Rabbits on a High-Saturated Fat Diet Without Added Cholesterol

I just saw another study that supports my previous post Animal Models of Atherosclerosis: LDL. The hypothesis is that in the absence of excessive added dietary cholesterol, saturated fat does not influence LDL or atherosclerosis in animal models, relative to other fats (although omega-6 polyunsaturated oils do lower LDL in some animal models). This appears to be consistent with what we see in humans.

In this study, they fed four groups of rabbits different diets:

1. Regular low-fat rabbit chow
2. Regular low-fat rabbit chow plus 0.5 g cholesterol per day
3. High-fat diet with 30% calories as coconut oil (saturated) and no added cholesterol
   
4. High-fat diet with 30% calories as sunflower oil (polyunsaturated) and no added cholesterol
   

LDL at 6 months was the same in groups 1, 3 and 4, but was increased more than 20-fold in group 2. It's not the fat, it's the fact that they're overloading herbivores with dietary cholesterol!

Total cholesterol was also the same between all groups except the cholesterol-fed group. TBARS, a measure of lipid oxidation in the blood, was elevated in the cholesterol and sunflower oil groups but not in the chow or coconut groups. Oxidation of blood lipids is one of the major factors in atherosclerosis, the vascular disease that narrows arteries and increases the risk of having a heart attack. Serum vitamin C was lower in the cholesterol-fed groups but not the others.

This supports the idea that saturated fat does not inherently increase LDL, and in fact in most animals it does not. This appears to be the case in humans as well, where long-term trials have shown no difference in LDL between people eating more saturated fat and people eating less, on timescales of one year or more (some short trials show a modest LDL-raising effect, but even this appears to be due to an increase in particle size rather than particle number). Since these trials represent the average of many people, they may hide some individual variability: it may actually increase LDL in some people and decrease it in others.

Merry Christmas!

Read More

10.00 | 0 comments

The Dirty Little Secret of the Diet-Heart Hypothesis

The diet-heart hypothesis is the idea that saturated fat, and in some versions cholesterol, raises blood cholesterol and contributes to the risk of having a heart attack. To test this hypothesis, scientists have been studying the relationship between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk for more than half a century. To judge by the grave pronouncements of our most visible experts, you would think these studies had found an association between the two. It turns out, they haven't.

The fact is, the vast majority of high-quality observational studies have found no connection whatsoever between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. The scientific literature contains dozens of these studies, so let's narrow the field to prospective studies only, because they are considered the most reliable. In this study design, investigators find a group of initially healthy people, record information about them (in this case what they eat), and watch who gets sick over the years.

A Sampling of Unsupportive Studies

Here are references to ten high-impact prospective studies, spanning half a century, showing no association between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. Ignore the squirming about saturated-to-polyunsaturated ratios, Keys/Hegsted scores, etc. What we're concerned with is the straightforward question: do people who eat more saturated fat have more heart attacks? Many of these papers allow free access to the full text, so have a look for yourselves if you want:

A Longitudinal Study of Coronary Heart Disease. Circulation. 1963.

Diet and Heart: a Postscript. British Medical Journal. 1977. Saturated fat was unrelated to heart attack risk, but fiber was protective.

Dietary Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Japanese Men Living in Hawaii. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1978.

Relationship of Dietary Intake to Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease Incidence: the Puerto Rico Heart Health Program. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1980.

Diet, Serum Cholesterol, and Death From Coronary Heart Disease: The Western Electric Study. New England Journal of Medicine. 1981.

Diet and 20-year Mortality in Two Rural Population Groups of Middle-Aged Men in Italy. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1989. Men who died of CHD ate significantly less saturated fat than men who didn't.

Diet and Incident Ischaemic Heart Disease: the Caerphilly Study. British Journal of Nutrition. 1993. They measured animal fat intake rather than saturated fat in this study.

Dietary Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Men: Cohort Follow-up Study in the United States. British Medical Journal. 1996. This is the massive Physicians Health Study. Don't let the abstract fool you! Scroll down to table 2 and see for yourself that the association between saturated fat intake and heart attack risk disappears after adjustment for several factors including family history of heart attack, smoking and fiber intake. That's because, as in most modern studies, people who eat steak are also more likely to smoke, avoid vegetables, eat fast food, etc.

Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997. From the massive Nurse's Health study. This one fooled me for a long time because the abstract is misleading. It claims that saturated fat was associated with heart attack risk. However, the association disappeared without a trace when they adjusted for monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat intake. Have a look at table 3.

Dietary Fat Intake and Early Mortality Patterns-- Data from the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2005.

I just listed 10 prospective studies published in top peer-reviewed journals that found no association between saturated fat and heart disease risk. This is less than half of the prospective studies that have come to the same conclusion, representing by far the majority of studies to date. If saturated fat is anywhere near as harmful as we're told, why are its effects essentially undetectable in the best studies we can muster?

