• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Book
  • Amazon
  • Cabo Rental
  • Projects…
    • The Inuit were never in Ketosis
    • The Manifesto
    • Gut Health
    • Elixa Probiotic
    • Resistant Starch
  • Archive

Free The Animal

Ex Navy Officer. Owner of Businesses. Digital Entrepreneur. Expat Living in Thailand. 5,000 Biting Blog Post on Everything since 2003.

You are here: Home / Archives for 2008

Archives for 2008

The Look of Success

December 27, 2008 8 Comments

How would you react if, instead of asking for a handout, the next bum you see — smelly and dressed in rags — approaches you and offers to be your "success coach" for a fee?

Have you pondered anything quite so absurd in a while?

Coronary heart disease prevention and reversal specialist, Dr. William Davis, wonders why it is, then, that people tolerate the advice of fat and even obese dietitians, who perhaps number in the thousands in hospitals and clinics around the country.

When I go to the hospital, I am continually amazed at some of the hospital staff: 5 ft 4 inch nurses weighing over 200 lbs, etc.

But what I find particularly bothersome are some (not all) hospital dietitians – presumably experts at the day-to-day of healthy eating — who waddle through the halls, easily 40, 50, or more pounds overweight. It is, to say the least, credibility-challenging for an obese dietitian to be providing nutritional advice to men or women recovering after bypass or stent while clearly not in command of nutritional health herself.

I note the same thing in general, both when visiting a hospital and daily around a large medical clinic less that a block from our residence. In fact, it is quite rare to see any lean person going in or out of that building, scrubs or "civvies."

Dr. Davis thinks they're by and large following the standard dietary advice. Perhaps they are, perhaps not, but here's the thing: "frankenfood" manufacturers have become ruthlessly clever, and that goes even beyond the political clout they and grain growers enjoy. Low fat is good? Food manufacturers deliver. They line the shelves with products that are low in fat, but high in sugar. Whole grains are healthy? They line the shelves with appealing — to many — products based on grains, and bonus: low in fat. Butter is bad? They give you margarine, for decades. Oops… Trans fats, now universally recognized as poisson. Alright, so now let's create a whole new line of synthetic "spreads" based on vegetable oils — formerly used as industrial machinery lubricants — extracted by heat and petroleum solvents that have to be deodorized to eat. Perhaps it won't take another four decades to determine that those are as bad or worse than the margarine they replaced. And what will they think of next?

Sadly, the "healthy, whole grain" message also contributes to heart disease via drop in HDL, increased triglycerides, a huge surge in small LDL, rise in blood sugar, increased resistance to insulin, tummy fat, and diabetes. Yes, the diet provided to survivors of heart attack increases risk.

The "healthy, whole grain" message also enjoys apparent "validation" through the enormous proliferation of commercial products cleverly disguised as healthy: Cheerios, Raisin Bran, whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, etc. The "healthy, whole grain" message, while a health disaster, is undoubtedly a commercial success.

I'll bet that our fat dietitian friend enjoys a breakfast of healthy, whole grains in skim milk, followed by a lunch of low-fat chicken breast on two slices of whole grain bread, and ends her day with a healthy meal of whole wheat pasta. She then ascribes her continually climbing weight and size 16 figure to slow metabolism, lack of exercise, or the once-a-week piece of chocolate.

Wheat has no role in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque control and reversal. In fact, my personal view is that wheat has no role in the human diet whatsoever.

Dr. Davis, a cardiologist who used to make a lot of money doing stents, angioplasties and other lucrative cardiac procedures gave that al up and now partially subsidizes a heroic and revolutionary program to detect, prevent, and even reverse heart disease. You don't have to take his ideas seriously, but you very well may live the consequences of them nonetheless.

He offers a list of relevant posts that I highly recommend reading.

  • What's worse than sugar?
  • The Wheat-Deficiency Syndrome
  • Nutritional approaches: Large vs. Small LDL
  • Are you wheat-free?

That last link has a bunch of testimonials, so if any of this sounds insane or unbelievable to you, you'll want to have a look at what people who've done it have experienced.

Filed Under: General

Vitamin Supplements – Part Two

December 26, 2008 7 Comments

This is part two of a three to perhaps four part series on vitamin supplementation. Click here to access Part One.

