SSRI Antidepressants Put Patients at Clear Risk of Suicide

gun_pills

By Dr. Mercola

It is now estimated that 1 in 8 Americans are on serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) antidepressants1 and a shocking 1 in 4 among women in their 40s and 50s.2 Yet the U.S. suicide rate of 38,000 a year has never been higher.3

Clearly the glut of SSRI prescriptions is not lowering the national suicide rate; rather there is compelling evidence that the popular pills are actually contributing to suicide.

SSRIs and Violence

The first suspicion that SSRIs can cause dangerous and unintended psychiatric effects was a Kentucky shooting in 19894 in which pressman Joseph T. Wesbecker entered his former workplace, Standard Gravure, killed eight people, injured 12 and committed suicide after being prescribed Prozac.

Families of the wounded and killed soon filed a lawsuit against Prozac maker Eli Lilly and Company, claiming the SSRI contributed to the violence. The case went to a jury that sided with Lilly.

Yet three days before the shooting, Wesbecker’s psychiatrist had written “Prozac?” in his patient notes as a possible explanation of his bizarre behavior.

Since the Standard Gravure killings, psychiatrists, drug safety advocates and bereaved families have consistently tried to expose links between SSRIs and suicides but are hampered by mainstream safety data that deny a suicide link.

Study Suggests ‘No Suicide Link’ Is Not to Be Trusted

However, a recent study suggests the “no suicide links” findings are not necessarily to be trusted, noting that: “Therapists should be aware of the lack of proof from RCTs (randomized control trials) that antidepressants prevent suicides and suicide attempts.”5

Dr. David Healy, professor of psychiatry at Bangor University and author of 20 books including “The Antidepressant Era,” “The Creation of Psychopharmacology,” “Let Them Eat Prozac,” “Mania,” and “Pharmageddon,” heartily agrees that the SSRI statistics given to the public is problematic.6

“People haven’t had access to the data. There have been no publications around it. This is one of the biggest problems on which there’s a huge amount of data, but to which we’ve got little or no access …

If we were getting our drug information from The New York Times instead of medical journals, we would all be a lot safer. When the Times reporter Jayson Blair was found to have fabricated stories, he was history.

But the editors and writers involved with journal fraud still have their jobs and the articles are not even retracted. In fact, Liz Wager, Ph.D., the chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is herself Pharma-linked.”

The COPE website said about Wager,7 its former chair, “Liz provides writing, editing, training and consultancy services for various pharmaceutical companies” (most recently AstraZeneca, Cephalon, Cordis Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Norgine, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Pasteur and Vifor Pharma) at the time of the interview with Healy.

Healy estimates as many as 1,000 to 2,000 Americans on SSRIs kill themselves each year, when they otherwise would not have done so. Violent acts against others and birth defects are also linked to the pills, he says.

Suicides Linked to Antidepressants Number in the Thousands

Even as high level links between medical editors and the drug industry prevented accurate information from reaching the public, in 1997, drug safety activists launched a website called SSRIstories.com,8 which archived credible and published reports that cite the role of SSRIs and related antidepressants in suicides and other violent behavior.

There are now thousands of entries. “The kind of energy, rage and insanity seen in a lot of crimes today was not seen before SSRIs appeared,” said Rosie Meysenburg, a founder of the website in an interview shortly before her death.9

In addition to the thousands of suicides, “there are two cases of women on the SSRI Stories site who stab a man close to 200 times and a case of a man who stabs his wife over 100 times and then goes next door to the neighbor’s house and stabbed the neighbor’s furniture about 500 times.”

The SSRI stories archive includes people on SSRIs setting themselves on fire, violent elderly people (which is rare) and bizarre cases of kleptomania and female school teachers molesting their minor male students. The common denominator in all the recorded crimes is the drug.

Drug companies routinely blame suicides on the depression that was being treated, not the drugs — but the experiences of patients treated with the same drugs for non-mental indications like pain and the experiences of healthy volunteers cannot be written off as the “disease.”

