Petition to the National Institutes of Health

A petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being circulated in response to the mis-statement made in an NIH-sponsored study, ACCORD.

The ACCORD Trial included over 10,000 type II diabetics and compared an intensive, multiple-medication group to achieve a target HbA1c of <6.0%, with a less intensively treated group with a target HbA1c of 7-7.9%. (HBA1c is a long-term measure of glucose, averaging approximately the last 3 months glucose levels.) To the lead investigators' surprise, the intensively treated group experienced more death and heart attack than the less intensive group. The conclusion suggested that intensive management of diabetes may not be a desirable endpoint and may result in greater risk for adverse events.

The petitioners argue that the problem was not with intensive glucose control per se, but the use of multiple side-effect-generating medications. Unfortunately, the ACCORD conclusions give the impression that loose control over blood sugar may be desirable.

The petition originates from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a non-profit organization seeking to promote carbohydrate restriction.


The petition reads:

National Institute of Health re: the ACCORD Diabetes Study: "Intensively targeting blood sugar to near-normal levels ... increases risk of death. "

This statement is untrue. This study lowered blood glucose levels only by aggressive drug treatment.

Preventative measures and proven non-drug treatments are being ignored by the NIH, ADA and many other governing agencies.

There is abundant scientific evidence proving a carbohydrate restricted diet can be as effective as drugs in lowering blood glucose levels safely. Many times diet is more effective than medication in controlling diabetes - all without side effects or increased risk of death.

I ask that the NIH publicly retract the above statement. It is misleading the public.

I also request that the NIH acknowledge the existing science and fund more research by the experts who have experience with carbohydrate restriction as a means of treatment for diabetes.

For more info, or to help people with diabetes, please e-mail info@nmsociety.org .

Thank you.




I added my comment:

In my preventive cardiology practice, I have been employing strict carbohydrate restriction in both diabetics and non-diabetics. This results in dramatic improvement in lipids and lipoprotein abnormalities, substantial weight loss, and improved insulin sensitivity. This experience has been entirely different from the heart disease-causing and diabetes-causing low-fat diets that I used for years.

I have a substantial number of diabetics who have been to reduce their reliance on prescription medication for diabetes or even eliminate them. In my experience, the power of carbohydrate-restricted diets is profound.

However, better clinical data to further validate this approach is needed, particularly as diabetes and pre-diabetes is surging in prevalence. I ask that more funding to further explore and validate this research be made available if we are to have greater success on a broader basis.




If you are interested in adding your voice, you can also electronically sign the petition. It is optional, but you can also add your own comments regarding your own views or experiences.

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    6/24/2008 12:42:00 PM |

    Looks like a wonderful petition to sign.  I didn't have anything to add, but placed my name onto it.

  • Anne

    6/24/2008 11:39:00 PM |

    I signed and commented. Thanks for letting us know about it.

Loading
Is direct-to-consumer drug marketing a failure?

Is direct-to-consumer drug marketing a failure?

According to the poll just completed by 80 participants on The Heart Scan Blog, 50% of respondents said they were less likely to take a drug after viewing an advertisement for it. A whopping 3 (4%) said that they would be more likely to take the drug after viewing an advertisement.

I find that interesting. If half the people responding are less likely to become customers of a drug company, then how does the drug industry justify running around-the-clock, every-few-minute ads? Spending by the drug industry for direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising has ballooned over the past few years, and is now well over $30 billion dollars per year.

Unfortunately, despite the views of the highly-educated, curious, think-for-yourself, health information-seeking sorts of people who read this blog, drug companies still come out on top by DTC advertising. Estimates vary, with a 2006 U.S. Government Accountability Office study reporting that, for every $1 DTC advertising, sales are increased by $2.20. A 2000 Harvard study showed a higher return of $4.40 for every advertising dollar spent.

I'm sure the drug companies themselves have a very tight accounting handle on their own set of figures. We may not be terribly fond of these people and their often suspect tactics, but they're not stupid. They are certainly not stupid when it comes to making money.

Interestingly, 80% of the funds spent on DTC advertising focus on the 20 or so most popular drugs, all of which are used for treatment of chronic conditions like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, markets that are large and long-term. It pays very little to advertise drugs that may serve small markets for a short period. The implicit message is that this is not at all about informing the public. It is about advertising to grow revenues and profits--pure and simple.