I'm going to go off track here and diverge a bit, because I'm left unsatisfied in all of these discussions of vitamin supplementation, as well as the fact that I note that a lot of the people encouraging supplementation are also part of the general "paleo Diet" movement, loosely defined. I suppose that what gives me the most heartburn — more so than taking unnecessary supplements — is the sort of unthinking, uncritical submission to authority that's often packaged with it, as though taking supplements is some sort of prima facie good, with the only question being quality.

The first thing that ought to jump out at any paleo adherent is that all of these studies are being performed on people eating Neolithic (post-agricultural) diets, not Paleolithic (pre-agricultural) diets and their close facsimiles (saturated / unsaturated fat ratios, presence of dairy, acidic / basic, and so on). How in the world can we possibly know that supplementation is beneficial when we're already getting 100-300% higher nutrition (I'll develop this specifically in Pt 3) already than the people these studies are based upon, and which seem to show no real benefit (and sometimes harm)?

The second thing is that — duh! — vitamin supplements aren't paleo, which is shorthand for the recognition that Paleolithic people didn't use supplements of any kind — they got all they need from food. Moreover, archaeological evidence, as well as close, multi-year (even multi-decade) observations of modern hunter-gatherers, non-industrial peoples and pastoralists going back perhaps 150 years and more suggest that these peoples enjoyed good health, absent what we paleo types refer to as "diseases of civilization."

Logically, this ought to be no surprise. Go observe any animal in the wild you care to observe, and provided that its environment is suitable to its needs — i.e., hasn't been ravaged by fire, flood, or other natural or man-made disturbance — they live in perfect, optimal, evolutionarily designed health, which is to say that they live up to the niche they occupy in the evolution of species. Every wild animal is 100% responsible and accountable for its own survival and they do a fantastic job of it.

We evolved to become the rational animal. It was an impressive jump, so impressive that we tend to regard primitives both past and present with some degree of disdain — as though somehow grossly inferior, savage, ignorant, and part of a reality which rules don't really apply to us. They do, and in terms of biology, they all do. And this is why hunter-gatherers are and have been measurably healthier and stronger — even taller — than us. Here's an analog for you: even domestic dogs that are as close to the wolf as you can get are no match in terms of health and fitness (dogs are direct genetic descendants of the wolf).

In reality, we have become just like our own pet dogs. Most of them would be completely ill-equipped to survive in the wild on their own and would surely perish in short order. I would venture to say that the same goes for most modern human beings. While division of labor is a marvelous thing ("even" hunter-gatherers understood this), I think that there's a point where "division of knowledge" becomes an enormous liability on an individual level. Tell you what: go take in a few episodes of Man vs. Wild, and estimate how you'd fare.

So, am I saying that you ought to go back to being a hunter-gatherer — to spend the requisite decades it would likely take to integrate all the passed-down wisdom of what keeps you alive, healthy and thriving, vs. what kills you? No, I'm saying that you ought to understand the distinction as plainly as possible, gain and develop as much knowledge as you can, and stop defaulting to the authority of others on all matters. We all learn from one-another, but we ought to do so in a context of criticism and questioning. And, in case you haven't noticed, that's not allowed by the Neolithic invention of the State and its collectivism (pushing out Paleolithic individualism); nor by State-protected-promoted "big business;" nor by the State's principal ideological bedfellows: big religion, big activism, big education, and big media.

One way or another, you're trained from the day you say your first word to pick your authorities and follow them blindly for the rest of your life. I say: STOP IT! This is the root Neolithic invention that has destroyed modern health for so many. In a sense, the wonderful development of human consciousness has been traded in for science, technology, and wealth. It's no trade. Without genuine consciousness, which necessarily implies personal authority, accountability, and responsibility (individualism), we're lost. A sense of conscience and ethics is foundational and prerequisite to a thriving humanity. Then, let's go conquer the world and on to the universe (in knowledge, technology, and wise control — to the benefit of our rational needs and desires).

And, now, here you are, with me preaching to the choir, because you're already here. Perhaps, for some of you, it's to have me tell you what to do or point you to someone who will. But ultimately, you're at a blog where criticism and questioning are encouraged, where you're admonished to take in other information, much of which equally welcomes criticism and questioning, and then to take responsibility, to continually expand and grow your knowledge, and to hopefully go out and cast a light in the darkness for others.

In part three I'll get back to the less philosophical specifics of why I think vitamin supplementation is likely unnecessary and potentially harmful, along with specific qualifications and why. I'll also tell you specifically what and when I personally supplement with, and why.