Studies that Support the Diet-Heart Hypothesis

To be fair, there have been a few that have found an association between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. Here's a list of all four that I'm aware of, with comments:

Ten-year Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease in the Honolulu Heart Program: relationship to nutrient intake. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1984. "Men who developed coronary heart disease also had a higher mean intake of percentage of calories from protein, fat, saturated fatty acids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids than men who remained free of coronary heart disease." The difference in saturated fat intake between people who had heart attacks and those who didn't, although statistically significant, was minuscule.

Diet and 20-Year Mortality From Coronary Heart Disease: the Ireland-Boston Diet-Heart Study. New England Journal of Medicine. 1985. "Overall, these results tend to support the hypothesis that diet is related, albeit weakly, to the development of coronary heart disease."

Relationship Between Dietary Intake and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality: Lipid Research Clinics Prevalence Follow-up Study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1996. "...increasing percentages of energy intake as total fat (RR 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01 – 1.08), saturated fat (RR 1.11, CI = 1.04 – 1.18), and monounsaturated fat (RR 1.08, CI = 1.01 – 1.16) were significant risk factors for CHD mortality among 30 to 59 year olds... None of the dietary components were significantly associated with CHD mortality among those aged 60–79 years." Note that the associations were very small, also included monounsaturated fat (like in olive oil), and only applied to the age group with the lower risk of heart attack.

The Combination of High Fruit and Vegetable and Low Saturated Fat Intakes is More Protective Against Mortality in Aging Men than is Either Alone. Journal of Nutrition. 2005. Higher saturated fat intake was associated with a higher risk of heart attack; fiber was strongly protective.

The Review Papers

Over 25 high-quality studies conducted, and only 4 support the diet-heart hypothesis. If this substance is truly so fearsome, why don't people who eat more of it have more heart attacks? In case you're concerned that I'm cherry-picking studies that conform to my beliefs, here are links to review papers on the same data that have reached the same conclusion:

The Questionable Role of Saturated and Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1998. Dr. Uffe Ravnskov systematically demolishes the diet-heart hypothesis simply by collecting all the relevant studies and summarizing their findings.

A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009. "Insufficient evidence (less than or equal to 2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat; alpha-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk" They analyzed prospective studies representing over 160,000 patients from 11 studies meeting their rigorous inclusion criteria, and found no association whatsoever between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk.

Where's the Disconnect?

The first part of the diet-heart hypothesis states that dietary saturated fat raises the cholesterol/LDL concentration of the blood. This is held as established fact in the mainstream understanding of nutrition. The second part states that increased blood cholesterol/LDL increases the risk of having a heart attack. What part of this is incorrect?

There's definitely an association between blood cholesterol/LDL level and heart attack risk in certain populations, including Americans. MRFIT, among other studies, showed this definitively, although the lowest risk of all-cause mortality was at an average level of cholesterol. The association between blood cholesterol and heart attack risk does not apply to Japanese populations, as pointed out repeatedly by the erudite Dr. Harumi Okuyama. This seems to be generally true of groups that consume a lot of seafood.

So we're left with the first premise: that saturated fat increases blood cholesterol/LDL. This turns out to be largely a myth, based on a liberal interpretation of short-term feeding studies. In fact, it isn't even true in animal models of heart disease. In the 1950s, the most vigorous proponent of the diet-heart hypothesis, Dr. Ancel Keys, created a formula designed to predict changes in blood cholesterol based on the consumption of dietary saturated and polyunsaturated fats. This formula is extremely inaccurate and has gradually been dropped from the modern medical literature. Yet the idea that saturated fat consumption increases blood cholesterol/LDL lives on...

This is it, folks: the diet-heart hypothesis ends here. It's been kept afloat for decades by wishful thinking, puritan sensibilities and selective citation of the evidence. It's time to put it out of its misery.

Read More

20.00 | 0 comments

Animal Models of Atherosclerosis: Diet-Induced Atherosclerosis

LDL likely plays a role in causing atherosclerosis, with the majority of the damage coming from the oxidized form of LDL. There are at least two ways to increase the concentration of oxidized LDL (oxLDL) in the blood: 1) increase the total concentration of LDL while keeping the proportion of oxLDL the same; 2) increase the proportion of oxLDL. Dietary fats differ in their effects on these two factors, and the net outcome is also dependent on the species eating the fat and the overall dietary context.

The omega-6 polyunsaturated fat, linoleic acid (LA; found abundantly in industrial vegetable oils), is a dominant factor in the susceptibility of LDL to oxidation. LDL is rich in LA regardless of diet, yet the amount of LA in LDL still depends on diet to a certain degree. Thus, on the surface, one would expect a diet high in industrial vegetable oil to promote atherosclerosis. Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because LA also lowers the amount of LDL in the blood of a number of species, including humans.

The amount of atherosclerosis produced by feeding different fats depends both on how much LDL oxidation occurs and on how the fat affects the organism's blood lipid profile. For example, if corn oil lowers LDL by 3-fold relative to lard in a rabbit model, yet increases the proportion of oxLDL by 50%, the rabbit will probably develop more atherosclerosis eating lard than eating corn oil. This is because the total concentration of oxLDL is still higher in the lard group. On the other hand, if corn oil doesn't reduce LDL at all relative to lard in a rhesus monkey, yet the proportion of oxLDL increases by 50%, the corn oil group will probably develop more atherosclerosis, all else being equal.

