Today's NYTimes Op-Ed - Dean Ornish-What's wrong with his data?
Options
gerrielips
Posts: 180 Member
This should initiate a reasoned discussion by fellow Low Carbers...I tried Ornish many years ago and found it impossible to sustain - but that's my opinion! Gerrie
-
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor The Myth of High-Protein Diets
By DEAN ORNISH MARCH 23, 2015
MANY people have been making the case that Americans have grown fat because they eat too much starch and sugar, and not enough meat, fat and eggs. Recently, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee lifted recommendations that consumption of dietary cholesterol should be restricted, citing research that dietary cholesterol does not have a major effect on blood cholesterol levels. The predictable headlines followed: “Back to Eggs and Bacon?”
But, alas, bacon and egg yolks are not health foods.
Although people have been told for decades to eat less meat and fat, Americans actually consumed 67 percent more added fat, 39 percent more sugar, and 41 percent more meat in 2000 than they had in 1950 and 24.5 percent more calories than they had in 1970, according to the Agriculture Department. Not surprisingly, we are fatter and unhealthier.
The debate is not as simple as low-fat versus low-carb. Research shows that animal protein may significantly increase the risk of premature mortality from all causes, among them cardiovascular disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes. Heavy consumption of saturated fat and trans fats may double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
A study published last March found a 75 percent increase in premature deaths from all causes, and a 400 percent increase in deaths from cancer and Type 2 diabetes, among heavy consumers of animal protein under the age of 65 — those who got 20 percent or more of their calories from animal protein.
Low-carb, high-animal-protein diets promote heart disease via mechanisms other than just their effects on cholesterol levels. Arterial blockages may be caused by animal-protein-induced elevations in free fatty acids and insulin levels and decreased production of endothelial progenitor cells (which help keep arteries clean). Egg yolks and red meat appear to significantly increase the risk of coronary heart disease and cancer due to increased production of trimethylamine N-oxide, or TMAO, a metabolite of meat and egg yolks linked to the clogging of arteries. (Egg whites have neither cholesterol nor TMAO.)
Animal protein increases IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, and chronic inflammation, an underlying factor in many chronic diseases. Also, red meat is high in Neu5Gc, a tumor-forming sugar that is linked to chronic inflammation and an increased risk of cancer. A plant-based diet may prolong life by blocking the mTOR protein, which is linked to aging. When fat calories were carefully controlled, patients lost 67 percent more body fat than when carbohydrates were controlled. An optimal diet for preventing disease is a whole-foods, plant-based diet that is naturally low in animal protein, harmful fats and refined carbohydrates. What that means in practice is little or no red meat; mostly vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and soy products in their natural forms; very few simple and refined carbohydrates such as sugar and white flour; and sufficient “good fats” such as fish oil or flax oil, seeds and nuts. A healthful diet should be low in “bad fats,” meaning trans fats, saturated fats and hydrogenated fats. Finally, we need more quality and less quantity.
My colleagues and I at the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute and the University of California, San Francisco, have conducted clinical research proving the many benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet on reversing chronic diseases, not just on reducing risk factors such as cholesterol. Our interventions also included stress management techniques, moderate exercise like walking and social support.
We showed in randomized, controlled trials that these diet and lifestyle changes can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease. Episodes of chest pain decreased by 91 percent after only a few weeks. After five years there were 2.5 times fewer cardiac events. Blood flow to the heart improved by over 300 percent.
Other physicians, including Dr. Kim A. Williams, the president of the American College of Cardiology, are also finding that these diet and lifestyle changes can reduce the need for a lifetime of medications and transform people’s lives. These changes may also slow, stop or even reverse the progression of early-stage prostate cancer, judging from results in a randomized controlled trial.
These changes may also alter your genes, turning on genes that keep you healthy, and turning off genes that promote disease. They may even lengthen telomeres, the ends of our chromosomes that control aging.
The more people adhered to these recommendations (including reducing the amount of fat and cholesterol they consumed), the more improvement we measured — at any age. But for reversing disease, a whole-foods, plant-based diet seems to be necessary.
In addition, what’s good for you is good for our planet. Livestock production causes more disruption of the climate than all forms of transportation combined. And because it takes as much as 10 times more grain to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, eating a plant-based diet could free up resources for the hungry.
What you gain is so much more than what you give up.
Dean Ornish is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and the founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute.
-
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor The Myth of High-Protein Diets
By DEAN ORNISH MARCH 23, 2015
MANY people have been making the case that Americans have grown fat because they eat too much starch and sugar, and not enough meat, fat and eggs. Recently, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee lifted recommendations that consumption of dietary cholesterol should be restricted, citing research that dietary cholesterol does not have a major effect on blood cholesterol levels. The predictable headlines followed: “Back to Eggs and Bacon?”
But, alas, bacon and egg yolks are not health foods.
Although people have been told for decades to eat less meat and fat, Americans actually consumed 67 percent more added fat, 39 percent more sugar, and 41 percent more meat in 2000 than they had in 1950 and 24.5 percent more calories than they had in 1970, according to the Agriculture Department. Not surprisingly, we are fatter and unhealthier.
The debate is not as simple as low-fat versus low-carb. Research shows that animal protein may significantly increase the risk of premature mortality from all causes, among them cardiovascular disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes. Heavy consumption of saturated fat and trans fats may double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
A study published last March found a 75 percent increase in premature deaths from all causes, and a 400 percent increase in deaths from cancer and Type 2 diabetes, among heavy consumers of animal protein under the age of 65 — those who got 20 percent or more of their calories from animal protein.
Low-carb, high-animal-protein diets promote heart disease via mechanisms other than just their effects on cholesterol levels. Arterial blockages may be caused by animal-protein-induced elevations in free fatty acids and insulin levels and decreased production of endothelial progenitor cells (which help keep arteries clean). Egg yolks and red meat appear to significantly increase the risk of coronary heart disease and cancer due to increased production of trimethylamine N-oxide, or TMAO, a metabolite of meat and egg yolks linked to the clogging of arteries. (Egg whites have neither cholesterol nor TMAO.)
Animal protein increases IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, and chronic inflammation, an underlying factor in many chronic diseases. Also, red meat is high in Neu5Gc, a tumor-forming sugar that is linked to chronic inflammation and an increased risk of cancer. A plant-based diet may prolong life by blocking the mTOR protein, which is linked to aging. When fat calories were carefully controlled, patients lost 67 percent more body fat than when carbohydrates were controlled. An optimal diet for preventing disease is a whole-foods, plant-based diet that is naturally low in animal protein, harmful fats and refined carbohydrates. What that means in practice is little or no red meat; mostly vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and soy products in their natural forms; very few simple and refined carbohydrates such as sugar and white flour; and sufficient “good fats” such as fish oil or flax oil, seeds and nuts. A healthful diet should be low in “bad fats,” meaning trans fats, saturated fats and hydrogenated fats. Finally, we need more quality and less quantity.
My colleagues and I at the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute and the University of California, San Francisco, have conducted clinical research proving the many benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet on reversing chronic diseases, not just on reducing risk factors such as cholesterol. Our interventions also included stress management techniques, moderate exercise like walking and social support.
We showed in randomized, controlled trials that these diet and lifestyle changes can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease. Episodes of chest pain decreased by 91 percent after only a few weeks. After five years there were 2.5 times fewer cardiac events. Blood flow to the heart improved by over 300 percent.
Other physicians, including Dr. Kim A. Williams, the president of the American College of Cardiology, are also finding that these diet and lifestyle changes can reduce the need for a lifetime of medications and transform people’s lives. These changes may also slow, stop or even reverse the progression of early-stage prostate cancer, judging from results in a randomized controlled trial.
These changes may also alter your genes, turning on genes that keep you healthy, and turning off genes that promote disease. They may even lengthen telomeres, the ends of our chromosomes that control aging.
The more people adhered to these recommendations (including reducing the amount of fat and cholesterol they consumed), the more improvement we measured — at any age. But for reversing disease, a whole-foods, plant-based diet seems to be necessary.
In addition, what’s good for you is good for our planet. Livestock production causes more disruption of the climate than all forms of transportation combined. And because it takes as much as 10 times more grain to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, eating a plant-based diet could free up resources for the hungry.
What you gain is so much more than what you give up.
Dean Ornish is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and the founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute.
0
Replies
-
First thing that pops up for me is that the data is just blindly connecting disease to animal/fat consumption. I think any low carb eater knows that combining fat with carbs is the issue. The author's data isn't about LCHF. I have a few books on logic fallacies he could borrow, but I suspect he knows that his data doesn't apply to LCHF. The data might support his WOE, but it doesn't have a thing to do with someone that has controlled carbs while ingesting fats. There is also a lack of clarification on what fats are ingested.0
-
As A person who is new to the LCHF diet, I am interested in seeing what the community thinks of this Op Ed. I have had a great amount of success over the last month combining LCHF and intermittent fasting so I have no intention of dropping my current diet to go back to starving on a low-fat regimen that does not allow me to lose weight. That being said, this author seems to state that I will either die of a heart attack due to my fat intake or I will die of a heart attack because I am simply fat! Please excuse the sarcasm but my guess is that you will understand my frustration.0
-
I posted most of the studies he sites recently:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10112041/intermittent-ketosis
I think the data is somewhat concerning, but none of these studies looked at ketogenic diets, and ketogenic diets are known to have properties that may reduce some of these risks. The one I was most interested in was the reduction in IGF-1 levels, which could reduce the risk of some cancers.0 -
What's wrong with his data? They're invalid, for starters.67 percent more added fat, b]and[/b 39 percent more sugar, and 41 percent more meatHeavy consumption of saturated fat and trans fatsAn optimal diet for preventing disease is a whole-foods, plant-based diet that is naturally low in animal protein, harmful fats and refined carbohydrates. What that means in practice is little or no red meat; mostly vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and soy products in their natural forms; very few simple and refined carbohydrates such as sugar and white flour; and sufficient “good fats” such as fish oil or flax oil, seeds and nuts. A healthful diet should be low in “bad fats,” meaning trans fats, saturated fats and hydrogenated fats. Finally, we need more quality and less quantity.Our interventions also included stress management techniques, moderate exercise like walking and social support.
If your interventions include a whole foods diet, removal of refined carbohydrates, removal of sugar, increasing of exercise, removal of saturated fats, removal of trans fats, and inclusion of social support... which one of these changes actually contributed to your improvement of health?
Answer -- you can't know for sure, because you changed way too many things. Too many variables make a conclusion invalid. And by "too many," I mean more than one.
Assuming his numbers are accurate, we eat more meat, sure, but we also eat more sugar and fats of all sorts (the fat thing can itself be broken down into the three levels of saturation, and you can get more data from that, too; from which you'll likely see that saturated fat intake went down, while polyunsaturated fat intake went up -- http://blog.heart.org/trans-fat-and-saturated-fat-consumption-down-but-not-enough/ ). Which one actually contributed to our failing health as a society?
The second quote alludes to the studies often used to back up the idea that saturated fat is bad, all of which treat both saturated and trans fats as equals. Which one causes the problems? There's no way of knowing.
Likewise, the studies that link meat to anything treat the cuts of bison, pork, chicken, and beef (all pastured, all cut straight from the animal with no further processing) I have in my freezer the same as the Oscar Meyer hotdogs, bologna, and other meat "products" in my neighbor's fridge as the same thing. Given the latter often has nitrites, nitrates, added sugar, MSG, and a laundry list of other ingredients, how can it possibly be concluded that it's the meat causing the problems (and not one of the hundred other things)? It can't.In addition, what’s good for you is good for our planet. Livestock production causes more disruption of the climate than all forms of transportation combined. And because it takes as much as 10 times more grain to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, eating a plant-based diet could free up resources for the hungry.
For good measure, I'll address this one, too.
The answer is simple -- stop feeding grain to livestock. Cows aren't meant to live on grain. Pigs and chickens kind of can (chickens moreso), but it shouldn't be their staple calorie source. Let them live on the land not suitable for produce farming and you're not eating into food crop land. When you raise them properly and let them roam as nature intended, you actually help the land (especially in the case of bison and cattle, which, when raised properly, contribute to the ecosystem and help certain plants and animals thrive and grow).
Also, feeding the hungry is not (and never has been) a supply issue. The US makes enough corn annually to feed every US and Third World citizen, and still have enough left over to export to other First World countries. I kid you not, there's a thriving market for corn-burning furnaces, and it's advertised as a cheaper alternative to other sources of power in at least some cases.
Think about that for a second. The US makes so much corn that it's actually cheaper to burn directly than natural gas, coal, wood, or electricity (powered by the former two, usually) in some places in this country.
Here are some numbers: 92 million acres are devoted solely to corn, with a production level average of 150 bushels per acre. We are inundated with corn-based everything, and only 11% of what's produced is actually being used for human consumption. Over a third of the corn grown goes to ethanol production, for which corn is about as ill-suited as you can possibly get -- sunflowers would be an infinitely better crop to use for that purpose (and sunflowers are still low on the production efficiency list, that's how low corn sits). Less than 10% of our production goes to exports, and yet it still makes up nearly half of the corn trade, internationally. (http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/grains__oilseeds/corn_grain/)
And that doesn't even get into our wheat, soy, and potato production.