It makes me wonder what the results of our poll would have been had we conducted it in 2000 before many people hadn't yet been brought to the brink of vomiting from the endless onslaught of commercial after commercial, complete with smarmy spokespeople (a la Lipitor's Dr. Robert Jarvik). What will it show in two years? Will the broader public join the more informed people who read this blog and become increasingly inured to the hard sell tactics?

For further discussion of this topic, click here for a reprint of an August, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study, A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs provides background, along with commentary on the impact of DTC drug marketing since the FDA allowed it 10 years ago. (Because it is a study and not an editorial, the editors fall short of making any recommendations for improvement or calling for a moratorium.)


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (4) -

  • shreela

    4/23/2008 9:22:00 PM |

    I usually try to avoid taking a drug that hasn't been on the market for 5 years. One exception was when my knee doctor HIGHLY recommended Celebrex. It worked great at first, but the effectiveness wore off after a while, so I stopped taking it, and just took iced my knee when it swelled, and took ibuprofen if the ice wasn't enough. I also discovered later that biking brought down the swelling.

    Looking back on that, although I'm glad he gave me Celebrex instead of Vioxx (shudders), I'm glad I only took the Celebrex for a little while. Even though their commercial brag that they're the only prescription anti-inflammatory that hasn't been taken off the market, I recall reading about some severe side-effects I'd rather not have.

    If there's a natural way to decrease any ailment, I'd much rather try that, instead of taking a new drug, as long as there's studies that back up the natural treatment/diet. That's why I'm so grateful for your blog, and others like it from licensed health professionals; you and the others provide balance between the old school AMA way, and the 'alternative' methods that sometimes are a bit out there.

  • Anonymous

    4/24/2008 10:31:00 AM |

    It's all about supply and demand really. Make people believe they need it and they will want it. Marketing trumps truth a lot fortunately.

    But then there's those of us who realise that if a company's trying too hard to push something, they're trying to sell us off yogurt with a fragrance in it.

  • ethyl d

    4/24/2008 4:48:00 PM |

    Most Americans are not "highly-educated, curious, think-for-yourself, health information-seeking sorts of people," and many of them prefer taking a pill to control a health condition rather than changing what they eat and how they live, so the drug ads probably are influential. I also suspect that the bombardment of all those ads makes people more likely to worry about having or someday getting the diseases the drugs supposedly help with, and instilling the belief that prescription drugs are the best or even the only way to alleviate or cure the condition. "Don't worry, American public, if you get sick, we've got a pill to make you all better."

  • Anne

    4/26/2008 1:17:00 PM |

    I probably would have answered "more likely" 6 years ago before I got on the internet and met some very smart people. It was with their help I discovered that lifestyle changes, not more prescription medication, would do more to optimize my health. This is an ongoing journey. I am still learning.

    Sadly, I have found most people I meet are more interested in the newest drug for their symptoms than in changing lifestyle.

Loading
You're fried

You're fried

If I could invent a food that illustrates nearly all of the shortcomings of the American diet, it would be French fries, the familiar fixture of fast food.

What we have come to view as French fries contain just about every one of the unhealthy ingredients that lead us down the path of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

Let's take them one by one:

Potato starch--Potato starch exerts an effect on blood sugar similar to that of table sugar, only worse. (Glycemic index french fries 75; glycemic index sucrose 65.)

Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs)--AGEs form when proteins and fats are subjected to high temperature cooking; the longer the high temperature, the more the food reaction creating AGEs proceeds. AGEs are the likely culprit in roasted and fried foods that made it appear that saturated fats were bad, when it was really AGEs all along. AGEs have been shown to block insulin's effects, increase blood sugar, cause endothelial dysfunction and high blood pressure.

Acrylamides--Acrylamides, like AGEs, are created through high-temperature heating. French fries are unusually rich in AGEs. Brewed coffee also contains a small quantity, while French fries contain 82-fold greater quantities, among the highest of all known sources of acrylamides.

Oxidized oils--The amount of oxidized oils will depend on what sort of oil was used for frying. As more restaurants are trying to get away from hydrogenated oils, many are turning back to polyunsaturates. Others are turning to commercial-grade oils that contain both hydrogenated and polyunsaturates. If oils are permitted to oxidize, then they will trigger oxidative phenomena in your body upon consumptions, e.g., LDL oxidation (Staprans 1994).

In other words, the innocent appearing French fry unavoidably triggers oxidation, all the phenomena triggered by high blood glucose (high insulin, glycation, visceral fat accumulation), along with the cascade of effects arising from AGEs and acrylamides.

