Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall
Jeff,
Thanks for sharing.
This report is part of a broken record, like squeezing water out of an old wash rag lying in the desert.
A few observations:
1. The omega-3 DHA and EPA fatty acids possess anti-inflammatory activities among other 'favorable' health effects. But these benefits have been shown only in highly focused out-of-context studies.
2. However, in human studies, evidence for these 'benefits' is quite variable, inconsistent and generally mixed at best.
3. To my knowledge, virtually all of apparent benefits have been obtained for people consuming pro-inflammatory Western type diets typically high in omega-6 fatty acids, fat, protein and refined carbohydrates. The ratio of omega 6:omega 3 in these diets may be as high as 30:1 or more, thus creating a very high pro-inflammatory environment.
4. When the 6:3 ratio is so high, it is reasonable that this is when the supplementary anti-inflammatory omega-3 effect might be seen.
5. The ideal ratio of omega 6:omega 3 is about 2:1 that is typical for a low fat, whole food, plant-based (WFPB) diet (10-12% fat). I know of no evidence that omega-3 supplementation has any beneficial effects for the WFPB dietary lifestyle.
6. For subjects on a pro-inflammatory Western diet, a massive meta-analysis of 89 cohort and randomized clinical trials published 7 years ago(1) concluded that " long chain and shorter chain omega-3 fats do not have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer." Indeed, increased risk for cancer (although only of borderline statistical significance) "could not be excluded".
7. In a similar pro-inflammatory 'Western diet' prospective cohort study of nearly 3 million person-years of follow-up published in 2009(2), a highly significant (p<0.001) increasing trend in type 2 diabetes risk was observed with increasing omega-3 supplementation. Even individuals consuming omega-3 rich fish 5 or more times per week showed a highly significant increased risk of type 2 diabetes (p<0.001) when compared with individuals consuming fish less than one time per month.
My conclusion:
Why is so much effort and money still being spent to find, if possible, health benefits for omega-3 fat supplementation? Even more to the point, these efforts mostly concern out-of-context investigations of individual biomarkers of early disease risk where results are variable and inconsistent.
Why are these massive summaries of findings (along with more recent summaries) being ignored? Is it because lots of money is being made by selling these supplements?
http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/supplements.aspx#DHA
http://krilloil.mercola.com/krill-oil.html
Why is it that people who promote and sell these products also have a tendency to say that a WFPB diet may have important nutrient deficiencies or that it is difficult to follow? Are these sentiments linked?
It is my opinion that people who do this are participating in a serious public health scam and are able to do so because of their unquestioning faith in reductionist science. It is time that these fraudulent practices are challenged.
Colin
T. Colin Campbell
Jacob Schurman Professor Emeritus
of Nutritional Biochemistry
Cornell University
Refs
1. Hooper L, Thompson RL, Harrison RA, Summerbell CD, Ness AR, Moore JJ, Worthington HV, Durrington PN, Higgins JPT, Capps NE, et al: Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer:systematic review. Brit Med Journ 2006, 332:752-760.
2. Kaushik SV, Mozaffarian D, Spiegelman D, Manson JE, Willett W: Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, fish intake, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr 2009, 90:613-620.
JeffN wrote: Earlier this week, the NY Times featured an article saying that the produce available in the supermarkets today was inferior and to get all the benefits, we had to eat "wild" plants
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opini ... =all&_r=1&
"The message to eat more of our current vegetables and fruits is not enough – we must also select the “right” varieties, including blue corn, arugula (pictured) and wild foods like dandelion greens, for best health."
Today, the American Institute of Cancer Research (mentioned earlier in this thread), which has authored the largest and most comprehensive report on cancer and diet ever, responded.
http://blog.aicr.org/2013/05/29/nutriti ... eating-it/
Quoting...
"I love seeing the heirloom purple carrots, blue potatoes and dark red apples in farmer’s markets and even in some grocery stores. And it’s a dietitian’s dream to see people eating a wide variety of deep and colorful fruits and vegetables.
But right now, most Americans are not eating even the minimum recommended amounts of any kinds of veggies and fruits – a total of about 3-4 cups per day. A 2009 report from the CDC shows that barely one-third of U.S. adults consumed fruit two or more times per day and only about one in four reported eating at least three servings of vegetables per day.
And the evidence is clear: eating plenty of those basic supermarket varieties of vegetables and fruits and other plant foods like grains and legumes link to reduced risk for many cancers, according to AICR’s expert report and its updates. These plant foods also help people get to and stay a healthy weight, and excess body fat is a cause of seven different cancers."
This response is inline with my earlier comments in this thread about how much it takes to meet and easily surpass the recommended amounts shown to be beneficial if someone is following the guidelines and principles recommended here. It is also directly inline with my article on "Super Foods."
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Newsletter ... Foods.html
In Health
Jeff
PS: Of course, be careful, because the next food trend we will see, is all these wild varieties turned into junk food and grocery stores and health food stores will be featuring fried wild blue corn chips.
Jeff Nelson wrote: "Absolutely nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned with people knowing all fruits and veggies aren't created equal. I am not trying to bash or rain on any parades!
I'm just saying that kale is wonderful, but iceberg isn't junk food, and to prove the point it was served daily at Pritikin and everyone who went through that program got well.