Then there are other factors that influence atherosclerosis independently of oxLDL, such as the fat-soluble antioxidants, micronutrients and omega-6:3 ratio of the diets. It's also important to keep in mind that atherosclerosis is only one factor that influences the risk of having a heart attack.

In the last post, I argued that feeding excessive cholesterol to herbivorous or nearly herbivorous animals elevates plasma LDL greatly. In many species, saturated fat exacerbates the increase in LDL due to dietary cholesterol overload. However, in the absence of added cholesterol, several commonly used models of atherosclerosis do not show an increase in LDL upon saturated fat feeding. This is similar to the situation in humans.

Rabbits are one of the most commonly used models of diet-induced atherosclerosis. They are very sensitive to dietary cholesterol, due to the fact that their natural adult diet contains virtually none.

I recently found a great study from 1967 titled "Relative Failure of Saturated Fat in the Diet to Produce Atherosclerosis in the Rabbit" (free full text). Investigators fed rabbits cocoa butter, coconut oil and Crisco (hydrogenated cottonseed oil) at 45% of calories. They found that neither cocoa butter nor Crisco increased the rabbits' cholesterol (they didn't measure LDL directly but it typically increases in proportion to total cholesterol in rabbits), while coconut oil caused a transient increase that disappeared by 6 months on the diet. Cocoa butter caused slight atherosclerosis in some of the animals while none was detected in the coconut oil or Crisco groups.

Next, the investigators fed the rabbits cholesterol along with the fats. 0.25% cholesterol with corn oil or Crisco caused a massive (10-fold) increase in blood cholesterol, and produced atherosclerosis. They didn't pair the saturated fats with cholesterol, but the point is still clear: feeding dietary cholesterol, not saturated fat, to an herbivorous species, is the culprit.

However, subsequent studies in rabbits have shown that saturated fats can produce atherosclerosis without added cholesterol. How can this be? It turns out that it only works in the context of a highly refined "synthetic" or "semi-synthetic" diet (ref). So the dietary context plays an important role as well.

The ability of saturated fat to produce atherosclerosis in animal models requires it to cause a large enough increase in serum LDL that it overwhelms saturated fat's natural tendency to reduce LDL oxidation. This process is typically helped along by feeding huge amounts of cholesterol. In the absence of a large increase in LDL, atherosclerosis does not result, all else being equal.

Several studies in primates support this concept. van Jaarsveld and colleagues showed that feeding vervet monkeys 28% of calories from palm oil (SFA-MUFA), sunflower oil (PUFA) or lard (MUFA-SFA) resulted in similar LDL concentrations in the three groups. After more than two years, the palm oil group had the least atherosclerosis and the sunflower oil and lard groups were similar. It's notable that palm oil was the most saturated fat used in this study.

In another telling study by Mott and colleagues, baboons were fed diets containing 40% of calories from a predominantly saturated fat or a predominantly polyunsaturated fat. Each group was further subdivided into two groups: one receiving a small amount of cholesterol in the feed, and one receiving a large amount. Cholesterol feeding increased LDL and atherosclerosis, while the type of fat had a modest effect on LDL and no effect on atherosclerosis both at high and low cholesterol levels. I've noticed that baboons seem to throw a wrench in the gears of the mainstream conception of blood lipid metabolism.

Rudel and colleagues fed african green monkeys and cynomolgus monkeys lard (MUFA-SFA) or safflower oil (PUFA) for 40% of calories, with or without added cholesterol. Without cholesterol, both LDL and the degree of atherosclerosis were low in both monkeys fed both types of fat. Cholesterol feeding raised LDL in both species by 2-3 fold, and caused significant atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis was more severe in monkeys fed lard plus cholesterol than in monkeys fed safflower oil plus cholesterol, correlating with their considerably higher LDL.

In sum, the ability of a fat to contribute to atherosclerosis depends in part on its ability to increase oxLDL. One way to do this is to massively raise LDL. This can be accomplished by combining dietary cholesterol overload with saturated fat in certain susceptible species. Saturated fat, in the context of a somewhat normal diet, does not appear to raise LDL significantly in most species in the long term. This includes humans.

Animal models of diet-induced atherosclerosis are useful for studying the disease, but they do not support the conclusion that humans should avoid foods containing natural amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat. "Saturated fats" such as lard, palm oil, beef tallow and coconut oil probably have little or no connection to atherosclerosis in humans, or in most species eating a somewhat natural diet.

Read More

17.00 | 0 comments

Animal Models of Atherosclerosis: LDL

Researchers have developed a number of animal models of atherosclerosis (fatty/fibrous lesions in the arteries that influence heart attack risk) to study the factors that affect its development. In the next two posts, I will argue that these models rely on a massive increase in LDL, up to 10-fold, due to overloading the cholesterol metabolism of herbivorous species with excessive dietary cholesterol. This also greatly increases oxidized LDL, leading to atherosclerosis. I will discuss the role of saturated fat, which often receives the blame, in this process.

