Accomplishments of the week

Nice work crew!

Is eating fish safe? A lot safer than not eating fish!

May 19, 2010 in Fertility, Pregnancy & Childbirth, Food & Nutrition, Myths & Truths | 

This is going to be a long article and I know not everyone will have time to read it. So I’m going to summarize the key points right up front because I think this information is so important:

Overview

• Selenium protects against mercury toxicity, and 16 of the 25 highest dietary sources of selenium are ocean fish
• If a fish contains higher levels of selenium than mercury, it is safe to eat
• Most species of commonly eaten fish in the U.S. have more selenium than mercury
• Fish are not significant sources of PCBs and dioxins when compared to meat, dairy or vegetables
• The benefits of eating fish regularly far outweigh the potential risks, which are neglible
• Pregnant mothers and young children should eat 2-3 servings of oily ocean fish each week

These days a lot of people are scared to eat fish. They’ve been told that fish are full of contaminants like mercury, PCBs and dioxins that cause neurological problems and may increase the risk of cancer. Pregnant women have been especially warned due to the supposed risk of these toxins to the developing fetus.

In the last few articles I’ve established the importance of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA in human health. I’ve argued that the conversion of plant-based omega-3 fats like ALA into the longer chain EPA and DHA isextremely poor in most people.

The conclusion is obvious: fish should be a part of our diet. But is it safe to eat fish?

You might be surprised to learn that the answer is a resounding yes. In this article I’ll demonstrate that concerns about toxins in fish have been overblown, and that there is almost no risk associated with eating fish when a few simple precautions are taken.

The selenium story

Although people are increasingly concerned about the effects of mercury levels in fish, recent evidence suggests that the trace amounts of mercury in the fish Americans eat aren’t high enough to pose a health risk.

But measuring only mercury significantly exaggerates this risk, because it ignores the important role of selenium.

Selenium is plentiful in many ocean fish species, but the public is unaware of its protective role against mercury. Selenium has high binding affinity for mercury. This means that when the two elements are found together, they connect, forming a new substance.

This new substance makes it hard for the body to absorb the mercury separately. Simply put, when selenium binds to mercury, mercury is not longer free to bind to anything else – like brain tissue.

Studies have shown that relevant amounts of selenium (Se) can prevent oxidative brain damage and other adverse effects associated with mercury toxicity. (PDF)

University of North Dakota researcher Nicholas Ralston has published several papers on the protective effects of selenium. He describes the relationship between selenium and mercury as follows:

Think of dietary selenium as if it were your income and dietary mercury as if it were a bill that you need to pay. Just as we all need a certain amount of money to cover living expenses such as food and rent, we all need a certain amount of selenium.

And guess what foods are highest in selenium? You’re right! 16 of the 25 best sources of dietary selenium are ocean fish.

He goes on:

Only one major study has shown negative effects from exposure to mercury from seafood, and that seafood was pilot whale meat. Pilot whale meat is unusual in that it contains more mercury than selenium. When you eat pilot whale meat it’s like getting a bill for $400 and a check for less than $100. If that happens too much, you go bankrupt. On the other hand, if you eat ocean fish, it’s like getting a check in the mail for $500 and getting a bill for $25. The more that happens, the happier you are.

What Ralston is telling us is that as long as the fish we’re eating has more selenium than mercury, there’s nothing to worry about.

Fortunately, studies by several independent organizations have consistently shown that most of the fish we eat contain significantly more selenium than mercury. Fish that contain more mercury than selenium include pilot whale, tarpon, marlin, swordfish and some shark.

The following chart illustrates the relative levels of selenium and mercury in commonly eaten ocean fish:

The selenium health benefit value (SeHBV)

Researchers have proposed a new measure of seafood safety called the Selenium Health Benefit Value (SeHBV) that takes the protective role of selenium into account.

Fish with a positive (above zero) SeHBV ratio would be safe to eat, whereas fish with a negative ratio would be unsafe. Using these criteria, most varieties of ocean fish have positive SeHBV ratios and are thus safe to eat.

A study conducted by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also found that an estimated 97% of the freshwater fish from lakes and rivers in the western U.S. are safe to eat. It is the only study I’m aware of that has measured both mercury and selenium levels in the tissues of freshwater fish. ¹

So how much fish is safe to eat?

The joint recommendation for fish consumption of the EPA and FDA as of 2004 is as follows:

• Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of commonly eaten fish and shellfish found consistently low in mercury, including shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish
• Limit albacore tuna to 6 oz. per week
• Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury

Notice that these recommendations are already quite liberal compared to the fish-phobes who suggest we avoid fish entirely.

But even these recommendations are too strict, because they don’t take the protective effects of selenium into account. As long as the fish is higher in selenium than it is in mercury, there’s no reason to limit consumption to 12 ounces per week.

What about dioxins and PCBs?

PCBs are synthetic organochlorine compounds previously used in industrial and commercial processes. Dioxins are organochlorine by-products of waste incineration, paper bleaching, pesticide production, and production of certain plastics. Yummy!

While it makes perfect sense to try to avoid these toxins to the greatest extent possible, abstaining from fish isn’t a particularly good strategy.

The highest dietary sources of PCBs and dioxins are not fish, but beef, chicken and pork (34%), dairy products (30%) and vegetables (22%). Fish constitute only 9% of our dietary intake of these chemicals.

The primary concern with PCBs and dioxins is cancer. Animal studies and some evidence in humans suggest that both are carcinogenic.

However, an analysis has shown that, per 100,000 individuals, consumption of farmed vs. wild salmon would result in 24 vs. 8 excess cancer deaths, respectively, while consumption of either farmed or wild salmon would result in 7,125 fewer coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths.

Another analysis of the same data suggested that, for all ages evaluated (25-35 to 85 years), CHD benefits outweighed cancer risks by 100- to 370-fold for farmed salmon and by 300- to more than 1000-fold for wild salmon.

It’s important to note that the benefits of fish consumption are based on prospective studies and randomized trials in humans, whereas estimated cancer risks include a 10-fold safety factor and are based on experimental data in animals and limited studies in humans at extremely high doses.

Cancer estimates also assumed lifetime salmon consumption of 1,000 mg/d of EPA & DHA (four 6-oz servings of wild salmon every week for 70 years). Of course virtually nobody in the U.S. currently eats this much salmon.

On the other hand, CHD mortality reduction may be achieved with lower intake (i.e. 250 mg/d – one 6-oz. wild salmon serving per week). At this intake, CHD benefits would be the same (7,125 fewer deaths) while lifetime cancer risk would decrease by 75% (6 and 2 estimated deaths per 100,000 for farmed and wild salmon respectively). The CHD benefits would outweigh cancer risks by more than 3500-fold in the case of wild salmon.

Once again, with few exceptions (the species of fish with more mercury than selenium), it’s not only safe but incredibly beneficial to eat fish regularly.

How beneficial? Let’s find out.

Fish consumption, cardiovascular disease and total mortality

In 2006 Mozaffarian & Rimm published a paper in JAMA called “Fish Intake, Contaminants and Human Health: Evaluating the Risks and Benefits“. They analyzed several studies that examined the impact of fish consumption on both coronary and total mortality. They found that modest fish consumption (e.g. 1-2 servings/wk) – especially of oily fish higher in EPA and DHA – reduced the risk of coronary death by 36% and total mortality by 17%, and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes.

The authors summarized their findings this way:

For major health outcomes among adults, based on the strength of the evidence and the potential magnitudes of effect, the benefits of fish exceed the potential risks.

And:

For women of childbearing age, benefits of modest fish intake, excepting a few selected species, also outweigh risks.

They also pointed out that the Japanese eat 900 mg/d of EPA & DHA on average, and have death rates from coronary heart disease 87% lower than those in Western populations (like the U.S.).

If you’re interested in learning more about this study, I recommend listening to the JAMA Audio in the Room interviewwith its lead author, Mozaffarian.

Fish consumption, pregnant mothers, and children

DHA is essential for proper development of the brain. It is preferentially incorporated into the rapidly developing brain during gestation and the first two years of infancy, concentrating in the gray matter and retinal membranes.

