such observational epidemiological studies served as the basis for widespread nutritional policy, over and over again, despite that fact that such studies can rarely establish cause-effect associations. (The exception would be when the association is so powerful and consistent that it becomes virtually obvious and indisputable, as with smoking and lung cancer and heart disease, with relative risk as much as 30-fold over non-smoking, not the sorts of tiny percentages typically observed in nutritional studies.) As Taubes points out, such studies can only suggest an association, an hypothesis that needs to be proven by other means. Crafting nutritional policy based on observational epidemiological studies is therefore hazardous, as borne out by such advice as “cut your fat and eat more healthy whole grains.”
The small increase in colorectal cancer seen in such observational epidemiological studies of about 17% are meaningless–small differences that can easily be attributed to confounding factors that accompany the primary behavior (eating red meat). The people who consume the most red meats also tend to lead somewhat different lifestyles: less vegetables, less fiber, more booze, etc. The data also do not distinguish factory farm-sourced meats with different fatty acid composition, greater potential for intermittent antibiotic content, and other factors, but lump them all together.
This is the perennial Achilles’ heel of epidemiology: such studies, by design, cannot identify a cause, particularly when the connection is small or tenuous. In the majority of studies cited in the IARC Monograph, such as the 470,000-participant EPIC Study, much of the excess risk associated with red meat consumption was attenuated by fiber intake. (Unfortunately, no study has examined specifically the role of prebiotic fibers in attenuating the purported risk from red meats, not just all forms of fiber–my prediction: all the excess risk that appears to come from red meat consumption disappears with cultivation of bowel flora with higher prebiotic fiber intake.) Interestingly, this EPIC Study, the largest ever performed on this question, did not show any increased risk of colorectal cancer with beef consumption, only pork.
An experiment to once and for all answer this question would be logistically very difficult: randomly select people to either eat red meat ad lib and a matching (age, sex, other habits, socioeconomic status, etc.) group that eats no red meat, then both followed for an extended period of, say, 5 to 10 years, and compare which group fares better. Thus, the crude, non-cause-effect-generating epidemiological observations are used to craft opinion and policy–but they should never have been used in this fashion in the first place. And none of us should be driven to take action by such a misleading pronouncement nor the dramatic headlines that misinformed, scientifically naive journalists like Ms. Aubrey broadcast.
Dr. Peter Attia, a champion of clear-thinking and science in nutrition, has written eloquently about the misinterpretations/false conclusions that are the rule in nutritional advice based on observational epidemiology:
“I trust by now you have a better understanding of why the ‘science’ of nutrition is so bankrupt. It is based on almost a complete reliance on these observational studies. Virtually every piece of nutritional dogma we suffer from today stems from – you guessed it – an observational study. Whether it’s Ancel Keys’ observations and correlations of saturated fat intake and heart disease in his famous Seven Countries Study, which ‘proved’ saturated fat is harmful or Denis Burkitt’s observation that people in Africa ate more fiber than people in England and had less colon cancer ‘proving’ that eating fiber is the key to preventing colon cancer, virtually all of the nutritional dogma we are exposed to has not actually been scientifically tested. Perhaps the most influential current example of observational epidemiology is the work of T. Colin Campbell, lead author of The China Study, which claims, ‘the science is clear’ and ‘the results are unmistakable.’ Really? Not if you define science the way scientists do. This doesn’t mean Colin Campbell is wrong (though I wholeheartedly believe he is wrong on about 75% of what he says based on current data). It means he has not done any real science to advance the discussion and hypotheses he espouses.”
Now go roast up a good steak or hamburger, but just have it with some asparagus and lentils.
Thank you for commenting on this matter… My thoughts as soon as I heard this slandered all over the news was, “What will Dr. Davis say?”
Could you comment also on your feelings on bacon, sausage and other meats that they were correct on by reporting those meats contain chemicals we shouldn’t be eating? I have been eating more bacon and have developed migraines from it so that’s another thing I personally have to limit or avoid.
Lori Lei wrote: «…bacon, sausage and other meats that they were correct on by reporting those meats contain chemicals we shouldn’t be eating?»
Wheat Belly Total Health, pages 151-152 discusses this, and counsels to avoid cured meats, and added nitrites in particular (not to be confused with nitrates).
Processed meats can present a great many issues, including (in no particular order):
▼ wheat flour or wheat gluten
▼ sugar, often lots of sugar
▼ MSG or other added glutamates under various aliases
▼ second hand antibiotics
▼ second hand growth hormones
▼ second hand pesticides
▼ preservatives
▼ food coloring
▼ pathogens (sausage is often not from the choice cuts of primo critters)
Salt and nitrates are typically not a problem. Nitrates may be listed as “celery juice” due to ease of confusion with nitrites.
You can reduce exposure to these hazards by seeking organic uncured pastured. Ignore any claim of “all natural” – it’s not just meaningless – it usually means you’re being scammed. If they mean “organic” and/or “non GMO”, they’d say so.
« I have been eating more bacon and have developed migraines from it…»
MSG?
For bacon, consider buying plain side pork.
Avoid processed meats until you become an ingredients list ninja. Even then, the FDA allows all sorts of mischief under the vague terms “natural flavors” and “spices”.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
I make my own sausage , using ground pork, and the spice combination that I modified from one that I googled. It is easy to mix up, then shape into a log and freeze.
I bought pork belly from the butcher, and smoked my own bacon. The recipe called for sodium nitrate, but only 1 teaspoon, so I just left it out. I modified a Stephen Raichlen recipe, and used less sugar.
Greentree wrote: «I make my own sausage…»
That’s definitely the way to go, ideally using your own animals, or wild game harvested by you.
For those who want even more to worry about with processed meats (and meat mimics that aren’t supposed to contain meat), today’s internet click bait buzz traces back to this site:
http://www.clearfood.com/food_reports/2015/the_hotdog_report
“Human DNA found in 2% of samples”
is getting a lot of attention. Some of that might be merely sample contamination by the techs.
“We found evidence of chicken (in 10 samples), beef (in 4 samples), turkey (in 3 samples), and lamb (in 2 samples) in products that were not supposed to contain those ingredients.”
It would have been nice if they’d reported on things found other than meats, but all we get for the moment is…
“10% of Vegetarian products contained meat.”
Oops.
“4 of the 21 vegetarian samples we tested had hygienic issues.”
Hmmm.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
What Bob said. Most commercial sausage has sugar and MSG. Most commercial bacon has sugar. Avoid these ingredients at all cost.
Also, robust consumption of very fatty meats relies on extremely low carb intake from other food sources. Try ingesting pure meat and fat, and no other foods for maybe 4 or 5 days. See what happens. Oh, and take as much magnesium as you need.
«And none of us should be driven to take action by such a misleading pronouncement nor the dramatic headlines that misinformed, scientifically naive journalists like Ms. Aubrey broadcast.»
This appears to be a case of simulated science by press release, so of course they are going to exploit reporters devoid of critical thinking skills.
The full paper does not seem to be available. The link above is pay-walled. The Lancet news article, at: http://www.borntoeatmeat.com/uploads/6/3/6/9/63692505/piis1470204515004441.pdf
bears the misleading title “Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat”, but when you read it, they can only show “sufficient evidence” for PROCESSED meat (and have only vague speculations on the cause – and there are more suspects than they list).
On RED meat, the article admits “Chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with the same degree of confidence for the data on red meat consumption, since no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies and residual confounding from other diet and lifestyle risk is difficult to exclude.”
So yes, the crucial questions of what red meat, how raised/fed/medicated/finished, how processed, how prepared, and in the context of what diet, are apparently not addressed, much less answered. Guilt by association must be some new form of science.
I’m sure they were disappointed with having to admit that “difficult to exclude”, given that at least one vegetarian zealot was reportedly on the panel.
I don’t understand how William Davis advocates eating saturated fat is satiating. He never seems to cite studies to back up his claims. Also, do Shirataki noodles fill you up much? Do they trigger any sort of satiety hormones or are beneficial when eaten plain for example? There’s nothing in the way of fibre or anything according to the nutrition label.
Devin wrote: «I don’t understand how William Davis advocates eating saturated fat is satiating.»
What statement are you referring to? The base article here doesn’t contain anything on that, and I can’t find any quotes that say that about saturated fat.
«Also, do Shirataki noodles fill you up much?»
Which kind? The kind based on konjac root, or the kind based on fermented soy?
