Search Results for: evaluating

 

A New Study Shows

I saw an interesting blurb on social media which reads:  “A new study shows we can get you to believe anything as long as we say "A New Study Shows” before whatever we say. 

That would be comical if it weren’t so terribly true. I’ve overheard or taken part in many conversations where friends are reporting of the latest nutrition ‘fact’ they’ve heard or read about. Often times the latest report contradicts what was just reported a few months ago.

One day saturated fat is evil, and the next day it’s being promoted as inconsequential. Coffee is bad one day and good the next. Protein intake should be high vs protein intake should be kept low. Grains are responsible for every health ailment vs grains are good for us. What’s a person to believe?

 

We're So Confused

It’s no wonder that people are nutritionally confused. Because we live in an information age, the continual confusion can cause people to throw in the towel and decide to just eat whatever they want. It’s important to be discerning in this area, especially if you are basing your health decisions on things that you hear or read.

In the meantime, here are a few tips to help you filter any diet and health information you may read or hear:

1. Start with the assumption that, until proven otherwise, everything you hear or read is probably not correct. This is especially true if you’re dealing with stories, observations, and advertisements. During one of my classes, a participant brought in a “scientific article” to show the benefits of consuming vegetable oil. The small print at the bottom of the article revealed the content was sponsored by Wesson. What she had brought in was a full-page advertisement wrought with marketing messages. Another area of concern is the misreporting of study results by the media to attract attention. I have a file folder labeled “sensationalized headlines” with articles and news reports proven to be outlandishly misleading. This brings us to tip number two:
2. Who is making the claim or funding the study? Drug and supplement manufacturers, the meat, dairy, and sugar industries, junk/ processed food companies, and agricultural groups all sponsor research—which inherently comes with a big conflict of interest. First rule of thumb with research: Look for independently funded studies conducted apart from industry or groups who stand to profit. Follow the money.
3. Look in the right places. Blogs, author websites, Wikipedia, national disease groups, and the government are not the best sources of diet and health information. Even the opinions of well-meaning healthcare professionals should not be fully relied upon to reach accurate conclusions about diet and health since most healthcare professionals are not trained in nutrition.[i] According to Dr. Pam Popper of Wellness Forum Health, the best sources of health information are medical and scientific journals as well as independent researchers who document their findings with valid science.
4. Don’t be convinced by just one study. A study can be found to support any possible position. The preponderance of evidence is what matters; in other words, it’s important to look at the greater weight of evidence supported by many credible sources. For example, if nineteen studies show coffee creamer is a healthy food, but 220 studies show the opposite, rely on the greater weight of evidence. Avoid the creamer.
5. Is the study well designed? Was it a long-term study involving a great number of people? What were the long-term results, and were there any side effects reported? What were the exact details of the study? For instance, if a study claims that a “low-fat” diet was used to make comparisons, what actual percentage of fat was in the diet they used? (You’d be surprised at what some studies consider to be low fat— most of them aren’t.)
6. Did the researchers report the results in “absolute terms” or “relative terms”? By reporting the results of a study in relative terms, researchers can make a product appear far more beneficial than if the results had been reported in absolute terms. Here’s an example: Suppose the risk for a heart attack in patients given a placebo pill is two people in one hundred (2 percent), and the risk in patients given a new drug is one person in one hundred (1 percent). In absolute terms, the difference is determined by subtracting the two risks (2 percent – 1 percent = 1 percent difference). If the results are expressed in relative terms, however, the difference is determined by the ratio of the two risks (1 percent ÷ 2 percent = 50 percent). Expressed in relative terms, it appears the new drug reduces the risk of a heart attack by 50 percent; but the reality of absolute terms reveals the new drug only offers a 1 percent benefit. Remember to investigate the risks of serious side effects as well, to determine if a meager 1 percent benefit would be worth it!
7. Read the original study. Someone else’s report of the original study may include their own personal opinions or possible slants toward their own agenda or may purposely omit pertinent information. If you don’t have time to read the full study, you can always read the abstract (summary) of the study online. You can also find the effectiveness rates and side effects of drugs on the drug companies’ websites; but use caution—they often report their findings in relative terms rather than absolute terms (see tip #6).