A reader recently sent me a reference to an interesting paper titled "Dietary Fat Saturation Effects on Low-density-lipoprotein Concentrations and Metabolism in Various Animal Models". It's a review of animal studies that have looked at the effect of different fats on LDL concentration as of 1997. They nail their colors to the mast in the first sentence of the abstract:

Saturated vegetable oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel oil) and fats (butter and lard) are hypercholesterolemic [raise cholesterol] relative to monounsaturated and polyunsaturated vegetable oils.

But don't let this fool you; the actual data they present are much more interesting. First of all, they expressly exclude studies on models that have an "abnormal degree of response to a hypercholesterolemic diet". In other words, they attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by excluding models that don't support their hypothesis. Even after stacking the deck, the data they present still fail to support their position.

When an investigator wants to study diet-induced atherosclerosis, first he selects a species that's susceptible to it. These are generally herbivorous or nearly herbivorous species such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and several species of monkey. Then, he feeds it an "atherogenic diet". This is typically a combination of 0.1 to 1% cholesterol by weight, plus 20-40% of calories as fat. The fat can come from a variety of sources, but animal fats or saturated vegetable fats are typical. The remainder of the diet is processed grains, vitamin and mineral supplements, and often casein for protein.

Let's put that amount of cholesterol into human context. Assuming the average person eats about 2 pounds dry weight of food per day, 0.5% cholesterol would be 4.5 grams. That's the equivalent of:

• 17.5 pounds of beef steak, or
• 3.8 pounds of beef liver, or
• 22.5 eggs

Per day. Now feed that to an herbivore that's not adapted to clearing cholesterol. You can imagine it doesn't do their blood lipids any favors. For example, in one study, compared to a low-fat, low-cholesterol "control diet", a diet of 20% hydrogenated coconut oil plus 0.12% cholesterol caused hamsters' LDL to increase by more than 7-fold. A polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) rich diet caused LDL to increase less. This study is typical, and the interpretation is typical as well: SFA raises LDL. But there's another possibility that makes far more sense when you stand back and look at the data as a whole: in the absence of unnatural amounts of dietary cholesterol, PUFA reduces LDL in some species, and SFA has very little effect on it in most.

It's important to remember that this hamster experiment has little to do with the situation in humans. No one is claiming that reducing saturated fat and cholesterol will reduce a human's LDL by 7-fold. Long-term dietary interventions that reduce SFA and dietary cholesterol without increasing PUFA have little to no effect on LDL cholesterol, and can in fact increase LDL oxidation. Furthermore, humans are very resistant to blood cholesterol changes in response to dietary cholesterol, suggesting that we have an evolutionary history metabolizing it. Finally, as I've discussed in a previous post, saturated fat does not influence total blood cholesterol or LDL in humans in the long term, and the effects are modest even in the short term.

But let's get back to the animal models. The hypothesis the paper is attempting to support is that saturated fat raises LDL in a variety of (herbivorous) animal models. If that were true, it should be able to raise LDL even in the absence of added cholesterol. So let's consider only the studies that didn't add extra cholesterol to the diets. And if saturated fat raises LDL, it should also do it relative to monounsaturated fat (MUFA- like olive oil), rather than only in comparison to PUFA. So let's narrow the studies further to those that compared SFA-rich fats, MUFA-rich fats and PUFA-rich fats. In Fernandez et al. (1989), investigators fed guinea pigs 35% of calories from corn oil (PUFA), olive oil (MUFA) or lard (MUFA-SFA). Here's what their LDL looked like:
The same investigators published two more studies showing similar results over the next five years. The next study was published by Khosla et al. in 1992. They fed cebus and rhesus monkeys cholesterol-free diets containing 40% of calories from safflower oil (PUFA), high-oleic safflower oil (MUFA) or palm oil (SFA-MUFA). How was their LDL?
None of the differences were statistically significant. Khosla and colleagues published another study with the same result in 1993. This is hardly supportive of the idea that saturated fat raises LDL in animal models. The most you can say is that PUFA lowers LDL in some, but not all, species. There is no indication from these studies that SFA raises LDL in the absence of excessive dietary cholesterol. I didn't cherry pick studies here, I mentioned every study in the review paper that met my two criteria of no added cholesterol and a MUFA comparison group.

The bottom line is that experimental models of atherosclerosis rely on overloading herbivorous species with dietary cholesterol that they are not equipped to clear from their bodies. SFA does exacerbate the increase in LDL caused by cholesterol overload. But in the absence of excess cholesterol, it does not generally raise LDL even in species ill-equipped to digest these types of fats. Dietary cholesterol has little or no influence on LDL in humans. So there is no cholesterol overload for saturated fat to exacerbate. Consistent with this, saturated fat does not influence LDL in humans in the long term. This is contrary to the mainstream consensus, but is an inevitable conclusion if you carefully consider the evidence from controlled trials and observational studies.

PUFA vegetable oils do lower LDL in humans, and the effect appears to persist for at least a few years. But this is a Pyrrhic victory, as omega-6 PUFA increase LDL oxidation and exacerbate chronic inflammatory processes. Vegetable oils are not a solution to the coronary heart disease epidemic, to the contrary.

