If you think you know everything there is to know about a diet that is healthy for your heart, think again. According to results from the observational Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study published in the Lancet, the foods that make up a heart-healthy diet for people worldwide may be different from what was previously believed. Where before, dairy products, healthy fat, and meat were highly recommended to be avoided, they are now considered beneficial to heart health.
“Thinking on what constitutes a high-quality diet for a global population needs to be reconsidered,” says Salim Yusuf, senior author and director of the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada.
“For example, our results show that dairy products are beneficial for heart health and longevity. This differs from current dietary advice,” he explains.
Editor’s note: Artificially altered dairy products such as homogenized, pasteurized cow’s milk, should always be avoided and present a different risk to human health. Unprocessed milk — raw milk — is more compatible with human digestion and physiology, since its molecules and digestive enzymes remain intact.
The recommendations and guidelines currently being followed and upheld for a high-quality diet that helps lower the risk of cardiovascular disease are based on studies conducted decades ago, often in high-income countries. Data on what constitutes the rest of the world’s diet is rather limited.
The research was conducted in order to clarify what truly constitutes a heart-healthy diet. For the study, the researchers developed a dietary quality score based on foods that previous studies have associated with a lower risk of death. These include fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, fish, dairy products, and meat.
The study required the involvement of 218,000 people from over 50 countries. These participants were divided into five groups according to the quality of their diet. Those who consumed plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, meat, and dairy products have the lowest risk of developing cardiovascular disease and suffering from premature death, according to the study’s findings.
Eat more vegetables and fruits – These foods are good sources of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients that your heart needs for optimal function. Of particular note is dietary fiber, particularly, the soluble kind, which helps inhibit the absorption of cholesterol, ensuring that the levels of “bad” fats in your system are low. These foods also contain antioxidants that protect your body from oxidative stress. Antioxidants lower the risk of atherosclerosis, the leading cause of coronary heart disease.
Choose whole grains – Cereals, particularly whole grains, are good for your heart. They are rich in both insoluble and soluble dietary fiber. Insoluble fiber helps improve digestion and acts as food for the friendly bacteria in your gut. It also keeps you full, which is great for when you need to limit your food intake and curb unhealthy cravings.
Consume lean meats – Protein from meat products are an essential part of a healthy diet as your body easily uses them. However, a lot of meat products come with a lot of bad fats. Instead of making pork and beef your primary sources of protein, go for leaner sources like chicken and eggs. You may also opt for fish, which contains high levels of protein but are low in fat. If you do not or cannot eat meat, you may get your protein from legumes, such as soy and beans, and nuts, such as walnuts.
Love healthy fats – Not all fats are bad for you. Some are needed to protect your heart. For instance, omega-3 fatty acids are known to prevent inflammation that causes heart disease, as well as lower bad cholesterol levels. They also help maintain healthy heart rhythm. Omega-3s are found aplenty in fatty fish like salmon and mackerel, as well as in certain fruits, nuts, and seeds. The fats in olive oil are also known to be good for the heart.
Control your portions – As the popular adage goes, too much of something is bad for you. Even healthy food can be bad for your heart when consumed in large quantities. Portion control remains one of the primary rules in any diet, especially one meant for your heart’s health.
Far beyond the distractions of political bickering and cultural trends, the big, big picture that’s unfolding across our world right now is a plan to exterminate 90% of the current human population in order to “save” the planet and protect what globalists see as the future of human survival on a cosmic scale.
This plan is under way now due to two very important developments:
#1) The rise of robotic systems that can replace human labor, eliminating the need for a world of impoverished human workers whose only reason for existence — from the point of view of the globalists — was to be exploited for cheap labor and manipulated votes.
If you aren’t yet aware that robots are replacing human labor, you’re way behind the curve. As this Zero Hedge story shows, heavy duty robots are already being introduced that can replace human labor in construction and other similar jobs.
Critically, the reason Democrats and globalists are ready to replace low-wage humans with robots is because robots will be granted voting rights. Once robots are granted voting rights under the justification that AI is “conscious,” Democrats will have no more need for humans, migrant waves or Third World populations. They will simply program all the robots to vote Democrat in every election… which, originally, isn’t far from what’s being done right now with human voters.
#2) Entitlement payouts to humans are draining government resources that globalists believe should be spent on space colonization, space weaponization, faster-than-light (FTL) travel technology and other exotic tech systems that can defend human civilization against cosmic threats.
Thanks to the socialist policies of Leftists, so many people are now collecting entitlements that governments now see the masses as an unsustainable financial burden. If the masses were eliminated, governments that were on the path to financial insolvency could suddenly achieve balanced budgets and remain solvent (rather than collapsing under endless debt spending). This is especially true when considering the robot replacement of human workers, given that robots collect no welfare, food stamps workers comp, sick days or retirement benefits. Once robots can replace all the benefits of human labor without all the costs associated with human entitlements, the globalists will very quickly accelerate their plan to exterminate what they see as “excess humans.”
(See my full, accompanying Counterthink video below, which explains this in more detail.)