The Dark Side of Cymbalta

In 2004, 19-year-old Traci Johnson who had no history of mental problems hung herself in the Eli Lilly Clinic in Indianapolis while testing the drug giant’s serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine, sold under the brand name Cymbalta, a type of antidepressant similar to SSRIs.10

The suicide did not delay the drug’s approval and wide use. In 2008, the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology describes a 37-year-old man with a stable marriage, stable employment and no history of mental problems trying to kill himself two months after being prescribed Cymbalta for back pain.

“The patient was unable to state exactly why he wanted to commit suicide,” wrote the four physician authors in the report, also noting that the man returned to normal when the drug was stopped.

The authors also report a 63-year-old man with no mental health history becoming suicidal two weeks after being put on Cymbalta for fatigue, insomnia and sadness, yet he too was “unable to explain why he was having thoughts of wanting to die.”

Other cases of healthy people committing suicide on Cymbalta have been reported11 and many still remember the suicide of Carol Gotbaum at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport who was on the drug. She was the stepdaughter-in-law of New York City’s public advocate at the time, Betsy Gotbaum.

Writing for Slate, reporter Jeanne Lenzer identified 13 suicides12 linked to Cymbalta besides Traci Johnson. Eli Lilly wanted to market the drug as a treatment for urinary incontinence too but withdrew its application and would not release the study data to Lenzer, she says. It may well have contained more evidence of suicide side effects.

The Drug Industry Still Fights Black Box Warnings Added in 2004

In 2004,13 in response to the outcry over antidepressant-linked suicides, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directed drug makers to add a “Black Box” warning to SRRIs and related psychiatric drugs, highlighting suicide risks and the need for close monitoring of children and adolescents for suicidal thoughts and behavior.

“Today’s actions represent FDA’s conclusions about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and the necessary actions for physicians prescribing these antidepressant drugs and for the children and adolescents taking them.

Our conclusions are based on the latest and best science. They reflect what we heard from our advisory committee last month, as well as what many members of the public have told us,” said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, acting FDA commissioner at the time.

Unfortunately, then and now, drug industry funded doctors have tried to claim that the warnings scare doctors and patients away and heighten suicide. While it would be ridiculous to blame obesity on tighter restriction of obesity drugs, that is essentially what drug industry spokesmen have done with SSRI warnings and continue to do.

Even The New York Times was misled by such disinformation, reporting that SSRI warnings were causing a leap in suicides.

Journalist Alison Bass, however, revealed14 the paper on which the Times article was based was funded by a $30,000 Pfizer grant. The conclusions about higher suicides also turned out to be wrong because the researcher got his years mixed up.15

Contrary to drug industry claims about the warnings, the proportion of children and teens taking antidepressants actually rose in the U.S. after the Black Box was added from more than 1 percent to nearly 2 percent says Dr. Andrea Cipriani, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Oxford, in England.16

Still, both David Shern, Ph.D., president of Mental Health America, a group investigated by Congress for undisclosed industry funding17 and Dr. Charles Nemeroff, also investigated by Congress, blamed18 the Black Box warnings for rising suicides. Speaking to ABC News, Nemeroff said:19

“I have no doubt that there is such a relationship. The concerns about antidepressant use in children and adolescents have paradoxically resulted in a reduction in their use, and this has contributed to increased suicide rates.”

False Charges About Black Box Warnings Continue

Nemeroff left his post at Emory University in disgrace because of his drug industry links20 and a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant he managed was suspended because of the conflicts of interest — a rare occurrence.21 Nor have the false charges about Black Boxes died down. Here is how a New York Times editorial read just last year.22

“Worse, antidepressants, which can be lifesaving, are probably being underused in young people. Their use fell significantly after the FDA issued its so-called black-box warning in 2004, stating that all antidepressants were associated with a risk of increased suicidal feeling, thinking and behavior in adolescents. That warning was later extended to young adults.

It’s not hard to understand why. The FDA’s well-intended warning was alarming to the public and most likely discouraged many patients from taking antidepressants. Physicians, too, were anxious about the admittedly small possible risks posed by antidepressants and were probably more reluctant to prescribe them.

This very small risk of suicidal behavior posed by antidepressant treatment has always been dwarfed by the deadly risk of untreated depression … Parents and teenagers, and their doctors, too, should not be afraid of antidepressants and should know that they can be very helpful. Indeed, with careful use and monitoring, they can be lifesaving. The only thing we should all fear is depression, a natural killer that we can effectively treat.”

Blaming underuse of drugs and falling sales on warnings that made patients or doctors “anxious” is not limited to antidepressants. Recently, industry-funded groups charged that warnings on the bone drugs called bisphosphonates about fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw were scaring patients and doctors away and denying patients the drugs’ benefits.23

SSRIs Ignored in the Extremely High Rate of Suicide in the Military

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, troop suicides were higher than combat fatalities themselves and the majority of the suicides were among troops who had never even deployed.24 But when a long awaited Army report came out, it largely blamed soldiers themselves for the deaths, especially highlighting illegal drug usage and barely mentioning the huge number of troops on prescription psychoactive drugs. In fact, the word “illicit” appears 150 times in the Army report and “psychiatrist” appears twice.25

At the time of the Army report, 73,103 prescriptions for Zoloft had been dispensed to troops, 38,199 for Prozac, 17,830 for Paxil and 12,047 for Cymbalta.26 In fact 4,994 troops at Fort Bragg alone were reported to be on antidepressants by the Fayetteville Observer.

Four years after the Army report, researchers addressed the military suicides in JAMA Psychiatry27 again not finding or considering the high prescribing of SSRIs within the military. The authors had financial links to Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire and Johnson & Johnson.

In a series during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars called “Medicating the Military,” when SSRI use was mushrooming, Military Times reported:28

“A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

Troops and military health care providers also told Military Times that these medications are being prescribed, consumed, shared and traded in combat zones — despite some restrictions on the deployment of troops using those drugs. The investigation also shows that drugs originally developed to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are now commonly used to treat symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as headaches, nightmares, nervousness and fits of anger.

Such ‘off-label’ use — prescribing medications to treat conditions for which the drugs were not formally approved by the FDA — is legal and even common. But experts say the lack of proof that these treatments work for other purposes, without fully understanding side effects, raises serious concerns about whether the treatments are safe and effective.”

Many military administrators have unabashed drug company links, like Dr. Matthew Friedman, former executive director of the Veterans Affairs’ National Center for PTSD,29 who admitted receiving AstraZeneca money in a video on the Center’s site a few years ago (a video since taken down) and served as Pfizer Visiting Professor while helming a government organization.30

Recently, the Annals of Internal Medicine ran another study looking at military suicides without finding an antidepressant role. The study’s editors at the Annals had links31 to Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Considering all the risks associated with antidepressants, it would be wise to use them as a very last resort. To learn more about safer treatment options, please see my previous article, “Supplements Proven Beneficial for Your Mental Health.”

Source:  http://articles.mercola.com

Brazil opens probe as cases of Zika babies defy predicted patterns

© Daniel Ramalho for The Globe and Mail The bulk of the cases of congenital Zika syndrome, fetal brain defects that sometimes cause microcephaly, remain clustered in the northeast region of Brazil, leading experts to wonder if there are other contributing factors.

© Daniel Ramalho for The Globe and Mail
The bulk of the cases of congenital Zika syndrome, fetal brain defects that sometimes cause microcephaly, remain clustered in the northeast region of Brazil, leading experts to wonder if there are other contributing factors.

Brazil’s Ministry of Health has launched an investigation into the cluster of babies born with brain defects linked to the Zika virus, after an expected “explosion” of cases across the country did not occur.

The bulk of the cases of congenital Zika syndrome – fetal brain defects that sometimes cause microcephaly, or abnormally small skulls – remain clustered in the northeast region of the country where the phenomenon was first identified last October, the ministry says.

And that has epidemiologists and infectious disease experts asking what is going on: Is it Zika and another virus working together that damages the fetal brains? Is it Zika and an environmental factor? Or something about the women themselves whose fetuses are affected?

The research in Brazil won’t have conclusions for months, but will have implications across the Americas, where the Brazilian experience and the rapid spread of Zika has caused governments to take protective measures and even warn women to delay getting pregnant.

“We can see there is a kind of cluster in [part of] the northeast region with high prevalence and high severity, of miscarriage and congenital malformation that is really severe,” said Fatima Marinho, co-ordinator of epidemiological analysis and information at the ministry.

But we didn’t find this in other states – even the [adjacent] states didn’t see the same situation as in the epicentre…. We were preparing for an explosion and it didn’t come.

“So we started to think that in this central area maybe more than Zika is causing this intensity and severity.”

A central theory the ministry is now exploring is whether co-infection with other viruses, such as dengue or chikungunya, is the factor. For example, does a mother’s previous (or simultaneous) infection with dengue, which is also ubiquitous in Brazil, mean that the Zika virus affects a fetus differently? Or is it other viruses?

“This is an area that was under attack by viruses: Some parts even had measles,” during the period when the bulk of the congenital Zika babies were conceived, Dr. Marinho said.

The ministry is also looking at social determinants, she said, because initial analysis makes it clear the women with affected fetuses have a clear “profile.” Some 77 per cent of them are black or mixed-race (the national figure is 52 per cent), and the great majority are poor. That’s surprising, she said, given that dengue, for example, carried by the same mosquito, infects people across social classes. Most of the mothers are young (between 14 and 24) whereas typically birth defects affect older women.

The World Health Organization is supporting research into co-factors. “Even though a causal link between Zika virus and congenital malformations has been conclusively demonstrated as published in international peer-reviewed scientific publications, other factors that may aggravate these conditions also require investigation,” said Sylvain Aldighieri, incident manager for Zika with the Pan American branch of the WHO.

“I totally agree some co-factors are likely involved,” said Eduardo Marques, a professor of infectious disease and microbiology at the University of Pittsburgh and scientific director of a program called Cura Zika. But it isn’t the cluster that convinces him: “It’s because not every woman exposed during pregnancy has a baby with the congenital effects.”

But not all epidemiologists concur: “I think it’s too early to say there is a disparity in the rate of microcephaly,” said Laura Rodrigues, a professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who has been working on Brazil’s Zika epidemic since it was first identified. The epidemic is nearly a year behind in its spread in some other countries and perhaps other parts of Brazil, she said. “So maybe haven’t got to the peak. But that’s not to say we shouldn’t think about co-factors.”

Because the virus produces no symptoms in up to 80 per cent of people who get it, and only mild symptoms in many others, few people confirm Zika infection with laboratory tests, and so statistics of Zika cases are always estimates. The virus currently infecting Brazilians is a new, Asian strain of Zika, which was identified more than 60 years ago but never associated with congenital problems, or known to be sexually transmissible, as this strain is.

After Brazil, the next country that was expected to see the wave of congenital Zika was Colombia, which has the second-largest number of reported Zika cases. But of more than 12,000 pregnant Colombian women with Zika, only 21 have had fetuses or babies with the brain defects.

Dr. Marinho, with the ministry, said this reinforces her suspicions about the role of co-infection or other factors in Brazil. Dr. Marques said Colombia is only seeing the babies of women who were infected late in their pregnancies so far (because the virus season is about six months behind, further to the north) and the evidence is that the likelihood of damage by Zika is higher earlier in gestation – so those babies may yet come.

But Dr. Rodrigues had another explanation. “Now we know that in places where Zika comes the rate of abortion shoots up,” she said. “The feminist groups that will send pills by post to women … as a way of making up for the unfairness of the restrictive abortion laws, report an enormous increase in requests from Brazil and Latin America. I wouldn’t be surprised if when we look at cohorts in other counties, pregnancies disappear, and we can’t say if it was spontaneous or medical abortion.”

Researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine on July 28 that in Latin American countries where the new strain of Zika is spreading and abortion is illegal, there has been a huge spike in the number of requests to Women on Web, a Dutch-based organization which proves women with online consultations and then mails the drugs to induce a medical abortion. The increase over the rate of requests last year ranges from 38 per cent to 108 per cent in Brazil. (Brazilian authorities are now intercepting all deliveries to Brazilian women, the group said.)

On July 15, Adriana Melo, a fetal medicine specialist in the state of Paraiba who was the first to find Zika in the brains of affected babies, released research in which she and her co-authors report finding proteins of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), a cattle disease, in the brains of three fetuses with microcephaly from Paraiba whose brains also tested positive for RNA from the Zika virus. BVDV is known to cause serious birth defects in cows, but not to infect people. The findings were posted on BioArchive, a U.S.-based website for scientists to quickly share research findings on urgent matters, before peer review and publication. Their hypothesis is that Zika infection may weaken physiological barriers, so the cow virus that would not normally affect a human fetus can cause damage.

However other researchers are expressing skepticism of this theory – and Dr. Melo and her colleagues acknowledged the possibility that the BVDV they found was the result of sample contamination, because the virus is often found in fetal bovine serum, which is a reagent (a substance used in chemical analysis) frequently used in laboratories.

Dr. Marinho is at pains to make clear that the health ministry does not doubt that Zika is the primary cause of the fetal brain damage. (Brazilian doctors were quick to persuade the ministry of the link last year, but had a much longer job to convince the World Health Organization, which declared an emergency over microcephaly only in February.) Then conspiracy theories tore through the public in Brazil and beyond – that microcephaly was actually caused by a pesticide, or vaccines, or genetically modified mosquitoes – and she does not want to revive that debate.

“We know here Zika caused neurological damage – we have no doubt – but the question is how can we explain this situation in the epicentre that was not reproduced in other areas – in Colombia, and in other states in Brazil. A lot of pregnant women were infected and there were few cases of microcephaly or congenital malformation – it must be more than Zika itself,” she said. “We could be wrong of course but it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to investigate all possibilities.”

Beneath all of these theories lies a fundamental problem with data. Until this crisis, Brazil had very weak reporting of microcephaly, with rates in some areas reported as 1,000 times lower than in Europe even though researchers have every reason to believe that it occurred at roughly the same rates.

With the emergency declared, health workers suddenly erred in the wrong direction, overreporting microcephaly. Almost none of the women with affected babies had a serologically confirmed Zika diagnosis. Beyond that, Dr. Melo and her colleagues realized many of the worst-affected babies had completely normal looking skulls, and it was not until they showed neurological problems that they were reported as Zika-affected. She told The Globe in February that it was impossible to know how many had slipped through the net and were as yet undiagnosed. In addition, an unknown number of affected pregnancies ended in miscarriage.

The current epidemiological info is very fragile, so how do we know, for example, that we didn’t have an explosion of cases in Rio in 2014 and we didn’t pick it up?” asked Dr. Marques.

The Asian strain of Zika hit French Polynesia in 2013 and researchers have gone back to retrospectively diagnose 17 cases of babies born with microcephaly in a total population of 275,000 people – but researchers hotly debate how useful that information is for indicating the likelihood of co-factors, since it’s retrospective and based on modelling. In addition, while Zika was not known to be related to fetal development problems at the time, abortion is legal in French Polynesia and women who were told their babies had brain defects could have terminated their pregnancies.

Brazil has 1,749 cases of confirmed congenital Zika syndrome so far, with 106 stillbirths and deaths. Dr. Marinho said it will be months before the ministry has solid data to confirm that the cases are clustered and there are co-factors involved, let alone what they are, and meanwhile congenital Zika remains a real threat: Paraiba is now seeing a second wave of cases. “But this could be good news, for other areas of Brazil, and other countries,” she said.

Less Than 3 Percent of Americans Live a Healthy Lifestyle

TUESDAY, March 22, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Do you get a moderate amount of exercise, eat right, keep from piling on fat and avoid smoking? Congratulations, you’re among the 2.7 percent of Americans who do so, according to a new study.

Researchers say that, unfortunately, the other 97.3 percent of American adults get a failing grade on healthy lifestyle habits.

 The study looked at data on more than 4,700 people who took part in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Survey. The researchers assessed how many people followed four general “principles of healthy living” — a good diet, moderate exercise, not smoking and keeping body fat under control.

“The behavior standards we were measuring for were pretty reasonable, not super high. We weren’t looking for marathon runners,” said study senior author Ellen Smit, an associate professor at the OSU College of Public Health and Human Sciences, in Corvallis.

In fact, the standards used in the study are typical of lifestyle advice given by doctors to their patients, Smit’s team said. People who adhere to those four behaviors can help reduce their risk of many health problems, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Unfortunately, less than 3 percent of the adults in the study achieved all four of the healthy living measures, the researchers found.

Overall, 71 percent of the adults surveyed did not smoke, 38 percent ate a healthy diet, 10 percent had a normal body fat percentage and 46 percent got sufficient amounts of physical activity.

Sixteen percent had three of the healthy lifestyle behaviors, 37 percent had two, 34 percent had one and 11 percent had none.

Among the other findings: women were more likely than men to not smoke and to eat a healthy diet, but they were less likely to have adequate physical activity levels. And when it came to race, Mexican-Americans were more likely to eat a healthy diet than blacks or whites.

The study was conducted by researchers at Oregon State University, the University of Mississippi and the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga.

In terms of public health, the findings are disappointing, Smit said in an OSU news release.

“This is pretty low, to have so few people maintaining what we would consider a healthy lifestyle,” she said. “This is sort of mind boggling. There’s clearly a lot of room for improvement.”

Further research is needed to identify ways to get American adults to adopt more healthy lifestyle habits, the experts said.

The study was published recently in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Source:  http://health.usnews.com/

Do You Put Butter In Your Coffee? Maybe You Should.

For many, the morning cup of coffee is a can’t live without ritual. There are studies that show moderated daily coffee is healthy for you (some of that here). For me, it kind of makes me shaky. I drink it few and far between. That’s a personal thing, of course. However, when I do drink it, I always put butter in it. As weird as it sounds, it’s actually the best thing you can put in your coffee.

When I get in line at Starbucks, I order a plain black coffee and ask them for a side of butter. They give me some pretty odd looks, but what I already know is that every Starbucks has butter packets on hand to go along with their oatmeal.  And what’s more? It’s Kerrygold Irish butter. And that’s grass fed.

So what health benefit would one get from this?

Coffee can be a starting point for health, but it can also be an ending point just as easily. People order / make their coffee in all shapes and sizes. Some people add sugar laden creamers or hormone laced milk. While others might just add a little cinnamon. Those concoctions offer vastly different health profiles. Having just sugar and caffeine first thing in the morning sets up impending doom for the rest of your day. You are almost sure to crash out at some point, only to find yourself digging around for candy or a muffin.

The first health benefit you get from putting only butter in your coffee is that you are leaving out the bad stuff. A huge part of a healthy lifestyle is what you don’t eat. The butter is a fat, which will also help blunt blood sugar spikes.

Butter is almost a pure fat. That’s going to scare a lot of you, but really, it shouldn’t. Fat is good (mostly). And the idea that fat is a villain has been almost entirely debunked at this juncture. Saturated fats can actually improve your blood lipid profile (here).

3313175215_168430cb3a_kerrygold-butterGrass fed butter is loaded with Vitamin K. Wait, what? Vitamin K is awesome.  And it’s sure great for the heart. There is K1 (phylloquinone), found in leafy greens, and Vitamin K2 (menaquinone), which is found in animal foods. Vitamin K2 is especially important because it helps keep calcium out of your arteries.

So far, what do we have? Putting butter in your coffee means skipping garbage sugary or hormone laced concoctions. Your arteries are less likely to be subject to calcification. You reduce your risk of coronary heart disease (here).

But hold up, its going to get better.

Person drinking coffee with butter in it…..meet Butyrate. Butyrate is a fatty acid and it is anti-inflammatory. Inflammation is pretty much the cause of all evil in the body. When excessive inflammation lurks, so does bad healthy profiles. Butyrate is shown to lower inflammation (here).

CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) is found in grass fed butter and it has been linked to reducing body fat mass. Yep, your old coffee was plumping you up, your new coffee is slimming you down! You can see a study here.

But how gross does it taste?

I get this question all the time. The answer is that it taste great. And no, I’m not just saying that. You have to stop thinking of it as butter, and start understanding that at the end of the day, it is just heavy cream. If you put butter and cinnamon in your coffee, it taste amazing. Now, again, we are talking grass fed butter here, not just any old butter. The most popular is Kerrygold butter, but if you have a store that sells local products you can likely find whatever suits you.

The point in all of this? Your morning coffee can be a true health bomb!

Earth shattering, pigs flying, Hell freezing nutrition news

The proverbial brick wall of bad dietary advice is a-crumblin’. This week brings truly world-changing news in the field of nutrition.

On May 8, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) made its official comments on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and recommend dropping saturated fat from nutrients of concern due to the lack of evidence connecting it with cardiovascular disease.

However, because past advice from the Academy and others has caused issues with ALL of our body systems, I would also argue that this is actually earth-shattering news in the world of cardiology, nephrology, lipidology, endocrinology, pulmonology, orthopedics…. you get the point.

The Academy supported the scientific process used by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) in drafting its recommendations for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but had somewhat different interpretations:

  1. They supported the DGAC in its decision to drop dietary cholesterol from the nutrients of concern list and recommended that it also drop saturated fat from nutrients of concern, citing a lack of evidence connecting saturated fat with cardiovascular disease;
  2. Expressed concern over blanket sodium (salt) restriction recommendations in light of recent evidence of potential harm to the larger population;
  3. Supported an increased focus on reduction of added sugars as a key public health concern; and
  4. Asserted that enhanced nutrition education is critical to any effective implementation.

Why is all of this so earth-shattering? Well, it brings an end to the era of jumping to conclusions and issuing recommendations before we had the science. It brings an end to a big experiment on the American people and, by extension, the rest of the world, which has failed miserably. It is an acknowledgment that the recommendations to restrict fat, most particularly saturated fat, which led to the recommendation to eat more than half of our energy intake EVERY day from carbohydrates was…WRONG! Yes, the food pyramid, eating sugared cardboard products and highly processed vegetable oil instead of real foods like meat and eggs were all just, I have to say it again, plain WRONG.

 

AcademyRecs

As an obesity physician who sees the fallout from the previous guidelines in the poor health of my patients every day, I am thrilled. I am thrilled because this means that more people will be helped. More people can realize that much of the reason that they are obese, have diabetes, high cholesterol, or metabolic syndrome is NOT all their fault. Yes, I really just said that. (What? Not blame a fat person for being fat? Uh, exactly. )

This is not news for the community of bariatrics physicians. We knew that fat was not the cause of the disease we treat nor for the related diseases, such as diabetes or metabolic syndrome. In fact, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture and later the American Dietetic Association (now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) began recommending reducing fat and pushing an increased intake of carbs was exactly the years when our obesity and diabetes epidemic began. Just a correlation? We have much reason to think it is far more than correlation and is actually the cause.

That’s why in a recent TEDx Purdue talk I gave it the title “Reversing Type 2 diabetes starts with ignoring the guidelines.” The guidelines have been misguided for years, and work against patients with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, or metabolic syndrome.

Source: http://fitteru.us

The Fat Lie

Download (PDF, 1.78MB)