From CNN/Health.com, we get the following information skimmed from a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine: too much red meat increases risks of dying, weight gain and more.
The source of the information is: "Using data from two long-running studies of health professionals,
researchers tracked the diets of more than 121,000 middle-aged men and
women for up to 28 years..." so for anyone who is informed, this was not a clinical trial but an observational study. Due to this fact, one can conclude from the data that was accessed - only correlation or link - not causal information. However, we see the "AP" version on CNN/Health.com state things like: "If everyone in the study had slashed their average red-meat intake to
less than half a serving per day, the researchers say, 9% of deaths
among men and 8% of deaths among women could have been prevented." Really?
Other great excepts include: "Why is red meat, and especially processed red meat, potentially harmful?
In addition to the high saturated fat content, which can contribute to
heart disease, charring red meat at high temperatures can produce
carcinogens on the surface, Pan says. And processed meats contain
certain additives that in high quantities are believed to promote cancer
as well."
I thought we were all aware saturated fat has never clinically been proven to be harmful - and is in fact beneficial to health. Yet, it is continually blasted in observational / meta-analysis studies. And here we have scientists explaining why meat is also bad - the carcinogens produced. What part of the study was that in? I call it grasping at straws.
There is a small voice of reason toward of the CNN article in which Staffan Lindeberg, M.D. from Sweden questions the validity of the study. He states that the real threats to health is sugar and starch-heavy Western diets. Lindeberg advocates an offshoot of the Paleo lifestyle.
It is nauseating to read that "Sure enough, Pan and his colleagues found that the men and women in the
study who ate the most red meat also tended to be heavier, less
physically active, and more likely to smoke and drink alcohol than their
peers.".
Perhaps a more viable study would be to review the diets of those who mainly ate red meat - there are plenty of individuals available! Don't worry about the study's validity however, they took into account those who were less active, smokers and drank alcohol. Must have been a simple formula for the thousands of participants.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Newest Non-Fasting Lipid Panel
Due to a recent minor surgery (endoscopic sinus) my primary doctor had a full blood panel done. I was surprised (as was my ENT when they saw I had one done prior to surgery) but went along with it. Too bad I didn't fast though, as I had a full lunch (whole avocado and lots of other fats) just a couple of hours prior to the test. Whoops. I discovered that the result is an extremely high level of triglycerides in the blood. This is entirely normal for those on low-carbohydrate. Your triglyceride count may actually be higher than your high or moderately high carbohydrate eaters. The main difference being, a few hours after your triglycerides will be kicked in their place if you subscribe to LC.
Without further ado, here are some interesting results from my non-fasting full blood panel:
(All mg/dL unless noted)
Total Cholesterol: 207
Triglycerides: 143 (YOWZA!)
HDL: 57
Chol/HDL Ratio: 3.6 ratio
LDL (Direct): 126
Other interesting readings:
Glucose: 90
Bun: 19
Creatinine: 0.8
Sodium: 140mmol/L
Potassium: 4.6mmol/L
Chloride: 98mmol/L
Calcium: 9.8
Uric Acid: 5.4
(For those that state low-carbers have low calcium and high uric acid - eat those results!)
Note: The test results state again: Your lipid profile is abnormal. Please continue to work on a low fat diet, exercise and weight management. Please return in 3 months. OK for surgery.
To borrow from Tom Naughton (http://www.fathead-movie.com)
It appears there was a good increase of HDL. From the clinical trials and studies I read up shortly after receiving this test, triglycerides are the most affected by not fasting before the test - and eating fatty foods will only compound the figure. The other reading may also be total cholesterol. But we all should know by now that cholesterol counts (even in the "High" range) are not cause for concern. We need it.
And for comparison, my last fasting lipid panel (which didn't have a full spectrum of other cool stats):
Total Cholesterol: 189
Triglycerides: 50
HDL: 51
Chol/HDL Ratio: 3.7
LDL (Direct): 117
Without further ado, here are some interesting results from my non-fasting full blood panel:
(All mg/dL unless noted)
Total Cholesterol: 207
Triglycerides: 143 (YOWZA!)
HDL: 57
Chol/HDL Ratio: 3.6 ratio
LDL (Direct): 126
Other interesting readings:
Glucose: 90
Bun: 19
Creatinine: 0.8
Sodium: 140mmol/L
Potassium: 4.6mmol/L
Chloride: 98mmol/L
Calcium: 9.8
Uric Acid: 5.4
(For those that state low-carbers have low calcium and high uric acid - eat those results!)
Note: The test results state again: Your lipid profile is abnormal. Please continue to work on a low fat diet, exercise and weight management. Please return in 3 months. OK for surgery.
To borrow from Tom Naughton (http://www.fathead-movie.com)
It appears there was a good increase of HDL. From the clinical trials and studies I read up shortly after receiving this test, triglycerides are the most affected by not fasting before the test - and eating fatty foods will only compound the figure. The other reading may also be total cholesterol. But we all should know by now that cholesterol counts (even in the "High" range) are not cause for concern. We need it.
And for comparison, my last fasting lipid panel (which didn't have a full spectrum of other cool stats):
Total Cholesterol: 189
Triglycerides: 50
HDL: 51
Chol/HDL Ratio: 3.7
LDL (Direct): 117
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Science-Based Dietary Guidelines
I am in the midst of a project in grad school to come up with a new way to save money and provide better health to the elderly - by way of implementing a new information system. This is in conjunction with following the requirements set forth in the "Health Care Innovation Challenge", run by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMI), within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Human Services.
I plan on getting blasted for my remarks, as the professor is most likely highly ingrained in the current health paradigms. I will find out shortly.
My intent is to shed light on the fact that if you simply try and push a new information system, without first reforming dietary guidelines, general health suggestions and other preventative measures, success will be limited. The majority of health improvements for the elderly - and cost savings associated with it will be seen if such ideas are successfully addressed and implemented. I realize this would never happen, especially in such an organization as the CMS, however it is important to point out.
Here is the short section which is simply a quick breakdown of the reasoning behind the necessary re-thinking of these dietary guidelines:
Science-Based Dietary Health Program
Before deciding on specifics regarding the proposed system, there is salient issue that merits addressing. With regard to health, the United States of America is on the brink of disaster. In 1985, no state in America had over 15% of its population labeled as obese (that is BMI equal to or greater than 30). [7] This is still a high amount, yet nothing compared to the 2010 data showing all states averaging around a 30% obesity rate, one state as high as 34%. [7] Even more startling is the fact that “Nearly 70 percent of men and women are either considered overweight or obese….and 32 percent of children ages 2 to 19 are considered overweight or obese.” [8]
Why do we have such an epidemic of obese and overweight Americans? The US Government has produced the MyPlate program [9] after the Food Guide Pyramid failed to get America into a healthy state. Children were informed by the government to increase their daily exercise routine to keep obesity at bay with the Let’s Move program. From the Food Guide Pyramid, MyPlate program and the Let’s Move program:
“1. Ensuring students are offered both fruits and vegetables every day of the week
2. Substantially increasing offerings of whole grain-rich foods
3. Offering only fat-free or low-fat milk varieties
4. Limiting calories based on the age of children being served to ensure proper portion size
5. Increasing the focus on reducing the amounts of saturated fat, trans fats and sodium.” [10]
Most of the recommendations made above are not science-based dietary guidelines. These dietary guidelines are based on a food nutrition paradigm shift that began several decades ago, pushed by both the United States government and food industries. In the 1970s, the United State Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Senator George McGovern, created the Dietary Goals for the United States in response to a number of health conditions facing the U.S. The recommendations put forth were to avoid fat, cholesterol, eat less meat and ingest whole grains, fruits and “complex” carbohydrates. We can see that the MyPlate program almost forty years later mirror these same guidelines. The Committee’s dietary outline conflicted with many scientists at the time, due to the fact the suggestions and recommendations were indeed not based on reliable scientific data. Indeed the American Medical Association protested along with many other large organizations. [11] Yet, in 1977 the dietary guidelines were set and have been in place ever since.
The dietary plan found its way into school lunches, the Women, Infants and Children program and almost every facet of society involving food distribution. For example, with the WIC program, the USDA touts research into the program from 2004: “…WIC participation is associated with improved diets…reduces intake of fat as a percentage of energy, increases the intake of carbohydrates as a percentage of food energy…” [13]
Essentially, through fat’s demonization, it has been removed or lowered in just about every food item and replaced with carbohydrate. This replacement of fat with carbohydrate gives a much longer shelf life to food items and is also cheaper to produce, due to crop subsidization. As a result, nearly every meal children eat is filled with carbohydrates. Fat is avoided as it is seen as artery-clogging and the reason one gets fat. Babies drink formula which is extremely high in carbohydrates, school-aged children typically ingest cereal, sandwiches, pasta, chips, juice and more every day.
A continually surfacing theme in current scientific study is the hypothesis that weight gain is merely an effect of a larger metabolic disorder, directly related to insulin resistance. The highest degree of impact on rapidly increasing insulin resistance is sustained blood-glucose levels. This is turn is a direct result of a large level of carbohydrate ingestion. There are also major clinical studies which completely discredit much of what is still touted as science derived from the Dietary Goals formulated decades ago.
When one looks at the Let’s Move program [10], we see many of the major unscientific dietary information surfacing. Counter to the five points made previously with regard to this program, scientific data include the fact that whole grains and bread in general is a fattening food; fat ingestion does not increase fat accumulation; saturated fat does not clog arteries or increase cardiovascular risk; sodium ingestion has little to no effect on health; dietary cholesterol intake has no bearing on cholesterol count; attacking cholesterol is misguided; and calorie restriction has many negative consequences for the human body.
The current dietary guidelines have produced 100 million individuals in the United States with either pre-diabetes or type II diabetes. This represents over one quarter of the entire population. As the American Diabetes Association states, “Before people develop type 2 diabetes, they most always have “prediabetes” – blood glucose levels that are higher than normal but not yet high enough to be diagnosed as diabetes…Recent research has shown that some long-term damage to the body, especially the heart and circulatory system, may already be occurring during prediabetes.” [12] However, even the ADA suggests eating “healthy” which in turn points to the aforementioned unscientific dietary guidelines. What should be suggested is eliminating the main cause for insulin spikes. Those who have full blown type II diabetes that have followed the scientific dietary guidelines have eliminated all medication and symptoms associated with this potentially devastating metabolic disorder.
Implementing an information system to save money is important. However, to truly and drastically also improve health care for the elderly, adopting scientifically-based dietary health guidelines is paramount. Allowing this type of access in the home will further improve health and cost.
That is it, so far. Interesting from the Dallas Morning News (1977) regarding the dietary committee:
Oh, but it was accepted.
I plan on getting blasted for my remarks, as the professor is most likely highly ingrained in the current health paradigms. I will find out shortly.
My intent is to shed light on the fact that if you simply try and push a new information system, without first reforming dietary guidelines, general health suggestions and other preventative measures, success will be limited. The majority of health improvements for the elderly - and cost savings associated with it will be seen if such ideas are successfully addressed and implemented. I realize this would never happen, especially in such an organization as the CMS, however it is important to point out.
Here is the short section which is simply a quick breakdown of the reasoning behind the necessary re-thinking of these dietary guidelines:
Science-Based Dietary Health Program
Before deciding on specifics regarding the proposed system, there is salient issue that merits addressing. With regard to health, the United States of America is on the brink of disaster. In 1985, no state in America had over 15% of its population labeled as obese (that is BMI equal to or greater than 30). [7] This is still a high amount, yet nothing compared to the 2010 data showing all states averaging around a 30% obesity rate, one state as high as 34%. [7] Even more startling is the fact that “Nearly 70 percent of men and women are either considered overweight or obese….and 32 percent of children ages 2 to 19 are considered overweight or obese.” [8]
Why do we have such an epidemic of obese and overweight Americans? The US Government has produced the MyPlate program [9] after the Food Guide Pyramid failed to get America into a healthy state. Children were informed by the government to increase their daily exercise routine to keep obesity at bay with the Let’s Move program. From the Food Guide Pyramid, MyPlate program and the Let’s Move program:
“1. Ensuring students are offered both fruits and vegetables every day of the week
2. Substantially increasing offerings of whole grain-rich foods
3. Offering only fat-free or low-fat milk varieties
4. Limiting calories based on the age of children being served to ensure proper portion size
5. Increasing the focus on reducing the amounts of saturated fat, trans fats and sodium.” [10]
Most of the recommendations made above are not science-based dietary guidelines. These dietary guidelines are based on a food nutrition paradigm shift that began several decades ago, pushed by both the United States government and food industries. In the 1970s, the United State Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Senator George McGovern, created the Dietary Goals for the United States in response to a number of health conditions facing the U.S. The recommendations put forth were to avoid fat, cholesterol, eat less meat and ingest whole grains, fruits and “complex” carbohydrates. We can see that the MyPlate program almost forty years later mirror these same guidelines. The Committee’s dietary outline conflicted with many scientists at the time, due to the fact the suggestions and recommendations were indeed not based on reliable scientific data. Indeed the American Medical Association protested along with many other large organizations. [11] Yet, in 1977 the dietary guidelines were set and have been in place ever since.
The dietary plan found its way into school lunches, the Women, Infants and Children program and almost every facet of society involving food distribution. For example, with the WIC program, the USDA touts research into the program from 2004: “…WIC participation is associated with improved diets…reduces intake of fat as a percentage of energy, increases the intake of carbohydrates as a percentage of food energy…” [13]
Essentially, through fat’s demonization, it has been removed or lowered in just about every food item and replaced with carbohydrate. This replacement of fat with carbohydrate gives a much longer shelf life to food items and is also cheaper to produce, due to crop subsidization. As a result, nearly every meal children eat is filled with carbohydrates. Fat is avoided as it is seen as artery-clogging and the reason one gets fat. Babies drink formula which is extremely high in carbohydrates, school-aged children typically ingest cereal, sandwiches, pasta, chips, juice and more every day.
A continually surfacing theme in current scientific study is the hypothesis that weight gain is merely an effect of a larger metabolic disorder, directly related to insulin resistance. The highest degree of impact on rapidly increasing insulin resistance is sustained blood-glucose levels. This is turn is a direct result of a large level of carbohydrate ingestion. There are also major clinical studies which completely discredit much of what is still touted as science derived from the Dietary Goals formulated decades ago.
When one looks at the Let’s Move program [10], we see many of the major unscientific dietary information surfacing. Counter to the five points made previously with regard to this program, scientific data include the fact that whole grains and bread in general is a fattening food; fat ingestion does not increase fat accumulation; saturated fat does not clog arteries or increase cardiovascular risk; sodium ingestion has little to no effect on health; dietary cholesterol intake has no bearing on cholesterol count; attacking cholesterol is misguided; and calorie restriction has many negative consequences for the human body.
The current dietary guidelines have produced 100 million individuals in the United States with either pre-diabetes or type II diabetes. This represents over one quarter of the entire population. As the American Diabetes Association states, “Before people develop type 2 diabetes, they most always have “prediabetes” – blood glucose levels that are higher than normal but not yet high enough to be diagnosed as diabetes…Recent research has shown that some long-term damage to the body, especially the heart and circulatory system, may already be occurring during prediabetes.” [12] However, even the ADA suggests eating “healthy” which in turn points to the aforementioned unscientific dietary guidelines. What should be suggested is eliminating the main cause for insulin spikes. Those who have full blown type II diabetes that have followed the scientific dietary guidelines have eliminated all medication and symptoms associated with this potentially devastating metabolic disorder.
Implementing an information system to save money is important. However, to truly and drastically also improve health care for the elderly, adopting scientifically-based dietary health guidelines is paramount. Allowing this type of access in the home will further improve health and cost.
That is it, so far. Interesting from the Dallas Morning News (1977) regarding the dietary committee:
Oh, but it was accepted.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, January 30, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











