Hibiscus Tea Increases HDL, Lowers LDL and Triglycerides

 

Hibiscus tea is often served cold with sugar. (Photo by molossoidea)

When it comes to health benefits and drinks, green tea gets most of the publicity. And with good reason – from what we know, it seems to have the widest range of positive effects out of all beverages. But that's not to say that there aren't other less known drinks out there that have health benefits of their own.

One such beverage is hibiscus tea, a herbal infusion made from the calyces of the Hibiscus sabdariffa flower. Hibiscus is also known as sorrel, roselle, karkadé and flor de Jamaica, depending on the region. Earlier this year, I wrote about two studies showing that hibiscus tea reduces blood pressure. In the second study, hibiscus tea was compared with black tea, and guess what – hibiscus tea wone hands down.

In fact, the group that drank black tea saw an increase in blood pressure. That was black tea – as far as I know, there have been no direct comparisons between green tea and hibiscus tea, but even green tea's effects on blood pressure seem to be small or nonexistent. So green and black tea, while very healthy, may not be enough if you want to cover all bases.

I wrote in the earlier posts that to my knowledge, there had been no studies on hibiscus tea and cholesterol, even though the drink is traditionally used to lower cholesterol. Today, however, I found a paper that shows hibiscus tea is good for cholesterol too (link). Granted, the paper appeared in the Journal of alternative and complementary medicine, which has published some papers that seem to be of questionable quality, but this one seems pretty legit.

For the experiment, 60 patients with type II diabetes were randomly assigned into two groups. One group got black tea and the other got hibiscus tea (which the authors refer to as "sour tea"). The participants were told to drink one glass (1 tea bag in boiling water, steeped for 20-30 minutes) twice a day for a month.

The subjects that drank black tea did not show improvement in any of the parameters measured. None of the changes in total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides and lipoprotein (a) were statistically signifcant.

Those who drank hibiscus tea, on the other hand, saw several improvements in their cholesterol levels. Total cholesterol went from 236.2 to 218.6 mg/dL. HDL increased from 48.2 to 56.1 mg/dL, while LDL decreased from 137.5 to 128 mg/dL. Triglycerides went down rather dramatically, from 246.1 to 209.2 mg/dL. Lipoprotein (a) was unchanged.

The authors also reference several other papers showing similar results in humans and animals. For example, one study showed a reduction in cholesterol levels in healthy men and women taking a hibiscus extract (link). This would suggest that the beneficial effects of hibiscus are not only limited to diabetic patients.

I'm not sure why I didn't find these papers the last time I did a pubmed search, but I'm glad I came across them now. I guess it's time to put hibiscus tea back on the menu, next to green tea and rooibos tea.

My favourite way to drink it is to make a big glass of hibiscus tea the normal way, then after 15 minutes of steeping pour the tea through a sieve into a larger container, add twice as much cold water and put it in the fridge. It's ready to drink in about an hour. It's especially good in the summer, best enjoyed with ice and a little sugar for taste.

For more information on tea, cholesterol and health, see these posts:

The Many Health Benefits of Rooibos Tea
Black Tea Is More Effective in Activating Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) than Green Tea
Refined vs Red Palm Oil and Cholesterol
Anthocyanins from Berries Increase HDL and Lower LDL

World's Oldest Woman and Oldest Man: 1986–2010

I came across this graph while browsing through the latest issue of Rejuvenation Research. The black line shows the age of the oldest living woman; the grey line shows the age of the oldest living man. The data spans from 1986 to 2010.

A couple of things pop out from this graph. First, during the last 24 years, the oldest person in the world has always been a woman. Not a big surprise there, since women live longer in general. Quite a few men have gotten past 112 years, but reaching 116 seems impossible. For female supercentenarians, reaching 114 is relatively common, and a few have even reached 116.

The second thing that catches the eye is the highest point on the graph: that's Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122, making her the longest-living person ever in the world. No one else has reached even 121. Shigechiyo Izumi is missing from the graph – he was claimed to have died at the age of 120, but according to the authors, he was in fact 15 years younger.

Looks like there's a slight trend towards longer-living supercentenarians, but I'm not sure it's significant. Certainly we haven't seen anyone like Jeanne Calment in over a decade. What this graph doesn't tell us, of course, is whether the percentage of people who reach 110 years of age has changed significantly during the same time period.

For more information on aging and longevity, see these posts:

Jumping Head First into the Fountain of Youth
Aubrey de Grey Interview in Wired.com
Russian Scientist Claims to Have Found Cure for Aging
The 7 Types of Aging Damage That End up Killing You

Carpe Treeum

I used to take a lot of pictures, especially of landscapes and particularly of trees. Ever since I came to USC as a professor I haven’t done much (or hardly any) photography. One of my favorite places on campus is the historic Horseshoe, which is right across the street from my office.

I keep saying that I’ll go take some photos of the tree-filled Horseshoe one day. That I’ll bring in my SLR and tripod and filters and make some nice images. And I never have. So, today while walking across the Horseshoe I just couldn’t resist snapping a few shots. I just had my iPhone with me so I didn't have much control -- no shutter speed or aperture control, no zoom, no filters. Nada. Just my legs to move me a bit closer or further away. Oh, and no high resolution results from my Nikon D70; just the single megapixel or so that the iPhone will yield.

But I decided to snap away anyway. The result was certainly not set of fantastic images that I can frame and hang in my office (which is one thing I want to do once I take what I hope to be some fantastic images). They're not postcard quality. They're just quick snapshots.

But, they're something and I loaded them up on my photo page so I can remind myself that I need to get back out there and do it again with the right tools. But, it's a start. It felt great to take some pictures again, even if it was with an extremely limited toolset and with just a few minutes of time as I traversed campus.

I tell my dissertation students all the time: If you don't feel like writing, write. Well, today I wrote. Just a bit. But, it's something.

Jumping Head First into the Fountain of Youth

Go on, it'll knock 50 years right off your age. (Photo by JB London)

I don't know if you noticed, but yesterday a study on telomeres and aging hit the news big time. Various media bought into the hype, claiming that aging had been reversed in mice. Daily Mail, for example, published a story that begins as follows (link):

Have they found the elixir of eternal youth? Scientists reverse the ageing process in landmark trial

The secret of eternal youth has been unlocked by scientists in remarkable research that paves the way for a ‘forever young’ drug. Lives could be longer and healthier, free from illnesses such as Alzheimer’s and heart disease, with skin and hair retaining its youthful lustre. Such a drug might allow men and women to have children naturally until they are a ripe old age.

The secret of eternal youth, huh? And just in case you missed what that would be like, the writer states:

The experiments mirror the plot of the film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, where the lead character played by Brad Pitt ages in reverse.

Except, of course, that Brad Pitt was born as an old man and eventually turned into a fetus and died, which is not exactly the kind of eternal youth I'm looking for. As you might guess, the paper and its authors are slightly less modest about the results – but only slightly. Professor Ronald DePinho, who did the mouse experiments, says:

In human terms, it would be like having a 40-year-old person who looked 80-plus and reversing the effects to the levels of a 50-year-old.

Reporters obviously love statements like this, but the truth behind the hype is somewhat different. First, mice are not humans, so drawing conclusions about what results from mice would mean "in human terms" without actually replicating the experiments in humans can be misleading.

Second, and more importantly, the mice were not normal mice: they were genetically modified to have no telomerase – which, in simple terms, lengthens telomeres – resulting in prematurely short telomeres and thus premature aging. The authors then gave the mice a drug that kickstarted telomerase, and lo and behold, many of the signs of premature aging began to reverse.

Thus, this is very far from giving the same drug to a healthy person and making them live forever. The rejuvenation in this case applies to the damage caused by having artificially short telomeres, not to all the other kinds of damage that comes with aging. This is precisely why the mice given the drug "become normal", so to speak, but were not rejuvenated in the sense that the whole "fountain of youth" metaphor might suggest.

If this were truly a fountain of youth, the mouse would have lived exceptionally long – but they didn't. They lived as long as normal mice.

While I'm glad that the attitude of the media towards life extension seems to be positive and even optimistic these days, the people writing these articles don't seem to have much grasp of reality when it comes to anti-aging science. I don't claim to be an expert, but even a quick glance at the abstract of the paper (link) would have shown that this is not only "ten years away from being available for sale", it's simply not directly applicable to healthy people.

What I found encouraging, however, was that the mice given the drug not only stopped accumulating more damage, but that their organs did indeed begin to rejuvenate. I say encouraging because it shows that aging damage can be repaired and not only slowed down – which is a crucial difference, because for most of us alive today to make it past 120, it will have to be repaired and not just halted.

Another positive thing about the study is that the mice whose telomerase was reactivated did not get cancer. Since one of the purposes of telomere shortening is said to prevent harmful mutations from spreading, many people worry that boosting telomerase may increase the risk of cancer. It would be interesting to see what the same drug does to normal mice.

For more information on anti-aging and rejuvenation, see these posts:

Aubrey de Grey Interview in Wired.com
Russian Scientist Claims to Have Found Cure for Aging
How Do People Feel about Life Extension?
Anti-Aging in the Media: The Independent on Immortality

Ashwagandha as a Nootropic – Experiment Update

The search for nootropic herbs continues. (Photo by Jim Brekke)

It's time for an update on my self-experiment with Ashwagandha, which began earlier this year in February. The herb in question, also known as Withania somnifera, is one of the many used in Ayurvedic medicine. Since many people use it as a nootropic, being a fan of cognitive boosting I figured I had to try it myself.

While Ashwagandha is commonly used for its relaxing properties, a review of the literature shows that it has a range of benefits. I've gone through the nootropic effects of Ashwagandha in detail in my previous post, so I'll only list them briefly here:

• Activates the GABA receptor
• Inhibits acetylcholinesterase (AChE)
• Reduces alcohol and morphine addiction
• Decreases stress
• Improves sperm count and motility
• Increases testosterone and reduces prolactin levels
• Improves memory function in mice
• Regenerates nerve fibers and dendrites
• Little or no risk of toxicity
• Negative effects on libido at very high doses

An impressive list, as you can see – but note that some of the results are from rodent studies or studies on humans suffering from high stress. The fact that Ashwagandha has been shown to bring things back to normal, so to speak, doesn't necessarily mean that it'll improve things beyond baseline in healthy people. Indeed, Ashwagandha is considered an adaptogen, which refers to herbs that supposedly normalize the body's functions.

For the purposes of my experiment, I bought a bottle of NOW Foods' Ashwagandha extract, which contains 450 mg of the root extract (standardized to a minimum of 4.5 mg withanolides) per capsule. My evaluation was based on subjective effects on mood, libido and stress.

The bottle is now finished, and I'm somewhat disappointed to conclude that I didn't notice much effects from the product. I tried various approaches: taking a capsule in the morning, during the day, or in the evening, but none of them resulted in anything clearly noticeable. The only possible effect I saw was more vivid dreams when I took Ashwagandha before going to sleep, but even then the results were inconsistent. All I can say is that the combination of magnesium and Ashwagandha before bed seemed to give me a good night's sleep.

As for boosts in mood or cognition, I didn't see any. Neither did I notice a difference in my libido or stress levels. I did try taking two or three capsules at once to see if a larger dose would help, but as far as I can tell, it made no difference. At least there were no negative effects either.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Ashwagandha is useless, just that this particular product at these doses didn't do anything for me. NOW Foods has very reasonably priced products, but there are probably several ways of making a herbal extract and a wide range of effectiveness between brands, so I'm tempted to try a couple of different brands before concluding the experiment.

The active ingredients in Ashwagandha are supposedly the withanolides, so in theory, any product that contains a sufficient amount of them should give similar results. Nonetheless, based on other people's experiences, some brands may be more effective than others. If you have personal experiences (positive or negative) with Ashwagandha, please share them in the comment section. Specifically, if you can recommend a brand that worked for you – preferably one that is available at iHerb – I will consider trying that product next.

For more information on nootropics and cognition, see these posts:

60 Minutes on Boosting Brain Power
Nootropic Battle Conclusion: Acetyl-L-Carnitine vs. Ginkgo Biloba vs. Taurine
Green Tea Protects from the Psychological Effects of Stress in Rats
Does Ginkgo Biloba Improve Cognitive Performance?

The Twinkie Diet: Thoughts on Weight Loss and Cholesterol

You can lose weight on any diet, but is it healthy? (Photo by OkayCityNate)

A few days ago, CNN reported on a nutrition professor who lost 27 pounds in ten weeks eating mostly Twinkies (link). Not only that, but health markers improved too – LDL went down and HDL went up.

Some people seem to think the results resolve the old question of whether calories are all that matter in weight loss. After all, if you can lose weight by eating Twinkies, Doritos and Oreos, what else could it be than calories? Surely that's just about the worse diet you can have.

While I'm obviously a big fan of self-experimentation, I think the results have been misrepresented in some cases. What do I mean by that? Let's look at the experiment and the results a bit more closely. Here's a quote from the article:

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

If we take the 2,600 calories daily as the correct figure, then for the ten weeks, Haub was running an 800 calorie deficit. It's hardly surprising that he lost weight. When you cut back enough on your energy intake, you start losing weight – in this sense, a calorie is a calorie.

But since this is an experiment with only one participant, it's impossible to say whether more or less weight would have been lost if the diet had been different. Did all the sugar he was eating prevent him from losing the maximum amount of body fat? There's no way to tell.

There are some hints, however, that it's not all about calories. The amount of calories consumed may be the primary factor in how much weight or fat is lost, but that doesn't rule out other factors. In rats, for example, green tea increases weight loss during calorie restriction. The rats consuming green tea burned more of their body fat and absorbed less fat from the diet, despite eating the same amount of calories.

In real life settings, the argument that a calorie is a calorie is difficult to examine, because the number of calories we burn is not constant – it depends on many variables. We now know, for instance, that genetics play a role. Some people have a hard time putting on weight, because the more they eat, the more calories they burn. They may get an urge to exercise more, for example. And anyone who's tried different diets knows that some foods make you more energetic than others, despite having a similar number of calories.

But that's not all. Some people don't put on weight even when exercise is forbidden. Their bodies just start using all that excess energy in other ways: increasing metabolic rate, heat production, etc. Is a calorie really a calorie in this case?

Then there's the question of how to count the absorption of calories from different macronutrients. If you divide people into two groups and feed both the same amount of calories, but have one group eating more protein and the other group eating more carbohydrates, their weights will be different. In general, high-protein diets result in more weight loss than high-carbohydrate diets.

As you can see, the question is hardly as simple as some people make it out to be. And there are more similar things that complicate the issue. Stephan from Whole Health Source has a good post on the Twinkie diet and how it relates to hormones and fat mass regulation, and I'm sure there are other health bloggers who have picked up on the same article.