In a meta-analysis of 14 trials, DHA supplementation improved visual acuity in a dose dependent manner. In anothertrial of 341 pregnant women, treatment with cod liver oil from week 18 until 3 months postpartum raised mental processing scores at age 4 years.

This is consistent with observational studies showing positive associations between maternal DHA levels or fish intake during pregnancy and behavioral attention scores, visual recognition, memory, and language comprehension in infancy.

An FDA report issued in 2008 noted that the nutrients in fish – especially n-3 LCFAs, selenium, and vitamin D – could boost a child’s IQ by an estimated ten points. ²

The FDA report summarizes evidence suggesting that the greatest benefits to children would result if pregnant women of childbearing age, nursing mothers and young children ate more than the 12 ounces of fish per week currently recommended by the EPA.

According to the National Fisheries Institute, Americans currently consume only five ounces a week of fish high in n-3 LCFA, which is less than half the recommended amount. The NFI also estimates that up to 14 percent of women of childbearing age eat no fish at all, despite the fact that n-3 LCFA are essential to proper fetal brain and eye development.

Based on the new understanding of selenium’s protective role, and the importance of DHA for fetal and early childhood development, pregnant mothers should be advised to eat oily ocean fish regularly.

Fish consumption and autoimmune and inflammatory disease

The first evidence of the significant role of dietary intake of n-3 LCFA in reducing inflammation came from epidemiological observations of the low incidence of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders in a population of Greenland Eskimos compared with gender- and age-matched groups living in Denmark. The Eskimos in this study had dramatically lower rates of psoriasis, asthma and type 1 diabetes, as well as a complete absence of multiple sclerosis.

Animal and human studies suggest that n-3 LCFA suppresses cell mediated immune responses. Increasing the amount of n-3 LCFA while decreasing omega-6 fatty acids leads to improvements and a decrease of steroid use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

This is because omega-3s have been shown to suppress the capacity of monocytes to synthesize interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF). IL-1 and TNF are the principal mediators of mediation in several different inflammatory and autoimmune conditions.

Summary

This is simply a re-cap of the overview presented at the beginning of the article. But it’s worth repeating.

• Selenium protects against mercury toxicity, and 16 of the 25 highest dietary sources of selenium are ocean fish
• If a fish contains higher levels of selenium than mercury, it is safe to eat
• Most species of commonly eaten fish in the U.S. have more selenium than mercury
• Fish are not significant sources of PCBs and dioxins when compared to meat, dairy or vegetables
• The benefits of eating fish regularly far outweigh the potential risks, which are neglible
• Pregnant mothers and young children should eat 2-3 servings of oily ocean fish each week

1. Energy & Environmental Research Center, University of North Dakota (EERC). EERC Research Finds Mercury Levels in Freshwater and Ocean Fish Not as Harmful as Previously Thought. June 22, 2009. Accessed at http://www.undeerc.org/news/newsitem.aspx?id=343 ↩
2. Energy & Environmental Research Center, University of North Dakota (EERC). EERC Research Finds Mercury Levels in Freshwater and Ocean Fish Not as Harmful as Previously Thought. June 22, 2009. Accessed at http://www.undeerc.org/news/newsitem.aspx?id=343 ↩source:chriskresser.com

Lavonne Doing Friday 6 AM WOD

5 reasons not to worry about your cholesterol numbers

January 26, 2011

I do a lot of public speaking. As you might suspect, regardless of the specific topic I’m presenting the dietary recommendations I make are always essentially the same: high-fat, nutrient-dense and low in toxins. Since omega-6 vegetable oils are toxins, when I say high fat I’m talking about saturated and monounsaturated fat. You know this.

But a lot of people I speak to don’t. They fully steeped in 50 years of mainstream propaganda perpetuating the idea that saturated fats cause heart disease – primarily by raising blood cholesterol. So, inevitably, when I stand up in front of a group of people and tell them all to eat lots of saturated fat, I get a question that goes something like this:

But won’t that raise my cholesterol? And won’t high cholesterol give me a heart attack?

I haven’t yet perfected an answer that can dismantle a half century of cultural brainwashing about fat and cholesterol in less than 3 minutes. But I’m working on it.

In the meantime, I usually explain some variation of the following:

Point #1: Eating saturated fat doesn’t raise cholesterol levels in the blood

There’s no convincing evidence that eating saturated fat raises blood cholesterol. Stephan Guyenet spanked that old yarn to the curb in this recent blog post. In short, of all of the studies examining the relationship between saturated fat intake and serum cholesterol, only one found a clear relationship between the two and even that association was weak. The rest found no association at all.

Point #2: Eating cholesterol doesn’t (usually) raise cholesterol levels in the blood

Nor is there evidence that eating cholesterol in the diet raises cholesterol levels in your blood. A recent review of the scientific literature published in Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care clearly indicates that egg consumption has no discernible impact on blood cholesterol levels in 70% of the population. In the other 30% of the population (termed “hyperresponders”), eggs do increase both circulating LDL and HDL cholesterol.

An increase of HDL is a good thing. And as it turns out, so is a boost of the type of LDL that eating saturated fat and cholesterol increases. We now know there are two different types of LDL: small, dense LDL, and large, buoyant LDL. Small, dense LDL is a significant risk factor for heart disease because it’s more likely to oxidize and cause inflammation. Large, buoyant LDL is not a risk factor for heart disease. And guess what? Eating eggs not only increases the benign large, buoyant LDL, but it also decreases the harmful small, dense LDL by 20%. I’ve written more about this here and here, and you can also watch some videos on this topic here.

Point #3: Even if eating saturated fat and cholesterol did raise cholesterol levels in your blood, it wouldn’t matter because “high cholesterol” isn’t a strong risk factor for heart disease.

This is the one that really spins people out. Even if they follow me on the first two points, their eyes tend to glaze over when I mention this one. As Mark Twain used to say:

The history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.

Nowhere is that more true than with the lie that high cholesterol causes heart disease. It’s so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness that it’s become an almost unassailable article of faith. That’s why people are so surprised to learn that there’s very little evidence to support the idea.

This point is the current bottleneck in my “3-minute” explanation, because it takes a while to explain why it’s not true. I’ve written about it extensively here, here and here. For the purposes of this brief article, we’ll have to leave it at this: both total and LDL cholesterol – which are the numbers your doctor, the media and everyone else seems to be concerned with – are only weakly associated with heart disease.

If “high cholesterol” were the cause of heart disease, you’d expect it to be a risk factor in:

1. All populations around the world.
2. In both men and women.
3. In people of all ages.

And you’d also expect that lowering cholesterol should prevent heart disease.

Makes sense, right?

Unfortunately for the lipophobes, the cholesterol hypothesis fails on all fronts.

1. High cholesterol is not a risk factor in all populations. The French have among the highest cholesterol levels in the world, and among the lowest rates of heart disease of any industrialized nation. The Austrians and other European nations are similar.
2. Women on average have 300% lower rates of heart disease than men, despite higher average cholesterol levels.
3. The rate of heart disease in 65 year-old men is 10 times that of 45-year old men. Yet high cholesterol is not a risk factor in men over 65. (In fact, men over 65 with low cholesterol (<150 mg/dL) are twice as likely to die from heart disease as those with normal or even "high" cholesterol.)

Finally, more than 40 trials have been performed to see if lowering cholesterol prevents heart disease. In some trials more people got heart disease, in others fewer. But when all the results were taken together, just as many people died in the treatment groups (those who took cholesterol-lowering drugs) as the control groups (those who did not).

Point #4: If you want to worry about your cholesterol numbers, forget about total cholesterol and LDL and pay attention to the ratio of triglycerides to HDL.

In general I’m not a fan of people worrying about their lipid panel numbers at all. Like Dr. Kurt Harris, I think this compulsive testing and re-testing of lipids that has become common in the Paleo community not only isn’t necessary, but may even be harmful. There’s still a lot we don’t know about how these numbers change on a day-to-day basis. What’s more, it’s not always easy to distinguish between cause and effect. Researchers made the mistake of assuming high cholesterol was the cause of heart disease, when in reality it’s much more likely that high cholesterol is a consequence of it.

