metabolic syndrome Archives

What If We Are Wrong? Medication, Medical Science and Infallibility

Published on March 11, 2024

6728 views

What if we are wrong? Such a simple question, but one that seems all but absent in modern medicine. Patients, particularly women, routinely present with chronic, treatment refractory, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed conditions. More often than not, the persistence of the symptoms is disregarded as being somehow caused by the patient herself. If the tests come back negative and the symptoms persist, then it is not the tests that are insensitive or incorrect but the patient. If the medication prescribed does not work or elicits ill-understood side effects, then somehow the patient is at fault. If the patient stops taking the medication because of said side-effects, then they are labeled non-compliant and difficult. The patient is always at fault. It is never the test, the disease model, or the treatment.

What if we are wrong? What if the tests to diagnose a particular condition are based on incorrect or incomplete disease models? What if a medication universally prescribed for a given condition doesn’t work or creates adverse reactions in certain populations of people? What if the side-effects listed are incomplete? Is it so difficult to admit that gold standards evolve or that medical science is fluid? Certainly, if a patient is presenting with a constellation of symptoms that create suffering and those symptoms do not remit with a given medication or medications and/or do not appear on the available diagnostic tests, why is it so difficult to consider that either the medication doesn’t work, the diagnostic was insufficient, or the diagnosis itself was incorrect? Why is it that we assume it must be a mental health issue or somehow the patient is causing the symptoms herself?

Here, one doctor tells how he learned that he was wrong about diabetes and metabolic disorder. He gleaned this not from a book or from his training and not from listening to his patients, but when he, a previously healthy young man, developed a metabolic syndrome that led to obesity and type 2 diabetes. It was by his own personal crisis that he began to question the model of diabetes and its relationship with obesity. Dr. Peter Attia asks:

What if we are wrong?

What if we are wrong, indeed. There are so many areas of medicine where we may be wrong; where we are likely wrong, but where no one is asking the question.

We congratulate Dr. Attia for his discovery, but why does it take a personal crisis for a physician to question the status quo? Why is there such fealty to particular disease classifications or disease models even when there is evidence to the contrary? Is it the nature of modern medicine to lay down guidelines and be done or is it simply human nature to resist the notion that we can be wrong? Maybe a combination of both; I don’t know the answer, but I do know that if one is certain of everything there can be no room for learning or discovery.

On the other hand, if we begin with the notion that humans, and thus, the structures humans create are fallible – that we do not know or understand everything – and if we add to that humility a dose empathy, perhaps then we can begin healing patients rather than managing them.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Image by Carlos Lincoln from Pixabay.

This post was published originally on Hormones Matter in July 2013.

A Rant About Diet and Responsibility

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on June 1, 2021

5187 views

The American diet is atrocious and largely responsible for the growing epidemics of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, not just in America, but worldwide. The highly processed, high calorie, high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fat, and high chemical additive products that line grocery stores are products of American ingenuity; products that we have exported internationally, and sadly, products that are responsible for the declining metabolic health worldwide. This is a fact that many of us are reticent to accept. We are poisoning ourselves and everyone else around us by the products we make and consume.

A recent study found that fully 80% of metabolic disease can be attributed to lifestyle, e.g. poor diet and a lack exercise. Eighty percent. That is a staggering finding especially when one considers that 476 million people worldwide have diabetes, most of them Type 2 (T2). This represents a 129% increase since 1990, when the number stood 211.2 million. During the same time frame, the rates of cardiovascular disease have increased from 271 million to 523 million. Underlying a significant percentage of these conditions is the obesity epidemic, with 13% of the world’s population considered obese and 39% considered overweight and heading towards obesity.

In the US, the situation is quite dire, only 12-20% of the population, depending upon the criteria utilized, are considered metabolically healthy. Clearly, our approach to metabolic health is not working and yet, much of the focus in health research remains centered on either identifying that one medication or combination of medications that resolve all of our bad choices or an overly simplistic approach to health represented by balancing the calories in/calories out equation. As evidenced by the exploding numbers of metabolic disease, neither of these perspectives seems particularly useful.

While both personal choice and calories play a role in these epidemics, the problem is much broader. The food ecosystem has been decimated and in its place, we have non-nutritive chemical-toxicant food-like products that were designed to be highly addictive. When consumed, these products fundamentally change the metabolism of the individual who consumes them, and not for the better. Every bite of a chemically processed food is one step closer to metabolic disease. Beyond that however, the choice to allow industry to create, utilize, and ultimately dump these chemicals into food, other products, and into the environment, rests on us as well. Those are choices too; choices that affect the metabolic health of communities, and more broadly, the world.

We tend to think of industry and the pollution they create as amorphous, self-propelling and promoting agents of doom, forgetting of course, that each and every one of these organizations is made of people; people like you and me who make decisions to produce and promote these chemical poisons; people who choose to put poisons in foods under the auspices of the pathetically weak and ineffective GRAS guidelines. People make these choices. We do not get forever chemicals that fundamentally disrupt all aspects of metabolism without people who chose to create them, others who chose to use them in common products (and deny any and all risk), and all of us who relish in the novelty of these products. We do not get 80,000 synthetic chemical entities currently on the market without people putting them there. We do not get 1.8 billion pounds of glyphosate used every year, enough for every person on the planet to consume 4lbs annually without people that made choices to produce, use, and not regulate this chemical. We are the problem. We made these choices. We are the ones who are destroying our health and the health of others by the choices we make.

So when we look at the skyrocketing numbers of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, it is not enough to say ‘eat better and eat less’. We need to clean house, top to bottom. We need to stop producing the garbage food that pollutes our bodies and the environment. We need to take responsibility for all of the choices that lead us to the point where only 12-20% of the population can be considered metabolically healthy.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Photo by Ishaq Robin on Unsplash.

Gluten-free: Is That Enough?

by Angela A Stanton, PhD

Published on June 5, 2018

26515 views

Why Foods May Turn Against Us

Even Hippocrates suggested to “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” When did food turn against us and we away from it as our medicine?

Ancient Egyptians are well-known for their agriculture, dominated by growing and harvesting grains. At this time, we see the first documentation of obesity, the first heart attack on a hieroglyphs, along with the many heart disease cases among mummies found and analyzed. This already should pose a question in your mind: what do grains do to us? Are they harmful in any way? If so: why and how? And if they are not good for humans: why not?

Increasingly, grains occupy a highly controversial area in health and nutrition. As we know, the USDA, the ADA, and the AHA all recommend very high “whole grain” percentages for our caloric intake—45% to 65% of our calories are advised to come from mostly complex carbohydrates and the most carbohydrate-rich elements are grains. We listened to the USDA, ADA, and the AHA, and eat a ton of sandwiches, rice, pasta, cereal, corn tortilla, popcorn, pretzels, crackers, and so on.

The goal of these organizations originally was perfectly legitimate: they wanted to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease, which was believed to have been caused by red meat and their saturated fats. These organizations recommended that we increase grain and carbohydrate consumption and reduce animal meats and fats, which now we know was based on a false hypothesis. But this hypothesis started a movement that was all based on a lie. Millions of people were misled by Ancel Keys doctored data and findings. So the benefit of moving to a plant-based diet is/was based on misinformation. This was a theory by Ancel Keys, which was (and still is) suppressed by a very large scientific community, because so many have major published papers based on this false hypothesis.

The hypothesis posits the theory that high LDL cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease, and much of modern cardiovascular treatment still follows this theory (including statins and LDL guidelines), based on the goal of reducing cholesterol, specifically LDL. Plant-based anything reduces LDL, but whether this reduction actually helps (or hiders!) went unchecked. Several studies that showed that lowering cholesterol hurts health went into the trash and the scientists were unable to publish against the dogma. See a study here and here. By far the biggest blow came from this paper, which re-examined an original data never published, and found that low LDL is actually harmful. This data was never ever published because the findings were against the “theory” of Keys, and the researchers decided to hide it, as if the study never happened. It was literally hidden in a basement box!

“High” cholesterol itself is very interesting, since by now we understand that cholesterol is the most important element our body makes for survival. It is so important, that it makes about 3 gr cholesterol a day, come rain or shine. After all, every single cell has cholesterol as part of its structure, our brain is over 80% fat and cholesterol, our hormones–including insulin, testosterone, estrogen, etc.,–are all made as part of the end process of cholesterol-making by our body. Now we also understand that LDL is actually part of our immune system. So reducing LDL is detrimental rather than helpful because it carries the fat-soluble vitamins, such as A, D3, K2, and E. So reducing LDL means reducing our vitamins… not very smart!

While we followed the instructions, see the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which started in the mid-20th Century, and is updated every 5 years since, recommends the reduction of saturated fat to almost zero and also removed red meat from our diets, we all got sicker. What I am suggesting here is that the people in the US (and, indeed, the whole civilized world) followed these guidelines and now we are all sick. Not only did we not reduce cardiovascular risks, but we increased them. The death-rates didn’t change relative to the increase of the population, simply because of the improvements in medical treatments, which keep people alive even with cardiovascular disease longer.

However, we have ended up with a host of new diseases we rarely had to deal with before. Metabolic diseases, like type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, high blood pressure, and others like cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, etc. have doubled since the 1980s. Even the incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing—associated with “environmental influences,” which can mean pretty much everything, including the foods we eat (or aren’t eating!). Humanity consists of a wide range of individuals. So one would expect that individual responses to a type of nutrition, such as grains, would differ. Interestingly, while there is a slight difference, the general population seems to be affected similarly, though the symptoms are broad.

“Houston, We Have a Problem”

Indeed, dropping animal meat and saturated fat and increasing carbohydrates (like sugar, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds—and of course grains), was not good for our health. Since I wrote about sugar and carbohydrates in general already, see here, and sugar and fat here, I will only discuss grains in this article. What are grains? Are they nutritious? Healthy? Or are they toxic? While I wrote about grains previously, see here, I would like to introduce a different angle that very few people know about.

Today there are fewer people than ever before who eat glutenous grains; the recent “trend” is to eat gluten free. I decided to examine what gluten free means, and could it be somehow connected to the problem. My reason for this research is a personal one: while I tested non-allergic to gluten, I have a huge negative reaction to even a morsel of grain. My reaction is an asthma attack to all grains—including rice. So if it is not gluten sensitivity then what is it?

Another reason for my curiosity, also personal, is that I am a migraineur and specialize in helping migraineurs prevent and abort their migraines without the use of any medicines. In that work, I have learned that carbohydrates are a migraineur’s enemy and grains are notoriously high in carbohydrates. It is also true that high carbohydrate foods, particularly those high in starches, such as grains, cause much more trouble to migraineurs and other glucose sensitive people than low starch low glucose carbohydrates, such as raspberries, for example. So what is the connection of all these to grains? Should we just look at gluten or is there something else of concern in grains?

What Are Grains?

Grains are seeds of grasses and are separated into two basic groups by most people: glutinous and gluten free. However, the distinction between these two is not nearly as significant as is believed. There is much to be said about non-gluten specific grain sensitivity—the condition I have—only it is less understood and seldom discussed. Gluten itself, is now understood to be a definite problem¹. What about gluten free? To understand what gluten free means, one must understand where gluten comes from. I am fully aware that there are many celiacs—around 1% of the population are documented celiacs—who have major gluten allergies. For them gluten is a cause of major problems. The key to this sentence is “a” cause of major problems but perhaps not “the whole” problem.

Prolamins = Gluten + Gliadin + Zein +Hordein + Secalin +++

Gluten is not one thing but is just one member of a collection of proteins that largely fall into two groups: gliadins and glutenins, both of which belong to the main group of prolamin proteins. Prolamins have a high content of proline and glutamine (these are amino acids that are used to biosynthesize other proteins—so they have critical functions). In wheat, these prolamins are called gliadins, while in other grains they have mostly unheard of Latin names, such as zein of maize (corn), hordein of barley, secalin of rye, etc. See the complete (rather complex) article here. Since gluten is just one protein within this prolamin family, might the other proteins also be a problem? If they are, gluten-free is not enough protection.

Oats and rice, long considered to be gluten free and safe to eat, also have prolamins only to a smaller percentage. If you are gluten sensitive or have non-gluten specific grain sensitivity, you really should consider stopping all grains, including rice, corn, flax, and oats. Sensitivity to any protein within the prolamin family may mean one is sensitive to prolamin, all proteins in the prolamin group and not just gluten. So now you can see the reason for non-gluten specific grain sensitivity.

Are Grains Digestible?

Grains are grass seeds, after all, and the goal of a seed is not to dissolve in our stomach or intestines but to germinate and grow into another grass. Grain proteins are amazing plant chemicals capable of stimulating direct immune responses due to their peptide fragments and their huge molecular size. This may explain why so many people have grain (especially wheat) allergies even without being celiacs².

What is common in all grains is that their proteins are not water soluble (some to a small degree) and are heat stable—meaning even heat doesn’t break them down into digestible proteins. As a result, grains are indigestible by the human body. Grain proteins have an unbelievably high capacity for molecular mimicry (an alien protein’s ability to pretend they are human protein), but because they are large and ride attached to smaller human proteins, this initiates an immune attack against them to our detriment. Our immune system causes damage to our own cells by the attack, as the immune cells must destroy our own proteins in order to destroy the grain proteins. The only animals that are able to metabolize grains are birds³. Even cows are not meant to eat grains—they get fat and age very fast from grains and become very unhealthy at an early age. The quality of their fat also changes into something vastly less healthy than pasture-raised grass-fed cows.

So, what happens to people who eat grains? While each human individual is different, and each reacts to food somewhat differently, some basics are the same: grain proteins cause damage to human proteins. The difference between individuals and their responses to grain consumption may show up in the length of time it takes for symptoms to appear and in the symptoms’ intensity and duration. Unlike symptoms of something simple, such as a broken arm, where pain is the most prominent temporary symptom and which is an immediate reaction to the broken bone, grains do their damage little by little via making changes in health conditions that appear completely unrelated to grain sensitivity and often take years to appear—except for baker’s asthma⁴. Entire fields of medicine and the associated pharmaceuticals have formed to cater to the damages that grains cause. Why does it take so long for grains to cause harm?

Autoimmunity

Autoimmunity refers to our own immune system misdirecting its attack against an invader and attacks self instead—earlier I referred to this as molecular mimicry. Autoimmunity may be followed by many symptoms, all vastly different from one another, appearing to be unique and independent diseases. For example, grain proteins may stimulate zonulin, which relaxes the seams of gut endothelium causing leaky gut syndrome. It may take years to discover leaky gut because currently it is not part of the “medical standard of care” to check for the possibility of leaky gut syndrome, also referred to as increased gut permeability. Leaky gut syndrome leads to local or systemic immune-mediated diseases (autoimmunity), such as Celiac disease, Crohn’s disease, food allergies, and even type-1 diabetes mellitus. Because leaky gut is primarily an inflammation, atherosclerosis, which is an inflammatory response to grains and carbohydrates in general, may follow. In fact, reduced carbohydrates (and thus reduced grains) diets reduce cardiovascular risks. As a result of the negative effects of grains on the body, a high-grain diet gives rise to overeating while remaining malnourished, for a very simple physiological reason, which is well summarized in the following quote:

“Eating more of poor quality but abundant forage to obtain these components generates too much energy, which may be stored in white adipocytes or dissipated by diet-induced thermogenesis⁵. In other words, ‘burning off’ excess energy’ can help to correct nutritional imbalances in …barely adequate diets, distilling out scarce nutrients including amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals from energy-rich but nutrient-poor foods…”⁶.

Such malnourishment by overeating low nutrition/high energy foods, such as grains, aids in developing nearly all autoimmune health conditions, such as Hashimoto’s disease, Multiple sclerosis, PCOS, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, celiac disease, and also by some researchers: Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia⁷, cancer⁸, and many more. A more complete list can be found in the book Wheat Belly Total Health⁹.

In fact, the wheat germ agglutinin, is used specifically to increase immune response to produce antibodies in vivo. Grains cause autoimmunity—a deliberate, evolved plant strategy that ends up causing human diseases. However, since symptoms of autoimmunity differ among individuals, and because these autoimmune conditions take so long to evolve into full blown health conditions, most people don’t know about and won’t even suspect the causation. Human beings have proven to be excellent at adapting to all kind of adversity in their environment, including the availability – or lack of – certain food types. Certainly, some people alive today are less affected by grain consumption than others. Many of them may die in some unrelated illness, or what we term, “due to natural causes” before showing any symptoms as consequences of their grain rich diets. But we tend to live longer than ever before in the past so chances are that there is enough time for the emergence of some symptoms even for the most adapted individuals among us.

Autoimmunity and the Health Industry

Grains cause an immune response disrupting human health. However, they are cheap, have long shelf-lives, are addictive (grains release morphine-like substances in the brain), and they create life-long diseases that need medical care and medicines. While decades ago the health industry may not have been aware of the connection between grains and autoimmune diseases, by now we are closer to a more widespread recognition, and for conscientious scientists and medical professionals the information about the dangers is available. Production and selling of grain products in ever tastier and cheaper presentations will not be affected for quite a while, but you don’t have to eat them! There are hundreds of thousands of people who have already decided to take their health into their own hands and quit eating grains completely.

Why Are You Still Eating Grains?

This is a good question and I cannot answer it for you. Here is your chance to understand that grains may harm you. Now you cannot say “Oh I didn’t know”. I quit grains many years ago and I have reversed (or at least put to remission) all my autoimmune diseases within three years. You too can become a medicine-free healthy individual, free of diabetes, obesity, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular disease, lupus, Crohn’s disease, IBS, rosacea, acne, arthritis, asthma, osteoporosis, and many other autoimmune diseases. Make the change today!

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Sources

1 Aziz, I., Branchi, F. & Sanders, D. S. The rise and fall of gluten! Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 74, 221-226, doi:10.1017/S0029665115000038 (2015).

2 Watkins, R. D. & Zawahir, S. Celiac Disease and Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity. Pediatric Clinics of North America 64, 563-576, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2017.01.013 (2017).

3 Díaz, M. Food choice by seed-eating birds in relation to seed chemistry. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 113, 239-246, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(95)02093-4 (1996).

4 Anton, P., Walter, W., Colin, W., J., D. M. & Angelika, G. Sequence analysis of wheat grain allergens separated by two‐dimensional electrophoresis with immobilized pH gradients. ELECTROPHORESIS 16, 1115-1119, doi:doi:10.1002/elps.11501601188 (1995).

5 CANNON, B. & NEDERGAARD, J. Brown Adipose Tissue: Function and Physiological Significance. Physiological Reviews 84, 277-359, doi:10.1152/physrev.00015.2003 (2004).

6 Pond, C. M. in Adipose Tissue Biology (ed Michael E.; Symonds) (Springer Science+Business Media LLC, 2017).

7 D’Andrea, M. R. Add Alzheimer’s disease to the list of autoimmune diseases. Medical Hypotheses 64, 458-463, doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2004.08.024 (2005).

8 Giat, E., Ehrenfeld, M. & Shoenfeld, Y. Cancer and autoimmune diseases. Autoimmunity Reviews 16, 1049-1057, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2017.07.022 (2017).

9 Davis, W. Wheat Belly Total Health. (Rodale, 2014).

Uterus and Ovaries: Fountain of Youth

by WS

Published on January 30, 2018

7905 views

Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between removal of both ovaries / bilateral oophorectomy (castration) and accelerated aging as measured by an increased risk of chronic health conditions. Hysterectomy / uterus removal with preservation of both ovaries is also associated with some of these chronic conditions. These include heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis, hip fracture, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, dementia, Parkinsonism, impaired cognition and memory, mood disorders, sleep disorders, adverse skin and body composition changes, adverse ocular changes including glaucoma, impaired sexual function, more severe hot flushes and urogenital atrophy. Wow, that’s quite a list!

Ovaries: Health Powerhouses

This 2016 article titled “Study: Remove ovaries, age faster” sums up the findings of Mayo Clinic researchers proving yet again the harmful and unethical practice of ovary removal. The study found that ovary removal (oophorectomy) is associated with a higher incidence of 18 chronic conditions and should be discontinued in women who are not at high risk for ovarian cancer. Although this study cites the increase in chronic conditions in women who undergo oophorectomy before age 46, other studies have shown that oophorectomy even after menopause does more harm than good. Here is one that showed that to be true up to age 75.

The ovaries have both reproductive and endocrine functions as detailed in this International Menopause Society article. After menopause, the ovaries produce mostly androgens, some of which are converted into estrogen. Testosterone levels are more than 40% lower in women without ovaries compared to intact women. Women without their uterus likewise have lower levels but not as low as women without ovaries per this article. Estrogen therapy mitigates some but not all of the increased health risks of oophorectomy. But estrogen further reduces androgen levels increasing risk of osteoporosis and fracture. Nothing can replace the lifelong functions of the ovaries (and uterus).

The Uterus / Ovaries / Tubes Connection

The harms of ovary removal would also apply to ovarian failure that commonly occurs after hysterectomy and some other medical treatments. As previously cited, women who have had a hysterectomy have lower levels of testosterone. According to this 1986 publication, 39% of these women showed signs of ovarian failure. This study showed a nearly 2-fold increased risk of ovarian failure when both ovaries were preserved and nearly 3-fold when one was preserved. This likely explains the increased risk of heart disease and metabolic conditions as shown by multiple studies including this recent Mayo Clinic one. However, per this 1982 study, the uterus itself protects women from heart disease via the uterine substance prostacyclin. Loss of bone density is another harm of hysterectomy as shown by multiple studies such as this one.

Removal of even one ovary (unilateral oophorectomy) without hysterectomy is also harmful. Studies out of the Mayo Clinic showed increased risks of cognitive impairment or dementia and parkinsonism. Colorectal cancer is another increased risk according to this Chinese study and this Swedish one.

The Fallopian tubes appear to impair ovarian function to some degree as evidenced by Post Tubal Ligation / Sterilization Syndrome. This study shows an increase in Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) after tube removal (salpingectomy).

Ovarian impairment after hysterectomy or salpingectomy is thought to be the mechanism of the reduced risk of ovarian cancer which is already rare.

The Uterus: Anatomy, Sex, Cancer Prevention

Hysterectomy is associated with other harms besides impaired ovarian / endocrine function. The uterus and its ligaments / pelvic support structures are essential for pelvic organ integrity as well as skeletal integrity. The effects on these structures and functions are detailed here and here. This article shows the many hysterectomized women lamenting their “broken bodies” – changes to their figures, back, hip and midsection pain, pelvic pain, bladder and bowel issues, and effects of severed nerves and blood vessels.

The uterus and associated nerves and blood vessels play a key role in sexuality and vibrancy. You can hear the desperation in women’s comments about the devastating sexual losses and feelings of emotional emptiness.

There is an increased risk of renal cell, thyroid, and colorectal cancers after hysterectomy. How ironic when cancer fear tactics are commonly used to market hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy.

Adhesions that commonly form after these surgeries can cause serious problems especially in the long term. Surgical complications – nerve injuries, bladder, bowel and ureter injuries, vaginal cuff dehiscence, a too short vagina, infections, hemorrhage – are more common than indicated by gynecologists.

Although “The Miraculous Uterus” article fails to mention the anatomical harms, it is otherwise “spot on.” It talks about the “ovarian conservation scam” and that “passion, love, ecstasy, the emotional essence that drives human achievement, forever after elude them.” This explains why “there’s no effective outrage against the barbarism of hysterectomy.”

Compelling Evidence of Harm

Clearly, there is compelling medical evidence that both hysterectomy and oophorectomy are destructive surgeries. Unfortunately, some hysterectomy forums censor negative posts giving a slanted view of the life shattering effects. Here is a sampling of women’s experiences on the Gyn Reform site.

The medical literature on the harms of these surgeries dates back over a century. Listed below are a small number of the numerous publications (minus the ovarian failure studies cited above). The Gyn Reform website has a fairly comprehensive list of resources on oophorectomy. Its Ovaries for Life sister site provides a good overview of the lifelong importance of our ovaries.

1912 – The Physiological Influence of Ovarian Secretion

1914 – Nervous and Mental Disturbances following Castration in Women

1958 – The controversial ovary

1973 – Osteoporosis after Oophorectomy for Non-malignant Disease in Premenopausal Women

“Oophorectomy before the age of 45 years was found to be associated with a significantly increased prevalence of osteoporosis within three to six years of operation.”

1974 – Endocrine Function of the Postmenopausal Ovary: Concentration of Androgens and Estrogens in Ovarian and Peripheral Vein Blood

1978 – The emotional and psychosexual aspects of hysterectomy

1981 – Premenopausal hysterectomy and cardiovascular disease

1981 – Sexual response after hysterectomy-oophorectomy: Recent studies and reconsideration of psychogenesis

1981 – The role of estrogen and oophorectomy in immune synovitis

1982 – Prostacyclin from the uterus and woman’s cardiovascular advantage

1989 – The effects of simple hysterectomy on vesicourethral function

“The results show that simple hysterectomy is associated with a significant incidence of post-operative vesicourethral dysfunction and that there is an identifiable neurological abnormality incurred at operation which is pertinent to the subsequent disordered voiding.”

1990 – Effects of bilateral oophorectomy on lipoprotein metabolism

1994 – The climacteric ovary as a functional gonadotropin-driven androgen-producing gland

1996 – Urinary incontinence in older women: who is at risk? Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group

“Urinary incontinence is a common problem in older women, more common than most chronic medical conditions. Of the associated factors that are preventable or modifiable, obesity and hysterectomy may have the greatest impact on the prevalence of daily incontinence.”

1997 – Bladder, bowel and sexual function after hysterectomy for benign conditions

1998 – Ovaries, androgens and the menopause: practical applications

1998 – Impairment of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons associated with aging and long-term loss of ovarian function

1998 – Influence of bilateral oophorectomy upon lipid metabolism

1999 – Estrogen and movement disorders

2000 – The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and gonadal axes in rheumatoid arthritis

2000 – Risk of myocardial infarction after oophorectomy and hysterectomy

2000 – Hysterectomy, Oophorectomy, and Endogenous Sex Hormone Levels in Older Women: The Rancho Bernardo Study

2005 – Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease

“Ovarian conservation until age 65 benefits long-term survival…. There is sustained, but decreasing, benefit until the age of 75, when excess mortality for oophorectomy is less than 1%.”

2007 – Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease

“Approximately 78% of women between the ages of 45 and 64 years have prophylactic oophorectomy when hysterectomy is performed for benign disease…. Therefore, the decision to perform prophylactic oophorectomy should be approached with great caution for the majority of women who are at low risk of developing ovarian cancer.”

2009 – Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study

“In no analysis or age group was oophorectomy associated with increased survival.”

2010 – Current indications and role of surgery in the management of sigmoid diverticulitis

“A previous history of hysterectomy is a valuable clinical clue to the correct diagnosis as colovaginal and colovesical fistulas are rare in females with their uterus in place, as the uterus becomes a screen interposed between the inflamed colon and the bladder and vagina.”

2012 – Oophorectomy for whom and at what age? Primum non nocere

2016 – Study: Remove ovaries, age faster

2017 – Cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity after hysterectomy with ovarian conservation: a cohort study

A Harmful Practice That Won’t Die

Ovary removal / castration was introduced by Robert Battey in 1872 and “was practised widely for several decades….. Better insight into female physiology and ovarian function finally pushed the sinister operation of Robert Battey from the scene.” This publication refers to Battey’s operation as “barbaric.”

Despite the long-standing and compelling evidence of harm, these surgeries continue at alarming rates. Publications are misleading in that they report inpatient surgeries despite the large majority being outpatient (70% in 2014). This 2008 article reported that oophorectomies “more than doubled in frequency since the 1960’s.” According to results of a FOIA request by Ovaries for Life, there are over 700,000 oophorectomies every year despite there being only ~22,000 cases of ovarian cancer. Hysterectomy figures obtained by Ovaries for Life are also shocking at 830,000 in light of less than 70,000 cases of endometrial and cervical cancers.

Many media reports have questioned the high rate of these surgeries since gynecologic cancers are rare. The oldest one I could find was dated 1969. I found about three articles per decade in the mainstream media since then. According to the Athena Institute, half of U.S. medical schools in 1986 “had changed their suggestions and were now recommending a reconsideration of the common practice of ovariectomy.” Evidently, that never took hold.

Congress held two hearings on hysterectomy, one in 1976 and one in 1993. The 1993 transcripts state that the hysterectomy rate increased 250% in women ages 15 to 24 and 186% in ages 25 to 34 from 1965 to 1984! Despite these shocking statistics, it appears that no action was taken after either hearing.

According to this “Reassessing Hysterectomy” article, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored research and conferences on the overuse of hysterectomy in the 1990’s. This article is packed with information on the prevalence and harms of hysterectomy and oophorectomy as well as alternative treatment options. Yet, the high rate of hysterectomy has continued such that 45% of women will end up having one. Citing 2006 data, the oophorectomy rate was 73% of the hysterectomy rate.

How to End the Harm?

I’ve been researching this subject for over 10 years and sharing my experience and knowledge on various websites. It’s shocking how many women are misled and deceived into these surgeries. Age doesn’t seem to matter; younger and younger women are undergoing these surgeries. This appears to be the biggest surgical racket and women’s healthcare con as discussed here.

There are a number of issues that perpetuate the gross overuse of these harmful surgeries. These include:

These surgeries and “forever after” care are very lucrative.
The public has been led to believe that the female organs are disposable after childbearing is complete.
Medical education and decades of practice have made these surgeries “a standard of care.”
Informed consent is seriously lacking.
Gynecology consent forms are open ended giving surgeons “carte blanche” to remove organs unnecessarily.
We still live in a climate of gender disparity / male dominance.

As you can see from the list of publications above, some study authors have called out the practice of ovary removal as unethical. Numerous professional societies have issued guidelines discouraging its use in most women. But most have been silent on the overuse of hysterectomy despite its many harms.

Why has our government not stepped in to address this egregious harm? Women who have contacted their legislators have been met with indifference. Gyn Reform reported on their experiences with legislators and other authorities who can effect change. The non-profit HERS Foundation has been educating women and advocating for informed consent legislation since the 1980’s.

Why do insurance companies approve so many of these surgeries that are rarely necessary? Not only are the surgeries themselves expensive, treatments for the chronic after effects are costly. Reining in unnecessary treatments especially those that cause lifelong harm would go a long way towards making healthcare more affordable.

Why has Graduate Medical Education (GME) not changed their surgical requirements to favor organ preservation? Each resident must do at least 70 hysterectomies but there is no requirement for myomectomy (fibroid removal). Residents don’t need to do any cystectomies (cyst removals) either which is partly why so many women lose ovaries for benign ovarian cysts. Here are the GME ob/gyn requirements.

A popular mantra at Tufts in the 1970’s – “There’s no room in the tomb for the womb” – reflects this culture of the disposable uterus and gynecologists’ obsession with its removal. Insurance reimbursement rates are also to blame as they incentivize hysterectomy and oophorectomy over myomectomy and cystectomy. In many cases, medical management versus surgery is the appropriate course. The “Reassessing Hysterectomy” article cited above lists a number of treatment options for gynecologic problems. Revamping reimbursement rates to strongly favor organ preservation should eventually force GME to change their requirements. But how do we make that happen?

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Lucas Cranach the Elder, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Clash of Food Civilizations: Sugar Versus Fat

by Angela A Stanton, PhD

Published on September 19, 2016

3769 views

Which Kills Your Heart? Sugar or Fat?

“So what DO you eat?”

I hear this question daily. It seems that the sugar civilization cannot envision life without sugar, refined or fiber-rich carbohydrates, such as cereals or grain. Indeed, I am part of the new fat civilization culture. So I daily have to answer two questions:

1) What can you eat if you don’t eat bread or pasta or cereal or any sweets?

2) All that fat you are eating must be really bad for your cholesterol and blood pressure.

Interestingly, while I have been on the low carbs high fat diet (LCHF) for a year and on the more extreme version called ketogenic for a few months now, contrary to what people may expect to find, I lost weight. I am never hungry. I don’t crave foods. My blood pressure, even right after running up four floors at the doctor’s office, is 117/77. My triglycerides dropped from 172 to 76 (that is great!). I no longer need afternoon naps. I don’t get muscle aches after intense “speed gardening” (I know, it is an oxymoron but I use that as exercise). All my allergies are gone as well. I am doing great! How is that possible? I think that the latest article published in JAMA provides a great explanation.

The Scam

On the 12^th of September, 2016, JAMA Internal Medicine released a landmark article that reverberated in many leading papers and news stations – see the New York Times article here, CNN news article here, and NPR here. The journal article is written by scientists supported for this research by:

Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, California
Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
Clinical and Translational Science Institute, San Francisco, California
Department of Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, California
Cardiovascular Research Institute, San Francisco, California
Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California

Clearly the scientists publishing this landmark article are not supported by the typical type of support one would expect with a watershed article on nutrition. However, this is this is not your everyday academic article on nutrition. The article was published in a “side journal” of JAMA; a journal not expected to catch much attention and understandably so.

From my personal publishing experience, no academic article that has at its core the revealing of academic corruption could ever have published in a leading headline-grabbing academic journal. Therefore, I am tickled to joy seeing it being picked up by the media a day after its publication from a journal few were intended to read. The article presents strong evidence of corruption within academia and the sugar industry that set the animal fats industry to doom in order to push sugar. The findings by these investigators is nothing short of the corruption discovery of the tobacco industry and how they were profiting from their knowledge that tobacco causes addiction and harm.

This article, open access for free reading here, is not a data analysis but rather an examination of historical communication between key players in the sugar industry and academicians working for them at big name universities – including Harvard.

This unusual approach is reminiscent of the Watergate type investigation. Not surprisingly, their research of documents pointed to cover-ups and deliberate destruction of academic careers and people’s health. The sugar industry, then called Sugar Research Foundation, knew quite well that coronary heart disease, a key area of research and funding at that time, was not caused by fat but by sugar. The Sugar Research Foundation is still continuing its fight for the health and benefits of sugar with a name change to the Sugar Association. They funded most research, decided what to research, what findings were acceptable and what was to be published.

Findings that did not match their goal were swept under a giant carpet. Not surprisingly, nothing bad was ever found about the effects of sugar. Since coronary heart disease rates continued unabated in that era (and still do today), they pushed all blame on saturated fat and cholesterol (as the blame is still on these today). Luckily, that very tall carpet holding all the truth, has now been shaken free from dust, revealing the corruption. Critically, we now know with certainty that sugar contributes to a host of problems, including coronary heart disease, obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, whereas fat may not be involved at all. Even brain-health deterioration is now seen to be caused by sugar rather than fat because the brain has insulin receptors whose resistance is thought to be responsible for metabolic diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, in addition to type 2 diabetes and obesity.

In the process of pushing sugar and low fat, the Sugar Research Foundation destroyed not only academic careers, such as John Yudkin, a physiologist and nutritionist and professor of nutrition in the Queen Elizabeth College in London, but also, the health and lives of millions (if not billions) of people around the world. The lies still continue to mislead; Tasmania believes that apple or cherry pie is healthier than bacon and eggs and wants to rename a city accordingly.

“Considering the high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat in eggs and bacon, the area may as well be called ‘Heart Attack Bay,’” said a spokeswoman not realizing that it is questionable if cholesterol has anything to do with heart attacks at all. Cholesterol is vital to human health and is protective against coronary heart disease and is not the cause of it. HDL and LDL are not cholesterol but lipoprotein balls that carry cholesterol inside of them. Having high or low HDL or LDL tells nothing about how much cholesterol we have. The statement of the spokeswoman indicates a complete lack of understanding. Cholesterol is not made from fat but from carbohydrates in a rather complicated process.

There are many books leading the way in helping people understand that refined carbs, cereal, bread and pasta, soft drinks, fruit juices, sweet fruits (like pineapples) and vegetables full of starch (like potatoes) have caused a massive metabolic syndrome across the globe (1-7).

Back to my story and how eating more fat changed my health entirely.

Eating Fatty Foods Versus Carbohydrates

This is the first paradox in the heart-health hypothesis of increased carbohydrates to reduce cholesterol. Eating more carbohydrates will not reduce cholesterol because cholesterol is made from carbohydrates. Increased carbs leads to increased cholesterol. Cholesterol is made from carbs, in particular fructose is a great source of triglycerides. Triglycerides are the bad lipids that cholesterol tests measure—so I don’t eat fructose. Removing fructose means the removal of all refined sugars since sugar is made from glucose and fructose (disaccharide). I definitely don’t want fructose as a result of what it becomes—and I am not just talking about triglycerides. Fructose converts to ethanol in the liver before it becomes triglycerides. In fact, soft drinks, fruit juices, and smoothies all become ethanol and then triglycerides in the liver. Ethanol is the stuff in my car’s gasoline; I don’t think I want that in my liver. Fructose also causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, something I had and reversed by quitting fructose and all sugars completely. All I can say is that my grandchildren do not drink fruit juices or sodas.

Glucose Contributes to Heart Disease

Glucose causes metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome contributes to heart disease. Why would one eat a diet high in glucose? Glucose spikes insulin, which over time leads to pancreatitis and other wonderful conditions ending up in type 2 and later type 1.5 diabetes (when your pancreas cannot make enough insulin). I don’t want diabetes of any kind so I don’t eat glucose either. Special note: the page I linked you to (Harvard University) that explains how glucose and carbs in general lead to type 2 diabetes sports a photo of grain flour as its background. Don’t you find it odd that a page that explains that grains are partly to blame for diabetes advertises to increase grains for heart health on their second page (under fiber)?

Why Do We Hate Fat?

The human brain is between 60% and 70% fat (depending upon what article you read) nonetheless it is the most critical element in brain development and repair. Are we so concerned about our heart that we forget that without a brain the heart is useless? If I don’t eat the right kind and amount of fat, what will my brain become? Fat is essential for the brain development of children and the brain does not stop developing until you die. Your brain needs all fats: saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats but more saturated fats for myelinating axons (in English: insulation for the voltage carrying parts of the brain’s neurons). Alzheimer’s disease, which is now rampant as a result of the low fat and high carbs diets, can potentially be prevented by diets that prevent hypertension, diabetes and obesity. When fats were removed from food, sugars were put in to replace them and people ended up with hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, which clearly then increases Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia, and coronary heart disease in addition to all metabolic diseases.

It is time to put fats back to where they belong. Fats are essential for maintaining brain health, whereas eating sugar is not. Amazingly Harvard University now agrees–controversy is good.

And here, I connect back to something important in terms of vegetables and fruits. Gout, predominantly believed to be caused by protein, is caused by fructose and alcohol. Since there is neither fructose nor alcohol in meat, gout cannot be caused by meat but by elements high in “heart healthy” foods, such as grains, fruits, vegetables, and even red wine (or other alcohol). It is also an important discovery that while most minerals are found mainly in animal meats and fish, even vitamins have taken on a different meaning when you learn that one only needs to supplement vitamin C, for example, while eating a carbohydrate rich diet (1). That is because insulin receptors are using both glucose and vitamin C and the two compete. Since glucose has priority, much C is released unused. This explains why the LCHF diets need potentially no vitamin supplementation whereas high carbohydrate diets do. However, vitamin supplementation has its own controversy as well.

What Can You Eat?

Now that I have connected as many dots as space allows, I hope I answered the two questions I asked up front, which I summarize here:

1) “What can you eat if you don’t eat bread or pasta or cereal or any sweets?” Everything that is fat, meat, or dairy with limited low fructose/glucose fruits–I can also eat leafy green veggies but with the recent concerns of various infections I am not fond of taking that chance. My meals include a moderate amount of fatty protein like red meat and fatty fish and absolutely the smallest amount of fruits and vegetables if any at all (I only eat blackberries). I eat lots of cheese, sour cream, and drink whipping cream (unflavored) and whole milk. I know that your next question, though silent, is: what about fiber for healthy bowel movement? Nah… that belongs to the story book of the “heart-health” fantasy as well. Fiber pulls water from your cells thereby creating bulk and wonderfully constipating plugs as a result. You need fiber only if you eat loads carbohydrates. No fiber and limited carbs means no constipation.

2) “But all that fat you are eating is surely bad for your cholesterol and your blood pressure!” – Since bad cholesterol (triglyceride) is made from carbs (not fat), something that I don’t eat, my cholesterol is actually great. Since the human brain is about 70% fat, it needs to be filled with fat and not sugar. I now can think clearly; I am in a good mood; I am not tired; I don’t have sugar crashes and I don’t have diabetes either. My blood pressure is 117/77, absolutely perfect (it always was this low and never changed). Life is great without sugar, fruits, veggies, and grains. I am living the high life on fats.

Enjoy the new science and enjoy your fatty meats. Dump all that sugar and grain and eat wholesome healthy fatty foods to support your nervous system and your heart-health for real.

Sources

Taubes G (2011) Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (Anchor) Reprint edition December 27, 2011 Ed p 288.
Taubes G (2008) Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health (Anchor).
Teicholz N (2015) The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet (Simon & Schuster; Reprint edition, New York) p 496.
Sanjay Gupta MD & Lustig MD, Robert H (2013) Sugar. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HezSlrJ1k7w).
Robert H. Lustig M.D. MSL (2012, 2013, 2014) Fat Chance; Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease (Penguin, New York, New York).
Lusting JYwRH (2013) Pure, White, and Deadly: How Sugar is Killing Us and What We can Do To Stop It. (Penguin Books).
Dr. Kendrick M (2007) The Great Cholesterol Con; The trusth about what really causes heart disease and how to avoid it (John Blake Publishing, London, England) p 270.

The Misguided Battle Against Dietary Fat and Cholesterol

by Angela A Stanton, PhD

Published on August 8, 2016

2957 views

I was at my medical provider the other day waiting for my turn for an MRI test. I shared the lobby with over 100 people. As I looked around, for the first time I noticed something odd. About 80% of the people in the lobby were overweight. I found a seat, the only seat. It was a single small seat. Most of the seats now are double sized to allow the obese to sit. I am claustrophobic and was concerned about this on my way to the MRI machine. The nurse gave me a wink and smile and we walked into the room. I was nailed to the floor. I have never seen anything like this though I have been in MRIs many times before.

I recall having been pushed into a narrow tube many times before where I could not lift a hand, usually dimly lit with some wind blowing in my face and a terribly loud echoing hammering as the image slices were taken. Yet here I was, glided silently into an MRI machine that was almost big enough for me to sit up in. “Ah the benefits of having obese people” I thought as I entered this brightly lit giant tube that was so wide that even the noise was reduced, lacking the echo we all are familiar with and hate. The radiologist told me that all MRI scanners are being replaced. As I was scanned for 45 minutes, I had no claustrophobia at all and not too much noise to block my thinking. The time gave me a chance to pause about the obesity epidemic: how did we get here? Why are entire new industries created to cater to our new weight rather than help us become healthy? Why are so many of us overweight to begin with? What has gone wrong?

Coincidentally, for unrelated reasons, I was already researching the nutritional recommendations of the USDA for the past several months; reading all of the books and academic research papers available to me. The USDA recommendations sparked my interest because I run a migraine group full of glucose intolerant migraineurs. I merely wanted an answer to why migraineurs (like me) are glucose intolerant, when I came across the huge nutritional boxing ring with major academic fights in this arena. The real science was hid, even by the NIH, unpublished.

The obesity epidemic starts with the theory of Ancel Keys who in the mid 20^th Century US decided that coronary heart disease (CHD) was the most important thing to focus on (Eisenhower just had a heart attack). He found support for his hypothesis that high cholesterol is caused by high dietary fat—in particular saturated animal fats—and those with high cholesterol will most certainly have CHD, will flip and die very soon. His findings were dubious at best, but still garnered support (Ancel Keys – Seven Countries Study)

Researchers all over the world presented conflicting evidence but they were not only not able to publish these data in reputable academic journals, they were ostracized for even trying. Eventually so many scientists lost their reputation as a result of trying to fight Keys’ hypothesis that many left academia or changed fields of research and gave up (1-3).

Nina Teicholz spent eight years digging up files never published and hidden in the archives of the NIH (3). The reason for not publishing? The findings did not support Keys’ theories. It was assumed that the results had to have been wrong and therefore could not be published. In scientific research the role of science is to try to refute the theory by proving it wrong. In the case of Keys’ theory, the law of science changed: a theory was accepted as truth and no one could publish anything unless they found supporting evidence to THAT theory. Thus, science moved backwards and has effectively stalled for decades where cholesterol and fat are concerned.

When nutrition research began in the early 20^th Century, we did not have the all of the tools available that we have today. Today we know that cholesterol is not made from fat at all but from Acetyl CoA and Acetoacetyl CoA (source). So if cholesterol is not made from fat, what is the connection of eating saturated fat to CHD? Nothing actually—today we know but shhhhh… this still cannot be said loud!

Cholesterol Is Made from Acetyl CoA and Acetoacetyl CoA, Not Fat

Cholesterol is made from two molecules in a total of about 39 hard steps by our liver (or we can eat it like egg yolks). Would our body go through such hard work of creating something if it ended up causing our death? It is not even plausible that human evolution would have supported such counter mechanism.

A Primer on Metabolism

Acetyl CoA is

“an important biochemical molecule in cellular respiration. It is produced in the second step of aerobic respiration after glycolysis [the breakdown of glucose (think carbohydrates) by enzymes, releasing energy and pyruvic acid] and carries the carbon atoms of the acetyl group to the TCA cycle [Krebs cycle which is a chemical reaction used by all aerobic organisms] to be oxidized for energy production” (source)

and Acetoacetyl CoA is

“intermediate in the oxidation of fatty acids [fats] and in the formation of ketone bodies [fat burning energy bodies]” (source).

Note that neither is a fat but they together form fat (cholesterol) by oxidation. Cholesterol is a lipid (a naturally occurring molecule like fats, waxes, steroids, fat-soluble vitamins like vitamins A, D, E, and K, and also triglycerides). Triglycerides are ester derived from glycerol and three fatty acids – body fat, phospholipids (a major component of all cell membranes), and many other types of lipids. The main biological functions of lipids (such as cholesterol) are storing energy, signaling, and acting as structural components of cell membranes.

It is not the matter of eating fat and oops we now have cholesterol; rather it is a matter of “we must have cholesterol to survive.”

Where do these elements come from in the body to create cholesterol?

As noted above: carbohydrates (glucose is a carbohydrate) and an element that is an intermediate step in oxidizing fatty acid combined create cholesterol, which “then enters the citric acid cycle in the mitochondria…” (source) Note the key word here: carbohydrates. This is important because the “health-heart” movement of Ancel Keys’ “fat causes high cholesterol” is clearly not true if cholesterol is made from carbohydrates and not a fat. How did we end up thinking that cholesterol is made from fat? It certainly is fat but clearly is not made from fat.

Why do we need cholesterol?

Cholesterol is used by our mitochondria (not what we eat but what our mitochondria needs to create energy ATP). (source)

How much cholesterol is needed and what happens when we reduce cholesterol?

You would think that these questions were asked over the 80+ years but no reputable scientist dared asking. The moment such question was asked, the sticker “black sheep” went up the forehead so researchers just let it go. Thus we have no idea how much cholesterol we actually need. Everyone needs a different level: the thought that a 30-year old 7-foot-tall male Marathon runner needs the same cholesterol level as a little old lady, aged 95, in a wheelchair is just preposterous. Clearly each person needs a different level based on mitochondrial respiration intensity and frequency, which is age, gender, and activity related. A cookie-cutter approach just cannot work. What happens when we reduce cholesterol? As noted above, cholesterol stores energy, it is a signaling agent, and acts as structural components of cell membranes among other things. If we reduce cholesterol, we effectively reduce our body functions.

The Combustible Vegetable Oils

Since it was decided that fat creates cholesterol and thus saturated fats had to be removed from everyone’s diet, the research was about how to make vegetable oils, unsaturated or polyunsaturated, edible and digestible (the kind flies won’t eat in your garage). Hydrogenation could only produce dangerous fats, such as hydrogenated vegetable oils (trans fats) or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, both of which were said to have randomly combusted in delivery trucks while being taken for cleaning and also while taken back to the restaurants after cleaning. Apparently the fumes vegetable oils create settle in the clothing (and the lungs of the chefs) and even after professional cleaning are still capable to burst into flame without any provocation (3). These vegetable oils have polyunsaturated fats that have the unfortunate “poly” (multiple) bonds. These bonds break easily, transforming fats into ugly sticky goo and free radicals. This goo replaces animal fats in human mitochondria, blocking the mitochondria from creating energy.

This makes a lot of sense: fats in vegetable oils are not the same chemical components as fats in animal bodies. There is a huge difference in how they work and to what they bond. Animal fats become energized by thermal heat referred to as internal combustion whereas vegetables use external energy (the sun) and in heat they disintegrate, oxidize, and become goo. They chemically change from being fats to something that cannot be used by the human body as fats (4). Olive oil does not combust but at higher temperatures oxidize, creating free radicals.

Fat provides a lot of energy, 9 Calories per gram as opposed to carbohydrates and proteins, each producing only 4 Calories per gram. This implies that by removing fat calories from our diet, a very large part of the daily calories needed to be made up by something other than fat. Since protein also contained fat (saturated fat in particular), the Food Pyramid and later “My Plate” both reduced the protein amount as well. Thus, what we were left with was increased carbohydrates in our diets. However, as noted above, carbohydrates are part of cholesterol creation. This has become a catch 22 that no one in the “heart-health” supporter group accepted or did not see or decided to ignore because it was too complex or decided to ignore because then they too would become black sheep.

The Catch 22

Perhaps most the most striking aspect of this misunderstanding, is that if we follow the steps, we inadvertently increase the very diseases that we would like to avoid. By increasing carbohydrate intake, we’re increasing cholesterol and inducing metabolic disorders.

reduce cholesterol ==> reduce fats ==> increase carbohydrates ==> increase cholesterol

So here we are today, 80+ years later. Today the Western Diet world has a nightmare of metabolic disorders to fight. Where do metabolic disorder lead to? CHD of course, the very thing Ancel Keys wanted to rid the society from. However, there is more to it than that.

Carbohydrates have some nasty properties—both simple and complex carbohydrates do:

They are addictive; eight times more than cocaine or heroin (5, 6)
Grains (complex carbohydrates we eat the most of) release morphine (7), another drug
Carbohydrates spike insulin and create insulin resistance (8-10)
Insulin in the blood makes us hungry
The more carbohydrates we eat, the more insulin we release and the hungrier we get
Insulin resistance turns into type 2 diabetes
People with type 2 diabetes are at an increased risk of CHD
Carbohydrates create triglycerides, the type of cholesterol that is know to cause CHD (11)

And so now not only are we back at trying to prevent CHD, where we started 80+ years ago, but we also have massive metabolic disorder epidemic and new diseases, such as cancer, that also appear to be connected to high carbohydrate consumption.

Yet, to this day, the nutrition guideline of the USDA for the American population, now called My Plate, does not even include dietary fat! I challenge you to find a baby food with more than 1% fat in it; babies are only eating carbohydrates.

Luckily there is a new movement toward a healthy diet that goes under a couple of different names: Low Carbohydrate High Fat (LCHF) or ketogenic diet. These types of diets are used now therapeutically for many health conditions; health conditions we could probably prevent if we simply added saturated animal fats back into our diet and dumped all that sugar and grain.

Sources

Taubes G (2008) Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health (Anchor).
Taubes G (2011) Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (Anchor) Reprint edition December 27, 2011 Ed p 288.
Teicholz N (2015) The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet (Simon & Schuster; Reprint edition, New York) p 496.
Browner WS, Westenhouse J, & Tice JA (1991) What if americans ate less fat?: A quantitative estimate of the effect on mortality. JAMA 265(24):3285-3291.
Ahmed SH, Guillem K, & Vandaele Y (2013) Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care 16(4):434-439.
Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, & Ahmed SH (2007) Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward. PLoS ONE 2(8):e698.
Perlmutter D & Loberg K (2014) Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth About Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar – Your Brain’s Silent Killers (Hodder & Stoughton).
DiNicolantonio JJ & Lucan SC (2014) The wrong white crystals: not salt but sugar as aetiological in hypertension and cardiometabolic disease. Open Heart 1(1):e000167.
Schaefer EJ, Gleason JA, & Dansinger ML (2009) Dietary Fructose and Glucose Differentially Affect Lipid and Glucose Homeostasis. The Journal of Nutrition 139(6):1257S-1262S.
Stanhope KL (2015) Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and obesity: The state of the controversy. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences:1-16.
Gandotra P & Miller M (2008) The role of triglycerides in cardiovascular risk. Current Cardiology Reports 10(6):505-511.

metabolic syndrome

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Why Foods May Turn Against Us

“Houston, We Have a Problem”

What Are Grains?

Prolamins = Gluten + Gliadin + Zein +Hordein + Secalin +++

Are Grains Digestible?

Autoimmunity

Autoimmunity and the Health Industry

Why Are You Still Eating Grains?

We Need Your Help

Sources

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Ovaries: Health Powerhouses

The Uterus / Ovaries / Tubes Connection

The Uterus: Anatomy, Sex, Cancer Prevention

Compelling Evidence of Harm

A Harmful Practice That Won’t Die

How to End the Harm?

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Which Kills Your Heart? Sugar or Fat?

The Scam

Eating Fatty Foods Versus Carbohydrates

Glucose Contributes to Heart Disease

Why Do We Hate Fat?

What Can You Eat?

Sources

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Cholesterol Is Made from Acetyl CoA and Acetoacetyl CoA, Not Fat

A Primer on Metabolism

Where do these elements come from in the body to create cholesterol?

Why do we need cholesterol?

How much cholesterol is needed and what happens when we reduce cholesterol?

The Combustible Vegetable Oils

The Catch 22

Related posts:

You might be interested in