Putting the calorie issue aside, perhaps the thing that aroused the most interest was the part about improved biomarkers. Sure, you can lose weight eating a terrible diet, as long as your eating very little, but shouldn't that wreck your health in other ways? Apparently not:

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

But that's not really big news. You see similar things happening in many studies where the participants are put on weight loss diets, regardless of what the diets are like. Even in the studies where overweight people are put on the conventional low-fat, high-carb diet – which is not really a good approach for improving cholesterol levels, glucose and insulin – these health markers improve while they're losing weight. As a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association says in the article:

"When you lose weight, regardless of how you're doing it -- even if it's with packaged foods, generally you will see these markers improve when weight loss has improved," she said. 

However, as in the case of the amount of weight lost, there's really no way to tell based on this experiment whether his health markers would have changed differently on another diet with the same calories. Low-carb and low-fat diets have very different effects on cholesterol during a calorie deficit, for example (note also how the subjects lost more weight during the low-carb diet despite eating more).

Since the study only lasted for ten weeks, the fact that his LDL and triglycerides decreased while HDL increased doesn't say much about the long-term effects. I wonder what his cholesterol levels would have been after a year of following the Twinkie diet.

Also, there's more to cholesterol than just LDL, HDL and triglycerides. In the case of lipoprotein particles, size matters. A diet consisting mostly of sugary snacks is probably not going to do a whole lot of good for LDL particle sizes in the long run. And even when HDL and LDL levels look good on the surface, there's oxidized LDL and lipoprotein (a) to worry about.

What we can say with some certainty is that regardless of how you do it, returning to a normal weight seems healthier than being obese. In the maintenance phase, which lasts much longer, more things should probably be taken into consideration. Haub himself seems to have mixed feelings about his experiment:

"I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it's healthy. I'm not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it's irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that."

While the health markers are interesting, it would have been interesting to hear more about his experience in general. How did he feel before, during and after the diet? Was he feeling energetic or tired? How was his mood? Did he have any problems, digestion, bad skin, etc?

Before you kickstart your own Twinkie diet, note that professor Haub also had a multivitamin and a protein shake daily, which may have influenced the results somewhat. And if you've already tried a strange diet and managed to lose weight, drop a comment and tell us how it went.

For more information on diets and weight loss, see these posts:

Alternate-Day Feeding and Weight Loss: Is It the Calories Or the Fasting?
A Year of Intermittent Fasting: ADF, Condensed Eating Window, Weight Loss, And More
Green Tea and Capsaicin Reduce Hunger and Calorie Intake
Green Tea Extract Increases Insulin Sensitivity & Fat Burning during Exercise

Tretinoin Results After a Year – Experiment Update

Retinoids – one of the better ways of looking young. (Photo by eisenbahner)

Some of you have been asking for an update on my experiment with retinoids. Now that I've gone through my first tube of tretinoin, it's time to review the results.

As I mentioned in my review of the anti-aging benefits of retinoids, I have both tretinoin cream (0.05%) and tretinoin gel (0.05%). I decided to go with the cream first, applying it only on the left side of my face. The right side has therefore acted as the control side.

Looking back at the first post on this experiment, it seems it's been over a year since my order arrived. Given that I've used the cream regularly and actually stuck with the experiment more strictly than with some other experiments of mine, it strikes me as odd that I only finished the 20 gram tube a few weeks ago. Granted, I have applied only a small amount and only on one half of the face, and I've had some breaks, but still, a little really seems to go a long way in this case.

I use the cream either nightly or every other night after washing my face and before going to bed. This seems to be the most common way to use retinoids. However, contrary to what is recommended, I often apply the tretinoin after a shower. The reason why this is not recommended is because after a hot shower, the pores of the skin will be open, and the peeling and redness that sometimes result from retinoids may be worse.

For me, this is a positive thing and a good a reason to use retinoids after a shower, since the absorption of the retinoids will be increased. I don't get much redness or peeling with the 0.05% strength anyway, unless I apply it to very sensitive areas. For example, I've tried it below the eyebrows, close to the eyelids, where the skin is very thin, and it was a rather painful experience. Applying tretinoin under the eyes is not problematic, though.

In my first post on retinoids I included a list of benefits that I'd seen mentioned in the literature. Here's the list again, along with a comment on whether the claim has been true so far in my case:

• Increased skin thickness and firmness – YES
• Increased skin hydration – NO
• Increased skin tolerance to external factors – NOT SURE
• Reduced visible signs of sun damage – NOT APPLICABLE
• Reduced fine wrinkles – NOT SURE
• Restoration of even skin tone and reduced hyperpigmentation – YES
• Reduction in dark circles under the eyes – NOT APPLICABLE
• Reduced skin roughness – YES
• Reduced irritation from shaving – NOT APPLICABLE
• Less risk of skin cancer – NOT APPLICABLE
• Reduced stretch marks – NOT APPLICABLE
• A healthy, 'rosy glow' – NOT SURE

As for skin thickness, I can't really be sure, as it would have to be measured with professional equipment. Skin firmness is one of those things that I notice after applying tretinoin and even in the morning. My face just feels kind of tighter on the side where I've applied it. The feeling tends to go away after a few days of not using the cream, though.

Skin hydration is another thing I don't really know how to estimate properly. One thing I do notice is that the left side of my face is quite often dry the next morning, which is a result of the peeling effect. It's not painful, however, and putting on some moisturizer gets rid of the problem.

I assume that by "external factors", things such as pollution and maybe UV rays are meant. Since I haven't burnt in the sun lately, and there's not much pollution here, I can't really say whether there has been an effect or not. I also don't have visible signs of sun damage (although I'm sure some internal, non-visible damage does exist), so I can't comment on that. I would expect this to be one of the areas where tretinoin is most effective, however.

The reduction of fine wrinkles is a tricky one. I've been trying to observe changes in three things during the experiment: fine forehead wrinkles, crow's feet (the wrinkles next to the eyes), and nasolabial folds. The fine lines on my forehead have not changed either way. I have to look pretty close to see them, but they are the same on both sides of the face.

The crow's feet, on the other hand, have gone through various changes. They too are visible only if I look very closely, but on the left side of the face they've gone from good to worse to better. At first, it seemed like they got deeper with the peeling, but now the skin looks somehow different compared to the other side, and I'm inclined to say the fine lines are less visible. A similar thing is happening with a few fine lines on my lower eyelid, very close to the eye, where I've applied the cream only randomly. It does indeed seem worse now than the right side. I think this is consistent with how retinoids work – they thin the dry outermost layer of the skin but eventually thicken the dermis and epidermis. This, along with the exfoliation, can make things look worse in the beginning.

As for nasolabial folds, they are not very deep but nonetheless visible. I haven't seen much change there, unfortunately, and sometimes I feel like the left side looks better, while other times I see no difference. I know there are many people who wonder whether retinoids can help with nasolabial folds (and many who believe they can't), but more time will have to pass before I can make a proper evaluation.

I don't have skin cancer, stretch marks or even irritation from shaving, so I can't really comment on those. The dark circles under my eyes have changed more drastically as a result of other lifestyle changes such as diet, so it's hard to see much difference there either.

The biggest difference for me has been in skin tone and skin roughness. It may not be visible to other people without me pointing it out, but I immediately see the difference in the mirror. I never even thought about skin tone and hyperpigmentation before, but I see now that the left side of my face has a much more even tone and looks smoother than the right side. There is indeed a slight "rosy glow" on the skin over the cheek bone, but otherwise there is no redness – unlike on the right side, where the tone is less even and slightly red. The pores of the skin also seem smaller on the left side, including the nose. In general, it just looks healthier and better.

