The idea that heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases are caused by dietary saturated fats is losing credibility. I lost faith in that theory in 2009.
Instead, cardiovascular disease is now linked to high consumption of carbohydrates, particularly those carbs that are rapidly absorbed and turned into blood sugar.
Unfortunately, the diet that reduces risk of cardiovascular disease may increase your risk of cancer. Keep reading.
If you’re a nutrition science nerd, here’s a pertinent report from researchers at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic:
“The results of our study show that high-glycaemic carbohydrates or a high overall proportion of carbohydrates in the diet are the key ecological correlates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. These findings strikingly contradict the traditional ‘saturated fat hypothesis’, but in reality, they are compatible with the evidence accumulated from observational studies that points to both high glycaemic index and high glycaemic load (the amount of consumed carbohydrates × their glycaemic index) as important triggers of CVDs. The highest glycaemic indices (GI) out of all basic food sources can be found in potatoes and cereal products, which also have one of the highest food insulin indices (FII) that betray their ability to increase insulin levels.The role of the high glycaemic index/load can be explained by the hypothesis linking CVD risk to inflammation resulting from the excessive spikes of blood glucose (‘post-prandial hyperglycaemia’). Furthermore, multiple clinical trials have demonstrated that when compared with low-carbohydrate diets, a low-fat diet increases plasma triglyceride levels and decreases total cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol, which generally indicates a higher CVD risk. Simultaneously, LDL-cholesterol decreases as well and the number of dense, small LDL particles increases at the expense of less dense, large LDL particles, which also indicates increased CVD risk. These findings are mirrored even in the present study because cereals and carbohydrates in general emerge as the strongest correlates of low cholesterol levels.
In light of these findings, the negative correlation of refined sugar with CVD risk may seem surprising, but the mean daily consumption of refined sugar in Europe is quite low (~84 g/day), when compared with potato and cereal carbohydrates (~235 g/day), and makes up only ~20% of CA energy. Refined sugar is also positively tied to many animal products such as animal fat and total fat and animal protein, and negatively to % PC CARB energy and % CA energy. Therefore, a high consumption of refined sugar is accompanied by a high consumption of animal products and lower intakes of other carbohydrates. Furthermore, the glycaemic index of refined sugar (sucrose) is rather moderate (~65).”
Source: Food consumption and the actual statistics of cardiovascular diseases: an epidemiological comparison of 42 European countries | Grasgruber | Food & Nutrition Research
Elsewhere in this long article:
“Current rates of cancer incidence in Europe are namely the exact geographical opposite of CVDs. In sharp contrast to CVDs, cancer correlates with the consumption of animal food (particularly animal fat), alcohol, a high dietary protein quality, high cholesterol levels, high health expenditure, and above average height. These contrasting patterns mirror physiological mechanisms underlying physical growth and the development of cancer and CVDs. The best example of this health paradox is again that of French men, who have the lowest rates of CVD mortality in Europe, but the highest rates of cancer incidence. In other words, cancer and CVDs appear to express two extremes of a fundamental metabolic disbalance that is related to factors such as cholesterol and IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor).”
I wish these researchers had looked at over death rates associated with various ways of eating. Perhaps that will be in a future paper.
I’d rather die of a heart attack than cancer.
Steve Parker, M.D.
“I’d rather die of a heart attack than cancer.” Are you reconsidering the efficacy of a low carb, high fat diet?
Not seriously. Just keeping my mind open to new data.
Please note the word “correlate” in this paper not causation. In other words the jury is still out.
However a dose of common sense may be the answer. I’ve never been a fan of the low carb high fat diet for the simple reason high fat intake for me equals weight piling on.
Common sense tells me to enjoy fat in moderate amounts eg leave the fat on steak, pork etc but don’t go out of the way to consume more fats than necessary as the proponents of the Keto diet are always banging on with their fat bombs etc. I’m not an Eskimo so don’t need these fat bombs thank you very much!
Thanks for sharing the article. Another paper dealing with cancer incidence is just in review. But don’t panic. A diet rich in animal foods will prolong the average life expectancy.
Click to access dys086.pdf
Furthermore, if you exclude alcohol and excessively fat meat from your diet, if you include milk and vegetables, and if you exercise your muscles regularly, the risk of cancer should fall close to zero.
Thanks for contributing, Pavel.
“Zero” risk of cancer is a little too optimistic. Postponing my cancer by 10-20 years would be fine, for now.
Steve, look at this – Figure 1.
Click to access bmj.a439.full.pdf
That’s impressive. You must simply avoid excessive levels of growth factors in your body.
Fat vs carbs… What about extending the discussion to quality of the nutrients? A BBQ’d steak full of fat and hormones can be as harmful as a candy bar full of HFCS.