Read More

19.02 | 0 comments

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Oxidized LDL, Part II

In the last post, I presented the evidence that oxidized LDL (oxLDL) is a dominant factor in the arterial disease known as atherosclerosis, although probably not the only factor. In this post, I'll describe some of the major contributors to oxLDL.

Polyunsaturated Fats Increase LDL Oxidation

The serum concentration of oxLDL is strongly influcenced by diet. One dietary determinant of oxLDL is dietary polyunsaturated fat (PUFA). PUFA are inherently susceptible to oxidative damage, compared to monounsaturated and saturated fats. The predominant PUFA in the modern diet is linoleic acid, found excessively in industrial seed oils like corn oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, cottonseed oil and soy oil. LDL is naturally rich in linoleic acid, even in cultures such as the Kitavans who have a very low dietary intake of it. However, LDL content of linoleic acid does correlate with dietary intake, and the Kitavans have a comparatively small amount of linoleic acid in their LDL, relative to industrial cultures.

There have been a number of media reports in the last few years proclaiming that monounsaturated fat reduces LDL oxidation compared to saturated and polyunsaturated fat. This is rather implausible on the surface, so let's take a closer look. There are two ways to measure oxLDL:

1. Measure it directly from the blood
   
2. Take normal LDL from the blood, expose it to copper in a test tube, and see how fast it oxidizes

The first reflects actual oxLDL in the blood, whereas the second reflects "susceptibility to oxidation" and has a dubious relationship with actual oxidized LDL in the bloodstream. This results in statements like the following (ref):

LDL resistance to copper-induced oxidation, expressed as lag time, was highest during the MUFA-rich diet (55.1±7.3 minutes) and lowest during the PUFA(n-3)– (45.3±7 minutes) and SFA- (45.3±6.4 minutes) rich diets.

This was published in a paper by P. Mata and colleagues in 1996. They fed 42 volunteers one of four different diets for 5 weeks each: one rich in saturated fat, one rich in monounsaturated fat, one rich in linoleic acid PUFA, and one rich in linoleic acid plus omega-3 PUFA. They emphasized the finding quoted above, as did the media. But there's an embarrassing piece of data buried in the paper that the authors, and the media, ignored (thanks to Chris Masterjohn for pointing this out). Here's what they saw when they looked directly at LDL oxidation in their volunteers:

Oops! LDL oxidation in the two PUFA groups was increased by more than 31%. The difference between the leftmost two groups and the rightmost two was statistically significant. As one would expect, oxidized LDL is proportional to the amount of PUFA in LDL, which is proportional to dietary PUFA. This somehow got left out of the abstract and media reports. The same investigators published a similar report a year later.

In another diet trial, participants were placed on one of two diets for 5 weeks: a low-fat, high PUFA diet low in vegetables; or a low-fat, high PUFA diet high in vegetables. The authors were forthright about their findings, so I'll let them summarize:

The median plasma OxLDL-EO6 increased by 27% (P less than 0.01) in response to the low-fat, low-vegetable diet and 19% (P less than 0.01) in response to the low-fat, high-vegetable diet. Also, the Lp(a) concentration was increased by 7% (P less than 0.01) and 9% (P=0.01), respectively.

This is the diet mainstream cardiologists have been prescribing to heart attack patients for 40 years. The trials I mentioned above are the only three I'm aware of in which fat quality was manipulated and oxLDL was directly measured (the first two were based on subsets of the same data). They all suggest that replacing saturated fat with PUFA increases oxLDL.

I suspect that the effect has less to do with the decrease in saturated fat and more to do with the increase in PUFA, although there's no way to know for sure. In the Lyon Diet-Heart trial, which I believe was the most successful diet trial of all time, linoleic acid was reduced to 3.6% of calories, but saturated fat was also reduced. Another reason is that there are numerous low-fat, low PUFA, high-carbohydrate cultures that have low levels of atherosclerosis and heart attacks. The Kitavans, for example, don't seem to have heart attacks or strokes (although no autopsies have been done so we don't know how much atherosclerosis they have).

They get 69% of their calories from high-glycemic starchy tubers, and their 21% fat comes mostly from coconut so it's highly saturated. Their blood lipids are low in omega-6 linoleic acid and very saturated. But there's a little surprise in the data: their lipids are full of palmitic acid (saturated), despite the fact that their diet contains very little of it. The reason is that their livers are turning all that carbohydrate into saturated fat, which is what happens when you eat more carbohydrate than you can burn immediately or store as glycogen. The moral of the story is that you don't need to eat saturated fat to have saturated LDL: a high-carbohydrate diet can accomplish the same thing, especially if it has a high glycemic index.

Fat-Soluble Antioxidants Decrease LDL Oxidation

LDL carries fat-soluble antioxidants, predominantly vitamin E and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). One form of vitamin E, alpha-tocopherol, slows atherosclerosis in most animal models but has shown equivocal results in human trials. There is even the suggestion that it may increase LDL oxidation under some circumstances. I don't recommend supplementing with vitamin E. However, the first line of antioxidant defense in LDL is provided by CoQ10. CoQ10 unequivocally reduces LDL oxidation in human subjects, and potently reduces atherosclerosis in animal models.

CoQ10 has a special relationship with cardiovascular health. Levels are reduced in individuals with cardiovascular disease and high oxLDL. Whether this is cause or effect, it's difficult to say. However, supplementing with CoQ10 has been repeatedly shown to be effective for high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. There has been one controlled trial of CoQ10 (120 mg/day) supplementation for the prevention of heart attacks, which reduced cardiac events including deaths by 45%, compared to a group receiving B vitamins. The CoQ10 group showed a large reduction in plasma lipid oxidation. This is a promising result and the experiment should be repeated.

CoQ10 is not an essential nutrient, although food does contribute a small portion of our total CoQ10 use. The large majority of CoQ10 is synthesized by the body itself, and this is dependent on a number of essential nutrients, including vitamin B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, vitamin C and folic acid. Thus, the body's synthesis of CoQ10 is dependent on overall nutritional status. Sub-clinical deficiency of any of these vitamins can hypothetically contribute to reduced CoQ10 production and thus oxLDL. This is potentially a big problem since modern Americans get more than half their calories from nutrient-poor refined foods. Liver is the single best source of many of these vitamins, and also holds the title of Most Nutritious Food on the Planet. It's also rich in CoQ10.

CoQ10 synthesis declines with age and is reduced in people with disorders involving oxidative stress, like cardiovascular disease. It's also greatly reduced by the cholesterol-lowering drugs statins. I'm not generally in favor of supplements, but CoQ10 seems to have a lot of promise and nothing but positive side effects that I'm aware of. CoQ10 deficiency may be a common theme in a number of modern disorders.

Excess Blood Sugar and Fructose Increase LDL Oxidation

Both type I and type II diabetes are associated with higher levels of oxLDL, therefore, prolonged high blood glucose may contribute to LDL oxidation due to glycosylation of the LDL protein ApoB. Fructose consumption increases oxLDL relative to glucose. Fructose is a very powerful glycosylating agent (binds non-specifically to other molecules, causing damage). Although it isn't present at high levels in the general circulation, it does interact with blood lipids in the hepatic portal vein as it moves from the digestive tract to the liver to be turned into fat (palmitic acid). Peter at Hyperlipid has written extensively about the role of glycosylation in LDL oxidation.

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: The Verdict

The diet-heart hypothesis, the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raise blood cholesterol and thus increase heart attack risk, is a half-century embarrassment to the international scientific community. It requires willful ignorance of the fact that saturated fat does not increase total cholesterol or LDL in humans, in the long term. It requires a simplistic view of blood lipids that ignores the potentially harmful effects of replacing animal fats with carbohydrate or industrial seed oils. Worst of all, it requires selective citation of the literature on diet modification trials.

I have to conclude that if dietary saturated fat and cholesterol play any role whatsoever in cardiovascular disease, it's a minor one that's trumped by other factors. Industrial seed oils and sugar are likely to play an important role in cardiovascular disease.

Read More

10.00 | 0 comments

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Oxidized LDL, Part I

In my reading about lipoprotein particles (LDL, HDL, etc.) and how they associate with cardiac risk, I've come across three LDL-related markers that associate with risk: LDL cholesterol, LDL particle number, and LDL size/density. Is this a coincidence, or is there a reason for it?

The first marker, LDL cholesterol, is probably nothing more than a crude approximation of particle number. But LDL particle number and size/density are related to something else, that probably actually causes atherosclerosis rather than simply being associated with it: oxidized LDL (oxLDL).

oxLDL is formed when the lipids in LDL particles react with oxygen and break down. This happens specifically to the unsaturated fats in LDL, because saturated fats, by their chemical nature, are very resistant to oxidative damage. Polyunsaturated fats are much more susceptible to oxidative damage than saturated or monounsaturated fats. Linoleic acid (the omega-6 fatty acid found abundantly in industrial seed oils) is the main polyunsaturated fatty acid in LDL.

LDL is packaged with antioxidants in the liver, primarily vitamin E and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), to prevent its oxidation*. However, the more time it spends in the blood, the more likely it is to exhaust its antioxidant store and become oxidized. Also, the smaller the LDL particle, the more likely it is to become trapped in the vessel wall and become oxidized there.

Oxidized LDL Correlates Tightly with Cardiac Risk

oxLDL has turned out to be a very sensitive marker of cardiac risk, surpassing traditional markers like LDL, HDL, and triglycerides in most studies to date. Since the discovery of sensitive assays that detect oxidized LDL drawn directly from patient blood, a number of studies have been published supporting its ability to detect atherosclerosis (plaque buildup in the arteries), heart attack risk and even the metabolic syndrome.

Holovet and colleagues published a study comparing the ability of oxLDL and a traditional risk factor assessment to detect coronary artery disease. The traditional method is called the Global Risk Factor Assessment Score (GRAS), and includes age, total cholesterol, HDL, blood pressure, diabetes and smoking status. It's similar to the commonly used Framingham risk score (which, interestingly enough, doesn't include LDL).

