The First Lady Continues Our Children's Downward Spiral

Last night, First Lady Michelle Obama continued on her path toward promoting childhood obesity on the Jay Leno show. Her newest message is if you make it at home with fresh ingredients, it is healthy.

Here is one example of a healthy snack:

If I'm quoting what I heard on the radio earlier, I believe Mrs. Obama explained to Jay that the White House honey she had as a dip assisted the apple ingestion. I suppose it is very difficult for most kids to just eat an apple by itself? So her snack is comprised of about 20 grams of fructose in the apple, along with probably just as much fructose and sucrose in the honey.


Mrs. Obama, simply because something comes from nature and is "natural" is not a good argument for it equating to a healthy way of eating. If I eat a large cocoa leaf salad a day, I anticipate some bad immediate results. Simply because there may be a delayed negative affect by eating a certain food does not mean it is a good idea. Ingesting the honey and the apple combined is essentially a sugar bomb for your body. Even worse - the fructose, as described in this rather long but mind-blowing lecture (now nearing 2 million views): Sugar, The Bitter Truth travels straight to your liver. The rest of the human body cannot process/convert it. A side affect of fructose conversion during the citrate process is a nasty called VLDL, or Very Low Density Lipoprotein. This is the worse type of cholesterol transfer particle which can very easily become lodged in artery walls and cells.

To add further insult to injury, what are we having for dinner? Whole Wheat Pizza! How many kids will get mad about that? Wheat is one of the most terrible substances on the planet. When the human body ingests wheat, it converts immediately to glucose (i.e. sugar). It has a higher Glycemic Index value than simply ingesting sugar itself. If this were not bad enough, all wheat contains gluten, a substance that is foreign to the human body and should have never been ingested. This is why gluten ingestion has caused millions food allergies, neurological issues and many more digestive issues. All of these aforementioned problems seem to melt away once gluten ingestion is stopped. Wheat is also not a great thing in itself. One has to has where it comes from. Wheat of today has no resemblance to wheat of just a few decades ago, so the argument that we've been ingesting wheat for thousands of years is bunk. It is not the same. Wheat of today is created in a lab (i.e. genetically modified), sprayed with chemicals and in some cases bleached. After this bleaching vitamins are re-added. It is a GMO mutant food staple across the world due to its very low price - and this is why we find it in everything.

A child may wake up one day, eat toast and cereal, sandwich for lunch with pretzels, pizza or pasta for dinner - and there you have it.


What First Lady Obama is doing is throwing a diversionary tactic into the conversation. Now, "Whole Grain" equates to health. The reasoning behind this is simply it has more vitamins as they are not stripped out during the usual bleaching/chemical/milling/refining process. It is still processed, but just vitamin "rich". Unfortunately, this argument falls flat. Everything else is same in the equation - the chemicals, the affect on the body and of course the gluten.

I suppose we cannot expect too much coming from the creator of My Plate. Hopefully one day we'll have a First Lady or President confident enough to get everyone to wake up to reality about what is happening to the United States. Meanwhile, I'll skip on the healthywholegrains.

The Doctor Strikes Again

I had the great opportunity to visit my newest doctor today. Not a routine visit but a pre-op appointment. Nothing serious - an endoscopic sinus surgery to alleviate years of sinus issues. I had to get a full exam done, and in the process learned they were going to take blood again. Excitedly, I asked if they were doing another lipid profile at which point they stated yes - and much more!

The results should be interesting as this time around I did not fast, and actually had an apple earlier in the day. It is like Christmas all over again! One interesting conversation did come up with the doctor. I normally tend to just use him as a means to an end, however I wanted to ensure I knew what his feelings were about cholesterol.

I inquired whether my HDL components would be broken down for this panel as it was not previously. This sparked some interested in him reviewing my last LDL reading...which was 117. Keep in mind my lipid profile stated my LDL was "abnormal". He explained:

Your LDL reading was a bit on the high side last time. If it gets any higher, say 130 treatment may be necessary to get it down.

Rather than floor him with clinical trials and research, I wanted to see what he knew about low-carbohydrate affects on LDL particle size. I asked "Don't you think my LDL increase may be of little worry due to the fact I am eating low-carb and my LDL particle type is mostly type A?"

"No, no!" he waved me off. "You need to start decreasing some of the fatty foods you eat, such as red meat, fatty milk, cheese, cream..."

Honestly, I was floored and almost speechless. This is the first doctor I've ever actually give this advice. But after reading all this literature, studying nutrition and more, I was still not prepared to hear it from someone I'm supposed to trust. Before leaving the doctor's office, I decided to reverse my decision and opt-in to the doctor's newsletter as I cannot find his e-mail address anywhere. I really want to e-mail him the JAMA article from 2007 covering the A-Z Study.

The Journal of the American Medical Association
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women
The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial

Christopher D. Gardner, PhD;
Alexandre Kiazand, MD;
Sofiya Alhassan, PhD;
Soowon Kim, PhD;
Randall S. Stafford, MD, PhD;
Raymond R. Balise, PhD;
Helena C. Kraemer, PhD;
Abby C. King, PhD

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.full

This study set to discover the benefits that low-carbohydrate diet may bring when compared with other standard low-fat diets. The one interesting part about LDL comes here:

Many concerns have been expressed that low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets, high in total and saturated fat, will adversely affect blood lipid levels and cardiovascular risk.34-36​ These concerns have not been substantiated in recent weight-loss diet trials. The recent trials, like the current study, have consistently reported that triglycerides, HDL-C, blood pressure, and measures of insulin resistance either were not significantly different or were more favorable for the very-low-carbohydrate groups.12-16​

The exception to this pattern has been LDL-C concentrations. Two of the most consistent findings in recent trials of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets have been higher LDL-C concentrations and lower triglyceride concentrations in the low-carbohydrate diets.17 Although a higher LDL-C concentration would appear to be an adverse effect, this may not be the case under these study conditions. The triglyceride-lowering effect of a low-carbohydrate diet leads to an increase in LDL particle size, which is known to decrease LDL atherogenicity.37​-39 In the current study, at 2 months, mean LDL-C concentrations increased by 2% and mean triglyceride concentrations decreased by 30% in the Atkins group. These findings are consistent with a beneficial increase in LDL particle size, although LDL particle size was not assessed in our study. In addition, we examined non–HDL-C concentrations as an alternate indicator of atherogenic lipoproteins—a variable not substantially influenced by changes in triglyceride concentrations26​—and observed no significant differences among groups at any time point.

Therefore, we interpret these findings to suggest that there were no adverse effects on the lipid variables for women following the Atkins diet compared with the other diets and, furthermore, no adverse effects were observed on any weight-related variable measured in this study at any time point for the Atkins group. Further examination of the dietary effects on lipid variables would benefit from analyses of lipoprotein particle subfractions and follow-up of longer than 12 months.

I'm Hungry, Should I Eat?

Before I began eating low-carbohydrate for life, I would commonly be hungry shortly after a meal. Usually not breakfast (though I rarely had meals that early), but lunch and dinner. I would always feel a little guilty, thinking that eating all of those extra calories was not good for me and making me get fatter. I was right to feel guilty, due the fact I was still eating crap.

My breakfast:

Okay, so maybe my breakfast wasn't approved by them yet. They'll come around.

Nitrate free bacon so don't be scared! Went heavy on the sausage today and the kids were happy about it though I think everyone prefers bacon. C'est la vie.

Back to the topic at hand - had a few sausages and some squash last night for dinner. Really good, though I was hungry soon after. I don't think it was enough. Had some cheese, peanuts and like three eggs before bed and you know what, I don't feel guilty. I know if I don't eat when I'm hungry, that is a bad thing for your body.