YOU are your #1 health care practitioner; please base your food choices and health decisions on independent and credible evidence-based research. Fortunately, there ARE a few trustworthy sources of information out there. Dr. Pam Popper of Wellness Forum Health is one of them, and she also offers classes to teach how you can do your own research.

Contact me at [email protected] if you need further help.

[i] Dr. Michael Greger, “How Much Nutrition Education Do Doctors Get?” Accessed August 6, 2017. https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/06/08/how-much-nutrition-education-do-doctors-get/. Dated June 8, 2017.

 

In March 2025, Forks Over Knives hosted an online event called “The Great Oil Debate.” The panelists included Rip Esselstyn (anti-oil) and Dr. Garth Davis (pro-oil). (The video link can be found below).

Having studied for decades under doctors who support an oil-free diet, I was curious to learn more about this emerging research that was compelling a few plant-based doctors to now recommend olive oil to their patients.

In a nutshell, the two men respectfully debated studies that promote the consumption of olive oil; whether or not oils are inflammatory; whether or not oils damage the endothelial lining of our arteries; and whether or not oil is a healthy food.

 

 

Dr. Davis’s position is that extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) should be a part of a healthy diet, and he recommends 1.5 TBS/daily to his patients. He says that cold-pressed EVOO has high levels of polyphenols and antioxidants which fight oxidation and inflammation, two contributors to heart disease. He also asserted that EVOO is associated with weight loss (as compared to regular olive oil), which might have to do with how the polyphenols affect the gut microbiome. Dr. Davis stated there may be a little bit of 'magic' in EVOO that you wouldn't get from a whole olive, but he cannot prove that since no studies exist which compare the effects of olive oil versus whole olives on the endothelial lining. Do we HAVE to consume oil to be healthy? Dr. Davis said no, but it tastes great and is a great way to prepare food. He later added it will make your diet healthier.

Rip Esselstyn’s position is that there are much smarter ways to get our polyphenols than at the expense of calorically dense oils; he also countered that oils contain very few antioxidants and in trace amounts. He explained how EVOO increases LDL cholesterol (the lethal type) and commented that believing olive oil is a Mediterranean Wonder Elixir in which the polyphenols will overrule the 14% saturated fat is a dangerous game. He reported that The American College of Cardiology and the AHA recommend no more than 5-6% of calories from saturated fat; Americans are currently eating twice that, 10-12%, largely due to olive oil. He pointed out that in the PREDIMED study, every group of participants went on to experience major cardio events (even the oil group, see below section), and 273 developed diabetes. Rip said he dislikes singling out a single food as healthy or unhealthy, and that much depends on a person's health status and total diet.

 

The CORDIOPEV Study

After watching the debate twice and taking detailed notes, I decided to start digging into the research myself. I started with the CORDIOPREV study mentioned by Dr. Davis, which was conducted in Spain and shows benefits to the consumption of a Mediterranean diet with olive oil as compared to a low-fat diet.

Briefly, the participants had already experienced some form of heart disease in the past, making this a ‘secondary’ study. They were given a baseline IMT-CC test (an ultrasound which detects the thickness of the two inner layers of the common carotid artery), and they were asked to track their food intake using a 14-point questionnaire called the “Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener.” Those who did not drop out of the study for various reasons were evaluated again after 5 years and 7 years.

Several red flags became apparent.

If you’ve followed my website for any length of time, you may be aware of the #1 tip when it comes to evaluating research, which is “who is making the claim, and who funded the study?”

The first sponsor listed in the CORDIOPREV study is the Olive Communal Heritage Foundation, an organization dedicated to “implementing initiatives that benefit the entire olive sector.” Their purpose, according to their website, is to guarantee the maximum and best exploitation of the Spanish Olive sector that collaborates in the defense, promotion, and management of the collective interest of all those who make up this important sector of our economy.

So, the people who funded this study are the same people guaranteeing the maximum promotion of olives. Big red flag.

Was it Really Low-Fat?

Another red flag is the claim that a “low-fat” diet was used in the comparisons. According to the study, the Mediterranean diet was 35% fat (meaning 35% of the calories in the diet were coming from fat); and the “low-fat” group was 28% fat (with the goal to stay under 30%).

Sorry, but a nearly 30% fat diet is NOT a low-fat diet! Technically, both diets were high in fat.

A truly low-fat diet would be what the credible experts in the plant-based world have proven to work effectively for decades: 10% - 15% of calories from fat. The McDougall Program is under 10% fat, and Dr. Esselstyn’s plan is even less. For reference, the American Cancer Society promotes 20% dietary fat, while the World Health Organization advocates for 15%. Again, a diet consisting of nearly 30% fat is not low-fat.

Side Note: For those who prefer to track their fat intake by the number of fat grams they consume, a low-fat diet would average roughly between 22 and 27 grams of fat per day (depending on your calorie intake). Following Dr. Davis’s advice to consume 1.5 TBS of oil daily would provide a whopping 21 grams of fat.

Other concerns about the study surfaced for me, too; the comparison models, the dietary guidelines (only the oil group was advised to have a low intake of red/processed meats and pastries/commercial bakery products), the accuracy of self-reported questionnaires for years, the other studies being referenced which don’t seem to back up their claims, and the fact that the study did not show any difference in the NUMBER of arterial plaques after either dietary intervention.

 

The PREDIMED Study

The PREDIMED study (referenced by both Dr. Davis and Rip) enrolled 7447 participants in Spain who were overweight, or smoked, or had diabetes or other risk factors for arterial disease. The study was paid for by the olive oil and nut producers in Spain, as well as the California Walnut Commission, all of whom stood to benefit from the results.

Participants were randomly assigned to follow one of three groups: a Mediterranean diet with nuts, a Mediterranean diet with olive oil, or a ‘low-fat’ diet.

Once again, there were no participants actually following a low-fat diet; the people assigned to the low-fat group reduced their fat intake from 39% to 37% fat, an insignificant amount, and definitely not low-fat.

All three groups were essentially consuming rich, calorically dense food, and liberal amounts of alcohol. It’s not surprising that not one of the subjects in the entire study lost weight. Plus, most were taking statin drugs, blood pressure drugs, or drugs for diabetes, and there were no reductions in medications.

And, as is often the case, the results were reported in relative numbers, rather than absolute numbers (which makes studies look far better than they really are). For example, during the time of the study, a total of 288 cardiovascular events occurred: 96 events in the oil group (3.8%), 83 events in the nut group (3.4%), and 109 events in the ‘low fat’ group (4.4%). In absolute terms, the people eating olive oil experienced a risk reduction of only 0.6%; those eating nuts had a 1% reduction in risk.

The study was later retracted when a British anesthesiologist named John Carlisle suspected that the participants in the study were not being randomized properly, and it turned out he was right. Articles are retracted when it is learned that the results are no longer reliable, to the point they cannot be corrected.

According to Dr. Pam Popper of Wellness Forum Health, who’s been teaching how to evaluate research for decades, the authors of the original paper issued a corrected version that showed only a correlation between the Mediterranean diet and better health outcomes; the corrected version could not claim that the diet caused better health outcomes. This significant difference essentially negates the claims made in the original study.

 

The Real Issue: Researchers for Hire

For anyone planning to include more olive oil in their diet as a result of these studies or Dr. Davis's recommendations, may I strongly encourage you to watch this informative video hosted by Jeff Nelson, a research analyst and well-known investigative reporter in the plant-based arena.

Titled Great Olive Oil Debate - Rip vs. Garth - WHO WON?, the video features Jeff Nelson and Dr. Peter Rogers discussing the science in greater depth and highlighting some concerning facts:

• Dr. Rogers breaks down the biochemistry of how all oils, including olive oil, impair blood flow, raise triglycerides, and contribute to high blood pressure, diabetes, atherosclerosis, heart attacks, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, and clogged arteries to the brain.
• The food industry, over the last 30 years, has figured out how to ‘work the system’ to their favor by finding researchers and doctors who will provide favorable results. (I would add: That’s why ‘older research’ is often more credible and should never be dismissed.)
• The key studies Dr. Davis cites, like PREDIMED, are riddled with methodological issues and industry influence.
• Dr. David Katz, whom Davis quotes frequently, has received major funding from olive oil industry groups. (see video link below)
• The Greek population is heavier today than ever while eating the Mediterranean diet. Body fat tissue tests reveal that 55% of that fat is olive oil.
• Dr. Rogers: We shouldn’t be asking where we’ll get our ‘good fats.’ We’ll get all the fats we need from a whole food plant-based diet, which are filled with fiber that convert fats properly in the colon so there’s no risk of leaky gut.
• Dr. Rogers shares findings on contaminants like lead and phthalates found in many commercial olive oils.

It’s NOT a Toss-Up

Jeff Nelson argues it is NOT a toss-up when it comes to oils; in fact, he’s surprised there’s even a debate. Some topics ARE debatable, but this is not one of them. According to Jeff, the science has not changed. The best results are STILL coming from the old school doctors who never sold out. Dr. Rogers points out the the only reason we're having a debate is because big money is involved.

To quote Jeff Nelson from his YouTube show notes:

The most dramatic disease reversal results - Esselstyn, McDougall, Ornish, Kempner - have consistently come from very low-fat, oil-free diets. These aren’t mild improvements; we’re talking about people sent home to die by cardiologists who are still thriving decades later. While Dr. Davis makes thoughtful points about helping people take small steps, Peter and I explain why we remain firmly in the oil-free camp - for those serious about reversing disease and achieving optimal health.

 

Final Thoughts

It’s possible to find a study to support any position out there. That’s why we should always look at independent research (free of industry funding) and consider the entire body of evidence as opposed to a handful of studies…. especially if we’re going to base our health decisions on it.

The olive oil industry is heavily funding and influencing the research in question. As Jeff Nelson points out in his video, the researchers in all these studies are the same group of people; and they’re in business with the olive oil industry.

Nothing in this debate convinced me that consuming pure isolated liquid fat is a healthy thing to do. Not even close. Promoting oils to a population that is nearly 75% overweight or obese is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Not to mention that heart disease remains our #1 killer - with a high-fat diet being a culprit. It appears to me that  certain doctors (and well-known organizations) are 'selling out' for various reasons I won’t expand on here.

I’m not sure how many people will change their eating patterns based on this debate. Those who already follow a low-fat, plant-based diet will be assured they’ve made a good choice. Those who believe that consuming oils on a regular basis is necessary for good health will continue to do so, despite the poorly designed studies with inherent conflicts.

The debate is not about Rip versus Garth, or Jeff Nelson versus Dr. Katz. We should never base our health decisions on the advice of one or a few experts. It really boils down to the three things: the credibility of the research being touted, the overall body of unbiased evidence, and the decades-long results achieved by our pioneer doctors which are proven to actually reverse disease (not just improve biomarkers or slow disease progression).

May I encourage you to read the studies for yourself to reach your own informed conclusions. The best thing about the debate is that it DID prompt me to spend hours digging into the studies even deeper, and for that I’m grateful; it only solidified my reasoning to continue following the oil-free plan I’ve enjoyed for years.

One last thing. The consumption of oils seems to be a controversial topic. You may have a totally different take on all this, and that’s OK. It's my hope we can agree to disagree and still be friends.

PS: In over 25 years of helping people, I have never seen this oil-free lifestyle not benefit those who fully stick with it. And you’re never too old or too sick to begin. I’m here to help. Book a complimentary call if you’d like to talk it over.

LINKS:

The Great Oil Debate with Rip and Garth

Jeff Nelson and Dr. Peter Rogers – The Great Oil Debate, Who Won?

