Connect with us

San Diego, CA

Opinion: As a cardiologist, I know the dietary guidelines are failing our hearts

Published

on

Opinion: As a cardiologist, I know the dietary guidelines are failing our hearts


Meals at a restaurant on the UC San Diego campus. (File photo by Chris Stone/Times of San Diego)

Heart disease — affecting almost half of American adults — is the leading cause of death in the United States, claiming 700,000 lives each year. 

Opinion logo

As a practicing cardiologist for more than 20 years, I’ve watched patients do everything “by the book.” They eat according to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans — the federal government’s blueprint for nutrition policy — and still see their weight climb, blood pressure rise, and heart health deteriorate. 

The problem isn’t their effort. It’s the guidance itself, which promotes high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets that can actually worsen metabolic health, which can in turn worsen heart disease. Many assume that by following the government’s recommendations they can improve their health — but, too often, the opposite is true.

With the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines scheduled for release this month, we have a critical opportunity to move beyond outdated orthodoxy and align federal nutrition policy with modern science and clinical experience. Done right, this update can turn back the tide of chronic illness and save lives.

Since 1980, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services have issued the Dietary Guidelines every five years. These recommendations shape not only personal choices but also the food in school cafeterias, military mess halls, hospitals and nursing homes. They inform SNAP and WIC benefits, nutrition education, and even the labels on grocery store shelves.

Advertisement

From the start, however, the guidelines steered Americans in the wrong direction. They marked a sharp departure from prior eating patterns by encouraging Americans to cut back on natural dietary fats and rely more heavily on refined high-carbohydrate foods. Saturated fat — and cholesterol by extension — were unjustly stigmatized, while bread, pasta and cereal became staples of the American diet.

The recommendations were not made with a metabolically vulnerable population in mind. For people already struggling with insulin resistance, obesity or diabetes, a high-carbohydrate diet frequently only compounds the problem by driving up insulin, promoting visceral fat storage around vital organs, and fueling a cycle of weight gain and chronic disease.

Four decades later, the guidelines remain out of step with science and with the health needs of the majority of Americans. They impose arbitrary caps on saturated fat, despite evidence showing no consistent link to higher rates of heart disease or mortality. They recommend dietary protein well below optimal levels for most populations. And they direct Americans to get 45-65% of their calories from carbohydrates — sidelining low-carb or ketogenic diet options proven to support weight loss, stabilize blood sugar, and reduce the risk factors that drive heart disease. 

Americans are being pushed toward metabolically damaging eating patterns. 

Today, 93% of Americans live with metabolic dysfunction — meaning their bodies struggle to convert food into energy efficiently. This breakdown in basic metabolic processes fuels the country’s epidemic of chronic disease. More than 75% of Americans are now overweight or obese. Heart disease mortality rates have increased from the 2010s to the 2020s, even as cholesterol levels have steadily fallen. 

Advertisement

Put plainly: Federal nutrition policy has fallen far short of making Americans healthier. I know this to be true not only from statistics but from my own patients’ journeys. Many of them ate exactly as federal guidance prescribed and still found themselves gaining weight and developing hypertension, diabetes and heart disease. For years, I resisted the idea that fault could lie with the guidelines. 

Like most physicians, I was trained to be wary of fat and to consider carbohydrates as the foundation of a healthy diet. I dismissed suggestions that a low-carb or ketogenic diet could improve cardiovascular outcomes.

But then I tried it myself — and my own weight, cardiovascular markers, and energy improved. When I cautiously introduced the approach to my patients, I saw transformations I couldn’t ignore: their insulin sensitivity, blood sugar levels and blood pressure began to improve. These changes struck at the true drivers of coronary heart disease — metabolic dysfunction, obesity and type 2 diabetes — all stronger predictors than cholesterol levels. 

Their lives changed without a scalpel or a prescription. And their experiences mirrored what the science was increasingly showing: that the old low-fat, high-starch model had it backwards. 

A review of randomized trials found that low-carbohydrate diets significantly improved weight, blood sugar and blood pressure — the very risk factors that drive heart disease. 

Advertisement

Another analysis comparing different levels of carbohydrate restriction showed consistent benefits across degrees of reduction. And, in patients with type 2 diabetes, ketogenic approaches have dramatically lowered average blood sugar as measured by HbA1c — a long-term measure of glucose control — while delivering substantial weight loss, all changes known to reduce cardiovascular complications. 

Yet our national guidelines remain stuck in an outdated paradigm. 

The upcoming 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines offers a chance to finally get it right — to align federal recommendations with the latest, most rigorous evidence. That means prioritizing whole foods, removing limits on saturated fats, optimizing protein intake, and including low-carbohydrate and ketogenic options for the metabolically vulnerable. 

The nation’s leading killer isn’t inevitable. If the Dietary Guidelines are updated to reflect modern science, millions of Americans could soon be on the path to reclaiming their heart health. 

Bret Scher, MD, is a board-certified cardiologist and lipidologist, and the founding medical director of the Coalition for Metabolic Health.

