American Heart Association's view on Coconut Oil

I provide this for information; readers of this page should make up their own minds about the subject (but see our earlier post from Laurence Eyres).  The article is reproduced unchanged in it's entirety.

This article was published by Ashley May in USA Today Network: https://www.usatoday.com/…/coconut-oil-isnt-heal…/402719001/

The American Heart Association recently released a report advising against the use of coconut oil.

The Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease advisory reviewed existing data on saturated fat, showing coconut oil increased LDL ("bad") cholesterol in seven out of seven controlled trials. Researchers didn't see a difference between coconut oil and other oils high in saturated fat, like butter, beef fat and palm oil. In fact, 82% of the fat in coconut oil is saturated, according to the data — far beyond butter (63%), beef fat (50%) and pork lard (39%).
"Because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause of CVD [cardiovascular disease], and has no known offsetting favorable effects, we advise against the use of coconut oil," the American Heart Association said in the Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease advisory.
Frank Sacks, lead author on the report, said he has no idea why people think coconut oil is healthy. It's almost 100% fat. Past weight loss studies might be responsible.
“The reason coconut oil is so popular for weight loss is partly due to my research on medium chain triglycerides," Marie-Pierre St-Onge, associate professor of nutritional medicine at Cornell University Medical School, told TIME in April. "Coconut oil has a higher proportion of medium-chain triglycerides than most other fats or oils, and my research showed eating medium-chain triglycerides may increase the rate of metabolism more than eating long-chain triglycerides.”
The problem is St-Onge's research used a "designer oil" packed with 100% MCTs. Traditional coconut oil only contains about 13 to 15%. Another study she published showed smaller doses of MCTs doesn't help with weight loss in overweight adolescents.
The AHA recommends eating no more than 6% of saturated fat as part of total daily calories for those who need lower cholesterol.
Before you trash your coconut oil, know that saturated fat is a loaded term. While the AHA warns against it, people who cut saturated fat out of their diet might not necessarily lower their heart disease risk, a 2015 BMJ review suggested. That's because some people fill the void with sugar, white flour and empty calories. Also, some fat is important to help bodies absorb nutrients from other foods. Many have said butter has gotten a bad reputation.
Still, it might not be a bad idea to opt for vegetable oils or olive oil, Stacks said. Plus, coconut oil can still be an effective moisturizer or hair conditioner.
"You can put it on your body, but don’t put it in your body," Sacks said.

Coconut oil isn't healthy. It's never been healthy.

“We advise against the use of coconut oil," the American Heart Association says in a new report.

usatoday.com

Potential deleterious effects of oxidised fish oils

Scientists are often misunderstood and maligned by the general population and by writers of popular diet and health articles.  However, within the scientific community, publication of research and critical evaluation by other scientists is the norm, and leads to greater understanding of our health and wellbeing.

Our friend and colleague, Dr. Laurence Eyres, is a fats and oils chemist.  He has written the following article on studies concerning oxidised fish oil.  

Oxidised Fish Oil

The authors of a controversial fish oil supplements paper have published another paper on the potential deleterious effects of oxidised fish oils. This has now been picked up and blown out of context by The Listener in New Zealand (Week July 30-August 5).

The wider lipid scientific community were surprised and highly disappointed by the original early 2015 Nature Science Reports (NSR) paper by the University of Auckland.  The Therapeutic Goods Authority of Australia (TGA) performed follow up analyses, and all Australasian (ANZ) oils were not oxidised, and Omega-3 content met label claims. Earlier ANZ studies had reported similar findings but were not cited by the NZ authors.  These results have been communicated to NSR, and journal feedback is still being waited on.  The TGA took no actions against ANZ manufacturers, once again in keeping with the wider view that the fish oil products were meeting their omega-3 claims and were not heavily oxidised.

