Proteins do not harm the kidneys

As the high-protein diets reappear from time to time (especially before the summer), this essential macronutrient has hung a few sambenitos repeated over and over again from the mouth of nutritionists and journalists shortly updated.

One of these litanies is that excess protein can damage the kidneys, but these diets whether we like it or not, the accusation is simply false. The origin of this fallacy is protein restriction to which it is subjected to some people with a particular type of renal dysfunction. Without going into details, it is true that there are cases where some people who have a serious illness kidney are advised to eat low protein, to reduce the work they must do. But that does not mean that someone with normal kidneys should do the same. Also someone with a serious back pain is encouraged to rest and stop for a while their fitness routines and cycling. Does that mean that the fitness and cycling are bad for your back? No, on the contrary.

Anyway, beyond theories, science is little room for debate on this issue. There have been many studies on the subject and has never been observed that proteins adversely affect the kidneys. The most recent was published this week in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, entitled Comparative Effects of Low-Carbohydrate High-Protein Versus Low-Fat Diets on the Kidney, in addition to weight loss and other factors , the renal function of two groups of obese people, one of them with a diet low in protein and one with a high protein, for two years was compared. And nobody had any kidney problems.

So when you play this mantra as an argument to criticize the high protein diets, know who says it is not documented for years. Or maybe I will because I have other hidden agendas.

New York Giants and the ban on soft drinks

These days has been news that Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, is considering to ban soft drinks giant, as a measure to prevent obesity. And several associations have already responded that they need is a mayor, not a nanny.

Unfortunately, when the political stakes, proposals and counterproposals are not based on common sense or science, but party interests. But what Bloomberg proposes seems right because, unfortunately, I think a lot of people if you need a babysitter when it comes to nutrition. His proposal could be a way to raise awareness that these cubes are taken regularly crap. A refreshment of the news refers contains almost half a liter of liquid, that is, we would be putting us under his belt about 50 grams of sugar. Specifically shaped fructose corn syrup if you live in New York. The equivalent of ten sugar cubes. So drink it is at least childish. Perhaps even foolish. Not me, they say studies like this that fructose consumption associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The downside of this decision is that probably end as when sodas American schools were eliminated. In that case the same manufacturers allowed to replace their juices, which have little juice are crap and contain the same amount of sugar as soda. Almost certainly in this case how to continue selling their products in one way or another they are also sought.
More evidence that high total cholesterol does not have to be dangerous
As I said previously in other articles and as also detailed in the book "What the science says ... diet" is incessant dripping studies questioning the recommended ranges of total cholesterol still used as a reference in preventive blood analyzes. Normally doctors are cured in health and meet these ranges to the letter, alerting as the value is greater than 200 mg / dl and urging us to change our diet to reduce it. And in the worst case we come to recommend eating less food with cholesterol, which does not usually used only to desbaratarnos diet because dietary cholesterol rarely affects blood cholesterol, as has been demonstrated in numerous studies.

A recent and powerful study reconfirms this mess, "Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study." In this case it has been done in Norway, tracking more than 50,000 people for ten years and has analyzed the total mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. The conclusions are similar in all cases and clearly indicate that the range and criteria should be modified or even radically rethink.

Specifically, the results indicate that in the case of men, the sections of lower risk (ie safer) is aproximately located between 200 and 230 mg / dl and in women the result is even more radical and contrary to the accepted to date: At higher values ​​of total cholesterol, lower risk. In the next picture you can see a graphical representation of risk in the case of total mortality, extracted from the study itself (in blue for men and red on the
women):
No link between the meat and pancreatic cancer
Again another great review draws conclusions toppling entrenched myths. "Meat and fish consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer - results from the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition," a review of  http://kampung-herbal.com/obat-herbal-asam-urat/ nearly half a million people recruited from ten different countries and observed for years to analyze the possible correlation between meat consumption red, processed meat and pancreatic cancer.

And the meat has emerged unscathed. It has not been found that increased consumption relating to this type of cancer. The most surprising thing is that, unlike in many other studies, found themselves link between cancer and the white meat or poultry.

 Summary of nutritional information for buyers ebook
Enough buyers of the digital version of the book "What the science says ... diet" have given me the trouble to consult the tables of nutritional information on its book reader or ereader. Indeed, ebooks are great for reading, but are not exactly comfortable if we want to consult frequently.

For anyone who has acquired the book in this format, I have compiled all these tables in pdf and any content tip: The food pyramid and a model of weekly menu planning. There are eight pages in pdf, manageable and practical format.

You can get it by asking for an email to loquedicelacienciaparadelgazar (at) gmail.com, with a copy of proof of purchase of the ebook.

The Weight of the Nation, review and comments. A missed opportunity

The summary of my views on the documentary The Weight of the Nation, the fashion documentary on obesity, is in the title of the post: a missed opportunity (here are the links to view it). It seems a great shame that so many have dedicated resources to make a documentary over four hours and have been left out many important ideas on weight loss and weight loss. And those that are included have left a bittersweet taste. I wonder what someone with obesity after seeing the view. Would it has become clear what you have to do to lose weight?


The film is well done. I mean, well produced. It shows that have provided resources and the bet was important. Such initiatives are always recommended to see, though not entirely agree with the result. Not that this is entirely my case, but the truth is that I could not tell what I weighed more: If what I liked or what less.

Come on, get wet.

So if I liked

    The testimonies, some impressive. Maybe there was too morbid, but they can help skeptics to appreciate the suffering and problems of people with obesity.
    The health consequences. They show in detail the medical problems that can go as far overweight.
    Awareness of children. Childhood obesity is a major blunder to be avoided at all costs and make clear.
    The optimistic ending. Although they do with styling that other countries do not understand very well for being too American, the last chapter conveys a rather optimistic message.
    It points directly to some of the culprits: Soft drinks, juices, breakfast cereals and hyper-processed foods, supported by unscrupulous marketing.

What he did not like

    Confusion about weight loss solutions. There are few precise instructions and there, especially presented in the second part, are not clear, too focused on psychological aspects, calories and portions.
    Do not fail to teach anything about nutrition and metabolism and especially important not to blame other states, the other refined carbohydrates.
    The contradictions with exercise. Leave several doctors saying that losing weight by exercising is very difficult, but then spend much time trying to convince us that we must do so. Or teach a construction company in which workers move a lot and are very active ... but a lot of them are obese.
    Some topics unfortunate, but thermodynamically certain therapeutically useless: Phrases like "a calorie is a calorie" and "what to do Escomer less and spend more" left over from the worst of the documentary.
    We are told that the NIH (Department of Health) is dedicating 800 million a year in research on obesity, but why not tell what is being achieved? What recent studies say? What advanced and interesting projects are underway?

In short, light and shadow. A nice try, but the mistakes of the past decades are committed. That said, a poorly exploited opportunity.

Impressive study on fats and cardiovascular disease

Cochrane Collaboration is the most important and powerful scientific initiative in the world to review medical studies and concrete conclusions based on an enormous amount of data. Reference is that all experts, researchers and doctors use as the most reliable of all the existing source. One of its main tasks is to make major revisions of medical studies of specific topics, selecting the most reliable and rigorous studies and analyzing the results with powerful statistical tools.

Well, recently published Cochrane impressive on reducing fats and cardiovascular disease, "Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventative cardiovascular disease", which has no waste. It includes analysis of 48 of the most rigorous studies in recent years, tracking tens of thousands. PubMed is the summary of this link and complete document (over 200 pages!) In this one. And reading the dense and detailed report in its entirety, the main conclusions that I would highlight is the following, depending on the different possible strategies:

Fat reduction

- No clear evidence of lower mortality rates in cardiovascular disease, cancer or diabetes in low-fat diets.
- Low-fat diets are associated with a modest reduction in weight, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol and LDL. However, no values ​​vary blood pressure, HDL and triglyceride.
- No clear evidence of fewer cardiovascular events in low-fat diets.

Replacing saturated fats with other "healthier"

- No clear evidence of a lower mortality in the diets replacing saturated fats with others.
- Diets replacing saturated fats with other associated with a modest reduction in total cholesterol and triglycerides. There have changes in the levels of weight, BMI, LDL and HDL ..
- Diets that replace other saturated fats are associated with an increased risk of cancer death.