Advertisement



Source link

San Diego, CA

2 San Diego Eateries Named Among ‘Most Beautiful New Restaurants’ In America

Published

on

2 San Diego Eateries Named Among ‘Most Beautiful New Restaurants’ In America


SAN DIEGO, CA — Two San Diego County eateries were named among the most beautiful restaurants that opened last year in the country.

Carlsbad-based Lilo was ranked No. 4 and La Jolla-based Lucien was ranked No. 9 on Robb Report’s list of the most beautiful new restaurants in the U.S. for 2025.

Lilo, which opened in April, features a multi-course tasting menu served around a 24-seat chef’s counter.

The restaurant, co-owned by Chef Eric Bost and John Resnick, earned a Michelin star just months after opening its doors. The eatery was also the only one in San Diego to land on The New York Times list of the 50 best restaurants in America.

Advertisement

Lucien, which opened in July, also offers a chef’s tasting menu, with more than a dozen courses. The 30-seat restaurant, is owned and helmed by Northern California native Chef Elijah Arizmendi, along with partners Brian Hung and Melissa Lang.

“I’m very grateful for the recognition from Robb Report,” Arizmendi told Patch. “Lucien is deeply personal to me, and the space was designed as an extension of my philosophy — one centered on intention, hospitality and the joy of sharing something meaningful to others.”

The list spotlights 21 restaurants in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City and other cities across the country. View the full report here.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

San Diego, CA

Proposed fuel pipeline draws interest from investors. Can it give San Diego drivers a break?

Published

on

Proposed fuel pipeline draws interest from investors. Can it give San Diego drivers a break?


Plenty of financial and regulatory hurdles still need to be cleared, but a fuels pipeline project that may lead to lower gas prices in San Diego and Southern California has received a healthy amount of interest from other companies.

Phillips 66 and Kinder Morgan have proposed building what they’ve dubbed the Western Gateway Pipeline that would use a combination of existing infrastructure plus new construction to establish a corridor for refined products that would stretch 1,300 miles from St. Louis to California.

If completed, one leg of the pipeline would be the first to deliver motor fuels into California, a state often described as a fuel island that is disconnected from refining hubs in the U.S.

The two companies recently announced the project “has received significant interest” from shippers and investors from what’s called an “open season” that wrapped up on Dec. 19 — so much so that a second round will be held this month for remaining capacity.

Advertisement

“That’s a strong indicator that people would be willing to commit to put volume on that pipeline to bring it west long enough for them to be able to pay off their investment and provide a return for their investors,” said David Hackett, president of Stillwater Associates, a transportation energy consulting company in Irvine. “They won’t build this thing on spec. They’ll need commitments from shippers to do this.”

The plans for the Western Gateway Pipeline include constructing a new line from the Texas Panhandle town of Borger to Phoenix. Meanwhile, the flow on an existing pipeline that currently runs from the San Bernardino County community of Colton to Arizona would be reversed, allowing more fuel to remain in California.

The entire pipeline system would link refinery supply from the Midwest to Phoenix and California, while also providing a connection into Las Vegas.

The proposed route for the Western Gateway Pipeline, a project announced by Phillips 66 and Kinder Morgan designed to bring refined products like gasoline to states such as Arizona and keep more supplies within California. (Phillips 66)

A spokesperson for Kinder Morgan told the Union-Tribune in October that there are no plans for the project to construct any new pipelines in California and the proposal “should put downward pressure” on prices at the pump.

“With no new builds in California and using pipelines currently in place, it’s an all-around win-win — good for the state and consumers,” Kinder Morgan’s director of corporate communications, Melissa D. Ruiz, said in an email.

Advertisement

The second round of “open season” will include offerings of new destinations west of Colton that would allow Western Gateway shippers access to markets in Los Angeles.

Even with sufficient investor support, the project would still have to go through an extensive regulatory and permitting process that would undoubtedly receive pushback from environmental groups.

Should the pipeline get built, Hackett said it’s hard to predict what it would mean at the pump for Southern California drivers. But he said the project could ensure more fuel inventory remains inside California, thus reducing reliance on foreign imports, especially given potential political tensions in the South China Sea.



Source link

Continue Reading

San Diego, CA

San Diego sues federal government over razor wire fence near U.S.-Mexico border

Published

on

San Diego sues federal government over razor wire fence near U.S.-Mexico border


The city of San Diego has filed a lawsuit against the federal government that alleges the construction of a razor wire fence near the U.S.-Mexico border constitutes trespassing on city property and has caused environmental harm to the land.

The complaint filed Monday in San Diego federal court states that razor wire fencing being constructed by U.S. Marines in the Marron Valley area has harmed protected plant and wildlife habitats and that the presence of federal personnel there represents unpermitted trespassing.

The lawsuit, which names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Defense among its defendants, says that city officials first discovered the presence of Marines and federal employees in the area in December.

The fencing under construction has blocked city officials from accessing the property to assess and manage the land, and the construction efforts have” caused and will continue to cause property damage and adverse environmental impacts,” according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

The suit seeks an injunction ordering the defendants to cease and desist from any further trespass or construction in the area.

“The city of San Diego will not allow federal agencies to disregard the law and damage city property,” City Attorney Heather Ferbert said in a statement. “We are taking decisive action to protect sensitive habitats, uphold environmental commitments and ensure that the rights and resources of our community are respected.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending