Free the Animal

Triglycerides: 93.5% Reduction in Three Weeks - 3,100 to 202

So there you have it: the punchline, right there in the title.

But who did it, and how? That would be none other than Dr. William Davis, cardiologist. So then, what sort of medical procedure did he perform? What sorts of pharmaceuticals did he prescribe? To what level did he admonish his patient, Daniel, to cut the arterycloggingsaturatedfat and to eat lots more servings of hearthealthywholegrians?

Of course, anyone who actually reads and thinks for themselves -- rather than swallowing the cloistered expert-&-authority-protectionism of conventional "wisdom" -- should know, he did none of those things; which, given the other successes he's blogged about -- some of which I've highlighted here -- exposes most if not all of the "lipid establishment" (i.e., cloistered expert-&-authority-protection racket) as con men: most physicians in that role, all the drug companies, and our beloved (not!) FDA.

Got it? Good, so let's move on.

Since most of you who should know, know, what then, dear supplicant to cloistered expert-&-authority-protection rackets, did Dr. Davis do? I'm glad you asked! It's actually simple: step one is that he "prescribed" 3,600 mg of over-the-counter omega-3 fatty acids per day, i.e., plain ol' fish oil caps. Depending on concentration, that could be anywhere from 5 to 10 1g caps per day, guesstimating. After 10 days, Trigs had dropped from 3,100 to 1,100. Step two was to continue on the OTC fish oil and eliminate wheat, corn starch, and sugar from the diet (in other words: less hearthealthywholegrains, more arterycloggingsaturatedfat). This took him from 1,100 to 202 in another 10 days.

Daniel, a sufferer of what's known as familial hypertriglyceridemia, now has lower Trigs than whole bunches of people walking about without such a genetic disorder. For those who don't know, triglycerides are fat circulating in your blood. The more hearthealthwholegrains and sugar you eat, the higher will be your triglyceride levels. The more arterycloggingsaturatedfat you eat, the less will be your levels. Almost all paleo and low-carb eaters have levels less than 100, and most of us hang out in a range of 40-60. I believe the average in the US is around 150 or so, and climbing (all while the cloistered expert-&-authority-protection racket claps and cheers over irrelevant, non-associated lower LDL levels). Lots of people are walking around at 400 and higher. But, hey, they lowered their LDL by eating lots of hearthealthywholegrains, and thus helping out Big Agra, who, in gracious turn, helps the cloistered expert-&-authority-protection racket. It's all quite cozy, incestuous...and insanely profitable.

High triglycerides are bad, very bad, and in my opinion, far worse than "elevated" serum cholesterol (lipoproteins). High triglycerides are well associated with death from heart disease, while half of those who die from heart disease have low cholesterol and half have high cholesterol.

Well, that about sums up the story (but not the rant), so the rest is devoted to Dr. Davis himself, who tells the brief story here and here.

I am continually surprised at the number of people with high triglycerides who are still treated with a fibrate drug, like Tricor, or a statin drug, when fish oil -- widely available, essentially free of side-effects, with a proven cardiovascular risk-reducing track record --should clearly be the first choice by a long stretch.

Could Dr. Davis be referring to his own colleagues in the medical profession -- most, probably?

Uh, yep:

Unfortunately, most of my colleagues, if they even think to use omega-3s, choose to use the prescription form, Lovaza. Indeed, several representatives from AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical outfit now distributing this miserably overpriced product, frequently barge their way into my office poking fun at our use of nutritional supplements instead of the prescription Lovaza. "But insurance covers it in most cases!" they plead. "And your patients will know that they're getting the real product, not some fake. And they'll have to take fewer capsules!"

Dr. Davis has previously blogged about the Lovaza rip off; punchline: $3,600 per year vs. $150 per year (all while so many in America clamor to have everyone pay for everyone else's "health" care...).

He says further:

I never use Lovaza to reduce triglycerides, even in familial hypertriglyceridemia -- the FDA-approved indication for Lovaza -- and have not yet seen any failures, only successes.

Good for Daniel, and good for the heroic Dr. Davis, who gives a great prognosis.

He's got just a little further to go to achieve the biologically ideal level of less than 60 mg/dl. You can see that it is not really that difficult--provided someone didn't load you down with nonsense about "cutting your fat," or statin or fibrate drugs.

And guess what, on a related topic? I just heard from a very well respected health blogger in email that a guy who'd contacted him about fatty liver disease got his enzymes back to normal in a single month. This, after 9 whole years of a fatty liver. What advice did this health blogger give him? Drop the sugar, vegetable oils, and take fish oil.

Let's be clear who the enemies are in all this: many of Dr. Davis' colleagues, all pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, and the whores in the mainstream media who can't wait to bend over for each and every one of the foregoing as often as they possibly can.

You didn't hear that here first, but you'll hear it often.

Quick Hit

Note to Dr. Francesca Fusco, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, and educational spokesperson for The Skin Cancer Foundation: you're a dizzy, ignorant little "expert," aintcha?

Is there such as thing as a healthy tan? Simply put, no. There is no degree of tanning, whether from natural sunlight or artificial light, like tanning beds, that can be considered safe.

And yet, as we migrated out of Africa and into northern climes 60,000 years ago the ancestors of those white folk amongst us rapidly evolved lighter skin to absorb adequate vitamin D from less intense sunlight.

And then there's this, the global epidemiology, of which I'm quite certain you're blissfully ignorant, since I'll bet your Foundation does quite well by the makers of sunscreen products (...and the more they profit, the more skin cancer).

 

Well, fortunately, judging by the comments posted to your public display of ignorance and stupidity, I'm not the only one who thinks you an opportunistic miscreant and a menace to society and good health.

Reader Feedback - Doctors and Cholesterol

First up, an email from Robert, who'll become a medical doctor in under a week. He must be completely thrilled, eh?

~~~

Just wanted to say hello. I’ve been a regular reader for several months now and thought I should take a moment to introduce myself. My name is Robert and I will be an MD in about six days. I’ll be starting an internal medicine residency in Reno, NV in July. I am both excited and nervous about starting, nervous largely because my patience with “modern” medicine is in rapid decline and I have three years of attending physicians to deal with. Yes, Richard, all of the doctors I have worked with personally approach health and nutrition in as mindless a manner as you think and often rant about.

~~~

I know, Robert, and isn't it the damnedest thing? Here you spend all that time, money and effort -- all the while enduring an enormous burden in terms of mental and physical stress and fatigue -- and it would certainly be an appropriate reward to be held in the sort of superman high esteem doctors have traditionally and often deservedly been held.

But I think it's safe to say that owing to the Internet, with its legions of people like me who deal in facts, logic and principles -- and not so much in titles, degrees and positions -- that we're in a situation where the gig is up. Doctors have largely squandered the goodwill they've earned over a century of hard, dedicated, lifesaving work. Thankfully, there are a growing number of docs like your very-soon-to-be self who have come to see the light. It's going to be an uphill battle for a long time.

For instance, Tim, another reader, sent me his lipid panel for comment. Though I don't expect you to comment, Robert, I have an idea that you would interpret it far differently from Tim's doctor. So, as frustrating as it is, this is a step in the right direction. There's that.

~~~

February, 2008, 225 lbs, years on the Standard American Diet:

Total 173
Trig 109
HDL 60
LDL (calc) 91
VLDL 22
Ratio 2.9

July, 2008, 160 lbs, through calorie counting, semi starvation, yet semi-low carb:

Total 145
Trig 38
HDL 69
LDL (calc) 68
VLDL 8
Ratio 2.1

Been going Paleo(!) since Sept 08, intermittent fasting, 3 days a week lifting hard efforts, sprints, eating tons of meat! Actually heading down the road for 90 days of meat only (2+ weeks in right now) so I did another panel:

May 1, 2009, 170 lbs, more muscle!

Total 226
Trig 34
HDL 82
LDL (calc) 137
VLDL 7
Ratio 2.8

Should I be concerned of the rise in Total and LDL?  From what I've read on your blog, Dr. Eades, and other sources, I don't think so.  I am more fearful of the 145 total number (cancer! etc) than the 226!  But my doctor is of the opposite opinion.

~~~

His doctor is of the opposite opinion, but why? Has the doctor been reading Eades, Davis, Sears, Briffa, or the many others out there and concluded that they are wrong? I doubt it. Tim's doctor is probably what I now refer to as a "regurgitator," i.e., as applied to the medical profession: someone who is trained to expertly diagnose and treat in accordance with conventional "wisdom," right or wrong. My non-medical opinion is that we ought to be cheering his great success in improving his health in a way that reflects every well done study and observation of this sort of thing I've seen.

For example, his C-reactive protein was .3 (a "BTW" in another part of his email), where "normal" is < 3 mg/l. This is a strong marker for inflammation -- the very thing that small, dense LDL acts upon to cause heart disease. Also, the ratios they have given Tim are of Total/HDL, which remain steady, as his HDL went from 60 to 82 (all the while you hear great cheering amongst the ignorant masses when someone goes from 45-50 and credits oatmeal or Cheerios). Normal for that ratio is 4-6, because grain and sugar eaters have such miserably low HDL. Ideal is 2-3. Mine was 2.1, so was my wife's, thereabouts, so there's three data points on that for Paleo: IDEAL.

The more important ratio by far, in my opinion, is Trigs/HDL. This is one of the biggest associations with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Again, grain and sugar eaters have abysmally low HDL (the thing that carries oxidized LDL out of your arteries and back to the liver for recycling) combined with elevated triglycerides, which is dissolved fat in the blood. Yes, ironic, isn't it? You want low levels of circulating fat in your blood? Replace grain and sugar with fat in your diet and the very first thing that will happen is that your Trigs (fat in your blood) drop precipitously. Guaranteed.

Tim went from a decent level of 109 ("normal" is considered < 150, but that's only because it's based on normal for grain and sugar eaters) to a whopping low of 34. Of course, he did it by replacing crap in his diet (grain and sugar) with real food like animals and their fat. 

Now, in case you're suspicious about the veracity of this Trig/HDL ratio being of prime importance, there's a lot out there. How about this, a 1990 (!) interview with then director of the massive, long-term Framingham Heart Study, Dr. William Castelli.

"There's a subgroup of people who have an HDL under 40 and triglycerides over 150," he explains. "These people have galloping proression of their cholesterol deposits, which will eventually lead to heart disease, and the average physician is not picking it up."

You can read the whole interview.

So, what did Tim's Trig/HDL ratio do while progressing from SAD to Paleo? It went from 1.8, which is on the very low side of ideal (< 2), to .4, which is on the screaming bleeding high side of ideal. Mine is also .4, so is my wife's, thereabouts, so three more data points for ya. Tim achieves a 4.5 magnitude improvement on his Trig/HDL ratio.

I wonder what Cheerios would have done for him.

But that's not all. His LDL is calculated, and rather than rehashing the pitfalls of calculated LDL, I'll just refer you to my 2-part series: What Do You Think You Know About LDL Cholesterol? (part 1; part 2). For another reference, here's how LDL ought to be measured: NMR LippoProfile.

But what can we glean from the information provided? Well, it turns out that the Trig/HDL ratio is a reasonable marker for LDL particle size. Remember, and you can find out more here, but small & dense LDL particles are the real danger. Guess what else? grains and sugar give you a profile where most of your LDL is small and dense, while a high fat (natural, i.e., animal) diet gives you LDL that's large and fluffy, which is inversely associated with CVD, so far as I can tell.

Ratio of Triglycerides to HDL Cholesterol Is an Indicator of LDL Particle Size in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Normal HDL Cholesterol Levels

RESULTS — Clinical characteristics, pharmacological therapies, lifestyle, and prevalence of diabetes-related complications were similar in both patient groups. LDL size correlated negatively with plasma triglycerides (TGs) (R2= 0.52) and positively with HDL cholesterol (R2=0.14). However, an inverse correlation between the TG–to–HDL cholesterol molar ratio and LDL size was even stronger (R2= 0.59). The ratio was >1.33 in 90% of the patients with small LDL particles (95% CI 79.3–100) and 16.5% of those with larger LDL particles. A cutoff point of 1.33 for the TG–to–HDL cholesterol ratio distinguishes between patients having small LDL values better than TG cutoff of 1.70 and 1.45 mmol/l.

Let's unpack this, and by the way, while this may look incomprehensible to many of you, do know that a couple of years ago it would have been to me too. I can only encourage you to persevere. You can develop an ability to pretty well understand this stuff. Yes, consult a doctor (hopefully one like new-doc Robert), but go in knowing and understanding what you're talking about. If a doctor is ever offended by your accumulated knowledge and insistence on questions and clear explanations, you need to find a new one.

• LDL size correlated negatively with plasma triglycerides: higher Trigs = smaller LDL particles (bad)
• ...and positively with HDL cholesterol: lower HDL = smaller LDL particles (bad)
• However, an inverse correlation between the TG–to–HDL cholesterol molar ratio and LDL size was even stronger: the ratio is even more important, i.e., the higher the ratio, the smaller (badder) the LDL particles. Stunningly striking: 90% of those with small dense LDL (bad bad bad) had a Trig/HDL ratio greater than 1.33.

So, what's an average Trig/HDL ratio? I don't have time to look up averages and verify sources, but let's just assume an "on the edge" level for both Trigs (150) and HDL (40). 

That's a whopping ratio of 3.75, well above that 1.33 "cutoff"!!! So, if you present to your medical professional with better-than-"normal" triglycerides of 149 and HDLs of 41, he's going to give you a big high 5, and tell you you're on the right track. He's probably not going to even measure your C-reactive protein to determine inflammation markers, nor your Lipoprotein(a), or even homocysteine. And Tim? Before his transformation? Even with a very moderate Trig level by "normal" standards, he had a ratio of 1.8, well over that 1.33 "cutoff" between likely (with 90% confidence) small dense LDL and large fluffy. And now, at .4? Fergettaboutit. He's going to have an NMR per a subsequent email, but I can already tell you what it's going to show.

[Late edit: Note that as commenter below, GoEd, has correctly pointed out, that 1.33 ratio is based on European units for Trigs and cholesterol, i.e., mmol/l instead of mg/dl. That would all be fine and good, but Trigs and cholesterol convert differently. Dumb mistake, as I've made these conversions a number of times. So, at any rate, the ratio for Trigs and cholesterol based upon mg/dl is about 3.0, not 1.33. So, still, our example of a "normal, excellent" profile at a ratio of 3.75 is still well above the cutoff, albeit not quite as dramatically as I first implied.]

Though it is probably achievable to have a a small percentage of small LDL on a standard diet, I'm far more certain that it's going to be far easier accomplishing it on a paleo-like diet.

By the way, my lipid panels over the last year are here and here, my last with HDLs of 133. Yes: 133.

Afterthought: Tim has VLDL measurements, and the only thing I know is that lower is better. However, I've no idea how they are measured, how reliable they are as a marker, or any relevant studies. If an astute reader can educate me and the rest of us, please do so -- with my sincere gratitude.

Unbridled Reductionism vs. Common Sense

I get lots of interesting questions. For instance, the other day I was in the 40F deg. cold plunge at San Jose Athletic Club -- a mere 5-minute walk from the loft -- and while coming up on the minute mark and my intended time to get out, another guy got in and asked if I hadn't lost quite a bit of weight.

I ended up staying in and chatting for over five minutes about things Primal, Paleo, and "Ev-Revolutionary," not feeling a bit cold.

But the questions were remarkable, in that he could see the transformation in front of his very eyes -- which meant he also had no reason to doubt my performance gains in the gym either (and he could just go ask my trainer, Mike, anyway). But I guess they had to come...

Fasting? Doesn't that "harm your metabolism?"
Answer by question: does it harm the metabolisms of wild animals if they don't always get their kill?...

"Skipping" breakfast? Don't you have to "fuel" the body for the day?
Answer by question: are you saying that I should eat when I'm not hungry, and, do you observe wild animals eating that way?... 

"Only" two meals per day, usually? Don't you need to keep your "nitrogen balance" up so that you don't waste lean tissue?
Answer by question: do wild animals save up their kills and forages in order to divide into six annoying little meals per day?...

No cardio? Don't you have to get your heart rate up into the "fat burning zone?"
Answer by question: do you see wild animals on treadmills or in any way behaving as though they would have the remotest use for one?

Of course, this could go on and on, but hopefully you see the underlying principle at work. Principles save time, folks, because once you see them vindicated over and over, you can gradually raise the bar, over time, such that the burden of proof becomes greater, and you can dismiss out of hand propositions that clearly violate the principle.

I do this a lot, lately. There's so much out there now that is the product of unbridled reductionism in the service of bias confirmation; i.e., The Conventional Wisdom. So, for example, we can easily understand from an almost obvious, self-evident (a priori) point of view that it would be entirely logical for nature to have evolved very complex pathways in many species, including humans, that provide for essential nourishment from the body's own tissues when needed. Everyone talks about "fat burning," but the body can also burn lean tissue (for protein), and even bone (for calcium and perhaps other essential minerals).

But now, since we've been subjected to the conventional "wisdom" for decades that fat is the greatest nutritional evil, everyone is obsessed about "burning fat," "preserving lean tissue," and even, now, preserving bones from leaching minerals. Of course, no one seems to stop to ponder why they aren't afraid of releasing all that arterycloggingsaturatedfat into their bloodstream when they get into the "fat burning range."

So what happens? Reductionism happens, which, on its face is a worthwhile endeavor: "an approach to understand the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things" (Wikipedia) That's a good method generally, but then there's the unbridled sort of reductionism where a complex, integrated, and logical view of a system is set aside while sweeping cautions are leveled against perfectly normal behavior that we observe in nature all the time, like not getting three squares per day, not eating when hungry, not eating every two - three waking hours, and not running on treadmills or in circles.

Here's an example that's a little different from the above, which focuses primarily on fat burning and an obsessive fear with metabolizing even the slightest gram of lean body mass. I received this very respectful question in email from a reader.

I'd like to preface this by stating that I'm very grateful for the information that people like you and Mark Sisson freely provide to those who are trying to live and eat in a healthy, natural manner.

My question is concerning the fact that Vitamin K2 protects against osteoporosis. You stated that things like animal fats and lean meats are good sources of K2. Since K2 protects against osteoporosis, then it's logical to say that increased meat consumption would preclude bone breakdown; however, I have also read other literature stating that a high protein diet -- such as a diet high in meat content -- would also cause the blood pH to be in a persistent, subclinically acidotic state. The thinking is that this would cause leeching of calcium from the bones, which leads to calciuria and decreased bone mineral density.

I'm thinking that there is a gap in knowledge with respect to the latter point, but can you explain the logical disconnect between the two?

Well I must say that reader Sun hit the nail on the head: logical disconnect. Now, without knowing anything else, does it make any sense that one pathway to good health is also the pathway to decline? I touched on this in my Vitamin K2 entry the other day:

So we're in a sort of bizarre estoppel situation, where they're now finding important nutritional benefits for preventing and reversing heart disease, and these super nutrients are found primarily in the things we've been told will give us heart disease. A perfect storm of modern ignorance.

And digging through the medical literature can become even more confusing, and these are just things I got today, only one of which I explicitly searched for:

Maybe vitamin K increases bone mineral density (BMD) in some people.

Or, maybe it doesn't.

Or, maybe vitamin D is also critical, synergistic.

Or, maybe what's really important is the actual end fracture risk, not bone density, implying the logical, that BD is not the only factor in fractures.

It's enough to make your head spin. Now, here's one I specifically went searching for, but really, only as a means of showing you that the fundamental logic, the Paleo Principle, is sound. Of course, eating meat in abundance is great and essential for your bones, just as one would think from merely looking around and observing nature.

Nutrition plays a major role in the development and maintenance of bone structures resistant to usual mechanical loadings. In addition to calcium in the presence of an adequate vitamin D supply, proteins represent a key nutrient for bone health, and thereby in the prevention of osteoporosis. In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution. This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures. The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological "cascade" that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health. Thus, selective deficiency in dietary proteins causes marked deterioration in bone mass, micro architecture and strength, the hallmark of osteoporosis. In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay. In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures. As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.

Now, did you catch the unbridled reductionism in the above? "This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures."

It's all so unnecessary.

Vitamin D and Soap

I've had this one hanging around for days and since I'm on a roll just now, and just got a question about D, here goes. I'm not going to dig up the many past posts, but you can find most of them here, or simply search vitamin d to the right.

The short version is that vitamin D is crucial for a host of processes and modern life has come to the point of shielding humans from receiving the vitamin as nature and evolution intended. The things we already know about are clothing, shelter, working indoors and sunscreen that keep us from the D we need. But here's another: soap. Yep, all you clean freaks: you're washing your vitamin D off before it gets absorbed.

It was an interesting discovery for me, as it has been a very long time since I've put soap to anything but hair, face, armpits and groin. I never use lotions or creams and I have wonderfully soft skin. Maybe that's one reason for my high levels of D, along with supplementation, of course (now 4k IU per day instead of 6, since I get sun about 4 times per week).

So, here's Dr. Mercola to explain, with a video and a write up.

I must say that I disagree with his hierarchy of the most preferred way to get D. I think you need to get tested and that your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels ought to be above 60 ng/ml. Unless you're living at a low latitude, I don't see how you're going to get that from sun exposure, at least year round. Tanning panels or beds are very expensive, and they strike me as rather like the treadmill in terms of eventual boring drudgery and something that ends up sitting in your house just taking up space. Supplementation is inexpensive, takes no time, is safe, and in the gelcap form is proven to get levels of D where they ought to be.

Poison Sugar - In Shocking Pictures

I do a fair amount of harping about processed foods, focussing a lot on grains and frankenoils and such. I should talk more about what I consider to be the number one killer in all the world: sugar, especially refined sugar and concentrated forms.

Now, let me show you why. But first, how much sugar is circulating in your entire body at any one time? Let's say you have ideal fasting blood glucose (80 milligrams per deciliter -- mg/dl). For an average sized person with a blood volume of 5 liters, that comes out to...ready for this?...ONE 4 gram SUGAR CUBE. Skeptical? Well, let Dr. Michael Eades convince you.

Now, at an average consumption of 156 pounds per American per year, "only" 29 pounds of that is from the sugar bowl. The rest is added sugar in the products most Americans are eating. How much is that? Well, here's what 4,373 of them look like.

At 4 grams each (remember, that's the total volume of sugar in a fasted, healthy person), that block is 17,492 grams, or only 38 pounds (it's actually hollow). That's only 10 pounds more than what the average person gets from the sugar bowl. So, how many sugar cubes does the average American consume, per year? How about 17,690 sugar cubes, meaning that the Average American consumes over seventeen thousand times their normal fasted blood sugar in the space of the year. That means they consume 49 times their blood sugar every day and if they're awake for 16 hours, that's 3 times per waking hour. If we look at it in terms of three meals and two snacks, that's 10 times normal blood sugar per meal or snack.

And it's a mystery to everyone why health is so messed up, consuming that quantity of something that was never in our diets in any quantity before 100 years ago? Instead, we hear endless calls from expert-morons that we need to cut the fat, something that has been part of our diet in significant quantity for eons. Frankly, I'm amazed the problems aren't far worse. What a resilient organ, that pancreas.

So, how do we get so much sugar? Here's how, right here: Sugar Stacks. Keep in mind as you browse through the many illustrations, that each sugar cube represents total blood glucose volume (4 grams) in a healthy fasted individual.

So, one can of cola, 9 times normal blood sugar.

Be sure to get LOW- FAT ice cream. Don't worry that a scoop is five times normal blood sugar.

Uh oh! I think Mrs. Fields uses REAL BUTTER in her cookies. Run away!

Tell me you've never downed a whole bag of these. And how about the movie theater king sized ones?

The HEALTHY LOW-FAT alternative!

Stick with the berries, paleo people!

And veggies!

At nearly 14 times normal blood sugar. Caution: don't get it with the arterycloggingstaturatedfat butter melted on top. That's unhealthy!

At nearly 28 times normal blood sugar, I sure hope they don't use real FULL-FAT CREAM in these. That would really be a lot of FAT!

So, be sure to look at all the pictures over at Sugar Stack, bookmark it and pass it along to family and friends, and pass around this entry as well. Most people have no clue about the massive amounts of sugar they are eating.

And keep another thing in mind: this is based upon average consumption of 155 pounds of sugar per person per year. There are plenty of individuals consuming over 250 pounds per year.

How's This For Stupid?

As I reported a while back, my mom, a Type 2 diabetic on insulin injections for years, has gotten off them as a result of a grain free, very low carbohydrate diet (duh, that's how they all do it, in contradiction to the advice of the American Diabetes Association, that seems intent on keeping people on these medications). I will add that, as you can see from her own story, linked above, this happened when she began following my dietary advice in blatant, explicit, in-your-face, doc, contradiction to the "medical" authorities. Is that a general qualification in my case? No, absolutely not. But most doctors know shit-all about diet, nutrition, and metabolism. They know drugs.

She has stayed off them and her blood glucose readings have stayed below 95. She's still on Metformin, an oral medication, but so far, so good.

However, she has been having problems with nausea and vomiting every morning when she gets up. She's going to see her doctor about that tomorrow morning. But here's an interesting datapoint: last weekend she went camping for four days, forget all medications, and felt great, with no nausea at all. Gets back, gets on the meds again, and guess what?

Anyway, she calls to set up her appointment this morning and has to go through the advice nurse, first. Nurse is not aware that mom has unilaterally gone off insulin and mom doesn't volunteer that info. Instead, says she has "reduced it" steadily (yea: to zero, now!).

Care to guess what "advice" mom gets, keeping in mind that she has kept her BG below 95 consistently? She's told to stop the Metformin between now and tomorrow's appointment. Good. Guess what else? "Eat 15-20 grams of carbohydrate every two hours. As long as your blood glucose says below 240 [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] keep eating the carbohydrates."

Am I crazy, or is Big Medical out to kill their patients?

Oh, also, and I hadn't know this, but they had mom on a Statin for total C of 220, in spite of the fact that no study has yet to show any benefit to women on statins, while some have demonstrated a weak association with increased mortality.

She was smart enough to stop the statin some time ago.

Saturated Fat and Heart Disease Deaths

Ricardo Carvalho, whose great database work I highlighted yesterday, just emailed me another graph. The latest saturated fat data he could find was from 1998, but see if you can find any correlation.

It's all over the map. If you had to draw a trend, however, how would it look? I'd probably start it from the left at the 120 and finish off to the right at about 80, i.e., more saturated fat associated with less CHD mortality.

Update 3/30/2009: Physicist Robert McLeod took the tabular data I provided and did a fit in MATLAB. The punchline is that there's only a 1% chance of the slope being positive (more saturated fat correlated with more CHD deaths) and a 99% chance the slope is negative (more saturated fat correlated with fewer CHD deaths).

Interesting how, once again, the French thumb their noses at the rest of the world. Red wine? Gimmeabreak. I lived there, and most people have no idea how much animal fat most of them eat. From their fat-heavy sauses to their fatty charcuterie and pâté, to their sweet butter and many fine cheeses. I've remarked before about the difference between how Americans eat cheese and how the French do it. In America, I see people taking a whole slice of bread (or a cracker) and thinly spreading cheese on it. In France, you take a small bit of crust and pile a huge mound of cheese on it. And that's often not all. Many French first put a big pat of sweet butted on, and then the cheese. Like this; tiny piece of cracker, big butter, and big cheese:

Yea, I ate it. It was in the interest of science. Frankly, I think the "French Paradox" has a lot more to do with getting a healthy dose of K2 in their diets from all the organ meats they frequently eat (tripe, kidney, liver), as well as the butter and cheese.

Low Cholesterol to "Die For"

I was having an email exchange with my aunt the other day who was lamenting how her husband's doctor told him that his total cholesterol of 117 (!) is one that most people would "die for." Maybe he's right, as we'll see in a minute; but first, I should point out that George is in his late 80's. So, always be careful about assigning causes to correlations. Correlations are great things, but the best way to regard them is as falsification (disproof) of hypothesized causation.

Reader and commenter on this blog, Ricardo, and blogger in his own right at Canibais e Reis has done something truly amazing (and has surely put Ancel Keys in short pants). Lots of this is going to go over the heads of most people, including myself, but I'm quite confident a number of math and health whizzes will be on this project in short order.

Ricardo has essentially combined data from the following sources into a single database anyone can access:

• UN Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Yearbook
• FAOSTAT food consumption database
• British Heart Foundation Health Statistics database
• World Health Organization Global Health Atlas

In the end, he had data on 170 countries, which he eventually narrowed to 86 countries in order to get a complete data set for all available parameters. You can read about the whole thing right here. This just scratches the surface of what can be done, but here's a couple of examples. How about death in men from heart disease against total cholesterol? (click here for full size).

While the correlation isn't great, it is interesting to note that the lowest heart disease mortality is associated with total cholesterol of 200-220 for quite a group of countries. And do note the saturated fat junkie French right down there at the bottom, edged out only slightly by the Japanese.

Now let's look at life expectancy for women from birth against total cholesterol (click here for full size).

Here, the correlation is much stronger and shows unmistakably an association between higher total cholesterol levels and longevity for women. Interestingly, it looks again like total cholesterol of 200-220 seems to be the sweet spot.

So, guys & gals, how much do you want to "die for" low cholesterol?

Let me stress and reiterate, however. This does not prove or suggest that higher cholesterol causes longevity or reduced mortality from heart disease. Nor does it prove that low cholesterol causes decreased longevity or increased mortality from heart disease. What it does do is prove that "high cholesterol" does not cause more death from heart attack or decreased longevity and it proves that "low cholesterol" does not cause less death from heart attack or increased longevity.

Finally, it proves that every single person, worldwide, out there touting "low cholesterol" is an abject ignoramus. That means we're probably talking about more than 95% of physicians, including your own.

Here's a good primer on the cholesterol con from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, which I blogged a bit over a year ago.

My High HDL "Secret"

For reference, see the last post about my 133 (mg/dL) HDL.

Fat is King. More particularly: saturated fat. Now, how do you get that? Well, you can eat a lot of fatty beef, chicken skin, and so on, but only about 30-40% or so is saturated (15% saturated from olive oil). Or, you can get it very efficiently by eating all that, but by also dipping, slathering and generally enjoying the hell out of your life with sauces. I'm an absolute fiend for sauces. Even, now, with grilled meats.

Gotta have a sauce. Mine are all home made, and they are almost all based on: coconut milk. It's more efficient in saturated fat delivery -- far more so -- than even heavy cream. Let's take a look; the average can of full-fat coconut milk being 14 ounces. Here's nutfacts for 8 ounces, a little more than half, which is an average amount I'd use to thicken or base a sauce for 2-4 people (unless it's a Thai curry, in which case I might use two full cans, four times the amount below -- so go ahead and have your heart attack now):

Holy shit, Batman! 88% of the damn thing is fat, and of those 57 grams in a cup, 51 grams, or 90%, is "ARTERY-CLOGGING SATURATED FAT!!!" Yep, God is trying to kill you, seeing as how coconut is a staple food for a number of (heart healthy) populations.

Modern ignorance (and moronity).

Here's a characteristic dish from a couple of mights ago which I'll call Indian / Thai / Polish.

In all my time in Asia, it never escaped my attention -- even in the 80s -- that Thais generally have wonderful body composition and Indians generally have lousy body composition. Well, they both eat lots of hot curries. The difference? Indian curries are water based. Thai? Coconut milk based, not only making them way easier to prepare, as they require very little reduction for a nice thick sauce, but wonderfully creamy on the palette (though HOT!).

