Impressions of Hawai'i

I recently went to Hawai'i for the American Society of Human Genetics meeting in Waikiki, followed by a one-week vacation on Kaua'i with friends. It was my first time in Hawai'i and I really enjoyed it. The Hawai'ians I encountered were kind and generous people.

Early European explorers remarked on the beauty, strength, good nature and exellent physical development of the native Hawai'ians. The traditional Hawai'ian diet consisted mostly of taro root, sweet potatoes, yams, breadfruit, coconut, fish, occasional pork, fowl including chicken, taro leaves, seaweed and a few sweet fruits. It would have been very low (but adequate) in omega-6, because there simply isn't much of it available in this environment. Root crops and most fruit are virtually devoid of fat; seafood and coconut contain very little omega-6; and even the pork and chicken would have been low in omega-6 due to their diets. Omega-3 would have been plentiful from marine foods, and saturated fats would have come from coconut. All foods were fresh and unrefined. Abundant exercise and sunlight would have completed their salubrious lifestyle.

The traditional Hawai'ian diet was rich in easily digested starch, mainly in the form of poi, which is fermented mashed taro. I ate poi a number of times while I was on Kaua'i, and really liked it. It's mild, similar to mashed potatoes, but with a slightly sticky consistency and a purple color (due to the particular variety of taro that's traditionally used to make it).

I had the opportunity to try a number of traditional Polynesian foods while I was on Kaua'i. One plant that particularly impressed me is breadfruit. It's a big tree that makes cantaloupe-sized starchy green fruit. Breadfruit is incredibly versatile, because it can be used at different stages of ripeness for different purposes. Very young, it's like a vegetable, at full size, it's a bland starch, and fully ripe it's starchy and sweet like a sweet potato. It can be baked, boiled, fried and even dried for later use. It has a mild flavor and a texture similar to soft white bread. It's satisfying and fairly rich in micronutrients. On the right are breadfruit, coconut and sugarcane, three traditional Hawai'ian foods.

I find perennial staple crops such as breadfruit very interesting, because they're much less destructive to soil quality than annual crops, and they're a breeze to maintain. I could walk into the backyard of the apartment I was renting and pick a breadfruit, soak it, throw it in the oven and I had something nutritious to eat in just over an hour. It's like picking a bag of potatoes right off a tree. Insects and birds didn't seem to like it at all, possibly because the raw fruit exudes a bitter, rubbery sap when damaged. Unfortunatley, breadfruit is a tropical plant. Temperate starchy staples that were exploited by native North Americans include the majestic American chestnut in the Appalachians, and acorns in the West. These are both more work than breadfruit to prepare, particularly acorns which must be extensively soaked to remove bitter tannins.

One of the foods Polynesian settlers brought to Hawai'i was sugar cane. I had the opportunity to try fresh sugar cane for the first time while I was on Kaua'i. You cut off the outer skin, then cut it into strips and chew to get the sweet juice. It was mild but tasty. I don't know if it was a coincidence or not, but I ended up feeling unwell after eating several pieces. It may simply have been too much sugar for me.

Modern Hawai'i is a hunter-gatherer's dream. There are fruit trees everywhere, including papayas, wild and cultivated guavas, mangoes, avocados, passion fruit, breadfruit, bananas, citrus fruits and many others. Many of those fruits did not predate European contact however. Even pineapples were introduced to Hawai'i after European contact. Coconuts are everywhere, and we could pick one up for a drink and snack on almost any beach. The forests are full of wild chickens (such as the one at left) and pigs, both having resulted from the escape and subsequent mixing of Polynesian and European breeds. Kaua'ians frequently hunt the pigs, which are environmentally damaging due to their habit of rooting through topsoil for food. Large areas of forest on Kaua'i look like they've been ploughed due to the pigs' rooting. Humans are their only predators and their food is abundant.

While I was on Kaua'i, I ate mostly seafood (including delicious raw tuna poke), poi, breadfruit, coconut and sweet fruits-- a real Polynesian style hunter-gatherer diet! I swam every day, hiked in the lovely interior, and kayaked. It was a great trip, and I hope to return someday.

.

Butter vs. Margarine

I came across an interesting study the other day, courtesy of Dr. John Briffa's blog. It's titled "Margarine Intake and Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease in Men", by Dr. William P. Castelli's group. It followed participants of the Framingham Heart study for 20 years, and recorded heart attack incidence*. Keep in mind that 20 years is an unusually long follow-up period.

The really cool thing about this study is they also tracked butter consumption.  Here's a graph of the overall results, by teaspoons of butter or margarine eaten per day:

Heart attack incidence increased with increasing margarine consumption (statistically significant) and decreased slightly with increasing butter consumption (not statistically significant). 

It gets more interesting. Let's have a look at some of the participant characteristics, broken down by margarine consumption:

People who ate the least margarine had the highest prevalence of glucose intolerance (pre-diabetes), smoked the most cigarettes, drank the most alcohol, and ate the most saturated fat and butter. These were the people who cared the least about their health. Yet they had the fewest heart attacks. The investigators corrected for the factors listed above in their assessment of the contribution of margarine to disease risk, however, the fact remains that the group eating the least margarine was the least health conscious. This affects disease risk in many ways, measurable or not. I've written about that before, here and here.

The investigators broke down the data into two halves: the first ten years, and the second ten. In the first ten years, there was no significant association between margarine intake and heart attack incidence. In the second ten, the group eating the most margarine had 77% more heart attacks than the group eating none:

So it appears that margarine takes a while to work its magic.

They didn't publish a breakdown of heart attack incidence with butter consumption over the two periods. The Framingham study fits in perfectly with most other observational studies showing that full-fat dairy intake is not associated with heart attack and stroke risk. 

It's worth mentioning that this study was conducted from the late 1960s until the late 1980s. Artificial trans fat labeling laws were still decades away in the U.S., and margarine contained more trans fat than it does today. Currently, margarine can contain up to 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving and still be labeled "0 g trans fat" in the U.S. The high trans fat content of the older margarines probably had something to do with the result of this study.

That does not make today's margarine healthy, however. Margarine remains an industrially processed pseudo-food. I'm just waiting for the next study showing that some ingredient in the new margarines (plant sterols? dihydro vitamin K1?) is the new trans fat.

Butter, Margarine and Heart Disease
The Coronary Heart Disease Epidemic


* More precisely, "coronary heart disease events", which includes infarction, sudden cardiac death, angina, and coronary insufficiency.

A Little Hiatus

I'm going to a conference next week, followed by a little vacation. I've written two posts that will publish automatically while I'm gone. I may or may not respond to comments for the next two weeks. I probably won't respond to e-mails. I'll resume the malocclusion series when I get back.

Malocclusion: Disease of Civilization, Part IV

There are three periods during the development of the face and jaws that are uniquely sensitive to environmental influences such as nutrition and muscle activity patterns.

1: Prenatal Period

The major structures of the human face and jaws develop during the first trimester of pregnancy. The maxilla (upper jaw) takes form between the 7th and 10th week after conception. The mandible (lower jaw) begins two weeks earlier. The nasal septum, which is the piece of cartilage that forms the structure of the nose and divides the nostrils, appears at week seven and grows most rapidly from weeks 8 to 11. Any disturbance of this developmental window can have major consequences for later occlusion.

2: Early Postnatal Period

The largest postnatal increment in face and jaw growth occurs from birth until age 4. During this period, the deciduous (baby) teeth erupt, and the activity patterns of the jaw and tongue influence the size and shape of the maxilla and the mandible as they grow. The relationship of the jaws to one another is mostly determined during this period, although it can still change later in development.

During this period, the dental arch widens from its center, called the midpalatal suture. This ensures that the jaws are the correct size and shape to eventually accept the permanent teeth without crowding them.

3: Adolescence

The third major developmental period occurs between ages 11 and 16, depending on the gender and individual, and happens roughly at the same time as the growth spurt in height. The dental arch continues to widen, reaching its final size and shape. Under ideal circumstances, at the end of this period the arch should be large enough to accommodate all teeth, including the third molars (wisdom teeth), without crowding. Narrow dental arches cause malocclusion and third molar crowding.

Growth of the Dental Arch Over Time

The following graph shows the widening of the dental arch over time*. The dotted line represents arch growth while the solid line represents growth in body height. You can see that arch development slows down after 6 years old, resumes around 11, and finally ends at about 18 years. This graph represents the average of many children, so not all children will see these changes at the age indicated. The numbers are in millimeters per year, but keep in mind that the difference between a narrow arch and a broad one is only a few millimeters.

In the next few posts, I'll describe the factors that I believe influence jaw and face structure during the three critical periods of development.


* These data represent many years of measurements collected by Dr. Arne Bjork, who used metallic implants in the maxilla to make precise measurements of arch growth over time in Danish youths. The graph is reproduced from the book A Synopsis of Craniofacial Growth, by Dr. Don M. Ranly. Data come from Dr. Bjork's findings published in the book Postnatal Growth and Development of the Maxillary Complex. You can see some of Dr. Bjork's data in the paper "Sutural Growth of the Upper Face Studied by the Implant Method" (free full text).

Malocclusion: Disease of Civilization, Part II

The Nature of the Problem

In 1973, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the results of a National Health Survey in which it examined the dental health of American youths nationwide. The following description was published in a special issue of the journal Pediatric Dentistry (1):

The 1973 National Health Survey reported 75% of children, ages 6 to 11 years, and 89% of youths, ages 12 to 17 years, have some degree of occlusal disharmony [malocclusion]; 8.7% of children and 13% of youth had what was considered a severe handicapping malocclusion for which treatment was highly desirable and 5.5% of children and 16% of youth had a severe handicapping malocclusion that required mandatory treatment.

89% of youths had some degree of malocclusion, and 29% had a severe handicapping malocclusion for which treatment was either highly desirable or mandatory. Fortunately, many of these received orthodontics so the malocclusion didn't persist into adulthood.

This is consistent with another survey conducted in 1977, in which 38% of American youths showed definite or severe malocclusion. 46% had occlusion that the authors deemed "ideal or acceptable" (2).

The trend continues. The CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III) found in 1988-1991 that approximately three fourths of Americans age 12 to 50 years had some degree of malocclusion (3).

The same holds true for Caucasian-Americans, African-Americans and Native Americans in the US, as well as other industrial nations around the world. Typically, only 1/3 to 1/2 of the population shows good (but not necessarily perfect) occlusion (4- 8).

In the next post, I'll review some of the data from non-industrial and transitioning populations.


Malocclusion: Disease of Civilization


1. Pediatr. Dent. 17(6):1-6. 1995-1996
2. USPHS Vital and Health Statistics Ser. 11, no 162. 1977
3. J. Dent. Res. Special issue. 75:706. 1996. Pubmed link.
4. The Evaluation of Canadian Dental Health. 1959. Describes Canadian occlusion.
5. The Effects of Inbreeding on Japanese Children. 1965. Contains data on Japanese occlusion.
6. J. Dent. Res. 35:115. 1956. Contains data on both industrial and non-industrial cultures (Pukapuka, Fiji, New Guinea, U.S.A. and New Zealand).
7. J. Dent. Res. 44:947. 1965 (free full text). Contains data on Caucasian-Americans and African-Americans living in several U.S. regions, as well as data from two regions of Germany. Only includes data on Angle classifications, not other types of malocclusion such as crossbite and open bite (i.e., the data underestimate the total prevalence of malocclusion).
8. J. Dent. Res. 47:302. 1968 (free full text). Contains data on Chippewa Native Americans in the U.S., whose occlusion was particularly bad, especially when compared to previous generations.

Diabetics on a Low-carbohydrate Diet, Part II

I just found another very interesting study performed in Japan by Dr. Hajime Haimoto and colleagues (free full text). They took severe diabetics with an HbA1c of 10.9% and put them on a low-carbohydrate diet:

The main principle of the CRD [carbohydrate-restricted diet] was to eliminate carbohydrate-rich food twice a day at breakfast and dinner, or eliminate it three times a day at breakfast, lunch and dinner... There were no other restrictions. Patients on the CRD were permitted to eat as much protein and fat as they wanted, including saturated fat.

What happened to their blood lipids after eating all that fat for 6 months, and increasing their saturated fat intake to that of the average American? LDL decreased and HDL increased, both statistically significant. Oops. But that's water under the bridge. What we really care about here is glucose control. The patients' HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin; a measure of average blood glucose over the past several weeks) declined from 10.9 to 7.4%.

Here's a graph showing the improvement in HbA1c. Each line represents one individual:

Every single patient improved, except the "dropout" who stopped following the diet advice after 3 months (the one line that shoots back up at 6 months). And now, an inspirational anecdote from the paper:

One female patient had an increased physical activity level during the study period in spite of our instructions. However, her increase in physical activity was no more than one hour of walking per day, four days a week. She had implemented an 11% carbohydrate diet without any antidiabetic drug, and her HbA1c level decreased from 14.4% at baseline to 6.1% after 3 months and had been maintained at 5.5% after 6 months.

That patient began with the highest HbA1c and ended with the lowest. Complete glucose control using only diet and exercise. It may not work for everyone, but it's effective in some cases. The study's conclusion:

...the 30%-carbohydrate diet over 6 months led to a remarkable reduction in HbA1c levels, even among outpatients with severe type 2 diabetes, without any insulin therapy, hospital care or increase in sulfonylureas. The effectiveness of the diet may be comparable to that of insulin therapy.

Diabetics on a Low-carbohydrate Diet
The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Diabetes

Diabetics on a Low-carbohydrate Diet

Diabetes is a disorder of glucose intolerance. What happens when a diabetic eats a low-carbohydrate diet? Here's a graph of blood glucose over a 24 hour period, in type II diabetics on their usual diet (blue and grey triangles), and after 5 weeks on a 55% carbohydrate (yellow circles) or 20% carbohydrate (blue circles) diet:


The study in question describes these volunteers as having "mild, untreated diabetes." If 270 mg/dL of blood glucose is mild diabetes, I'd hate to see severe diabetes! In any case, the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet brought blood glucose down to an acceptable level without requiring medication.

It's interesting to note in the graph above that fasting blood glucose (18-24 hours) also fell dramatically. This could reflect improved insulin sensitivity in the liver. The liver pumps glucose into the bloodstream when it's necessary, and insulin suppresses this. When the liver is insulin resistant, it doesn't respond to the normal signal that there's already sufficient glucose, so it releases more and increases fasting blood glucose. When other tissues are insulin resistant, they don't take up the extra glucose, also contributing to the problem.

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), a measure of average blood glucose concentration over the preceding few weeks, also reflected a profound improvement in blood glucose levels in the low-carbohydrate group:

At 5 weeks, the low-carbohydrate group was still improving and headed toward normal HbA1c, while the high-carbohydrate group remained at a dangerously high level. Total cholesterol, LDL and HDL remained unchanged in both groups, while triglycerides fell dramatically in the low-carbohydrate group.

When glucose is poison, it's better to eat fat.

Graph #1 was reproduced from Volek et al. (2005), which re-plotted data from Gannon et al. (2004). Graph #2 was drawn directly from Gannon et al.