Search This Blog

Sunday, March 5, 2023

‘Keto-like’ diet may be associated with a higher risk of heart disease

 A low-carb, high-fat “keto-like” diet may be linked to higher levels of “bad” cholesterol and double the risk of cardiovascular events such as blocked arteries, heart attacks and strokes, according to new research.

“Our study found that regular consumption of a self-reported diet low in carbohydrates and high in fat was associated with increased levels of LDL cholesterol – or “bad” cholesterol – and a higher risk of heart disease,” lead study author Dr. Iulia Iatan with the Healthy Heart Program Prevention Clinic, St. Paul’s Hospital and University of British Columbia’s Centre for Heart Lung Innovation in Vancouver, Canada, said in a news release.

In the study, researchers defined a low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diet as 45% of total daily calories coming from fat and 25% coming from carbohydrates. The study was presented Sunday at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session Together With the World Congress of Cardiology.

“Our study rationale came from the fact that we would see patients in our cardiovascular prevention clinic with severe hypercholesterolemia following this diet,” Iatan said during a presentation at the session.

Hypercholesterolemia, or high cholesterol, increases a person’s risk of heart attack or other adverse cardiovascular events.

“This led us to wonder about the relationship between these low-carb, high-fat diets, lipid levels and cardiovascular disease. And so, despite this, there’s limited data on this relationship,” she said.

The researchers compared the diets of 305 people eating a LCHF diet with about 1,200 people eating a standard diet, using health information from the United Kingdom database UK Biobank, which followed people for at least a decade.

The researchers found that people on the LCHF diet had higher levels of low-density lipoprotein, also known as LDL, cholesterol and apolipoprotein B. Apolipoprotein B is a protein that coats LDL cholesterol proteins and can predict heart disease better than elevated levels of LDL cholesterol can.

The researchers also noticed that the LCHF diet participants’ total fat intake was higher in saturated fat and had double the consumption of animal sources (33%) compared to those in the control group (16%).

“After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up – and after adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and smoking – people on an LCHF diet had more than two-times higher risk of having several major cardiovascular events, such as blockages in the arteries that needed to be opened with stenting procedures, heart attack, stroke and peripheral arterial disease,” researchers found, according to the news release.

The researchers said in the release that their study “can only show an association between the diet and an increased risk for major cardiac events, not a causal relationship,” because it was an observational study, but their findings are worth further study, “especially when approximately 1 in 5 Americans report being on a low-carb, keto-like or full keto diet.”

Iatan said the study’s limitations included measurement errors that occur when dietary assessments are self-reported, the study’s small sample size and that most of the participants were British and didn’t include other ethnic groups.

The study also looked at the longitudinal effect of following the diet, whereas most people who follow a keto-like diet tend to follow it intermittently for shorter periods of time.

Most of the participants – 73% – were women, which Iatan said is “quite interesting to see, but it also supports the literature that’s available that women in general tend to follow more dietary patterns, tend to be more interested in changing their lifestyles.”

When asked if there were any groups that were not harmed by following a LCHF diet, Iatan said how long people are on the diet and whether or not they lose weight “can counterbalance any LDL elevation.”

“What matters to remember is that each patient responds differently. And so, there’s really an inter-individual variability between the response. What we found is that, you know, on average, patients tend to increase their LDL cholesterol levels,” she said.

Most health experts say the trendy keto diet, which bans carbohydrates to make your body burn fat for fuel, cuts out healthy food such as fruit, beans and legumes, and whole grains. In the keto diet, you limit your intake of carbohydrates to only 20 to 50 a day – the lower, the better. To put that into perspective, a medium banana or apple is around 27 carbohydrates – the full day’s allowance.

Keto is short for ketosis, a metabolic state that occurs when your liver begins to use stored fat to produce ketones for energy. The liver is programmed to do that when your body loses access to its preferred fuel – carbohydrates – and thinks it’s starving.

The keto diet has been around since the 1920s, when a doctor stumbled on it as a way of controlling seizures in children with epilepsy who didn’t respond to other treatment methods.

Low-carb diets like keto rely heavily on fats to fill you up. At least 70% of the keto diet will be made up of fat; some say it’s more like 90%.