On the other hand, I generally like the complexity and variety of Indian curries over Thai curries. The solution? Use coconut milk in your Indian curries, and use whatever the hell meat you want. (The coconut milk) Doesn't change the flavor a lick, so far as I can tell, though I'm sure some would disagree. Fine. I'm fine and know what I'm doing. In fact: it's a wonderful discovery.

The other part is that I don't do nan, the Indian bread (amongst many others you can have) that goes along with most curries, in addition to the rice. I don't think Thais do that, at least not that I've seen. Don't get me wrong: love nan; I can eat a whole lot (prior to the nuclear heartburn I used to get every time -- now none -- regardless of how spicy).

I do often cook up a bit of Basmati or Jasmine rice. Two to three heaping tablespoons will do it. Eat it with a tablespoon (as the Thais do). This introduces sauce and a spot of rice (if you're adding a starch) to each bite.

I do this a lot, and more and more. By the way, that's an Indian lamb curry paste (they have a dozen different curries for everything) with some water (it called for 2 cups, but that was to simmer and braise the lamb -- the polish is already cooked). To that I added probably half a can of coconut milk and a good teaspoon of cayenne to boost the heat several notches. There's uncured Polish and an Onion.

Save your leftovers and toss a couple of eggs on them in the morning. Seriously.

A Tale of Two Mayo Clinic Dietician Morons

You've really got to love the Internet.

Another thing I love is watching establishment, authoritarian "experts" -- who fake a livelihood and self-esteem regurgitating the party line -- get it right in the teeth.

That's what happened to these two dumbshits, Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D. in this post ("For those with diabetes — there's more to it than carbs"). I'm not even going to quote any of it because it's just so dumb. 1+1=3 dumb; that's how dumb.

But luckily, as of right now, 31 out of 33 commenters -- most of whom are T2 diabetics or successfully treat T2 diabetics -- have given the two morons a rash of real nice kicks in the teeth. Here was one of my favorite comments, by Debbie (of the two comments that were not kicks in the teeth, one was a question and another was a comment by the author of the post):

This is the sort of article which helps reinforce the truth of the comment my son frequently makes: "If you want to understand human nutrition *never* ask a dietician or a nutritionist, ask a biochemist". I'm a T2 diabetic and thank God I'm pretty internet-savvy. Thus I know full well that a diet that is 45% carbs is a true "killer" diet for diabetics. Any diabetic who researches the issue knows that a real low carb diet is the best hope for longevity. I try to keep carbs at about 5% of my total caloric intake, sometimes up to 10% but *never* higher than that! Higher would send my blood sugars spiraling out of control. But my numbers are all good. I eat plenty of saturated fats too, since I feel quite sure it is not a demon. Not that I eat fat indiscriminately. I avoid trans fats, and polyunsaturated vegetable fats. But I eat my share of dairy fat, animal fat, coconut oil, and monos like olive oil. My typical diet is 70% fat, 5% carb, 25% protein. It's easy to maintain, makes me feel incredible. So far I've lost 70 pounds, and all my numbers are much better. But I pity the poor diabetic who does not have access to the internet. They are the ones likely to lose their limbs, their eyesight, etc. I used to respect the Mayo Clinic as a dispenser of medical information, but after reading this I realize I can't trust a word written here either!

It gets better. A few days later (Feb 3), they published a follow-up moronic post that essentially said the same stupid things. So far, about 12 of 14 comments are good teeth kicks, while a couple of diabetics are recommending going on a pea brain-diet (vegetarian). I particularly liked this comment by Mary Kolk, who literally saved her husband's life from the dietitians and medical doctors doing their level best to kill him -- and those dietitians and medical doctors very nearly succeeded in killing him, by Mary's account.

You have got to be kidding me! You need to read Dr. Richard Bernstein's book, "Diabetes Solutions Third Edition" It is amazing how the medical community refuses to acknowledge tremendus benefits of eating a low carbohydrate diet. My husband is a type 2 diabetic for over 25 years. He had severe neuropathy in both feet and could not walk over 75 to 100 feet at any one time. He was eventually put on insulin after the doctor felt there was nothing more he could do for him. Beginning at 5 units a night, a year later he was on 43 units a night. His weight ballooned to 280 pounds. He was depressed and I told my kids that in 6 months I would be pushing dad around in a wheelchair. About 7 years ago I read Dr. Bernstein's book. I read that book and realized it was all about my husband. Six years ago, my husband accepted responsibility for the diabetes, went on a program of low carb and exercise this was the result: he lost 80 pounds in 9 months, his HA1c fell to 6.5 from 11, he goes to the gym 3 times a week and walks 2 miles each time. He came off of insulin about 3 months after beginning this program and his doctor takes him OFF of meds each time he sees him. He has not had insulin in 6 years! He feels wonderful, he looks wonderful and he is wonderful. He was literally dying in front of my eyes - seeing his doctor faithfully and following what his doctors told him to do. And he was dying slowly. He is now fully alive and well. His HDL is great.

(HT: Doc Eades)

Just Go Ahead And Wait For "Public Policy"

I had to laugh.

The National Institutes of Health awarded Creighton University $4 million to continue its landmark study linking vitamin D to a reduction in cancer risk. The study’s findings, reported in June 2007, showed for the first time in a clinical trial that postmenopausal women consuming optimal amounts of calcium supplements, as well as vitamin D3 supplements at nearly three times U.S. government recommended levels, could reduce their risk of cancer by 60 to 77 percent.

“The vitamin D3 finding was a secondary goal in the original study,” said Creighton researcher Joan Lappe, Ph.D. “We must now confirm these findings with a clinical trial specifically designed to look at calcium, vitamin D and cancer. Confirmation is necessary in order to have evidence solid enough to change public policy regarding intake levels for vitamin D.” [...]

A total of 2,300 women will be recruited and followed for four years with half of the participants randomly assigned to take daily supplements containing 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and 1,200 mg of calcium; the second group will receive placebos. (emphasis added)

There you go. Something that's intuitively pretty obvious (that most plants and animals need sunlight for various metabolic and biochemical processes) needs to wait four years so that greater exposure to natural, life giving sun (and/or vitamin D supplementation at sufficient levels) can receive the blessings of the "authorities" -- you know, like the people that have been advocating low fat, high carbohydrate diets for the last two decades as obesity and diabetes skyrocket; those kinda guys.

Moreover, I'm not hopeful by any means that even when they do get around to revising recommended daily intake upwards that it will be anywhere near what would be needed to get someone's 25(OH)D levels into the 60-80 ng/ml range. Why 60-80? See here.

Then this, from a recent email newsletter from Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has quietly announced composition of the next vitamin D Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), a committee that will set recommendations for both adequate intake and upper limits well into the next decade. [...]

Unfortunately, the scientists who have led the vitamin D revolution for the last ten years are all excluded. The debarred include, but are not limited to, Drs. Vieth, Giovannucci, Garland, Hollis, Heaney, Wagner, Norman, Hankinson, Whitting, Hanley, etc.. For example, Dr Hollis actually wrote and received an FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) for vitamin D in 2003 that has allowed both him and many other investigators to perform vitamin D studies with doses well above the current upper limits. Why is he not on the committee? Dr. Vieth has performed many of the recent upper limit pharmacological dosing studies in humans. Why did the IOM exclude Dr. Vieth?

Then, of course, there's the utter embarrassment they call the American Academy of Dermatology and their recent ridiculous Position Statement on Vitamin D, which, to my gimlet eye, looks to be more of a position on full and continued employment for researchers and dermatologists.

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that an adequate amount of vitamin D should be obtained from a healthy diet that includes foods naturally rich in vitamin D, foods/beverages fortified with vitamin D, and/or vitamin D supplements; it should not be obtained from unprotected exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

What astounding modern arrogance driven by ignorance.

How about this: in lieu of publicly pelting the BoD of the Academy with rotten tomatoes, how about they explain why melanomas are rare in poor, equatorial countries where people don't use sunscreen and work out in the sun a lot, verses higher rates the farther north you go in the northern hemisphere, or south you go in the southern hemisphere, where there's inadequate sunlight, countries are richer, people work indoors, and everyone can afford to be duped into buying and slathering sunscreen?

In the meantime, I'll keep taking my daily dose of 6,000 units of vitamin D, 15 times the levels recommended by "the authorities."

Saturated Fat

Who eats the most of it? Think you know? Let's speculate first, based on heart disease death stats, by country.

So, if the "diet-heart hypothesis" were true in its general position on fats, and on saturated fats in particular, then ought we not see some significant correlation between saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease deaths?

That graph above coveres only the first 15, but there are 26 countries if you click the link above. Well, let me let the cat out of the bag and just tell you that the highest saturated fat intake isn't among the first 15. And guess what, it's not even on the list of 26 at all, which goes all the way down to 30 deaths per 100,000 people.

In the United States, average saturated fat intake is estimated at around 12% of total energy. Now, what if I told you there was a country where it's documented that the population derives about 50% of it's energy, not from just fat, but from saturated fat! That is, they get about 60% of total energy from fat, 50% of which is saturated.

And they're not even on the list. Note: I realize the list is likely recent stats and the island in question probably has a much more modern diet now. The list is merely for illustration and a bit of blog drama. So for the real serious data and analysis, Stephan has the goods.

There are two reasons why the Tokelau Island Migrant study is unique. First, it's one of the best-documented transitions from a traditional to a modern lifestyle, studied over decades on Tokelau and in New Zealand. Regular visits by physicians recorded the health of the population as it shifted from a relatively traditional diet to a more Western one. The second thing that makes this population unique is they traditionally have an extraordinarily high saturated fat intake from coconut. They derive between 54 and 62 percent of their calories from coconut, which is 87% saturated. This gives them perhaps the highest documented saturated fat intake in the world. This will be a test of the "diet-heart hypothesis", the idea that dietary fat, cholesterol and especially saturated fat contribute to cardiovascular disease!

And from another post in the series:

The Tokelau Island Migrant study isn't a perfect experiment, but it's about as close as we're going to get. Tokelauans traditionally obtained 40-50% of their calories from saturated fat, in the form of coconut meat. That's more than any other group I'm aware of, even topping the roughly 33% that the Masai get from their extremely fatty Zebu milk.

So are the Tokelauans dropping like flies of cardiovascular disease? I think most of the readers of this blog already know the answer to that question. I don't have access to the best data of all: actual heart attack incidence data. But we do have some telltale markers. In 1971-1982, researchers collected data from Tokelau and Tokelauan migrants to New Zealand on cholesterol levels, blood pressure and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings.

You can learn the results on Stephan's blog, but the punch-line is that the Tokelauans had ECG readings with 0.0% of men showing markers for a past heart attack, while substantial numbers of men in New Zealand -- where saturated fat intake is 50% less -- showed up with the markers.

Here's the thing, folks: falsification. For any hypothesis, you need but one observation that contradicts it, and you're done. For hypotheses like "saturated fat causes heart disease," every single hunter-gatherer and other non-industrial population that has been studied directly contradicts it. Game over.

So, Stephan does his typical marvelous job in sorting through all the relevant material, so why not go over and have a look.

• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Background and Overview
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Dental Health
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Health
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Weight Gain
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Diabetes
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Asthma
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Gout
• The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: The Final Word

Stephan told me in an email a couple of days ago that he's not done, yet. So, you might want to follow along by checking his blog regularly.

Oprah's Recipe For Failure -- And My Solution For Success

Well, she's done it again. If she even succeeds in getting the 40 or so pounds off she gained since her last failed "success," how long until we see another week-long series instructing hundreds of thousands of women on the path to weight loss and fitness failure, peppered with appearances by others who have failed?

My gosh, already. When is she going to fire that Bob Greene?

Alright, let's dig in a bit. First, watch the 5-minute video about how she's changing everything for this year, "Oprah's New Year, New Plan." I watch that, and I can find only about one thing right in the whole deal: time for herself on her own schedule. Duh!

The rest of it is a huge recipe for failure, misery, and probably both. Why is it ultimately destined for failure, for both her and anyone else? It's not sustainable. Hunger will always win in the end, and in the simplest terms possible: she and Greene have done everything possible to stimulate even more hunger and haven't done the things necessary to take hunger almost completely out of the equation. Most human beings would go stark raving mad on this regime -- from the awful diet to the boring, grueling workout schedule and routine grind.

Oprah: Sorry to say, but your new plan is dumb. What's more, You are sending thousands of women (and men) who look up to you as an authority down the same dismal road of repentance for past sins through boring, dry, unexciting food and daily assembly-line workout toil that will do little but make everyone even more bored, hungry, and quite possibly suicidal.

In short, this is a guaranteed failure zone for all but very few who are into punishing themselves endlessly. So here's the short list of everything that's wrong, along with what you need to do to get it right:

The Meal Plans

The meal plans are just awful. Filled with low-and-non-fat everything, completely lacking in variety, and just plain boring. If you click though the days of the week, it's endless egg whites, chicken breasts, salmon. Over and over. You should eat in a sustainable manner. About the only positive is that the food is mostly real food. 

The amount of protein looks close, more is better, and you need way more fat. Greene will tell you otherwise, but in my opinion he's making his living towing the party line; you know, the one where 65% of the American population is now fat or obese, and it's their fault, not that of the "authorities" and their puppet "experts" like Greene who continue to herald the low-fat catechism (since it's been so damn successful over the last 20 years & all).

And this 5-meal per day deal is total crap. How many omnivores in nature eat five times per day, regularly, like clockwork? You know what that's a recipe for? Obsession. Everything becomes about food and that next meal. You never give your system a break from the onslaught, insulin remains always elevated, the wham-bam that's going to keep you hungry and irritable.

The Exercise Plans

What you have here is a lot of low-impact, low-resistance, high-rep, boring stuff that's going to get you nowhere -- except that you plan to do it 6 days per week and give yourself a whole day off! Yippee!

We've got 30 minutes per day of low impact "cardio," and something you call "resistance training," but with weights so small that it pails in comparison to the "resistance training" you get daily anyway moving your own body around. And, you're going to do a body part per day? Yea, that's functional. Way to stimulate GH production there, Oprah. Looks like you're into light weight with lots of repetitions. It's wrong; it will get you nowhere.

In the end, just as with your diet, you are doing everything possible to stimulate more hunger, and sooner or later, you'll give into it. In total, if you're doing your "resistance training" for 30 minutes in addition to your cardio, then that's six hours spent per week getting, really, no more benefit that you could get just walking a hour per day outside, in nature.

A Better Plan -- The Anti-Greene Plan

I suppose I shouldn't pick on Bob so much. After all, who am I? Well, who I am is someone who has the luxury of being brutally honest. The root problem is that the whole weight loss industry is run like a religion. And, like a religion, operates by making you feel guilty for your own nature; and when you feel guilty, you are susceptible to all manner of suggestion (like purchasing ineffective products and services and punishing yourself with boring diets and hunger-inducing workouts).

You need to drop the guilt, first and foremost. You've been lied to. You've been told to eat in a manner and exercise in a manner that sets up hormonal cascades guaranteed to leave you forever ravenous. You can't even believe you've gained this weight, and why? Because you can look back and recall that you were hungry all the time. Weren't you?

Well, I'll leave original sin to the religious, but you are simply not responsible for feeling hungry, and you can hardly be expected, long term, to ignore and deny those feelings. Hunger always wins.

What you need is a proper diet that satisfies you, and you need an activity and exercise regimen that promotes the release of growth hormone. How to do?

1. Try to eat as much as a gram of protein per day per pound of body weight, so about 200 grams. That's a lot and 150 would probably be fine on the low end. Eat a variety of meats, fatty cuts too. Be intermittent, as though the food is seasonal, just like hunting. Protein is king for satiety. Eat as much protein as you want, as often as you want.
2. Eat more fat. In fact, 50% to 65% of your energy should be coming from fat, natural fat: lard, butter, tallow, schmalz, ghee, coconut oil, olive oil. Stay away from all others to reduce pro-inflammatory omega 6 fats, and take about 5 grams of fish oil per day in order to further get your omega 6 and 3 ratio to a natural, near 1:1 as possible (the average diet is 15:1 and higher of n-6 to n-3). Eat as much of these fats as you want, as often as you want.
3. Natural carbohydrate only: veggies, fruits, nuts. As much as you want of veggies (except potato), try to stick with berries for fruit as much as possible, and modestly. Keep it intermittent. No processed food at all. No neolithic foods like grains, corn, legumes, dairy. Cutting them out will reduce or eliminate many inflammatory markers.
4. Get lots of sleep. Sleep promotes GH release.
5. Eat 2-3 times per day on days you eat, or, eat once some days, three times others, two times still others, and nothing now and then. This models nature and begins turning on dormant genes that want to you be lean and young.
6. Begin rehabilitating your broken hunger mechanism with two fasts per week of 24-30 hours each: water, or unsweetened coffee or tea only. Once you get used to this (3-4 fasts), then arrange it so you're doing your workout at at least 22 hours into the fast. Do animals hunt on full bellies? Don't eat until at least an hour after completing a workout. Fasting also promotes GH release. So does high-intensity activity. Working out fasted tips the balance in your favor.
7. Don't use any artificial sweeteners or eat anything with artificial sweeteners. Abstaining from them for a time will reset your taste to a natural one. Before refined sugar and selective breeding of very sweet fruits, sweetness was not something we got in nature that much. Constantly subjecting your body to it has adverse effects and can actually cause an insulin response even if there's no calories to digest.
8. Drop the cardio completely (walk outside if you like, as much as you want) and then do full-body resistance workouts twice per week, 30 minutes each, and you go all in every time. Intensity is the key. For an hour per week 2 X 30, you can get intense. Six hours, you're not going to be intense and it's not going to do you any good at all -- it will probably hurt, i.e., chronic cardio.
9. This will take a while to figure out, but you want to select a weight for each exercise that you could maybe do 12-15 reps, then do three sets of 8-10 reps (or whatever you can get on the 3rd). Don't rest in-between sets very much. Do 2-3 exercises at once so you can move from set to set to set.
10. Do full body every time, and focus on legs, chest, back, and shoulders. Forget arms and abs. These others, especially legs, are the bigger muscles that will stimulate GH release when loaded significantly. Do legs a lot. Lot's of squats, presses, lunges. Keep it all very intense.

And there you have it: ten simple, fun, natural, sustainable-for-life steps that will work for good, guaranteed. I have my own results to prove it (including excellent blood work -- case you're wondering about all the fat), heart scan shows little risk for heart disease for a 47 year old, and many others have attained lasting success through these methods.

Melanoma, Sun, and Its Synthetic Defeat (Sunscreen)

As per the last post, this is courtesy of GrassrootsHealth. The particular presentation I'm highlighting is Skin Cancer / Sunscreen -- the Dilema, by Edward D. Gorham, Ph.D., Frank C. Garland, Ph.D., Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H. and Sharif B. Mohr, M.P.H.

Let's jump right in with some graphical highlights.

Melanoma has been getting worse and worse, where? Indonesia? Brazil? Cuba? How about Tunisia -- all places pretty close to the equator where the sun is powerful all the year long. Bzzzzt. Norway.