Cholesterol Lie Q & A

Dear Dr. Jonny,

Following your suggestion, I just finished reading "The Great Cholesterol Lie"! What an eye-opener.

But I recently read in the mainstream media about a study called the JUPITER Study that showed the benefit of statin drugs even for people with normal cholesterol! How can this be?

Well, I can certainly see why my reader was confused. So let's try to sort it out.

In the JUPITER study, people with normal cholesterol were given statin drugs. But these people didn't just have normal cholesterol- they also had elevated levels of a blood protein called C-reactive Protein (CRP).

When this group of people took statin drugs (specifically Crestor), their risk factors did indeed improve.

The question is, "Why?"

Here's the answer- and it's not nearly as confusing as the results might seem at first.

Statin drugs are mildly anti-inflammatory. I believe- and I'm quite sure Dr. Lundell would agree with me- that any good that statin drugs do is solely because of their ability to reduce inflammation. In the JUPITER Study, statins lowered CRP, which is- guess what- a measure of systemic inflammation!

And here's what backfired for the pharmaceutical company. This study confirmed the fact that cholesterol is largely irrelevant. The patients in the JUPITER Study were at risk not because their cholesterol was high (it wasn't) but because they had high levels of inflammation.

The statin drug lowered their inflammation, and any lowering of inflammation improves risk factors for heart disease, not to mention overall health. Let's not forget those nasty side effects of painful muscle cramping and recent studies that show extreme cognitive dysfunction from statins.

Wouldn't an aspirin be better? And better yet, Omega-3?

Statins are the "Frankenstein" medication of our time. And Dr. Lundell exposes the reasons why in his excellent book.

The bottom line is that Inflammation is a very, very serious thing—it's a silent killer.

Cholesterol is not. My advice? Take Omega-3 fish oil, the most anti-inflammatory compound on the planet and one that has exactly zero side effects. With fish oil available, why in the world would someone choose a statin as their anti-inflammatory drug of choice?

The simple steps to begin healing your heart outlined in Dr. Lundell's book, "The Great Cholesterol Lie" will absolutely astonish you.

Go here now and silence that deadly killer - inflammation.

A Smarter Way to Reduce Heart Attack Risk

Think the best way to predict heart attacks is by knowing your cholesterol?

Think again.

Researchers from the Hanyang University in Seoul, matched 50 men and women who had experienced a non-fatal heart attack with 50 age and gender-matched controls who did not have a history of heart attack. The researchers analyzed the red blood cells of both groups and measured their levels of both trans-fatty acids and omega-3's. (As readers of this newsletter know, trans-fatty acids are those spawn-of-Satan fats made by hydrogenating or partially hydrogenating vegetable oil; omega-3's are the wonderful anti-inflammatory fatty acids EPA and DHA found in fish and ALA found in flax and hemp.)

The researchers wanted to see how well blood levels of trans-fatty acids and blood levels of omega-3's could predict heart attack. Specifically, they wanted to see if these two measures- trans-fats and omega 3's-- did any better in predicting cardiovascular disease than the "standard" Framingham risk scores.

Framingham risk scores- named after the famous study of adults in Framingham Massachusetts that began in 1948- are calculated using age, gender, smoking status, total cholesterol levels, HDL-cholesterol levels, diabetes history and hypertension history.

While an individual's Framingham score is 70 to 80 percent accurate in predicting coronary heart disease risk, it fails to take into account more recently recognized risk factors that could improve its predictive value.

The current research-- published online on June 9, 2009 in the British Journal of Nutrition-- found that the new measures did even better than the Framingham measures in predicting heart attacks. Those who had the lowest levels of omega-3's in their blood had the greatest risk of heart attack as did those who had the highest levels of trans-fats.

Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid index-- which is the sum of red blood cell EPA and DHA-- was significantly lower in heart attack patients compared with controls, while total trans-fatty acids were significantly higher. Those whose omega-3 fatty acid index was among the top third of participants had an amazing 92 percent lower risk of heart attack than those whose levels were in the lowest third.

Meanwhile, when it came to trans-fats, the exact opposite was true. For those whose total trans-fatty acids were in the top third, the risk of heart attack was a whopping 72.67 percent higher than subjects in the lowest third.

The authors note that omega-3 fatty acids are associated with decreased blood viscosity, and have anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, anti-arrhythmic, lipid lowering and vasodilatory effects. Conversely, trans-fatty acids have been associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

The researchers wrote that "the fatty acid profile is more powerful than the Framingham risk score for identifying patients" with non-fatal heart attacks.

There are two take-home points here:

1. keep your man-made trans-fat intake as close to zero as possible
   
2. keep your omega-3 intake nice and high. You can do this by eating cold-water fish (like the virtually toxin-free cold-water fish available frozen and in cans from Vital Choice) and/or by taking fish oil on a daily basis.
   

Vegetarians can get omega-3's from flaxseeds and flaxseed oil, but to make sure you're getting enough of the all-important EPA and DHA that were measured in the study (and that are found naturally in fish) be sure to take at least two tablespoons or more a day of flaxseed oil.

Waist Size Predicts Heart Failure

The main reason people over 65 wind up in the hospital is heart failure, also known as "congestive heart failure". And the very best predictor of whether or not you're likely to get heart failure might surprise you.

It's waist size.

A new study published in the journal Circulation tracked data from two Swedish population based studies that together included 80,000 men and women aged 45-83. All participants filled in questionnaires about their height, weight, waist circumference and other vital statistics. They were then followed for seven years.

The researchers found- not surprisingly- that weight was linked to risk for heart failure. But they also found that even within the normal weight range (BMI 25 or less), those who had an extra 10cm (about 4 inches) on their waist had about 15% higher risk of heart failure. This went up to 18% for those who were heavier (BMI of 30 or more).

The researchers measured waist size, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ration and BMI (body mass index). All four measures were associated with heart disease, but waist circumference alone predicted heart disease risk regardless of other measures.

I've written before about the importance of waist size and of the waist-to-hip ratio. Nutritionists and smart doctors have long known that 35" for women and 40" for men represent a danger point for insulin resistance (which is the cornerstone of Metabolic Syndrome, also known as pre-diabetes). Metabolic Syndrome significantly increases the risk for heart disease.

If your waist is over 35" (women) or 40" (men) it's time to start doing something. I've found that a low-carb diet is one of the most effective ways to combat belly fat and reduce the size of your waist.

New Research: Vitamin D May Lower Heart Disease Risk

Medical researchers are discovering a greater relationship between heart disease and vitamin D -- a nutrient already linked to reducing certain cancers.

Studies announced Wednesday at an American Heart Association's conference on cardiovascular health showed an increased association between people with high levels of vitamin D and a lower risk of heart disease.

Adolescents in particular could face long-term implications if they don't get enough of the vitamin, which can be absorbed through exposure to the sun and is found in certain fishes and in popular fortified foods, including milk and cereal.

One study found that American teens with low levels of vitamin D in their blood were almost four times more likely to have metabolic syndrome, a cluster of heart disease risk factors such as high blood pressure and abdominal fat.

"If you have other risk factors like obesity, you should be hyper-vigilant," said Jared Reis, a post-doctoral research fellow at The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore. His study, presented at the conference at the Innisbrook Resort, looked at health data of more than 3,500 American teens from 2001-2004.

Although cardiovascular research about the nutrient is still evolving, previous studies have linked vitamin D intake to lower risks of colon, prostate and breast cancers, according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Together with calcium, it also has been historically used to supplement bone health.

This news comes at a time when Americans appear to be decreasing their vitamin D intake. The percentage of Americans deficient in the nutrient increased to 9.2 percent in 2005-06, from 2.6 percent in 1988-94, said researcher Sandy Saintonge of the New York Hospital Queens.

If you aren't taking vitamin D I recommend at least 1000 IUs daily, preferably 2000IUs. Carlson's Vitamin D is cheap ($5.50) and easy to take, so why wouldn't you?

(Acknowledgments: McClatchy-Tribune Information Services and Mary Shedden of the Tampa Tribune)

25 Year Heart Surgeon Reveals The Statin Scam

Guest article by Dr. Dwight Lundell:

Television ads featuring artificial heart inventor Dr. Robert Jarvik (who never practiced medicine) claims that Lipitor will lower heart attack risk by 36%.

Now, who wouldn't want that? Let's look at the fine print...

"in a large clinical study 3% of people taking a placebo had a heart attack and 2% of those taking Lipitor had a heart attack."

Let's do the math...

• For every 100 people in the trial that lasted 3 l/2 years, 3 people on the placebo and 2 people on Lipitor had heart attacks. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people.
• In other words, 100 people had to take Lipitor for 3 l/2 years
• to prevent one heart attack.
• What this really means is, 99 out of 100 people taking Lipitor received no benefit.

There is a little known statistic, "Number Needed To Treat," (NNT) defined as the number of patients who need to be treated in order to prevent one bad outcome. In the case of Lipitor, 100 patients needed to be treated for 3 l/2 years to possibly eliminate one heart attack.

Let's compare that number to today's antibiotic treatment to eradicate ulcer causing H. pylori stomach bacteria. The Number Needed To Treat H. pylori is 1:1. That means if you give the antibiotic to 11 people, 10 will be cured.

Several recent scientific papers peg the NNT for statin medications at 250. That means 249 of 250 would receive no benefit.

Dr. Jerome R. Hoffman, Professor of Clinical Medicine at UCLA asks:

"What if you put 250 people in a room and told them they would have to pay over $1,000 per year for a medicine they must take every day that might give them diarrhea and muscle pain and that 249 of those people would get no benefit, how many would take that?"

Very, very few.

Drug companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. We need drug companies to develop new medicines; however, when they grossly overstate benefits and spend enormous dollars influencing physicians, it leads to potential corruption.

The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) 2004 guidelines lowered the targets for cholesterol treatment and recommended more Americans take statins. The panel that issued the guidelines was comprised of 9 experts, 8 of which had ties to the drug industry.

Physicians who speak out take great risks as medicine and government agencies do not like criticism. For example, Dr. Henry C. Barry of the Michigan State University College of Medicine recently stated, "The NCEP guideline and process went awry."

Dr. Barry and 34 other experts sent a petition of protest to the National Institutes of Health saying the evidence was weak and the panel biased because of its ties to the drug industry. Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical school said, "current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether."

In response to these statements The National Cholesterol Education Program stated strongly, "Dr. Hayward should be held accountable in a court of law for doing things to kill people."

We might expect this kind of harsh response from zealots and extremists but not from government agencies or scientists. If we spent just a fraction of the money we now do on cholesterol testing, cholesterol lowering drugs and doctors visits, on educating people about proper diet, exercise and weight loss, we'd be far healthier.

Dr. Lundell's New Book Backs What I've Been Saying About Cholesterol for Years!

The Great Cholesterol Lie Why Everything You Learned About Cholesterol Is A Lie, How It Began in 1948 And Why It Continues. Why Statin Medications Will Not Reduce Your Risk Of Heart Disease, And What Will. Extraordinary Simple Steps That Prevent And Reverse Heart Disease Without Medication. Learn More

Sugar as a Health Food?

Sugar's about to show up on food labels, all dressed up as a new "natural ingredient" and a better alternative to the demon d'jour, high-fructose corn syrup.

Never let it be said that there are no "second acts" in the marketing of junk food.

OK, in case you haven't been paying attention, high-fructose corn syrup has gotten quite a whipping in the press. The Corn Refiners Association tried fighting back, most notably with a series of commercial showing a clueless mother unable to explain why the stuff was so "bad", but even the best PR campaign wasn't able to put out the fire. And the coup d'grace was sounded recently by Michelle Obama who declared any product with high-fructose corn syrup to be off-limits at the White House.

So now sugar- plain old white, table sugar, the poor little guy that got displaced by HFCS- is ready for its reinvention, this time as the "natural" healthy alternative to HFCS.

Oh, brother.

Let's recap for a moment. Sugar is one part glucose one part fructose (50/50).. High fructose corn syrup is very close to the same formula, marginally higher in fructose- 55% fructose, 45% glucose- but probably not enough to make that much difference (or at least that's what the proponents of HFCS claim).

But the point is moot and the argument about which is "better" diverts our attention from the real problem.

Which is this: The more damaging half of this dastardly duo of glucose and fructose- regardless of whether it occurs in table sugar or HFCS- is clearly fructose. Numerous studies have shown it raises insulin resistance, raises triglycerides in the bloodstream and contributes to fatty liver disease. Pure refined fructose is bad news, whether it comes from HFCS or from sugar.

The big problem with HFCS is the fact that it's so cheap and widely available that it's now in products that were never sweetened before. And that fact that it's so cheap means that manufacturers can use a ton of it, sweetening everything in sight. The result is that we now consume more fructose than we ever did when manufacturers used plain old sugar.

Going back to "natural" (give me a break) white sugar accomplishes exactly nothing. Refined fructose is metabolic poison, and whether we get it from the old fashioned sugar or the cheap and abundant HFCS matters not a whit. We're eating too much of the stuff.

And less there be any confusion let me add that I'm quite aware that fructose is found naturally in fruits. But fructose in fruits- surrounded by fiber, vitamins, phytochemicals and other good stuff- is a very different "animal" than refined fructose, as different as an animal's fur is from a fur coat in the store window.

You don't need to avoid fructose when it occurs (in small amounts) in whole foods.

When it occurs in refined sweeteners- be they "natural" sugar or high-fructose corn syrup- run the other way.

Exercise Lowers Breast Cancer Risk

A new study by University of South Carolina researchers indicates aerobically fit women are three times less likely to die of breast cancer than those who seldom exercise.

The latest addition to the growing evidence on the benefits of aerobic exercise is reported in the April issue of the scientific journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

Researchers from USC's Arnold School of Public Health studied 14,000 women who were given preventive medical exams and treadmill tests at the Cooper Clinic in Houston from 1970-2001. At the time of their exams, the women, ages 20 through 83, had no history of breast cancer.

Based on the treadmill tests, the women's fitness was classified as low, moderate or high. Researchers compared the fitness levels of the 68 women in the study group who had died of breast cancer through 2003.

"Women in the study's lowest fitness category were nearly three times more likely to die from breast cancer than women in the most fit group," said Dr. Steve Blair, a USC researcher and a past president of the American College of Sports Medicine.

To reach the moderate fitness category, women need to exercise about 150 minutes per week. High fitness translates to 300 minutes per week.

"With more than 40,000 women dying each year from this disease, finding a strong association between fitness, which can be improved by the relatively inexpensive lifestyle intervention of regular physical activity, such as walking, is exciting," Blair said.

Exercise should be a standard part of preventive treatment for a number of health problems, according to the American College of Sports Medicine.

The new study also backed up previous findings that exercise helps control cholesterol levels, lowers blood pressure and lessens the likelihood for diabetes and heart disease.

Make Your Genes Behave

Insulin resistance is a condition in which the body doesn't process sugar well, and it often leads to diabetes or heart disease. But with all the talk of finding "genes" for diabetes, what often gets overlooked is the fact that genes interact with the environment. According to a new study, lifestyle choices have a lot more to do with insulin resistance than heredity does. What you do- or don't do- can actually "turn on" these genes (or render them inactive).

A new study from the University of Helsinki found that a sedentary lifestyle actually impairs the functions of certain genes that are related to insulin resistance in obese people. The study looked at pairs of identical twins in which only one twin was obese. In every single case, the obese twin had greater insulin resistance-- and was less fit. The twin who was more fit- even though he or she had identical genes- had far better insulin sensitivity, and wasn't obese.

Remember: genes loads the gun, but environment pulls the trigger. Lifestyle and diet choices actually impact what your genes do. In many cases- if not most- you have the choice to "turn them on" or "turn them off".

7 Foods That Reduce Heart Disease by Double Digits

A few years ago some researchers published a paper in the British Medical Journal with an interesting hypothesis. They postulated that if we could somehow combine six or seven basic medications into one pill and get everybody to take it we could wipe out about an impressive percentage of heart disease and add about nine years to everybody's life.

They called this mythical combo pill the polypill.

The six basic medications in the polypill were various blood pressure medications, plus folic acid, a statin drug, and aspirin. Theoretically, if everyone were to take those six medications a day, voila, major reduction in heart disease.

Well, these guys were traditional doctors and to them, the only way to impact the rate of heart disease (and dying) was to use drugs. (If the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)

But some other researchers took a different approach.

These researchers said Okay, that polypill thing, sounds like a good idea, but dudes, medicine and pharmaceuticals are not the only way to accomplish this. They took a different approach, examining all the research that showed that people who eat certain foods had significantly lower rates of various degenerative diseases.

Using this research and some very sophisticated statistical projections, they put together what they called a polymeal-consisting of seven foods that had been well-studied for their effects on longevity and disease. And they postulated that if we could get everyone in the world to eat that meal a few times a week, we could reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 75 percent!

The polymeal was the basis of the recipes in my book, "The Healthiest Meals on Earth". And the polymeal looks, tastes and sounds an awful lot better than a bunch of medicines- and has a lot less side effects (unless you count satisfaction as a side effect!)

What are these seven "magic" ingredients that- if we consumed them regularly- could reduce heart disease by double digits?

1. fish,
2. garlic,
3. vegetables,
4. nuts,
5. fruit,
6. red wine, and
7. dark chocolate.

Why these seven?

Because they each contribute certain vital nutrients that can extend your life, improve your health, and contribute mightily to your overall well-being and Youngevity.

This article in an excerpt from my latest project that reveals how baby boomers can live a longer, better, healthier, more exciting life than ever thought possible.

Our parents' generation succeeded in increasing the life span of the average person. Now our generation has the chance to improve upon their work by making longer lives into better lives.

Learn more»

Atkins Induction Diet improves Glycemic Control in Diabetics

Diabetes is a disease of uncontrolled sugar. In a nutshell, uncontrolled sugar is also a huge contributing factor to obesity and heart disease. When your blood sugar goes too high, insulin comes in to escort that extra blood sugar into the cells where it can be burned for energy. But if insulin doesn't work effectively, you wind up with too much blood sugar and high levels of insulin, and you're on your way to big health problems down the road.

The technical name for this ability of the body to regulate sugar effectively and efficiently is glycemic control.

So what's the number one thing that raises blood sugar anyway? Clearly it's carbohydrates. And study after study has shown that low-carb diets improve the ability of the body to effectively deal with sugar.

Previous research has shown that a low-glycemic diet (i.e. one high in beans, lentils and breads made with flaxseeds) does much better at managing glycemic control for Type ll diabetes than the "traditional" high fiber diet based on whole grain breads and breakfast cereals (which are often loaded with extra sugar).

Now a new study shows that when it comes to controlling blood sugar, the Atkins Induction phase program does even better.

Eric Westman, MD and his research team put 84 community volunteers with with obesity and type 2 diabetes on one of two diets- the very-low carb Atkins Induction Phase Diet or a low-glycemic, reduced calorie diet. After 6 months, there was improvement in both groups in glycemic control. But the Atkins Induction group improved more.

The main measure of improvement was a blood test called hemoglobin A1c, which is a kind of "Rolls Royce" of blood sugar measurement. While blood sugar levels at any given time fluctuate, Hemoglobin A1c gives us a much more realistic reading of the overall effectiveness of blood sugar control over an extended period of time. Since red blood cells basically live for about 3 months before dying, when sugar sticks to these cells it's possible to tell just how much sugar has been around for the past three months.

Both diets- Atkins Induction and low-glycemic- improved Hemoglobin A1c as well as fasting glucose, fasting insulin and even weight loss. But the Atkins Induction diet did slightly better on all four counts.

Both groups were also able to reduce their diabetic medication. But in patients taking insulin, the effects of the Atkins Induction diet were really quite powerful. Participants taking from 40-90 units of insulin before the study were able to eliminate their insulin use after starting the Atkins Induction Diet, sometimes so quickly that the study researchers had to issue the warning that subjects with type 2 diabetes who are unable to adjust their own medication shouldn't make these dietary changes without close medical supervision!

Does this study mean that an Induction diet is preferable to a low-glycemic diet, which in other studies has been shown to be very useful for glycemic control. No. "A low-carbohydrate, (Atkins Induction) diet combines two approaches that, on their own, improve blood glucose control: weight loss and a reduced glycemic index diet", wrote the researchers. Because low-glycemic diets typically contain from 40-60% of calories from carbohydrate, it's possible that the beneficial effect of low-glycemic diets could be augmented even further by the reduction of the absolute amount of carbs- or by a reduction in calories", said Dr. Westman.

Triglycerides: What you Need to Know

As I get older, I find myself becoming scarily more like my parents, who were known to roll their eyes each time I would finally "discover" something that they had been telling me for years-- as if to silently say, "so you finally figured it out!"

Of course, in my version, it's me rolling my eyes every time the medical profession "discovers" something nutritionists have been saying for years. In this case, they're finally getting wise to the fact that triglycerides are an important risk factor for heart disease. Possibly- gasp- even more than cholesterol.

And the best news is, you can lower triglycerides without any expensive drugs.

Triglycerides are in the news a lot these days because recent 30-year analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES) data by the National Lipid Association shows that the percentage of adults with high triglycerides has doubled. The study also showed an alarming increase among people over 60.

Why should we care? "Studies have shown that unhealthy levels of triglycerides and HDL can lead to heart attack and stroke", said Jerome Cohen, MD, professor emeritus of internal medicine and cardiology at the St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Increased risk of heart disease and stroke seems like a good reason to pay attention. (In my not-so-humble opinion, I'd worry way more about high triglycerides than I would high cholesterol.)

So if you've got high triglycerides, what can you do about it? Simple. Eat a low-carb diet.

Triglycerides are the most common l form of fat found in your both food and in your body. They're in your bloodstream, your diet and your tissues and organs. Most of what you don't like about the way you look in jeans is adipose tissue (fat cells) filled with, yup, triglycerides. When your doctor gives you a blood test, the test invariably measures triglycerides in the blood. (The National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines for normal triglycerides are under 150, though most cutting edge docs and nutritionists would prefer to see a more optimal level like under 100.)

High triglycerides are a strong independent risk factor for heart disease, and they also correlate with obesity, and with low levels of HDL (the so-called "good cholesterol"). High triglycerides are also one of the five signs of Metabolic Syndrome, (also called pre-diabetes), a major risk factor for heart disease.

A low-carb diet will bring triglycerides down 100 per cent of the time (and that's regardless of whether or not you lose much weight on the diet). You read that right. Not 90 percent, not 95%, but 100 percent of the time. There are very, very few strategies in nutrition that have 100 percent success rate, but when it comes to lowering triglycerides, low-carb diets do in fact have that enviable track record.

Conversely, when you replace fat in your diet with carbohydrates- especially the kind that do not come from vegetables and fruits- your triglycerides go up!(3,4,5) So a low-fat diet is not necessarily the answer to high triglycerides.

In fact, one particular form of fat- omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil and flaxseed- have been shown to help lower triglycerides, particularly in combination with vitamin C!
Obviously, you're going to get better overall results if you couple that low-carb diet with exercise and a few other healthy habits, but low-carb is a great beginning.

One reason low-carb works so well to lower triglycerides is that the liver manufactures triglycerides out of fat and excess sugar. The more sugar in your diet the more the liver converts that sugar into the little packages we call triglycerides. Give the body less sugar- (and less processed carbs that convert quickly to sugar in the body)- and guess what? Triglycerides return to a nice, healthy, (low) level.

The best prescription for high triglycerides is a very moderate calorie diet of whole foods with plenty of healthy protein and fat, no sugar, a ton of vegetables, some fruit and nuts and very limited starchy carbs (or not- you can leave out the starchy carbs if you like).

For reducing triglycerides, that diet will work as well as any drug, and has no side effects to boot-- (unless you call weight loss a side-effect).

And that's a very good reason to get the extraneous carbs- white bread, desserts, sugar, soda- out of your diet for good.

Vitamins No Help in Heart Disease?

If you'd like a perfect example of the way the media reports on vitamins-- and why it makes me crazy-- look no further than the recent headlines proclaiming "Vitamins No Help in Heart Disease".

First here's what happened, as reported in the Nov 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers enrolled 14,641 male physicians in the study, all of whom were at very low risk for cardiovascular disease. The men were divided into four groups.

1. The first group took 400 IUs of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C every day.
2. The second took vitamin E and a placebo vitamin C.
3. The third, real vitamin C and a placebo vitamin E.
4. The fourth group took 2 placebos.

After 8 years the researchers found no difference among the groups in the incidence of heart attack, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

"There are no compelling reasons to take either vitamin E or C for cardiovascular disease prevention" said the lead author, Howard D. Sesso.

OK read that over carefully and see if you can spot the problems.

Number one, we have no idea what kind of vitamin E was given. From past experience, doctors- who know absolutely nothing about this stuff- tend to give alpha-tocopherol, the least effective of the 8 components of vitamin E. Number two, look at the dose. Four hundred IUs taken every other day. And if previous experience is any guide, they probably used an synthetic source, which is about half as effective as a natural source. On what planet do you dismiss any possible benefit from vitamin E based on a low dose of an ineffective form of the vitamin given to a population that wasn't at risk in the first place?

And while vitamin C at 500mg is a nice basic dose, no one seriously thinks that's enough to make a therapeutic difference.

So the first thing that's wrong here is that it's a lousy study that seems almost pre-destined to show little effect. In fact the cards were so loaded against the vitamins that they would have to be miracle pills- literally preventing any cases of heart disease at these low doses- before the researchers would give them any credit.

The second thing is that the press unanimously reported this study as another case showing that vitamins are "ineffective".

Never mind that just last year multivitamin and vitamin E use was found to be associated with lower mortality from cerebrovascular disease (CVD) in the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer. Never mind that vitamin E is the most potent fat-soluble anti-oxidant in the plasma and the tissues. And never mind that no less a source than the Physicians Desk Reference states that "The results of a very large number of studies, including in vitro and animal studies, epidemiological and intervention trails, support a role for vitamin E in the prevention of cardiovascular disease". And don't even get me started on the multiple benefits of vitamin C.

Look, I admit that some studies of single nutrients have been disappointing. And I'm certainly not saying that such studies shouldn't be reported. But is the message we really want to send here that vitamins are "ineffective"? Is that really what this study shows?

The moral of the story is this: Look a little deeper than the headlines. That's probably good advice in general, but it's certainly good advice in the field of health reporting.

Undersleeping Increases the Risk for Heart Disease

According to a new report in the Nov 10 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, getting too little sleep may be associated with a future risk for heart disease. In the present study, the magic number was 7 1/2 hours a night.

A combination of little sleep and overnight elevated blood pressure increases the risk even more.

We already know from previous studies that sleeping too little increases the risk for obesity. Undersleeping also raises stress hormones, and plays overall havoc with your general health.

In the new study, researchers at the Jichi Medical University in Japan monitored sleep in over 1200 individuals with high blood pressure, and followed them for a little over 4 years. The researchers took note of how long the participants slept each night, monitored their daytime and nighttime blood pressure and, of course, kept track of cardiovascular disease events like stroke, heart attack and sudden death.

During the follow-up period, 99 cardiovascular disease events occurred. And it occurred at a significantly higher rate among the folks who were sleeping less than 7.5 hours a night.

Now granted, the actual number of people affected was small- but it's still worth mentioning because of the many other problems we know about that relate to not getting enough shut-eye. I don't know that it has to be 7.5 hours exactly, but I do know that the 4-5 hours some of us are getting just ain't cutting it.

In my soon-to-be-released DVD program "The Seven Pillars of Youngevity" I discuss sleep at length, largely because it's one of the pillars of good health and long life.

Consider this: A lot of what we know about healthy diet comes from looking at what our primitive, caveman ancestors ate before the advent of processed food and food products. Those Paleolithic ancestors of ours ate food from what I call the "Jonny Bowden Four Food Groups": food you could hunt, fish, gather or pluck. Maybe Paleolithic man has something to teach us about sleep as well. After all, the cavemen hit the sack at sundown, and woke up at sunrise. Their sleep habits were nicely in tune with the universe's rhythm.

The best diets mimic the Paleolithic diet. Maybe we should try to emulate our Paleolithic ancestors in the area of sleep as well!

B12: The New Star in the Vitamin Universe

Recently we've been hearing (and I've been writing) a whole lot of amazing things about vitamin D, which is turning out to be one of the most "underrated" vitamins on the planet. Now get ready to hear a lot about another vitamin that's about to be "discovered" by the media: Vitamin B12.

Look, these vitamins have been around since vitamins have been discovered. They're not new. But what happens is that the research mounts, people begin to pay attention, and slowly but surely a critical mass of intelligent folks in the health business realizes that this stuff is really important and amazing- and we're not getting enough of it.

Which is what's happening now with vitamin B12.

Many epidemiological studies have indicated that low levels of vitamin B12 are commonly associated with several ailments (many of which affect older people) like Alzheimer's, dementia, frailty, depression, osteoporosis, heart disease, stroke and even some cancers. For example, the famous Framingham study of 2,576 adults living in Massachusetts linked low blood levels of vitamin B12 to bone loss (in both men and women). And a study published this year of 107 people over 60 who were followed for five years linked low levels of B12 to shrinkage of the brain.

Here's the thing- in many studies, symptoms were seen with B12 levels just slightly below normal, or in some cases well above the level that causes anemia, the most famous B12 deficiency disease.

Once again, it's turning out that minimal levels of a vitamin- the levels known to prevent a specific deficiency disease- are very far from the optimal levels.

Vitamin B12 is needed in every cell in the body. It's water soluble, so you can't take "too much". And we absorb it poorly and probably don't get enough of it. Read on to see why.

Vitamin B12 is primarily found in animal foods (sorry, my vegan friends but it's the truth). To be assimilated it has to first be separated from the protein that contains it (like meat or fish) by stomach acid. It then binds to a compound called "intrinsic factor". The problems are threefold:

1. many people (especially vegetarians) are not eating animal protein;
2. many people do not make enough stomach acid, or they use antacids
3. many people don't make enough (or any) intrinsic factor. This is especially true once we hit forty.

Often, vitamin B12 deficiency doesn't show up for years. And it can influence depression, energy and performance, not to mention a whole host of degenerative diseases. Vegetarians (and vegans) especially must take supplements, and in my opinion, most everyone else would benefit as well.

Because of the limiting factor of stomach acid and intrinsic factor, many people prefer to get B12 in injections or take B12 as a liquid sublingually, so it bypasses the "gut". You can also take B12 in a small capsule. It's inexpensive and great insurance. I recommend you take it with folic acid, because the combination has been shown to lower levels of a nasty toxic inflammatory compound in your body called homocysteine.

Vitamin B12 is also known as cobalamin. But it's been shown that the more "potent" and effective form to use in supplements is a kind of "turbo" vitamin B12 called methylcobalamin. Make sure to always use supplements of methylcobalamin. And remember also that to make any kind of difference you need to take a dose of at least 1000 mcg. (And It's perfectly OK if you skip a day from time to time).

How to Get a Free Bottle of B12 in November For the month of November 2008 I will include 1 free bottle of vitamin B12 ($11.40 value) with any vitamin store order over $99. You don't need to add the product to your cart, I will simply toss it in your box as it goes out the door. (Unless you specify "b12 capsules" during order I will include the liquid form.)

cholesterol and the subprime mortgage crisis

First things first: The term "meme" (which originated with the biologist/philosopher Richard Dawkins) means a "unit of cultural transmission"- in other words, a shared cultural concept or notion that everyone basically buys into and is in the general storehouse of "common knowledge".

One "meme" is the idea that home ownership is always better than renting. Think of all the things you've heard over the years: renting is like throwing money away. You'll make more money on your home. The real estate market always goes up. Owners are always better off than renters.

Another "meme" is that cholesterol causes heart disease and lowering cholesterol saves lives.

Today's Wall Street Journal did a great piece on the first meme: The idea that home ownership is always a good idea. Carolina Katz Reid, a grad student at the University of Washington, did a 2004 study in which she found:

1) 36% of low income people who became homeowners returned to renting in 2 years, and over 50% returned to renting in 5 years. Most never went back to homeowning later on.

2) The average price appreciation gain of their homes was under what it would have been if they'd invested the money in plain old Treasury bills.

3) The typical low-income household spent half the family income on mortgage, leaving less money for education or a rainy day

4) The typical low-income homeowner saddled with a home was less than half as likely to move when a better job opportunity came up in another city

5) The so called "tax advantage" disappeared when people had little money to "shelter" from taxes.

The "meme" that home ownership, under all conditions- especially for low income people- turned out to be a huge case of "the emperor has no clothes".

Which brings us to cholesterol.

Maybe it's time to get serious about blowing holes in the "meme" that cholesterol causes heart disease or death or that lowering cholesterol does much of anything.

This meme is so entrenched in our society, in our economy, in our way of doing business, that dislodging it is going to be Herculean task, and we may not see it accomplished in our lifetime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Jane Brody is the nutrition columnist for the NY Times, has been for years. Why a person of this monumental cluelessness should occupy a place of such importance, respect and distinction is completely beyond me. Yesterday she published her own "cholesterol odyssey". You can read it here.

I sent it on to my good friend Michael Eades, MD who wrote a reply to it on his blog. I can't do much better than he did, so I'm just going to point you there.

Let's review for the record:

1) Cholesterol does not cause heart disease
2) Lowering cholesterol does not save lives except in a very very specific select sub-population (middle aged men who have already had a heart attack)- and even then the number it saves is miniscule
3) Statins have a number of serious side effects and they are under-reported
4) To the extent that statins do any good, it is not by lowering cholesterol, but by lowering inflammation (a far more important goal than lowering cholesterol)
5) There has never been one single study- ever- of the effect of statin drugs on women


Please read Mike's blog today for a fuller report. And don't think for a moment that he's the only qualified MD who is saying this stuff. If you're up for it, you can explore the International Network for Cholesterol Skeptics website. Especially recommended: This (and other) essays by Malcolm Kendrik, MD.