So there you have it, my experience with retinoids so far. I've tried a lot of different stuff and written about it here, but this is the clear winner. For once, the results are actually visible. I'm now going to start applying tretinoin on both sides of the face, probably trying the gel version next. Since my left side already has a head start, it'll be interesting to see how fast the right side can "catch up".

Oh, and for the Scandinavians out there looking for where to buy retinoids: I can't help you there. I ordered six tubes from alldaychemist.com over a year ago, but due to repeated problems with customs, they no longer ship to any Scandinavian countries. The same is true for other online drugstores I've tried. No luck.

That's a real shame, because their stuff was dirt cheap and of a high quality. What can I say, this is a perfect example of the long-term effects of the Scandinavian socialist mindset – no one is responsible of their own actions, the government takes care of everyone, the bureacurat knows better than you.

EDIT: I almost forgot; I've also applied tretinoin to my left temple, and it looks like there are a couple of new hairs growing. This is the same temple that had some new hair growth with retinol, the milder version of retinoids. Those hairs are still there, but they don't grow very long – not exactly like vellus hairs but not terminal either. And I think my left eyebrow has some more hairs than the right one, although the difference is slight.

For more information on skin care, see these posts:

Topical Retinoids Increase Hair Growth in Most People
BioSil, JarroSil & Beer – Silicon Experiment Conclusion
Topical Vitamin C for Skin: Re-examining the Case
Lutein for Skin Elasticity, Hydration and Photo-Protection – Experiment Begins

Restoring my sanity...

We came. We saw. We restored sanity. Our own, that is. We took a lot of pictures.

A few weeks ago I was chatting with a friend and the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear came up. He immediately said, "I'm going! I need to let off some steam." Sounded like just the prescription I needed too -- a road trip to go hang out with 250,000 of my closest friends. So we all went.

What was it like? Crowded. Very. Very, very. As in, very. I don't have claustrophobia, but I may have caught it at the rally. We kept trying to get within sight of the stage and large screens, but didn't quite succeed. Jon and Stephen were overly modest. They planned for a crowd of around 60,000, but estimates peg the rally attendance around 250,000 or as Jon Stewart declared, "ten million." Too bad his attempt to have everyone "count off" didn't quite work or we'd have an exact count. The crowd spilled off the National Mall in every direction for blocks and blocks. If you look at my photos, you can get a sense for just how crowded it was or you can see whole thing on C-SPAN.

The most entertaining part was the signs. I took pictures, lots and lots of them. People were quite clever with their signs.

I think what the whole thing boiled down to is this: It's a mad, mad, mad world. It's not just the Tea-Party types to blame. It's not all Glenn Beck's fault. It's not all Obama's fault. It's not even all my fault. It's everyone's fault. Our government has just become a damn mess. It's always been fractured, and was even designed to be that way, but lately the rhetoric seems to "go to 11."

In this environment it seems that that rational middle is missing. Maybe it's not. Maybe there is some quality compromise that goes on in Congress, but you'd never know it based on the way things are reported on Fox News or MSNBC. The other side is evil and to blame.

I think this event was about stepping back, taking a breath, and saying, "Can't we all just laugh a little?" It was cathartic.

The Washington Post aptly described the event:

The event proved a mass demonstration of noncommittal cleverness, quirk and irony. Through signage, some rally-goers competed to be the most topical ("One man's socialism is another man's uninformed buzzword"), the most off-topical ("I love pineapples") and the most meta ("I am holding a sign").

Many Mall visitors toted signs with arch witticisms such as those identifying the carrier as a member of the "Decaf Party," or warning people "Don't Tread on Snakes," instead of "Don't Tread on Me." Plenty of gear from Obama's inauguration was exhumed from closets and worn again, and many posters borrowed Shepard Fairey's iconic "Hope" design from 2008 - but the visage staring out was of Stewart, not Obama.

It wasn't a singular, coherent movement on display as much as a rollicking expanse of nano-movements. Recycling enthusiasts mingled with D.C. voting rights advocates, who bumped shoulders with fusion-power activists who stepped on the heels of 9/11 truthers. One sign implored, "Vote Lawyers Out," and another insisted, "Vote Popped Collars Out." Some in the crowd wanted the troops to come home; others wanted the troops to be able to gay-marry.

And then there were the signs about signs, like one held by visiting New Yorker Beth Seltzer: "Americans for . . . oh look! A puppy!"

"There's so many people out there who are easily distracted," said the 39-year-old doctor. "And there are people who are yelling and screaming and protesting and they don't even know what they're talking about."

As a Gamecock I might get in trouble for quoting this next part of the story, but I guess I need to apply some sanity even to learning something my rivals:

"I do vote," says Teddi Fishman, 46, the director of the Center for Academic Integrity in Clemson, S.C. "But more than entertainment or politics, I just think this is a release for everyone. We've had so much tension."

Who knows what America needs. Maybe it is just more cowbell.

Aubrey de Grey Interview in Wired.com

Aubrey de Grey's life extension diet emphasizes the importance of beer.

One of my favourite people in the world, the British gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, recently did an interview with Wired Science (link). If you've read his interviews before, you pretty much know what to expect, but there were a couple of new things in there that I found interesting (he's swearing, for one thing).

The gist of Aubrey de Grey's work is keeping people healthy indefinitely. You can call this unlimited healthspans or radical life extension or rejuvenation therapies or whatever, but the idea remains the same: to cure the biological process of progressive deterioration known as aging. For most people, the word "immortality" still has something of a negative connotation. This has not gone unnoticed by de Grey:

I’ve been out there represented as an immortality merchant since forever. These days, I can afford to not just acquiesce and let journalists use phrases like “immortality,” or at least not in the title of the bloody ass thing.

The reason he doesn't like titles like "Aubrey de Grey is here to make you immortal" is because it makes biogerontology sound like science fiction; something that a handful of people are working on in their garage. The public is apparently not ready for immortality.

And yet there are a growing number of people in the world who are ready to live longer and healthier lives. To any reasonable person, the word "immortality" is a positive thing, as long as one understands what the concept of biological immortality means. What it doesn't mean is that you'll be hurling through space long after the earth has been destroyed in a nuclear war, unable to die. It also doesn't mean that you'll be able to survive getting hit by a truck (although if it did, that would be a positive thing too).

What biological immortality means is that the chronological progress of time no longer dictates when and how you die. Your health will no longer be a simple function of time. Your body will remain youthful and vigorous regardless of how old you are. You can still die – certainly so if you want to die for some reason – but it won't be because of your body deteriorating every year. How this is a bad thing to some people has been beyond me for quite some time now.

The first step in solving the problem of aging will be done in mice. From there on, says Aubrey de Grey, it'll be smooth sailing:

What’s going to happen is the curmudgeons — the card-carrying gerontologists who think it’s very dangerous to be over-optimistic — will eventually recognize the data available to us from mice is so solid we can go out publicly and say, “It’s only a matter of time.” That’s going to take a panel of interventions in mice that’s so comprehensive we actually add two whole years to the lifespan of mice that are already in middle age before we start.

That may be overcautious. We may be able to get gerontologists on board with a more modest result than that. However, at that point, game over. My job will be done. I can retire. Because that will be the point when Oprah will be all over it and the following day it will become impossible to get elected unless you have a manifesto commitment to have a war on aging.

I agree with de Grey. People like Oprah have such a big influence on public opinion that it's ridiculous. I can even imagine someone being very pro-aging before hearing someone like Oprah promoting it, and then changing their mind completely. Once you get the public behind the idea, you'll get the politicians as well. Not that I give a damn about influencing politicians – without all the bureacracy and regulations in the field of medicine, I bet we'd already made a much larger progress in rejuvenation therapies! I'd rather take care of my own health than put it in the hands of any government official.

Another crucial point about people like Oprah: they have a lot of money. And since people with lots of money tend to be interested in preserving their wealth, it makes sense that the same people are also interested in preserving their health. After all, what's the point of having billions of dollars if you're not going to be around to enjoy them?

One thing that de Grey has not really commented on before is how come he doesn't get massive donations from aging billionaires. Some of them have already made plans to cryopreserve themselves, but if you have the chance to stick around without spending five decades in an ice box, why not do that instead? The biggest reason seems to be that billionaires haven't taken the organizations seriously enough:

Wired.com: For most of the billionaire philanthropists that travel in the same circles you do, out of the three things, is it mainly that they just don’t like your organization?

de Grey: I think for a very large, a very sufficient proportion of such people, yes, it’s that third thing. Because I see these people a lot. I go to TED, and there’s no holding back when it comes to 1) the desirability of the goal, and 2) the demonstration of sufficient comprehension of what I’m talking about to understand they believe the plan is feasible. So yes, absolutely.

In other words, there's a lack of professionalism, not necessarily in what the organizations actually do but in how people view them. The Methuselah Foundation is a case in point:

In the beginning, the only thing the Methuselah Foundation did was the longevity prizes for mice. Then, we started funding research directly. We thought it was a really cool idea to have one organization with two very complementary approaches to the same mission. But in fact, it didn’t really work, especially not in terms of messaging.

The foundation has now been split into two, one for prizes and one for funding research. Hopefully this will attract more investors. Besides business and funding, Aubrey talks about some personal things as well. And his love of beer, of course:

I drink exactly the right amount of beer evidently. [laughs] It’s ridiculous, really. Yet, I have to show I’m enjoying my life. It’s public knowledge I am polyamorous as well. That’s something that goes down not so well with some of my more politically sensitive friends and colleagues. But it goes quite well with some other people. [laughs]

Polyamorous, huh? He even goes to say that the whole monogamy thing is "archaic" and will probably be a thing of the past some time in the future. I didn't know de Grey was against monogamy, but I happen to agree. I think the whole concept of jealousy is an unnecessary biological impulse that was useful in the past but will no longer be needed in the future. It certainly isn't a product of the rational side of the brain.

I guess contrarians tend to have a lot in common. When you start to question the official truth in one area, you begin to wonder about other obvious truths as well. I'm sure you've noticed the disproportionate amount of libertarians among the paleo crowd, for example. In many cases it boils down to questioning whether government really knows best.

For some reason, the paleo community is still mostly stuck in the "aging is good" dogma, however. They're determinately against diabetes, obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and every other modern plague, and yet they are unwilling to strike the problem at the root.

Basically, they want to live healthy for 80 years and drop dead. To me that's nonsensical. What's your opinion?

For more information on longevity and aging, see these posts:

Russian Scientist Claims to Have Found Cure for Aging
How Do People Feel about Life Extension?
Aubrey de Grey in Helsinki, Finland
Why Aging Is a Global Disaster That Needs to Be Solved

People are People

Today is National Coming Out Day. I don't know if putting one more blog post into cyberspace will make a difference or not, but it can't hurt. And if nothing else, I want to use today as a chance to make my position unequivocally clear: I support equal rights for all.

I don't think that I've acted (and I certainly hope that I haven't) in a way that would make someone question that position. What makes today seem all the more important is the recent spate of gay teens who have committed suicide, including Tyler Clementi, a freshman at Rutgers University who was outed and harassed by his roommate. Each and every suicide is a tragedy, however, Tyler's case struck me because it happened on a college campus. I can't imagine the impact an event like this would have on me as a professor if this happened to one of my students.

Why does this kind of harassment happen? We fear that which we don't understand and we get an inflated sense of superiority when we feel we can dominate over another group. We find a group that is defenseless against weaponry and we dehumanize and enslave them; later, when they fight for equal rights, we beat them down. We don't understand those with mental disorders so we institutionalize them, putting them out of sight. Someone lacks certain abilities and we marginalize them. A person's love interest seems "unnatural" to us and we bully them.

The cruel mistreatment of people based on their complexion, mental state, or physical or mental abilities now seems foreign and totally inappropriate to most (hopefully all) of us. However, many still stand blithely by while those who are gay or lesbian are mistreated, marginalized, and even bullied.

No more. Many are speaking out. For example, more and more are "coming out" as allies. And because of the recent tragedies several celebrities have spoken out. I found Ellen's message particularly poignant.

So, is one blog post by one guy who calls himself an ally going to change the world? No, perhaps not. Do I need to do more to stand up for equal rights? Certainly. At the very least I wanted to use today as an opportunity to state where I stand.

As I thought about all this, I couldn't help but think of words from a certain song. Let's all sing along...

Write it down!

Several weeks ago we held orientation for the new Ph.D. students in our program, talking them through the process of getting a Ph.D., from admission (done! check!) to that moment when they get to walk across the stage a few years down the road as newly donned "doctors."

What sets earning a Ph.D. apart from other degrees is the production of original research: the doctoral dissertation. You can earn a B.A. and most master's degrees, and even other types of doctorates (M.D., J.D.) without producing original research. Not so with the Ph.D.

This production of an original work turns out to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks for Ph.D. students -- and I'm not picking on my own students. It's something that Ph.D. students in all fields at all universities struggle with.

I suggested that, though the are just starting their programs of study, they start thinking about their dissertations now, not when they finish coursework or after taking their comprehensive exams.

I gave a few suggestions, one of which was to write down ideas they have for research topics. I held up a small composition notebook, 4.5 by 3.25 inches, and suggested that carrying around a notebook like one of these is a great way to be sure you don't lose a good idea. "You never know when that spontaneous thought in class might germinate into something else. But you don't want to forget it," I wisely counseled.

Well, Physician: Heal thyself.

This morning, while driving to campus, I had Michael Chabon's wonderful memoir, Manhood for Amateurs: The Pleasures and Regrets of a Husband, Father, and Son, playing on CD. He (and it really was he reading his own book) said something about his writing process, about ideas, about how writing is his own "disorder."

Click!

Something clicked in my tiny brain. I remembered that just two nights ago, Sunday night to be exact, I had an idea. A marvelous one. This was the idea of ideas. It was going to be my own Einsteinian unified field theory of...something-or-other. This idea, this thought, was the seed that would grow into a book or article that would win me the Pulitzer Prize. Or the Nobel Prize. Or both!

I was already in bed and I remember looking at my nightstand for a piece of paper and a pen and finding neither. Only my recent New Yorker and a couple books for nighttime reading sat under the lamp.

I was tired. "This idea is so singularly ingenious that there is absolutely no way I could forget it," I assured myself. So instead of looking for a scrap of paper and a pen or pencil I went to sleep, dreaming of the future fame I would surely enjoy from my Awesomely Great Idea...

Russian Scientist Claims to Have Found Cure for Aging

Could there really be one pill that keeps you young indefinitely?

This news recently hit the media (link), and the headlines so far have been pretty wild. Catchphrases like "forever young" and "secret to eternal life" will surely spark interest even among the non-immortalist crowd, but how much of it is just hype?

So what is this news all about? The drug in question is the work of professor Vladimir Skulachev, who has dedicated his life to study (and solve) aging. Now he's finally found an antioxidant with anti-aging properties and plans to start selling it in just a few years.

Despite what supplement salesmen will tell you, antioxidants by themselves are not worth much in terms of extending lifespan. In fact, the whole "free radical theory of aging" was put to rest a long time ago. Yes,  antioxidants extend the lifespan of simple organisms, but they've repeatedly failed in mice and rats, and there's no evidence that antioxidants would make humans live longer.

There's a pretty simple reason for that, too: normal antioxidants don't reach the mitochondria where most of the free radical damage occurs. No matter how much vitamin C pills you pop or how many acai berry shots you down, you won't be making any difference in the rate of mitochondrial damage.

It appears that Skulachev has synthesized a mitochondrially targeted antioxidant. There's no detailed information in the article, but based on the papers Skulachev's group has published in the past, it looks like the compound in question is SkQ1, an antioxidant attached to a positively charged ion. Experiments have shown that SkQ1 prolongs the lifespan of a variety of species, including mice (link, link).

Clinical trials on humans are underway, and if everything goes smoothly, the drug will be out in a few years. After successful results from animal studies using eye drops, Skulachev tried it on his own cataract. After six months, his cataract was gone.

So what's the catch here? Well, looking at the lifespan data from mice, they're not talking about an increase in maximum lifespan but in median lifespan. The oldest mice receiving the drug did not live longer than the oldest mice in the control group, they just had a squared mortality curve. In other words, the mice that got SkQ1 made it to old age more often than the control mice.

In humans, this would translate to something like being relatively healthy at 90 years old but still dying around 100 years of age. There's no evidence that you could live to be 150 by taking SkQ1. Thus, claiming that "the cure for aging" has been found or that the "fountain of youth" is finally here is just plain wrong.

Aside from the reality check, this is still very good news. Even squaring the curve would be a fantastic thing in humans – if it works in humans. That would mean that a lot of the diseases associated with aging would be postponed significantly and old people would enjoy a better quality of life.

And, for those of us trying to stay as healthy as possible while waiting on true rejuvenation therapies, drugs like this would be warmly welcome.

For more information on aging and longevity, see these posts:

Selegiline and Lifespan Extension
Does Intermittent Fasting Increase Lifespan?
The Curious Case of Human Hibernation
How Do People Feel about Life Extension?

Refined vs Red Palm Oil and Cholesterol

Palm oil, palm kernel oil, palm olein and palm stearin are all different products of the palm tree.

Palm oil is extracted from the pulp of the fruit of the oil palm. Palm kernel oil, on the other hand, is extracted from the seed of the oil palm. While red palm oil (also known as crude palm oil) is easily distinguishable by its deep orange to red color, refined palm oil and palm kernel oil can be hard to tell apart. Both are white to yellowish in color and solid at room temperature.

Palm oil contains about 45 g saturated, 40 g monounsaturated, and 8 g polyunsaturated fatty acids per 100 g. Though not as saturated as coconut oil, palm oil is still at the top of the list when it comes to saturation. Palm kernel oil is even more saturated, containing more than 80% saturated fatty acids.

It's no surprise that palm oil has been labeled an unhealthy fat by most health experts. Obviously, this much saturated fat must send cholesterol levels through the roof and, as a result, cause heart disease. Right?

Well, not quite. After going through pubmed for all the abstracts (and a couple of full papers) on palm oil and cholesterol, it's clear that the case is everything but clear. The heart disease part deserves it's own post, but for now let's concentrate on how palm oil really affects cholesterol levels.

Palm oil and cholesterol in animals

In one study, partially refined, bleached and deodorized (RBD) palm oil was fed to rats on different diets (link). All groups that were given palm oil as part of their diet had significantly lower total cholesterol (TC) levels than the control group. In addition, when normal and hyperlipidemic rats were given palm oil, they had higher HDL levels than hyperlipidemic rats that were not fed palm oil. Similar results were seen in another study where rats given palm oil had a higher ratio of HDL to total cholesterol and lower triglycerides than the control rats (link).

An earlier study that fed rats with various fats for a year came to a different conclusion (link). TC was higher in rats fed palm oil than in rats fed with other fats such as sunflower oil or butter. Triglycerides were higher in palm oil and butter groups than in sunflower oil groups. And, to make things even more confusing, rats fed palm oil for four weeks showed a tendency for slightly lower triglycerides and HDL, whereas sunflower oil tended to increase triglycerides and HDL (link).

Basically what the above studies show is that the results vary greatly. Sometimes palm oil improves TC/HDL ratio, sometimes it worsens it. Sometimes triglycerides decrease, sometimes they increase. What's more, these two don't even have to go hand in hand, which makes it hard to decide whether the overall effect is good or bad.

One question that raises at this point is whether refining the oil makes a difference. One study that compared unrefined (that is, red/crude) and refined palm oil found that rats fed unrefined palm oil had lower total cholesterol, LDL, VLDL and higher HDL than those fed refined palm oil (link). Perhaps the tocotrienols in red palm oil play a role? Maybe so, but there is also one study that did not see a difference in cholesterol levels between rats fed red palm oil and refined palm oil for three months (link).

There are also other variables that might affect the end results. For example, I found one rat study that directly compared the effects of fresh and once or repeatedly heated palm oil (link). The rats that were given either fresh or once-heated palm oil did not have any deleterious effect, whereas palm oil heated five times increased total cholesterol and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) levels. This means that even though palm oil tolerates heat much better than most oils, using the same oil many times may not be a good idea.

Similarly, comparing fresh and oxidized (either through heating or prolonged exposure to air) palm oil shows that while both increase total cholesterol compared to rats eating a normal diet, oxidized palm oil increases it even more, and that this is due to an increase in LDL, not HDL (link). Further, oxidized palm oil increased the mean arterial blood pressure of the rats, while fresh palm oil did not.

Unlike humans, hamsters fed oil and dietary cholesterol quickly develop hyperlipidemia. Hamsters that were given various palm oils had dramatically lower levels of total cholesterol, LDL and VLDL than hamsters given coconut oil (link). The three forms of palm oil were red palm oil, refined palm oil and refined palm oil with red palm oil extract. In the hamsters that were fed red palm oil or refined palm oil with red palm oil extract, HDL levels were significantly higher and triglycerides significantly lower than in hamsters fed coconut oil.

The best one of the three was unrefined red palm oil, but as you can see, even refined palm oil had favourable effects. Note also that adding an extract of red palm oil into the refined palm oil improved things, which supports the idea that the carotenoids, tocotrienols and tocopherols play a role in the health effects of red palm oil.

In another study, hamsters given palm oil had higher levels of total cholesterol, HDL and triglycerides than those given olive oil or maize oil (link). The title of the paper suggests that the amount saturated fat is directly responsible for HDL levels in hamsters: when they eat little saturated fat, HDL is low, and vice versa. However, in the previous study HDL increased after switching from coconut oil to red palm oil, even though coconut oil is higher in saturated fat.

In vervet monkeys, palm olein oil reduced the risk the risk for developing early atherosclerotic lesions while not significantly affecting cholesterol levels compared to monkeys given lard or sunflower oil (link). Note, however, that palm olein oil is not the same as palm oil. Although it has a high palmitic acid content like palm oil, palm olein oil is the refined, liquid fraction of palm oil. The solid fraction is palm stearin. Palm olein is about 45% saturated and 55% unsaturated, while palm stearin is 60% saturated and 40% unsaturated. While they may have different effects, at least in rats palm stearin, palm olein and palm oil all increased HDL in one study (link).

Palm oil and cholesterol in humans

While animal studies may give us an idea of what to expect, we are not rats, hamsters or monkeys. Humans are adapted to a different kind of diet through evolution, and cholesterol studies in animals can be pretty misleading when applied to humans.

First, let's take a look at what happens when you give palm oil to people with what doctors would call hypercholesterolemia or high cholesterol. In women with high cholesterol, soybean oil, rice bran oil and palm oil all reduced LDL and TC, despite their differing fatty acid composition (link). Thus, saturated fat does not necessarily increase LDL.

In this study, only soybean oil reduced HDL. Soybean oil also reduced small dense LDL (sd-LDL), while palm oil consumption increased it. That same LDL was more susceptible to oxidation in those who consumed soybean oil, however. Since oxidized LDL appears to be the best predictor of atherosclerosis, perhaps an increased number of small LDL particles with less oxidation is better than increased oxidation with less particles.

When older women with high cholesterol were given sunflower oil (which is very high in PUFA) or palm olein, the latter increased TC and LDL, especially in women with high TC to begin with (link). Contrast this with the previous study where the palm oil normalized cholesterol levels. Still, no difference was seen in TC/HDL ratio. HDL increased only in those with normal cholesterol levels. Again, palm olein also decreased LDL oxidation, especially in those with high cholesterol.

There's also a study that compared sunflower oil and palm olein in older women but with normal cholesterol. This time, the diet containing palm olein increased TC and HDL compared to a sunflower oil diet (link). Another study found palm oil and sunflower oil to cause no difference in HDL, whereas palm oil increased TC and LDL (link). A third comparison of the two oils found the same (link).

Perhaps palm oil and palm olein have different effects on cholesterol? That sounds plausible, but one study found no difference between palm oil, palm olein, palm stearin and soybean oil in terms of LDL, HDL and triglycerides (link). Then again, not all palm oleins are equal. When red palm olein and palm olein was compared with sunflower oil in patients with excessive fibrinogen (a blood clotting factor) in their blood, red palm olein came out on top (link). Palm olein increased TC more than red palm olein and sunflower oil. LDL increased in the palm olein group compared to the sunflower oil group.

So far, we've looked at palm oil vs. PUFA-rich oils, but what about other fats? Lard has a pretty similar fatty acid profile as palm oil. It has plenty of MUFAs and SFAs but only little PUFAs. Comparing palm oil with soybean oil, peanut oil and lard in Chinese adults showed that palm oil reduced TC and LDL, while lard increased both (link). Peanut oil had no effect. Palm oil also improved the TC/HDL ratio.

A study that fed palm oil, lard or puff-pastry margarine to obese women found no difference in cholesterol levels (link). It did find that obese women had lower HDL levels and higher fasting leptin (four times as high!) than normal-weight women, however. So, compared to lard, palm oil either reduces LDL or does nothing.

Peanut oil is 49% MUFA, 33% PUFA and only 18% SFA. The MUFA content is similar to palm oil but its PUFA content is much higher. One study found no difference between palm olein from red palm oil and peanut oil (link). Olive oil is even higher than peanut oil in MUFA, containing about 70% of its fatty acids in the monounsaturated form. One study found no difference between palm olein containing tocotrienols and olive oil in terms of cholesterol (link).

Coconut oil is much higher in saturated fat than palm oil. Unsurprisingly, it tends to raise cholesterol in most animal studies more than other fats. In humans, small amounts may not make a big difference. Enriching the diets of healthy, young women with palm oil or coconut oil did not result in differences in total cholesterol compared to consuming the same amount of energy MUFAs (link). In larger amounts the difference start to become clearer. Compared to coconut oil, palm oil generally results in lower total cholesterol, LDL and HDL (link).

Still, even high amounts of red palm oil doesn't necessarily increase cholesterol. In Chinese men, a diet containing 28% fat with red palm oil accounting for 60% of that, no change was seen in total cholesterol, triglycerides, or HDL after 42 days (link). Plasma concentrations of carotenoids and vitamin E increased, however.

Hydrogenation, which turns liquid fats solid, may also play a role. Compared to saturated fatty acids such as palmitic acid, hydrogenated fats containing trans fatty acids tend to increase total cholesterol and LDL while lowering HDL levels (link, link). One paper compared the effects of palm oil with partially hydrogenated fat and oils high in MUFAs or PUFAs (link). Partially hydrogenated soybean oil and palm oil resulted in higher LDL than regular soybean oil. There was no significant difference in TC/HDL between the oils, but HDL3 was higher after palm oil.

In another study, three different margarines were given to 27 young women (link). One of the margarines was based on palm oil, one on partially hydrogenated soybean oil and one was made with a high content of PUFAs. The PUFA margarine lowered total cholesterol and LDL compared to the other two, while soybean margarine lowered HDL compared to the other two. One study compared the effects of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, high oleic palm olein and unhydrogenated palm stearin (link). Both soybean oil and palm stearin increased TC/HDL compared to palm olein, with palm stearin having a lesser effect than soybean oil. 

Looking at the question from the opposite angle gives similar answers. The saturated fat in a typical Dutch diet comes mainly from animal fats and hydrogenated oils. Replacing them with palm oil resulted in an 11% increase in HDL and a 8% decrease in the LDL/HDL ratio (link). Triglycerides were also reduced.

In many of the studies, the subjects are either given supplements or they just basically scoop up the fat with a spoon. This is not how most people actually use these oils, however – they cook with them. When you put different oils into a frying pan and then eat them is when you start to see different results.

For example, using palm oil or soybean oil for cooking does not seem to change serum cholesterol levels much in the short term (link). However, cooking in soybean oil resulted in a 47% increase in triglycerides compared to palm oil, which goes to show that oils high in PUFAs are not very suitable for cooking. Also, some of the effects may only become visible after a longer period of time. There aren't many long-term studies in humans, but Mauritius is an exception. In 1987, the government changed the formula of the commonly used cooking oil from palm oil to soybean oil. As a result, total cholesterol levels dropped by about 0.8 mmol/L in the course of five years (link). There's no mention of triglycerides, unfortunately.

Finally, men and women seem to respond differently to dietary fats. When a small amount of red palm oil was given to healthy subjects for two weeks, all lipid fractions decreased, with a statistically significant decrease seen in LDL and triglycerides (link). A closer look revealed that there was a difference between men and women, however: in men, LDL actually increased mildly.

One study looked at the effects of palm oil in the context of high and low dietary cholesterol (link). Diets high in palm oil slightly increased total cholesterol and LDL with no significant changes in HDL or triglycerides. Interestingly, diets low or moderate in palm oil increased total cholesterol and LDL much more than the diets high in palm oil, even when the high-palm oil group consumed more eggs.

Tocotrienols are generally considered to have a cholesterol-lowering effect (link). The effects of tocotrienol supplements on cholesterol are not conistent, however (link, link). A possible explanation is that alpha-tocopherol might attenuate some of the cholesterol-lowering effect of tocotrienols (link).

Medium-chain triacylglycerods (MCTs) are usually thought to have a neutral effect on cholesterol, but a comparison of MCTs with palm oil and high oleic acid sunflower oil showed that MCT and palm oil had a similar effect (link). Sunflower oil resulted in lower total cholesterol. The authors conclude that "this study suggests that medium-chain fatty acids have one-half the potency that palmitic acid has at raising total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations."

