#251 Major Changes Coming

Author

Michael Eades
October 24, 2025

Greetings everyone.

As you can see from the new headline, things are going to be changing a bit with The Arrow.

This coming week, in fact.

A year or so before I started writing The Arrow, I had begun reading a weekly newsletter by a young man who was writing about his coding experiences. Reading his newsletter inspired me (a year down the road) to start my own. When I was about 16 or 17 issues into The Arrow, I received the next weekly newsletter from the young guy. It was issue #163. I thought at the time, will I ever be able to sustain The Arrow for that length of time?

As it turned out, the writer of the newsletter himself quit not long after his 163rd issue, and here The Arrow is hitting #251.

I’ve decided to shake things up a bit. Instead of putting out a long newsletter with multiple subjects late every Thursday night, I’m going to write shorter ones on fewer topics throughout the week.

Given the changes in my schedule lately, getting a whopper of a publication out on Thursday evenings has become burdensome. I try to write bits of it earlier in the week, but it seems that no matter how hard I try, I get to Thursday morning with just a few words written and thus end up sitting before my computer for the next 10-12 hours cranking on the rest of The Arrow to get it out sometime before midnight.

The other issue I have is that I collect topics throughout the week, starting on Friday after the previous week’s Arrow has been sent. When it comes to the next Thursday, I figure everyone has become aware of those events described in many of the saved articles and will think they are old news. So I don’t end up writing about fresh events unless they happen to fall on a Wednesday or Thursday. And I don’t have much time for searching on Thursdays, because I’m tied to my writing seat. If I let myself start surfing the net, I’m a goner for at least 30 minutes, which I can’t afford to lose.

My plan is to keep generating the same amount of content, but just distributing it over multiple emails during the week and not tied to Thursdays. And, unless I just run out of creativity, I’ll add a headline to each one.

Aside from having my angst rise as Thursdays approach, I have another reason for wanting to write fewer, smaller emails throughout the week. I happened across an article by Nate Silver, who has an enormous following. He wrote a piece about how to blog successfully. The main point he made was to always be blogging. The more pieces per week you crank out—assuming, of course, that they are interesting—the faster your subscriber list grows.

My subscriber list has been growing at a pitifully slow rate. Nate Silver told me why. He wrote that when he dropped back to a once per week post while he was working on his latest book, his blog was “basically just treading water to fight against the churn.”

What is the churn?

It’s the number of people who unsubscribe every week. It remains pretty constant at about 0.25 percent. This last week was a little lower than usual.

It used to drive me crazy, because I couldn’t figure out why people would unsubscribe. Other, of course, than if they hated what I had to write. But over time, I realized it was simply inevitable. People get new email address. People use their work email address and then change their job. There are countless reasons why people unsubscribe. It finally dawned on me that there are newsletters I’ve read for ages, but have myself kind of gotten tired of and unsubscribed from.

That’s the churn. Happens every week.

I just checked my stats for the past four weeks, and I netted 8 new subscribers, which is what Nate Silver describes as fighting the churn.

Apparently, according to Nate anyway, you lose whatever you’re going to lose each week irrespective of whether you post one time or five times. But you gain subscribers each time you write a new post.

I’m going to see if it really happens that way.

I started The Arrow in Jan 2021, right as Covid was really kicking off. At the time, I had about 10,000 subscribers that I had gathered from my years of regular blogging. It should have been more than that, but I had been too stupid to provide a way for people to sign up to get it via email until way late in the game when I wasn’t posting as regularly.

When I sent my first newsletter post out—called the No Name Newsletter—I ended up losing about 2,000 subscribers, which was the churn from when I wrote the last of my actual blogging posts until the first of what was to become The Arrow. So, in reality, I started with ~8,000 subscribers. My goal in writing a weekly newsletter was to grease up my writing circuits to prepare to write Protein Power 2.0 with MD, who never, ever needs her writing circuits greased.

As it turned out, I spent so much time on The Arrow that PP 2.0 kind of fell by the wayside.

But I figured the gain in subscribers I would achieve with a weekly newsletter would generate a larger audience for PP 2.0, whenever we did write it.

I have watched other newsletter writers who started at roughly the same time I did (many of us kicked it off during the early days of Covid) generate subscriber lists of well over 100,000, some even way, way more. And they started from scratch—at least I had 8,000 subscribers to begin with. I don’t know if it was that the quality of their work was that much better than mine or that all of them sent multiple emails per week. I’m hoping it is the later, so I’m going to try the different schedule.

