Polly Curtis
Thursday March 9, 2006
The Guardian
London, UK


A diet rich in almonds, oatmeal and fish can be as good as clinically prescribed statins for reducing levels of cholesterol, researchers say in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition today.

Their study found high levels of "bad" low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were reduced by up to 20% among people on a diet of lean meats, tofu, barley and fruit and vegetables.

"This study is exciting because it shows an effective dietary approach to lowering cholesterol isn't as hard or as intimidating as we previously thought," said David Jenkins, one of the authors of the research, based at the University of Toronto.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1726752,00.html

Unfortunately, I can seem to find any more on this at the moment. perhaps if anyone else does, they can post it here.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/n...ols-cholesterol

I think plant sterols are almost as bad as statins themselves.

Here's the abstract at AJCN:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/3/582

Call me jaded, but I'm not impressed with this study and think the researchers conclusion that it was the soy, almonds and oats that made a difference shows their intent to maintain the bias.

I just went through the data and there's some interesting little nuggets - at baseline these folks were eating a diet well within the "heart healthy" guidelines already - 25.2% total fat, just 6.8% saturated fat, just 141.3mg of cholesterol daily on average (89.5mg/1000 calories, 1579 calories a day average) and the requisite almost 55% carbohydrate (54.6%).

Overall their cholesterol was *horrible* with this "heart healthy" diet!

TC = 261
LDL-C = 173
HDL-C = 48
TG = 203
TC/HDL Ratio = 5.76
(actually 5.44 based on above, the researchers pegged it at 5.76 reported actual not average of the above averages)

In the year they ate the modified diet (which by the way there was no control group to compare the modified against) they did see some improvement - but was it the almonds? or the soy? or the oats?

OR the added protein? OR the reduction in carbohydrate? OR the increased fiber which reduced net carbs further? OR the higher fat intake? OR the higher calorie load over the entire study - higher than baseline at every measure? OR the higher level of nutrients provided by the additional calories?

They're quick to point out that these folks ate low saturated fat, but if you do the math, they consumed the same amount of saturated fat - about 11.3g a day - at baseline and each time measure...their calories increased, so their percentage of calories from SFA decreased, but they still ate the same amount of SFA!

At the end of the year, their cholesterol, while it did improve, would still be setting off alarm bells in any doctor's office:

TC = 234 (borderline high)
LDL-C = 150 (borderline high)
HDL = 49
TG = 175 (borderline high)

TC/HDL Ratio = 5.03 (actual reported by researchers not average of average)
HIGH!!!!

So while they're trumpeting yet another study with way too many confoudning variables to be useful - the evidence from low-carb and controlled-carb studies show BETTER IMPROVEMENTS!

ReginaW - thanks for posting the link to the abstract at AJCN. It wasn't available when I tried this morning (UK time).

It seems to be a fairly meaningless study as reported. The study obviously didn't show what was expected. From the abstract's conclusion. That means that ~70% didn't get the LDL improvements. HDL levels stayed exactly the same.

Of course this is all nine steps removed from the REAL question here.

Would this 'diet' have ANY affect whatsoever on heart disease?

That is still a huge, hand-waving, crystal-ball GUESS.

Absolutely!!! It reminds me of the ads on TV for the statin Crestor. They talk about how great it is at lowering your LDL, and now recently they have started claiming that it raises HDL. But, in the fine print they go on to say that " Crestor has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacks."
But, at least your cholesterol will be lower!!! LOL

Wait a minute, don't knock Mandy Patimkin. He's still my favorite actor from The Princess Bride.

LOL, sorry. As an actor, he does a FINE job.

Oh yeah, he was great in the Princess Bride.
"Hello. My name eees Indeeego MonTOYa. You Keeel my Fatha. Pree Pare to DIE".

Anyway, I didn't like that study either. Thankfully, Regina W. has done the analysis and confirmed my suspicions. Thank you.

Anyone find out who the study was funded by? Buried in there you may notice "the Unilever Food and Health Research Institute, Unilever R&D, Vlaardingen, Netherlands (EAT); and The Almond Board of California, Modesto, California (KGL). I also found this little article , and noticed that all the roads lead to Almond Board of California. Hummm.
You'd think those researchers could have been a little more creative in manipulating the data.

From "this little article"





"Yes, for my little Steelers I always carry almonds. You never know when you may need extra energy to throw a 60 yard pass. Plus they're so darn convenient, and tasty."

Inconceivable!

"I dunna think that word means what you think it means".

Speaking of cholesterol, I was searching online for the nutritional properties of cooked brains today and I came across this funny bit of info on wikipedia:

Oooh, 1170%, how terribly awful, LOL. Brains will kill you!! Obviously, cholesterol is a very important part in a mammal's biological makeup, it's so silly to assume it's soooo bad for you. What's next, do I start fearing that that my own fatty, cholesterol filled brains will one day clog my arteries and give me a heart attack? :P

Mmm, brains. Tasty.