Beer Diet: What We Learned

The “Beer Diet” – I’m the doctor that supervised Evo Terra as he spent every October for the last three years drinking beer and eating sausages – and while doing this lost weight, lowered his cholesterol, lowered his body fat, and lowered his C-reactive protein and blood homocysteine levels (measures of the body’s inflammatory response).

Here are the Five big lessons we have learned from this experiment:
[Read more...]

Calorie Myths

Should We Replace the Calorie System for Weight Loss?
Calories may not be an adequate way to represent the energy we need or would store. We all know people who eat little but stay heavy, and those who eat loads of junk food but are as skinny as a rail. How can that be? Are the heavy ones sneaking excess calories (maybe) – are the skinny ones with nervous energy just have a higher metabolism (whatever that means – and maybe they do).

So here are six common myths about calories and a few simple eating rules for eating.

Myth: Calories provide our Energy
Calories are not what provide the energy to fuel our body’s metabolism. Our metabolism is fueled by complex chemical reactions and energy is obtained by breaking molecular bonds of chemicals like adenosine triphosphate. A calorie is not a biology/biochemistry term, but a term mechanical engineers first used and adopted by physics.  The technical term of a calorie is this: one calorie is the amount of heat needed to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius. The calories we use are kilocalories- so multiply that by a thousand.

So calories don’t provide energy but are a measurement of the potential energy in a food.

Caloric History –
Bridging caloric physics to biology is largely credited to Wilber Olin Atwater (1844-1907), who applied the first law of thermodynamics to food: energy can be transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed.  With that he began the use of the term of calories to food – and started measuring how food affected people, by measuring their conversions of oxygen to carbon dioxide and the calories of food. Atwater concluded that people ate too many sweets and fats and didn’t exercise enough.

Using this equipment Atwater was able to determine the relative input of food and exercise

In the early years of determining calories they would put food into a machine called a “bomb calorimeter” burn it- and see how much energy the food contained. This process has been refined, so that we know one gram of carbohydrates has four calories, one gram of protein has four calories, one gram of alcohol has seven calories, and one gram of fat has nine calories.

Myth: A calorie is a calorie
It doesn’t matter how many calories you consume, it matters what your body does with them. Your body will process those 100-calorie snacks differently than 100 calories of beef, or 100 calories of fish.

Your body cannot store protein, so when you need protein to rebuild cells, or after some muscle breakdown, it relies on your diet to get it. The various proteins are broken down in the intestines into amino acids – and your body has no idea if those amino acids came from a plant or beef. So the calories that are available in protein may not be available for energy, but instead used for building. Protein beyond that which is needed for the body’s function can be broken down and used by the body, and if too much of it is available it will be stored as fat.

Many fish are rich in calorie dense fatty acids, but your body cannot make these, so it relies on your diet to get them. Thus, the calories that are available from omega-3 fatty acids may never be used as energy, or stored as fat, because your body will be using them to build various functions.

Fructose, in its refined form, is passively absorbed by the intestines and about 1/3 of it becomes fat.  Doesn’t matter how much your body needs the fuel, one third of all fructose consumed is processed into fat.

Graph from tutorvista.com showing the different pathways of glucose Gand fructose

Myth: Low levels of Glucose are good for you
There is an ideal range for blood glucose levels- too low or too high and you won’t function.  Glucose is important to the body because  every cell in your body needs glucose to function, from the brain to the muscles. Glucose is the currency your body uses to provide energy. Glucose is so important that your body actively absorbs glucose from the intestines to the bloodstream using specialized glucose transport cells. As your body breaks down food into is basic components in the intestine, when a  molecule of glucose is available the glucose is actively transported from the intestine to the bloodstream where it can be used as fuel.

Fructose, in contrast, cannot be used by the human body as fuel. Fructose has to be changed into other products. Fructose is passively absorbed in the intestines – which means if there is a lot of fructose present, it is absorbed into your bloodstream from the intestines. Fructose in fruit, is complexed  with the fiber, and the fiber cannot be absorbed – so you eat the 100 calories of fruit your body cannot absorb the fructose that isn’t free from the fiber. But drink 100 calories of juice, which has a lot of free fructose, and chances are you will get all of the fructose and 1/3 will go down the fatty-acid pathway.

Common table sugar is made up of 1/2 fructose and 1/2 glucose. The high fructose corn syrup used to sweeten juices, soda, cookies, and many breads is higher in fructose than glucose. We recently wrote about the health risks of high fructose corn syrup.

The 100-calorie snacks are typically highly processed cookies, or snacks, and the processed sugar is broken down and quickly absorbed by the body and your body will store that excess as fat.

Calories Don’t Matter if Your Body Can’t Use Them or Get to Them
People cannot digest the cell walls of plants, like fruits and vegetables. This means humans cannot get at those calories without cooking or mechanically breaking down those cell walls. Raw foodies take advantage of this, unable to get most of the calories from vegetables and fruits; they are able to consume large amounts of calories and still lose weight.

Myth: Exercise burns calories
A patient came to me having gained a few pounds over a month and said, “I know for a fact that I exercise 1900 calories a day.” That is impressive, so I asked how he did it- he said that he used an elliptical machine for 45 minutes a day, and the calories he used were based on what the dials on the elliptical machine said. Funny thing – look at those machines or those iPhone apps and they tell you that you are burning hundreds of calories a day – but they are not only inaccurate, they are misleading.

The average male burns a bit over 2000 calories a day- and if you work out for an hour a day you will probably only burn another 100 calories in an  hour. Discouraged? Don’t be. The majority of your calories are burned by your heart pumping, your lungs breathing, your brain thinking. Plus all those things you do during the day matter. The more involved you are in what you do, and increasing your activity, the better you will feel and the less likely you will be to waste calories on crummy food.

The easiest way to increase what you burn is to increase the things you do daily. Remember when you were a kid, and you were always on the go? It is time to get that spirit back- walk more, play more, have more fun- get out of that chair and off the couch. That will burn more exercise than going to the gym and watching your friends work out. You know that tiny lawn you have- get a push lawnmower and use that.

Exercise is good – it is empowering, it gets you out of the house.  Get a Nike Fuelband or some monitor, and use it – plan to exceed your daily activity until you get to an average of 10,000 steps a day.

 

Just Do It

Myth: The reason you are not loosing weight is you are not eating enough

Fred weighed 400 pounds, and he decided to get a Lap-Band to help him lose weight. He hit a plateau after 18 months when he weighed 250 pounds, so he asked me, if he needed to eat more to lose weight.  My answer is, “Yes, it needs to be more fruit and more vegetables- not processed. What it does not need to be is yogurt, cheese, or nuts.”

Fred was eating a lot less food, less than he had in years, but it was still enough to sustain his weight at 250 pounds (he wanted to get to 190 pounds). It was a combination of not just how much he ate, but also when he ate.

If you eat all of your calories at one time your body has to decide to do with the excess fuel. Does it store it, or does it burn it. Sometimes it isn’t that you are not eating enough – sometimes it is that you need to spread that same amount of calories throughout the day.

it isn’t just how much you eat – it is also when you eat and what you eat that determines your health

Myth: It isn’t the calories it is the insulin response to calories
This popular theory goes like this: you eat too many carbohydrates, the insulin level spike, store that as fat while stimulating the fat to store yet more fat and drive a person to eat more simple carbohydrates. People like the simplicity often pontificate that we should eat our calories from protein – be they Paleo, Atkins, low-carb types, or proponents of the glycemic index. People who previously ate a lot of processed food and move into more protein will lose weight – but the body isn’t just that simple.

But the body is even more complex than that – and measurements taken are not insulin levels, but often glucose levels in response to what is believed to be insulin.

Some people just are lucky
Did you ever meet someone who could eat huge amounts of food and never gain an ounce? They can eat junk food, or violate every “rule” and yet not gain a bit. They are just burners.

So they can consume 5000 calories and yet look great – while you have ice cream every night for a week and come away with an extra pound.

Think of people like cars.  Some cars are very efficient at burning gas – the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic – they are like the skinny little friends who eat lots of junk food while looking slim.  Some cars are gas-guzzlers – they are larger, don’t look as sleek – that is like many people. Both get the same amount of gasoline, but they use it differently.

Calories are Still Pretty Good for measuring
Overall, as we demonstrated with the beer and sausage diet as well as the eggs and beer diet – when you cut down on the number of calories you consume, you will loose weight. While there are some clear exceptions, the body isn’t simple, and the use of calories as a measurement of what you consume works out pretty well.

A few simple rules:

(1) Eat lots of fruit and vegetables.

(2) Lean meats are just fine

(3) Have fish twice a week

(4) Make sure you have nutrient rich foods

(5) Increase your daily activity – walk more, get up more – use that nervous energy

And if you think a lettuce wrap is better for you than bread – you are missing the point.

 

REFERENCES:

Here are some older references that I found -

Atwater, W. O. (1895). Methods and Results of Investigations on the Chemistry and Economy of Food. Bulletin 21, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Atwater, W. O., and Rosa, E. B. (1899). Description of a New Respiration Calorimeter and Experiments on the Conservation of Energy in the Human Body, Bulletin 63, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Atwater, W. O., and Benedict, F. G. (1905). A Respiration Calorimeter with Appliances for the Direct Determination of Oxygen, Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Stop Protesting and Start Cooking

Yes- someone is protesting Kraft because they use “artificial” colors in their Mac and Cheese. They then made up an entire post about how Kraft uses genetically modified wheat in their product.  While they generated a lot of buzz for this lets start with the obvious:

You’re feeding your kid processed food and protesting Kraft?  

Instead of protesting a food maker, why don’t you use that time to cook them a real meal?

In ten minutes you can have a spaghetti squash cooked in a microwave and ready to serve. We showed that in a video here. That has ten times the fiber of the pasta and one tenth the calories – and it tastes great.  Instead of their “cheese” you can grate some real Parmesan cheese on top, or you can heat up some other sauce you get from the store (there are some great healthy sauces out there). Now, in less time than making Kraft’s dinner you have made your own – it has a vegetable serving in it (something you don’t get with Kraft) – it tastes better, it is fresher, and it will cost you less.

Plus here is another advantage: you are showing your child that the kitchen you are in can be used for making real meals.  You are setting an example for them. JJ in the Kitchen

Over 200,000 signatures were gathered for this.  And Kraft met with them! Ok, the power of social media and all that. What an ego boost for their blogs (no, I won’t link to them because they are silly blogs that are quite anti-science). Here is their comment though, “We wanted to educate the American consumer and let them know what is in their food. We just picked an iconic food product to really get that message across.”

So protest away to Kraft, or anyone you wish- but if you would instead take the time to make real food for your kids you can save some of that energy and not have to worry about “chemicals.”

So here is my recommendation for all of you food bloggers out there protesting big industry because of how they process foods — get off your blog and show your kids how to cook – and not from a box.

And if you spent time worrying about what is in the box of Mac & Cheese – don’t. Just get in the kitchen and learn to cook. Your kids will love it, you will love it, and you will eat better – healthier, and live a much better life.

Get an apron, learn how to cook, it is the most empowering thing you can do for yourself.

In fact – one of my favorite chef’s said it best in an interview – well – here is the video of the interview:

Here is a video about how to do Spaghetti Squash

Pigs and GMO

pigs eating

Pigs that eat genetically modified foods have less inflammation than pigs that eat normal- the opposite of what the news reported

Pigs and GMO
So you read the headlines, or the news article and you see that pigs fed GMO had more stomach problems than pigs that were not fed GMO. Except that isn’t really what the article results show.

The results show that pigs have a lot of stomach problems- regardless of the stuff that is fed to them.
From Table 3 of their study:

Pigs who were fed non GM foods had more erosions, more pin point ulcers than pigs fed GM foods.
(1) Of all ulcers there were equal numbers in both GM fed and non GM fed pigs.
(2) In terms of inflammation – all types – there were 69 in the non GM fed group and 64 in the GM group.
(3) If you look at nil inflammation (meaning zip) – pigs who ate genetically modified foods had much less inflammation than pigs who ate “organic” food.
(4) If you add the “nil inflammation” the numbers are 73 with inflamed stomachs of pigs who ate non genetically modified foods and 72 pigs who ate genetically modified foods had inflamed stomachs.

As a surgeon, who does a lot of stomach surgery – I would say that this study shows really no difference between the two groups of pigs- but when it comes to the severe issues there appear to be a lot more severe issues among the pigs that ate non-genetically modified food than the pigs that ate genetically modified foods.

What does this whole thing prove:
(1) GM and non GM are no different
(2) Pigs have a lot of stomach problems – who knew
(3) Journalists don’t read papers and analyze them, they instead read abstracts where the comments may not equal the results

It is sad that the Journal of Organic Systems – which says it is peer reviewed, but its agenda is not science, its agenda is organic farming and systems. A fine agenda, but when you allow the abstract and conclusion to read the way they did – you simply decrease the value of your journal.

As for you journalists out there – try reading and analyzing the data before reporting it.

GMO: Part 2 – The Promise, the Fear, Labeling, Frankenfoods

The Fear and Wonder of a Chimera

In ancient times people were told about hybrid animals: the horse that was half human- the torso and head of a man with the body of a horse, the man that had the head of a dog, the horse that had wings. Some have familiar names, like Pan- who had the hind quarter of a goat and horns of a goat but face of a man.

For some these were an abomination, an unholy thing made from cross breeding and to be cursed.  For some they provided a sense of wonder. The Centaur, half horse half human that were great warriors.

Even in the bible, when the “end times” come the description of the feet of the bear and the mouth of the lion and the body of a leopard – a beast and not something to be trifled with. Or Frankenstein, a chimera of people.

The fear of chimeras is throughout all human mythology – but now, those chimeras are no longer a myth – they are real. Humans  can produce a chimera from the DNA of different species, making crops and animals that are modified to produce a chimera.

Are those same fears, same sense of wonder a part of the human collective conscious? Does that explain the debate about genetically modified organisms?

 

Chimera

Since the ancient times the fear of chimeras has been a mix of wonder and horror. Now, with DNA technology, are we opening Pandor’s box? Or can we use the technology to save the world

What’s missing is science education, critical thinking, and the ability to talk the same language 

Perhaps it is my background in genetic engineering that makes the idea of genetic engineering interesting, and not scary. The knowledge that humans have manipulated genes in plants for at least 11,000 years gives some perspective. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) that are plants are neither the Frankenstein chimera that some suggest, nor are they the magic bullet for the common problems of feeding the world and saving the environment.

They are but one tool and sometimes that tool has  failed. What bothered me greatly as I researched the issue, was that the people who were anti-GMO did not even speak the same language as those who were proponents of GMO. The logical fallacies in arguments were on both sides: appeal to antiquity, appeal to authority, and ad hominem being the most common. One fact was alarmingly clear: people will say anything, put up any photograph, repeat falsehoods because they think their concern about GMO are valid.

This does not advance a rational discussion, this does not help advance the common quest we all would seek to find a safe way to feed the planet.  It also pointed out that critical thinking is not taught, and science education is lacking. There are rational concerns about some GMO, but those discussions become lost when histrionics replaces a sense of history, when the discussion is not about science but about fear. On the other side, the proponents of GMO, are often dismissive – partly because they lump those who express legitimate concern for GMO with those who are clearly irrational , and partly because they become forced into a position to support science.

Thirty Years of Molecular Engineering Plants

In 1983 a gene, made from DNA not belonging to the plant, was transferred into a plant and this technical feat and outcome reported in the journal Nature.  But genetic modification of  plants by humans has been going on for thousands of years. While at times we will specifically use “molecular engineering” for the modern technology of  modifying existing DNA or inserting new DNA into plants, for most we will use genetically modified (GM) crops to mean those crops which have specifically had their DNA modified by molecular technology. Molecular engineering of plants started 30 years ago, and 35 years since we first showed how the DNA coding for a protein from one species (a chicken) could be put it into the DNA of a virus (Herpes).  That use of a virus to host a DNA led to the idea that a plant virus could be used to insert DNA into a plant. DNA codes for all the proteins of the plant, much like humans. The techniques used then are now considered as outdated as using a floppy disc – and in fact, the ability to molecular engineer DNA can be done in a garage.

When we made our chimera (Herpes -Chicken) the concerns about molecular engineering were not yet articulated.  At that time it was a breakthrough to prove we could move a gene from one bit of DNA to another, and have that new organism make the chicken protein. Prior to that it was theoretically possible, but never proven. Once proven, did we open Pandora’s box or did we find the stairs to heaven?

Would you inject it?

We worry about our foods, a lot. So imagine injecting something like this directly into your body: in addition to an ingredient that has been extracted from a genetically modified organism  it is labeled like this-

 

insulin partial

 

People inject this everyday? Did you know that people not only inject this everyday but it keeps them alive? It is called insulin.  So when worried about the food supply, do not forget that GMO also applies to bacteria and yeast that produce proteins that some need daily to keep alive and healthy.

Would you ingest it- and should we Label it

Why not? The insulin above is clearly labeled, it says what it is- where it is from, and what else is in it. The question is- how do you label corn – because corn is a new plant, it wasn’t even around a few thousand years ago. Although most who wish food to be labeled intend those foods that contain proteins from another species. The insulin which the vast majority of Americans take, come from DNA from humans, but grown in yeast or bacteria.

The anti-label side states that most scientists, and the FDA find the food is safe, so why add an additional label to the ingredient. The counter argument: should not people decide for themselves if they wish to have it.  In a way this is an esoteric argument: I have a hard time getting my patients to read food labels- and most Americans do not read labels. But there is nothing wrong with a label, there is nothing wrong with letting people decide what they wish to consume.

Most of the corn and soy grown in the US are genetically modified. There has been no immediate ill effect, and yet, some would argue that trans-fats, once considered to be good fat, were not discovered to have an ill effect until years later.

The anti-label says that some people would shun those foods, wanting non GMO foods. The pro-label says, yes, that is the idea.

The fear of industry that they would have to change or educate the public is paternalistic, and reminds me of the argument at the beginning of the enlightenment that churches didn’t want their flock to learn to read lest they question authority.

What doesn’t help is this: we have lost science journalism. Finding a journalist who can look critically at a paper and present the information in a detached way is gone. Most journalists now, even from The New York Times, are more entertainment-style journalists – flashing a headline, quick quotes from a pool of scientists or physicians, and off with a story. But GMO are too important to leave to such journalists, GMOs are here to stay, but need to have a place where rational discussion can happen from those who are concerned.

 

Proteins and Plants

DNA is the programing code for proteins that are made by an organism. Even more than just a code for the proteins, it is the program for how the proteins are produced, when they are produced, and how much is produced. The code can  keep a given protein from being made under certain circumstances.  If you take the DNA that codes for a protein  and put it into corn you will have corn that produces that protein (sometimes).  Not all proteins that are in one species can be produced by another species even if we put the proper DNA sequence in the host.

For GM crops, most of the proteins that are manipulated with DNA are either the plants own proteins, or proteins from species that interact with that plant.  Bt cotton, for example, is a cotton plant who has had bacterial DNA  that codes for a protein that discourages bollworms and thus decreases the need for pesticides. This Bt DNA has also been placed in corn, and it was estimated to save 3.2 billion dollars  to farmers in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota over the past 14 years as well as a savings to non-Bt corn growers of more than 2.4 billion over 14 years – in pesticide costs.  The farmers were able to have higher yields of the corn, reducing loss from insect damage, reducing pesticides (mycotoxins), and providing a simpler and less expensive and environmentally friendly pest management option.

Lovers of organic farming will tell you that soil is a viable, living thing- with many different animals contributing to the balance that allows plants to grow. The most common are organisms called nematodes. A study out of China showed that planting the GM cotton did not affect soil nematodes. Compare that with the non Bt fields, where increased use of pesticides has wiped out a number of the organisms rendering the soil sterile.

On the horizon are crops that produce pheromones that pests interpret as “danger” signals, meaning less pesticides or even the promise of no pesticides would be needed.

Genetic Engineering: Farmers are more concerned with the environment than most know

City folk seem to think they are the only ones who know about industrial and organic farming. Many city folk assume, sometimes correctly, that modern farming has sterilized the land upon which we grow crops and make the assumption that GMO is another step in the destruction of our planet. Yet, if they were to go to farm conferences the most well-attended presentations are about environmental issues.

No one is closer to the land than a farmer, no one cares more about their land than a farmer – including those who own the large agri-business.  It is not the goal of agri-business to destroy the land they get their crops from. The goal of farming production, is to use less fertilizer, less herbicides, less pesticides, and less water. The hard way to do genetic engineering is what the Mayans did.  But over a few thousand years they took one plant, and made it into another species – one that wasn’t recognized until 10,000 years later.

The Promise of Molecular Engineering plants:  The promise of molecular engineering is based upon what Genetic engineering already showed: the ability to make crops that (a) grow faster (b) resistent to pests (c) resistant to weeds. We would add that the new goal of molecular engineered plants would be environmentally friendly, at the least, and helpful to the environment at the most.  The ability of plants to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen may be one of the major ways to diminish green-house gases.

In GMO farms there are less pesticides and less herbicides used. That doesn’t mean it will always be this way. What GMO has done is improve the yields of crops, it has decreased the use of some toxic chemicals on the land, it has provided a mechanism to improve nutrition, and decreased the use of water. But that can change.

Fake GMO

The has been widely viewed on the internet – and is a doctored experiment.

In an effort to find the truth about GMO – and avoid the hyperbole on both sides, I did discover some rather disturbing myths out there. One is a photograph that shows a picture of two corn cobs, one eaten, the other not. One labeled GMO corn, the other not – it is a doctored photograph.  To think a squirrel would have more taste or better taste than a human is not only biologically incorrect, it is laughable. The person who put this up is a well known anti-GMO activist. This does nothing to further discussion, but is propaganda to increase fear.

In a rational discussion about the pros and cons of GMO we need a basis of discussion and not myths

Here are some things that are on the internet that are myths

- the tomato fish: They have a tomato which has a gene inserted in it from arctic fish so that the tomato will survive cold weather. This is not true. The cartoon 0f a chimera fish/tomato was a rallying point for some anti-GMO sentiment, but it turns out that such a product is not to be found on any market shelf. I understand one of the main issues was vegetarians who were concerned that having a protein from an animal in a plant would violate their vegetarianism (ok, that one made me scratch my head also). It was an interesting idea, and no one has any idea how far these experiments went, but biology would tell you that a frost resistant fish probably isn’t going to be helping a tomato. When the company who was working on the project was approached they noted that the experiment was a dismal failure. Then again- think about it: a fish has a heart and blood vessels and is pumping things – a tomato, well, doesn’t. Still the idea of transferring proteins from one species to another, much as we did 35 years ago, raises concerns. The problem is that there is too much hyperbole in the debate and the discussion.

German Cows Die after Eating GM modified Corn: It is true that Syngenta(the supplier of GM corn) reimbursed the farmers for the loss of cows, and that the cows did eat the corn that had been genetically modified.  The investigation of the cow deaths concluded that the GM corn was not the cause of death. In addition, there were extensive feeding studies of that GM corn (Bt 176) which were published in peer review journals and there was no adverse effect. Further, that corn had been planted for a number of years without adverse effect in those fields.  Turns out the cows probably died of botulism.

Did rats get tumors when eating GMO corn?: Rats developed tumors when eating GMO corn – not really. This was a paper that was published- and it had a lot of flaws: (a) These types of rats all develop tumors when they get old (b) severe statistical issues, with a small control group (c) No basic statistical significance (d) No dose response curve. The rats were fed unlimited amount of corn – if you feed this type of rat unlimited food they develop cancer.  Bad study, highly repeated in the internet – not repeated by anyone. Here is a response printed in full to that article: Seralini et al. (2012) claim to have found evidence for the long term toxicity of roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (GMM). Using one-tailed Fishers exact test we show that there is no statistically significant increase in mortality rates or the number of tumors in rats fed GMM compared to control groups in the original data. Seralini et al. state that “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls”. As follows from the figures presented: 2 female rats out of 10 died before the mean survival time in the control group, compared to 29 out of 60 in the six GMM fed groups. This difference is not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Note that this P-value requires a further correction for multiple comparisons due to two groups of rats (of different sexes) being independently analyzed. Among males 3 rats out of 10 died prematurely in the control group, compared to 19 out of 60 rats in the six GMM fed groups. This difference is statistically not significant (P = 0.615). Ironically if we forget about the importance of statistical significance and present the data in a manner used by Seralini et al., we could say that “In males, groups with 22% and 33% GMM in their diet died 3 times less than controls”, however this was not reported. This difference is also statistically not significant (P = 0.291 for each comparison). Seralini et al. state that “In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher” and that “Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls”. Two male rats out of 10 had liver pathologies in the control group, compared to 30 out of 60 GMM fed male rats. Five female rats out of 10 developed mammary tumors in the control group, compared to 44 out of 60 GMM fed female rats. These differences are not statistically significant (P = 0.076 and P = 0.133). Note that this analysis should be done with care: over 30 different organs were analyzed in this study, but data on only a few was presented, giving rise to the statistical problem of multiple comparisons that was not addressed in the article. However, even despite this problem, all reported differences between the number of rats with specific organ pathologies in control and GMM fed rats are not statistically significant. It is also worth noting that tumors are frequent in Sprague–Dawley Rats: a spontaneous tumor incidence of 45% was previously recorded during a 1.5 year period (Prejean et al., 1973). The images of GMM fed rats with large tumors presented by Seralini et al. are misleading as they imply that such tumors do not normally occur or occur less frequently in untreated rats. Such tumors may occur in rats that are not fed GMM and Seralini et al. provide no statistical evidence that the incidence of tumors in general or any specific kind of tumor is increased in GMM fed rats. The random nature of the observed differences between control and GMM fed rats in the study is consistent with the lack of dose-dependent relationships between the amount of GMM in the diet and the supposed toxic effects of GMM. A news article published in Nature stated that “The controversy over the findings is likely to be settled only after detailed analysis of the paper and its data, and replication of the experiments” (Butler, 2012). Analysis of the data suggests that no statistically significant findings of GMM toxicity were presented in the first place.

Did sheep die from eating cotton with Bt? In a word, no. In almost every anti-GMO site I visited this was repeated over and over again, in spite of the simple evidence against it. This involved a group of sheep who died after grazing on a field of cotton. The accusation was that the sheep died from some unexplained poison – and that part is true. Sheep have been dying from toxins in cotton fields long before Bt cotton, and with the same lesions described by the anti-GMO groups.  In all cases the veterinarians describe that the sheep died of a toxin, probably pesticides used. Veterinarians  could not rule out nitrate or gossypol (a natural toxic ingredient of cotton plants) as toxic agents.  When Bt was fed to laboratory animals there were no deaths. Less pesticides are used on Bt Cotton modified plants, the total use of pesticides in the 10 million farmers who use Bt cotton has gone down.

 

DISCLOSURE:

I am not, nor ever have received funding support from Monsanto, or any corporation making or considering GMO. The funding received for the original research done with molecular engineering came from a grant from the National  Institutes of Health, and not associated with any industry.  Nor have I been paid any stipend, nor received any accommodation from such industries. Nor am I seeking such.

FUTURE BLOGS:

Allergies and GMO – the real story

GMO and the Third World

 

REFERENCE:

(1) Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers W. D. Hutchison, E. C. Burkness, P. D. Mitchell, R. D. Moon, T. W. Leslie, S. J. Fleischer, M. Abrahamson, K. L. Hamilton, K. L. Steffey, M. E. Gray, R. L. Hellmich, L. V. Kaster, T. E. Hunt, R. J. Wright, K. Pecinovsky, T. L. Rabaey, B. R. Flood, E. S. Raun Science 8 October 2010: vol. 330 no. 6001 pp. 222-225 PMID: 20929774

(2) A 2-year field study shows little evidence that the long-term planting of transgenic insect-resistant cotton affects the community structure of soil nematodes. Li X, Liu B. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 16;8(4):e61670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061670. Print 2013. PMID: 23613899

(3)Beever D and Kemp C (2000). Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutritional Abstract Reviews Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding 70:175–182.

(4)Flachowsky G, Chesson A, and Aulrich K (2005). Animal nutritional with feeds from genetically modified plants. Archives of Animal Nutrition 59, 1–40.

(5)Flachowsky G, Aulrich K, Bohme H, and Halle I (2007). Studies on feeds from genetically modified plants (GMP) – Contributions to nutritional and safety assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 133: 2-30.

(6)Goldstein DA, Tinland B, Gilbertson LA, Staub JM, Bannon GA, Goodman, RE, McCoy, RL, Silvanovich A (2005). Human safety and genetically modified plants: a review of antibiotic resistance markers and future transformation selection technologies. Journal of Applied Microbiology 99:7–23.

Mummies & Eskimos with Heart Disease: it isn’t Modern Diets that are the Problem: The People of St. Paul

The recent study that came out showing that ancient people had heart disease, including a group of Alaska Natives whose mummified remains revealed that the perfect paleolithic diet did not protect from heart disease. Funny thing, Alaska Natives have known this for years. While some may want to say our diet is the ultimate, we have known it is just our way to survive – to live.   St. Paul is a small community of several hundred in the Pribilloff Islands. A remnant of the ancient people of Alaska, with only minimal changes from our paleolithic era.

Most people would never know about these islands were it not for the TV series, Most Dangerous Catch.  It is these islands that the crab fisherman come to process some of their crab. Viewers of the show will recognize the name of the place.

St George Island from St. Paul

In the distance is St. George, the smaller of the two islands. St. Paul is 7 miles wide, 14 miles long. Formed from volcanic activity.

Lonely islands, in the middle of the Bering Sea – but home to some of the most ancient people on earth. St Paul is a three hour flight from Anchorage. Sometimes the weather is so fierce that people have been unable to leave the island for several days.

Like their ancestors, these Alaska natives get their food from fishing. Halibut, crab, salmon, char, and the occasional seal. The only thing that has been introduced into their diet has been the reindeer herd on the island – that would provide a bit of our dinner that night. While there is a single grocery store, products from the lower-48 are expensive and not often used.

The recent Lancet article stated:

 

The presence of atherosclerosis in  pre-modern human beings suggests that the disease is an inherent component of human ageing and not  characteristic of any specific diet or lifestyle.

alaska Aleut

The Aleuts, or Unangan, peoples inhabit the western most part of Alaska – purple. The two little spots above the t in Alutiiq is where St. Paul Island is-

In the article they had studied   mummified remains of Alaska Natives, my ancestors. The Aleuts  live on the  islands in the western part of Alaska.   These islands, formed from mostly volcanic formation, to this day are rich in marine life, with abundant fish, seal, whales, and occasional berries.

I was last there when invited to a celebration in St. Paul because of their new clinic. A beautiful facility, staffed by physicians out of Anchorage. But this facility is vital to the community.

St Paul Seals

The island is a natural breeding ground for seals, who migrate here yearly. The Russians forced Aleuts to inhabit the island to harvest the seals

The island was originally uninhabited until the Russians arrived. Used primarily as a hunting area for natives, then the Russians discovered the great seal population they forcibly moved hundreds of Aleuts here to harvest the fur.  Those families still remain.

Why, you might ask, should you think about Aleuts?  Why do food scientists think about them? These were/are one of the great hunter-gathering societies, eating a diet of fish, meat – even getting their vitamin C, not from citrus, but from marine life. Those relatives, my ancestors, had a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids, did not eat processed grains – in fact, they rarely had any food but what would be the ideal paleo-rich, non-processed, occasional berry (in season – fresh and local) diet.

For the study in Lancet, it was made possible to see what my ancestors ate because  the climate in these parts allows mother nature to mummify the body, making the bodies available to study.

St Paul

Main Street in St. Paul. They have one bar, one post office, one grocery store, and one church

This group was use to physical activity, without animals to transport them they relied on the kayak for whaling, fishing, and transportation to visit one another on other islands.  With Russians reporting that some of these peoples would go hundreds of miles in Kayaks.

kayak

Restoring an ancient Kayaks. Much larger than the individual ones used for modern sport

Kayak

A better view of how large these ocean going vehicles were

It has been postulated that the Eskimo (the Aleut are the same group as the Eskimo) would have the lowest incidence of coronary artery disease because of their diet. The hunter-gathering society had a “reported” low incidence – although as with many population studies have shown, you often find it when you look for it. For a more in depth discussion about population studies and how we have missed them see here. The Pima Indians, of Arizona, are called “the most studied group” in the world. It was once assumed they had no heart disease, and thus began an intensive study as to why they didn’t have heart disease- but as more studies were performed, turns out the Pimas, like many societies, have heart disease. In fact more of it than western societies. It is the same with the Eskimo health, whether from Greenland or other areas, when critically examined, this society has the same rate of heart disease as others.

Modern Man:

Some have speculated that the incidence of coronary artery disease among Eskimos is because of their interaction with modern man. The introduction of grains into their diets, tobacco, and machinery with less exercise. Not only did the study in Lancet article show that cardiac disease was present in those paleo-people, it is in line with laboratory studies of Aleuts showing they have the same markers for cardiac disease as the rest of us.

Smoking:

Aleut home Alaska Native Center

This is a modern representation of homes of the Aleuts. This from The Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage, Alaska. A worthwhile place

While they did not have tobacco, all ancient peoples used fire. The Native Alaskas of the Aleutians  had homes built partially underground, and used community fires with smoke going out of a hole in the roof, or used fires to heat water that would heat the homes. This might have lead to increased exposure that would accelerate heart disease, but the dispersion of smoke from this would be hundreds of times less than exposure from those who inhale tobacco.

Seal oil was used for lamps. Which, like olive oil, burns quite brightly.

Today they use electricity.  So the second-hand smoke from fires and lamps is no longer a factor. They still eat a diet primarily of fish.  Still, as we found from this little clinic for a town of 400 people, there is  heart disease. Several times a year a person is evacuated out of this town to the city of Anchorage for advanced cardiac care.

One of the  mummified remains of an Aleut lady showed severe artery disease to the extent that if we saw this today she would undergo vascular surgery. This in a woman who was in her late 40′s to early 50′s. She may very well have died of a stroke.

 

St. Paul island birds

The people still get eggs, but they prefer the fresh ones from the cliff. Higher in omega-3 fatty acids than the ones from the chicken farms. These islands have some of the most unique birds in the world.

In fact, in the recent study published on-line by Lancet, they discovered atherosclerosis was prevalent in all areas of the world, over a 4000 year time span, and several continents, with peoples having ancient diets from rich in saturated fat, to near vegetarian, to pure paleo.

Exercise:

Exercise you say? Turns out that in ancient cultures, without the benefit of cars, bikes, or probably even animals- physical activity was normal- and lean and mean were simply natural. Like a six-pack, probably every ancient Alaska Native  person had one– but in their coronary arteries were plaques, that would make any modern, beer belly, sedentary modern human proud.

Diet:

These ancient ones didn’t have trans-fats, they didn’t have soda, they didn’t have wheat, they didn’t have dairy, they didn’t have cheese, but they did have heart disease. And today, they stil do.

Heart Disease:

The study showed that heart disease was found throughout ancient civilization. It wasn’t the diet that prevented it. In fact, probably was genetic like most of us thought all along. Like their ancestors before, the Aleuts of St. Paul have the same disease, virtually the same diet. Their lifestyle is better now, with indoor heat, better insulation. They still live a physical life. But one thing they need- much like many – is some statin drug like Lipitor  which works much better than their ancient diet, or any diet you can think of .

Ask an Alaska Native if their diet protected them from disease: they will tell you, it didn’t. Food wasn’t meant for medicine, food was meant to nourish the body. A lesson the ancient people knew – one that many doctors are still learning.

REFERENCES:

Atherosclerosis across 4000 years of human history: the Horus study of four ancient populations.Randall C Thompson, Adel H Allam, Guido P Lombardi, et.al. www.thelancet.com   Published online March 10, 2013

High prevalence of markers of coronary heart disease among Greenland Inuit. Jørgensen ME, Bjerregaard P, Kjaergaard JJ, Borch-Johnsen K.Atherosclerosis. 2008 Feb;196(2):772-8 PMID: 17306273