One more piece of housekeeping before we move on.

I want to discuss a bit about the Odds and Ends section I write every week. I did this for a couple of reasons. First, I love it when I find whatever the equivalent of Odds and Ends in other’s newsletters. I may not always read the entire newsletter, but I’ll always read their lists at the end.

The Odds and Ends are things I come across during my daily roams through the net. If I see something really interesting that I want to explore in more detail, I slap it in a tab and save it for The Arrow. A lot of the stuff is interesting—it was at least interesting enough to get me to click on it—but not worth doing a deep dive and writing it about it in detail. Some of the stuff is controversial, but I still find it interesting. So those are the things I stick up in the Odds and Ends. Or maybe just something that strikes my fancy.

Invariably in either the poll responses or the comments, I end up getting a comment or argument about one of the Odds and Ends. I don’t even know what the person is talking about. At first. Then I realize he or she is arguing or commenting on one of the Odds and Ends, which I can barely remember by that time. And certainly don’t have enough knowledge on to engage in debate.

So, if you do want to debate or want my commentary of one of the Odds and Ends, you’ll probably be disappointed.

Last thing, I promise.

Because so many people enjoy the Odds and Ends, this edition of the entire Arrow is going to be sort of Odds and Endsy. I pulled down a ton of tabs—my constant běte noire—so I’m going to write shorter pieces on them than I usually do. It gets rid of the tab and will provide, I hope, something to you of interest.

The Arrow is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Food Lists and Oatmeal

This section is going to combine a comment I received along with my own experience and a list that some rando cardiologist got published re the nine foods he would never eat.

He starts out thusly:

After two decades treating heart disease, clogged arteries, and metabolic dysfunction, I began to notice a pattern. Many of my patients thought they were doing everything right — like exercising regularly and managing stress — yet they still ended up in my office with serious cardiovascular issues.

The common thread? Everyday food choices.

Some of the most harmful foods in the American diet don’t come with warning labels. Instead, they’re marketed as “heart smart,” “plant-based,” or “low-fat.” But behind the buzzwords are ingredients that fuel inflammation, spike blood sugar, and quietly damage your arteries over time.

As a cardiologist, there are nine American foods you couldn’t pay me to eat — not because I’m extreme, but because I’ve seen firsthand what they do to the human heart.

The first food on the list is sugary breakfast cereals. I agree completely, despite the fact that that’s what I grew up eating.

Then he gets to his recommendation, which is “steel-cut oats with berries and cinnamon. Real fiber, antioxidants, and stable energy.”

I’ve written about this before, but for those readers who are new, I’ll repeat. A few years ago MD and I wore continuous glucose monitors (CGM) for a month and then six months later another month. During this time, we tested a lot of foods to see which drove our glucose levels up. Sushi rice drove them up in both of us, but it came back down pretty quickly. Almost anything that was sweet that wasn’t accompanied with fat did the same thing.

I tried ice cream after dinner. It didn’t make a budge in my glucose level. I thought it might be because I ate it right after a steak, so I waited till mid afternoon after I had fasted since an early breakfast. I ate the ice cream and nada. Barely a budge in my glucose level.

One morning we were both hungry for something different, so we tried some steel cut oats, which were supposed to be low-glycemic. Years ago, Dr. Ludwig at Harvard had compared subjects in a study in which one group ate instant oats while the other atee steel cut oats. Those eating instant oats had much higher glucose levels and ate more at their next meal than those who consumed the steel cut oats. I think, but am not sure, that he repeated that study and got the same results.

We boiled our steel cut oats—the kind that come in a can—in water, then, when thickened, at them with butter, a few walnuts, and a tiny bit of half and half. MD might have added a bit of salt and a packet of stevia. I can’t remember.

The steel cut oats sent our glucose levels soaring, where they remained for at least an hour and a half. No coming right back down as with the sushi rice or even a frosted cupcake I had tested. Out blood sugar went up, and it stayed up.

Recently, maybe two weeks ago, I had a comment in the poll responses from someone who had discovered the same thing. The person wasn’t wearing a CMG, but at a regular doctors visit eight months after chowing down on steel cut oats daily, her HgA1c had gone way up. The only thing different in her diet was the addition of the steel cut oats.