Part of the elitist justification for all this rests on the fact that globalists believe Earth is a vulnerable planet for multiple reasons, including space weather events (asteroid strikes, solar flares, etc.) as well as the human depletion of natural resources. The elimination of 90% of the human population, they believe, is necessary to prevent the planet’s resources from being consumed by “useless eaters” instead of being redirected into exotic research projects that would shore up the survival of the human species and protect against cosmic events that, right now, could wipe out humanity in an instant.
Specifically, globalists believe that Earth’s elitists must:
Colonize other planets in order to diversify the survival odds of the human race. Ultimately, this colonization must move beyond our solar system and build human worlds near other stars.
Build faster-than-light travel systems to colonize planets orbiting other stars within our galaxy.
Build exotic planetary defense systems that protect Earth from attacks by other civilizations that they know inhabit the cosmos.
Achieve breakthrough leaps in Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing and materials science that enable, for example, the construction of space elevators — a necessary breakthrough for lifting materials into orbit to support the construction of human colonies on Mars and elsewhere.
The current situation where Earth’s governments are spending the vast majority of their wealth paying for “useless eaters” to continue living and reproducing isn’t a sustainable scenario, globalists believe. Thus, they see the extermination of 90% of the human population as a necessary evil in order to save the world and save humanity on a cosmic scale. (It almost reminds you of Thanos from the Marvel universe, a powerful cosmic being who travels around the universe exterminating half the population on each planet he encounters, all in the name of sustainability.)
In essence — and this is not my point of view, but theirs — every dollar that’s currently going to feed a food stamp recipient, process a migrant or finance the retirement of a former government worker would be better spent on colonizing Mars, the globalists believe. All their current talk of advocating for migrants is merely a way to overthrow sovereign nations, eliminate borders and establish global United Nations control from which global depopulation can be directed without resistance from independent nation states (i.e. Trump is the enemy).
One coming conflict, by the way, will be between this UN-directed global government and communist China, which is about to face its own economic and environmental collapse. Brexit is also playing a role here, throwing a huge delay into the globalism plan.
How globalists plan to exterminate 90% of the human race
The extermination plan rests on the “accidental / on purpose” release of an engineered bioweapon viral strain. Such bioweapons offer several distinct advantages to extermination efforts, from the point of view of globalists:
1) They are not traceable and are easily released into the population with complete anonymity.
2) They are self-replicating. Once the initial population is infected, there’s no need to manufacture more because cellular physiology runs the replication automatically.
3) They exploit the natural social structure of human societies. People will automatically spread the virus because people like to be around other people. Very few people are completely isolated in modern society.
4) They allow globalist governments to declare “pandemic emergencies” and mandate mass vaccinations which, of course, will be laced with additional bioweapons to accelerate the pandemic die-off. As more people become infected from the vaccines, governments will mandate mass vaccination as an “emergency” public health initiative. Those who comply will be infected. Never forget that the mass polio vaccinations of the 1960s and 70s were laced with cancer viruses. This was admitted by the CDC for decades, right up until a few years ago when the CDC scrubbed its website of all such history. Further supporting this realization, UN-approved vaccines administered to women in Kenya have been exhaustively tested in science labs and confirmed be laced with infertility chemicals designed to reduce the population of blacks. See also this story with further details.
5) They tend to more aggressively target low-wage populations and Third World populations, achieving one of the key goals of the globalists which is to wipe out the “useless eaters” as they see them, while maintaining the top 10% of the human population to carry out the science and innovation that globalists see as necessary to protect Earth. In effect, the globalists are carrying out Adolf Hitler’s eugenics “utopia” on a global scale, but instead of merely six million people being exterminated, the globalists seek to eliminate more than six billion people.
The other advantage of bioweapons, from the point of view of globalists, is that they do not destroy the ecosystem in the way that nuclear weapons do. Since part of the goal here is the extermination of humans without damaging the ecosystem, bioweapons become the obvious choice, and they can even be tweaked to target specific races such as South Americans, Africans or Europeans.
Global immune system suppression is under way to prepare humanity for the bioweapon assault
For bioweapons to succeed in their goal of exterminating 90% of the human race, humans must have their immune systems suppressed in advance of bioweapons exposure.
This plan is already well under way.
Immunosuppression is easily accomplished through multiple vectors described below. Here are just a few of the ways this is being done right now:
#2) Toxic medicine and toxic vaccines – Nearly all the prescription medications now consumed by westerners are biologically toxic. Most cause immune suppress in one way or another, and many lead to nutritional deficiencies that further weaken the human immune system. Flu shot vaccines are scientifically proven to weaken immune response in subsequent years, meaning anyone who takes vaccines is more vulnerable to bioweapons. This is not a coincidence. It is a global IQ test to see which humans are stupid enough to commit suicide via injection while calling it “medicine.”
#3) Toxic food supply laced with neurodegenerative chemicals and immunosuppressive chemicals – The human food supply is intentionally laced with toxic chemicals that impede brain function, immune function and fertility. These chemicals, known as pesticides and herbicides, are intentionally designed to interfere with key neurological or physiological functions, otherwise they would not kill other living organisms such as insects. The fact that they are designated as pesticides is proof that they kill living organisms. Most people don’t realize this, but popular breakfast cereals such as Corn Flakes are made almost entirely out of ingredients that are registered with the EPA as “biopesticides.”
#4) Propaganda attacks on nutrition: The entire fake news media complex continues to denigrate the importance of immune-enhancing nutrients such as vitamin D, zinc and selenium, knowing that gullible news consumers can be convinced to avoid nourishing their own bodies. Those who believe the corporate-run news cartels are committing nutritional suicide, turning to Big Pharma instead of supplementary nutrition, causing them to become weak in both body and mind. This is all by design: Weak-minded people are easier for the info-propagandists to manipulate and control. And the last thing they want is people obtaining the ability to operative with cognitive clarity and presence of mind.
#5) Chemtrails. This is a very controversial subject. Not every contrail in the sky is a chemtrail, but it is a simple scientific fact that “global warming” scientists are well into the process of altering the atmosphere using what they call “geoengineering” experiments. The very subject of chemtrails used to be derided as a conspiracy theory, but now it’s openly explored by scientists in the name of reversing climate change. See Geoengineering.news for coverage of some of the current experiments being conducted by university and government scientists. According to some analysts, the substances being “amended” into the atmosphere also serve to suppress human immune function.
#6) The promotion of immunosuppressive sexual behaviors involving multiple partners and anal penetrative sex. This point offends the easily offended, but the promotion of gay lifestyles involving unprotected sex with multiple sex partners also creates the rapid transmission of blood borne disease. This is exactly why the gay community is currently experiencing an epidemic explosion in anal cancer, which the left-wing media is desperately trying to sweep under the rug and pretend isn’t happening. See this article on Outbreak.news for more details of the anal cancer cover-up (and the desperate protection of anal penetrative sexual promiscuity by the LGBT propagandists).
#7) The planned global debt bubble collapse is being engineered right now by the central banks of the world. One of the desirable outcomes of this is the plunging of first world nations into financial destitution, which ultimate promotes infectious disease and dissuades access to medical care. Right this very moment, the streets of San Francisco are littered with human feces and drug needles. The medical implications of the financial collapse of cities into feces-ridden filth hubs should be obvious. Impoverished cities and nations are cesspools for the spread of pandemics. Financial collapse is just one small part of the very big picture.
The bottom line is that the effort to soften up your immune system is well under way. Be sure to do exactly what the anti-human media tells you to do and keep taking “your” flu shot. Your obedience to this quack science ritual is required in order for you to “serve” the interests of the globalists by eliminating yourself from the human gene pool. The sicker you are, the more easily you can be killed off in the interests of “saving the world.”
Solutions: The greatest act of resistance against eugenics is found in herbs, nutrients and healthy living
In a way, globalists are running a planet-wide IQ test for humanity: Anyone stupid enough to keep taking vaccine shots, popping medications and avoiding nutrition is probably not qualified to represent the future of humankind, they figure. On that particular point, they may not be wrong.
The defense against the global pandemic is simple and readily available: Boost your health with herbs and nutrition, and you are far more likely to survive the planet-wide culling of 90% of the human population.
In anticipation of this, I have created a little-known website based on cutting-edge modern science and medicine research. It’s called NaturalAntibiotics.news, and the site covers both plant-based antibiotics as well as anti-viral phytonutrients that can also help protect you from viral pandemics. (Note that antibiotics alone do not harm viral strains. Anti-virals are necessary for that.)
I also publish Herbs.news, which documents the scientifically-backed evidence on hundreds of medicinal herbs, including anti-viral and anti-bacterial herbs. Many of these herbs can be grown in your own garden, meaning that you can literally grow your own anti-pandemic medicine at home, without permission from any doctor, drug company or government.
Over the last several years, I have also built a multi-million dollar analytical research laboratory running multiple mass-spec instruments. The lab is ISO accredited, and we use the lab to produce the world’s cleanest supply of nutritional supplements, superfoods and green living products for home and health. Here’s a recent photo of me giving a tour of the QQQ (triple-quad) mass spec instrument that we use for quantitation of pesticides and herbicides (a full video tour of the mass spec analysis process is coming soon).
The lab-verified products we offer to the public are found at HealthRangerStore.com, the only nutrition manufacturer and online retailer in the world which lab-tests every raw material and every production lot. We have the most strict heavy metals limits in the world, which is why tens of thousands of customers who have survived cancer, heart disease, diabetes or other ailments shop at our store to find ultra-clean foods that support their healing journey.
Avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals and heavy metals can strengthen your immune response to viral infections. Clean food, clean water and clean air is the answer to making it through the global attack on humanity that’s now under way. (Read CleanFoodWatch.com for more stories on clean food.) If you aren’t yet drinking clean water, eating clean food and avoiding toxic chemicals in the food supply — be sure to buy organic where possible — you are playing right into the hands of the globalists who can’t wait to eliminate you (and people like you) from the planet.