Top your French fries with some ketchup made with high-fructose corn syrup that exagerrates AGE formation, visceral fat, and distorts postprandial (after-eating) effects.

Is it any wonder that we've lost control over diet?

Comments (26) -

  • Keenan

    10/12/2010 10:34:29 PM |

    Adding fat to potato starch will significantly decrease its GI, will it not?

    I think a much healthier alternative would be yams/sweet potatoes fried in coconut oil/butter/ghee (less prone to oxidation) and consumed with protein and fat (say, a steak).  That should give you far more nutrients, much lower blood sugar spike, and avoid the oxidation problems of frying in PUFA.

  • Carlos

    10/13/2010 12:01:19 AM |

    Are the dietary AGEs from frying really the concern, or is it all the carbs from the potato starch causing in vivo glycation that we should really be worrying about and avoided? You would have to have a seriously leaky gut for an undigested AGE from frying to get absorbed in the small intestine.

  • Steven Horvitz, D.O.

    10/13/2010 12:29:09 AM |

    I keep as low processed carb as possible, but my one vice is french fries.
    Why did you have to guilt me into removing my favorite food?

  • Anonymous

    10/13/2010 1:13:51 AM |

    I can't imagine eating boiled T-bones. What's left after frying and roasting?

  • Anne

    10/13/2010 1:27:34 AM |

    The AHA has a page  with heavy duty oils used in restaurants. Many of them have TBHQ and/or dimethylpolysiloxane. TBHQ is used to keep the oil from becoming rancid and the dimethylpolysiloxane is an antifoaming agent. I can't imagine that either is good for us.

  • Martin Levac

    10/13/2010 1:57:06 AM |

    Dr Davis, without sugars, there is no glycation, thus there is no advanced glycation end products either.

    Fried bacon for example would not contain AGEs because it would not contain sugars to begin with. This seems to indicate that the real culprit is the sugars, not the frying. But then, if we fry bacon in vegetables oils, then forget about the sugars or the frying, it's the oil. Also consider that ketosis stimulates chaperon mediated autophagy:
    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/ketosis-cleans-our-cells/

    Basically, if your diet induces ketosis, you got nothing to worry about. First because such a diet contains little to no sugars. And second, whatever AGEs are there are taken care of promptly enough. HbA1c comes to mind.

  • Darwin's Doctor

    10/13/2010 3:44:06 AM |

    1. Peel the skin off the potato.
    2. Throw away the inside of the potato.
    3. Bake the skin.
    4. Eat and enjoy the skin. It's loaded with fiber.

  • Hans Keer

    10/13/2010 5:55:26 AM |

    And ... dear doctor, don't forget to mention that potatoes are nightshades. They contain lectins and glycoalkaloids. These cause a leaky gut and autoimmune diseases http://bit.ly/a9Gvjk

  • Anonymous

    10/13/2010 8:06:44 AM |

    French fries used to be fried in beef tallow before the CSPI stepped in. Proper french fries are made from fresh potatoes and fried twice. The "french fries" served in most restaurants are just frankenfood - precooked, preGodknowsWhat. The French still know how to prepare them properly...And by the way, isn't there the thing called "the French paradox"? Seems that they manage to stay leaner and healthier in spite of the consumption of "pommes frites". They DO, however, still eat real food - and this maybe one of the major aspects of good health.

  • Hoop

    10/13/2010 8:55:03 AM |

    French fries are partly pre-cooked in factories that use fats heated for days on end. The cheaper brands go thru the darker more heat damaged oils later in the cycle, The oils I've seen used are AV oil (animal fat with hydrogenated fats) and palm oil.
    These days it is likely soy oil.

    And for someone else on the topic of bacon it should be noted most bacon has added sugars. So it will be an AGE source
    to some extent.

  • Martin Levac

    10/13/2010 10:49:52 AM |

    Fried bacon is a different beast. My butcher makes it from fresh meat and the sugar in it comes probably from the milk he dips the bacon in before he fries it. And the absolute quantity of this sugar would be insignificant in terms of preventing ketosis which would allow ketosis to take place along with its CMA.

    Even if there was a lot of AGEs in the food, I doubt that it would have any significant effect. Instead, I believe that it's the AGEs that are formed inside the body as a result of hyperglycemia that is most harmful. Again, HbA1c comes to mind.

  • Anand Srivastava

    10/13/2010 1:10:09 PM |

    The moral of the story, don't use refined oils. Use the most naturally saturated oils as you can find, like Coconut oil or Ghee/Tallow. Then fry away, not too frequently.

    Regarding AGEs, I don't think they matter too much from the food source, as they will first get digested.

    Also humans have been cooking meat and Tubers (some form of potatoes) for ages, possibly more than a million years ago. So heating the oils should not be considered bad.

    Why do we like the fried crispy potatoes or bacon more than the raw one? Has it got something to do with our evolution.

  • GK

    10/13/2010 3:30:41 PM |

    Fries?  Meh, small potatoes.

    I nominate the donut:  white flour and white sugar deep fried in hot vegetable oil.

    There's your poster boy of dietary badness.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    10/13/2010 4:21:35 PM |

    Dang, no GMO corn in them there fries!  Oh well.

    "I can't imagine eating boiled T-bones. What's left after frying and roasting?"

    Try putting in well covered baking dish and cook at very low temp, maybe 225 or 250, for longer time depending on thickness of the meat. Maybe toss in some mushrooms and onions and a wee bit of red wine or even water. It will come out super tender and juicy.

  • Anonymous

    10/13/2010 4:31:44 PM |

    "I can't imagine eating boiled T-bones. What's left after frying and roasting?"

    Use a slow cooker.

    I would like to announce that I am a recovering vegetarian. Started by reducing wheat. Have not had Fries for the longest time because of the unsaturated veg/canola oil.

    Need to loose some weight so will try Atkins' methods but I am gonna miss beans and beer :-(

  • Anonymous

    10/13/2010 6:21:18 PM |

    i use virgin coconut oil for some homemade french fries. is that bad too?

  • Tommy

    10/13/2010 7:21:37 PM |

    "I am gonna miss beans and beer"

    I'm sure your friends won't

  • PJNOIR

    10/13/2010 11:01:36 PM |

    I love (hate) how a hamburger plate with a bun and a Mountain of fries,  gives the three to four ounces of ground beef (and maybe not the best grade of beef but still..) a bad reputation as the cause of all things evil in our diet.  Wake the F up people.

  • Tommy

    10/13/2010 11:14:04 PM |

    Not to change the subject but a couple of people mentioned coconut oil. I have read Barry Sears insisting that coconut oil promotes inflammation.
    He also says it raises LDL.  This seems contrary to anything else I've read.

  • Anonymous

    10/14/2010 6:04:07 AM |

    tommy i think barry is misled

  • Stage IV Melanoma

    10/14/2010 12:48:27 PM |

    Good article! Thank you so much for sharing this post.Your views truly open my mind.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/14/2010 1:55:25 PM |

    Martin--

    You may be confusing endogenous AGEs with exogenous AGEs.

    Endogenous AGEs are formed via glucose-mediated glycation. Exogenous AGEs are formed via a long list of reactions that involve carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. Exogenous AGEs are not indicated by HbA1c.

  • Eva

    10/16/2010 4:59:09 AM |

    Darwin's docter, you might want to do a tad of research on potato skins before suggesting people eat them.  Most of the poisons in a tater are in the skin, including potent goitrogens.  Eating the peel is probably not a good idea.

  • Jack

    10/18/2010 11:55:29 AM |

    Keenan,

    Very interesting factoids for sure!
    Let me pose this question to you.
    If you could eat a few french fries once in a while, would it be enough to satisfy that fried food craving?  Well, the real answer here might be discipline and moderation.  We, unfortunately, will someday die of something.  If you are afraid of eating french fries or any other fatty bad food every once in a while there is a problem or fear that you will be missing something on this less than perfect earth.  Eat the fries,
    enjoy the fries, and do the best you can within the moderate framework of life, and for goodness sake, don't be afraid of food.  It is not the real enemy.  The real enemy is a fallen world.
    Pass the fries!!   Jack

  • farseas

    12/6/2011 11:46:27 AM |

    The way I cook meat now (mostly) is to put a roast or chicken into a tightly covered pan, add a generous amount of olive oil, season it, and throw it into the oven at 200 degress for about 14 hours.  

    It will be absolutely delicious with no risk of AGE's at such a low temperature.

    Make sure it is a tight fitting lid or it will dry out too much.  If you want to make a great chili, add the onions, garlic, tomatoes, and seasonings after 10 hours of cooking.  Cook four more hours.
    Hide from your kids or it will all disappear in a short time.

    I use a glass pan and always avoid cooking anything in aluminum.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/6/2011 5:27:50 PM |

    Excellent, Farseas! This can be a part of an effective youth-preserving, anti-aging strategy, by the way.

Loading