There is, I think, a trap in the plant-based world, which is the idea that "more is better." If a nutrient is good for you, more or even a whole lot more must be better. But is that true?
Remember that the foundation for why we all appreciate today how healthy a plant-based diet can be are the programs like Pritikin, PCRM, McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn, Kempner, Morrison and so forth, which published a lot of studies. And all of these programs used conventional produce that people got at regular old supermarkets. Not one of the programs focused on super foods, or super varieties of foods. None of them advised eating wild foods for health reasons. In fact, they all served normal Cavendish bananas regularly, and still do. And the people in those programs and in those studies, they completely reversed hypertension, metabolic syndrome, CVD, diabetes, etc. etc. -- even those who went into their programs seriously ill.
In terms of iceberg lettuce, Jeff Novick did a great job exploding the common myth about the nutritional value and worthiness of iceberg lettuce, that iceberg is to be avoided. No, iceberg is actually very good stuff, read his full piece at:
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... nsity.html
And remember that Dr. Esselstyn says one of the benefits of plant foods in regard to CVD is their nitrate content, which helps increase nitric oxide, and is a very significant benefit of eating this way.
Well, according to this review study/report
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/689.pdf
the average nitrate level in curly kale was 537 mg/kg -- but iceberg lettuce was 875 mg/kg, leaving kale in the dust!
So just in terms of proper perspective and relative importance, I personally think Jo Robinson's reporting on the "most nutritious" bananas is interesting, but for people trying to be healthy and live life, it's apparent to me that whether someone eats a Cavendish or a "more nutritious" banana, it's not going to have any meaningful difference, at least none that can be shown. So to me it's important since not everyone is as sophisticated as experts like you, to remind people that this is just a theoretical, possible benefit that is being discussed, but not any actual proven benefit.
Now if we wanted to show there were a benefit to super-foods and "wild foods," and we wanted to show it was true, we'd need to take at least 100 people who are on the SAD and are sick, put half of them on, let's say, Esselstyn or Pritikin diets, and the other half on the same Essy or Pritikin diet except the second group has to use only "wild" bananas or kale or special super-nutritious foods, or whatever "high quality" choices someone has written a book about and show this group does better.
Of course this has never been done, and won't be, but the odds of there being any difference between the Essy group eating his diet, and one which substitutes the "super-food" version of the same diet is about .01% at best, I would venture. And even then it's probably a benefit only in people with some sort of genetic predisposition in some way.
The more people think they have to buy fancy supplements or eat special breeds of bananas or only the "most nutritious" berries or whatever, you run the risk of making people say, "Oh, this is a bummer because I like to eat bananas on my oatmeal" or "You just ruined bananas for me!" as people on this string did say. Now they maybe were kidding, but some people may see your post and think, "Wow, you mean it's not enough to eat a healthy plant-based diet out of my supermarket like Pritikin, McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn and the rest did to get results? You mean I have to now start spending time looking for special bananas in order to be totally healthy?" And I think we can agree the answer is No, you don't. Not at all. There is no research showing eating wild bananas will improve your health or extend your life over eating a Cavendish.
This looks like an interesting book and interesting information, but you can reverse your heart disease and live a long time using iceberg lettuce and regular old bananas. That's been solidly proven in the literature. If you're traveling or busy, you don't have to trouble yourself to get special hard-to-find or expensive super-foods. And you can eat basic old sweet potatoes as the foundation of your diet, like the long-lived Okinawans have done and many still do, and research shows you are maximizing your health and chances of living a long time.
I have often thought about why people fail with a veg diet, which the casual observer will attribute to lack of meat and dairy.
I think it is two things:
1. Junk food- just because it's vegan doesn't mean it's healthy. Junk food is junk food, whether or not dead animals were involved.
OR
2. Micro managing micro nutrients- Becoming obsessed with super foods doesn't help either and can be very fatiguing.
They are opposite ends of a spectrum, but they are traps that I have fallen into.
I have taught for years, so I know that the fundamentals are fundamental because they must be repeated over, and over, and over ...
Thank you so much for your patient persistence in teaching what matters most!
If you take a group of people who do not meet the 5 Healthy Lifestyle Characteristics and are eating an unhealthy diet most likely low in many nutrients, and you give them a few servings a week of a healthy food fairly rich in nutrients, they will do better. No Doubt! And, we will see this impact regardless of whether it is a few more servings of kale, broccoli, blueberries, acai berries, walnuts, brown rice, etc etc. That is because this food will have a positive impact on their poor diet. And, that is why we see this in the news all the time about broccoli, kale, cauliflower, carrots, walnuts, etc etc etc.
But, that means absolutely nothing at all to anyone already consuming a diet that consists predominately of a variety of unrefined, minimally processed plant foods rich in fruits and vegetables. Where is there any evidence at all that adding another few servings a week of kale, blueberries, or walnuts to such a diet, has any effect?
There is none because it doesn't exist. The only evidence is when it is added to a poor(er) diet.
Truth is, using the above approach of adding several servings a week of a fruit or vegetables to a poor(er) diet, all and any fruits and veggies could be shown to be super foods. If they tracked broccoli intake, they would find it increases lifespan by X%, carrots extend life by X%, and so on and so on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests