Its that time of year in which we wave goodbye to the sunlight, although we don't actually get to see a lot of it in the summer either. Unless we are really lucky and work flexible hours or have an outdoor job we must face the fact that we simply won't be getting as much sun as we'd like. I've promoted the need to take our lunch-breaks outside for many years now and I still recommend you get outdoors for some fresh air and natural light whenever possible. 

Its a sad fact that winter brings with it an increase of cancer cases to my email inbox. No doubt some of you have been touched by cancer so this article may be of use to you or someone that you know. 

A study is the first to show that vitamin D's genomic and nongenomic effects use one simultaneous pathway and integrate to regulate cell physiology. Big words I know but take it from me, vitamin D is a big player when it comes to the big C.

Sources:

• Science Daily November 26, 2008

• Journal of Cell Biology November 17, 2008; 183(4):697-710

Nowadays we avoid the sun like the plague for fear of skin cancer despite little correlation between the sun being the main factor that causes skin cancer. We excessively use of sunscreen despite its carcinogenic nature. Research has shown that if vitamin D levels were increased, around 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented worldwide each year.

Vitamin D, known as “the sunshine vitamin,” is also a hormone precursor that influences your entire body. Vitamin D receptors have been found in pretty much every type of human cell, from the brain to the bones. Talk about essential!

Vitamin D:

• enhances calcium absorption
• inducing cell differentiation
• increasing cancer cell apoptosis or death
• reducing metastasis and proliferation
• reducing angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels, which promotes tumor growth)
• downregulating parathyroid hormone (PTH)
• up- or downregulating gene expression

The health benefits of NORMAL vitamin D levels (by normal I mean optimally balanced) are fantastic and put simply its "FREE." Yes you can take supplements (and from time to time I have recommended them for specific cases, but for the majority we can make a huge difference by just engaging in outdoor activity (walking etc).

Winter D levels range from 15 to 18 ng/ml which indicates a serious deficiency as the optimal range is thought to be between 50 and 65 ng/ml. In this range you will be able to store the vitamin in your tissues, below this range you simply use it as quickly as it’s created.

Some research suggests that level between 65-90 ng/ml are a factor in cancer protection but this ultimately depends upon on such factors as skin pigmentation, body mass index (vitamin D is fat soluble), age, condition of digestive tract, other dietary factors, etc.

If you're dark skinned you may need more sun exposure than someone whose very fair, you may need less. Although theirs not much chance of getting a tan here in the UK at the moment, always aim for a pink hue. Any more than this you cannot store anymore and will likely burn, which obviously isn't good.

An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, revealed supposedly encouraging results with regard to surgery that alters the digestive tract. They found it can reverse diabetes in 77% of obese patients, high blood pressure in 62%, and lowered cholesterol in 70%. However, the study was funded by Johnson & Johnson, who make instruments used in the surgeries, not like they have a vested interest in finding something positive though is it!!

The procedure in the UK cost's £8000, and the number performed has increased 10-fold over the last decade.  The National Bariatric Surgery Registry (yes it really exists), point out the fact that diabetes costs the NHS £3,000 per patient a year for life. Kind of makes the £8,000 cost of bariatric surgery seem like a bargain. Sadly the National Wealth Service (NHS) is neither good at treating diabetes or helping with weight-loss, its all about balancing the books rather than balancing the scales. 

For those wanting a quick fix, surgery's downsides are often ignored as the big business of selling slimness steamrollers ahead. The JAMA study's authors didn't include the rate of surgery complications in their research. Malnourishment (since the stomach is reduced substantially), infections, rate of deaths (both during surgery and through long term malnourishment, check out this post on the subject) all lead to some serious issues that surly make it a very risky path to go down.

The cost of surgery vs. the year of diabetes care (£8000 vs. £3000 a year) assumes the surgery is a one of cost and fails to take into account follow-up visits, dietitians appointments to deal with malnourishment, diabetes appointments (it won't magically disappear), X-rays, further surgeries and much much more... 

The view that surgery is an "easy way out", simply isn't true. Despite all the health risks, even with reduced stomach, a patient can still eat poorly and gain weight. One thing you should know from my previous posts, is that cutting down on calories will just spike hunger. You may managed a considerable amount of time with little food but your bodies safety mechanisms will make sure it gets the energy it requires eventually (the reason behind yo yo diets). Nutritional deficiencies such as osteoporosis, anemia, hypothyroid, decreased circulation and temperature, skin disorders and a long list of other conditions occur after such a drastic option. 

If I take a typical patient that I've consulted with over the years, they may suffer a degree of hypothyroidism. This may be caused by a dysfunctional liver that can't produce the enzymes that help the pancreas function, leading to problems with insulin and thyroid function. 

It may seem like the use of bariatric surgery is the only option and its popularity will grow as the public seek an easy way out and business seeks a way to make profit. Just remember buyer beware as this doesn't come with a money back guarantee. 

Vegetable eaters have been on the radar for a few weeks now, ever since I got twitter spammed (mmm, processed meat) by a vegan that said he had proof that "animal fat kills." Unsurprisingly, rather than back down and admit no such proof exists he's just faded away. So, the truth is...meat in moderation won't kill you. Its all about the context in which we consume it, if we live of spam you'd expect some ill health, equally if you live of nothing but nuts, seeds and veg you can still expect to suffer ill health. Variety is the key to diet, I don't advise anyone to become a caveman and gnaw on raw meat, but I equally don't recommend people (especially the sick/weak) try and live on raw veg.

Why do people avoid eating meat? Throwing aside the religious factor, their are a few reasons why people decide to go meat free.

Health Beliefs: This one has often been educated by another meat avoider. Or they read a book (or watched a video) and believed what they read. Remember belief can be very dangerous, do not trust anyone else's word, especially if they have something to sell. They'll spout off about "fat" being a killer and talk about ill health from the modern diet (lots of processed food) while pointing the finger at a natural product (meat). They'll rant on about the dangers of cholesterol and then look stumped when told that breast milk is incredibly high in cholesterol (it needs to be).

Moral Belief: Self-righteous and often condescending, they really think they are a better person than you and they want to tell you all about it. They often lecture on about animal cruelty, but sadly have no answer to the fact that trying to convince people to give up meat is human cruelty. They also get stumped when asked if they are allowed to eat tomatoes (which eat insects).

My motto is live and let live, I won't attempt to tell anyone what to eat, I even discuss it with my clients rather than lecture them. Do not trust a vegetarian who tells you they do it because it is healthier to avoid animal products and sources high in fat. A vegetarian. So yes, do eat more fruit and veg, but do not live on that purely in the belief that it will make you healthy. 


Eat a variety of foods, get the best quality that you can, limit processed foods as much as is possible. Cook at home so you know what goes into it, and don't demonize food groups. Most of all, if someone disagrees with you, don't try to convert them. Save your energy (you'll need it if your on a restricted diet) and let them get on with it.


Final thought is that its slightly ironic that when veggies do crack its normally for bacon, which in my opinion is the worst meat you could possibly eat (aside from spam).

Tomato soup is a great winter warmer. As you know soup or a salad tends to be what I have for an evening meal when I tend to avoid meat (my main meat meal is my lunch). My favorites include French Onion and Vegetable Soups, but classic Tomato Soup is a family favorite in most homes. So, here is how I make it, like most of my recipes its perfect for any adaption you require. Feel free to add your comments with you

Tomato Soup 

Ingredients 

• 2 tomatoes, chopped (or 1 can of chopped tomatoes)
• 3/4 cup extra virgin olive oil
• A little salt if you fancy it although I don't bother with it. Do not use sea salt!!
• 1 small carrot, diced
• 1 onion, diced
• 2 cloves garlic, chopped
• 1 bay leaf
• 1/4 cup chopped fresh basil leaves
• 1/2 cup cream (optional)
• Parmesan cheese (optional)

Directions

• Preheat oven to 200 degs. 
  
• Strain the tomatoes, and put the juices aside, and spread onto a baking sheet, season with salt if your using it (not sea salt though).
  
• Drizzle with 1/4 cup of the olive oil and roast until caramelized, about 15 minutes.
  
• Meanwhile, in a saucepan, heat remaining olive oil over medium-low heat. 
  
• Add the carrot, onion and garlic, cook until softened, about 10 minutes. 
  
• Add the roasted chopped canned tomatoes, and reserved tomato juices. 
  
• Simmer until vegetables are very tender, about 15 to 20 minutes. Add basil and cream, if using. 
  
• Puree with a hand held blender until smooth.
  
• Eat.

Crime scene, do not cross if your a vegan and likely to be put off your tomatoes!!

Its not me bragging about my mediocre cooking skills (although I like to show that making homemade food doesn't need to be a complicated or lengthy process).
Botanists have discovered that plants can be carnivorous predators who kill insects to "self-fertilise" themselves.

Research shows that Tomato Plants trap and kill small insects with sticky hairs on their stems to allow them to absorb nutrients through their roots when the animals decay and fall to the ground.Wow, plants aren't even vegan!!

Its long been known that carnivorous killer species exist in far flung regions of the world but they are also right in our allotments.

Garden favorites such as the petunia, as well as some varieties of potatoes and tomatoes all have blood on their leaves.

The researchers, publishing their finding in the ‘Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society’, said: “We may be surrounded by many more murderous plants than we think."

“We are accustomed to think of plants as being immobile and harmless, and there is something deeply unnerving about the thought of carnivorous plants," they added.Well, that really throws things up in the air for veganism, should they also now avoid particular plant food if it has been living of insects? Tricky one really!!

Is a raw diet that good for you? While its almost undeniable that some raw natural food is good for us, our ability to digest them is dependent upon the state of our digestive system. Would I contemplate putting someone who is "unhealthy" on a raw diet? No I wouldn't because they would struggle to digest it properly. 

Many plant foods are inedible in their raw state due to the anti-nutrients that damage human physiological processes. Alkylrescorcinols, alpha-amylase inhitors, protease inhibitors, etc are all anti-nutrients that must be broken down by cooking before they can be eaten safely. Beans and legumes in general whilst rich in carbohydrate and protein, also contain protease inhibitors. The starch in cereals such as wheat, rice, barley, oats, and rye is also inedible in quantity unless cooked. Without being cooked it is less digestible by pancreatic amylase. 

A vegan asked me last week if I would eat meat in its raw state, whilst I rarely do (I prefer to make life easier for my digestion in this modern world), the fact is I could, I have and I would. Meat, which can be digested in its raw state, where as vegetables are hard to digest and often toxic when eaten raw. Cereals become more digestible when fermented and cooked to neutralise the phytic acid and other toxic anti-nutrients. 

Without this preparation we can often see a rise in conditions such as asthma, eczema.

Over the past week or so we've taken a look at the myth that animal fat kills. Hopefully after viewing the lack of evidence you're realising its nothing but a myth, and that you have nothing to fear. Most people don't view the world through statistical evidence, our brains evolved to deal with an immediate threat, as such our decision making is usually based upon an emotional response  rather than factual evidence.

Stories and myths hold true to most of our emotions, being told that animal fat is bad and then having stories told about how Dr X found fat in arteries proves nothing but it does feed the fear amongst us. Remember Dr X would of probably be cutting open an individual that has eaten many many things (processed packet foods, sweets, sugar, soft drinks etc etc) and not just animal fat. Trying to back up a myth with supposed evidence, (remember its just I think, not I know) just plays into the hands of our emotions and we unconsciously join up the dots.

Sadly, for most of us anyway, we forget to ask for actual evidence. The moral of the story, if anyone tells you a food based story, check the facts.

Over the years I've worked with a lot of people with alcohol addiction. The most important one (in my opinion anyway), was myself. I was teetotal from 1976 right through to about 1999, and then I had a few years go awol as the demon drink took over. Then a few years later I became a health freak and stopped instantly once again. Nothing beats Asperger's for an ability to start or stop something, as soon as I became obsessed with health their was no way I'd continue drinking and I swapped it for a wine gum habit instead.

Over the years I've noticed a lot of similarities in those troubled by alcohol. I say troubled because I don't want to come across as the party pooper, if you enjoy alcohol and don't find it causes problems in your life, go for it. A lot of people who seek my advice mention alcohol because it's hindering their life. From weight loss to health problems it can be a hindrance to many.

The first thing I noticed back in ye olde days (back when I worked in the place where people equate weight lifted or hours on the treadmill to health...yes the gym) I noticed that when people engaged in low calorie diets, 2 things usually happened. 

1. They always caved in and it nearly always centered round alcohol
2. Their temperature always dropped. Women in particular would complain of being cold despite the temperature being reasonable.

Over the past few years I've begun correlting a great deal of data on temperature and pulse rate (courstesy of Dr. Broda Barnes and "The Great Raymundo", Dr. Ray Peat), what struck me from the data I collected was that the more someone engaged in a ridiculous diet, the more the temperature dropped. The worst case I saw last year was a vegetarian who'd litterally backed herself into a corner and had given herself a full-on eating disorder from worrying so much about "health" foods. She was like a block of ice with a pulse to match anything from the living dead.

Eating such little food caused her pancreas to malfunction because her liver was no longer able to work properly. The systematic flow of glycogen just wasn't available for the pancreas to do its job of producing insulin, alcohol, and thyroxin. Yes thats right folks, as well as producing insulin (the obvious one), and thyroxin (for the thyroid - is it any wonder these dieters hit plateaus), it also manufactures booze!!!

When insulin production is irregular to say the least, we suffer lowered brain function because of oxygen deficiency (ever had a foggy head). As some of you know, this is one of the many things I'm testing you (if your my client) for, glucose spillage into the urine indicates a problem.  

If your not getting enough thyroxin production, this coupled with a low sugar levels would lead to an inability to absorb potassium from the food, and weight gain begins to occur.  

We know (or I do anyway) that when the alcohol production is increased, temperature is increased and we become warm pretty much all of the time. I had a funny moment earlier this year when one of my favorite clients (**** I'll add his name if he doesn't mind) told me that his his wife had passed comment that he always used to be warm. I'd long suspected that my client was undernourished and I had all the evidence I needed for him to start repairing his liver and pancreas (which he is doing an excellent job of as we speak). Equally when our alcohol level goes down, our heat goes down and people tend to feel cold all of the time. Just by using a few simple tests I can guess what they are feeling like and what organs aren't functioning optimally. Women tend to eat calorie controlled meals more than mean do, and they also seem to suffer with the greater prevalence to cold than men.

So Dr. Watson, I conclude that those who engage in low calorie diets (remember most diets end up as low calorie when people run out of things to eat), tend to suffer from hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemics don't make enough alcohol, thus they often crave it. 

If your trying to kick the habit, make sure you get adequote glucose and check your temperature. If you get the metabolism working effectively the urge to drink often disappears and you can return to social drinking for pleasure rather than because you can't stop yourself.

Don't let yourself get hungry, if your blood sugars drop you'll crave alcohol. If your making frequent bathroom trips to pee or you've noticed a temperature drop (check previous posts for how to record it) get yourself a piece of fruit or some other glucose containing food/drink asap.

For more thourough investigations contact me using the contact page.

Over the past week we've been discussing scientific accuracy, and while their is no doubt that sick people get healthy when they change their diet in any positive way. Its how we deduce what the positive changes were that comes under scrutiny.
Everyone has a story to tell when they finally ditch their fast-food lifestyle.  

Over the past week we've come up against the statement " animal fat kills" which can't be backed up with any statistically significant evidence. The whole plant based diet vs. animal food diet is more often than not based on a faulty argument. Their is no doubt that a diet of whole, unprocessed plant foods (natural foods) are far more nutritious than the typical a low-nutrient standard UK or American diet (SAD). The argument that animal fat (or even meat) kills wilts (plant based pun) when you consider that they usually base their argument on a SAD diet and not an unprocessed diet of natural animal products mixed with plant based foods.

Testing plant diet” against the “Standard American diet” and coming to the conclusion "animal fat kills" isn't really fair is it? Is it fair to consider steak in the same class as cake? So it seems that a great deal of the research out their that is used to demonize  animal fat is actually refering to the SAD. Kind of SAD that they interchange things to suit the research. Our industrialised nation does consume meat, but we also eat a lot of toast, teacakes and hoover down crisps like they are some sort of legal high. Non industrialised nations such as the Masai, traditional Inuit (not the ones who have adopted western diets), and many others, are free from disease despite consuming animal products. Seems to me that the smoking gun is more likely to be held by the SAD.

Another popular vegan source of evidence is Dr Caldwell Esselstyn and his heart-disease-reversal diet. However, he recommends a massive reduction in all fat, not just animal fat. Wow, that means eliminating nuts, seeds, avocado, olives, and many other plant fats. Wow, he thinks that any dietary fat damages the endothelial cells and promotes heart disease so its an ultra low fat diet. Holy cow, what can a vegan eat then? Surely a tomato is ok???

Esselstyn advocates a diet that eliminates:

• Anything with a “mother or a face,” including meat, fish, and poultry 
• All dairy
• All nuts and avocados
• All oils, such as soybean oil, olive oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, canola oil, and anything else with “oil” in the name
• All solid fats like margarine and butter
• All foods—whether pre-made or prepared at home—that contain even a drop of added fat
• Any grains that aren’t 100% whole. According to Esselstyn, this includes eliminating “multigrain, cracked wheat, seven-grain, stone-ground, 100 percent wheat, enriched flour, or degerminated cornmeal”

Is the modern processed diet that is low in nutrients but high in calories (the fabled empty calories), really the thing that vegan's escape from when they change their diet? Or in fact is this the trap that we all escape from when we change our diets, no matter in which direction we turn? I really think it is, if we follow Gillian McKeith our bodies will breath a huge sigh of relief when it finally gets a break from the SAD. Does this mean animal fat was a killer? No it doesn't, it means the diet you've swapped to is ultimately healthier than the junk laden diet you formally consumed. Would you get the same results swapping to eating a mixed diet that contained naturally raised meat. Well considering the thousands of Paelo types that testify that they feel good, we'll have to assume they do get the same results. 

The "C" word is a popular swear word with plant food fans...I've been called it this week so I should know, damn me and my inability to fall in line. Luckily their is another "C" word that we can discuss.

Yep Cholesterol, nasty nasty natural cholesterol the natural and essential substance that is essential for human survival (oh yes it is) due to its important biological functions.

In the 80's we were told that dietary cholesterol from animal foods such as meat, eggs, and dairy products, tended to stay in the bloodstream and collect as plaque on the inside of our blood vessels to cause of coronary artery disease. That was the 80's though so research has moved on and so have we, oh wait some people are still stuck in the 80's.

Cholesterol in our body is regulated in relation to what we ingest from food. If we ingest too much (pretty hard to do) then our body slows down its cholesterol production, equally if we don't consume enough the body will manufacture more. Yes you read that right, our bodies naturally produce this so called "toxic" substance. Weird how our own body would try and poison us!! Unless its all a myth and cholesterol is actually essential to life. Check out this paper if you still believe dietary cholesterol is harmful.

I saw a great quote earlier in the week, sorry I can't reference it (I just can't remember whose blog I saw it on. It went something like this;

"A vegan lifestyle involves continuous animal abuse and cruelty. One has to ignore and override the 911 calls from the animal most intimate to us, our own body. Eating the nutrient dense red meat of ruminants is what made us large brained humans. Eating a diet that is contrary to our biochemistry and evolutionary history, is loaded with toxins anti nutrients for some generally abstract concepts leads me to regard the vegan lifestlye as a mental illness."


While the quote is very strongly worded from the opposite camp, (team paelo) it does have a point. Even a tomato eats bugs which means to be truly vegan you need to avoid tomatoes as well as a host of other plants that need some protein. With no evidence to back up the "meat is bad" argument it seems that they only case for veganism is personal choice (which we all should have), and because we don't like cruelty to animals. I hate animal cruelty but I'd like to point out a few factors;

Vegan's that buy vegan dog and cat food are being cruel to animals that need their natural diet.
If your deliberatly cutting something from your diet on a belief basis, surely that may count as cruelty, especially if you push it on others such as the case of this little ex vegan, or these shocking cases.

We have the freedom to follow whatever diet or beliefs we want, (and so we should) however, the moment we start preaching (and for my old mate Gazza, preaching doesn't just have religious meaning) we either need to back it up with "statistically significant" data or get the best indemnity insurance you can.

To conclude, eat whatever you want, its your choice. Just don't push your views on others without being asked. I'm sure most of you would be disgusted if I tried to push my views on the benefits of Hagen Daz Vanilla Ice Cream onto you wouldn't you?? 

Almost a week ago we heard from a vegan with the outlandish claim that "animal fat kills." Not context was added to the statement such as "if a ton of lard falls on top of you then it (animal fat) will kill you", or people eat too much factory farmed dirty grain fed meat and it contributes to disease amongst many other factors", or even "animal fat may be a factor in disease alongside such things as sugar, processed foods, sedentary lifestyles etc etc." Nope we got a point blank statement of "animal fat kills", which I find pretty offensive to say the least.

We've been all round the houses, changing the subject and so forth. Anything to hide the fact that the statement is nothing without proof. And as we've discussed before, correlation does not equals causation.

Anyway, while we wait for the data to show up lets look at some more nazivegan propaganda. Remember, 95% of vegan's are nice people, its just the ones on a crusade that you have to watch, their a probably just as many paelo (I was accused of being paelo yesterday) types that preach about eating meat, but for the most of it these two camps just live their lives doing what they believe in.

The lipid hypothesis 
Their is plenty of controversy about the lipid hypothesis; low fat diets, low carb-high protein diets, the government approved food pyramid, vegan, veggie, weight watchers, breathatariens, and anything else that you can think of in the food and nutrition field. The similarity is they all claim to be the answer but its not that easy to just uncover the truth.

As my site always states, do not make medical decisions or changes (i.e., in your meds or diet) without consulting your a professional, at the same time never trust anyones word and always read things for yourself. As you may not be adept (or even interested hey Jane haha) in reviewing papers I like to do a little for you.


Where shall we start? With paleolithic man and the diet we think he ate. Or shall we start with the agriculture revolution about 10,000 years ago. The point where grain became popular and more available. Remember that 10,000 years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms when you consider that we evolve 1/10th of a % every 100,000 year. Between now and 100,000 years ago not a lot happened...until very recently. We can assume that we existed on whatever we could get. Fruits, seeds, berries, plants, meats (raw or cooked when fire became available) and so forth. 

Then came processed foods with lots of nutrient deficient sugar added. Hmmm, we need to evolve quickly!!

Then when sugar became too expensive we turned to corn. Heck its natural so people will believe its good for them if we make high fructose corn syrup. We also started feeding corn (and lots of other weird things) to millions of cows in order to mass produce cattle.

So, how did we get where we are today? Its hard to pin it down to 100% undeniable evidence but it seems that government policy on diet, the food pyramid, grains, carbohydrates, dietary fats, may play a part in it.

So to the hypothesis Batman. Sadly a hypothesis isn't something a super hero would use.  Its more of an observation or problem that can be tested by further investigation. Interesting stuff (well it is if your into nutrition research...)

Hypothesis are unproven, its a question and it needs an answer which is where the experiments or trials come in. They attempt to show whether or not the hypothesis holds true under the scrutiny of the science. Its simply not enough for anyone to stand up and say "animal fat kill", without data to prove it, it means as much as my statement Mmmm, meat tastes good. Unless I can prove it then its just my personal (or mine and some friends) thoughts.

Most hypothesis are tested to prove or disprove its validity. Sadly bias inadvertently or purposefully often occurs as most people want to be right no matter what.

In the 1950s a researcher named Ancel Keys conducted the "Seven Countries Study" which became the basis for the contention that cardiovascular disease was largely the result of high serum cholesterol levels brought on by a diet high in saturated fat. Now Ancel had done some great work before (see my posts on his work) which meant he was respected. He spent a fortune on the study (funded) so he kind of needed to be right to save face. 

I have 1385 pages of Ancel Keys Biology of Human Starvation sat in my library here so I love the guy. However, his "lipid hypothesis" is a perfect example of how bias affected the research results. Keys was, prove his hypothesis, even selecting only data that supported it just like Campbell in the China Study.

Keys hypothesised that a high fat diet, particularly a diet high in saturated fat, was a major contributor to high cholesterol, which leads to heart disease in the form of arteriosclerosis (arterial plaque build-up).

However, much like the "China Study", independent analysis of the data shows that he "cherry picked" only the countries with numbers that supported his hypothesis and omitted the significant data that showed there was actually no correlation between dietary fat, cholesterol, and arteriosclerosis. Hmmmm!!


Inconclusive data didn’t stop Keys from using data from seven countries that supported his lipid hypothesis. When subsequent researchers reviewed the entire data that were available to Keys, they were astonished to learn that there was no correlation in the data to support Keys hypothesis. Oh dear...

Despite this the study is quoted as proof time and time again that saturated fat is a major contributing factor in arteriosclerosis. Reading What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? is where I start most of my clients that ask about it. Its defiantly worth a look.

The consumption of red meat, butter, and other sources of saturated fats is at an all time low, yet obesity is at epidemic proportions, diabetes is highly prelevent. My vegan friend would say this is because we aren't strict enough, but if veganism is the answer surely eating less meat (like we are) would have an effect?

But the official response from Gazza the vegan, with his data that actually backs up his statement is currently a deafening silence.

Why? Could it possibly be because it would mean an admission that he was wrong? Too strong in his statement which he can't prove. 


Well, there you go another piece of anti animal fat research that actually doesn't prove anything of the sort.  In the interest of fairness I will of course present all of the evidence in support of the "animal fat kills hypothesis. It is as follow;
[                                                                                                                                         ]
(note to self, leave space blank for any supportive evidence that might appear.)

Sadly I'm not joking, other than the above and Campbell's also selectivly biased work, there is no evidence that actually supports the argument. No doubt people will keep trying to find some, its just not appeared yet despite lots of years trying to find it. Its only been a week for my Nazivegan friend so in the context of things (and judging by his research skills), it may take a while.

