Can a Statin Neutralize the Cardiovascular Risk of Unhealthy Dietary Choices?

The title of this post is the exact title of a recent editorial in the American Journal of Cardiology (1). Investigators calculated the "risk for cardiovascular disease associated with the total fat and trans fat content of fast foods", and compared it to the "risk decrease provided by daily statin consumption". Here's what they found:

The risk reduction associated with the daily consumption of most statins, with the exception of pravastatin, is more powerful than the risk increase caused by the daily extra fat intake associated with a 7-oz hamburger (Quarter Pounder®) with cheese and a small milkshake. In conclusion, statin therapy can neutralize the cardiovascular risk caused by harmful diet choices.

Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals. A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments. Although no substitute for systematic lifestyle improvements, including healthy diet, regular exercise, weight loss, and smoking cessation, complimentary statin packets would add, at little cost, 1 positive choice to a panoply of negative ones.

Wow. Later in the editorial, they recommend "a new and protective packet, “MacStatin,” which could be sprinkled onto a Quarter Pounder or into a milkshake." I'm not making this up!

I can't be sure, but I think there's a pretty good chance the authors were being facetious in this editorial, in which case I think a) it's hilarious, b) most people aren't going to get the joke. If they are joking, the editorial is designed to shine a light on the sad state of mainstream preventive healthcare. Rather than trying to educate people and change the deadly industrial food system, which is at the root of a constellation of health problems, many people think it's acceptable to partially correct one health risk by tinkering with the human metabolism using drugs. To be fair, most people aren't willing to change their diet and lifestyle habits (and perhaps for some it's even too late), so frustrated physicians prescribe drugs to mitigate the risk. I accept that. But if our society is really committed to its own health and well-being, we'll remove the artificial incentives that favor industrial food, and educate children from a young age on how to eat well.

I think one of the main challenges we face is that our current system is immensely lucrative for powerful financial interests. Industrial agriculture lines the pockets of a few large farmers and executives (while smaller farmers go broke and get bought out), industrial food processing concentrates profit among a handful of mega-manufacturers, and then people who are made ill by the resulting food spend an exorbitant amount of money on increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) healthcare. It's a system that effectively milks US citizens for a huge amount of money, and keeps the economy rolling at the expense of the average person's well-being. All of these groups have powerful lobbies that ensure the continuity of the current system. Litigation isn't the main reason our healthcare is so expensive in the US; high levels of chronic disease, expensive new technology, a "kitchen sink" treatment approach, and inefficient private companies are the real reasons.

If the editorial is serious, there are so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. Here are a few problems:

1. They assume the risk of heart attack conveyed by eating fast food is due to its total and trans fat content, which is simplistic. To support that supposition, they cite one study: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (2). This is one of the best diet-health observational studies conducted to date. The authors of the editorial appear not to have read the study carefully, because it found no association between total or saturated fat intake and heart attack risk, when adjusted for confounding variables. The number they quoted (relative risk = 1.23) was before adjustment for fiber intake (relative risk = 1.02 after adjustment), and in any case, it was not statistically significant even before adjustment. How did that get past peer review? Answer: reviewers aren't critical of hypotheses they like.
   
2. Statins mostly work in middle-aged men, and reduce the risk of heart attack by about one quarter. The authors excluded several recent unsupportive trials from their analysis. Dr. Michel de Lorgeril reviewed these trials recently (3). For these reasons, adding a statin to fast food would probably have a negligible effect on the heart attack risk of the general population.
   
3. "Statins rarely cause negative side effects." BS. Of the half dozen people I know who have gone on statins, all of them have had some kind of negative side effect, two of them unpleasant enough that they discontinued treatment against their doctor's wishes. Several of them who remained on statins are unlikely to benefit because of their demographic, yet they remain on statins on their doctors' advice.
   
4. Industrial food is probably the main contributor to heart attack risk. Cultures that don't eat industrial food are almost totally free of heart attacks, as demonstrated by a variety of high-quality studies (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). No drug can replicate that, not even close.
   

I have an alternative proposal. Rather than giving people statins along with their Big Mac, why don't we change the incentive structure that artificially favors the Big Mac, french fries and soft drink? If it weren't for corn, soybean and wheat subsidies, fast food wouldn't be so cheap. Neither would any other processed food. Fresh, whole food would be price competitive with industrial food, particularly if we applied the grain subsidies to more wholesome foods. Grass-fed beef and dairy would cost the same as grain-fed. I'm no economist, so I don't know how realistic this really is. However, my central point still stands: we can change the incentive structure so that it no longer artificially favors industrial food. That will require that the American public get fed up and finally butt heads with special interest groups.

Animal Models of Atherosclerosis: Diet-Induced Atherosclerosis

LDL likely plays a role in causing atherosclerosis, with the majority of the damage coming from the oxidized form of LDL. There are at least two ways to increase the concentration of oxidized LDL (oxLDL) in the blood: 1) increase the total concentration of LDL while keeping the proportion of oxLDL the same; 2) increase the proportion of oxLDL. Dietary fats differ in their effects on these two factors, and the net outcome is also dependent on the species eating the fat and the overall dietary context.

The omega-6 polyunsaturated fat, linoleic acid (LA; found abundantly in industrial vegetable oils), is a dominant factor in the susceptibility of LDL to oxidation. LDL is rich in LA regardless of diet, yet the amount of LA in LDL still depends on diet to a certain degree. Thus, on the surface, one would expect a diet high in industrial vegetable oil to promote atherosclerosis. Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because LA also lowers the amount of LDL in the blood of a number of species, including humans.

The amount of atherosclerosis produced by feeding different fats depends both on how much LDL oxidation occurs and on how the fat affects the organism's blood lipid profile. For example, if corn oil lowers LDL by 3-fold relative to lard in a rabbit model, yet increases the proportion of oxLDL by 50%, the rabbit will probably develop more atherosclerosis eating lard than eating corn oil. This is because the total concentration of oxLDL is still higher in the lard group. On the other hand, if corn oil doesn't reduce LDL at all relative to lard in a rhesus monkey, yet the proportion of oxLDL increases by 50%, the corn oil group will probably develop more atherosclerosis, all else being equal.

Then there are other factors that influence atherosclerosis independently of oxLDL, such as the fat-soluble antioxidants, micronutrients and omega-6:3 ratio of the diets. It's also important to keep in mind that atherosclerosis is only one factor that influences the risk of having a heart attack.

In the last post, I argued that feeding excessive cholesterol to herbivorous or nearly herbivorous animals elevates plasma LDL greatly. In many species, saturated fat exacerbates the increase in LDL due to dietary cholesterol overload. However, in the absence of added cholesterol, several commonly used models of atherosclerosis do not show an increase in LDL upon saturated fat feeding. This is similar to the situation in humans.

Rabbits are one of the most commonly used models of diet-induced atherosclerosis. They are very sensitive to dietary cholesterol, due to the fact that their natural adult diet contains virtually none.

I recently found a great study from 1967 titled "Relative Failure of Saturated Fat in the Diet to Produce Atherosclerosis in the Rabbit" (free full text). Investigators fed rabbits cocoa butter, coconut oil and Crisco (hydrogenated cottonseed oil) at 45% of calories. They found that neither cocoa butter nor Crisco increased the rabbits' cholesterol (they didn't measure LDL directly but it typically increases in proportion to total cholesterol in rabbits), while coconut oil caused a transient increase that disappeared by 6 months on the diet. Cocoa butter caused slight atherosclerosis in some of the animals while none was detected in the coconut oil or Crisco groups.

Next, the investigators fed the rabbits cholesterol along with the fats. 0.25% cholesterol with corn oil or Crisco caused a massive (10-fold) increase in blood cholesterol, and produced atherosclerosis. They didn't pair the saturated fats with cholesterol, but the point is still clear: feeding dietary cholesterol, not saturated fat, to an herbivorous species, is the culprit.

However, subsequent studies in rabbits have shown that saturated fats can produce atherosclerosis without added cholesterol. How can this be? It turns out that it only works in the context of a highly refined "synthetic" or "semi-synthetic" diet (ref). So the dietary context plays an important role as well.

The ability of saturated fat to produce atherosclerosis in animal models requires it to cause a large enough increase in serum LDL that it overwhelms saturated fat's natural tendency to reduce LDL oxidation. This process is typically helped along by feeding huge amounts of cholesterol. In the absence of a large increase in LDL, atherosclerosis does not result, all else being equal.

Several studies in primates support this concept. van Jaarsveld and colleagues showed that feeding vervet monkeys 28% of calories from palm oil (SFA-MUFA), sunflower oil (PUFA) or lard (MUFA-SFA) resulted in similar LDL concentrations in the three groups. After more than two years, the palm oil group had the least atherosclerosis and the sunflower oil and lard groups were similar. It's notable that palm oil was the most saturated fat used in this study.

In another telling study by Mott and colleagues, baboons were fed diets containing 40% of calories from a predominantly saturated fat or a predominantly polyunsaturated fat. Each group was further subdivided into two groups: one receiving a small amount of cholesterol in the feed, and one receiving a large amount. Cholesterol feeding increased LDL and atherosclerosis, while the type of fat had a modest effect on LDL and no effect on atherosclerosis both at high and low cholesterol levels. I've noticed that baboons seem to throw a wrench in the gears of the mainstream conception of blood lipid metabolism.

Rudel and colleagues fed african green monkeys and cynomolgus monkeys lard (MUFA-SFA) or safflower oil (PUFA) for 40% of calories, with or without added cholesterol. Without cholesterol, both LDL and the degree of atherosclerosis were low in both monkeys fed both types of fat. Cholesterol feeding raised LDL in both species by 2-3 fold, and caused significant atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis was more severe in monkeys fed lard plus cholesterol than in monkeys fed safflower oil plus cholesterol, correlating with their considerably higher LDL.

In sum, the ability of a fat to contribute to atherosclerosis depends in part on its ability to increase oxLDL. One way to do this is to massively raise LDL. This can be accomplished by combining dietary cholesterol overload with saturated fat in certain susceptible species. Saturated fat, in the context of a somewhat normal diet, does not appear to raise LDL significantly in most species in the long term. This includes humans.

Animal models of diet-induced atherosclerosis are useful for studying the disease, but they do not support the conclusion that humans should avoid foods containing natural amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat. "Saturated fats" such as lard, palm oil, beef tallow and coconut oil probably have little or no connection to atherosclerosis in humans, or in most species eating a somewhat natural diet.