While you can get all that fat from healthy unsaturated fats such as avocados, tofu, nuts, seeds and olive oil, the diet also allows saturated fats like lard, butter and coconut oil, as well as whole-fat milk, cheese and mayonnaise. Eating lots of foods high in saturated fat increases the body’s production of LDL cholesterol, which can build up inside the arteries and restrict blood flow to the heart and brain.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/05/health/keto-low-carb-high-fat-diets-heart-disease/index.html

‘Nothing Left' of Bronx Supermarket After Scooter Battery Goes Up in Flames: FDNY

 Fire investigators are blaming a lithium-ion battery for sparking a massive 5-alarm inferno that tore through a supermarket in the Bronx.

The fire took off around 10: 40 a.m., triggering a response from approximately 200 firefighters to the Concourse Food Plaza on Sunday. Huge plumes of thick smoke filled the sky, visible from miles away.

Mayor Eric Adams and top FDNY brass said the origin of the raging fire was a battery-powered scooter, caught on video igniting inside the store.

"The video is chilling. When you saw how fast this fire started and spread, it just really gives you a point of pause," Adams said at a press conference, as crews continued to extinguish hotspots some five hours after the fire started.

The scooter and battery being blamed for the complete destructive of the store, which was open when it caught fire, was carted out during the briefing.

"This charred scooter is only a symbol of what is happening behind and what has continued to take place since early this morning. We are still fighting a fire because of the type of device that the fire started from," Adams said.

In total, officials said seven people suffered injuries. Five of the responding firefighters were hurt, as well as an EMS member and Con Edison worker, FDNY officials said. All were expected to be OK.

The charred remains of the e-scooter will be inspected as part of the fire department's investigation to see what exactly caused the battery that powers the device to explode.

Battery-sparked fire continue to pose a challenge for city officials. As of late February, lithium ion batteries used to power electric bicycles and scooters had sparked 25 fires that caused 36 injuries and two deaths in the city.

Many of the fires blamed on the batteries have been caused by malfunctioning devices left to charge overnight and placed in a hallway or near a door where they can trap people inside a burning apartment.

In 2022, lithium ion batteries were the cause of 216 fires. 

Goldman: The Big Near-Term Risk Here Is If The Fed Opens Up 50s

 By Tony Pasquariello,Goldman head of hedge fund coverage

Coming out of a week that brought a somewhat uninspiring data set, yet interesting price action ... and, headed into a very important week (payrolls, Powell and the BOJ) ... What follows from here reflects the themes that come up in client conversations.

My view in one line: rates should keep chopping higher, volatility is to be owned, and don’t get carried away on non-dollar trades.

1. While not breaking news, and at the risk of serious over-reduction, I’d describe the core macro backdrop in 2023 as follows: US inflation has been stickier-than-expected; US growth has been stronger-than-expected.  To be clear, I’d stop short of describing the domestic economy as “running hot,” but the broad trend of the hard data would argue the US is generally chugging along (here I’d point you towards the recent jump in our US economic surprise index).  Taken together, this invites an obvious question on whether peak rates are, once again, still in front of us -- it’s not a reach to say it, but my bet is they still are, particularly in the belly and back end.  

2. The macro ecosystem I just described is NOT necessarily what many people expected as we came into the new year.  Remember, the consensus view centered around a messy first half, and there was plenty of recession talk as recently as early January. On one hand, it feels like that tactical opportunity set of higher front end rates, a stronger dollar and a rip in NDX wasn’t broadly captured (and, if one made money in January, they likely gave it back in February, or vice-versa). On the other hand, there are plenty of folks still seemingly content in adding to lower-risk carry strategies ... 6-month T-bills are kicking off 5% yields right now (which now exceeds the carry on a 60/40 portfolio) and US 2-year notes are trading at levels not seen since 2007.  For further reading: link.  

3. I received a lot of pushback last week on my comment that I think the back end of the US rates curve is vulnerable.  Here’s what I was trying to articulate (I should have just quoted Dominic Wilson directly): higher US rates along the curve is the direction of travel for now.  Why? The longer we live with a 5-handle on the terminal rate ... and the US economy maintains broad momentum ... the more evidence we have that the equilibrium rate is higher ... so, the more likely it is the market contemplates seriously a 6-handle on the terminal rate ... and therefore the harder it is to believe the Fed’s ~ 2.50% assumption for the neutral rate (which, one could argue, has anchored much of the curve).  related reading: link.