But for crying out loud, if you’re going to get your lipds tested at least pay attention to the right numbers. And the most important number on a conventional lipid panel is the relationship between triglycerides and HDL. (Divide triglyercids by HDL to get it.) If that number is less than 2, this suggests you have mostly large, buoyant LDL – which is not a risk factor for heart disease. If that number is higher than 3, it suggests you have mostly small, dense LDL – which most certainly is a risk factor for heart disease.

Point #5: Eat good food and don’t worry about the numbers.

But in the end, even that ratio doesn’t matter so much. Why? Because the treatment is always the same! If your TG:HDL ratio is high (bad), what should you do? Eat a high-fat (saturated, of course) diet. This will reduce your triglycerides and small, dense LDL, and increase your HDL. Triple win. And if your TG:HDL ratio is low (good), what should you do? The exact same thing: eat a high-fat diet.

Conversely, replacing saturated fat with carbs, as we’ve been told to do for 50 years to protect ourselves from heart disease, actually contributes to it in three ways: it increases triglycerides and small, dense LDL, and decreases HDL.

Finally, I often get emails from people who’ve switched to a high-fat / Paleo-type diet expressing concern that their LDL and total cholesterol levels have gone up. My response usually has three parts: 1) don’t worry about it, because high total and LDL cholesterol do not cause heart disease; 2) the increase is usually temporary, and may be the result of the body curing itself of fatty liver (a good thing!); 3) don’t worry about it. Doesn’t hurt to remind them.

**Note: if your total cholesterol levels are very high (i.e. above 300 mg/dL), this may be an indicator of a metabolic abnormality or inflammatory process that needs to be addressed. Cholesterol is a repair substance in the body, and persistent elevations beyond a certain threshold may point to an underlying problem that hasn’t been identified.

Source: chriskresser.com

Accomplishments

Congrats everyone! Awesome job!

I Can't Believe We're Still Arguing About This!

Study after study (such as Framingham, the Minnesota State Hospital Trial, the Veterans Clinical Trial, the Puerto Rico Heart Health Study, and the Honolulu Heart Program) has shown a consistently distinct lack of correlation between dietary fat, dietary serum cholesterol, and heart disease. A group of scientists known as the International Atherosclerosis Project analyzed 31,000 autopsies from 15 countries and found ZERO correlation among animal fat intake, atherosclerotic disease and serum cholesterol levels.


The fixation on cholesterol levels and reccomendations toward eliminating dietary saturated fat and cholesterol bewilderingly persists to this day, despite an overwhelming degree of evidence to the contrary. Michael Gurr, Ph.D a renowned lipid expert said, "Whatever causes coronary heart disease it is not from a high intake of saturated fat."

source- Nora T. Gedgaudas, CNS, CNT author of "Primal Body, Primal Mind"

Workout of the day

Tuesday 
3 15 minute WODS. AMRAP.

1. "Heather"
Row 500 meters
12 Deadlifts
21 Ring Dips

2. "Jeremy"
21-15-9 Reps
Overhead Squats
Burpees

3. Run as far as you can for 15 minutes.  Record distance.

Practicing Rowing

The Paleo (a.k.a. Caveman) Diet as seen on ABC's Nightline

What to Eat and What to Avoid for Lifelong Health

We’re three lessons deep, and I hope you’re starting to get an idea of what you should be doing. Or, at least, what you shouldn’t be eating.

You’re on board with avoiding grains, sugar, and vegetable oils, yes? You get that, owing to their recent introduction into the human diet, people aren’t adapted to eating these foods. You see that contrary to being health-giving, grains, vegetable oils, and sugar are actually destroying our health and making us fat and sick.

You’re interested in switching from the sugar-burning Carb Paradigm to the Fat Paradigm, and you understand that you should be eating more animals and fewer carbs to lose weight, right?

Awesome…but what’s next? I’ve given you a few basic tools to identify what foods might be preventing fat loss and promoting poor health, so you generally know what not to do, but now you want the details on what you should be doing. Specifically, what you should and should not be eating. Let’s bring it all together and spell it out. And because when we’re talking about our health and happiness, we don’t want to beat around the bush, or get things half-right. We want to be sure.

Start by eliminating all the offensive processed food, grains, sugar and industrial oils.

