World Renown Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes

Started by Mats Trane, March 16, 2012 · 15 Replies · 3,986 Views

Coach Sommer
Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.

What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the overload of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods.

Excellent article.

However the doctor missed an excellent opportunity to articulate his case more clearly. He states that chronic inflammation is the primary cause of cardiovascular disease and goes on to posit that the development of chronic inflammation is due to the high consumption of sugar and flour etc, but then he somewhat clouds the water by asserting it is the low fat diet that is ultimately responsible for the higher consumption of sugar and gluten.

The degree of fat ingested is a separate issue from whether or not the diet contains sugar and gluten. He is assuming that one is indicative of the other which is not necessarily the case. For example, many low fat diets are indeed high in sugar and gluten. However the modern high fat american diet is also quite high in sugar and gluten.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

RatioFitness

Other folks would argue that over-consumption of fat causes inflammation and not carbs, and other would take a more middle-ground approach and argue that it's over-consumption in general. Without a single reference in the article, the author expects us to take his words on authority rather than based on the strength of the evidence presented (no evidence was presented).

Also, heart surgeon does not = epidemiologist. You could be a an excellent heart surgeon while still having totally false beliefs about the dietary cause of why your patients are on the table in front of you.

Aaron Griffin
Coach Sommer said:
The degree of fat ingested is a separate issue from whether or not the diet contains sugar and gluten. He is assuming that one is indicative of the other which is not necessarily the case. For example, many low fat diets are indeed high in sugar and gluten. However the modern high fat american diet is also quite high in sugar and gluten.

Well, a lot of packaged foods, when made "Low Fat", become bland, so additional sugar and salt need to be added. That's probably where it's getting all muddled

Larry Roseman
phrak said:
Coach Sommer said:
The degree of fat ingested is a separate issue from whether or not the diet contains sugar and gluten. He is assuming that one is indicative of the other which is not necessarily the case. For example, many low fat diets are indeed high in sugar and gluten. However the modern high fat american diet is also quite high in sugar and gluten.

Well, a lot of packaged foods, when made "Low Fat", become bland, so additional sugar and salt need to be added. That's probably where it's getting all muddled

The other facet is that many people are just eating too much for their activity level, aside from the issue of

high fat/low sugar or low fat/high sugar or high fat/high sugar! The body chemistry varies substantially when it is storing fat as opposed to burning it and the obesity rate has been rising for decades. And it's probable that eating a high sugar diet has encourged this trend, due to the impact on insulin and it's non-filling nature.

Although, I beleive since 1985 the annual deaths rate death rate from cardiovascular disease has been trending downwards, despite this. It may be due to improvements in other factors, such as earlier diagnosis, better treatments, etc. No one seems to be certain.

It's hard to pinpoint a single factor that causes it, but I'd pick being overweight as #1, with genetics

a close second.

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/family/gtfoe ... itions.pdf

Joshua Naterman

Higher than necessary levels of fat in the diet is associated with inflammation, and so are high glycemic carbs. Gluten is also.

If you just eat cooked whole grains you won't have to deal with the glycemic issue, from enriched flours to added sugars and other sweeteners, which is the most major of them. Gluten... Not sure that this deserves as much blame as it gets. People have been eating gluten containing grains forever. It's clearly not at the top of the "you want this in your diet" list, but it is a bit silly to blame gluten for our problems. In the larger picture, it is a very minor issue compared to the others unless you are gluten intolerant to a fair degree. I'm not saying it's irrelevant or that gluten is good for your health, just that it is arguably tied for the least of these evils right down there with the excess fat.

Eating too much in general, poor continuous energy balance (similar but different), and the prevalence of meals with high GI + high glycemic load are the main issues by far. Having the "right" amount of fat is pretty well guaranteed by eating natural meats and cooking veggies with a bit of oil or butter, and a few glasses of milk each day. If you don't have processed crap with all sorts of things in it you don't run into any of these major issues because it's extremely hard to eat enough natural foods at one time or over the course of the day to cause a problem. You really have to do it on purpose, and your best luck will be with meats. If you eat enough protein to hit your anabolic maximum at 1.5-2 grams of protein per kg of body weight then you can't screw up.

I have a hard time eating 2000 kcal of buckwheat, it's almost impossible over the course of the day and it's the densest grain-type food I can find. Same goes for oats. And I am ravenous, I can destroy food supplies. It is just so bulky that it is hard to eat that much.

There really isn't all that much more to it.

Edit: Obviously, it is important to have optimal nutrient exposure by eating enough of the various fruits and vegetables and this is another issue, although again not the most major. I better type this before someone points this out.

James Babers
RatioFitness said:
Also, heart surgeon does not = epidemiologist.

Epidemiologists aren't the experts you want to look to for determining a healthy diet. Epidemiology is only capable of generating hypotheses, it can't prove anything, it's only observation. It's epidemiologists that are responsible for things like the saturated fat scare and all those contradictory "eggs are bad for you... nevermind eggs are good for you" articles that come out every few years. As for heart disease, I think it's because even the food people eat at home, which used to be real food, is now processed toxic hyper-rewarding junk. People don't eat actual food anymore, they eat fast food at home.

Joshua Naterman

The focus is always on wheat, and there are a lot of people with wheat issues, but the real focus needs to be on getting tested for food sensitivities. There are some foods, like almonds as one example among every food ever, that nearly all of us are fine with and some are sensitive too. It's important to know what YOUR body is sensitive to, because that will tell you what you need to stay away from. It's also important to get tested every so often, maybe once every 10 years and after powerful antibiotic treatments because the passage of time and death of gut bacterial colonies can cause new sensitivities or intolerances.

It is a bad idea to focus on just one food, it is a good idea to focus on what the concept is and apply that. Wheat is an issue for many people, but many people have other sensitivities as well that they are equally ignorant of. Try to remember that and be more of an advocate for individual testing and less of a crusader against one food. Some people have no issues with wheat whatsoever, and some people are sensitive enough to buckwheat that they can't eat it because of the same GI symptoms as a celiac patient, even though it's gluten free.

It is good to spread the word that many people have issues with gluten and that many of us feel better without it and are probably healthier without it, but don't let that be your sole message. Advocate for food sensitivity testing, it's very much worth the money.

James Babers
Joshua Naterman said:
Some people have no issues with wheat whatsoever

But the vast majority of people do have issues with wheat, it promotes gut inflammation in nearly everyone - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed You're right though, people should know which foods they don't do well on. Some foods are perfectly healthy for some people and not for others, while other foods are just toxic in general. Donuts or fast food for instance, are probably bad for everyone. Can you be healthy while still eating wheat? Yes I think so if you've got enough of the other things right. Will you be as healthy as if you didn't? No I don't think you will. Is the benefit significant? Yes I think it is. Should I stop asking myself questions? definitely.

Joshua Naterman
Mohanknows said:
Joshua Naterman said:
Some people have no issues with wheat whatsoever

But the vast majority of people do have issues with wheat, it promotes gut inflammation in nearly everyone - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed You're right though, people should know which foods they don't do well on. Some foods are perfectly healthy for some people and not for others, while other foods are just toxic in general. Donuts or fast food for instance, are probably bad for everyone. Can you be healthy while still eating wheat? Yes I think so if you've got enough of the other things right. Will you be as healthy as if you didn't? No I don't think you will. Is the benefit significant? Yes I think it is. Should I stop asking myself questions? definitely.

:lol:

I know, not saying you shouldn't tell people that... you should. I just think that the major issue is not gluten, but unnecessary inflammation in the gut. Gluten is a common cause of this, but not even close to the only one and many are individual in nature, so it's a great segue into why it is a great idea to know what foods one is sensitive to!

Cole Dano

That begs the question, how do you know you have an inflamed or irritated gut in the first place.

From what I know it's all about the quality of one's bowel movements.

Joshua Naterman
Cole Dano said:
That begs the question, how do you know you have an inflamed or irritated gut in the first place.

From what I know it's all about the quality of one's bowel movements.

Really good question!

http://www.healthremedies.com/food_allergy_test.html

This provides a fairly good explanation.

There are a few blood tests that can be done quickly and painlessly (other than a finger prick, which is almost impossible to feel these days) that can tell you how your body reacts to up to 600 of the most common food and non-food allergens. Pretty awesome.

Quick Start Test Smith

Good gracious those tests are expensive.

Adrien Godet

A word of caution: a quick google search on Dwight Lundell, the author in the original link, will show that his standard of ethics could possibly be quite low (various issues with the law, the taxman and medical boards - apparently unrelated to dietary recommendations).

Joshua Naterman
Adrien said:
A word of caution: a quick google search on Dwight Lundell, the author in the original link, will show that his standard of ethics could possibly be quite low (various issues with the law, the taxman and medical boards - apparently unrelated to dietary recommendations).

Could be, but what he is saying is in line with current research models. It's not the full story, as lifestyle stress and excess fructose (along with the various chemicals, from coloring to pesticides and more) that is in our diet also contribute heavily to the development of CVD. Still, it isn't a bad article. Dogmatic, but at least the dogma is well-rooted in emerging health models.