Reducing saturated fats + substitution by other "healthier"

- No clear evidence of improved mortality rates in cardiovascular disease, cancer or diabetes diets that combine a reduction of saturated fats and replacing them by other fats.
- Diets that combine a reduction of saturated fats and replacing them by www.kampung-herbal.com  other fats, are associated with a modest reduction in total cholesterol LDL and triglycerides. In contrast, no changes were observed in HDL and BMI.

Furthermore generally

- Diets reduction and / or replacement of saturated fat are associated with a small reduction in the number of total cardiovascular events, but not to any particular event. However, there is no clear evidence to present some improvement in mortality.

The findings do not require further comment. In my opinion, the review authors are even too conservative in their own final conclusions, recommending a reduction in saturated fat, having said quite literally what I wrote above. And in view of the existing scientific evidence, I think we should reconsider whether its demonization over the years has served to something or has backfired. At best, we might be inclined to moderation, but never rejection that we have instilled obsessively.

By the way, this study, the largest to date of the issue, should not be compulsory reading for all physicians, nutritionists and the like?
You may also be interested in:

Is it really necessary to eat all the food groups?

We will have probably heard many times: "Do not stop eating any of the food groups, all are necessary." A phrase that appeals to fear, that sounds like we're actually depriving your body of an essential macronutrient.

Needless to say this phrase used especially those who want to criticize the low or very low carbohydrate diets. They want to convey is that if we eat something bad carbohydrates we will, because we are eliminating one of the three major food groups (along with proteins and fats).

First, we should clarify that that there are three major food groups, also called macronutrients, is but one of our classification based on the chemical composition and the amount you usually eat. We could classify otherwise, subdividing the types of carbohydrates or fats, including micronutrients, or alcohol, and even water.

Secondly, there are only a macronutrient medically which can be dispensed completely without suffering any pathology almost immediately: carbohydrates. You can try to look at any book on medicine, but will not find it. But if we do not eat any fat or protein, we will fall ill within days.

Third, the foods that nature has given us for eons carbohydrates are vegetables and fruits. No more, until agriculture was first used extensively less than five thousand years ago. Most modern diets that restrict carbohydrates not relate to vegetables and fruits not. Why then has to be now need to eat cereals, pasta, bread or rice? Luckily, not all bad news. Agriculture and civilization if we have brought some carbohydrate foods that have proven to be healthy and have no undesirable side effects of the above: Legumes and whole foods, that is, the low glycemic index. Because the terminology of "simple carbohydrates or complex" to be heard often makes sense chemically but nutritionally it for very little. The glycemic index, which indicates the rate of absorption is the factor that really gives valuable information about your behavior on our digestive system. The smaller this value, the slower and less absorption peaks of glucose and insulin have in our bloodstream.

And finally, as I explain in the book "What the science says ... diet": Is there any scientific evidence that stop eating refined carbohydrates rapidly absorbed or unhealthy? No. And some that seem to indicate otherwise? Well enough ... This has been the theory, let's test:

Studies linking refined carbohydrates with diseases or disadvantages:

- Low-Carbohydrate-Diet Score and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women (2006)
- White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis and systematic review (2012)
- Carbohydrate nutrition is Associated With the 5-year incidence of chronic kidney disease (2011)
- Long-term effects of a lifestyle intervention on weight and cardiovascular risk factors in Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Studies finding health benefits for low-glycemic foods:

- Glycemic index and glycemic load are Associated With Some cardiovascular risk factors Participants Among the PREMIER study (2012).
- Dietary glycemic load and glycemic index and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in Dutch men and women: the EPIC-MORGEN study (2011).
- Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk - a meta-analysis of observational studies (2008).

So when you play that all food groups are needed, remember that vegetables and fruits, even with legumes and whole foods from time to time, you can eat all the carbohydrates you need and the format in which your metabolism is designed to assimilate perfectly. The rest are at best optional. But not necessary.
The Weight of the Nation, online and with subtitles in Spanish
These are the links to the fashion documentary on obesity released in the US yesterday, "The Weight of the Nation" (The Weight of the Nation):

First part: Consequences
Part Two: Options
Part Three: Children in crisis
Part Four: Challenges

To see subtitles in Spanish, you have to move the mouse over the video and when you leave the control bar (bottom right) click on settings and activate the subtitles.

In short, I will write my comments and views on the documentary.

Update: It seems that the server HBO has collapsed, because there is no way to go fluid video. Also the four parts on YouTube, but in English without subtitles (except the first).