Then I get this comment:

I keep meaning to tell you then I forget each week. Steel cut oats are notorious for removing the positive effects of oats. Can you get hold of rolled oats in the US? If so, give them a go and see how you feel. I know you’re not using cgm anymore but you’ll probably feel the difference. Ta. [My bold]

I’m not planning on wearing a GCM anytime soon. Has anyone else experienced this? If so, let me know. I wonder if Dr. Ludwig was using rolled oats as his control?

So, I wouldn’t follow the cardiologist recommendation for steel cut oats. Just go with bacon and eggs.

His second recommendation of foods to avoid was processed deli meats. He writes:

They’re portable and convenient, but this sandwich staple comes with a dark side. Deli meats are often preserved with nitrates and nitrites, which can convert into carcinogenic compounds inside the body.

These substances don’t just raise your cancer risk — they also elevate blood pressure and promote long-term arterial damage. If your “meat” has a shelf life longer than your dog, your arteries are paying the price.

Eat this instead: Roast your own turkey or chicken breast and slice it fresh.

Okay, I can get down with roasting my own turkey or chicken breast, but there is nothing wrong with processed meats. The two countries in Europe with the greatest longevity—Italy and France—eat tons of processed meats.

The bit about the nitrites and nitrates is bogus, as we get those in larger numbers even in vegetable foods.

An interesting thing about processing foods is that processing carbs makes them worse for you as the processing invariably drives up the glycemic index. Processing meat ends up making the protein more accessible. Processing meat can raise the protein content several grams per serving.

MD and I love processed meats. We (She) puts together charcuterie plates all the time. The one thing you can do to make the processed meats better for you is to buy them from the deli counter. If you buy them packaged, they invariably have more additives and preservatives than the ones in the deli counter.

An actual MD charcuterie plate that we split for lunch

The next group of foods on the list I pretty much agree with. I avoid them all myself.

  • Soda and energy drinks

  • Deep-fried fast foods (and carnival snacks)

  • White bread and refined carbs

  • Margarine and fake butter spreads

  • Highly processed plant-based ‘meats’

My only argument as to the list above is what the cardiologists says to eat instead on some of the choices.

For the deep-fried fast foods (and carnival snacks), he suggests eating the same, but only if oven-baked using olive oil or avocado oil. Really??

I could eat my weight in funnel cakes, but I haven’t touched one in years and years. But, other than a little better quality of oil, whats the difference between an oven-baked funnel cake and deep fried a carnival one? You’re still going to get a ton of carbs. I would just (and have for years) avoided the whole thing.

Instead of the white bread and refined carbs, he suggests 100% whole grain or sprouted grain bread. Jesus really did weep! If he thinks these don’t contain just as many carbs—which are the only really bad things about bread—then he’s not thinking correctly.

The margarine and fake butter…I’m with him 100 percent. He does recommend real butter.

But when he gets to the plant-based meats, which I also agree should be avoided, he recommends instead beans, lentils, or minimally processed tofu. What about real meat? What’s wrong with that?

Number 8 on his hit parade is canned soups with high sodium. If you’re on a low-carb diet and you come across a canned soup that a) isn’t filled with bad crap, and b) has some extra sodium in it, don’t worry about it. The low-carb diet deals with the sodium issue. In fact on a low carb diet you probably need a bit more sodium.

The last on his hit parade is Flavored coffee creamers, which I agree with completely. Gack! I wouldn’t touch one of these. But he recommends “Unsweetened almond or oat milk with cinnamon or vanilla extract.” Gag me. Why not half and half or a bit of cream? OK throw a little cinnamon or a touch of real vanilla extract in there too if you want, but c’mon… oat and almond milk?

My guess is that this cardiologist doesn’t eat the way he recommends. I suspect there is a lot of virtue signaling going on here.

Protein Powders Under the Gun

Consumer Reports turned its spotlight on protein powders and laid waste to a bunch of them. In an article titled Protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead, Consumer Reports wrote:

Much has changed since Consumer Reports first tested protein powders and shakes. Over the past 15 years, Americans’ obsession with protein has transformed what had been a niche product into the centerpiece of a multibillion-dollar wellness craze, driving booming supplement sales and spawning a new crop of protein-fortified foods that now saturate supermarket shelves and social media feeds.

Yet for all the industry’s growth and rebranding, one thing hasn’t changed: Protein powders still carry troubling levels of toxic heavy metals, according to a new Consumer Reports investigation. Our latest tests of 23 protein powders and ready-to-drink shakes from popular brands found that heavy metal contamination has become even more common among protein products, raising concerns that the risks are growing right alongside the industry itself.

For more than two-thirds of the products we analyzed, a single serving contained more lead than CR’s food safety experts say is safe to consume in a day—some by more than 10 times.

“It’s concerning that these results are even worse than the last time we tested,” said Tunde Akinleye, the CR food safety researcher who led the testing project. This time, in addition to the average level of lead being higher than what we found 15 years ago, there were also fewer products with undetectable amounts of it. The outliers also packed a heavier punch. Naked Nutrition’s Vegan Mass Gainer powder, the product with the highest lead levels, had nearly twice as much lead per serving as the worst product we analyzed in 2010.

As it turns out, most of the products with heavy lead content are vegetarian protein powders.

The lead levels in plant-based products were, on average, nine times the amount found in those made with dairy proteins like whey, and twice as great as beef-based ones. Dairy-based protein powders and shakes generally had the lowest amounts of lead, but half of the products we tested still had high enough levels of contamination that CR’s experts advise against daily use.

Why do plant-based proteins have such increased propensity for increased lead? Because plants pick it up from the dirt they grow in.

Although there were some exceptions, products made with plant-based proteins generally tested higher for lead than those using meat- or dairy-based sources. All the plant-based powders CR tested relied on pea protein as a main ingredient. Though soy remains among the most popular plant-based protein in terms of total crop volume, pea protein has emerged as a popular alternative due to its flavor profile and comparatively low allergenicity, says Priera Panescu Scott, PhD, a senior scientist at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit focused on protein alternatives.

CR’s tests did not determine whether the pea protein itself was a noteworthy source of additional contamination, or if the difference between the groups was due to the natural tendency of all plants to take up lead.

Certain foods have unavoidable trace amounts of lead in them because of the environments where crops are grown and animals are raised. Heavy metal contamination can come from natural sources—because lead naturally exists in the earth’s crust—or from human activity like industrial pollution, wastewater irrigation, or road dust. Plants are particularly susceptible because they naturally absorb whatever nutrients or contaminants are in the soil, water, and air around them. For animal-based products like milk, the primary sources of heavy metal contamination in the cow’s environment include the feed, water, and soil, Akinleye says.

Extracting concentrated protein from plants is a complex, highly mechanized process. With every additional step, there’s a chance of introducing contaminants such as lead, says Goldman, the Cambridge Health Alliance physician who has studied lead exposure.

Lead could enter pea protein at the manufacturing plant, when the dried peas are dehulled and ground into flour, depending on the type of machines and metals used, says Goldman. It could also be introduced during the process where the flour is mixed with water to separate the protein from the starch and fiber, if the water wasn’t tested for contamination. The final step of the process, where the protein is coagulated with food-grade acid, neutralized, and spray-dried into the powder found in many foods and supplements, also offers opportunities for contamination, depending on the materials used.

The author of the article mentions that animal-based proteins can get lead from the foods they eat, which includes plants, and the water they drink. But what it doesn’t mention is that the whey and milk used in the manufacture of protein powders comes from the milk of the cow. Both human and bovine mammary glands act as partial biological barriers to the transfer of heavy metals from blood to milk. While it is only a partial biologic protection against heavy metal transfer into milk, there is no such protection in peas.

Plus, due to their relatively low protein content, peas must be highly concentrated to achieve 18-20 g of protein per scoop of pea-based protein powder. Unfortunately, the lead concentrates as well. Whey is whey, and it is already high in protein. And the partial biological barrier in the cow (and human) against heavy metals ensures there is less in the milk than the mother’s blood, unless the feed, water, and surroundings are overloaded with lead. Most dairie and Ns undergo regular inspections, so I suspect the odds of huge contamination is low.

One of the issues I have with the Consumer Reports article is that the authors say the 0.8 g/kg of protein per day (the RDI) is adequate. It’s about the amount most people get daily. Problem is, as I’ve written about countless times, it takes more than 0.8 g/kg of protein per day to build muscle, especially in elderly people. I’ve posted many studies on this subject in these pages, and virtually all of them show seniors can’t increase muscle mass until they get their protein higher.

It they’re trying to lose weight at the same time they’re trying to build lean body mass, it’s even more difficult. Adding a little whey protein doesn’t increase their intake a lot, but it does bump the protein significantly.

The whey protein MD and I like best that I think I’ve already mentioned is Ancient Nutrition Whey Protein. We love it because it is made with A2/A2 milk and has multiple other benefits plus it’s NBS.

The minute we finished reading the Consumer Reports article, MD fired off a letter to the Ancient Nutrition folks asking them about their products.

Almost immediately, she got back a response that was kind of generic with a sign off by their bot.

Best Regards,

Ava (Ancient's Virtual Assistant - Our Friendly AI Bot!)

But the bot passed on the message, and here is the letter in full that we received back about an hour later. (Granted, Ava the bot knew to call her Mary Dan and the actual human defaulted to Mary, but such is life.)

Hey Mary and Michael,

Thank you for reaching out! We understand your concern. Heavy Metals are naturally occurring in the soil; therefore, any ingredient that is grown in the soil will often have naturally occurring amounts of certain heavy metals. While we understand the concern of the presence of heavy metals in any product intended for consumption, we ensure that we are always seeking to minimize the presence of any heavy metals and that the company has instituted a rigorous testing regimen to ensure safety and compliance.

We test all of our finished products for heavy metals and microbial contaminants through 3rd party ISO accredited laboratories. We qualify the raw materials prior to use to ensure they meet the standards set for each material. According to NSF, the leading certifier of products, there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the implied claim that detectable levels of heavy metals present a health risk. These labs have been cited by the industry as having lack of transparency, conflict of interest due to payment for listing, and unknown methodology for ranking of products. We dispute the validity of the testing from these outsourced labs, as we believe that there is significant laboratory variability.

We formulate and test lots to the Prop 65 requirement for heavy metals: Prop 65 Limits: Pb (Lead) <0.5 mcg per serving Cd (Cadmium) <4.1 mcg per serving Hg (Mercury) <2.0 mcg per serving As (Arsenic) <10 mcg per serving

We at Ancient Nutrition strive to provide the best products in the market. Our Quality team reviews the testing data for every lot prior to release to market.

You can find the certificate of analysis for our Multi Collagen Protein Powder HERE.

Ancient Nutrition adheres to current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) dietary supplement final rule 21 CFR 111. We ensure that all of our products meet the established specifications and require a Certificate of Analysis (CoA) for every lot manufactured. This ensures that the testing is conclusive to what we claim on the label is actually in the product. I greatly apologize, but we, like most companies do not publish our products test results to the public, as our CoA often include proprietary information of both the company and its manufacturing partners. The safety and efficacy of our products is of utmost concern, which is why test all finished products for heavy metals, microbial growth and pathogenic species. We have an extensive quality program that meets those established by FDA Good Manufacturing Practices in order to deliver the best product to our customers, and we are committed to our customers' health and well-being.

Please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a wonderful weekend!

Kind regards, Ashley

We’re continuing to use the Ancient Nutrients protein. But we won’t go near a vegetarian one.

Our online Power of Protein course is opening for enrollment in November through Adapt Your Life Academy.

Enrollment only opens once a year and will only be open for 3 days, so if you don't want to miss it, you can join the waitlist here.

In this course, you'll learn the science-based facts, not only of how important protein is in your daily diet, but also how eating the right amount of protein can help you lose weight, boost your health ,and feel fit in just weeks.

PS: When you join the waitlist, you'll get reminders via email from Adapt Your Life Academy when enrollment opens on November 18.

Saturated Fat: Some People Need a Lot More of It

A couple of days ago, the Wall Street Journal came out with an article headlined “Steak, Butter and Ice Cream: MAHA Sets Up Fight Over Saturated Fat” that makes some of the most outlandish statements imaginable.

The thrust of the article is that RFK and his merry band of supposed misfits are going to change the Nutritional Guidelines to allow more saturated fat. (Heaven forfend!) But the WSJ and those they interviewed for the article aren’t much for it.

Get ready for a fight over how much steak, butter and ice cream you should eat.

These beloved foods—not to mention pizza, cookies and many sandwiches—all contain saturated fat. For decades, the federal government has told Americans to reduce their consumption of this type of fat, citing its link to heart disease.

The government’s advice may be changing soon.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in July that the government would issue “new dietary guidelines that are common sense that stress the need to eat saturated fats, dairy, good meat, fresh meat and vegetables.”

Kennedy last month released the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” strategy, which calls for bringing back to schools full-fat dairy products like whole milk. Kennedy told Fox News in August that he follows a carnivore diet of mainly meat, yogurt and fermented vegetables like kimchi. He has lauded food companies for using beef tallow. [Gasp!]

Forever, saturate fat has been limited in the Nutritional Guidelines to a mere 10 percent of daily calories. All the ‘experts’ are coming unglued at the prospect of such a change.

“The science is actually pretty clear. Exposure to unhealthy saturated fats, butter, full-fat dairy, fatty red meats, these things raise LDL cholesterol and contribute to heart disease,” said Cheryl A.M. Anderson, a professor at UC San Diego Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and member of the committee.

This is a full professor at the University of California and a member of the committee advising on the nutritional guidelines. She is obviously unaware that back in 2020 the Journal of the American College of Cardiology gave saturated fat a clean slate. This isn’t the journal of low-carb or the journal of some weird association, this is the frigging Journal of the American College of Cardiology. How could someone in this woman’s position be unaware of it?

The WSJ writer goes on to say:

The push to get people to eat less saturated fat kicked off in the 1960s. Scientific studies found that replacing saturated fat from meat and dairy with polyunsaturated fat from vegetable oils lowered people’s levels of low-density lipoprotein, known as LDL or bad cholesterol, and cut their risk of cardiovascular disease.

In the 1970s and 1980s, legions of people went all-in on low-fat diets. The food industry rushed to respond, and soon grocery store shelves were lined with low-fat snacks—often sugary and highly processed.

Followed by one of the most moronic statements I’ve ever heard. You would have to be an academic to say something this stupid.

“We got rid of bad fat in the diet, but we didn’t replace it with healthy fat,” said Eric Rimm, a nutrition scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes soared.

Jesus wept.

What healthy fat should we have replaced it with? Polyunsaturated fat? Would that have saved us from the obesity and Type 2 diabetes epidemics?

Of course not. What we replaced the saturated fat with was carbs.

The article and the academic go on to sort of admit this. But the academic somehow thinks replacing saturated fat with soybean and corn oil (healthy fats, he calls them) would do the trick.

A few more recent studies confused things even more. Some research found that saturated fat intake didn’t increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. 

But these studies didn’t take into account what people ate instead of the saturated fat—and that matters a lot, said Rimm. Replacing saturated fat with healthy fat, like from soybean and corn oil, reduces cardiovascular disease risk. But swapping it for refined carbs like white bread, pizza and baked goods doesn’t seem to provide any benefit, he said.

In a section in the WSJ article called Saturated Fat in the Body, we read the following:

When you eat foods like burgers and butter, some of the saturated fat is burned for energy and some is stored in body fat. How much your body can handle this way depends on your genes, your overall diet, how fit you are and other factors, said Dr. Romit Bhattacharya, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

What’s left over is processed by the liver and turned into cholesterol, which enters the bloodstream and can build up in the arteries of the heart and brain.

Saturated fat also boosts the level of triglycerides in the blood. Elevated levels of triglycerides can increase the likelihood of heart disease, too.

I don’t know if the above is attributed to Dr. Romit Bhattacharya, a cardiologist at Mass General, or if the WSJ writer did it on her own. There are no quote marks anywhere, so it’s impossible to tell. If it were the good doctor, he should have been ridden out of Mass General on a rail.

Under no circumstances can saturated fat be turned into cholesterol. They are two separate molecules with totally different structures. There is no interconversion.

Saturated fats do not boost the levels of triglycerides in the body. Triglycerides start out in the liver as VLDL, not as saturated fat. Sugar boosts them. Alcohol boosts them. But not saturated fat.

Here is a graphic from the article showing the sources of saturated fat in the diet.

Doesn’t look to me like meat is the big source of saturated fat. Rice and pasta dishes appear to have more than double the saturated fat along with a whole lot of carbs, which, in my view at least, cause more problems than the meat by itself.

Then, of course, Darius Mozaffarian has to chime in about the saturated fats in yogurt and cheese are okay because they help the microbiome.