4. Following from there, here’s one exceedingly simple way to frame things,. starting from the perspective that I have seen a Fed Funds rate north of 6% in my (Gen-X) career:

  • headline CPI, May 2000 :: 3.2%
  • target Fed Funds rate, May 2000 :: 6.5%
  • headline CPI, Feb 2023 :: 6.4%
  • target Fed Funds rate, Feb 2023 :: 4.5%

5. Now, are there 444,000 distinctions between the global economy of today versus back then?  Yes.  So, one should only go so far with these compare-and-contrasts.  Nonetheless, from the cheap seats, it simply feels to me like parts of the market -- and this Fed -- are still too anchored to the post-GFC world.  Perhaps that’s not surprising, given that anyone who lived through the aftermath of 2008 has the experience hardwired into their DNA, but my point is this: shouldn’t we be increasingly open-minded to the argument that the post-GFC years were more an exception than a lasting new normal? 

6. In that spirit, again I find the Jason Furman content on Twitter to be, if nothing else, cause for contemplation: “the economy is very overheated ... we have made little if any progress on inflation ... there is little if any reason to expect a large slowdown going forward ... a wide range of measures of ‘underlying’ inflation are telling the same story ... supply chains unfreezing were supposed to bring down inflation, they didn’t ... 6% inflation is much more likely than 2%.”   I come out somewhere in-between his angle (link) our forecasts (link), with the ongoing intuition that inflation won’t magically disappear when the labor market is this tight. Related, I also admit that I’m surprised that breakevens took so long to get going again.

7. A few additional takes on things from an informal exchange I had with Dominic Wilson in GIR:

  • i. I think Furman is overdoing it. 
  • ii. I think the big near-term risk here is if the Fed opens up 50s. If they don’t, I suspect markets can manage it.  If they do, we aren’t priced for it.  That’s overly reductive, but I think that’s the basic risk here.
  • iii. Near-term volatility pricing in lots of places looks too low given the event risk.  In under 3 weeks we get payrolls, US CPI, Powell, BOJ, ECB, Fed, BoE, China activity data and their Two Sessions policy meetings.  That data set could set us on potentially very different paths, but vol overall isn’t particularly high given this event risk in many places (Chinese equities; EUR; major DM indices) and there are pockets of vol (Topix with an 11-handle) that are low even on a long history. Options look cheap.

8. A few additional takes on the week from an informal exchange I had with Mike Cahill in GIR:

  • i. The market pricing of 31 bps for the March FOMC (that will settle at 25 or 50 bps) is not a stable equilibrium.  Rather than quiet markets in a quiet week, it’s been jumpy markets clinging to every little piece of news (e.g. I haven’t seen Fed Funds respond to a durable goods report in a while).
  • ii. The global coordination is a clear difference between now and most of 2022, when US exceptionalism ruled the day and Europe and China were mired down with wars of their own. That makes things a lot trickier in FX land, but it probably all pushes in the same direction for rates.  
  • iii. Markets spent February mostly reversing the trends and narratives in January, so we’re close to unchanged since mid-Dec / early-Jan on a number of major asset classes.  But, one key thing hasn’t changed -- as of now, the Fed is still locked into the 2-3 x 25 bps hikes pace that it established at the start of February.  Maybe they will say that things are still broadly on track, but that deserves a mention if you’re making a list of things that haven’t yet corrected for January’s exuberance.
  • iv. As it relates to point #3 up top on the neutral Fed Funds rate: so we’ve had (potentially) two distinct cycles: a too-low reading from 2012-2019 (the funds rate is low but the economy is weak -- the neutral must be low) and a much higher reading now (we’ve hiked a lot but the economy hasn’t slowed -- neutral must be high). Maybe the real answer though is that the economy, especially post-2008 housing crash, isn’t all that responsive to the funds rate.

9. I still believe this is our most important, if distinct house view: “there appears to be some confusion about the phrase ‘long and variable lags,’ which actually referred to the time until the peak impact on the level of GDP, not the peak impact on the growth rate of GDP.  all prominent macroeconomic models that we are aware of agree with our FCI growth impulse model that the peak drag on GDP growth is frontloaded.  these points explain why our estimate of the drag on GDP growth from the tightening in financial conditions last year peaked in 2022H2 and fades fairly quickly in 2023.”  see exhibit 3, link.

