I admit I pounced on that isolated quotation, which I believe illustrated how hidebound some pundits and the FDA can be about issues that are rather complex and not yet decided.
The article is rather well balanced, but while it illustrates the confusion the consumer runs into with all the claims made about nutrition, it does not provide in an academic way any possible areas of research into what nutritional changes may do for some types and what it evidently has done for some. Cases in point are the far underrated Pritikin diet, the actual meta studies of the Framingham heart study which did prove that decreased fat in the diet did reduce CVD incidence. There are too be sure other factors to look at.
But let's not just be bewildered by the clamor to say that is the natural state of thing finally. Above all the ignorance and confusion there is some reason to be gleaned, if still all is not yet known.
Whitaker who worked on the Pritikin diet says that he is ten years beyond it. That it works to reduce CVD seems to be a fact established by the Air Canada Pilot's union who use it to recertify pilots who are having trouble with blood pressure or who have evident CVD.
The great danger is to believe that one study is so well done that given its large base for instance it denies what ten other studies have seemed to prove. A recent vitamin E study that seemed to overthrow at least 5 other beneficial conclusion studies is a case in point. It was later seen that thec conclusions of that study as to a possible danger in vitamin E supplementation was baseless. Cause is difficult to pinpoint in these large uncontrolled studies, let alone individual compliance and sex, diet interaction differences that may contribute to skewed numbers. Chance alone is often not calculated well enough to draw conlcusions that are satisfying.
Julian Whitaker's clinical experience and his books Reversing Heart Disease, and Reversing Hypertension are good reads. His theses on diet and exercise parallels Dean Ornish to a degree. He does not jump on a fad diet, but his observation of populations and his clinical experience do speak volumes to there being an good if not obvious dietary and exercise solution to many CVD problems. Cancer is a much more difficult area, but clinical studies have pointed to reduced incidence and better prognosis where foods are improved and exercise is maintained, carcinogens avoided I presume as well.
The danger in a lot of widespread studies is that they make no attempt to control the entire environment so the mitigating factors which are numerous may cause many of the effects they see. It is very hard to control skew in these cases. Stress, exposure to carcinogens, levels of compliance amongst differing groups are all up in the air. It is supposed to even out with large numbers, but the question of clustering of environmental effects in geographic areas for instance, or interaction of substances with tested substances, is perhaps not evenly distributed amongst the populations.
To adequately test a therapy all other factor including the interaction factors must be controlled. As well, the possibility of that individual or substance interactions that may alter results unfairly must be accounted for. Such tests are very expensive and cannot deal with large numbers usually. Test design is a very big subject.
An area to delve into is not so much what to eat singularly that may improve health as that factor cannot exist surely, but also what to avoid, in terms of environmental stress, deleterious substances, excess, etc...
One can hardly be expected to avoid cancer or HD by simple dietary changes here and there if one smokes, lives in a smoke filled environment, are exposed to high stress condition at home and at work, are exposed to pesticides, alchol, herbicides, and other toxins daily. It is far more likely that global change is in order, in foods and amount and types of foods ingested, exercise, environment, state of mind, drug treatment.
It is clear that certain populations with markedly different diets suffer far less Cancer and Heart Disease than we do. So much less in fact in the case of Okinawans, and Cretans, their the diets and social regimes, the environment so different that the genetic possibilities while no dismissable are quite possibly not the first factor to be investigated. It has been suggested by responsible authors that diet alone results in their dramatic difference in health. The high fat intake of the Cretan is at first troubling until you realize that the fat comes almost entirely from olive oil and fish. Monounsaturates have been noted to have different and beneficial activity than saturates or polyunsaturates. Natural polyunsaturates as found in fish are necessary but in sparing quantities. We need not deep fry it appears or lard margarine on white bread to survive.
My thesis is that there is a dietary solution to much Cancer and Heart disease, but it involves how much you eat of what and what the food has in it. How it is grown -- what minerals, vitamins and contaminants are in or not in it -- that is what is important. Okinawa and crete have two things in common that are very important. They are islands, small rocky, hilly islands. The people there eat a lot of fish, few and whole grains, and they grow their own vegetables in rocky soil. They walk up and down the hills, and often catch their own fish. The factors we must look at then are exercise, high mineral soil vegetables and sea food including molluscs which are very rich in B12 by a factor of perhaps 20 to 100 over other foods.. The Cretans and Okinawans grow and eat some unique vegetables. Okinawans eat kelp. Cretans eat a lot of purslane and walnuts and it appears walnuts have unique properties when it comes to CVD. There are some things to study here. It is unlikely that Cretans and Okinawas, peoples who are a world apart, but live in similar surroundings, would have similar genetics. If you want to research that factor it would be your choice, and I am not saying I would dismiss it entirely, but it is not as likely at first glance.
The studies that seem to say dietary fat reduction were not efficacious in avoiding arterial plaque, are not as persuasive as they do not say what type of fat was ingested, how much, how old the people were, how much exercise they got, and what other environmental factors were operating. What I am saying is this, dietary fat that is largely monounsaturates and natural polyunsaturates, in a high exercise environment where there are other fat reducers and natural foods, such as walnuts, sea food, and high anti-oxidants, fruit and red wine, may not be harmful at all. But eating fat cattle meat at a rate of 300 grams protein a day, with copious quantities of carbohydrates and all containing environmental toxins may well be.
Is the diet and environment question confusing and difficult to study? Perhaps, but science should be up to it. The answer could be richly rewarding.
EC<:-} |