Here’s the full video explanation that accompanies this story:
Simon explained that plant-based meat and dairy alternatives are now consumed not just by vegetarians but “even mainstream consumers” who are “enjoying these delicious and innovative options in the market today.”
The report found that sales of plant-based ‘meat’ increased 23 percent in the past year, up from six percent growth the previous year. Retail sales of plant-based products grew double-digits across all nine US census regions.
GFI predicted that the global meat alternatives market is set to grow over the coming years, reaching $6.3 billion by 2023. It is currently valued at $4.63 billion.
“As consumers look to decrease their meat consumption, more and more people are choosing plant-based meat. In fact, 12 percent of households across the US now purchase plant-based meat,” said GFI Director of Corporate Engagement Alison Rabschnuk.
“[This is] a significant increase from last year and I expect we’ll see that trend continue,” Rabschnuk added.
The research also found that “the plant-based meat category today is looking suspiciously like the plant-based milk category about ten years ago.”
Plant-based milk (a $1.8 billion market) commands a full 13 percent of total retail milk sales nationally. By contrast, it accounts for just about one percent of total US retail meat sales.
GFI noted that plant-based milk has become an increasingly common household staple and people are seeking out other plant-based dairy products. Those “other dairy alternatives” are seeing some of the greatest sales growth, according to GFI.
Chances are you’ve seen the recent headlines claiming coconut oil is “pure poison.”1,2,3 That declaration was made in a lecture posted on YouTube by Karin Michels, Ph.D., professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and director of the Institute for Prevention and Tumor Epidemiology at the University of Freiburg in Germany.
In the lecture,4 which is given all in German and was posted on YouTube July 10, 2018, Michels proclaims that coconut oil is “one of the worst foods you can eat.”
Such statements fall right in line with advice from the American Heart Association (AHA), which last year sent out a Presidential Advisory5 to cardiologists around the world, telling them to warn their patients about the dangers of saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil.
According to the AHA, replacing these fats with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) such as margarine and vegetable oil might cut heart disease risk by as much as 30 percent, which is about the same as statins. Overall for those who need to lower their cholesterol, the AHA recommends limiting daily saturated fat intake to 6 percent of daily calories or less.6
HPV Vaccine Advocate Calls Out Coconut Oil as ‘Pure Poison’
Michels’ statements are near-identical to those of the AHA. While it may be tempting to assume she’s a sock puppet for the processed vegetable oil industry, she does not appear to have any direct industry ties to them. Her work has been almost exclusively funded by the National Institutes of Health,7 an agency of the U.S. Department of Health, and has no readily apparent conflicts of interest.
That said, while Michels supports breastfeeding and has done a number of positive studies on vitamins and general nutrition, she veers sharply out of rational thought with her views on the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, detailed in a 2009 paper8 titled “HPV Vaccine for All,” in which she advocates the use of HPV vaccine not only in young girls and boys, but also in older men and women who test positive for certain HPV types.
It’s also quite clear she’s been against saturated fats for a long time. This is not uncommon, considering how deeply ingrained that myth has been. The clincher and most direct explanation for her views on coconut oil is her clear and direct ties to professor Frank Sacks at Harvard School of Public Health.
Sacks was in fact the lead author of that 2017 AHA Presidential Advisory against saturated fats. In a 1995 joint letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Michels and Sacks noted that:9
“The content of trans fatty acids in our foods has been causing concern because of reported adverse effects on serum lipid levels and coronary heart disease. Even a typical Western diet can have enough of these trans isomers to elevate the risk of coronary heart disease considerably …
To achieve the solid consistency of the diet margarines, manufacturers are permitted to blend the unmodified liquid oils with a small amount of ‘hardstock,’ which are naturally solid fats … thereby producing a fat richer in stearic acid, a saturated fatty acid that does not raise serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
These products have a favorable composition of fatty acids: the trans-fatty-acid content is negligible, and the saturated-fatty-acid content is low … Margarines can be produced that appeal to the consumer and do not contain either trans fatty acids or high levels of saturated fatty acids.”
Michels Promotes AHA’s Outdated Views
In other words, while Michels and Sacks correctly identify the dangers of trans fats, they incorrectly claim that margarines that contain saturated fats are a health hazard as well. Last year, when AHA warned against coconut oil and butter, a number of experts spoke out, highlighting the severe errors of the AHA’s review.
So, it really seems as though Michels is simply promoting the AHA’s views — a stance she and Sacks have held for decades. A basis for this view is that if a fat is solid at room temperature, it must clog your arteries. But that’s the kind of thinking that brought us trans fats in the first place, which has been proven to be the real poison.
The most interesting part of this is that her lecture was far too obscure to be found and picked up by English-speaking major media to the extent that it has, and this makes me wonder whether the vegetable oil industry had a hand in promoting it and turning it into “big news.”
The AHA, with its strong ties to the processed food industry, would also have a keen interest in promoting the circulation of this information.
AHA Still Defends Failed Hypothesis
Some six decades ago, the AHA declared saturated fats a danger to heart health, and last year, it reviewed the science and came to the conclusion it’s been right all along. Alas, the science used to support this outdated view is as old as the misguided stance toward saturated fats itself. As noted by American science writer Gary Taubes in his extensive rebuttal to the AHA’s advisory:10
“The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses based on selective interpretation of the evidence … Today’s Presidential Advisory … may be the most egregious example of Bing Crosby epidemiology [‘accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative’] that I’ve ever seen …
[T]hey methodically eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive until they can make the case that they are surely, clearly and unequivocally right …
[T]he AHA concludes that only four clinical trials have ever been done with sufficiently reliable methodology to allow them to assess the value of replacing SFAs with PUFAs (in practice replacing animal fats [with] vegetable oils) and concludes that this replacement will reduce heart attacks by 30 percent …
These four trials are the ones that are left after the AHA experts have systematically picked through the others and found reasons to reject all that didn’t find such a large positive effect, including a significant number that happened to suggest the opposite …
They do this for every trial but the four, including among the rejections the largest trials ever done: the Minnesota Coronary Survey, the Sydney Heart Study and, most notably, the Women’s Health Initiative, which was the single largest and most expensive clinical trial ever done.
All of these resulted in evidence that refuted the hypothesis. All are rejected from the analysis.”
Taubes, an investigative science and health journalist who has written three books on obesity and diet, points out that the AHA’s advisory document actually reveals the AHA’s longstanding prejudice, and the very method by which it reaches its conclusions.
In 2013, the AHA released a report11 claiming “the strongest possible evidence” supported the recommendation to replace saturated fat with PUFAs. Yet several meta-analyses, produced by independent researchers, concluded the evidence for restricting saturated fats was in fact weak or lacking.
The 2017 advisory document reveals how the AHA could conclude they had the “strongest possible evidence.” In short, they methodically came up with justifications to simply exclude any evidence to the contrary. All that was left — then and now — were a small number of studies that support the preconceived view of what the AHA wants the truth to be. Studies Included in AHA’s Advisory Are Based on Outdated Science
The low-fat myth was born and grew to take hold in the 1960s and early ’70s, and it is studies from these very eras that the AHA uses as the basis for its recommendation to avoid saturated fats — and as noted by Taubes, there are less than a handful of these studies: four to be precise.
A lot of nutritional science has been published since the early ’70s, yet AHA chooses to hold on to outdated science. The reason why is anyone’s guess. One of the studies included in the AHA’s review was the Oslo Diet-Heart Study,12 published in 1970.
In this study, 412 patients who’d had a heart attack or were at high risk of heart disease were randomized into two groups: One group got a low-saturated fat, high-PUFA diet along with ongoing, long-term “instruction and supervision” while the other group ate whatever they wanted and received no nutritional counseling whatsoever. As explained by Taubes:13
“This is technically called performance bias and it’s the equivalent of doing an unblinded drug trial without a placebo. It is literally an uncontrolled trial, despite the randomization.
([A]ll the physicians involved also knew whether their patients were assigned to the intervention group or the control, which makes investigator bias all that much more likely.) We would never accept such a trial as a valid test of a drug. Why do it for diet? Well, maybe because it can be used to support our preconceptions.”
Taubes goes on to state that he was so curious about this Oslo study he bought a monograph published by the original author. In it, the author describes in more detail how he went about conducting his trial.
Interestingly, this monograph reveals that the sugar consumption in the treatment group was only about 50 grams a day — an amount Taubes estimates may be about half the per capita consumption in Norway at that time, based on extrapolated data.14
“In this trial, the variable that’s supposed to be different is the [saturated fat]/PUFA ratio, but the performance bias introduces another one. One group gets continuous counseling to eat healthy, one group doesn’t. Now how can that continuous counseling influence health status?
One way is that apparently, the group that got it decided to eat a hell of lot less sugar. This unintended consequence now gives another possible explanation for why these folks had so many fewer heart attacks.
I don’t know if this is true. The point is neither did Leren. And neither do our AHA authorities,”Taubes writes. “All of the four studies used to support the 30 percent number had significant flaws, often this very same performance bias. Reason to reject them.”
AHA Makes False Claims About Coconut Oil
What’s more, the AHA actually makes false claims when specifying coconut oil as a source of dangerous saturated fat since none of the four studies they included in their analysis involved coconut oil. This was brought up last year by Dr. Cate Shanahan,15 a family physician and author of “Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food.”
In an email to me, she pointed out that “This message from the AHA is not only false, it is dangerous.” While it’s true that most early studies on coconut oil had less than favorable results, it’s important to recognize that those studies were done using partially hydrogenated coconut oil, not unrefined virgin coconut oil.16
As always, the devil’s in the details, and hydrogenated oil is not the same as unrefined oil, even when you’re talking about something as healthy as coconut. This small but crucial detail is what led to the undeserved vilification of coconut oil in the first place. Shanahan went on to state:
“Most doctors don’t notice that the medical leadership is making unfounded claims, and the reason they don’t notice is because … articles asserting the existence of human clinical trial evidence against coconut as well as all other foods high in saturated fat, conflate the sources of saturated fat with the saturated fat itself. Free Online Event: Learn to bring healing energy into the body to overcome stress.
Saturated fat does not actually exist in the food chain; what they’re talking about are saturated fatty acids, the components of triglyceride fat, the substance chefs call simply ‘fat.’ We often say things like ‘coconut oil is a saturated fat’ and ‘butter is a saturated fat.’ But it would be more correct to say ‘coconut oil is high in saturated fatty acids.’
Coconut oil, butter, lard, tallow and every other animal fat also contain monounsaturated and even some polyunsaturated fatty acids in addition to saturated fatty acids … The idea is foods contain blends of fatty acids in varying proportion.”
Put another way, most foods contain a blend of fatty acids, not just one. Margarine and shortening also contain saturated fatty acids, yet the AHA makes no mention of this. The harder the margarine, the more saturated fat it tends to contain, in some cases more than butter or lard.
“So, when people eat margarine and shortening, in addition to toxic trans fatty acids they’re also eating saturated fatty acids. And that means that when a study says it’s swapping out saturated fat for vegetable oils, that does not equate to swapping out butter and lard.
It could very well be the case that margarine and shortenings were among the foods that got eliminated,” Shanahan says.
“And because most doctors don’t realize that margarine and shortenings contain saturated fatty acids, they also don’t consider it particularly important to wonder whether or not studies like the four core citations mentioned in the Advisory are actually confounded by the fact that the baseline, high-saturated fat diet included a significant amount of margarines and shortenings that contain toxic trans fat.
Because if they did, then that means whatever health benefits were observed in the studies may have nothing to do with the reductions in saturated fat. It’s cutting back on trans fat that makes the difference to health.”
Cutting Saturated Fat Has Had Disastrous Consequences for Public Health
Since the 1950s, when vegetable oils began being promoted over saturated fats like butter, Americans have dutifully followed this advice, dramatically increasing consumption of vegetable oil. Soy oil, for example, has risen by 600 percent (10,000 percent from 1900) while butter, tallow and lard consumption has been halved. We’ve also dramatically increased sugar consumption.17
Alas, heart disease rates have not improved even though people have been following the AHA’s dietary recommendations. Common sense tells us if the AHA’s advice hasn’t worked in the last 65 years, it’s not likely to start working now.
As noted by Shanahan, technology that allows us to study molecular reactions is relatively recent, and certainly was not available back in the ’60s and ’70s. Modern research is just now starting to reveal what actually happens at the molecular level when you consume vegetable oil and margarine, and it’s not good. How Vegetable Oils Turn Toxic
For example, Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh,18 a biologist at the University of British Columbia, has shown your mitochondria cannot easily use PUFAs or fuel due to the fats’ unique molecular structure.
Other researchers have shown the PUFA linoleic acid can cause cell death in addition to hindering mitochondrial function.19 PUFAs are also not readily stored in subcutaneous fat. Instead, they tend to get deposited in your liver, where they contribute to fatty liver disease,20 and in your arteries, where they contribute to atherosclerosis. Animal and human research has also found vegetable oils promote: Obesity21 Lethargy22 Prediabetic symptoms23 Chronic pain/idiopathic pain syndromes (pain with no discernible cause)24 Migraines25 Crohn’s disease26 Ulcerative colitis27 Early death28
According to Frances Sladek,29 Ph.D., a toxicologist and professor of cell biology at UC Riverside, PUFAs behave like a toxin that builds up in tissues because your body cannot easily rid itself of it.
When processed vegetable oils like sunflower oil and corn oil are heated, cancer-causing chemicals like aldehydes are also produced in quantities that are in stark contrast to the low levels produced by coconut oil, which has far less double bonds to be damaged by the heat.30
Source: The Telegraph November 7, 2015 Biochemistry Versus Statistics
According to Shanahan, the idea that PUFAs are healthier than saturated fats fall flat when you enter the field of biochemistry, because it’s “biochemically implausible.”
In other words, the molecular structure of PUFA is such that it’s prone to react with oxygen, and these reactions disrupt cellular activity and cause inflammation.31 Oxidative stress and inflammation, in turn, are hallmarks not only of heart disease and heart attacks but of most chronic diseases.32,33
“Meanwhile, the folks at the AHA claim saturated fat is proinflammatory and causes arterial plaque and heart attacks — but there is no biochemically plausible explanation for their argument.
Saturated fat is very stable, and will not react with oxygen the way PUFA fat does, not until the fundamental laws of the universe are altered,” Shanahan writes.
“Our bodies do need some PUFA fat, but we need it to come from food like walnuts and salmon or gently processed (as in cold pressed, unrefined) oils like flax and artisanal grapeseed, not from vegetable oils because these are refined, bleached and deodorized, and the PUFA fats are molecularly mangled into toxins our body cannot use.”
High Cholesterol Does Not Lead to Heart Disease
Researchers have also laid waste to the notion that having high cholesterol is a primary contributor to heart disease in the first place, and this is the core premise upon which Michels and the AHA build their conclusion that coconut oil and other saturated fats are bad for you.
For example, a 2016 study34 published in The BMJ reanalyzed data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment that took place between 1968 and 1973, after gaining access to previously unpublished data.
This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial to test whether replacing saturated fat with vegetable oil (high in linoleic acid) would lower cholesterol levels, thus reducing heart disease and related deaths. Interestingly, while the treatment group did significantly lower their cholesterol, no mortality benefit could be found.
In fact, for each 30 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) reduction in serum cholesterol, the risk of death actually increased by 22 percent. Swapping saturated fat for vegetable oil also had no effect on atherosclerosis rates or heart attacks. As noted by the authors:
“Available evidence … shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes.
Findings … add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils …”
The AHA also does not take LDL particle number into consideration. There are large, fluffy LDL particles and small, dense ones. We didn’t have this information in the 1960s, but we sure have it now. This is yet another crucial detail, as large LDL particles have been shown to be harmless and do not raise your risk for heart disease.
And guess what? Sugar promotes harmful small, dense LDLs while saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil promotes harmless large, fluffy LDLs.35 Is Coconut Oil Healthy or Not?
The short answer is yes, organic unrefined virgin coconut oil is a healthy choice. It’s been a dietary staple for millennia, providing you with high-quality fat that is important for optimal health. Coconut oil:
Supports thyroid function (Unlike many other oils, coconut oil does not interfere with T4 to T3 conversion, and T4 must be converted to T3 in order to create the enzymes needed to convert fats to energy) Normalizes insulin and leptin sensitivity Boosts metabolism Provides excellent and readily available fuel for your body in lieu of carbohydrates (which you need to avoid if you want to lose weight)
A really important benefit of coconut oil is related to the fact that it contains medium chain triglycerides (MCTs). The smaller particle size of MCTs helps them penetrate your cell membranes more easily. MCTs also do not require special enzymes, and they can be utilized more effectively by your body, thus putting less strain on your digestive system.
Most importantly, however, MCTs bypass the bile and fat storage process and go directly to your liver, where they are converted into ketones. Your liver quickly releases the ketones into your bloodstream where they are transported around your body to be used as fuel. Ketones are in fact the preferred fuel for your body, especially your heart and brain, and may be key for the prevention of heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
By being immediately converted into energy rather than being stored as fat, MCTs stimulate your body’s metabolism and help promote weight loss. So, yes, coconut oil truly is a healthy staple that belongs in everyone’s kitchen.
(For clarification, while coconut oil contains MCTs, straight MCT oil has a far higher concentration of shorter chain fats that are more efficiently converted to ketones; C8 or caprylic acid has the best ability to convert to ketones.) Coconut Oil May Be Contraindicated if You Have Leaky Gut
For all its benefits, there is at least one instance where coconut oil is contraindicated due to its lauric acid content. In his book, “The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in ‘Healthy’ Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain,” Dr. Steven Gundry explains how coconut oil may be problematic if you have leaky gut.
As it turns out, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an endotoxin, attaches to lauric acid, facilitating its transport past your gut lining into your blood stream. Interestingly, MCT oil does not do this. So, if you have leaky gut, or unless you’re healthy and eating a lectin-free diet, it may be best to avoid coconut oil and use MCT oil instead. Caprylic acid would be best, but neither of these will allow LPS to piggyback into your blood stream. Flawed 60-Year-Old Research on Saturated Fat Does Not ‘Debunk’ Coconut Oil Benefits
So, to summarize, Michels is advocating decades’ old recommendations that are still upheld by the AHA. Again, she has a professional connection to Sacks, who was lead author for the AHA’s advisory on saturated fats, and in that advisory Sacks specifically targeted coconut oil — even though coconut oil was not involved in any of the studies they included in their scientific review.
When considering recommendations for heart health, it’s important to remember that heart disease is primarily caused by chronic inflammation, which is caused by excessive amounts of omega-6 (unbalanced omega-6 to omega-336), dangerous trans fats, processed vegetable oils and excessive sugar.
Saturated fats, on the other hand, have been repeatedly exonerated, with studies showing they do not contribute to heart disease and are in fact a very important source of fuel for your body.
Granted, it’s tough to admit you’ve been wrong for 65-plus years. Such an admission can mar an organization’s reputation. But in trying to turn back the clock to 1960 and promote margarine and vegetable oils over butter and coconut oil, the AHA has proven itself professionally irresponsible and obsolete, and a lecture by one of its ideological supporters cannot change that. To learn more about how coconut oil benefits your health, and why, see “Why Coconut Oil Is So Good for You.”
Scientists from Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University took part in a large-scale research project to assess intestinal microflora changes during short-term nutrition changes. It turned out that a two-week long balanced diet was enough to considerably change the composition of intestinal microflora.
While using various search engines for “individual nutrition,” people find hundreds of websites with suggestions, comments, and recommendations. Scientists also recognize the value of trendy well-balanced nutrition in line with personal programs. Until recently, it was unclear how such nutrition plans influenced intestinal microflora.
University experts teamed up with their colleagues from other Russian universities and conducted a large-scale experimental research project to see whether a two-week long diet plan was enough to change the composition of intestinal microflora.
“Our partners formulated the experiment’s idea, and we provided technical support during some of its stages, including preparations of test samples and high-capacity sequencing,” said one of the research authors Alexei Korzhenkov from the University’s Institute of Living Systems.
During the first stage of this rather sensitive project, the participants filled out a questionnaire, noting the regularity of their eating habits. For example, some of them said they were eating carrots on a daily basis, plus sausages twice a week.
They also replied to how often they smoked and drank alcohol, how long they slept and what medication they are on. During the next stage, scientists conducted clinical tests of respondents’ intestinal microflora and compiled personalized nutrition plans for each of them. They conducted repeat tests two weeks later and compared the results. It turned out that even such short-term dieting positively affected intestinal microflora.
The project involved 207 people, including 110 men and 97 women aged 18-64. Their personalized nutrition plans consisted of individual and basic aspects.Scientists asked all volunteers to minimize their intake of sugar, salt, and saturated fats. They advised them to consume less “empty calories,” including sweet fizzy drinks, pastries, mayonnaise, and to drink plenty of water.
Individual nutrition plans were based on respondents’ data. Some of them who ate too many potatoes were advised to eat them only twice a week.
Before and after the dietary intervention, researchers analyzed the composition of intestinal microflora, and their total diversity topped 600 types of microorganisms. To compare the results, scientists calculated the so-called Bray-Curtis coefficient, used to assess the similarity of two animal groups’ species.
This coefficient is calculated by assessing the number of unique species and species that are common to both groups and varies from zero (absolutely identical composition) to 1 (absolutely different composition). A 0.45 intestinal microflora similarity coefficient was posted during the experiment before and after a two-week long dietary intervention. And a 0.26 indicator was calculated for representatives of a test group eating regular sorts of food.
According to experts, the results of their work can help compile effective individual nutrition plans using new data on intestinal microflora.
The project involved colleagues from ITMO University, the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University), Novosibirsk State University, the Medical-Genetic Research Center, George Mason University, University of Groningen and the Vinogradsky Microbiology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The experiment’s results are published in the journal Nutrients.
Published on Dec 4, 2011In 31 years of medical practice Kirk Hamilton has seen dairy products cause virtually any symptom you can think of. Sometimes very serious diseases. In this talk you will learn why dairy products aren’t an optimal food for human infants and adults; the dairy, calcium, bone and protein myths; and why dairy products, especially cheeses, are so addictive. After listening to this talk take Kirk’s one month “Ain’t Got Milk Challenge” and you may not only feel better, but you may even save a loved one’s life…And that’s No Bull! Go to Kirk’s website http://www.prescription2000.com and listen to podcasts with Dr. Joseph Keon , author of “Whitewash: The Disturbing Truth about Cow’s Milk and Your Health” http://www.prescription2000.com/Stayi… and Dr. Amy Joy Lanou, author of “Building Bone Vitality: A Revolutionary Diet Plan to Prevent Bone Loss and Reverse Osteoporosis.” http://www.prescription2000.com/Stayi… It’s time to stop the needless suffering. To order Kirk’s book “Staying Healthy in the Fast Lane” at a significant discount go to http://www.prescription2000.com.
Summary: Researchers say dietary fats, not sugars or proteins, are the only cause of weight gain.
Source: University of Aberdeen.
Scientists from the University of Aberdeen and the Chinese Academy of Sciences have undertaken the largest study of its kind looking at what components of diet – fat, carbohydrates or protein – caused mice to gain weight.
Since food consists of fat, protein and carbs, it has proven difficult to pinpoint exactly what aspect of the typical diet leads to weight gain.
Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to do studies on humans where what they eat is controlled for long enough periods to work out what are the most important factors, however studies on animals that are similar to us can help point in the right direction.
The study was published in the journal Cell Metabolism and includes 30 different diets that vary in their fat, carbohydrate (sugar) and protein contents.
The mice were fed these diets for three months, which is equivalent to nine years in humans. In total over 100,000 measurements were made of body weight changes and their body fat was measured using a micro MRI machine.
Professor John Speakman, who led the study, said: “The result of this enormous study was unequivocal – the only thing that made the mice get fat was eating more fat in their diets.
The mice were fed these diets for three months, which is equivalent to nine years in humans. In total over 100,000 measurements were made of body weight changes and their body fat was measured using a micro MRI machine. NeuroscienceNews.com image is in the public domain.
“Carbohydrates including up to 30% of calories coming from sugar had no effect. Combining sugar with fat had no more impact than fat alone. There was no evidence that low protein (down to 5%) stimulated greater intake, suggesting there is no protein target. These effects of dietary fat seemed to be because uniquely fat in the diet stimulated the reward centres in the brain, stimulating greater intake.
“A clear limitation of this study is that it is based on mice rather than humans. However, mice have lots of similarities to humans in their physiology and metabolism, and we are never going to do studies where the diets of humans are controlled in the same way for such long periods. So the evidence it provides is a good clue to what the effects of different diets are likely to be in humans.”
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone