Sterols should be outlawed

While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.


Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.

The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:

Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:
Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.

Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:
Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.

Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:
Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.




Though the data are mixed:

Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.

No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.




The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.

Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:




Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.












HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.













Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.














Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.














MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.














Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.










WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.

In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.

Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products.


Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .

Comments (10) -

  • TedHutchinson

    3/14/2009 3:10:00 PM |

    Margarine and Phytosterolemia

    Stephan Wholehealthfoodsource also has a recent interesting blog on this topic.

  • Anne

    3/16/2009 2:19:00 AM |

    The more I read about processed foods, the more I stick to whole foods. I was part of the trans fat experiment. I am not willing to take part in the sterol test.

  • Rick

    3/16/2009 5:43:00 AM |

    Most medical blogs, though useful, give us a "Choose your guru" kind of model. This post exemplifies an approach that can be summarised as: "Here's what I think, and why; you can follow my recommendations, or you can do your own research; and what's more I'll give you some pointers to get you started." Great stuff. Thank you.

    On the issue of plant sterols, the standard argumentation appears to be: "Cholesterol is bad. Anything that displaces cholesterol must be good. We're not interested in what the substances displacing cholesterol might be doing." Unfortunately, the argument is usually tacit; otherwise, it would be immediately obvious how misguided this line of thought is.

  • renegadediabetic

    3/16/2009 1:33:00 PM |

    Here they go again.  They try to solve a non-existant problem and just make things worse.

    There's big $$$$$$ in cholesterol and this is all about $$$$$, not health.

  • Anna

    3/17/2009 3:43:00 AM |

    I rarely shop in regular supermarkets anymore (farm subscription for veggies, meat bought in bulk for the freezer, eggs from a local individual, fish from a fish market, freshly roasted coffee from a local coffee place, etc.).  What little else I need comes from quirky Trader Joe's (dark chocolate!), the fish market, farmer's markets, a small natural foods store, or mail order.  

    When I do need to go into one of the many huge supermarkets near me, not being a regular shopper there, I never know where anything is, so I have to ramble a bit around the aisles before I find what I'm looking for (and I almost always can grab a hand basket, instead of a trolley cart).  

    It's almost like being on another planet!  There's always so many new products (most of them I hesitate to even call food).   It's really a shock to the senses now to see how much stuff supermarkets sell that I wouldn't even pick up to read the label, let alone put in a cart or want to taste.  I'm not even tempted by 99% of the tasting samples handed out by the sweet senior ladies in at Costco anymore (only thing I remember tasting at Costco in at least 6 mos was the Kerrygold  Irish cheese, because I know their cows have pasture access and it's real food).

    What's really shocking to me is how large some sections of the markets have become in recent years.  While Americans got larger, so did some sections of the supermarket (hint - good idea to limit the consumption of products from those areas).  Meat and seafood counters have shrunk, though.  Produce areas seem to be about the same size as always (but more of it is pre-prepped and RTE in packaging.

    But the chilled juice section is h-u-g-e!  And no, I don't think there is a Florida orange grove behind the cases.  Come on, how much juice do people need?  Juice glasses used to be teeny tiny, for a good reason.  To me it looks like a long wall stocked full of sugar water.  Avoiding that section will put a nice dent in the grocery expenses.

    The yogurt case is also e-n-o-r-m-o-u-s!   Your 115 yo Bulgarian "grandmother" wouldn't know what to make of all these "pseudo-yogurts"!  Chock full of every possible variety, but very little fit to eat.  The only yogurts I'll look at are made with plain whole milk, without added gums, emulsifiers, or non-fat milk solids, and live cultures (I mostly buy yogurt now and then to refresh my starter culture at home).  I can flavor them at home if needed.   The sterols are showing up in processed yogurts, too, along with patented new strains of probiotic cultures (I'll stick to my old fashioned, but time-proven homemade lacto-cultured veggies and yogurt instead).

    I found the same "cooler spread" in the butter & "spread" section.  The spread options were just grotesque sounding.  Actually, the butter options weren't much better, as many were blended with other ingredients to increase spreadability, reduce calories or cholesterol/saturated fat, etc.  A few plain butters were enhanced with "butter flavor" - say what?  And on no package could it be determined if the butter came from cows that were naturally fed on pasture or on grain in confined pens.

  • fizzog

    3/19/2009 12:31:00 PM |

    Are sterols the same as plant stanol esters, as in Benecol (http://www.benecol.co.uk/new/light-nutrition-information.htm)?

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2009 6:14:00 PM |

    Is beta-sitosterol, found in anti-BPH supplements in the amount of about 500 mg., okay?

  • Klimbsac

    4/11/2009 5:40:00 AM |

    I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


    Joannah

    http://myscones.com/

  • Tony

    7/23/2009 9:51:32 PM |

    One of your articles cited concludes:

    "However, the role of dietary plant sterols in the development of atherosclerotic plaque is not known."

    Basically, there is no evidence that adsorption of sterols into serum did anything negative here. The presence of sterols is not a smoking gun.

    I take your warning as a caution, but I am not sure I believe you any more than the opposite side of this story, and yet I am by example proof that sterols have reduced my bad cholesterol levels.

    By the way, the Promise Active Supershots actually have 2 GRAMS of sterols, not 400 mg as you stated. Also, that product is being taken off the market at the end of August 2009 due to lack of market response (so I am told by Unilever).

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:20:34 PM |

    This study, piled on top of the worrisome literature that precede it, are enough for me: No more tin cans (which are lined with BPA), no more hard plastics labeled with recycling code #7 or #3, no more polycarbonate water bottles (the hard ones, often brightly colored). Microwaveable-safe may also mean human-unsafe, as highlighted by this damning assurance from the Tupperware people that BPA is not a health hazard.

Loading
Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D


Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about.

This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin.

Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be.



Simple Steps
Do Your D!


Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!

Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.

So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!



Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.)

The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.

Ms. Austin fell for it.


The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.

First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you.

The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.


Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.


Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter.

By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.

I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.

Comments (12) -

  • Cristy

    1/16/2009 3:39:00 PM |

    What would be your recommendation to ensure adequate vitamin D intake for my children who are 7 and 9?

  • Jessica

    1/16/2009 6:30:00 PM |

    Thanks for posting this and continuing your efforts to provide the public with GOOD information about D and health in general.

    Most doctors don't "get it" when it comes to Vit D, so I don't expect Ms. Austin too either.

    I'll stick with www.vitamindcouncil.com, my own research, and your site. Thats my vitamin D package.

    P.S. A local pharmacy began carrying the 5,000 D-3 capsules! And, one of our patients is a pharmacist for a national chain and during a visit last week, we asked about the possibility of his pharmacy carrying 5,000 IU D3 and he said, "not a problem!"

    We'll see!

  • Anonymous

    1/16/2009 7:26:00 PM |

    I have a quick question: do we have any clue why we lose the ability to get vitamin D from sunlight after 30 or 40? And is this the same for everybody? Is there a way you can slow down the downhill slide? Thanks a lot.

  • Jenny

    1/16/2009 8:43:00 PM |

    The messages seems to be getting through in my area: every time there's a sale in the vitamin department, the larger dose Vitamin D pills vanish!

    And the oil based D3 is showing up everywhere, too.

  • baldsue

    1/16/2009 11:39:00 PM |

    My gynecologist has got it wrong, too.  When I told her I was taking 3000IU of vit. D per day she snorted and said, "I think you mean 300".  I said, "No, 3000" and I explained that I had been deficient.  She said "There's just too much hype about D these days."

    Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!

  • Peter Silverman

    1/17/2009 12:40:00 PM |

    If you still think the vitamin D gelcaps work and the tablets don't, why don't you mention it more often: a lot of people take the tablets because they're cheaper, thinking they're getting the benefit.

  • TedHutchinson

    1/19/2009 3:29:00 PM |

    For Cristy
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-october.shtml
    Dr Cannell talks about the idea amount for children here.

    For anonymous. Vitamin D3 is made from the cholesterol in our skin. As we age our skin gets thinner and their is less cholesterol near the surface for the UVB rays to turn to  vitamin D3. You may find Dr Davis's previous blog on the topic interesting.
    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/vitamin-d-and-programmed-aging.html

    Re  Peter Silverman some of us, who regularly get our 25(OH)D tested, use dry powder Vitamin D3 5000iu capsules do find, if we consume them with food, that we can attain and maintain a reasonable 25(OH)D status using these cheaper capsules.
    Dr Davis finds the oil gel generally more reliable and so you pays your money and takes your choice. but vitamin d3, whatever form can be found very cheaply so cost/saving should not be the first priority.

    But all skinflints here may be interested in the GRASSROOTS VITAMIN D TESTING TRIAL.
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/d-action
    Sign up now for a 25(OH)D test from zrt labs for just $30 every six months for the next 5 years.
    These tests normally cost $75 and the vitamin D council were doing them for $ 65.00
    So hopefully those who save money will think about a donation to support the Grassroots site
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

  • Anna

    1/25/2009 9:57:00 PM |

    Ted, thanks for the grassroots Vit D info.  Turns out the administration of this study/PR campaign is right in my own backyard (metaphorically speaking).  I'm going to help the administrator stuff test kit envelopes (saving them $1000s in mail  stuffing services) and get the word out in the local vitamin stores and "health food" stores, etc.

    Even though my family can get our levels tested through our HMO network, covered by insurance, I signed up the entire family for this study, because I feel strongly about helping them to get the data they need about Vit D levels and health conditions.

    Cristy, I started my 75 pound 10 yo old on 3000 iU of Vit D3 (Carlson brand) when the school year started (more indoor time), based on the Vit D Council's weight/dose recommendations.  We had a need to get a blood sample for something else in December and I requested a 25 (OH)D at the same time.  It was 72 ng/ml, perfect!  I'll probably reduce or stop the Vit for the summer months, though, as he's outdoors a lot.  

    BTW, we are in coastal San Diego County, where nearly all the middle aged (or older) adults I know who get tested are in the very low reference range (30s) or lower (my husband and I test so far in the 40s with some D3 supplementation, so we raised our dose in line with the Vit D Council's recs, too).  

    So sunny mild climate means little if one's indoor or sun-avoidance lifestyle has little sun exposure (or age).

  • Anna

    1/25/2009 10:00:00 PM |

    Oh, just noticed, there's an error in that d*action / Grass Roots Health link.  It's .org, not .net.

    http://www.grassrootshealth.org/

  • Anonymous

    8/16/2010 10:18:50 AM |

    It is such hell trying to work without the help of a nutritional doctor. I have been helped to regain my health by a nutritional approach but the GMC don't like that and my wonderful doctor was targeted and now I have to try and manage my health on my own. It is not very satisfactory to put it mildly

  • Osiris

    8/16/2010 10:58:34 AM |

    I don´t discuss my supplements with MDs most of them are totally ignorant and are brainwashed

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:08:22 PM |

    The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.

Loading