10. Switching gears a bit: I’m normally of the view that geopolitics are exceptionally difficult variables to consistently trade, and after the initial shock and shakeout, markets usually surprise in their ability to find coping mechanisms and become inured to the nightly news. That said, it feels to me like geopolitical tension is rising significantly right now -- with growing risk of miscalculation -- to an extent that seems greater than what I encounter in client dialogue.  I further admit I’m not totally sure what to do with this, particularly given my bias on interest rates, but it underscores Dominic’s take on the attractiveness of vol.

11. Perhaps relevant to that last point: Europe has been the fastest horse in the global equity race this year, and it really hasn’t been close.  Alongside ongoing structural issues, the formal start of ECB QT and higher-than-expected inflation that’s lengthening the string of 50 bps rate hikes (we added another this week) I can easily see a scenario where a return of geopolitical worries knocks the momentum off course.  so, even as someone who respects the local draw of cheap relative valuation and a cyclical-heavy index, count me as skeptical that SX5E can hold this pace for the rest of the year. 

12. As noted previously, the month of January saw record hedge fund buying of Chinese equities (this via GS PB data, link). Price action since then -- across the entire China complex, including credit and commodities -- was disappointing (until this week’s PMI boom, anyway). Looking forward, the big flow-of-funds question is this: What will strategic real money do with the Chinese equity market?  I’m inclined to believe they will be reticent to commit until the shareholder challenges of 2021 are long past us, which makes me worry about lasting and significant sponsorship (this may explain poor price action following decent earnings).  

13. A non-sequitur: our industry devotes too much ink to the activity of the CTA community.  While admitting that I’m guilty of referencing this crowd, remember this level set: CTAs comprise about 8% of total hedge fund assets ... in S&P futures, about 6% of total open interest ... and -- at peak activity -- around 4% of daily volume (thanks to Paul Leyzerovich for the data).  I’m not saying that CTAs don’t matter -- they do, and their footprint can be epically important at occasional market inflection points -- I’m simply saying they get outsized attention relative to other market actors and fundamental forces.    

14. In the context of higher interest rates, this note is a high quality check-down of some clear trends that are taking shape beneath the equity hood - for example, cyclical industrials and inflation winners/losers are doing what they should: link.    

15. Finally, the annual Berkshire Hathaway letter is worth the quick read: link.  I reckon there’s a bit of wisdom in here:

thus began our journey to 2023, a bumpy road involving a combination of continuous savings by our owners (that is, by their retaining earnings), the power of compounding, our avoidance of major mistakes and -- most important of all -- the American Tailwind ... our satisfactory results have been the product of about a dozen truly good decisions — that would be about one every five years — and a sometimes-forgotten advantage that favors long-term investors. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-big-near-rerm-risk-here-if-fed-opens-50s

Court Strikes Down Biden's 'Ghost Gun Rule'

 Defense Distributed's Case in US District Court, VanDerStrok v. Garland was just granted a preliminary injunction. The lawsuit is challenging the scope of ATF's ability to change the definition of firearms.

According to court documents, ATF did not analyze their "Frame or Receiver Rule," also known as Biden's Ghost Gun Rule, under the Supreme Court's NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

For those unaware, the Bruen decision completely changed the legal landscape of firearms law in the US by requiring statutes regulating firearms to be rooted in the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

The Judge in the case concurred with the statement and granted Defense Distributed a preliminary injunction. The case now heads to the 5th Circuit, where ATF will have to defend its position.

The 5th Circuit has recently ruled against the ATF in similar cases, including Cargill v. Garland. In that case, a panel of judges decided that ATF did not have the power to determine bump stocks were in fact machine guns contrary to ATF's 2019 Bump Stock rule. That rule effectively banned bump stock devices by classifying them as machine guns.

The decision in VanDerStok v. Garland could have major effects on the self-manufacturing of firearms and the ATF's rulemaking and regulatory abilities as ATF has rewritten the federal statute to enforce their rulemaking. According to the court filings, the plaintiffs argue that only congress can rewrite federal statue to make law, not regulatory agencies like ATF.

Defense Distributed had this to say:

"This is not just a blow to ATF, who pushed a new definition of 'firearm' at their peril. It is also a defeat for Giffords, who were the agents of this illegal attempt to expand the Gun Control Act through the APA process. Their lobbying and regulatory laundry has now spectacularly backfired."

