The French Paradox

Here‘s an interesting article (via 2Blowhards) on the French paradox – the low rate of heart disease in France compared to similar countries such as the UK. The author is unpersuaded by the answer usually proposed, that the French have some kind of protective factor such as red wine or garlic, and looks instead at eating habits:

Overall [..] there appears to be nothing at all to explain the low rate of French heart disease, either within the classical risk factors, or the emigration/social dislocation model. Or is there?

Here is where I return to a thought that I had twenty years ago, and which triggered my lifelong interest in heart disease. I was at a meeting where a study was presented which showed that rabbits who were fed in a less stressed fashion – by a technician who liked rabbits; had less arterial disease than rabbits fed by another technician – who didn’t think much about rabbits one way or another.

Aha, I thought, so unstressed eating may protect against CHD? If this is also true of humans, I speculated, then populations where eating is an important part of family life should have a low rate of heart disease; on the other hand fast food cultures will have a high rate of CHD. A bit of a leap I admit, but an interesting thought to pursue?

So, I looked around the world at eating habits, and ended up focussing on France. If one thing above all stands out about French culture, in relation to British culture, it is their attitude to food and eating. The average Brit treats meals as a refuelling exercise, the French, most clearly, do not. They spend hours eating meals, relaxing, enjoying the food. It is a social occasion.

I began to wonder it were really possible that the French way of eating protects them against CHD? If so, how? What is the biological explanation? And can this possibly be related to emigration/social dislocation and stress.

There follows a discussion on anabolic and catabolic states, and the dangers of mixing the two, which is mildly persuasive.

I can’t help wondering though – and bear in mind that I have no medical expertise – surely alarm bells should start ringing when you get such a radical difference (in rates of heart disease) between two otherwise remarkably similar groups. Is it not possible that the French are more strict in what they classify as heart disease? That the whole French paradox is due to differences in diagnostics? I only ask….