Not a supply issue. A political issue, through and through.0 -
You'll find many critiques of the studies from around the time they came out. For example, here's one regarding TMAO:
http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-and-tmao-its-the-gut-not-the-meat
The one regarding IGF-1 is kind of interesting. You need IGF-1 for growth. Eating protein promotes growth. As you get older, you don't need to grow so much, and as you get older, you tend to accumulate DNA damage that can lead to cancer cells. So IGF-1 ends up promoting the growth of cancer cells if you have them.0 -
Ornish has a "whole food plant based" diet to promote, so he's not exactly Mr Independent here.0
-
Taubes has debated him once or twice. Pretty entertaining. Taubes looks like he's in better shape than Ornish.
0 -
Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition
Dan the Man from Michigan0 -
Dr. Michael Eades posted a rebuttal: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/dr-dean-ornish-blasts-high-protein-diets/0
-
Dr. Michael Eades posted a rebuttal: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/dr-dean-ornish-blasts-high-protein-diets/
This puts it to bed for me.0 -
Check out the NYT picks in the comments of the original article! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets.html?_r=1
Out of the 17 NYT picks, only one or two are in support of Ornish. The rest at least question the extremes in articles they typically see (the usual rallying cry of "everything in moderation"), or outright refute his claims and call him on his bullsh*t! :drinker:
And, of course, the comments supporting him end up pretty much the same way as the article -- "I've been veg*n for X number of years and my (total) cholesterol went from 250 to 145 once I started this way of eating!" (okay, but what about the stats that matter?) -- and/or building strawmen about the low carb side -- "Dr. Atkins took a different approach, advancing what they used to call The Marine Corp Diet--- which is now just the Paleolithic diet or some nonsense like that--- where we eat nothing but protein and fat, once we emerge from our caves every morning?" (first comment in my list; you can't make this stuff up).0 -
Haha, yes! Found this comment:It's about time dean Ornish and all of these other highly biased and intellectually compromised diet advocates (low carbers included) stopped cherry-picking evidence and weaving narratives based on faulty assumptions about research. To demonstrate to you why Dean Ornish is incompetent, here is a meta-analysis (aggregate of many studies) which demonstrates that even amongst the much-maligned red meat, there isn't even a correlation between -unprocessed meat- and mortality http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24148709 If you can't even distinguish between unprocessed and processed meat, you shouldn't be writing these articles. Dean also mentions environmental issues at the bottom, that's how you know he's a biased advocate and not to be trusted, there may well be an issue with eating too much meat for environmental consideration (particularly beef) but that's neither here nor there, it's just an explanation for why he's desecrating nutrition science.
I know that a lot of people don't have the time to learn about research methodology, much less read research for themselves, but it's very important to learn the signs of a dishonest and incompetent health guru. Dean has all of the signs, sorry Dean, you're washed up{/quote]
People are finally starting to see Ornish and some of the other shills for what they are!0 -
Wow, the Eades rebuttal just reminds me to Trust No One. Statistics can always be twisted to support your position. I hate it when scientists do that.0
-
Wow, the Eades rebuttal just reminds me to Trust No One. Statistics can always be twisted to support your position. I hate it when scientists do that.
Scientists aren't generally the ones that twist the statistics, at least not that intentionally horribly. A given study may be flawed, but the scientists will still report the results of that (the conclusion, then, may be incorrect, but is consistent with the results; it's the test itself that is wrong).
Politicians and zealots with agendas and a way to gain power are the ones that twist the statistics.
Don't trust Op Ed pieces and magazine articles. Go to the studies they should be citing. If they don't cite the study in any way that you can find it (either via link or giving the full title), then discard the article entirely.0 -
Personally, I'm glad the debate is still going strong. Eventually, that should shed more light.
Wanna know my guess? The reason the debate rages on and the reason for conflicting studies is that both sides are right!
It all depends on your genetic factors. Some are carb intolerant. And, yes, some are fat intolerant.
Which are you? Get your lipid profile before and after your extreme diet change.
As for the cancer risk, cancer will get us all eventually if nothing else does. Maybe someday they'll be able to screen us for risks. Probably too late for most of us.
Good recent post from Peter Attia:
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
In one particularly interesting case, a patient in self-prescribed nutritional ketosis presented to me with an LDL-P of more than 3500 nmol/L (i.e., more particles than could be measured by the NMR machine so the report simply said “>3,500 nmol/L”)
[...]
So, my point is this: while I believe the population-based guidelines for SFA are not supported by a standard of science I consider acceptable, it does not imply I believe SFA is uniformly safe at all levels for all individuals.0