Defense Distributed has a history of victory against the Federal Government. In 2018, they won their case Defense Distributed v. US Dept. of State, effectively creating the current legal landscape with 3D-printed firearms and their respective CAD files shared online.

Gun rights activists should watch this case as it goes through the courts.

Doctors, Scientists Call On Mississippi Officials To Take COVID Vaccines Off The Market

 by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The group of physicians, vaccine-injured people, and whistleblowers speaking at the Mississippi Capitol building on Monday and Tuesday weren’t asking state officials to cease all COVID-19 vaccinations and to convene a grand jury to investigate its rollout in the state.

They were demanding it.

Stop the shots” was the refrain of those who had treated COVID patients over the last three years and those injured by the vaccine.

On Monday and Tuesday, the medical freedom organization MS Against Mandates (MAM) held the Mississippi Medical Freedom Conference in Jackson, Mississippi, which included over a dozen physicians, several whistleblowers, six physician-confirmed vaccine-injured patients, and two parents whose sons died after receiving the vaccines.

Dr. John Witcher is the co-founder and former president of MAM. He stepped back from the leadership position to focus on his run for Mississippi governor in the 2023 gubernatorial election.

MAM orchestrated the event that gave a voice to many who are being silenced in media and the medical community, such as Dr. Peter McCullough, a practicing internist and cardiologist in Dallas who is also the national medical adviser for MAM.

McCullough told The Epoch Times that the purpose of the three-and-a-half-hour roundtable—chaired by Republican state Rep. Randy Boyd—was primarily to educate Mississippi officials about safety concerns regarding the vaccine.

The state must pull these products off the market,” McCullough said. “There can be no more administration of the COVID-19 vaccines in the state of Mississippi.

McCullough, author of “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” said the essential problem with the vaccines is the safety concern for the large number of people who have taken them without informed consent about adverse events.

“The CDC now says 92 percent of Americans have taken at least one shot and that 79 percent have taken two shots,” McCullough said. “If there are safety concerns, that’s a problem because the denominator is so big.”

Because of those large numbers, any rare side effect isn’t rare from a safety perspective and, as was heard in the testimonies, there are concerns that the state officials haven’t kept track of the full number of the injuries and has even undercounted them, McCullough said.

In Mississippi, which represents under 1 percent of the U.S. population, McCullough estimated that there are several hundred people who have been injured by the vaccines and that some have died from the vaccines.

That’s several hundred too many, and it didn’t need to happen,” McCullough said. “None of this needed to happen.

Community Standard of Care

Physicians like Witcher and others on the panel have reported that their state health officials have only recited federal talking points instead of allowing them to cultivate what McCullough called their own “community standard-of-care,” which McCullough said is intended to evolve over time.

“The community standard of care always comes from the doctors who are treating the patients,” McCullough said. “Under no circumstances does it come from federal or state agencies, pharmaceutical companies, or even from hospitals or hospital systems. It comes from the doctors in the field who are learning how to treat their patients based on the medical literature, clinical judgment, and the differences in the community.”

This is why McCullough said each state needs its own doctor-in-charge, like in Florida, where Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo has refuted federal guidelines handed down by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Dr. Anthony Fauci when he was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“We’re seeing how valuable it is for a state to have its own independent thinker who is not biased, influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, or influenced by any state or federal public health agency,” McCullough said.

A doctor-in-charge in Mississippi would have acted as the representative for state officials to hear the testimonies given in the state Capitol on Monday, McCullough said.

“The state of Mississippi needs an independent thinker who can attend medical panels like this, take them under consideration, and provide advising to the attorney general,” McCullough said. “In this case, it would be to get the vaccines off the market.”

If Witcher were to become governor, he said he would create a position for a state surgeon general, and McCullough said he would “entertain the appointment as a doctor and a public figure.”

Noticeably, the Capitol chamber where the roundtable convened was absent of lawmakers—aside from Boyd—which McCullough said wasn’t surprising, as he’s seen it “over and over again.”

The fear among legislators on both the state and federal levels is extraordinary,” McCullough said. “This is the biggest thing that’s happened to our country over the last three years in modern history and you’d think they’d be interested to hear from doctors who traveled from far distances and who have vast experience in this. It’s not for my benefit. It’s for their benefit, and it’s extremely disappointing that they found something else that they thought was a higher priority.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/doctors-scientists-call-mississippi-officials-take-covid-vaccines-market