To leave things on a light hearted note, here is something to put a smile on yourself. Don't personally follow it myself as you probably know, I don't consume pork. Funny all the same though. 

And to even it up, don't want to be biased like the research do we. A little vegan treat...enjoy

I love belief, often its all we have in the health circus. Many theories cannot be tested properly due to lack of funding or ethical reasons. If I make a statement that has no scientific evidence I would qualify it with "I believe" this to be true etc etc. Reading something in a book or seeing a factor such as fatty build up in arteries during autopsy does not give us answers. It points us in the direction of a research question such as "Does animal fat kill?" Categorically it does not give us an answer until we have data that significantly proves it.

If it was possible to prove it I believe (I can't 100% say yet because its not happened) that Gazza the Vegan (check my previous posts for details of the vegan crusade that is currently ongoing on twitter), would prove it and clear up any doubts myself that the rest of the world has. But he doesn't want to do that for some reason and keeps deflecting onto arguments about fires and evolution. 

You can't as theirs no such thing as a healthy vegan!! All joking aside, their may be a healthy vegan out there, I just haven't seen one myself. For me to claim that healthy vegans don't exists without evidence to prove my statement is as preposterous as someone claiming "animal fat kills." Oh wait Gazza did. We've spent days getting nowhere, with Gazza claiming "animal fat kills", me asking for "statistically significant" evidence that proves his claim. His answer to this can then go down many paths;

• He tells me he's 220 lb or that he did 4 hours of extreme exercise yesterday. As we all know size always equates to health doesn't it, oh thats right it doesn't, and neither does strength or endurance. Gazza has told me his has "amazing cardiovascular capability" so surely that is the evidence we need??
• Next he'll name drop Michael Klapper MD, a vegan fanatic whose written and sold books, but I can't find any cridible peer reviewed papers that show any "statistically significant" evidence to back up the claim.
• Then we then ended up down the "China Study" route and sadly when I pointed out that Campbell's full data (yes including the bits he avoided using) showed no 'statistically significant" evidence to prove the statement, yet it did show "statistically significant" data that meat protected against various disease including coronary heart disease. Gazza claimed the article review was biased, its not like Campbell hiding his data could be construed as biased is it? Maybe he just mislaid it!! 
• To counter this we went even further down the rabbit hole and Gazza tweeted me this message (it was in a public domain so you can view it if you wish) GazzaisVegan Gazza @ @billycraig No that huge conglomerates and those in power standing to benefit threatened Campbell..bit like David kelly and the WMD scandal 
• You've read that correct, Campbell hid his data after being threatened. So we're onto the conspiracy theories already. Sadly Gazza has confused himself here, what he's actually claiming here is that this whole thing is a cover up and the "huge conglomerates and those in power stand..." to benefit from Campbell's research so they threatened him and made him hide the data (the data which showed meat to have "statistically significant" evidence favoring it) which allowed it to look like veganism was the answer? Who could possibly benefit from that other than the vegan society? Or Campbell's research question which would fall to pieces with all the data added.

• Their have been other dead-end's we've been down, including that I'm "in denial", I'm not quite sure what about as I don't have a magic one size fits all diet like Gazza does, and I haven't claimed that meat is good or bad. All I have done is reply to a message that stated "animal fat kills", saying where is the evidence? 
• He tried to knock me down for saying that my recommendations would be based on the physiology of an individual rather than guessing when I said, "if a person had good liver function" then I would include meat in their diet freely. Accusing me of being all "if's and but's." Personally I can't see what's bad about this (unless your clutching at straws). The statement "meat is safe to eat, but you must ensure its good quality, well prepared, digested well...." seems like a good thing to me. Or "one can eat meat if you do not show any signs of raised ureas or altered pH upon testing', also seems like a fair statement as opposed to a blanket statement that means we all have to follow the leader.
  

Lets turn the original statement on its head and use "Mmmm, meat tastes good" instead. From here I can use the same arguments that Gazza has used. (I wouldn't because it would fail under scrutiny, but for the sake of showing how credible it is without data to back it up).

Let start with the first point, I weigh 220 lb's therefore that is proof that meat tastes good. Mmmmm meat. What's that, your a vegan and you don't think meat tastes good? You my friend are wrong, I weigh 220 lb's what more proof do you need. Ok then, just to back up my claim I did 4 hours of exercise yesterday now I'm sure "you can see it clearly now." Mmmm meat tastes good.

What's that vegan? You don't agree with me? Man your in denial!!! 

Right I need to pull out the big guns, I've read about this MD, he thinks meat tastes good as well. And he's worked cutting people up for years, and he's finds fat in their arteries and a smile on their faces, surely thats proof that meat tastes good right? Did the patients just think meat tastes good? Well no, I think they may also have been prone to eating vegetables and fruit. Oh and some of them may of smoked and drank. Oh and a few might of been sedentary. But that means Jack because my guru say meat tastes good and I trust him. I don't need "statistically significant" evidence, I'm 220 lb's and I believe.

Next on the list will have to be the study done by a guy who loves the taste of meat. He did his research but it seems not all of the data agreed him so he ditched that part and used the bits that agreed with him. This kind of makes his research look bad, but we think he was bullied into hiding his data by the vegan society who didn't want anyone knowing that not everyone thinks meat tastes good. Now I know that makes no sense but I've dug myself a big hole here and I've actually just disproved myself. Lets swap tactics;

I can't believe you still don't agree that Mmmm, meat tastes good. Man your in denial. Not to worry, I was there once and I'm sure your time will come.