Jeff Nelson - Forks Over Knives Isn't What It Used to Be

Oils – What You Should Know (Cyd’s Website)

The CORDIOPREV Study

Tips to Evaluate What You Hear or Read

Dr. Katz’ financial ties to the Olive Oil Industry

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

 

Reference: Dr. Pam Popper, Wellness Forum Health Briefs, Mediterranean Diet

Fats are Essential                                      

(reviewed/updated 4-2-2024)

We do need some fats!

Among other things, fats are used to pad our organs, regulate body temperature, and help absorb fat-soluble vitamins such as A, E, D, and K. However, it's very easy to over-consume fat, in which case our body will store it.

There are two essential fatty acids which our bodies cannot produce and must be consumed (hence the name essential). Those are Linolenic acids and Linoleic acids, a.k.a. Omega-3 and Omega-6. However, we need these fats in appropriate amounts to sustain a healthy balance (the omega-6:3 ratio).

Our bodies need BOTH types of fatty acids for good function, but omega-3 has numerous health benefits (heart health, brain function, anti-inflammatory, and more). There are at least eleven types of omega-3, but the three most important are ALA, EPA, and DHA.

ALA (Alpha-linolenic acid) 

...is the most common omega-3 fatty acid in the diet. It's mostly found in plant foods and is the necessary precursor for our bodies to produce (convert) into EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid)​ through the actions of a series of enzymes.

ALA/Omega-3 is found in kale, spinach, soybeans, walnuts, and many seeds such as flax, chia, and hemp. Omega-3 is also found in romaine, berries, beans, vegetables and fruits.

Omega-6, on the other hand, while we do need certain amounts for good health, can produce harmful prostaglandins that contribute to inflammation when we consume too much. That happens when the omega 6 linoleic acid converts into another fatty acid called arachidonic acid (AA). Sources of Omega-6 include avocado, extracted oils, land animals, and certain nuts and seeds.

The Standard American Diet, filled with oils and animal products, contributes greatly to the overload of Omega-6 intake in our country.

The majority of Americans are eating way more oils than they suspect. Processed vegetable oils are prevalent in restaurant foods, and are often hidden in packaged foods such as salad dressing, frozen entrees, crackers, breads, cereals, baked goods, and anything fried. (Read more about the concern over oils here.)

Recommendations

1. Instead of focusing solely on increasing Omega-3, it's also crucial to greatly reduce the consumption of Omega-6 fatty acids. Note: animal foods and oils SHOULD be eliminated for optimal health; but other sources of Omega-6 include avocado, cashews and other nuts, sesame seeds, peanuts, and refined /processed junk food (vegan or not). High-fat plant foods should be used sparingly for a variety of reasons, especially since our fat intake should be kept at 10-15% of total calories.
2. Add a tablespoon of ground flax seed to your diet each day. Flax seeds are a concentrated source of ALA, which our bodies convert to Omega-3. You'd have to eat 3.2 pounds of salmon to get the equivalent amount of ALA found in 1/4 cup of flax seed. (Note: This does NOT apply to flaxseed oil). Flax is also a great source of fiber and also contains cancer-fighting lignans. Grind it fresh each day for optimal nutrition.
3. Increase your intake of greens, beans, berries, broccoli, soybeans, vegetables, and certain fruits.
4. If you're truly concerned about your fatty acid levels, order your own blood test from UltaLabTests.com. For about $49 (at the time of this writing), you can have a simple blood test performed to check your Omega-3 and Omega-6 levels, your EPA, DHA, ALA, your Omega-3:6 ratio, and more.
5. Unless you're found to be deficient in a nutrient, including fatty acids, there's really no need to take supplements unless your doctor provides a legitimate reason. This is solely your decision, of course, and I'm sharing this with you as "general information," not specific medical advice. Throughout my many years of training, I was taught by several credible doctors that taking unnecessary supplements (with the exception of B12) can cause imbalances in other parts of the body; and the research backs that up. When we get our vitamins and minerals through food, our bodies can pick and choose exactly what it needs to function each day; that's known as 'selective absorption.' But when we ingest supplements, however, the body is forced to deal with whatever we've introduced. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
6. If you do decide to take supplements or prescription Omega-3 drugs, I encourage you watch this video by Dr. Pam Popper. She's written extensively on this topic over many years and provides information you should know before you supplement or take a prescription for fatty acids.
7. Lastly, make sure to do your due diligence when it comes to supplements by investigating the research yourself. Use my tips - 7 Ways to Evaluate What You Hear and Read - for more guidance. You'll find that article here. 

 

For more information about inflammatory foods, please consider my class.

For a free webinar on "3 Food Mistakes" that most people are making, click here.

 

Stop Dieting...Once and for All

Diets don't work for the long haul, that much we know. Less than 3% of dieters are able to keep the weight off... which means 97% of people following one of today's typical diets will NOT have long-term success.

That's because diets based on calorie restriction or smaller portions of the same unhealthy foods are not the answer for long-term weight loss OR improved health.

So what do we need to do?

 

Think Long-Term

Lifelong weight control and good health require permanent lifestyle changes, not a short-term, restrictive diet.

Perhaps you're concerned because your weight is creeping up and you've just been diagnosed with hypertension/high cholesterol/pre-diabetes/fill in the blank. You recognize that it's time to make a course correction, and the sooner the better.

If so, here are four factors to consider before choosing another typical "diet" plan:

1. Is is sustainable? In other words, is this something I can comfortably do for the long-haul? Or will I be destined to eat small portions, count points, feel deprived, or feel hungry? Going "on a diet" often means that at some point, you'll go OFF the diet and return to normal eating (which may have gotten you into trouble to begin with). So ask yourself if your new way of eating will serve you well over many years.
2. Is it nutritionally sound? Will you be getting the protein, carbs, fat, calcium, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants you need - in the right amounts - in order to function well? Does the new plan ask you to purchase supplements or powders in order to meet your nutritional needs, and if so, is that because those nutrients are missing from the foods?
3. Is the new plan based on sound science? This one can be tricky, since there are studies to back up any theory or point of view. In order to be sure, we always have to assure the science being referenced meets certain criteria. You can learn more about that here.
4. Is it safe for my health? Diet books that fly off the shelves are often anything BUT good for your long-term health. Your new eating plan should be able to prevent and reverse disease, without contributing to more problems down the road. Today's diets which focus on high-fat, high-protein, low-carb foods are known contributors to serious health issues. As Dr. Greger points out in his "How Not to Diet" book, the goal of weight loss is not to lighten the load for your pallbearers. Your new way of eating should BUILD health, not destroy it.

You CAN have the best of both worlds...

...natural, safe weight loss without ever being hungry, AND the ability to maintain/restore your health, not worsen it.

The ONLY way of eating that can answer those 4 questions with a resounding YES is a whole food, plant-based diet without the use of added oils.

And did I mention the foods are satisfying and delicious!?

All your favorite comfort foods remade into healthy versions, with no deprivation or hunger. Burgers, pastas, burritos, sloppy joes, lasagna.... oh and by the way, banana splits.

 

Why Wait?

I encourage you to explore more about this health promoting, anti-inflammatory way of eating. Once you get over the learning curve, you will NOT regret that you've given your body the best chance to heal. More energy, better mobility, clearer thinking, a healthier gut, and so much more.

 

I would love to help you get started!

Check out my free Training Class here - it takes only 45 minutes and you can watch it as your leisure.

 

Also check out my book, The "Plan A" Diet, is also packed with sound science (and optional scriptural support for those in the Christian faith). The book is available anywhere books are sold; signed copies can be ordered here for only $12.95 (Free shipping).

Or, Click here for a list of recommended resources.

 

Don't put this off any longer. Your future YOU will thank the you of today 🙂

 

Dear friend, I know that you are spiritually well. I pray that you’re doing well in every other way and that you’re healthy.
(3 John 1:2, GW)