The justification for the new paper appears to be driven / justified by the NSR paper, which we refer to above.  This NSR paper remains in the strongest doubt/dispute.  The new paper uses heavily oxidised oil that the NZ authors prepare.  As ANZ fish oils are NOT oxidised, the study is seen as not relevant.  This is the view of many scientists who have seen the new paper.  The peroxide value (PV) result of the oil, indicating primary oxidation, is exceptionally high, further indicating that the use of such an oil is not relevant.  The dose used is equated to 40 mL per day for a human consumer.  This dose is seen as exceptionally excessive.  Few consumers would be taking more than 1-3 g per day. Nutritionists would advise increasing the level of Vitamin E if high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids are used for feeding any mammal.

The unoxidised oil actually and interestingly shows improvement in the new paper versus the control treatment, although little is stated by the NZ authors on this aspect. Also the unoxidised oil had improved survival rates in the studied rats, and so whilst we totally agree that women who are pregnant should not consume rancid oils, they do need omega-3.

This author spoke about oxidised lipids at the recent NZIFST conference.  The oils and fats group has held several seminars on the toxicity of oxidised fat over the years and it has been a stance of ours that we should not consume any oxidised oils. There are many other significant sources of oxidised fats in normal human diets other than fish oil. These include used and abused frying fats, bottled oils and rancid nuts such as walnuts. The topic of toxic aldehydes from such highly oxidised fats was covered in a recent issue of Inform magazine.

The authors in their introduction state “that in animal models, exposure to oxidised lipids has been shown to cause harm, including growth retardation, organ toxicity, and accelerated atherosclerosis.  However, the effects of consuming oxidised lipids during pregnancy are unknown. For this reason, this latest study was designed to investigate the effects of fish oil supplementation during pregnancy on the adult offspring of rats fed a high-fat diet, and they also included oxidised fish oil groups. As obesity is associated with increased oxidative stress and greater production of oxidised lipids, the effects of an oxidised lipid supplement may be more marked in obese mothers. 

The study is very interesting and will be probably the subject of more media hype.  However, a couple of comments. The fish oil (unspecified as to composition) was oxidised artificially to really highly rancid and toxic levels and then used in the rats at levels 20-40 times a normal human dose.

Any relevance to the consumption of omega-3 supplements in humans is likely to be none.

Cutfield,W.,et.al.  http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/early/2016/07/06/ajpregu.00005.2016.full.pdf+html 

The recent non-scientific comments about eating fat

I recently saw this post on the supposed benefits of consuming coconut oil every day.  Typical of this sort of web post, the wide-ranging claims were not substantiated by reference to any peer-reviewed scientific publications.  Dr. Laurence Eyres, our resident expert on fats and oils, gave the following response:

We have recently seen articles that we can eat as much saturated fat as we wish and that coconut oil is a superfood!

The critics of the saturated fat hypothesis have used the fact that the direct correlation between total saturated fatty acids and risk factors for coronary heart disease is not very good. Mensink (2003) did a meta- analysis of 60 studies and found convincing evidence for the risk lowering benefits of replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats. In New Zealand we have seen media reports that the "Scientists got it all wrong" and that in fact we can all eat as much saturated fat as we desire. The popular press media picked this up, misinterpreted the scientific findings and announced that now everyone could eat as much bacon, eggs and cream as one wished.  There have also been unsubstantiated and erroneous claims made for coconut oil.

This advice is incorrect, unethical and irresponsible. Heart disease rates have been plummeting across the developed world, with the greatest declines in countries like New Zealand - countries where saturated fat consumption used to be among the world's highest but has plummeted after people switched from butter, full cream milk and dripping to margarine, low-fat milks and vegetable oils, and from fatty red meat to lean red meat and chicken. According to my friend and colleague Dr. Rod Jackson, who is Professor of Epidemiology at Auckland University, it makes no sense to deny the facts surrounding the corresponding fall in saturated fat and heart disease.  New Zealand in 1968 had a major epidemic of heart disease which led the medical fraternity to lobby government to change the law to allow the introduction of polyunsaturated margarine. Since that time saturated fat consumption has fallen dramatically, and unsaturated vegetable oil consumption has increased significantly; during this period we have seen a 90% reduction in mortality rates from heart disease (Skeaff, et.al., 2011).

 The reduction in CHD rates has coincided with a fall in the average cholesterol levels of the public.