And then…

The type of saturated fat in red meat is more clearly linked to cardiovascular disease, said Mozaffarian. Red meat also contains a type of iron that can cause inflammation. Research has found that red meat consumption raises the risk of diabetes and colon cancer.

No, no, no! No real research has not shown that red meat consumption raises the risk of diabetes and/or colon cancers. The studies purportedly showing a link are observational studies, which can’t prove causality. And there are probably as many of the same kind of studies showing the opposite result, which also can’t prove causality.

According to the article, the scientists still around who were involved in the creation of the guidelines hope the saturated fat levels will stay at 10 percent. I’m doubtful, but you never know. I fervently hope it will change.

I posted this short video of Dr. Marty Makary, Commissioner of the FDA, a few weeks ago. Doesn’t sound to me like they’re very wedded to saturated fat’s being the villain.

Unlike Christopher Gardner, a vegetarian, who gets the last say in the WSJ article.

The committee reviewed studies and found that when people swapped whole-fat dairy for low-fat dairy or even beef for chicken, their risk of cardiovascular disease remained largely unchanged. But more studies are needed, said Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist at Stanford University who led the committee’s saturated fat analysis.

What cut the risk significantly: Switching from meat, butter and dairy to beans, whole grains, vegetable oils and vegetables, he said. Plant foods also contain fiber and antioxidants that are good for a person’s health.

“You don’t have to be vegan here, but eat less meat and less dairy and more plant foods,” Gardner said.

It’s always “more studies are needed” when the data you have doesn’t match your mindset. Folks have been after Gardner and the rest of the advisory committee to lower the saturated fat limit to below 10 percent forever. But it’s the old we-need-more-studies before we can do so. The real crime in all this is that there was no data to limit it to 10 percent in the first place. Gardner admits in the quote above that when people “swapped whole-fat dairy for low-fat dairy” or “beef for chicken,” their risk for cardiovascular risk remained unchanged. (So…DUH! It didn’t make them better!!)

The 10 percent figure was put in place with no data. The data they have shows no difference. Yet they need more studies to raise the percentage of saturated fat above 10 percent. It’s no wonder RFK is cleaning house.

The Kind of Journalism We Need Today

I caught the last three innings of the final Toronto-Miami playoff game. At the change of innings and changing of pitchers, there was one pharmaceutical add after another. When the World Series starts, I’m going to actually count the adds just to see how many and to see how many don’t even tell you what the drug is for. It’s simply a payoff to prevent the kind of investigative journalism we had before pharmaceuticals were allowed to advertise on television. Fervently hoping RFK gets it done to stop Pharma advertising prescription meds to the general public.

This is one from 1976. I posted it several years ago during Covid. You’ll not see the like until Big Pharma is no longer able to buy ads on TV.

Odds and Ends

Newsletter Recommendations

OutlanderMD | Mary Dan Eades | Substack

An examination of the many medical interludes of STARZ Outlander as seen through the eyes of a physician and scientist--and true Outlander fan. Where they hit the mark and where they miss. And why. Click to read OutlanderMD, by Mary Dan Eades, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.

outlandermd.substack.com

Video of the Week

Well, I had an incredible video for the VOTW this week, and it vanished. I had it on a tab, and it disappeared. Couldn’t find it in my YouTube history. Searched a hundred different ways. It simply vanished. I guess the people removed it from YouTube.

While searching for it, though, I came upon something pretty clever. When I was a kid, I loved Laurel and Hardy. Their movies would sometimes come on on Saturday morning TV. Someone did a really clever thing with a sort of mash up clip of one of them. It’s really pretty creative. And I got to see my old buddies again.

Time for the poll, so you can grade my performance this week.

How did I do on this week's Arrow?

Login or Subscribe to participate in polls.

That’s about it for this week. Keep in good cheer, and I’ll be back next Thursday.

Please help me out by clicking the Like button, assuming, of course, that you like it.

This newsletter is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment and should never be relied upon for specific medical advice.

Thanks for reading all the way to the end. Really, thanks. If you got something out of it, please consider becoming a paid subscriber if you aren’t yet. I would really appreciate it.

Finally, don’t forget to take a look at what our kind sponsors have to offer. Dry Farm Wines, HLTH Code, Precision Health Reports, and Jaquish Biomedical.

And don’t forget my newest affiliate sponsor Lumen. Highly recommended to determine whether you’re burning fat or burning carbs.

Reply

or to participate.