The 2012 Atherosclerosis egg study: Plaque decreased as LDL increased with consumption of 2.3 eggs per week or more

A new study by David Spence and colleagues, published online in July 2012 in the journal Atherosclerosis (), has been gaining increasing media attention (e.g., ). The article is titled: “Egg yolk consumption and carotid plaque”. As the title implies, the study focuses on egg yolk consumption and its association with carotid artery plaque buildup.

The study argues that “regular consumption of egg yolk should be avoided by persons at risk of cardiovascular disease”. It hints at egg yolks being unhealthy in general, possibly even more so than cigarettes. Solid critiques have already been posted on blogs by Mark Sisson, Chris Masterjohn, and Zoe Harcombe (, , ), among others.

These critiques present valid arguments for why the key findings of the study cannot be accepted, especially the finding that eggs are more dangerous to one’s health than cigarettes. This post is a bit different. It uses the data reported in the study to show that it (the data) suggests that egg consumption is actually health-promoting.

I used the numbers in Table 2 of the article to conduct a test that is rarely if ever conducted in health studies – a moderating effect test. I left out the “egg-yolk years” variable used by the authors, and focused on weekly egg consumption (see Chris’s critique). My analysis, using WarpPLS (), had to be done only visually, because using values from Table 2 meant that I had access only to data on a few variables organized in quintiles. That is, my analysis here using aggregate data is an N=5 analysis; a small sample indeed. The full-text article is not available publicly; Zoe was kind enough to include the data from Table 2 in her critique post.

Below is the model that I used for the moderating effect test. It allowed me to look into the effect that the variable EggsWk (number of eggs consumed per week) had on the association between LDL (LDL cholesterol) and Plaque (carotid plaque). This type of effect, namely a moderating effect, is confusing to many people, because it is essentially the effect that a variable has on the effect of another variable on a third. Still, being confusing does not mean being less important. I should note that this type of effect is similar to a type of conditional association tested via Bayesian statistics – if one eats more eggs, what is the association between having a high LDL cholesterol and plaque buildup?

You can see what is happening visually on the graph below. The plot on the left side is for low weekly egg consumption. In it, the association between LDL cholesterol and plaque is positive – eating fewer eggs, plaque and LDL increase together. The plot on the right side is for high weekly egg consumption. In this second plot, the association between LDL cholesterol and plaque is negative – eating more eggs, plaque decreases as LDL increases. And what is the turning point? It is about 2.3 eggs per week.

So the “evil” particle, the LDL, is playing tricks with us; but thankfully the wonderful eggs come to the rescue, right? Well, it looks a bit like it, but maybe other foods would have a similar effect. In part because of the moderating effect discussed above, the multivariate association between LDL cholesterol and plaque was overall negative. This multivariate association was estimated controlling for the moderating effect of weekly egg consumption. You can see this on the plot below.

The highest amount of plaque is at the far left of the plot. It is associated with the lowest LDL cholesterol quintile. (So much for eggs causing plaque via LDL cholesterol eh!?) What is happening here? Maybe egg consumption above a certain level shifts the size of the LDL particles from small to large, making the potentially atherogenic ones harmless. (Saturated fat consumption, in the context of a nutritious diet in lean individuals, seems to have a similar effect.) Maybe eggs contain nutrients that promote overall health, leading LDL particles to "behave" and do what they are supposed to do. Maybe it is a combination of these and other effects.

Nuts by numbers: Should you eat them, and how much?

Nuts are generally seen as good sources of protein and magnesium. The latter plays a number of roles in the human body, and is considered critical for bone health. Nuts are also believed to be good sources of vitamin E. While there is a lot of debate about vitamin E’s role in health, it is considered by many to be a powerful antioxidant. Other than in nuts, vitamin E is not easily found in foods other than seeds and seed oils.

Some of the foods that we call nuts are actually seeds; others are legumes. For simplification, in this post I am calling nuts those foods that are generally protected by shells (some harder than others). This protective layer is what makes most people call them nuts.

Let us see how different nuts stack up against each other in terms of key nutrients. The quantities listed below are per 1 oz (28 g), and are based on data from Nutritiondata.com. All are raw. Roasting tends to reduce the vitamin content of nuts, often by half, and has little effect on the mineral content. Protein and fat content are also reduced, but not as much as the vitamin content.

These two figures show the protein, fat, and carbohydrate content of nuts (on the left); and the omega-6 and omega-3 fat content (on the right).

When we talk about nuts, walnuts are frequently presented in a very positive light. The reason normally given is that walnuts have a high omega-3 content; the plant form of omega-3, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). That is true. But look at the large amount of omega-6 in walnuts. The difference between the omega-6 and omega-3 content in walnuts is about 8 g! And this is in only 1 oz of walnuts. That is 8 g of possibly pro-inflammatory omega-6 fats to be “neutralized”. It would take many fish oil softgels to achieve that.

Walnuts should be eaten in moderation. Most studies looking at the health effects of nuts, including walnuts, show positive results in short-term interventions. But they usually involve moderate consumption, often of 1 oz per day. Eat several ounces of walnuts every day, and you are entering industrial see oil territory in terms of omega-6 fats consumption. Maybe other nutrients in walnuts have protective effects, but still, this looks like dangerous territory; “diseases of civilization” territory.