Ditch grains: refined grains, whole grains, bread, pasta, muffins, biscuits, bagels, cereal, baked goods, pancakes. Anything made from flour, really.

Ditch sugar: white sugar, candy, cake, cookies, pastries, milk chocolate bars, high fructose corn syrup, soda, milkshakes masquerading as coffee drinks. If it’s made in a bakery or a factory or a restaurant and it’s sweet, just avoid it.

Ditch vegetable oils and trans fats: corn oil, soybean oil, canola, sunflower/safflower, margarine, shortening, anything with “partially hydrogenated” in the ingredients list.

Ditch all other junk foods, most of which encompass the previous three “food” categories: potato chips, crackers, “crisps,” Cheez-its.

Ditch fast food: Taco Bell, McDonald’s, Burger King, etc. don’t eat McDonald’s and think just because you removed the bun that it’s all good. Just say no to fast food.

Don’t eat that stuff. For one, it’s junk food that simply doesn’t taste very good when you get down to it. Instead, it’s food that’s designed to target the reward centers in your brain and get you to stuff your face – and then go out and buy some more. “Betcha can’t eat just one” isn’t just an innocent slogan; it’s the literal truth!

Two, it’s high in calories but low in nutrition. You can eat that bag of Lay’s and get hundreds of calories of carbs andrancid fats, but you’ll still be deficient in vitamins and minerals, and you’ll still be hungry!

I’ll be honest – you could stop here and reap most of the benefits. Because the aforementioned “food” groups are so heavily overrepresented in the modern food supply, avoiding them and just eating everything left over will make you healthier and help you lose weight. But we can do better than that.

Eat the animals, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds our bodies are adapted to thrive on.

Eat animals: beef, lamb, bison, pork, poultry (and their eggs). Favor grass-fed and pastured animals, which have better fatty acids and contain more vitamins and minerals (and taste better!).

Eat animals from the sea: salmon, sardines, trout, mackerel, crab, shrimp, oysters, mussels, clams. Wild-caught fish are best, though farmed shellfish are usually raised exactly like wild shellfish and thus are fine.

Eat unlimited produce: leafy greens of all kinds, colorful plants, berries, cruciferous vegetables, assorted fruits, roots, and tubers.

Eat some nuts and seeds: macadamias, walnuts, cashews, almonds, pecans, brazil nuts, pistachios, hazelnuts; pumpkin, squash, and sunflower seeds.

Use healthy cooking fats: butter (especially grass-fed), coconut oil, olive oil, red palm and regular palm oil, ghee, andanimal fats (lard, tallow, duck fat, etc.).

Stock spices: keep plenty of herbs and spices on hand. Cumin, coriander, thyme, rosemary, sage, chili powder, mint,turmeric, and cayenne are a few of my favorites, but you can use anything else you like. Spices and herbs add flavor to dishes and prevent the breakdown of vital nutrients during cooking so that when you add spices or herbs, your food tastes better and is actually healthier for you.

All of this and then some is nicely summarized in The Primal Blueprint Food Pyramid (click to enlarge).

Follow those basic guidelines and avoid the foods I’ve already mentioned, and you’re good to go.

If you want some concrete recipe ideas, check out the resources I introduced in lesson 2: the online recipe guide on Mark’s Daily Apple, the reader-created cookbooks, The Primal Blueprint Cookbook and The Primal Blueprint Quick & Easy Meals.

Or, if you want to make something a little quicker and easier, I’ve got you covered. I realize that not everyone always has time to prepare a proper meal. I certainly don’t, which is why I created Primal Fuel, a whole foods-based meal replacement shake. Coconut fat, whey isolate protein (the gold standard of protein powders), natural sweeteners, real cocoa or vanilla, and prebiotic fiber for good gut health… I have a Primal Fuel shake nearly every day and it’s perfectly Primal (and tasty, too!).

So – what do you think? A “diet” composed of fresh meat, all the veggies you want, plenty of fruit, a few nuts, somedelicious fat, and a diverse arsenal of spices and herbs doesn’t sound so restrictive, does it?

Stay tuned for Lesson 5 tomorrow.