The konjac kind are pretty much just prebiotic fiber. The soy kind are nutritionally like tofu.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
He’s advocated eating saturated fat in previous articles and seems to imply it in this article with his opening quotes and paragraph. I was referring to the shirataki (miracle) noodles, not the soy kind. I was wondering if they would do anything to make you feel full as I can’t see that they have anything in them at all based on the nutrition information on the package. Every column is “0”. No fibre.
D wrote: «He’s advocated eating saturated fat in previous articles and seems to imply it in this article with his opening quotes and paragraph.»
The Wheat Belly approach recommends eating specific fats, including saturated (and avoiding several types of fats, and moderating fat intake for certain uncommon phenotypes). Sat fat isn’t ranked any higher or lower than the other recommended fats, as far as I know.
I haven’t personally looked at any literature on macronutrients and satiety, but a quick poke around the web finds ample disagreement on the matter. Many of the studies are hopelessly confounded by the test foods employed or overall diets used. Did you want to advance a specific argument on this?
«I was referring to the shirataki (miracle) noodles, not the soy kind. I was wondering if they would do anything to make you feel full as I can’t see that they have anything in them at all based on the nutrition information on the package. Every column is “0”. No fibre.»
See: https://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/09/ginger-chicken-stir-fry-over-shirataki-noodles-for-prebiotic-fibers/
Konjac root / glucomannan products aren’t metabolized by human enzymes at all, as far as I know. Prior to the gut flora going to work on them, I suspect the only thing they might contribute to feeling full is physical volume.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
The konjac root noodles are an excellent “pasta” to use. I use them whenever I want a way to hold sauce. For example, Dr. Davis has an excellent recipe for carbonara sauce in his Wheat Belly book. Your favorite meatballs and spaghetti dinner is now doable in a grain free manner. I even dusted off my Italian Cookbooks and started using many recipes again because the noodles make a good foundation for the meal. They are also a good alternative to spiralized vegetables.
The noodles don’t have much in the way of flavor. I like to wash, rinse and quickly stir fry in a hot pan with or without any fat. This seems to form a “crust” and a good mouth feel. The noodles absorb the flavor of the sauce.
The pre-biotic fiber is a big plus as well.
SHIRITAKI noodles don’t fill you up but when mixed into a stir fry or used as a substitute to pasta in a dish they work fine and I don’t gain weight or feel hungry as the other ingredients fill me up.I always gained 2 lbs on any day I ate pasta.SHIRITAKI noodles also don’t bland the taste of the other ingredients the way pasta does. I wouldn’t eat them plain but I also disliked plain spaghetti.
If you want “noodles” for some reason, there are a lot of different replacements, including spaghetti squash (see Nom Nom Paleo’s latest recipe), and vegetables cut into noodles with a spiralizer. We use the latter, and they’re great.
As for saturated fat, the evidence that it causes heart disease is basically nonexistent. Really. The Women’s Health Initiative was the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed, costing almost half a billion dollars. The women in the test group reduced their overall fat intake, their saturated fat intake, ate more fruits and vegetables, and ate less calories than the women in the “placebo” group, yet at the end of 8 years, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in ANYTHING (heart disease, cancer, you name it). To me, that should end the debate about saturated fat.
Also, I eat wheat free and low carb. I also eat as much fat as possible per day (try to average 70% fat), and that fat is based on animal fat. I do not eat vegetable oils (and even limit olive oil). I mainly eat whole foods, but do eat some luncheon meats and sausages. But then the Germans eat a TON of processed meats (breakfast is luncheon meats and cheese; lunch and dinner are sausages), and are quite hale.
I think what these studies are measuring are people who eat horribly, don’t exercise, etc., and comparing those against people who eat well, exercise, make more money, etc. There are too many variables to boil this down to “processed” meat (and note that often “processed” meat includes things that aren’t even “meat”).
BobM wrote: «I think what these studies are measuring are people who eat horribly, don’t exercise, etc., and comparing those against people who eat well, exercise, make more money, etc.»
When this particular WHO/IARC crusade got funded, they had an opportunity to zoom in on specific factors that raise risk of cancer. Something useful might have been learned. What we got instead was just enough muddled meta analysis, that could feed careful spinning, to support the vegetarian dogma they went in with, resulting in some breathless but bogus press propaganda.
For those watching with a critical eye, this report further damages the credibility of these organizations, and makes their other recent pronouncements suspect.
For the general public, it just adds to food fright/fad fatigue, and makes it more difficult to persuade them that diet really does matter.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
I have been following the Wheat Belly method of eating for a few years now. Yes, eating high fat, low carb has helped me loose the weight that counting calories could not. And I feel great. However, after reading this article and all the recent articles on WHO’s declaration that red meat is possibly cancer causing, I have this to ask you: Is the Wheat Belly method, and or the high fat/low carb diet scientifically proven, or is it also only based on observational epidemiological studies? Has the high fat and low carb diet hypothesis ever been put through a randomized controlled trial? Has the hypothesis been scientifically proven?
Michelle wrote: «Yes, eating high fat, low carb has helped me loose the weight that counting calories could not. And I feel great.»
And I’ll bet your labs confirm that. When diet dogma is incorrect, how many dissident clinical anecdotes does it take to become a convincing statistic?
« Is the Wheat Belly method, and or the high fat/low carb diet scientifically proven, or is it also only based on observational epidemiological studies?»
Both Wheat Belly books (the original and Total Health) are extensively footnoted, mostly to cites from the lit. You can follow them up if you like, but you will have to learn how to read nutrition papers (see more below).
«Has the high fat and low carb diet hypothesis ever been put through a randomized controlled trial? Has the hypothesis been scientifically proven?»
If we had unconfounded unambiguous trials of that sort, we’d be citing them, and this:
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/
would not be necessary
(and don’t get your hopes too high on those – on at least one, the co-principal investigator is an LCHF skeptic and lately ran a very expensive trial that appeared specifically designed to prevent learning the real answer).
Getting back to …
«…all the recent articles on WHO’s declaration…»
Mass media reports on anything having to do with health generally, but nutrition in particular, are quite likely to be no more reliable than the random output of drunken monkeys at keyboards.
Their only value is if they include a link to the original paper, or enough description of it to lead to that paper, which in present case, none do.
Independent reports about reports may have some value if the reporter has a record of knowing how to read papers, and has skeptically reported on many in the past.
If the original paper is pay-walled, assume it is fatally flawed, merely false, or fraudulent. It’s usually not worth paying to discover that your assumption is correct, and the paper is not.
If you can read the paper, you’ll need to learn how to read papers:
– funding sources
– conflict declarations
– raw data relied on not available to anyone else (big fraud red flag)
– clinical trial, observational study or just chewing on old confounded data?
– or worse, just doing meta analysis of other papers and not their raw data
– new confounding factors (consensus “control” diet being a big one)
– sample sizes too small
– participant-reported diet details (or worse, recalled from past)
– placebos and controls that aren’t
– “low carb” and/or “high fat” cohorts that aren’t, or are loaded with adverse junk
– trial duration too short
– tenuous correlations that are very likely not any part of the actual causation
– rodent data only
I wouldn’t be surprised if 82% of general health science reports are worthless, and the number for nutrition specifically is even more discouraging.
So in the meantime, we consider the dissident diet arguments, explore those making credible arguments, and promising measurable near-term results, and then measure those results.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
I always thought these “studies” were bogus.
You can prove that marathon runners have more knee injuries than non-runners.
You can prove that smokers are more likely to get lung cancer.
You can prove that alcoholics are more likely to destroy their liver.
You can prove that people with celiac cannot eat wheat.
You can prove a lot of things.
But how in the heck to you prove that someone with colon cancer (typically over the age of 50(?) had a 17%(!) higher chance of getting it because he ate more hot dogs than the average person over the course of 50years? Like everyone can give an accurate count of their hot dog and other cured meat consumption in their lifetime. And what else did these people eat?
Absolute unadulterated BS.
Well, the WHO just this morning said the “entire world” is probably suffering herpes……is there a drug treatment or vaccine against it now – otherwise why bring it up? Or is it the testing they’re after?
Anyway, I believe that just about all of the usual commenters on LCHF came out yesterday. The entire statement put out by the media yesterday was a farce and terribly misleading. But take heart, next week they’ll come out with another.
Dr. Davis, I picked up a small volumne by Kate Rheaume-Bleue, B.Sc., ND. called “Vitamin k2 and the Calcium Paradox. How a Little Known Vitamin Could Save Your Life.” I noted your critique was very complimentary and she quoted you in several places, as well as Taubes and others. This should be in everyone’s collection to reference from time to time.
I too make my own sausage. I pick out a pork roast about 8-9 lbs. and have the butcher leave the best looking fat for about 80-20 ratio. It all but melts in your mouth and tastes like a pork steak. The cost of spices will kill your budget though, but they’ll good ones, no fillers.
Neicee wrote: «…WHO just this morning said the “entire world” is probably suffering herpes……is there a drug treatment or vaccine against it now – otherwise why bring it up? Or is it the testing they’re after?»
They may be lobbying for some money to throw at a vaccine:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/29/health-herpes-idUSL8N12S4RY20151029
There is as yet no cure for HSV-1 or -2, just drugs to sort-of manage it.
«Anyway, I believe that just about all of the usual commenters on LCHF came out yesterday. The entire statement put out by the media yesterday was a farce and terribly misleading. But take heart, next week they’ll come out with another.»
They will, but the encouraging thing is that the blogosphere response time has shrunk from weeks to hours on these periodic Red Meat Scares.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
It looks like this pile of WHO poo is getting the somber contemplative attention it merits:
http://theunaustralian.net/2015/10/28/two-pigs-dressed-as-a-doctor-the-source-of-bacon-cancer-study/
Another well-constructed study to scare people from eating saturated fat:
“What food your good gut bugs like, and what they hate” by Drs. Oz and Rosen. This article appeared in “The Record”, Bergen County, NJ on Tuesday, November 3,2015.
Though the article is about Probiotics, they did mention saturated fat as a “dislike”. So an abbreviated form of the article except for saturated fats is quoted below:
Likes
Beans, tofu and quinoa . . .
Dark chocolate . . .
Chewy produce . . .
Onions, asparagus, raspberries and more . . .
Yogurt and fermented foods
Dislikes
Emulsifiers . . .
Refined and processed grains . . .
Saturated fats: That’s the fat in meats, full-fat milk, cheese, butter and icecream. A large and well-constructed lab study from Sweden’s University of Gothenburg shows that whether it’s the fat or just the stuff with the fat – carnitine in red meat, for example -foods with saturated fat encourage the growth of detrimental bacteria called Bilophila, Turicibacter and Bacteroides. And that leads weight gain and messed-up blood sugar.
Fast food . . .
While eating the meat “encouraged the growth of detrimental bacteria” they didn’t talk about the good bacteria destroying the detrimental bacteria.
.
Zeffrey Rodrigues wrote: «…by Drs. Oz and Rosen.»
Article not found by searching (which is probably why you didn’t provide a link ☺).
Which Dr. Rosen is that? Dr. Oz we’re already familiar with. I suppose if I watched Dr. Oz, I’d know.
«Dislikes … Emulsifiers»
This blip appeared on the Wheat Belly radar as a bogie (not yet a confirmed bandit) about 6 months ago:
https://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/04/the-battle-for-bowel-flora/
Got a link for the Swedish sat fat vs. gut bugs study? I’d like to see it.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
I forgot I had digital access to the article. Here is the full article from the Record. I mispelled Dr. Roizen’s name.
Article rank
3 Nov 2015
The Record (Bergen County)
DRS. OZ AND ROIZEN
What foods your good gut bugs like, and what they hate
Next time you open the fridge, remember that you’re not eating for just one. You’re also feeding the 100 trillion bacteria that call your digestive system home — and help control your weight, heart health, blood sugar, immune system and even your moods.
Your goal: Nurture the good gut bugs and keep the detrimental types in check. Probiotic supplements can help, but a growing stack of research proves that what you eat has enormous power over your inner world. Here’s the latest on what the good gut bugs like (and despise) for dinner:
Likes
Beans, tofu and quinoa: A pot of three-bean chili, curried tofu and a veggie stir-fry over protein rich quinoa are great alternatives to meat, and your gut bugs will thank you. In a 2014 study, people who substituted fiber-rich plant foods for red meat and fried foods doubled their amount of bacteria that produce inflammation-cooling butyrate in just two weeks.
Dark chocolate: Have a 1-ounce square for dessert, paired with your favorite fruit. Gut bugs love munching on the fiber and polyphenols in dark cocoa, Louisiana State University scientists say. “The good microbes, such as bifidobacterium and lactic acid bacteria, feast on chocolate,” one of the researchers says. “When you eat dark chocolate, they ferment it, producing compounds that are anti-inflammatory. When these compounds are absorbed by the body, they lessen inflammation of cardiovascular tissue, reducing the long-term risk of stroke.”