A side note. Focusing too much on the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of individual foods can be quite misleading. The reason is that a food with a very small amount of omega-6 (e.g., 50 mg) but close to zero omega-3 will have a very high ratio. (Any number divided by zero yields infinity.) Yet, that food will contribute little omega-6 to a person’s diet. It is the ratio at the end of the day that matters, when all foods that have been eaten are considered.

The figures below show the magnesium content of nuts (on the left); and the vitamin E content (on the right).

Let us say that you are looking for the best combination of protein, magnesium, and vitamin E. And you also want to limit your intake of omega-6 fats, which is a very wise thing to do. Then what is the best choice? It looks like it is almonds. And even they should be eaten in small amounts, as 1 oz has more than 3 g of omega-6 fats.

Macadamia nuts don’t have much omega-6; their fats are mostly monounsaturated, which are very good. Their protein to fat ratio is very low, and they don’t have much magnesium or vitamin E. Coconuts (i.e., their meat) have mostly medium-chain saturated fats, which are also very good. Coconuts have little protein, magnesium, and vitamin E. If you want to increase your intake of healthy fats, both macadamia nuts and coconuts are good choices, with macadamia nuts providing about 3 times more fat.

There are many other dietary sources of magnesium around. In fact, magnesium is found in many foods. Examples are, in approximate descending order of content: salmon, spinach, sardine, cod, halibut, banana, white potato, sweet potato, beef, chicken, pork, liver, and cabbage. This is by no means a comprehensive list.

As for vitamin E, it likes to hide in seeds. While it may be a powerful antioxidant, I wonder whether Mother Nature really had it “in mind” as she tinkered with our DNA for the last few million years.

Long-term adherence to Dr. Kwaśniewski’s Optimal Diet: Healthy with high LDL cholesterol

This is a study (Grieb, P. et al., 2008; full reference at the end of this post) that I read a few years ago, right after it came out, and at the time I recall thinking about the apparent contradiction between the positive effects of the Optimal Diet and the very elevated LDL cholesterol levels among the participants. I say “contradiction” because of the established and misguided dogma among medical doctors, particularly general practitioners, that decreasing LDL cholesterol levels is the best strategy to avoid cardiovascular disease.

The Optimal Diet is one of the best examples of a healthy diet where LDL cholesterol levels are generally high, in fact much higher than most people are willing to accept as healthy today. (In this study, LDL cholesterol levels were calculated based on the Friedewald equation.)

It is not uncommon to see people concerned about their high LDL cholesterol levels after adopting a low carbohydrate diet. (A low carbohydrate diet is, generally speaking, a high fat diet.) This study shows that this is a rather common thing, and also that it is not something that those who experience it should be too concerned about. To be convinced of this, one can always do a VAP test (see this post for a link to a sample VAP test report) and check his or her LDL particle pattern.

The study presents the Optimal Diet as the Polish equivalent to the Atkins diet. It states that the Diet’s main characteristic is maintaining the proportion of proteins:fat:carbs. in the range of 1:2.5-3.5:0.5, with no restriction on the amount of food consumed. In fact, as you will see in this post, more than 70 percent of the calories consumed by the study participants came from fat.

Easily digestible carbohydrate-rich foods are not part of the Optimal Diet. More specifically, the following foods were listed as not being allowed in the Optimal Diet: sucrose, sweets, honey, jam, white rice, bread, starches in general, beans, potatoes (only in small amounts), and sweetened drinks. Also, the Optimal Diet is definitely a low carbohydrate diet, but not what is often referred to as a "very low carbohydrate diet". In this study, the typical carbohydrate intake per day was around 60 g.

Thirty-one healthy people participated in the study, 17 women and 14 men. The average age was 51.7 (standard deviation: 16.6). They had self-reportedly adhered to the Optimal Diet for at least 1 year prior to the study; the average period of adherence was 4.1 years (standard deviation: 1.9). So, the vast majority had been on the diet for more than 2.2 years, about half for 4.1 years or more, and about one-sixth for more than 6 years. (Check this post if you want to know how these figures can be calculated based on the average period of adherence and the standard deviation.)

The table below (click on it to enlarge) shows anthropometric and physiologic characteristics of the participants. Note that longer adherence to the Optimal Diet (right end of the table) was associated with lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as lower body mass index (BMI). (It was also associated with lower height and BMR, so I am guessing that more women tended to be long-term adherers than men.) Most of the participants had BMIs in the normal range, with only one in the obese category. That was a 43-year-old man who followed the diet for 1.5 years; he had a BMI of 34.1.

The macronutrient distribution of the Optimal Diet is shown on the table below (click on it to enlarge), as followed by the participants. As you can see, protein intake was not that high; about 53.9 g per day on average for men, a bit less for women. Note the percentage of calories from fat: more than 77 percent for men and 72 percent for women. Given the BMIs just discussed, one can safely say based on this that eating a lot of fat did not make the participants fat.

The table below (click on it to enlarge) has some interesting health markers. Note that free fatty acids (FFAs) were elevated. This is to be expected, as these folks were burning fat for energy most of the time, and not as much glucose. The FFAs are not really “free”, but bound to a protein called albumin, which is abundant in human blood. FFAs yield large quantities of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the main energy “currency” used by the body.

These levels of FFAs are also usually associated with mild ketosis, where ketones are produced by the body and used for energy. Unlike albumin-bound FFAs, ketones are soluble in water, and thus circulate freely through the blood. The mild ketosis experienced by the participants was possibly to the point where ketones showed in the urine. The article mentions this, and provides a measure of beta-HB (beta-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body), which is elevated as expected, but does not provide urine or other blood ketone measures (e.g., blood acetone levels). Also note the fairly healthy fasting glucose levels, slightly higher in men than in women, but fairly low overall. Fairly healthy insulin levels as well; at the high end of what Stephan at Whole Health Source would recommend, but still significantly lower than the average insulin level in the U.S. at the time of the article's publication.

Finally, the table below (click on it to enlarge) shows lipids and a few other measures. Total cholesterol was on average a bit more than 278 mg/dL. LDL cholesterol was a bit higher than 188 mg/dL on average; high enough to make most doctors cringe today. Based on the means and standard deviations provided, we can estimate that about 16 percent of the participants had LDL cholesterol levels higher than 228.1 mg/dL. About 2.5 percent of the participants had LDL cholesterol levels higher than 268 mg/dL. And this is all after adhering to the diet for a relatively long period of time; even higher LDL cholesterol levels might have occurred right after adoption.

Yet average HDL cholesterol was a very high and protective 71.6 mg/dL. This high HDL and the relatively low triglycerides suggest a large-buoyant non-atherogenic LDL particle pattern.

Average HOMA(IR), a measure of insulin resistance, was a low 1.35 mU/mmol; strongly indicating, together with the relatively low fasting glucose levels, that the participants were far from being pre-diabetic, let alone diabetic.

Diabetes is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and many other health complications; much more so than elevated LDL cholesterol.

The Optimal Diet does not seem to be a diet for bodybuilders, but I would say that, overall, Peter at Hyperlipid has chosen a diet that makes some sense.

Reference:

Grieb, P. et al. (2008). Long-term consumption of a carbohydrate-restricted diet does not induce deleterious metabolic effects. Nutrition Research, 28(12), 825-833.

More on the Harvard study on saturated versus polyunsaturated fats

This is a follow up on this post, which addressed the main argument put forth in a recent BBC article. The BBC article argued that people should replace saturated with polyunsaturated fats to reduce their risk of heart disease.

Let us take a look at the actual Harvard study itself (i.e., the study discussed in the BBC article). The Harvard study is linked here.

This post, by Stephan Guyenet, already pointed out several problems with the study. Stephan actually reviewed the studies used in the meta-analysis, and also some that were excluded in the meta-analysis and that he believes should have been included.

Here are a few other problems, in addition to the ones already pointed out by Stephan:

One thing that looks suspicious about this Harvard meta-analysis study is that they say that: “Statistical evidence for substantial between-study heterogeneity was not present (Q-statistic p = 0.13; I2 = 37%).”

A meta-analysis is a study that essentially summarizes, in a statistically sophisticated way, a bunch of other studies (the “sourced” studies). Too much between-study heterogeneity (i.e., widely disparate results among sourced studies) is undesirable, because it can bias the results.

The problem is similar to that of trying to summarize net worth figures (e.g., by calculating their average) in a middle class neighborhood that happens to have a few billionaires living in it. The heterogeneity in wealth may lead to a wildly overestimated average.

Now, we know that p values go down with sample size, and are usually high with small samples unless the effect measured by the statistic is very strong, regardless of the statistic used.

Well, with a sample of only 8 studies, their p value (associated with the Q statistic) is close to being significant at the 0.05 level!

If this sample of sourced studies were a little higher (say, 20), there would be significant between-study heterogeneity, which would call the meta-analysis into question. This is a big problem, since a good meta-analysis is expected to include a large number of studies (e.g., greater than 100), and this one included only 8 studies.

Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, the Q statistic is not very reliable when used with small samples, due to its low power as a test of heterogeneity. This makes the p value reported even more problematic.

Finally, the sourced study with the largest sample (n = 9,057; thus possibly the most credible), indicated as “Minnesota CS” on Figure 2 of the Harvard study, found increased risk of heart disease associated with increased consumption of polyunsaturated fats and reduced consumption of saturated fats.

Reference:

Mozaffarian, D., Micha, R., & Wallace, S. (2010). Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. PLoS Med., 7(3): e1000252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252.

BBC article's advice: Replace saturated with polyunsaturated fats

The BBC article is here. It is based on meta-analysis of eight previous studies conducted by Harvard researchers, which the article states cover more than 13,000 people. The article also says that: “… [saturated] fats raise the levels of bad cholesterol that block the arteries to the heart.” They are of course referring to LDL cholesterol as the "bad cholesterol".

Sourcing bias is a notorious problem with meta-analyses (i.e., the choice of studies to use in a meta-analysis). Another problem is that you cannot tell what the studies sourced controlled for. Consider a study that compares health markers for smokers and non-smokers, where the smokers eat more saturated fat than the non-smokers. This study may confuse the effect of smoking with that of saturated fat consumption. To be reliable, the study must analyze the effect of saturated fat consumption, controlling for smoking habits.

There are other statistical issues to be considered in meta-analyses. For example, some of the sourced studies may take nonlinear relationships into consideration and others not. In multivariate analysis studies, nonlinearity may lead to significantly different results from those obtained through more conventional linear analyses.

Finally, reaching misleading results with sound statistical analyses is not that hard. As my age went from 1 to 20 years, my weight was strongly correlated with the price of gasoline. Yet, neither my weight caused the price of gasoline, nor the other way around. When you look at an individual study, not a meta-analysis, you can at least try to identify the possible sources of bias and mistakes.

Having said that, a solid refutation of the main argument in the article can be made from many angles. Here is a simple refutation based on what I would call the “HDL cholesterol angle”, with links to posts and various refereed publications:

- Increasing HDL cholesterol levels, especially beyond 60 mg/dl, dramatically decreases the risk of heart disease; and this is an almost universal effect in humans. This reduction in risk occurs even for people who suffer from diabetes and familial hypercholesterolemia. The latter is a genetic condition that is associated with very elevated LDL cholesterol and that is rare, typically afflicting 1 in 500 people in its heterozygous (and most common) form.

- Increasing consumption of saturated fats (present in: lard, fatty meat, coconut oil) and dietary cholesterol (from: fish, organ meats, eggs), while decreasing consumption of refined carbohydrates (e.g., pasta, white bread) and sugars (e.g., table sugar, high fructose corn syrup), significantly increases HDL cholesterol for the vast majority of people. Neither omega-6 nor omega-3 polyunsaturated fats lead to the same results. Omega-3 fats do reduce triglycerides, and increase HDL somewhat, but their effect on HDL pales in comparison with that of saturated fats. Excessive consumption of omega-6 fats is associated with chronic inflammation and related health problems.

- With the exception of cases involving familial hypercholesterolemia, there is no conclusive evidence that LDL cholesterol levels are associated with heart disease. Two widely used online calculators of risk of heart disease, based on the Framingham Heart Study and the Reynold Risk Score, do not even ask for LDL cholesterol levels to estimate risk. And that is not because they calculate LDL cholesterol based on other figures; they do not ask for VLDL cholesterol or triglycerides either.

After reading the BBC article again, it is clear that they are re-stating, in general terms, Rudolph Virchow’s mid-1800s lipid hypothesis. And they do so as if it was big news!

PepsiCo to reduce sugar and fat in products

I guess PepsiCo is moving ahead of the competition, but in a snail pace and in a very, very politically correct way. Will this help in any way? I doubt. It is just too little, too late. See article here.

The article states that:

The company also set two goals for the next 10 years: to cut the average added sugar per serving by 25 percent and saturated fat per serving by 15 percent, in addition to adding more whole grains, fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy into its array of products.

While it is nice to see more of a focus on sugar than on saturated fat, I would have preferred to see something like this:

The company also set two goals for the next 5 years: to cut the average added sugar per serving by 95 percent and increase saturated fat per serving by 50 percent, in addition to adding more vegetables and full-fat dairy into its array of products.

What would happen? Well, Indra Nooyi is a very smart CEO, and the company has many competent people. They know that they would probably lose enough customers to go out of business … or become the Apple of their industry.

The bottom line is that, if you want to improve your health, you should generally avoid any food or liquid that is highly industrialized.

Maybe PepsiCo should add unprocessed coconut water to their portfolio of drinks.

Adiponectin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels after a high saturated fat meal

This is one of those interesting studies where the authors start with some pre-conceived assumptions and end up concluding something else, some way toward the opposite of what they assumed.

My final interpretation of the study results is a bit different though. It suggests that the results are actually the opposite of what the authors originally assumed.

The authors of the study (Poppitt et al., 2008; full reference at the end of this post) start by stating that since “… dietary fat is associated with increased lipid storage, weight gain, and obesity …” it is important to study the effect of dietary fat intake on the blood levels of certain substances that are associated with lipid disorders, weight gain and obesity.

In short, the authors start from the assumption that dietary fat is bad. By the way, this type of indictment of all fats is not very common these days. Usually saturated fat is the target.

Since dietary fat is assumed to be bad for us, that justifies the authors’ goal of studying the effect of dietary fat on certain hormones associated with bad health, including the body fat-secreted hormones adiponectin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Low levels of serum adiponectin, and elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, are associated with various health complications.

In the study, a high-fat test meal with approximately 59 g of fat (71% of energy as fat) was given at breakfast on two occasions to 18 healthy and lean men. These men had, on average, 23 years of age, a 31-inch waist, and a body mass index of 22.9. In other words, they were young and fit.

Two fatty meal variations were used, one with a lot more saturated fat than the other. Their ratio of saturated:unsaturated fatty acids was 71:29 for the high saturated fat meal, and 55:45 for the other. The table below provides a more detailed picture of the fat composition of the meals. The authors refer to these meals as instances of “acute intake of dietary lipid”.

Lunch, snack and dinner meals were also served to the participants. Those meals were nearly fat-free, with 1 to 3 g of fat only; apparently to help the participants “recover” from the high fat meal. They included plenty of refined grains (e.g., pasta) and fruit juices. Way to go; give these folks refined carbohydrates and sugars galore to help them recover from the “damage” done by the high fat meal!

Blood samples were collected at 0 (baseline), 1, 3, and 6 h for the measurement of various substances, including the body fat hormones adiponectin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels.

The figure below shows the variation in adiponectin levels at several times after the meal. The black circles are for the high saturated fat group, and the white circles for the other group. Adiponectin levels do not really start at the same level for both groups, which makes the graph a bit unclear; to better interpret the graph it may be a good idea to simply ignore the first (white) circle at the zero mark on the vertical axis. Also, no hormone levels were negative, of course; the zero on the vertical axis represents a reference value.

As we can see from the figure above, adiponectin levels go up for both groups after the fatty meal, and end up higher than they started for both groups; more for the high saturated fat than for the low saturated fat group. They are at very similar levels at the 24 h mark, but the levels at 24 h for the high saturated fat group appear to be a lot higher than they were right after the fatty meal. (The start point for the high saturated fat group being the first black circle from the left on the graph.) None of the differences are reported as significant. This is not surprising, given the small sample.

The figure below shows the variation in tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels at several times after the meal. This is an even more interesting one, because it suggests a possible negative effect of the low fat meals.

In terms of tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels, the figure above suggests that both groups end up higher than they started, by about the same amount, which is not very good. (With tumor necrosis factor-alpha, unlike adiponectin, the less you have the better - so to speak, the hormone has important functions.) Again, none of the differences, with the exception of one, are reported as significant. The exception is the tumor necrosis factor-alpha level at 6 h for the low saturated fat group, which is significantly lower. But that difference disappears at the 10 h mark, never to be seen again.

Interestingly, note that tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels go up very clearly after the additional meals, which were low fat meals rich in refined carbohydrate and sugars. The variation in adiponectin is not as clearly associated with the additional meals. The points at which those meals were served are indicated by the arrows at the top of the graph; first arrow from left for lunch, second for a snack, and third arrow for dinner.

The conclusion by the authors of the study was that there is “… no evidence from this study of lean, healthy male subjects that the adipose hormone adiponectin is sensitive to acute intake of dietary lipid or to an increase in fatty acid saturation.” They do acknowledge the reduction in tumor necrosis factor-alpha up until the start of the low fat meals, and say that the “mechanism leading to the decrease in TNF-alpha on the high SFA:USFA treatment in our trial is unknown to us.”

My interpretation of this study is that, at least for young and lean men:

- There is some evidence that dietary saturated fat intake leads to increased levels of circulating adiponectin and decreased levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha in the first few hours after a meal rich in saturated fat; with plenty of palmitic acid in it, by the way, of which animal fat is a great source. These are desirable and health-promoting hormonal responses.

- These is some evidence that meals high in refined carbohydrates and sugars increase levels of circulating tumor necrosis factor-alpha in the hours following the meals. Elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha are not good news; something that I guess is implied by the name of the hormone.

- There is some evidence that dietary saturated fat intake leads to an increase in adiponectin levels 24 h after a high fat meal, even when it is followed by low fat meals high in refined carbohydrates and sugars. This suggests a protective effect, which is in line with the hypothesis that adiponectin is not only a health marker by also a health-promoting hormone.

Due to the small sample used, none of the conclusions above is based on statistically significant results. More research is needed in the future, with larger samples. I am not sure it will happen though. This study’s findings were obviously accidental, and saturated fat phobia is still widespread.

Adiponectin is highly correlated with body weight, particularly weight associated with body fat mass. So, if you were able to achieve weight loss through a low carbohydrate diet involving a high consumption of saturated fat, there is absolutely no need to change that based on the results of this study.

Plus, saturated fat has the added benefit that it increases HDL cholesterol, the “good” cholesterol.

Reference:

Poppitt, S.D. et al. (2008). Postprandial response of adiponectin, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and C-reactive protein to a high-fat dietary load. Nutrition, 24(4), 322-329.

What should be my HDL cholesterol?

HDL cholesterol levels are a rough measure of HDL particle quantity in the blood. They actually tell us next to nothing about HDL particle type, although HDL cholesterol increases are usually associated with increases in LDL particle size. This a good thing, since small-dense LDL particles are associated with increased cardiovascular disease.

Most blood lipid panels reviewed by family doctors with patients give information about HDL status through measures of HDL cholesterol, provided in one of the standard units (e.g., mg/dl).

Study after study shows that HDL cholesterol levels, although imprecise, are a much better predictor of cardiovascular disease than LDL or total cholesterol levels. How high should be one’s HDL cholesterol? The answer to this question is somewhat dependent on each individual’s health profile, but most data suggest that a level greater than 60 mg/dl (1.55 mmol/l) is close to optimal for most people.

The figure below (from Eckardstein, 2008; full reference at the end of this post) plots incidence of coronary events in men (on the vertical axis), over a period of 10 years, against HDL cholesterol levels (on the horizontal axis). Note: IFG = impaired fasting glucose. This relationship is similar for women, particularly post-menopausal women. Pre-menopausal women usually have higher HDL cholesterol levels than men, and a low incidence of coronary events.

From the figure above, one can say that a diabetic man with about 55 mg/dl of HDL cholesterol will have approximately the same chance, on average, of having a coronary event (a heart attack) as a man with no risk factors and about 20 mg/dl of HDL cholesterol. That chance will be about 7 percent. With 20 mg/dl of HDL cholesterol, the chance of a diabetic man having a coronary event would approach 50 percent.

We can also conclude from the figure above that a man with no risk factors will have a 5 percent chance of having a coronary event if his HDL cholesterol is about 25 mg/dl; and about 2 percent if his HDL cholesterol is greater than 60 mg/dl. This a 60 percent reduction in risk, a risk that was low to start with because of the absence of risk factors.

HDL cholesterol levels greater than 60 are associated with significantly reduced risks of coronary events, particularly for those with diabetes (the graph does not take diabetes type into consideration). Much higher levels of HDL cholesterol (beyond 60) do not seem to be associated with much lower risk of coronary events.

Conversely, a very low HDL cholesterol level (below 25) is a major risk factor when other risk factors are also present, particularly: diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), and familial hypercholesteromia (gene-induced very elevated LDL cholesterol).

It is not yet clear whether HDL cholesterol is a cause of reduced cardiovascular disease, or just a marker of other health factors that lead to reduced risk for cardiovascular disease. Much of the empirical evidence suggests a causal relationship, and if this is the case then it may be a good idea to try to increase HDL levels. Even if HDL cholesterol is just a marker, the same strategy that increases it may also have a positive impact on the real causative factor of which HDL cholesterol is a marker.

What can one do to increase his or her HDL cholesterol? One way is to replace refined carbs and sugars with saturated fat and cholesterol in one’s diet. (I know that this sounds counterintuitive, but seems to work.) Another is to increase one’s vitamin D status, through sun exposure or supplementation.

Other therapeutic interventions can also be used to increase HDL; some more natural than others. The figure below (also from Eckardstein, 2008) shows the maximum effects of several therapeutic interventions to increase HDL cholesterol.

Among the therapeutic interventions shown in the figure above, taking nicotinic acid (niacin) in pharmacological doses, of 1 to 3 g per day (higher dosages may be toxic), is by far the most effective way of increasing one’s HDL cholesterol. Only the niacin that causes flush is effective in this respect. No-flush niacin preparations may have some anti-inflammatory effects, but do not cause increases in HDL cholesterol.

Rimonabant, which is second to niacin in its effect on HDL cholesterol, is an appetite suppressor that has been associated with serious side effects and, to be best of my knowledge, has been largely banned from use in pharmaceutical drugs.

Third in terms of effectiveness, among the factors shown in the figure, is moderate alcohol consumption. Running about 19 miles per week (2.7 miles per day) and taking fibrates are tied in forth place.

Many people think that they are having a major allergic reaction, and have a panic attack, when they experience the niacin flush. This usually happens several minutes after taking niacin, and depends on the dose and whether niacin was consumed with food or not. It is not uncommon for one’s entire torso to turn hot red, as though the person had had major sunburn. This reaction is harmless, and usually disappears after several minutes.

One could say that, with niacin: no “pain” (i.e., flush), no gain.

Reference:

von Eckardstein, A. (2008). HDL – a difficult friend. Drug Discovery Today: Disease Mechanisms, 5(3), 315-324.

Large LDL and small HDL particles: The best combination

High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is one of the five main types of lipoproteins found in circulation, together with very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and chylomicrons.

After a fatty meal, the blood is filled with chylomicrons, which carry triglycerides (TGAs). The TGAs are transferred to cells from chylomicrons via the activity of enzymes, in the form of free fatty acids (FFAs), which are used by those cells as sources of energy.

After delivering FFAs to the cells, the chylomicrons progressively lose their TGA content and “shrink”, eventually being absorbed and recycled by the liver. The liver exports part of the TGAs that it gets from chylomicrons back to cells for use as energy as well, now in the form of VLDL. As VLDL particles deliver TGAs to the cells they shrink in size, similarly to chylomicrons. As they shrink, VLDL particles first become IDL and then LDL particles.

The figure below (click on it to enlarge), from Elliott & Elliott (2009; reference at the end of this post), shows, on the same scale: (a) VLDL particles, (b) chylomicrons, (c) LDL particles, and (d) HDL particles. The dark bar at the bottom of each shot is 1000 A in length, or 100 nm (A = angstrom; nm = nanometer; 1 nm = 10 A).

As you can see from the figure, most of the LDL particles shown are about 1/4 of the length of the dark bar in diameter, often slightly more, or about 25-27 nm in size. They come in different sizes, with sizes in this range  being the most common. The smaller and denser they are, the more likely they are to contribute to the formation of atherosclerotic plaque in the presence of other factors, such as chronic inflammation. The larger they become, which usually happens in diets high in saturated fat, the less likely they are to form plaque.

Note that the HDL particles are rather small compared to the LDL particles. Shouldn’t they cause plaque then? Not really. Apparently they have to be small, compared to LDL particles, to do their job effectively.

HDL is a completely different animal from VLDL, IDL and LDL. HDL particles are produced by the liver as dense disk-like particles, known as nascent HDL particles. These nascent HDL particles progressively pick up cholesterol from cells, as well as performing a number of other functions, and “fatten up” with cholesterol in the process.

This process also involves HDL particles picking up cholesterol from plaque in the artery walls, which is one of the reasons why HDL cholesterol is informally called “good” cholesterol. In fact, neither HDL nor LDL are really cholesterol; HDL and LDL are particles that carry cholesterol, protein and fat.

As far as particle size is concerned, LDL and HDL are opposites. Large LDL particles are the least likely to cause plaque formation, because LDL particles have to be approximately 25 nm in diameter or smaller to penetrate the artery walls. With HDL the opposite seems to be true, as HDL particles need to be small (compared with LDL particles) to easily penetrate the artery walls in order to pick up cholesterol, leave the artery walls with their cargo, and have it returned back to the liver.

Interestingly, some research suggests HDL particles that are larger in size, when compared with other HDL particles (not with LDL particles), seem to do a better job than very small HDL particles in terms of reducing risk of cardiovascular disease. It is also possible that a high number of larger HDL particles in the blood is indicative of elevated levels of "effective" HDL particles; i.e., particles that are effective at picking up cholesterol from the artery walls in the first place.

Another interesting aspect of this cycle is that the return to the liver of cholesterol picked up by HDL appears to be done largely via IDL and LDL particles (Elliott & Elliott, 2009), which get the cholesterol directly from HDL particles! Life is not that simple.

Reference:

William H. Elliott & Daphne C. Elliott (2009). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 4th Edition. New York: NY: Oxford University Press.

How to break a coconut

The coconut is often presented as a healthy food choice, which it is, as long as you are not allergic to it. Coconut meat has a lot of saturated fat, which is very good for the vast majority of us.

(I posted about this issue elsewhere on this blog: my own experience and research suggest that saturated fat is very healthy for most people as long as it is NOT consumed together with refined carbs and sugars from industrialized food products.)

Coconut water is a good source of essential minerals, particularly magnesium and potassium. So is coconut meat, which is rich in iron, copper, manganese, and selenium. Coconut meat is also an good source of folate and an excellent source of dietary fiber.

If you are buying coconuts at a supermarket, I suggest choosing coconuts that have a lot of water in them. They seem to be the ones that taste the best. Just pick a coconut up and shake it. If it feels heavy and full of water, that’s the one.

First you need to make some holes on the coconut shell to extract the water. I recommend using a hammer and screwdriver. The screwdriver should be used only for this purpose, so you can keep it clean. Nails can be too thin. Place the coconut over a mitten or towel, and make holes on the dark spots (usually three) using the hammer and screwdriver.

Once you puncture the coconut, move the screwdriver a bit to enlarge each hole. Then place the coconut on a cup or thermos, with the holes pointing downwards, and let the water flow out of it. Normally I use a thermos, so that I can keep the coconut water fresh for later consumption.

As soon as all the coconut water is out, hold the coconut with a mitten in one hand, and strike it with the hammer with the other hand. The key here is to hold the coconut with your hand. You need to strike it hard. It is a good idea to do this inside or right above a kitchen sink so that the shell pieces fall into it.

Do not place the coconut against a hard surface (e.g., ceramic tiles), otherwise you can either break that surface or send pieces of the coconut flying all over the pace. Strike different areas of the coconut until it breaks into 5 to 7 pieces.

Finally, remove the meat of the coconut with a butter knife. The hand that holds the knife should be protected with a mitten, because you will have to apply pressure with it.

Store the coconut water in a sealed thermos, and the coconut meat pieces in a sealed container, both in the refrigerator, to preserve their freshness.

Coconut water and meat have a slightly sweet taste because of their sugar content, which is small and packed in with a lot of fiber. 100 g of coconut meat has about 15 g of carbs, of which 9 g is dietary fiber; that is, 100 g of coconut meat has only 6 g of net carbs.

Ischemic heart disease among Greenland Inuit: Data from 1962 to 1964

The traditional Inuit diet is very high in animal protein and fat. It also includes plant matter. Typically it is made up primarily of the following: fish, walrus, seal, whale, berries, and fireweed (of which syrups and jellies can be made).

Kjærgaard and colleagues (see under References, at the end of this post) examined data from an Inuit population in Greenland from 1962 to 1964, prior to the heavy westernization of their diet that is seen today. They investigated 96.9% of the whole population in three areas, including Ammassalik in East Greenland (n = 1,851).

Of those, only 181 adults, or 9.7 percent, had anything that looked like an abnormality that could suggest ischemia. This included ventricular hypertrophy (an enlargement of the heart chambers), leading to an overestimation because benign ventricular hypertrophy is induced by continuous physical exertion. These 181 adults were then selected for further screening.

Benign ventricular hypertrophy is also known as athlete's heart, because it is common among athletes. A prevalence of ventricular hypertrophy at a relatively young age, and declining with age, would suggest benign hypertrophy. The opposite would suggest pathological hypertrophy, which is normally induced by chronic hypertension.

As you can see from the figure below, from Kjærgaard et al. (2009), the pattern observed among the Inuit was of benign hypertrophy, suggestive of strong physical exertion at a young age.

A pattern of benign hypertrophy induced by robust physical activity is also consistent with reports by Stefansson (1958) about the life of the Eskimos in Northern Alaska. It is reasonable to assume that these Eskimos had a diet and lifestyle similar to the Greenland Inuit.

Back to Kjærgaard et al.’s (2009) study. The 181 adults selected for further screening then had a 12-lead ECG performed (this is a widely used test to check for heart abnormalities). The results suggested that only two men, aged 62 and 63 years, had ischemic heart disease. All in all, this suggests a prevalence of ischemic heart disease of 0.11 percent, which is very low.

(The authors of the article estimated the prevalence of ischemic heart disease at 1.1 percent, because they used the n = 181, as opposed to the original n = 1,851, in their calculation. The latter is the correct baseline sample size, in my opinion. Still, the authors present the 1.1 percent number as quite low as well, which it is.)

Recent statistics (at the time of this post's writing) suggest a prevalence of ischemic heart disease in the US of 6.8 percent. That is, the prevalence in the US is 63 times higher than among the Inuit studied (using the 0.11 percent as the basis for comparison). And, it should be noted that there are many countries with a higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease than modern US.

It is possible that the low prevalence of ischemic heart disease among the Inuit was partly due to a higher mortality of those with the disease than in modern US, where medical intervention can prolong one's life in the presence of almost any disease. That is, perhaps many of those Inuit with ischemia would die quickly, and thus would not be captured by a study like this.

It is doubtful, however, that this would explain a difference as large as the one observed. Moreover, if many Inuit were dying due to ischemia, there would probably be plenty of evidence suggesting that. (I would imagine that the mysterious deaths associated with chest pain, and other related symptoms, would be a constant topic of conversation.) Reports from early explorers, however, suggest the opposite (e.g., Stefansson, 1958), and are consistent with the study described here.

In conclusion, this study suggests that the diet and lifestyle of the Greenland Inuit prior to the 1960’s (i.e., not their traditional diet and lifestyle, but approaching it) could be seen today as heart-healthy (at least for them), even though the Greenland Inuit ate a lot of animal protein and fat.

References:

Kjærgaard, M., Andersen, S., Holten, M., Mulvad, G., Kjærgaard, J.J. (2009). Low occurrence of ischemic heart disease among Inuit around 1963 suggested from ECG among 1851 East Greenland Inuit. Atherosclerosis, 203(2), 599-603.

Stefansson, V. (1958). Eskimo longevity in Northern Alaska. Science, 127(3288), 16-19.

Saturated fat intake not associated with heart disease – Dr. Cordain’s article

I would like to comment on a recent article co-authored by Dr. Loren Cordain, and published in the journal Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, in 2009. Dr. Cordain is probably the leading expert today on the diet of our Stone Age ancestors.

The importance of this article comes from the fact that in the past Dr. Cordain has argued that our Stone Age ancestors have not consumed large amounts of saturated fat, because of the relatively low percentage of fat in the flesh of wild animals. This led, according to Dr. Cordain, to an evolved body design that is not well adapted to the consumption of significant amounts of saturated fat.

Yet, many other researchers have argued that saturated fats are beneficial to our health, with ample empirical evidence to back up their statements. The researchers at the Weston A. Price Foundation have been particularly prominent voices in favor of saturate fats.

Now, this acknowledgement that saturated fats (or saturated fatty acids) are not detrimental to health, particularly heart health, was made with qualifications. And, Dr. Cordain is not the first author of the article. Page 293 of the article states that:

Replacement of SFAs, especially palmitate, with MUFAs may provide moderate cardiometabolic benefits, and is unlikely to do harm. However, SFA reduction does not appear to be the most important dietary modification for CHD risk reduction.

(Notes: SFA=saturated fatty acids=saturated fat, think greasy steak and egg yolk; MUFAs=monounsaturated fatty acids, think olive oil and lard; CHD=coronary heart disease.)

Palmitate refers to palmitic acid, of which meat, butter, eggs, and dark chocolate are all good sources. Even salmon is a good source of palmitic acid, although it is also an excellent source of DHA and EPA omega-3 fat acids. EPA is eicosapentaenoic acid, and DHA is docosahexaenoic acid; both of which are found in fish.

So, the caution in the statement above does not make much sense given the mounting evidence that palmitic acid (especially when consumed with a low carb. diet, in my view), may have cardio-protective effects.

Nevertheless, this is a major shift from Dr. Cordain’s previous position that saturated fats cannot be part of a healthy diet because they do not fit well with what we currently know about the diet of our Stone Age ancestors.

Maybe those ancestors ate a lot of saturated fat after all, and that consumption led to adaptations that make saturated fat consumption healthy; again, in my view, as long as it is not accompanied by high consumption of refined carbs. and sugars.

Saturated fat was probably the most readily available type of fat to those ancestors, a rich source of calories, and virtually impossible to avoid given the main component of those ancestors’ diet – meat.