To note: While typing this posting up, I was trying to munch on some peanuts via a large container...and my coffee was too close. I submerged my entire hand in my coffee. Luckily, the coffee had finished brewing about an hour ago or I'd be typing one-handed.

Breast Cancer Cure Already Known?

It has already been established that breast cancer probability increases in step with weight gain. If we know this to be true, the probability can decrease with weight loss. You didn't hear anyone at the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium state Breast Cancer is a metabolic disorder, but is it?

The Genesis Prevention Center at University Hospital in South Manchester, England has recently completed study that showed even intermittent low-carbohydrate diet is superior to a standard and calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and insulin levels. They state that losing weight and lowering insulin levels are good preventative measures for breast cancer.

A recent study by the American Association for Cancer Research (2011) studied the effects of Western diet (55% carbohydrate, 23% protein, 22% fat) and low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet (15% carbohydrate, 58% protein, 26% fat) on mice that had been predisposed to contract cancer. The cancer was implanted human and mouse tumor cells. It was found that the tumor cells grew consistently slower on the low-carbohydrate diet.

With relation to breast cancer:

"As well, mice genetically predisposed to breast cancer were put on these two diets and almost half of them on the Western diet developed breast cancer within their first year of life while none on the low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet did. Interestingly, only one on the Western diet reached a normal life span (approximately 2 years), with 70 percent of them dying from cancer while only 30 percent of those on the low-carbohydrate diet developed cancer and more than half these mice reached or exceeded their normal life span."

So, of those mice predisposed to contract cancer that were on the low-carbohydrate diet:

Only 30% developed cancer and more than half reached or exceeded normal life span.

So what if these mice were not predisposed for cancer, what would be the contraction rate of cancer be? Probably near zero. Why is this so? The hypothesis given by Gerald Krystal, Ph.D. at the British Columbia Cancer Research Centre stated:
"...that tumor cells, unlike normal cells, need significantly more glucose to grow and thrive. Restricting carbohydrate intake can significantly limit blood glucose and insulin, a hormone that has been shown in many independent studies to promote tumor growth in both humans and mice."

So should we be using insulin as a predictor in contraction of breast cancer? Obviously if insulin resistance is present and an individual is obese, their insulin is out of whack - so is it correct to say obesity causes increased risk or is it insulin? Obesity and weight gain in general is an affect of out of control insulin and increased blood-glucose levels for an extended period of time. If women and men alike can begin taking better care of themselves and severely decreasing carbohydrate intake, I have a feeling breast cancer and cancer in general will begin to decrease rapidly.

Part of the problem, however is that even the lead researcher of the Genesis study, Michelle Harvie, states that individuals should go on an intermittent low-carbohydrate diet. Why? Why not go all out and change to a low-carbohydrate lifestyle. This is yet another major medical issue, i.e. diabetes where researchers, dieticians and the like have scientific data with a flashing exclamation mark, yet they are half-assing their suggestion on where to go with it.

Type-II diabetics are told to lower high GI carbs and take medication (manage it), rather than cut them out and be potentially 'cured'. And now breast cancer (and other cancer) sufferers and 'potentials' are told to moderately decrease their carbohydrate load a couple days a week. It is as if to say, go for the 25% decreased risk rather than the 100%.

Sources:
1)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110614115037.htm2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/low-carb-diet_n_1136765.html

Lipid Results In

I received my results and low and behold, low-carbohydrate lifestyle does have a positive affect on your profile!

Here are my numbers:

Total Cholesterol: 189
Trig: 50
HDL: 51
Chol/HDL Ratio: 3.7
LDL (Direct): 117


Pretty good ratio eh? It does note *Lipid panel (includes aLDL) but it doesn't inform me as to whether most is type A.

It also states above the numbers that:

"Your lipid profile is abnormal. Please continue to work on a low fat diet, exercise and weight management. Please return in 3 months."

Do they have cherry-flavored statins you think?

Ben Vereen - Diabetes Champion or Grave Digger?

I was going through health articles online the other day reading the usual garbage based on metadata and came across "Taking a 'Stand' for Diabetes" - a featured video on Fox News Health:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1241738029001/taking-stand-for-diabetes

Dr. Manny is interviewing "legendary" performer Ben Vereen (sorry, never heard but I guess I'm not artsy enough). Ben Vereen is using his fame to alert individuals to diabetes. It is great he is trying to inform individuals about diabetes, like the fact so many individuals are undiagnosed (like he was in 2007 when he suddenly collapsed). However, there are a few things that are scary about what he says. In a nutshell, his advice is:

1)Take your insulin
2)Exercise
3)Don't Diet


Let's look at each of his points:

1)Insulin - This is a necessary drug used to keep blood sugar stable early on in treatment. However, it is another "drug crutch" - meaning doctors and patients alike rely too much on drugs rather than attempting to change their lifestyle. This ties into #3.

2)Exercise - I'm going to drop a bomb. Most people don't need to exercise/lift weights. Obese individuals don't need to exercise. Sure it is fun, may make you feel better and tone your muscles, but for losing weight - the main reason it is suggested in conjunction with Type II Diabetes - it will not work.

Why doesn't exercising help losing weight? There are several reasons:

A)When you exercise, your body goes into a hyper mode, burning carbs, then fat...and working extremely hard for your energy. When you are done, your body at the cellular level demands additional calories to replenish what was used. You get hungry, normally for carb-laden food. You essentially end up negating your efforts.

B)When you do get rid of a small amount of fat and turn it to muscle, muscle weighs more and thus there is very little net gain.

C)Exercise, especially hard-core exercise is an excellent way to teach your body to store fat more efficiently. Why? Your body recognizes the need for additional fuel and this is the way it reacts. Counter-productive no?

3)Don't Diet. Ben states that the first three letters is "Diet" are "Die". He says, don't do that, have a great life, eat what you want and take your insulin. What a slap in the face. By looking at his physique, we know this is his mentality, but why is he pushing this damaging idea on everyone else? Diet is the number one way Type II Diabetics can actually cure them selves of diabetes!

Basically, he is saying, I'd rather live with a dangerous disorder rather than change my diet. I suppose the exercise isn't working then?

So many individuals have removed all markers of having diabetes by lowering their blood sugar. They do this by cutting down on sugar - or going low-carb. Some doctors are beginning to push eating lower carbohydrate food, but generally, all the major associations (Heart, Diabetes, etc) are mirroring what Mr. Vereen is touting. Take your medicine, exercise, eat low-fat.

Ben Vereen should be ashamed of himself.

Blood Panel

Two days ago, I visited the doctor - a new doctor - for an issue I've been having. It had been awhile but part of my reason for visiting was to eagerly request a lipid panel. Ever since going low-carb, I have wanted to see what my cholesterol looked like, specifically my HDL, LDL, VLDL, Triglycerides and total cholesterol. I've read a lot about the dangers of sugar, including that it can cause and feed cancer, and want to ensure my blood sugar stays at a constant low rate.

Researching my family history for so long, I know my genetics predispose me for cardiac/circulatory issues. I want to give myself the best chance at a long life. While I normally keep my sugar intake to a minimum, I do have an apple every other day or so - had cut back from daily. I do make sure I have the appropriate nutrition - I just don't like to get it from such a sugary source. Last time I had a granny smith apple, it tasted like Fun Dip, no lie.

Prior to going low-carb, I had a horrible sweet tooth. I could down donuts with ease and a large amount of candy no problem. Now I rarely even think about them.

When I get my panel, I'll post to give further credence to the fact that a low carbohydrate diet will not only drop the pounds, but also make you a healthier individual. They did weigh me again at the doctor visit and I'm at 175. Seems between 170 and 175 is what I'm now deeming my 'frame weight'. We all genetically have a biological frame that was designed soon after conception and our diet is what determines (aside from any hormone or metabolic disorders) our weight.

Anyway, expecting the results today or tomorrow, it is like early Christmas.