JAMA Pownes Dietary Guidelines

Fat ingestion, in general, is fine.
Saturated Fat is not bad.
Carbohydrate food sources are not necessary and are not created equal.
Protein food sources are not created equal.
Individual compounds in isolation are largely unimportant.
Food labels suck.

Very interesting blog, and an interesting post on the JAMA commentary on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines.  I wonder if JAMA's approach will be consistent on this new tack?  Maybe GT's books made a difference after all.  Or, like Coach Glassman said, "The truth is like a beach ball, it takes effort to hold it under water and eventually, it come to the top."

Good Reading

I stumbled across these two blogs and I highly recommend them if you enjoy thoughtful, unusual writing.
The Scientific Fundamentalist
Evolutionary Psychiatry

Tragic, Fatal, Vegan

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.

The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality — even soy. ...

Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. ...

Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.

Quoted from http://freetheanimal.com/2011/03/stop-the-madness-vegans-keep-killing-their-kids.html

High Fat Health In Mainstream, Again

This is a nicely written summary of many of the things I post about - http://civileats.com/2011/03/04/a-big-fat-debate/ - I couldn't find anything in the article that I disagree with.  The topics are becomming so uncontroversial now, with everyone EXCEPT for the USDA, that an article like this might not result in anyone being threatened with loss of life or limb.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or, as Michael Pollan pithily puts it in his In Defense of Food, “The amount of saturated fat in the diet may have little if any bearing on the risk of heart disease, and the evidence that increasing polyunsaturated fats in the diet will reduce risk is slim to nil.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it say?  That high fat diets are not shown to increase risks for heart disease, for obesity, for worsening metabolic syndrome, or for worsening short term markers for any of the above.  It points out that the science supporting a low fat, high carb diet was never strong.  It notes many of Taubes' points from Good Calories, Bad Calories, for example, that eating a porterhouse steak, or even lard from a tub, might do more good for your heart disease risk than those silly rice cakes we once convinced ourselves were 'healthy.'

Take a look, share with your friends on Facebook, leave it around for your not-yet-convinced spouse to benefit from.  The idea that dense, easily digestible carbs (and transfats and polyunsaturated fats; IOW, neolithic foods) are fattening and make you sick over time is becoming so mundane, it'll be conventional wisdom again before long.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Given the impact that the Dietary Goals have on institutional meal plans, publicly funded research, and potentially individuals, what standard of proof do you think the government ought to have to meet in order to issue a recommendation?  I think this paper's abstract explains perfectly clearly why the USDA had no basis, now or 30 years ago, to recommend anything like a high grain, low fat diet.  
 
Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20888548

2011 Reebok CrossFit Games WOD 1

The Games have begun for this year and I'm competing in the Master's Division.  This blog isn't about me and my performance on this WOD was only good enough for 93rd in my age group of 500+, so don't watch it thinking you'll be dazzled by the show.  It's strait video, I don't even know enough to rotate the vid and cut out the boring parts (like having to document the weights on the bar for the Games upload).  The only point to it is, if you've yet to see a CF WOD, this will give a decent idea of what the point of them is.  The point is - work as hard as you can for a specified period so as to develop work capacity, the more the better, across as many modalities as you can think of, the more intense the better (in this WOD the modalities are 30 double under rope jumps - two rope swings per jump - and 15 75# power snatches per round.  What do we mean by intensity? Well, if you can move 75 pounds 18 inches in 3 seconds doing a curl, it would be better to move your whole body 20-29 inches in the same or less time via a pullup - in other words, we use power as a definition:  force times distance over time.

What you can't see in this CF workout is how close to exhaustion you run in these things - these workouts make you think about quitting.  They certainly challenge your ability to do anything with precision due to the inherently high fatigue levels - but of course, in application, being able to deliver precision with extreme fatigue is a virtue worth training for.

In short don't watch the whole 11 minutes, and skip the first 60s, but take a look at an almost 47 year old doing a workout that I couldn't have done a year ago, and wouldn't have contemplated four years ago, and you may get an idea of why I've been "going on" about CrossFit so much since January of 2007.  Five workouts remain in the Open portion of the Games, it's quite an indulgence to enjoy such a challenge.

A Testing Resource

http://www.ondemandtest.com/Store/category/hormones/

This is the future of taking responsibility for your own health.  It will be feasible by virtue of the information available essentially for free that we will all be able to order these tests up when desired, and for decreasing relative costs (relative to average pay) over time.  Individual empowerment in health care - I would hope that most would agree that's all good.  There will be some wrong turns, like cholesterol has been, but eventually this will provide the feedback we all need to sustain our own sense of the costs/benefit decisions we make with our health by what we eat and what do for fitness.

Tropical Traditions

Tropical Traditions sent a sample of their premium coconut oil to me in exchange for a review, which follows.  First off, I recommend you take a look at their marketing video above.

Can folks who seem to be hand making coconut oil from coconuts fresh out of the jungle make a product that is discernibly different from competitive mass produced products?  In this case, yes, unquestionably.

The Tropical Traditions Gold Label Standard Virgin Coconut Oil is superior in texture, taste, and aroma to the brand I have been using, and I've liked that stuff quite a lot.  Until now!  Which may be a slight problem because the TT product isn't cheap.

Working from their web site, it looks like I can get 32 ounces delivered for about $32.  However, this price could likely be beaten by taking advantage of the specials that TT frequently runs.

This compares to Nutiva Organic Coconut Oil, 29-Ounce Jars (Pack of 2) at roughly half the price ($29.36, with free shipping for Prime members).  The brand I get locally is 14 oz for $7 plus tax.

There are many ways to incorporate coconut oil into one's diet, either directly in recipes or as a cooking oil.  It is very highly saturated, making it useful for relatively high temperature cooking.  The virtue of coconut for cooking is VERY high when compared to more commonly used hydrogenated vegetable oils, which are highly unstable and therefore a poor choice for cooking (or eating in nearly any amount).  Coconut oil also beats olive oil for flash point and therefore cooking use.

Other reasons to incorporate coconut oil into your diet?  Well, it has anti-microbial properties in the gut.  It is a medium chain fatty acid, and digests more easily than many fats, making it useful for those who have lost their gall bladder.  It also is unique in that it feeds ketosis better than most fats.

My favorite way to eat coconut oil is very simple - right from the spoon, and this is why TT's oil is particularly good for me. The flavor and texture when eaten this way are just world beating. Taken as a late night snack, or with a whack of lean protein, coconut oil is satisfying.  It is a flavor enhancer for lean meats.  It has no impact on insulin levels and therefore helps sustain normal blood sugar.

Tropical Traditions Gold Label Standard Virgin Coconut oil's fabulous flavor and texture makes it a potent tool for those chasing low carb satisfaction.   

FTA Finding More Paleo Model Tidbits

Free The Animal, in this post, comments on this article, which presents some interesting info about how long babies cry and their mothers' nutrition.  In short, mom's who had higher levels of B12 were blessed with babies that cried less.  There was an interesting hint about a connection between crying and activation of some sort of hormonal response in the babies - which is a relationship I've always suspected.  In other words, babies "use" crying in order to feel some way they instinctively know they need to.

Neither of these articles is a pinnacle of science, but in the context of the paleolithic model, they are interesting.  If as we believe the paleolithic model of nutrition should provide a guide for what to eat, we should expect to see many objective markers of humans thriving on such a diet.  Babies that cry less would in my view be a very significant marker!!  First, their parents will be healthier and happier, second, their parents will be far less likely to lose touch with their bonds for their baby.  All in all, mathematics of survival will vastly favor a baby that cries "enough" but not "a lot." (those are technical terms)

Neither of the linked articles would amount to proof of anything, although the original study might (would that I could find it), but they are useful as a way of thinking through the paleolithic model.  I recommend you eat a steak tonight and enjoy the many benefits of steak, from a better cholesterol profile to a dose of high quality protein to the satisfaction and long term satiety that results from a meal of protein and fat.

Boyle-ing Abs

I can’t even tell you how often I hear someone at the end of the workout say something like “I need to do more abs, I want to get a six-pack." The truth is that passing on a six-pack is a better way to get a six-pack than six hundred sit-ups. The key to abdominal definition is the visibility of the abdominal musculature, not the strength of the muscles. You can do one million sit-ups, crunches or whatever exercise you want and it will have no effect on abdominal definition. When people ask me the best exercise for abs I tell them table push-aways. 
It usually takes a few minutes for them to get it. It’s not a joke, it’s the truth. If you want better abs, eat less and train more but, don’t just train your abs.

Email from Coach Mike Boyle

He continues:

The truth is there are lots of good reasons to do abdominal work or core training as we now like to call it. A strong core (strong abs) is one of the keys in the prevention of  back pain. A strong core will help you look better and improve performance in a host of sports but, sit-ups or any other abdominal exercise will not reduce bodyfat.  The fact of the matter is that crunches will lead to back pain long before they lead to visual abs.

One way to define core strength is by measuring the ability of an athlete to resist deflection of the spine under load.  In other words, if you can pull 400 pounds from the floor while sustaining the stability of your spine, that's a objective measure of your core strength.  It's also a measure of your core strength when you push or pull a heavy object, throw a ball/spear/rock, jump, execute a clean and jerk, and/or punch a heavy bag.  In each of these events, power is generated in the hips, usually by pushing against the ground through your legs, and transmitted in a wave through the torso to the arms.  If your core cannot make itself rigid, it becomes a poor force transmitter.  The interesting thing about our bodies is that we need to bend sometimes, and to be rigid sometimes.  Structurally, to be able to bend, we must be built in such a way that our ability to make ourselves rigid is compromised.  Like all design problems, the trick is to optimize these capacities to gain best function.  For example, most of us would not be well served to be as flexible as a yogi or gymnast, nor would be we be optimized if we were as strong as world class strong man competitors.  For a general level of fitness, we need strength, and we need mobility through a full range of normal joint motion, and we can have both without compromise, as that's what we're made to have.

There are some gymnastics movements that require an aggressive flexion of the trunk - think of making your body look like a parenthesis, in which your hands and feet are in front of your belly.  Situps and crunches might be useful to that end, but that's an exception to the general rule that to have core strength, you must pick up heavy things.  You can get strong limbs and metabolic conditioning from swimming, but you can't get core strength.  You can be fast and mobile from sprint training, but there's a limit to the amount of core strength you can create by sprinting.  You can develop immense aerobic capacity and leg drive from intense bicycle training, but you will be deficient in core strength (not to mention eccentric weight bearing capacity).  You can grow powerful in grip and arm strength from climbing ropes or doing pullups, but of course, this does not make your core strong. 

What to do?  Learn to squat, learn to deadlift, and use those modalities with your swim, bike, pullups, situps, rope climbs, med ball throws, sled pushes/drags, and sprints to develop a balanced, general fitness, which lends itself well to any physical challenge.  Does this sound like a "core strength and conditioning" program?  It is, in both meanings of the word.  It must make your core strong to be effective, and will serve as the core of any training one might want to attempt.  This is why successful S&C programs look similar, and utilize squats, deadlifts, sprinting, olympic lifts, jumping, dragging, pushing, etc. 

I agree with Coach Boyle in that having a six pack is about eating.  Having a strong core, including functional and very strong abdominal muscles, means you need to get busy stabilizing your spine whilst enjoying squats, deads, cleans, and presses lest you become all show and no go.

Eats Paleo, Exercises Via Typing Only

And looks like this.   Some people like ladies this thin, mostly other ladies, but it does make the point about diet v. exercise.  Her blog is worth revisiting.

CrossFit Ladies

Want to see something really cool, something inspiring but 'girl next door' real?  Read these posts by some "gravel in your gut and spit in your eye" ladies who have utilized CrossFit to redefined their sense of what a woman can do, should do, could feel about her body as she, they, press through limitations, physical and mental.  These posts inform what the ladies mean when they say "strong is the new skinny."

From my friends at Paleo Chronicles:
Over time, I began to develop an appreciation for my body’s ability to perform functional movements, and started to understand that the ability to squat, lift, throw, jump, run, pull, push and maneuver myself over, under and around all kinds of obstacles would be essential to staying healthy and able to live independently as I grow older. I started to see my physical activities as an investment in my longevity and future quality of life, and when I began to hear about the Paleo Diet, yet another dimension of bodily health began to emerge. I started to understand how the food I had been eating, the sleep I had been missing, and the stress I had been living with had all been contributing to keep me fat, despite the investment in time that I had been making through CrossFit.

CrossFit Lisbeth
Do it badly, then do it better.
Stop obsessing that your form is not perfect all the time. Do it badly, then do it better.
Women, especially: Quit your bitching and obsessing and worrying about what your girlfriends are doing in this WOD. Put more weight on that bar and fail. Pick up the heavier kettlebell and f*** up that swing. Show me the shi****** pull-ups on the face of this CrossFit earth. Push yourself hard enough that things start to look like crap. Then, focus and get your form right. Grow stronger. Then, push again. Then, get it right again.

Lisbeth talks favorable of guys in this post, but she's being kind to all the slebs that will talk all day about how good they were back in the day, but won't do anything to reclaim their lost physicality.  In general, women step up to this plate faster than men do.  Transformation - they want it and will pay to price to get it.

What is the Friedewald Measure of LDL??

BLUF:  You care about how your lipids are measured because Friedewald calculations over-estimate LDL in folks on a low carb diet.  Doctors mired in the statin muck will often want to put you on drugs based on a high LDL number.  What follows is a brief, relatively speaking, description of why you might want to resist that recommendation (a slightly different take is here).

In short, Friedewald is a method to estimate LDL concentrations which is cheaper than direct measurement.  However, like all LDL measures, it is a poor predictor of future risk because there are so many variations of LDL.  Lipoproteins might be thought of as 'cholesterol boats'.  They are formed from cholesterol, which has the unique characteristic of being insoluble in water.  The dangerous kinds of LDL are termed 'small and dense', and consist of the lipoprotein 'boat' which is empty of content (the more fat/triglyceride, the less dense the lipoprotein).  Small, dense LDL results from consumption of a high carb diet, in which the liver is constantly converting blood sugar into triglycerides, and constructing new lipoprotein 'boats' (VLDLs or very low density lipoprotein - very low because they are stuffed with fat!) in which to send the tryglycerides out into the body.  Once the triglycerides have been dropped off at their destination, the remaining lipoprotein 'boat', no longer stuffed with fat, is a small, dense LDL.  These are thought to be easily oxidized (in effect, they rust easily like bare iron), and seem to be particularly significant in the genesis of arterial disease - possibly as a cause, but more likely as a correlate for the underlying highly inflammatory disease state that results in arterial damage, and produces (based on genetic variation) either heart attack, stroke, or, in severe diabetes, amputation.

Based on the above description, it makes sense that small, dense LDL correlate very closely to triglycerides, which correlates very closely with carbohydrate intake (except in folks with uncommon genetics).  SUMMARY:  high carb intake results in the atherogenic profile - high triglycerides, a large quantity of small, dense LDL, a below average quantity of HDL, and generally also high blood pressure and obesity. 

Now, the Friedewald details:

Then in 1972, Friedewald and coworkers, they came up with a simple way of calculating LDL. You measure total cholesterol in plasma, you measure HDL cholesterol in plasma, and then you can subtract VLDL cholesterol, and VLDL cholesterol is estimated as your triglycerides number divided by five; if in milligram per deciliter, and the triglyceride divided by 2.2, if all values are in millimoles per liter, and then you get a calculated LDL cholesterol. So that's the standard practice today.

http://www.aacc.org/events/podcast/documents/052709mora.pdf

Summary of the rest of the transcription:  either direct measurement of LDL or estimation via Friedewald formula results in an LDL number equally predictive of risk unless triglycerides are very high.  However, triglycerides were a much stronger predictor of future risk:

Dr. Børge Nordestgaard: We studied 7,600 healthy women and 6,400 healthy men who had triglycerides measured nonfasting back in 1976–78. So this was a single measurement. Then we followed them from 28–31 years. During that period, 3,500 developed a myocardial infarction, 1,500 had an ischemic stroke, and 7,800 died, approximately half or even more than half.  What did we find then? We very clearly found that the higher the nonfasting triglycerides, the higher the content of remnant cholesterol plasma, and at the same time, the higher the risk of all these three endpoints: myocardial infarction, strokes, and early death.  To give an example of the results, if we compare those with triglycerides above 5 millimoles per liter, which is 440 milligram per deciliter, versus those with less than 1 millimoles per liter in triglycerides, which is equal to less than 98 milligram per deciliter, then for women, these women with the high triglycerides had 17-fold risk of myocardial infarction, fourfold risk of stroke, and fourfold risk of early death, which is an extraordinarily high number. The corresponding values in men were fivefold, threefold, and twofold.

I played around with an online calculator, here, inputting my numbers over a period of years, and it closely recalculated my Friedewald estimates, and provided a different estimate using the "Iranian" formula - and as predicted the differences were significant when my triglycerides were at or below 65 or so.  In my latest fasting lipid profile, my F-LDL was 131, but the I-LDL was 112, a 14% difference; and who wouldn't like to lower their LDL without even having to take statins?!?  I'm joking of course, because I know I don't have the dangerous size of LDL.  Sadly, the statistical "trickery" that lowered LDL is just about as relevant to my longevity as statins are, but that wouldn't stop some doctors from trying to 'treat' my LDL number.

Magic Bullets!

The linked article discusses an option for a post workout recovery shake, focusing on molasses as a means to combat loss of potassium due to excess sodium intake.

You know that you need a post-​​workout protein shake immediately after your workouts, right?  And you know that your muscles are low on glycogen and needs a shotgun blast of sugar to recover and build new muscle.  Well, the next time you whip up your smoothie in the blender, sweeten it with……BLACKSTRAP MOLASSES!  

First off, the evidence that you 'need' a post-workout protein shake completely depends on your workout goals.  If you are a hyper focused competitive body builder or multi-event-per-day athlete, sure you need a post workout shake.  If you are a typical American trying to stay in or get in 'shape', you probably are doing more harm than good with a post-workout shake. (PWS)  My advice is to workout short and hard, eat real food, drink enough to stay hydrated, and "don't sweat" the post-workout window of insulin sensitivity.  In particular, if you are not as lean as you want to be, the PWS is counter productive.

On the other hand, if you want to try the blackstrap molasses shake to test its efficacy, go right ahead, but try to control other variables in your workout/dietary regimen so that you have a shot of being able to tell if there are positive changes.  

As regards the sodium/potassium balance issue, I'm skeptical of the magic claims for massive gains as a result of adding some molasses to your PWS.  I would be impressed if he had an intervention study that showed results (even a small one), or even if the author took the time to quantify his potassium levels before and after he used the molasses PWS.  The molasses PWS conjecture, as stated in the article, is one of the classic unverified and nearly unverifiable claims - of which there's seemingly a new one daily.  

Paleo man didn't have a salt shaker but he ate blood pudding, every internal organ, animal brains, the bone marrow, etc - very little of the kill was left for the bacteria and other carrion eaters.  In other words, I remain unconvinced that I'm eating more salt than paleo man.  But supposing we accept the 'too much salt' on it's face, if there's no way to quantify how much salt we're over-ingesting, how they heck are we supposed to know how much molasses to consume to balance the intake?  Not to mention - how to account for daily variation in sweat output, food intake, etc?  If one were really convinced that potassium/salt balance was the key to MASSIVE gains, one would have to get quite a lot more technical than "dump a little molasses in a shake and get huge."  For one - why not just supplement potassium?

Lastly, I try to keep in mind the difference between a competitive, 20 something athlete and the majority of the population which would do well to work out 3 to 5 hours a week, on a good week.  The former will always be working on the ragged edge of recovery, the latter probably needs more than anything to just eat good food and be healthy.  The former has the benefit of a young person's hormonal mileu, the later is hopefully not a hormonal wreck.  One would kill to get a 5% improvement in performance, the latter might get 20% or more improvement, but still not be at a peak.  One has the time and energy to fool around with any number of options, the later is in a fistfight for time every day and can only afford so many indulgences in training.  

If you have money and time for a PWS, go for it, but I would first make sure to tackle vitamin D, get first rate fish oil, and make sure you keep carb (especially sugar and wheat) intake low enough to support long term health.

Stem Cells To Bone or Fat?

Interesting study, exploring what happens to a stem cell and why.

Don’t sit still more than you need to, Dr. Rubin said, and don’t let your children loll about either. “One of the concerns raised” by these experiments, she said, “is that if you make fat cells when you’re young, then you’ve lost any opportunity to have that particular cell be bone,” and the fat cell will remain just that, for life.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/phys-ed-more-bone-and-less-fat-through-exercise/

While there's no question that genetic expression is affected by what we do, what we eat, and how much we do it, I wouldn't worry too much about the "once a fat cell always a fat cell" idea.  We've seen too many folks who can undo almost any amount of obesity to believe that such a thing is predetermined.  In general, though, the concept is right on - beyond the benefit you get from today from what you eat and how you exercise, you are setting "good/bad" switches in the expression of your genes which will affect your tomorrows.

Healing Sick Mice

The mice that Dr. Tarnopolsky and his colleagues used lacked the primary mitochondrial repair mechanism, so they developed malfunctioning mitochondria early in their lives, as early as 3 months of age, the human equivalent of age 20. By the time they reached 8 months, or their early 60s in human terms, the animals were extremely frail and decrepit, with spindly muscles, shrunken brains, enlarged hearts, shriveled gonads and patchy, graying fur. Listless, they barely moved around their cages. All were dead before reaching a year of age.

Except the mice that exercised.

Half of the mice were allowed to run on a wheel for 45 minutes three times a week, beginning at 3 months. These rodent runners were required to maintain a fairly brisk pace, Dr. Tarnopolsky said: “It was about like a person running a 50- or 55-minute 10K.” (A 10K race is 6.2 miles.) The mice continued this regimen for five months.

At 8 months, when their sedentary lab mates were bald, frail and dying, the running rats remained youthful. They had full pelts of dark fur, no salt-and-pepper shadings. They also had maintained almost all of their muscle mass and brain volume. Their gonads were normal, as were their hearts. They could balance on narrow rods, the showoffs.

But perhaps most remarkable, although they still harbored the mutation that should have affected mitochondrial repair, they had more mitochondria over all and far fewer with mutations than the sedentary mice had. At 1 year, none of the exercising mice had died of natural causes. (Some were sacrificed to compare their cellular health to that of the unexercised mice, all of whom were, by that age, dead.)

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/can-exercise-keep-you-young/?src=me&ref=health

It would be interesting if the researchers could develop methodologies to allow them to compare the effect of high intensity exercise, strength training, and mixed modal activity, to see which modality would have the greatest effect in mouse-life-extension, even thought it wouldn't necessarily apply to humans.

CrossFit: Core Strength and Conditioning

Twelve competitors. Nearly all at their first powerlifting meet ever. Eleven first-place medals. Twenty-eight state records broken. All CrossFitters.

“The general physical conditioning raised the foundation for specialty,” he said. “My kids can walk into a powerlifting meet, they can walk into an Olympic weightlifting meet, they can walk into triathlons ... they have the general physical conditioning to do well.”

And, he said, “They are all planning on competing in the CrossFit Games.”

http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_Cecil_KidsApril2011.pdf

Tendon Injury Treatment Ideas

Two time-honored remedies for injured tendons seem to be falling on their faces in well-designed clinical trials.  he first, corticosteroid injections into the injured tendon, has been shown to provide only short-term relief, sometimes with poorer long-term results than doing nothing at all.

The second, resting the injured joint, is supposed to prevent matters from getting worse. But it may also fail to make them any better.

Rather, working the joint in a way that doesn’t aggravate the injury but strengthens supporting tissues and stimulates blood flow to the painful area may promote healing faster than “a tincture of time.”

Conlcusion:  “The stronger the shoulder muscles are when the tendinopathy calms down, the better shape the shoulder is in to take over movement without further injury,” Dr. Moffat said. “You don’t want the muscles to weaken, which is what happens when you rest and do nothing. That leaves you vulnerable to further injury.”   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/health/01brody.html?_r=3&ref=science

This mirrors my experience, and I've had many bouts of tendon issues in inner/outer elbow, shoulder, and knees through the last 20 years.  It always heals, and the best course seems to be "do what you can, as much as you can" until, for no apparent reason, something heals.  It would seem obvious that taking advantage of injury to work on greater precision in technique would be smart, as would a review of diet to see what anti-inflammatory elements may be eliminated (for me, recently, that was a call to restrict intake of nuts and seeds).
Bottom line - this article suggests we should (and I do) train through and around tendon irritation.  It appears that activity is part of healing for these types of injuries, whereas for ligament injuries, in which the ligaments may for example tear away from their attachment points on the bones, the rest gives needed time for the tear to reattach to the bones and regain needed strength.  I saw this in a finger dislocation, for example, which, after the injury, I could move all kinds of weird ways, but after six weeks of healing, was as stable as before the injury.  Tendon injuries, though, respond so slowly that 'resting' them just leaves you weak and vulnerable to more injury.

Trans Fatty Acids - Adverse

BLUF:  In the following abstract, a very select population was tested for outcomes after comparing 'high' intake of industrial TFA (trans fatty acids) to a control group eating increased saturated fats.  The TFA group fared worse on all measures except for measures of abdominal and liver fat (for which both groups fared the same).  Seems like a good reason to be afraid of these 'frankenfats', which are so new to the food chain we've barely had time to become fearful of them.

Background:

Intake of industrially produced trans fatty acids (TFAs) is, according to observational studies, associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but the causal mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. Besides inducing dyslipidemia, TFA intake is suspected to promote abdominal and liver fat deposition.

Objective:

We examined the effect of a high intake of TFA as part of an isocaloric diet on whole-body, abdominal and hepatic fat deposition, and blood lipids in postmenopausal women.

Methods:

In a 16-week double-blind parallel intervention study, 52 healthy overweight postmenopausal women were randomized to receive either partially hydrogenated soybean oil providing 15.7 g day⁻¹ of TFA or a control oil with mainly oleic and palmitic acid. Before and after the intervention, body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, abdominal fat by magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and liver fat by ¹H MR spectroscopy

Results:
Compared with the control fat, TFA intake decreased plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol by 10%, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by 18% and resulted in an increased LDL/HDL-cholesterol ratio (baseline adjusted mean (95% CI) difference between diet groups 0.41 (0.22; 0.60); P=0.001). TFA tended to increase the body fat (0.46 (−0.20; 1.17) kg; P=0.16) and waist circumference (1.1 (−0.1; 2.4) cm; P=0.08) more than the control fat, whereas neither abdominal nor liver fat deposition was affected by TFA.  

Conclusion:
The adverse effect of dietary TFA on cardiovascular disease risk involves induction of dyslipidemia, and perhaps body fat, whereas weight gain-independent accumulation of ectopic fat could not be identified as a contributory factor during short-term intake.  http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v1/n1/full/nutd20104a.html

Briffa on Eggs Not Eggshells

Dr. Briffa's BLUF: 
Look, we simply don’t have definitive evidence which tells us whether eggs are healthy or not. But in the presence of evidence which does not incriminate them, as well the weak and inconsistent nature of evidence used to damn them, I’ll continue to ‘take my chances’ with this natural and nutritious food.

The evidence is scant and fairly easy to evaluate for yourself - does eating eggs change your cholesterol numbers for the worse - IOW, lower HDL, increase your numbers of small dense LDL, or raise your triglycerides?  If not, then there's no reason whatsoever to stop eating eggs, because the claim that eating eggs will worsen your cholesterol is all the evidence that exists.  Turns out this is not true for most folks, leaving exactly nada reasons to avoid eggs.  None. Zip. Zilch.  They are an amazing dose of nutrition, convenient, inexpensive and I eat them because I like them.

Despair, Research, Triumph

A common story, well told, from Free the Animal. 
BLUF:  PHD candidate discovers Paleo at Free the Animal, researchs Taubes and Eades, and loses 70 pounds in six months without setting foot in a gym, with no hunger, and brings her family along for the ride.  Nice before and after shots as well; convincing.  Enjoy!

This Is Winning!

I know I am doing the open to the have the opportunity to compete and it doesn't matter where I place, just that I have pushed myself as much as possible. I have won a longer life, more determination, the ability to perform my job better and a greater sense of self.  These are all things that are priceless and only come at having put in some sweat, blood and hard work.  Maura

Maura Mac

Maura Windows

Check out Maura, using CrossFit to transform her life in many ways.  This woman is winning and would crush Charlie Sheen!

www.crossfit.com

Glucose Primer

Glucose is the predominant blood sugar and one of the body's two main fuel sources (the other is fatty acids). Glucose, in one form or another, is also the main form of digestible dietary carbohydrate in nearly all human diets. Starch is made of long chains of glucose molecules, which are rapidly liberated and absorbed during digestion. Sucrose, or table sugar, is made of one glucose and one fructose molecule, which are separated before absorption.

Blood glucose is essential for life, but it can also be damaging if there is too much of it. Therefore, the body tries to keep it within a relatively tight range. Normal fasting glucose is roughly between 70 and 90 mg/dL*, but in the same individual it's usually within about 5 mg/dL on any given day. Sustained glucose above 160 mg/dL or so causes damage to multiple organ systems. Some people would put that number closer to 140 mg/dL.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/11/glucose-tolerance-in-non-industrial.html


This is just the basics, but of note - 
1.  The much maligned high fructose corn syrup is virtually identical to sucrose, except the ratio is 55/45 in favor of fructose.  IOW, table sugar's no better.
2.  Due to the tragically high numbers of type II diabetics, you can get a glucose meter at a very low cost (Tim Ferriss describes how he uses one in his new book, and William Davis often does as well) to keep track of your blood glucose levels.


Speculation - measures of the fasting lipid profile - triglycerides, HDL, LDL, total cholesterol - are correlates with poor metabolic function resulting in poor control of blood sugar levels, but not causes of any ill health per se.  It is the high carb intake and the resulting hormonal disruption that drives the sugars higher in combination with the toxic effects of chronically high sugars that do the damage via inflammation and other sub-optimizations of normal human metabolism.

Grass On Cancer

“Cancer, like insanity, seems to increase with the progress of civilization.”

Stanislas Tanchou

Stanislas Tanchou was a physician who, following his service with Napoleon, entered private practice and studied the statistical distribution of cancer. Tanchou presented his complex statistical examination of malignancy to the Paris Science Society in 1843 (1). He documented evidence of increased malignancy with increased civilization. One of the prime indicators of a civilizing trend was a diet that included sugar and white flour. The greater the consumption of these foods, the greater the incidence of malignancy.
Tanchou was the first of many physicians to document what have been called "Western Diseases" or "Diseases of Civilization." The incidence of several diseases, including cancer, increases in direct proportion to the "civilization" of a nation and its people. Evidence has continued to accumulate that as populations shift from their traditional diets to diets that contain refined carbohydrates, diseases which had not been present begin appear. And as the amount of refined carbohydrate in their diet increases, the incidence of these diseases increases. This pattern has been observed in populations on every continent.
Richard Doll (the man that proved the link between cigarette smoking and cancer) and Richard Peto’s 1981 paper “The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today” made the following points: (2)"At least 75 to 80 percent of cancers in the U.S. would be avoidable with appropriate changes in diet and lifestyle.

"Food additives, pollution and occupational exposures play a minimal role.

"Diet plays the largest role – from 10 to 70 percent of all cancer."
Couple these points with the wealth of information about what causes Western Diseases and you’ll find what constitutes a cancer-avoiding diet – one that is low in carbohydrate.

http://grassbasedhealth.blogspot.com/2010/06/grass-and-cancer.html

And lucky for us, low carb diets (when manifested as grass farms upon which livestock may be grown) may be the only sustainable diets, and are by far the best diets in terms of impact on the "environment."  Low carb diets require no pesticides, no ammonium nitrate, relatively little if any irrigation, and act as a carbon sink rather than carbon emitters (if you care about that sort of thing).

What Is CrossFit?

Fitness in 100 Words

"Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and NOsugar. Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat. Practice and train major lifts:

dead-lift, clean, squat, presses, C&J, and snatch. Similarly, master the basics of gymnastics: pull-ups,

dips, rope climb, push-ups, sit-ups, presses to handstands, pirouettes, flips, splits, and holds. Bike,

run, swim, row, etc, hard and fast. Five or six days per week mix these elements in as many

combinations and patterns as creativity will allow. Routine is the enemy. Keep workouts short and

intense. Regularly learn and play new sports!" - Greg Glassman, CEO and Founder of CrossFIt, Inc.
HT:  http://www.crossfit.com/

Gout and Carbs - Taubes Via Ferriss

This is like so many of the other stories in Good Calories Bad Calories - it just makes you shake your head that it happened this way.  If this summary is correct - perhaps there's someone in our audience that can refute it - the path of treatment over the last 30 to 40 years is astonishing.

If you don't have gout, be thankful, and if you do have gout, this excerpt will provide an easy blueprint for how to avoid it.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/10/05/gout/

What is gout?
The pathology of gout has been understood since the British physician Alfred Garrod, in the mid-19th century, identified uric acid as the causative agent; the idea being that uric acid accumulates in the circulation to the point that it falls out of solution, as a chemist would put it, and so crystallizes into needle-sharp urate crystals. These crystals then lodge in the soft tissues and in the joints of the extremities – classically, the big toe — and cause inflammation, swelling and an excruciating pain that was described memorably by the 18th century bon vivant Sydney Smith as like walking on one’s eyeballs.(3)

So how should gout be treated?
Because uric acid itself is a breakdown product of protein compounds known as purines – the building blocks of amino acids – and because purines are at their highest concentration in meat, it has been assumed for the past 130-odd years that the primary dietary means of elevating uric acid levels in the blood, and so causing first hyperuricemia and then gout, is an excess of meat consumption.
The actual evidence, however, has always been less-than-compelling: Just as low cholesterol diets have only a trivial effect on serum cholesterol levels, for instance, and low-salt diets have a clinically insignificant effect on blood pressure, low-purine diets have a negligible effect on uric acid levels. A nearly vegetarian diet, for instance, is likely to drop serum uric acid levels by 10 to 15% percent compared to a typical American diet, but that’s rarely sufficient to return high uric acid levels to normality, and there is little evidence that such diets reliably reduce the incidence of gouty attacks in those afflicted.(4) Thus, purine-free diets are no longer prescribed for the treatment of gout, as the gout specialist Irving Fox noted in 1984, “because of their ineffectiveness” and their “minor influence” on uric acid levels.(5) Moreover, the incident of gout in vegetarians, or mostly vegetarians, has always been significant and “much higher than is generally assumed.”

So What Does Work To Treat Gout?
The short answer is, a carb restricted diet, and especially a diet very low in fructose.
...eating more protein increases the excretion of uric acid from the kidney and, by doing so, decreases the level of uric acid in the blood.(7)  The alternative hypothesis is suggested by the association between gout and the entire spectrum of diseases of civilization, and between hyperuricemia and the metabolic abnormalities of Syndrome X. In the past century, gout has manifested all of the now-familiar patterns, chronologically and geographically, of diseases of civilization, and so those diseases associated with western diets.
...a series of studies in the 1960s, as clinical investigators first linked hyperuricemia to glucose intolerance and high triglycerides, and then later to high insulin levels and insulin resistance.(14) By the 1990s, Gerald Reaven, among others, was reporting that insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia raised uric acid levels, apparently by decreasing uric acid excretion by the kidney, just as they raised blood pressure by decreasing sodium excretion. “It appears that modulation of serum uric concentration by insulin resistance is exerted at the level of the kidney,” Reaven wrote, “the more insulin-resistant an individual, the higher the serum uric acid concentration.” (15)
...simply put, fructose increases serum levels of uric acid. The “striking increase” in uric acid levels with an infusion of fructose was first reported in the Lancet in the late 1960s by clinicians from Helsinki, Finland, who referred to it as fructose-induced hyperuricemia.(20) This was followed by a series of studies through the late 1980s confirming the existence of the effect and reporting on the variety of mechanisms by which it came about. Fructose, for instance, accelerates the breakdown of a molecule known as ATP, which is the primary source of energy for cellular reactions and is loaded with purines. (ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate; adenosine is a form of adenine, and adenine is a purine.) And so this in turn increases formation of uric acid. Alcohol apparently raises uric acid levels through the same mechanism, although beer also has purines in it.(21) Fructose also stimulates the synthesis of purines directly, and the metabolism of fructose leads to the production of lactic acid, which in turn reduces the excretion of uric acid by the kidney and so raises uric acid concentrations indirectly by that mechanism.(22)
These mechanistic explanations of how fructose raises uric acid levels were then supported by a genetic connection between fructose metabolism and gout itself. Gout often runs in families, so much so that those clinicians studying gout have always assumed the disease has a strong hereditary component. In 1990, Edwin Seegmiller, one of the few veteran gout researchers in the U.S., and the British geneticist George Radda, who would go onto become director of the Medical Research Counsel, reported that the explanation for this familial association seemed to be a very specific defect in the genes that regulate fructose metabolism. Thus, individuals who inherit this defect will have trouble metabolizing fructose and so will be born with a predisposition to gout.
...sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup would constitute the worst of all carbohydrates when it comes to uric acid and gout. The fructose would increase uric acid production and decrease uric acid excretion, while the glucose, though its effect on insulin, would also decrease uric acid excretion. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume or at least to speculate that sugar is a likely cause of gout, and that the patterns of sugar consumption explain the appearance and distribution of the disease.
This is another potentially harmful effect of fructose that post-dates the official reports exonerating sugar in the diet. And it is yet another mechanism by which sugar and high fructose corn syrup could be a particularly unhealthy combination. The glucose in these sugars would raise insulin levels, which in turn would raise blood pressure by inhibiting the kidney’s secretion of sodium and by stimulating the sympathetic nervous system, as we discussed in an earlier chapter, and the fructose would do it independently by raising uric acid levels and so damaging the kidney directly. If this were the case, which has never been tested, it would potentially explain the common association of gout and hypertension and even of diabetes and hypertension.(31)

Gmap - Measure Routes

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/
Need to gauge a run distance for those 200s, 400s and 800s?  How about finding a mile for your "Murph"?

This is a very usable tool!  I just checked it against my calculations for various intervals, and it's certainly close enough for an opportunity to cultivate your relationship with pain.

Gluten Gut Irritation Tested

These types of tests will be conducted with increasing frequency until they tease apart the mechanisms of so called "non-celiac" gluten sensitivity.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:  Despite increased prescription of a gluten-free diet for gastrointestinal symptoms in individuals who do not have celiac disease, there is minimal evidence that suggests that gluten is a trigger. The aims of this study were to determine whether gluten ingestion can induce symptoms in non-celiac individuals and to examine the mechanism.

METHODS:  A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled rechallenge trial was undertaken in patients with irritable bowel syndrome in whom celiac disease was excluded and who were symptomatically controlled on a gluten-free diet. Participants received either gluten or placebo in the form of two bread slices plus one muffin per day with a gluten-free diet for up to 6 weeks. Symptoms were evaluated using a visual analog scale and markers of intestinal inflammation, injury, and immune activation were monitored.

RESULTS:  A total of 34 patients (aged 29–59 years, 4 men) completed the study as per protocol. Overall, 56% had human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQ2 and/or HLA-DQ8. Adherence to diet and supplements was very high. Of 19 patients (68%) in the gluten group, 13 reported that symptoms were not adequately controlled compared with 6 of 15 (40%) on placebo (P=0.0001; generalized estimating equation). On a visual analog scale, patients were significantly worse with gluten within 1 week for overall symptoms (P=0.047), pain (P=0.016), bloating (P=0.031), satisfaction with stool consistency (P=0.024), and tiredness (P=0.001). Anti-gliadin antibodies were not induced. There were no significant changes in fecal lactoferrin, levels of celiac antibodies, highly sensitive C-reactive protein, or intestinal permeability. There were no differences in any end point in individuals with or without DQ2/DQ8.

CONCLUSIONS:  “Non-celiac gluten intolerance” may exist, but no clues to the mechanism were elucidated.

http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ajg2010487a.html

HT:  @dreades

Paleolithic Model Presented to Cardiologists

The Western Diet and Lifestyle and Diseases of Civilization

Another common counterargument is the short average life expectancy at birth of hunter–gatherers. The problem with this marker is that it is influenced by fatal events (eg, acci- dents, warfare, infections, exposure to the elements) and childhood mortality. Today, average life expectancy is higher not because of a healthier diet and lifestyle but owing to better sanitation, vaccination, antibiotics, quarantine policies, medical care, political and social stability, and less physical trauma.66  Moreover, Gurven and Kaplan,149  in a recent assessment of the mortality profiles of extant hunter–gatherers for which sufficient high-quality demographic data exist, concluded that “modal adult life span is 68–78 years, and that it was not uncommon for individuals to reach these ages”.

Of more importance, these individuals reached age 60 years or beyond without the signs and symptoms of chronic degenerative diseases that afflict the majority of the elderly in industrialized countries.66  Furthermore, in western countries, various illnesses and conditions, such as obesity, type 2 dia- betes, gout, hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), and epithelial cell cancers, which are rare or virtually absent in hunter–gatherers, horticulturalists, and traditional pastoralists, are now increasing in younger age groups. 26,64–66  Finally, the fossil record suggests that when hunter–gatherer populations made the transition to an agricultural pattern of subsistence, their health status and lifespan decreased. 26,109,150

Grass On Fire

I previously posted a link to a short version of a video of the author referenced below, and really enjoyed the "Grass" summary, which starts off with a thought experiment:
Consider two groups of animals:
    Group one - cattle, gorillas, and sheep
    Group two - humans, lions, and polar bear

Which of these two groups of mammals are “designed” to digest a low fat diet?
Neither!Digestion and ingestion are different processes. Clearly the first group of mammals ingest a low fat, high fiber diet. But mammalian enzymes cannot hydrolyze (digest) the cellulose and other complex carbohydrates that make up plant fiber. Microorganisms, however, produce enzymes that can. Herbivorous mammals live in a symbiotic relationship with these organisms. The host mammal possess digestive systems that permit fore-gut fermentation (the cattle and sheep, for example, via their reticulo-rumen), or hind-gut fermentation (the gorilla, for example, via it’s enlarged colon and cecum). In either case, the products of these fermentation processes are short-chain, volatile fatty acids (principally acetic, propionic, and butyric acids). Interestingly enough, 60 – 80 % of a ruminant’s (Pond, 2005) and 66 % of a gorilla’s (Popovich, et al., 1997) energy needs come from these fatty acids. These animals digest a high fat diet!

http://grassbasedhealth.blogspot.com/2011/03/nature-votes-last.html
Another taste of Grass' post:
Mankind has been consuming animal products, especially fat, for a very long time. Several authors have argued that one of the two critical drivers for the development of our species, Homo sapiens, is the consumption of a diet consisting primarily of organ meats, animal fats, and muscle meats (Kaplan et al., 2000, Stanford and Bunn, 2001, Bramble and Lieberman, 2004). The other developmental driver was the practice of cooking (Wrangham, et al., 1999, Wrangham, 2006). Wrangham’s book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human is a fascinating and very readable examination of this topic.

All living tissue requires energy for maintenance. Our basal metabolic rate, when adjusted for total body size, is the same as other primates (Leonard and Robertson, 1997). By eating a truly nutrient dense diet, one based upon animal products, our ancient ancestors no longer needed to maintain the large digestive tracts required by mammals living on high fiber diets. Our large intestine, or colon, is less than 60 percent of the mass that would be expected from our total body mass (Martin, et al., 1985). In fact, the volume of the entire human gut is only 60 percent of what would be expected from our total body mass (Aiello and Wheeler, 1995). This reduction in human gut size frees up at least 10 percent of the expected basal metabolic rate for our brain’s requirement (Aiello and Wheeler, 1995). In addition, the cholesterol (and other nutrients, including choline) provided by a diet based on animal products provided the vital “raw material” to build the brain (Leonard, et al., 2007). Plant-based diets lack these vital nutrients.

Green Pastures Blue Ice Royal - Gel

This stuff is fabulous!  The cinimon flavor makes it taste like a dessert.

Recommended by Tim Ferriss and Ramiel Nagel

Humorous Study Disection

While I doubt that disecting studies will ever become a truly mass media event, this one's pretty funny for a geek like me.  Hyper Lipid's hyper-dissection of this study does a nice job of showing how a "study" and its "conclusions" are supposed to be picked over and picked apart.  Along the way, we can learn a little bit about the finer points of the study of fat metabolism and in particular its relationship to diabetes. 
BLUF:  Don't eat trans-fats unless you like being sick, and don't feed it to mice unless you want to confound your test results.

Also, a nice clarification in the post - what is the difference between partially hydrogenated and hydrogenated?

Cited Study Text:
The present study used hydrogenated corn oil for dietary fat sources since it has less harmful effect on diabetes than lard, even though it contained trans fat.27 
Hyper Lipid Translation: This study did not use hydrogenated corn oil.  It used PARTIALLY hydrogenated corn oil, full hydrogenation would eliminate all trans fats.  Bollocks statement number two is that trans fats have a less harmful effect on diabetes than lard.

Red Meat for Science Nazi Wannabes

The linked article provides a good example of very uninformative reporting.  A short example:
After years of worrying that tucking into red meat could lead to a heart attack or cancer, you can relax and enjoy the Sunday roast, say researchers.  A report demolishes the ‘myths and misconceptions’ about the meat, saying that most people eat healthy amounts which are not linked to greater risk of disease.  Modern farming methods have cut fat levels, which can be even lower than chicken, while red meat provides high levels of vital nutrients, including iron.  A vegetarian having a Cheddar cheese salad will eat seven times more fat, pound for pound, than lean red meat contains, says a review by the British Nutrition Foundation.  However, the World Cancer Research Fund, which advises people to curb red meat consumption and cut out processed meat, disputed the findings. 

That first sentence is a doozy - what's the difference in saying "researchers" say "red meat is not dangerous", and saying "three homeless guys standing on a streetcorner" say "red meat is not dangerous"?  In terms of scientific certainty, there's no difference at all.  In terms of how we should view their opinions, we'd have to know more about how they arrived at them, and that is not reported on in the article except in the context of the fat content of the product.  Apparently, their logic is "fat consumption will kill you, but red meat has little more fat that common vegetarian foods, therefore, you can safely eat red meat."

That reminds me of a line my dad used to say to tease us when we would say silly things:  "If I had eggs, I'd have ham and eggs, if I had ham."  The version from this article:  "If fat consumption was bad you, then eating red meat would be as safe as eating vegetarian, since a red meat diet isn't necessarily higher in fat than a vegetarian diet."  At least the reporter is consistent in not "confusing" the matter by mentioning that there's no evidence that high animal fat consumption is bad for you, and that based on the world beating health of the Mormons (here), high beef consumption may be better for you than other approaches.  The Argentines repordedly also do very well while consuming good quantities of beef.  With the red-meat-sat-fat Chicken Littles singing their fat-will-kill-you chorus:
1. Brits are hoping for lower fat meats and the market place is providing it
2. Reporters seem to never question the basis for the belief that high fats diets are dangerous
3  The many sources of conflicting data are widely ignored

Where is gets interesting is when the reporter refers to other studies which 'show' different conclusions.  The reporter either doesn't care or doesn't know that the vast majority of "studies" on this topic are epidemiological studies.  These types of "studies" are intended to facilitate the formation of hypotheses which could then be tested via intervention study.  The problem - there's enough money for many epidemiological studies which keep "researchers" employed, but not enough for intervention studies.  Thus, we get one after the other of epidemiological studies, and generally very few, and very small, intervention studies.  Due to the inherent imprecision in epidemiological studies, conclusions from them are all over the place, a fact that is highlighted in this particular article.  Because the author does not differentiate which types of "studies" are which, the average reader would be left to wonder what the science really says about anything.  Well, so would the average science nazi, because all of these epidemiological studies only tell us that lots of folks have lots of ideas about science and health and none of them are proven.

My advice:  don't hold your breath waiting for the big, perfect, government funded long term intervention study ...

Post Script:   ...the World Cancer Research Fund, which advises people to curb red meat consumption and cut out processed meat, disputed the findings.
I wonder if the WCRF could still convince people to donate money to their cause if their message was:
1.  Don't eat grains, they kill people and murder uncounted animals, and are an unsustainable source of nutrition
2.  Reduce carbohydrate consumption to 100 grams per day or less to reduce your risks for all the diseases of civilization
3.  Eat as much meat as you want, preferably wild game meat or grass fed beef/pork/lamb/chicken/turkey
I think we'll find out because I believe that within my life time, (all of) these ideas will be accepted fact.