Current risk factors for heart disease include high LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, age, overweight condition and level of fitness, along with inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and homocysteine. LDL cholesterol and blood pressure are the most reliable and consistent biomarkers.

We are not and have never said in our reviews that coconut oil is harmful. There is no evidence to suggests it has any health benefits, but as usual in diets, a small amount is fine so long as you are not at risk with some of the adverse factors mentioned above.

Dr. Laurence Eyres FNZIFST

October 2015

ISAGENIX: EXPENSIVE STARVATION

I asked my colleague, Professor of Nutrition Elaine Rush of Auckland University of Technology, to comment on the Isagenix diet that has currently raised controversy with the claim that it is "kid-approved".  She currently has students visiting from Mexico who have studied the diet and kindly suggested that, under her supervision, they could write a critique of the Isagenix diet.  The following is their article reproduced without change.

ISAGENIX: EXPENSIVE STARVATION

In the last few months Isagenix has been gaining popularity among New Zealand residents. The Isagenix products are branded as “an opportunity for health, wealth and happiness”. Its 30-day program is advertised as “the first step to managing your weight”. For those who haven’t heard about Isagenix, its program is based in two principles: shake days (meal replacements) and cleansing days, but is it really as healthy as it is branded? 

Evidence has shown that meal replacements and an individualized healthy diet can successfully achieve weight loss. Maybe Isagenix is a good idea, but let’s take a minute to look at it a little bit closer.

First of all, before a diet is started it’s important to know if it is affordable. The cost for the 30-day program is $457.75; suggested products (e+SHOT, Isadelight PLUS, and Want More Energy?) have an extra charge. If someone’s planning to follow the 30-day Isagenix Programme, they would be spending approximately $573.71. These costs don’t include lunch, making it around $600.00 for a month. Some people might not mind the cost if they’re losing weight very fast. However, what if we told you that rather than being healthy, it is more like starving yourself?

When analyzing the nutritional content of the 30-day program, we found the average energy intake for a shake day is 1300 kcal and for a cleanse day is 280 kcal. So, the rapid weight loss is attributed to the extreme calorie limitation, not to the products themselves. It is easier to quit when results are observed than to keep up with such a restrictive diet for a long period of time. This type of regimen doesn’t focus on healthy eating, leading to weight gain as soon as the diet is discontinued. Additionally, the continuing effectiveness of the programme hasn’t been studied in clinical trials.

Another important aspect about the products are their protein content; based on the Daily Recommended Intake (DRIs) for an average adult (0.8 to 1 g/kg/day), people under this plan are at risk of consuming less or more protein than needed. On the other hand, if a person is following the instructions as referred in the program, he/she would not be consuming the DRIs for various essential nutrients, such as zinc, vitamin C, vitamin A, and calcium. In the long-term, these deficiencies or excesses could develop into serious health problems. 

Cleansing days are also included on the program. For these types of diets, there is no evidence that explains its mechanism of cleansing or justifies its use. The human body has its own detoxifying system responsible for the elimination of waste products, making it unnecessary to look for other means of detoxification.

Based on the mentioned facts, it’s unbelievable that Isagenix promotes its products as a healthy way to lose weight, right? But, in addition can you imagine they promote their products as “safe for children”? If this kind of diet isn’t safe for adults, how can it be safe for children? 

Rocío Ayala Romero, María Fernanda Torres Ruíz

Students from Universidad de Sonora, México visiting Professor Elaine Rush, Auckland University of Technology.

Junk Food vs Real Food?

Many years ago, when I first started lecturing on Food Microbiology at the Department of Food Technology, Massey University, one of the staff members, for whom I have a great respect, Professor Mary Earle, said to me "There is no such thing as junk food, just poor food choices".

Unfortunately, the media love the words "junk food" and use them at every opportunity.  TVNZ One News published an article under the heading

"NZ's 'obesity crisis' won't be solved by dairy sweet ban - health expert".

Quoting from the article:  A new report from Auckland Regional Public Health Service has called for limits on how many convenience stores can set up in one area, and what foods they can sell to children.  The proposals were made in a report to obesity-fighting group Healthy Auckland Together, which plans to lobby for changes to the Resource Management Act to allow councils to govern where dairies, takeaways and other convenience stores can set up.

Speaking to TV ONE's Breakfast this morning, Boyd Swinburn, Professor of Population Nutrition and Global Health, said New Zealand could even consider a trial of a junkfood exclusion zone for dairies within a certain distance to a school, as is the case in Korea.

The liberal use of the term "junk food" in the article is an inappropriate catch-all. Do the authors mean to include hamburgers, pizza or fish and chips along with sweets? It can be argued that a hamburger is highly nutritious - protein (meat and possibly cheese), carbohydrate, salad vegetables. Possibly the sauce contains too much sugar. Another colleague, food technologist Garth Wallace, once said that a serve of fish and chips with some bread and butter and a glass of beer was a balanced meal.


The problem is not the food; it's the consumption pattern. If you eat hamburgers for every meal, you will soon begin to feel unwell, as demonstrated in a recent television documentary broadcast in New Zealand.  In addition, Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King's College, London, has published an article in The Conversation, "Your gut bacteria don't like junk food, even if you do". Note once again the words used to describe the diet. The article described an experiment carried out with his son Tom, who changed from an average western diet to an intensive fast food diet for a week. Tom's gut bacteria were analysed over the course of the experiment.  "Tom’s gut had seen massive shifts in his common microbe groups for reasons that are still unclear. Firmicutes were replaced with Bacteroidetes as the dominant type, while friendly bifidobacteria that suppress inflammation halved. However the clearest marker of an unhealthy gut is losing species diversity and after just a few days Tom had lost an estimated 1,400 species – nearly 40% of his total. The changes persisted and even two weeks after the diet his microbes had not recovered".

In my opinion, this is clear evidence that a proper balanced diet is the right way to maintain a healthy body and gut microbiome.  The components of the diet are much less important than the relative proportions and frequency of consumption.

This article represents my own opinions, and is not necessarily the view of NZIFST.

Would you eat transgenic food?

Many readers will immediately respond to the title of this post with a resounding "NO".

Don't be so hasty!

Looking close to home, we find that our own bodies contain many foreign genes.  It is estimated that around 8% of the human genome consists of fragments of endogenous retroviruses - about 100,000 of them.  Not all of these fragments are "junk" (a term the popular press is rather keen on).  A number of viral genes have been co-opted for our own purposes, in gene regulation, production of transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA.  One viral gene is critical to the formation of the placenta.  

On this basis, I'm not too surprised to read a piece of recent research* that shows that some of our vegetable crops are naturally transgenic.  Cultivated sweet potatoes contain the transfer DNA sequences from a bacterium called Agrobacterium.  This genus naturally infects the roots of certain plants, causing a nodule or hairy roots.  This T-DNA is not present in the wild type sweet potatoes, implying that one or more traits carried on this piece of DNA were selected for during the domestication of the sweet potato.

The authors of the paper point out that sweet potatoes have been consumed for millennia, and that this "may change the paradigm governing the “unnatural” status of transgenic crops."

If we look further, in my opinion, it is almost certain that we will find other bacterial or viral genes in our fruits and vegetables.


* The article is technical, but you can find it online

The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop

1.  Kyndt, T. et al.   

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419685112 

On sugar, sucrose, fructose. Lets get the terminology right!

The latest media blast of anti-sugar material again highlights the inaccuracy or lack of clarity in reporting these sorts of stories. Few interviewers are clear on the sugar/fructose/glucose ie sugar chemistry picture and let the interviewee swap from talking about sugar to fructose and back to sugar again without realising that there is a need for clarity.

High Fructose Corn Syrup 

Can we all, please, tell everyone we know, that New Zealand food manufacturers use sugar ie sucrose to sweeten foods, not, that is NOT High Fructose Corn Syrup. HFCS, the source of much of the fructose in US diets is largely used to sweeten 'sugary drinks’ there, as it is a cheaper option. In this country, HFCS is used as a texture modifier in very small quantities because it is a relatively expensive option.
Let’s get this clear!