GRAS was able to correctly differentiate a healthy person from a person with coronary artery disease 49% of the time, while oxLDL was correct 82% of the time. Thus, oxLDL by itself was far more accurate than a whole battery of traditional cholesterol and cardiac markers. Coronary patients had more than twice the level of circulating oxLDL than the healthy comparison group.

In a large prospective study by Meisinger and colleagues, participants with high oxLDL had a 4.25 higher risk of heart attack than patients with lower oxLDL. oxLDL blew away all other blood lipid markers by nearly a factor of two. From the abstract:

Plasma oxLDL was the strongest predictor of CHD events compared with a conventional lipoprotein profile and other traditional risk factors for CHD.

Oxidized LDL Makes Sense

It's time to cross the threshold from markers of heart attack risk to causes of atherosclerosis. Regular, non-oxidized LDL has few properties that would make it a suspect in atherosclerosis. It's just a little particle carrying cholesterol and fats from the liver to other organs. As soon as it oxidizes, however, it becomes pro-inflammatory, immunogenic, damaging to the vessel wall, and most importantly, capable of transforming immune cells called macrophages into foam cells, a major constituent of arterial plaque.

Researchers have been interested in the plaque-generating properties of oxLDL for over three decades, and quite a bit of data have accumulated. They've identified cellular receptors that allow macrophages to ingest oxLDL (CD36 and SR-A). These receptors are specific for oxLDL and do not recognize normal LDL to a significant degree. Mice whose macrophages lack either of these two receptors have the same amount of circulating LDL as normal mice, yet have 60 to 70 percent less atherosclerosis when fed a plaque-forming diet (1, 2). Shorter-term studies have not always been consistent however, suggesting that there are alternative mechanisms. I'll expand on this more later.

Another line of evidence comes from the ability of LDL-borne antioxidants to prevent atherosclerosis in animal models. The powerful synthetic antioxidant probucol greatly reduces atherosclerosis in a number of animal models. It also reduces the extremely high cholesterol rodents and herbivorous animals get when they eat a high-cholesterol "atherogenic diet", but several studies have concluded that the majority of probucol's effect is due to its antioxidant ability rather than its ability to reduce cholesterol (ref).

Vitamin E and CoQ10 are two other LDL-borne antioxidants that can reduce atherosclerosis in animal models, particularly in combination with one another. Vitamin E alone is not as effective, and in some studies totally ineffective, which is one possible explanation for the equivocal results of vitamin E cardiovascular trials in humans. The most effective combination of antioxidants is probably the one provided by a nutrient-dense diet.

In Summary

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that oxidized LDL plays a dominant role in atherosclerosis. Not only is it associated with cardiovascular risk, there's also a large body of evidence suggesting it actually directly contributes to it. In the next post, I'll describe how you can modify your level of oxidized LDL using diet.

* People often think of colorful fruits and vegetables when they think of antioxidants, but vitamin E and CoQ10 are found in both plant and animal foods. Fruits and vegetables are generally not good sources of these fat-soluble antioxidants. Good sources include organ meats, nuts, pastured butter, avocados and red palm oil. The body also manufactures CoQ10 itself.

Read More

22.00 | 0 comments

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Subdividing Lipoproteins

Two posts ago, we made the rounds of the commonly measured blood lipids (total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides) and how they associate with cardiac risk. It's important to keep in mind that many things associate with cardiac risk, not just blood lipids. For example, men with low serum vitamin D are at a 2.4-fold greater risk of heart attack than men with higher D levels. That alone is roughly equivalent to the predictive power of the blood lipids you get measured at the doctor's office. Coronary calcium scans (a measure of blood vessel calcification) also associate with cardiac risk better than the most commonly measured blood lipids.

Lipoproteins Can be Subdivided into Several Subcategories

In the continual search for better measures of cardiac risk, researchers in the 1980s decided to break down lipoprotein particles into sub-categories. One of these researchers is Dr. Ronald M. Krauss. Krauss published extensively on the association between lipoprotein size and cardiac risk, eventually concluding (source):

The plasma lipoprotein profile accompanying a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles (specifically LDL-III) is associated with up to a threefold increase in the susceptibility of developing [coronary artery disease]. This has been demonstrated in case-control studies of myocardial infarction and angiographically documented coronary disease.

Krauss found that small, dense LDL (sdLDL) doesn't travel alone: it typically comes along with low HDL and high triglycerides*. He called this combination of factors "lipoprotein pattern B"; its opposite is "lipoprotein pattern A": large, buoyant LDL, high HDL and low triglycerides. Incidentally, low HDL and high triglycerides are hallmarks of the metabolic syndrome, the quintessential modern metabolic disorder.

Krauss and his colleagues went on to hypothesize that sdLDL promotes atherosclerosis because of its ability to penetrate the artery wall more easily than large LDL. He and others subsequently showed that sdLDL are also more prone to oxidation than large LDL (1, 2).

Diet Affects LDL Subcategories

The next step in Krauss's research was to see how diet affects lipoprotein patterns. In 1994, he published a study comparing the effects of a low-fat (24%), high-carbohydrate (56%) diet to a "high-fat" (46%), "low-carbohydrate" (34%) diet on lipoprotein patterns. The high-fat diet also happened to be high in saturated fat-- 18% of calories. He found that (quote source):

Out of the 87 men with pattern A on the high-fat diet, 36 converted to pattern B on the low-fat diet... Taken together, these results indicate that in the majority of men, the reduction in LDL cholesterol seen on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is mainly because of a shift from larger, more cholesterol-enriched LDL to smaller, cholesterol-depleted LDL [sdLDL].

In other words, in the majority of people, high-carbohydrate diets lower LDL cholesterol not by decreasing LDL particle count (which might be good), but by decreasing LDL size and increasing sdLDL (probably not good). This has been shown repeatedly, including with a 10% fat diet and in children. However, in people who already exhibit pattern B, reducing fat does reduce LDL particle number. Keep in mind that the majority of carbohydrate in modern America comes from wheat and sugar.

Krauss then specifically explored the effect of saturated fat on LDL size (free full text). He re-analyzed the data from the study above, and found that:

In summary, the present study showed that changes in dietary saturated fat are associated with changes in LDL subclasses in healthy men. An increase in saturated fat, and in particular, myristic acid [as well as palmitic acid], was associated with increases in larger LDL particles (and decreases in smaller LDL particles). LDL particle diameter and peak flotation rate [density] were also positively associated with saturated fat, indicating shifts in LDL-particle distribution toward larger, cholesterol-enriched LDL.

Participants who ate the most saturated fat had the largest LDL, and vice versa. Kudos to Dr. Krauss for publishing these provocative data. It's not an isolated finding. He noted in 1994 that:

Cross-sectional population analyses have suggested an association between reduced LDL particle size and relatively reduced dietary animal-fat intake, and increased consumption of carbohydrates.

Diet Affects HDL Subcategories

Krauss also tested the effect of his dietary intervention on HDL. Several studies have found that the largest HDL particles, HDL2b, associate most strongly with HDL's protective effects (more HDL2b = fewer heart attacks). Compared to the diet high in total fat and saturated fat, the low-fat diet decreased HDL2b significantly. A separate study found that the effect persists at one year. Berglund et al. independently confirmed the finding using the low-fat American Heart Association diet in men and women of diverse racial backgrounds. Here's what they had to say about it:

The results indicate that dietary changes suggested to be prudent for a large segment of the population will primarily affect [i.e., reduce] the concentrations of the most prominent antiatherogenic [anti-heart attack] HDL subpopulation.

Saturated and omega-3 fats selectively increase large HDL. Dr. B. G. of Animal Pharm has written about this a number of times.

Wrapping it Up

Contrary to the simplistic idea that saturated fat increases LDL and thus cardiac risk, total fat and saturated fat have a complex influence on blood lipids, the net effect of which is unclear, but is associated with a lower risk of heart attacks. These blood lipid changes persist for at least one year, so they may represent a long-term effect. It's important to remember that the primary sources of carbohydrate in the modern Western diet are wheat and sugar. Are the blood lipid patterns that associate with heart attack risk in Western countries partially acting as markers of wheat and sugar intake?

* This is why you may read that small, dense LDL is not an "independent predictor" of heart attack risk. Since it travels along with a particular pattern of HDL and triglycerides, in most studies it does not give information on cardiac risk beyond what you can get by measuring other lipoproteins.

Read More

19.00 | 0 comments

MRFIT Mortality

The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention trial was a very large controlled diet trial conducted in the 1980s. It involved an initial phase in which investigators screened over 350,000 men age 35-57 for cardiovascular risk factors including total blood cholesterol. 12,866 participants with major cardiovascular risk factors were selected for the diet intervention trial, while the rest were followed for six years. I discussed the intervention trial here.

During the six years of the observational arm of MRFIT, investigators kept track of deaths in the patients they had screened. They compared the occurrence of deaths from multiple causes to the blood cholesterol values they had measured at the beginning of the study. Here's a graph of the results (source):


Click on the graph for a larger image. Coronary heart disease does indeed rise with increasing total cholesterol in American men of this age group. But total mortality is nearly as high at low cholesterol levels as at high cholesterol levels. What accounts for the increase in mortality at low cholesterol levels, if not coronary heart disease? Stroke is part of the explanation. It was twice as prevalent in the lowest-cholesterol group as it was in other participants. But that hardly explains the large increase in mortality.

Possible explanations from other studies include higher cancer rates and higher rates of accidents and suicide. But the study didn't provide those statistics so I'm only guessing.

The MRFIT study cannot be replicated, because it was conducted at a time when fewer people were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. In 2009, a 50-year old whose doctor discovers he has high cholesterol will likely be prescribed a statin, after which he will probably no longer have high cholesterol. This will confound studies examining the association between blood cholesterol and disease outcomes.

Thanks to The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo for the MRFIT reference.

Read More

10.00 | 0 comments