Chewy produce: The cellulose in the chewy stuff like carrot skin, broccoli stems and asparagus ends is an insoluble fiber that good gut bacteria thrive on. Get more by scrubbing carrots instead of peeling them and by grating tough veggie stalks for use in salads or coleslaw. Crunch on cruciferous goodies like broccoli, kale, cabbage and cauliflower several times weekly; they contain glucosinolates that gut bugs convert into cancer-fighting compounds.
Onions, asparagus, raspberries and more: These plant foods are great sources of a “prebiotic” fiber called fructans (your good-for-you gut bacteria ferment the fructans and then dine on that). Other fructan-packed foods include artichokes (Jerusalem and regular) and leeks. You’ll also get some in pears, bananas, watermelon and nectarines.
Yogurt and fermented foods: Yogurt with live active cultures is a great way to introduce more good bacteria into your digestive system. So is kefir, a fermented dairy drink.
Dislikes
Emulsifiers: Processed-food ingredients with tongue twisting names like carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80 keep ice cream smooth and prevent mayonnaise from separating. But research suggests these emulsifiers may affect gut bugs in ways that boost inflammation and raise your risk for weight gain, heart disease and diabetes.
Refined and processed grains: Skipping white-flour foods — one of the Five Food Felons — could help you nurture good gut bacteria. Some experts say coarse whole grains are best, a good reason to enjoy brown rice, barley or oatmeal daily. Or try polenta.
Saturated fats: That’s the fat in meats, full-fat milk, cheese, butter and ice cream. A large and well-constructed lab study from Sweden’s University of Gothenburg shows that whether it’s the fat or just the stuff with the fat — carnitine in red meat, for example — foods with saturated fat encourage the growth of detrimental bacteria called Bilophila, Turicibacter and Bacteroides. And that leads to weight gain and messed-up blood sugar.
Fast food: In an informal study that made headlines, a 23-year-old U.K. college student working on a dissertation project ate fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 10 days — and his gut bacteria took a big hit. A steady diet of burgers, fries, sodas and chicken nuggets wiped out onethird of the diversity in his gut-bug community (a problem, because a good mix of different bacteria is important for balance and health). Levels of inflammation-cooling bifidobacteria fell 50 percent, and up went a type of gut bug linked with obesity, bacteroidetes, according to a Kings College London researcher (father of the young man).
Zeffrey Rodrigues wrote: «I mispelled Dr. Roizen’s name.»
Ah, that would then be Dr. Michael Fredric Roizen (RealAge diet, now apparently merged into Oz’s sharecare site, which is a confusing mess of largely consensus dogma, and the expected Ozian food fright/food fad of the week).
On the Swedish lard paper, would it be this one?
Crosstalk between Gut Microbiota and Dietary Lipids Aggravates WAT Inflammation through TLR Signaling
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815%2900389-7
I looked at the extended PDF, and I’m not sure what to make of the whole thing.
Their conclusion is “We showed that the type of dietary fat is a major driver of community structure, affecting both the composition and diversity of the gut microbiota.”
When I look at papers like these, one of my first questions is: in the context of what diet?
Firstly, it’s mice, and results require some care when extrapolating to humans.
Next, the details of the diets are not even in the main paper, which only states that the diets were identical (irradiated, isocaloric) except for 45% of calories from fish oil vs. lard.
You have to look on page 21 of the extended paper to find such detail as we get. The diets were 20% protein (all from casein) and 34% carbohydrate (all from junk carbs: sucrose, maltodextrin, corn starch). 5.6% of the fat in both diets was soybean oil. This is not a diet that strikes me as supportive of a healthy microbiome (or any other kind of health, for that matter).
The paper is silent on the sourcing of the corn starch, soy and lard. Anyone curious about possible effects from pesticide uptake, microbiome-adverse GMOs (e.g. Bt), and CAFO residue in the lard (antibiotics, hormones), will not find any clarity.
So has this trial anything material to say about typical amounts of lard in human diets? Doubtful. But we can confidently count on the gullible press to parrot it as “fish oil good, mammal fat bad”.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)