What do you mean "but you don't like meat?" Man, its all "if and buts" with you. Your just trying to escape the fact that Mmmmm, meat tastes good!!!

And finally, you may remember me stating in previous posts that I recommend plant based foods to complement the meat that tastes so good. You may also remember me stating (it was one of my "if's and but's"), that I make personal recommendations based on each individual. Some clients may have eaten too much protein in the past which will show up in their test results, others may have gone years without any significant protein (the english do love to live on bread, potato and pasta). Its all about knowing what will help a person, at times I have to recommend that clients cook their veg to within an inch of its life (yes veg does live as well) and this upsets all the "your loosing all the best bits" fanatics. I'd agree, yes we are, but do I allow someone with a compromised digestive system to miss out on any nutrients at all, just because they are too weak to do it themselves?

Diet is not about one man's belief that he is on the right path because he can wakeboard for 4 hours. Nor is it the right path because Mmmm meat smells good. Nutrition is highly individual, we all need a broad varied diet. Animal fat does not kill, and unless we seperate out all the variables and get disease free subjects that don't smoke, all do the same amount of exercise, all drink the same, never eat any processed foods and are prepared to be split in to categories of meat eaters;

Processed meats (spam, Corned Beef etc) group
Pasture raised meats group
Placebo (not sure how we'd do this)

then we can't even begin to test Gazza's belief. Until then I think we can do the same as Gazza has and gradually distance ourself from the statement "animal fat kills." Bit worrying though as it seems not everyone has the same response to the beloved vegetable. Hmmm!!!

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1553S-1557S. Epub 2009 Mar 18.Inter-individual differences in response to plant-based diets: implications for cancer risk.Lampe JW.SourceFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Nutritional Sciences Program, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. jlampe@fhcrc.org

AbstractGenetic differences in taste preference, food tolerance, and phytochemical absorption and metabolism all potentially influence the effect of plant-based diets on cancer risk. Diet is a mixture of carcinogens, mutagens, and protective agents, many of which are metabolized by biotransformation enzymes. Genetic polymorphisms that alter protein expression or enzyme function can modify risk. Genotypes associated with more favorable handling of carcinogens may be associated with less favorable handling of phytochemicals. For example, glutathione S-transferases detoxify polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metabolize isothiocyanates, which are chemopreventive compounds in cruciferous vegetables. A polymorphism in the GSTM1 gene results in lack of GSTM1-1 protein. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest that lack of GSTM1 enzyme is associated with more rapid excretion of the isothiocyanate sulforaphane; therefore, individuals who have this genetic variation may derive less benefit from consuming cruciferous vegetables. Flavonoids are conjugated with glucuronide and sulfate and are excreted in urine and bile. Polymorphisms in UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and sulfotransferases may contribute to variability in phytochemical clearance and efficacy. Genetic polymorphisms in enzymes that metabolize phytochemicals may account in part for variation in disease risk and also have to be considered in the context of other aspects of human genetics, gut bacterial genetics, and environmental exposures.

My debate with Gazza continues. The original statement has shifted from "animal fat kills". We've now had a variety of differing statements that point the finger at meat as the cause of lots of things. From heart disease (despite vegan's favorite research the China Study showing statistically significant data that meat protects against heart disease), through to cancer but we are yet to see any data backing it up other than the odd mention of MD's clinical findings. Its all well and good stating Dr. X has seen atherosclerosis in patients but you can't claim its animal fat to blame unless the subject in question has lived their life under strict test conditions. Have the subjects eaten processed foods? Have they consumed a great deal of sugar? Were trans fats included in the diet, blah blah blah. Yes we frequently see people with atherosclerosis and the eat meat.

Maybe we could test it correctly, we could start with some dependent variables (DV) such as various health tests, maybe a questionnaire to assess health and/or dietary beliefs and so on.  Then we could have some independent variables (IV), and it is these that we can manipulate to get the data we require. So, we could have;

Non Meat Eaters

• Vegans
• Vegetarians

Meat Eaters

• Processed Meat Eaters
• Pasture Raised Meat Eaters

Not the best study design but its a hell of a lot better than stating "meat kills" no matter whether its walls sausages or a healthy homemade broth made with naturally raised beef. Its rather like assuming someone who lives on Linda McCartney Veggie burgers will be assessed in the same group who consume actual vegetables.

The vegans I've met (bear in mind I regularly visit a vegan shop) are mostly smug and holier than thou. They think they are healthier and want to convert us all. 

Scientist have found that vegans seem to run a greater risk of developing blood clots and atherosclerosis (remember even Campbell found this in his China Study, he just hid it). They also tend to have lower HDL (or "good") cholesterol.

I don't hate vegans I just can't see any evidence that backs up the argument to become one. Each week I eat few servings of organic chicken and wild fish, and some organic red meat as long as its grass-fed. I ate as a vegetarian and developed a serious amount of tooth decay and had to discontinue the experiment due to the ill health it brought. Gazza says this is due to vegetarians consuming dairy, but its interesting that I never consumed any dairy until 2 months ago so it does leave a big question-mark over why I got so sick.

I've still not managed to narrow down what Gazza actually eats? I've asked if tomatoes are allowed but he's not replied. I've also asked of vegan mothers are allowed to breast feed their babies, or if they do will they be removed from the cult?

Vegans tend to rely on lots of TVP (textured vegetable protein) which makes the fact that Gazza insisted I needed to kill a cow with my hands to be a meat eater. Not quite sure how a vegan would make TVP or their seed oils by hand but he lets not be picky. TVP is soy, one of the most dangerous foods on the planet, loaded with phyto-estrogens and phytates that stop the absorption of nutrients and disrupt hormone balance. Oh and they are also linked to the big C as well.

I don't recommend any of you go out and stuff yourself with KFC or burger kings, I also don't encourage caveman style diets with ultra high protein consumption. I typically eat meat once a day but sometimes only 3 times a week now. However, science shows us we cannot live long term without animal protein. You can and should enjoy your food and not restrict whole food groups. Their is categorically nothing wrong with salmon, chicken, and I would always aim to consume meat that contains collagen on a  weekly basis. We need the protein and the nutrients these foods deliver.

Recently I've been hounded by Gazza on twitter, sadly its not the real Gazza who took Raoul Moat a can of lager and some chicken amongst other things. Nope, my Gazza is a vegan preacher spreading the word about the dangers of animal fat. Its been pretty comical ranging from Bill Clinton had heart issues (must be animal fat, couldn't possibly be stress from processed foods, having non sexual affairs behind his wifes back, or the pressure of having that bright red "destroy all" button at his disposal), right through to the kind of evidence my mum uses in a nutritional debate, just claiming its "true" or "they say", before eventually backing down to the "I think" or "I believe" quote. Hell, why not go the whole hog (vegan pun intended) and admit that the Daily Mail told you.

I'm not hating on vegans or vegetarians, I just couldn't eat a whole one :) On a serious note I do recommend a considerable amount of plant based foods to my clients. In the past week I've had a number of clients who I've had to reduce or remove their animal based protein. However this is done on the basis of scientific tests that prove they are currently having problems digesting certain foods, not because the foods are inherently unhealthy or cause disease. Will I leave them in this state? No, we'll fix the digestion and then get them back to eating a mixed diet. Equally I recently had a client that has been vegan for almost 20 years and mysteriously developed type 2 diabetes, raised blood pressure and was on numerous drugs. The reintroduction of animal protein has breathed life into a very weary body. When you read in the paper that meat is a killer, or if Gazza comes calling, have a think about the context of it. Meat is a very broad term and if one classes corn beef in the same category as pasture raised meat then its no wonder meat is looked upon as so evil.

Eat your veg, eat your fruit, eat grain but don't miss out on meat in the misguided belief that its a killer. Variety is the key to a healthy interesting diet. 

As we've discussed before, having a six pack is in noway a sign of health. We only have to take the numerous athletes and bodybuilders that suffer heart attacks at a young age each year. Equally its possible that looking ill maybe not the greatest indicator of ill health. However in my opinion (nothing scientific here), Gillian McKeith is the perfect advert for the UK meat industry. Anyone who saw her on I'm A Celebrity must wonder how she can work as a nutritionist. I'm not a fan of TV, especially reality TV, but I must admit I tuned in to catch a glimpse of her looking so frail, weak & unhealthy. She's 50 years of age but looks at least 20 years older. The sight of her fainting and being so mellow dramatic just highlighted how much she needs a proper meal. Her lack of physical and mental health/strength must of detered a few that were considering a vegan lifestyle. If 'You Are What You Eat', pass me the opposite of what she's having.

With the lack of any actual evidence from my mate Gazza, we'll have to assume its the typical meat hating evangelists standard quote of "the China study proves it all.

"Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy." -- T. Colin Campbell, The China Study pp. 132

Cambells research was highly selective and incredibly biased, heck he's a scientist with something he wants to prove and books to sell. He goes out of his way to select the data he wants to use (i.e it proves his point). It seems all this vegan propaganda is built upon a very weak and unsubstantiated argument...oops!!

The China Study took data on 367 variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. All handy stuff for me as I'm deep into statistics in my current MSc so this should help me design a good piece of work (fingers crossed). They used recall questionnaires, direct observation and measurement of intake as well as collecting urine and blood samples.

It all sounds very scientific doesn't it, sadly though no account was made of variations in animal protein consumption, was it muscle meat or organ meat (check out Ray Peat for why that may be important). The best debunking of Dr. Campbell's work is done by Denise Minger, a woman who by her own admission loves statistics. Her extensive critique of the China Study data, pretty much refutes Dr. campbell's claims. The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

His work for instance mentions Papua New Guinea Highlanders who have no incidence of occurrence of heart disease and eat very little meat, yet fails to mention the work of Weston A Price (check out my bookstore for his work) and the cultures and tribes that he found to be free from disease while living on primarily fatty animal foods.

Now you probably can't be bothered to read Denise's whole 9000 word critique of the China Study and maybe your already thinking the book just isn't worth you cash!! So, here are some of the key points that were debunked in the China Study;
As we know from the Cholesterol Con, correlation of data does not show causation. Seeing lots of police is an indication of some sort of crime, it doesn't mean the coppers are causing the crime though. Equally cholesterol may be a marker thats at the site but it doesn't mean its the cause. Just because someone consumed meat and suffered disease it doesn't show us that meat causes disease. The China study leaves us with to many unstudied variables to come to any conclusions.