Summary

So what do we make of all this? As I'm sure you noticed, there's a lot of different kinds of studies and a lot of conflicting data out there when it comes to palm oil and cholesterol. Some common themes appear in the results, however:

• Compared to PUFA-rich oils, palm oil increases TC in most human studies
• Compared to MUFA-rich oils, palm oil behaves neutrally in most human studies
• Compared to SFA-rich oils, palm oil reduces TC in most human studies
• In animals, palm oil tends to increase HDL and lower triglycerides
• In humans, palm oil tends to increase LDL, at least in men
  
• Palm oil makes LDL less susceptible to oxidation
• Small amounts of palm oil don't make much of a difference either way
• Palm oil tolerates cooking well, but don't use the same oil more than once
• Red palm oil seems to have a more neutral effect than refined palm oil

Just from a cholesterol perspective, palm oil doesn't look all that bad – and we haven't even looked at how palm oil consumption affects cardiac risk! Although some conflicting evidence exists, in most of the studies the effect on cholesterol is closely related to the fatty acid composition of the oil.

Thus, when you compare palm oil with sunflower oil, you're most likely going to see an increase in total cholesterol, since polyunsaturated fatty acids tend to lower cholesterol compared to saturated fatty acids. Monounsaturated seem neutral in most cases. Still, keep in mind that individual fatty acids behave slightly differently. The high palmitic acid content of palm oil may explain why HDL levels are unchanged in many human studies.

One thing to remember is that if you use the oils straight from the bottle (e.g. on top of a salad), the difference between sunflower oil and palm oil may not be that great. However, if you use them for cooking, picking an oil high in PUFAs is asking for trouble. Saturated fats such as palm oil are less susceptible to oxidation and also make (the possibly increased) LDL less susceptible to oxidation.

Finally, while refined palm oil is most likely a better choice for cooking than less saturated fats, go for red palm oil whenever you can. Not all studies have shown a significant difference in cholesterol levels between red palm oil and refined palm oil, but some have, and tocotrienols have plenty of other health benefits as well.

What a "Heart-Healthy" Diet Does to Your Cholesterol Levels
5 Reasons Why Dark Chocolate Is Better than Milk Chocolate
Should Saturated Fat Be Avoided in Low-Carb Diets?
Coconut Lowers LDL, VLDL and Triglycerides, Raises HDL

Happy Birthday, Hitch!

Sir Alfred Hitchcock was born on Sunday, August 13, 1899; that makes today is his 111th birthday. And it happens to be Friday the 13th. How perfect is that? Pretty perfect, except not as perfect as the fact that his 100th birthday in 1999 was also on Friday the 13th. (He had quite a few his lifetime: 1909, 1915, 1920, 1926, 1937, 1943, 1948, 1954, 1965, 1971, and 1976. His next Friday the 13th birthday won't be until 2021.)

Some of my friends may already know of my Hitchcock obsession. And if you aren't one of those, let me fill you in: I'm obsessed with the Master of Suspense. Well, not as much as I used to be. I haven't had the time (or I should say I haven't made the time) for my Hitch obsession or, for that matter, my other hobbies such as photography. Just to give you a sense of my obsession: Over the course of a few years I collected every film by Alfred Hitchcock. I own a dozen or so books about him, including a couple biographies of him. One year I watched a "Hitch a week" for a year, watching, in order, every Hitchcock movie over the course of a year. It's convenient that there are 52 Hitchcock films. (Actually, there are a few more, as you'll see below. The one film missing from my collection is Waltzes from Vienna, which is only available as a bootleg, which is fine because it was one of Hitch's least favorite films.) I also love watching Hitchcock-inspired films. I know some people hang lots of movie posters in their homes; I have but one and it is one of the best movie posters of all time, Alfred Hitchock's Vertigo.

I haven't "played" with my Hitchcock collection in years. I have only rarely pulled a DVD off the shelf to watch, and then usually only one of my favorites, not one of his lesser known films. I haven't flipped through my Hitch books and my web bookmarks folder of Hitchcock-related web sites is quite dusty.

But for some reason I felt compelled to reacquaint myself with the Master of Suspense today. Maybe it's because his birthday fell on Friday the 13th. Maybe it's just that it's on a Friday. Or maybe it's because it fell on the Friday before we go back to school.

Whatever the case, I'm having a little Hitchfest tonight. Hitchcock was active for six decades, from the 1920s to the 1970s, from the Silent Era (he made the first British "talkie," Blackmail) to the modern era, from black and white to technicolor. He made films on both sides of the Atlantic. He experimented widely and introduced a great number of cinematic innovations. He even made one of the first movies in 3D, Dial "M" for Murder.

So, I've loaded up my six-disc DVD player with one film from each decade and I'll rev it up around 5 o'clock and we'll see how long we last. Whatever we don't finish tonight, we'll certainly watch tomorrow night.

Here's the line-up:

For the 1920s (and the Silent Era) I've chosen The Lodger (1927). Most people mistakenly believe this was his first film as a director. His first was Number 13 (there's that number again!), which was never finished and no footage survives. He directed The Pleasure Garden in Germany and then The Mountain Eagle (which also doesn't survive) before The Lodger. But many regard The Lodger as the first "Hitchcockian" film. It has so many of his trademark motifs: murder, suspicion, guilt, love, lust, the role of authority in society (especially as it relates to the police), the "Hitchcock blonde," and of course, his cameo. His other 1920s films include Downhill, Easy Virtue, The Ring, The Farmer's Wife, Champagne, The Manxman, all of which were silents and Blackmail, which he made as a silent and as a "talkie."

For the 1930s I'll watch The 39 Steps (1935) on my Criterion Collection DVD. This film helped solidify his reputation in England and to gain greater notice in the U.S. In a way, it can be said that North by Northwest (one of my all-time favorites) is a remake of sorts of The 39 Steps. The other films of the 1930s include Juno and the Paycock, Murder!, The Skin Game, Rich and Strange, Number Seventeen, Waltzes from Vienna, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Secret Agent, Sabotage, Young and Innocent, The Lady Vanishes, and Jamaica Inn.

Hitch moved to the United States in 1939 to work with David O. Selznick and started his American career off with a bang with academy-award winning Rebecca (1940). Hitchcock said on a few occasions that one of his personal favorites was Shadow of a Doubt (1943) so who am I to doubt the Master? He used Thorton Wilder (of "Our Town" fame) as a consultant on the film and it's easy to see his influence. The contrast of innocence and guilt are stark in this film. His other films from the 1940s are Foreign Correspondent, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Suspicion, Saboteur, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Notorious, The Paradine Case, Rope, and Under Capricorn.

How do you choose just one film from the 1950s? It's his single best decade though it's easy to argue that this great decade stretches from Suspicion in 1942 to the Birds in 1963. Between those two bookmarks there is hardly a bad film (Under Capricorn being a notable exception). The 1950s include some of his most famous films, and for good reason: Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train, I Confess, Dial M for Murder, To Catch a Thief, The Trouble with Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Wrong Man, Vertigo, and North by Northwest. I decided to go with Rear Window (1954), the first Hitchcock film I saw on the big screen when it was re-released in 1999.

His most famous film is probably Psycho (1960). What better Hitchcock film could there to be to watch late at night on Friday the 13th? Perhaps the Birds. It's a toss-up, but I'm going with Pyscho. He made three other films in the 60s: Marnie, Torn Curtain, and Topaz, none of which were very well received at the time.

Hitchcock returned to England to make his penultimate picture, Frenzy (1972). He also returned to top Hitchcockian form. His only other film of the 1970s is Family Plot.

You can learn more about his films on the Hithcock Wiki or IMDB.

So, there you have my Hitchcockian Friday the 13th Birthday Bash Plan. Stop by tonight if you want to join in the fun. Or go rent your favorite Hitchcock film to celebrate yourself. Happy Birthday, Hitch!