Vitamin Supplements – Part Three

Filed Under: General Tagged With: vitamin d

All Diets Are High-Fat Diets

December 25, 2008 23 Comments

While driving down to the in-laws to spend the holidays, we listened to several of Jimmy Moore's podcast shows and one of them was a two-part Q&A with Dr. Mary C. Vernon, a physician who treats diabetes and other ailments by putting her patients on a low-carb diet.

At one point, she pointed out that all diets (presuming fat loss is the objective) are high fat diets.

Get it?

Let's say you have 50 pounds of excess fat you'd like to lose in order to get down to around 15% body fat or thereabouts. Assuming you'll be successful, what does that imply? It means, necessarily, that you're going to metabolize 50 pounds of your own fat in order to accomplish your objective. So, even if you do this by means of a "low-fat" diet, it's still high-fat, as you've got 50 pounds or 175,000 calories worth of fat to burn through. If you do it in six months, that's almost 1,000 calories of fat per day. Presuming a basal metabolism of 2,500 calories, and what you do eat is 20% fat (a "low-fat diet"), then you'd be eating 300 calories of fat and 1,200 calories of protein and carbs combined, for a total consumption of 1,500 calories. The remaining 1,000 would be coming from your own fat, released into your bloodstream and metabolized. Out of the total 2,500, 1,300, or about 50%, are calories from fat, and so:

All diets are high-fat diets. Now do you get it?

A couple of things to note is that, one, "experts" are full of it when they heckle low-carb on the basis that it's the spontaneous reduction in caloric intake that's responsible for success on low-carb. In essence, they're talking, pretending to make a point, but aren't saying anything. When you lose weight, fat doesn't just disappear, it gets "burned" and counts toward your caloric expenditure (if not your actual intake). Second, it's even more revealing when they make the point, as they often do, that dieters on low-carb often lower their actual intake to levels below similarly disposed dieters on low-fat or plain old calorie restriction.

What this all adds up to is that low-carb — beyond the metabolic advantages of stabilizing blood sugar and thus, insulin — is most effective over time at curbing hunger. In the end, this is the way to fat loss of important proportions. Either way, you've got to burn through your own fat, so it stands to reason that a diet that both satisfies your hunger relative to low-fat or "balanced" restricted, as well as keeps insulin low so your fat stores can more easily be released, is probably the best strategy you can implement. Moreover, the two are, of course, related. You're not hungry (or as hungry) because you're getting the energy from your own fat, while the low-fatter or balanced, "everything-in-moderation" genius is perpetually hungry because both diets typically involve a high proportion of carbohydrate, lots as crap frankenfood. Insulin remains elevated, body fat remains locked in, they're hungrier, lose less weight, fail, and then get invited on Oprah because misery loves company. (I was going to do a post on Oprah's 1,000th diet failure; still might, but it may instead come in bits & pieces asides and diversions.)

Want a laugh? Next time someone mentions that they're dieting, ask what method. When they tell you low-fat — so you can congratulate them on their "wisdom" and they can feel like one of the crowd, which other than being oxymoronic, curiously seems important to a lot of people — you can inquisitively inquire that you thought they meant they were trying to loose weight. When they say they are, you can say, oh, then you meant a high-fat diet. Get it? How long do you think you can keep that up?

When finally you've explained, and they've understood, you can then ask them how come they're not afraid of clogging their own arteries with all the fat they intend to be releasing into their own bloodstream.

Isn't the age of ignorance grand? Well, at least we can have some fun with it.

Filed Under: General

A Suggested Christmas Gift

December 25, 2008 2 Comments

I just gave $100 to Wikipedia.

I've heard all the stuff over the years about how it can be unreliable, or worse, to which I say: then go fix it! That's the whole point. If you don't like what you see, think it's inaccurate, plain false, or could be improved, then do something about it if you care. If you don't, then it must not be that important to you. For me, for the things I reference — mostly historical or scientific things of import to non-trivial people — I find it to be not only adequate, but frequently amazing. The idea is brilliant and I'm happy for my friend Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales whom I've never met in person, but had frequent email and USENET exchanges with from about 1995 – 1999 or so. Sadly, I lost touch with him after that (Diana, if you know how to reach him, could you clue him into this post — and my pseudonym from back in the day?).

Here's what Jimmy has accomplished.

At its core, Wikipedia is driven by a global community of more than 150,000 volunteers – all dedicated to sharing knowledge freely. Over almost eight years, these volunteers have contributed more than 11 million articles in 265 languages. More than 275 million people come to our website every month to access information, free of charge and free of advertising.

But Wikipedia is more than a website. We share a common cause: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.

I can imagine getting pretty excited about such a lofty goal.

So, if you use Wikipedia yourself, or, you enjoy other resources (such as this blog) that make heavy use of it, won't you consider a donation today?

Filed Under: General

Vitamin Supplements – Part One

December 25, 2008 3 Comments

I get asked a lot about supplements.

With all my harping about supplementation of vitamin D, K2 (MK-4: menaquinone-4 or menatetrenone), and omega-3 essential fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) it may surprise you to learn that I have for some long time been generally opposed to vitamin supplementation. And here's a pretty decent synopsis of why, by Drucilla Dyess in Health News. I'm not going to quote it at length because, frankly, it's far too much to quote here and there's far too much gold-standard (randomized, controlled, intervention, double-blind) research to quote anyway. Just read it. It's not that long.

Since I began to really understand evolution and its underlying mathematical logic of natural selection, I have understood one thing about biology above all else: biological systems are chemically complex. Really complex. Really interdependently and interrelatedly complex. Chaotically complex (plausibly the underlying reason that, even though we all have the same chemical composition, we nonetheless all respond differently to identical chemical inputs). With that in mind, I'll quote the third to last paragraph of the article I cited.

According to one expert, a vitamin's benefit may become apparent only if people aren't getting enough of it, which could explain why vitamin D has been linked to a reduction in rates of heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Another school of thought is that randomized clinical trials are designed to test only one factor at a time, although vitamins and minerals work together when consumed as part of a healthy diet.

Now, on the first point, this is one expert's view that makes perfect sense. In any hugely complex system, it's far easier to tell that something is wrong and to identify what it is (at least in part) than it is to explain how any single element works in total. And, this goes hand-in-hand with the second point, which is that if you don't control for variables, you can't say for certain what's cause and what's effect, associated with, or ancillary. On the other hand, when you do control for variables (as in: "controlled study") in a hugely complex system, you essentially have the same problem. That doesn't mean that all supplementation, or even drug therapy is automatically guilty or suspect. Rather, it ought to be regarded as a tradeoff. In some cases, it would clearly be better to supplement or drug — potentially making one or more things worse off — if you have good evidence that what's objectively made better is worth the risk. Chemotherapy is a good example. It wreaks havoc to your whole body; but that's often preferable to allowing a cancer to ravish it uncontrollably until you're dead.

However, with regard to chronic prophylactic vitamin supplementation, we may have gotten to the point with so many controlled studies that don't seem to point to any clear benefit to it (there are studies, however, that suggest a detriment), that you can begin to "tease" out some level of confidence. That's where I am on the issue. I'm confident it's unnecessary and potentially a bad tradeoff, with qualifications I'l develop in part three of this series.

In part two I'm going to take a detour to cover some of the background that I believe it at the root of this issue.

Go to Part Two

Filed Under: General Tagged With: vitamin d, Vitamin K2

Vitamin D Deficiency Speculation in the Increase in Cesarean Childbirth

December 24, 2008 16 Comments

I got up this morning to a new report showing a significant association between vitamin D deficiency and Cesarean deliveries of children.

Vitamin D deficiency is common in pregnant women, and it may lead to an increased risk for cesarean delivery, early research suggests.

Vitamin D researcher Michael Holick, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Boston Medical Center report that women in their study who were severely vitamin D deficient during childbirth were about four times more likely to deliver by cesarean section as women with higher vitamin D levels.

What’s interesting to me is to connect dots, so here we go. The first thing this report reminded me of is how Weston Price, in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, frequently observed that many things go together, i.e., tooth decay, along with crowded teeth, along with susceptibility to tuberculosis and other diseases not encountered in primitives consuming their traditional diets, and on to heavily labored childbirth, among other afflictions.

As an aside, and I haven’t done any particular digging on this point (perhaps someone has who can lay down a comment and reference), but do wild animals existing in an environment adequate to their needs often experience undue problems birthing their offspring in the absence of veterinarians and animal hospitals? I would guess not. Biologically, humans are 100% animals. But, we’re domesticated. So where does that lead your thinking? As a final tidbit, Price also documents birthing problems as well as severe deformities in domestic animals.

Here’s an excerpt from Price specifically in regard to childbirth in primitives, contrasted with those who had taken on some measure of our Western diet.

One of the outstanding changes which I have found takes place in the primitive races at their point of contact with our modern civilization is a decrease in the ease and efficiency of the birth process. When I visited the Six Nation Reservation at Brantford, Ontario, I was told by the physician in charge that a change of this kind had occurred during the period of his administration, which had covered twenty-eight years and that the hospital was now used largely to care for young Indian women during abnormal childbirth (Chapter 6).

A similar impressive comment was made to me by Dr. Romig, the superintendent of the government hospital for Eskimos and Indians at Anchorage, Alaska. He stated that in his thirty-six years among the Eskimos, he had never been able to arrive in time to see a normal birth by a primitive Eskimo woman. But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days. One Eskimo woman who had married twice, her last husband being a white man, reported to Dr. Romig and myself that she had given birth to twentysix children and that several of them had been born during the night and that she had not bothered to waken her husband, but had introduced him to the new baby in the morning.

Sherman, (10) who has made many important contributions to our knowledge of vitamin A, has shown in a recent communication that an amount of vitamin A sufficient to support normal growth and maintain every appearance of good health in animals, may still be insufficient to meet the added nutritive demands of successful reproduction and lactation. With the failure to reproduce successfully, there usually appears in early adult life an increased susceptibility to infection, and particularly a tendency to lung disease at an age corresponding to that at which pulmonary tuberculosis so often develops in young men and women. He states, further, that vitamin A must be supplied in liberal proportions not only during the growth period but during the adult period as well, if a good condition of nutrition and a high degree of health and vigor are to be maintained.

Price goes on at length about vitamin A, along with E — both fat soluble vitamins in combination with D and K2. But let’s connect more dots, OK? First, here’s a very interesting look by Stephan at Whole Health Source about how all these vitamins work in combination, specifically in the context of vitamin A toxicity.

The question of optimal intake is where opinions begin to diverge. Hunter-gatherers and healthy non-industrial cultures, who almost invariably had excellent dental and skeletal development and health, often had a very high intake of vitamin A (according to Dr. Weston Price and others). This is not surprising, considering their fondness for organ meats. A meager 2 ounces of beef liver contains about 9,500 IU, or almost 200% of your U.S. and Canadian recommended daily allowance (RDA). Kidney and eye are rich in vitamin A, as are many of the marine oils consumed by the Inuit and other arctic groups.

If we can extrapolate from historical hunter-gatherers, our ancestors didn’t waste organs. In fact, in times of plenty, some groups discarded the muscle tissue and ate the organs and fat. Carnivorous animals often eat the organs first, because they know exactly where the nutrients are. Zookeepers know that if you feed a lion nothing but muscle, it does not thrive.

This is the background against which we must consider the question of vitamin A toxicity. Claims of toxicity must be reconciled with the fact that healthy cultures often consumed large amounts of vitamin A without any ill effects. […]

The only problem is, this position ignores the interactions between fat-soluble vitamins. Vitamin D strongly protects agains vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. As a matter of fact, “vitamin A toxicity” is almost certainly a relative deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is also tightly correlated with low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. A high vitamin A intake requires vitamin D to balance it. The epidemiological studies showing an association between high-normal vitamin A intake and reduced bone health all sported populations that were moderately to severely vitamin D deficient on average. At optimal vitamin D levels, 40-70 ng/mL 25(OH)D, it would take a whopping dose of vitamin A to induce toxicity. You might get there if you eat nothing but beef liver for a week or two.

The experiment hasn’t been done under controlled conditions in humans, but if you believe the animal studies, the optimal intake for bone mineral density is a high intake of both vitamins A and D. And guess what? A high intake of vitamins A and D also increases the need for vitamin K2. That’s because they work together. For example, vitamin D3 increases the secretion of matrix Gla protein and vitamin K2 activates it. Is it any surprise that the optimal proportions of A, D and K occur effortlessly in a lifestyle that includes outdoor activity and whole, natural animal foods? This is the blind spot of the researchers who have warned of vitamin A toxicity: uncontrolled reductionism. Vitamins do not act in a vacuum; they interact with one another. If your theory doesn’t agree with empirical observations from healthy cultures, it’s back to the drawing board.

Now, here’s Chris Masterjohn on some of the other roles of K2.

Our understanding of the K vitamins is rapidly expanding and we are likely to discover many new roles for them as the twenty-first century progresses.

The highest concentration of vitamin K2 exists in the salivary glands and the pancreas. These organs exhibit an overwhelming preference for K2 over K1 and retain high amounts of the vitamin even when animals consume a vitamin K-deficient diet.(15) The high presence of the vitamin in both of these organs suggests a role in activating digestive enzymes, although its apparent role in the regulation of blood sugar could explain its presence in the pancreas.(76) The testes of male rats also exhibit a high preference for and retention of vitamin K2,(16) and human sperm possess a vitamin K-dependent protein with an unknown function.(77) The kidneys likewise accumulate large amounts of vitamin K2(69) and secrete vitamin K-dependent proteins that inhibit the formation of calcium salts. Patients with kidney stones secrete this protein in its inactive form, which is between four and twenty times less effective than its active form at inhibiting the growth of calcium oxalate crystals, suggesting that vitamin K2 deficiency is a major cause of kidney stones.(77)

The use of Warfarin during pregnancy produces developmental malformations of the face; as the nasal cartilage calcifies, growth of the nose comes to an early end, resulting in a stubby appearance.(78) Vitamin K2 therefore most certainly played a role in the development of beautiful faces with broad features that Price observed among primitive peoples.

So, my speculation is that this is what happens when you don’t heed Francis Bacon’s keen observation: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” While I am all for technology, advancement, science, and medical “miracles,” I believe that the downright obstinate arrogance today’s modern researchers and “health authorities” get away with is a direct consequence of the general populace buying into Hobbes’ fallacy, when he described man’s primitive life as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” Given that, what do you think of Carl P. Weiner, MD, and the other “experts?” To wit:

Not So Fast, Expert Says

But maternal-fetal medicine specialist Carl P. Weiner, MD, says more research is needed before such a recommendation would be justified. Weiner is chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Kansas Medical Center.

“This is an interesting study, but very preliminary, and it should not be seen as the basis for a change in clinical practice,” Weiner tells WebMD. “We really can’t say if there is a downside or an upside to additional vitamin D.”

Do you see right through Dr. Weiner and his brand of “expertise” like I do? I’ll speculate and psychoanalyze: I think Dr. Weiner is very enamored of being considered an “expert” and being called upon to render “expert” opinion. Of course, that requires rendering opinion fully in accordance with the doctrines espoused by the “authorities.”

Me, and others? We just care about health. The very well established record with respect to healthy hunter-gatherers proves beyond any shadow of any doubt that we have gone far astray of a healthful diet. People like Dr. Weiner have been contributing to that state of affairs for decades. Where once that may have been motivated more by a bright eyed but ultimately ignorant confidence in “modern science,” we have come to the point where “authorities” and “experts” are simply standing in the way of proven wisdom for the sake of their fraudulent reputations.

Later: Stephan reminded me of and posted a link to an August post of his dealing with a lot of this very same issue (childbirth), with lots of archeological background. Having just re-reviewed it myself I’m putting up a link here for those who may not see the comments.

Filed Under: General Tagged With: vitamin d, Vitamin K2

Jimmy Moore Interviews Arthur De Vany on the Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show

December 23, 2008 Leave a Comment

I haven't actually listened to it, yet. Today was spend driving from San Jose, CA down to Vista, CA for the holidays. Coincidentally, Bea and I listened to a number of Jimmy's shows that I'd loaded on my iPhone. I synced up yesterday, and, it turns out, mere hours prior to this latest episode.

I feel quite confident recommending it to you even in advance of listening. I'll probably do so tomorrow.

Here's the entry from Jimmy's main site, and here's the one from his show site.

Filed Under: General

What You’re Up Against

December 22, 2008 Leave a Comment

Hey, anyone wanna up their HDLs by a whopping 1.7? So, for instance, if you're on the low end of what's considered acceptable (40 mg/dL), you might be able to get it all the way up to 41.7 on average, maybe even 42 is in your future if you respond to the advice of the authorities in an above average way.

Stunning, exciting news.

"Experts" in nutrition and diabetes are now considering changing the dietary advice for type 2 diabetics.

People with Type 2 diabetes on a high-fiber diet kept their blood sugar under better control when they ate foods like beans and nuts instead of the recommended whole-grain diet, researchers have found. […]

Participants on the low-glycemic diet also saw significant improvements in cholesterol after six months, with increases in HDL, the so-called “good” cholesterol associated with a reduced risk of heart disease, the study found.

It is to laugh. An average increase of 1.7 in HDLs is a "significant" improvement? Increasing your HDL by 1.7 is really measurably associated with a reduced risk of heart disease?

The high-cereal high fiber diet emphasized “brown foods” such as whole-grain bread and breakfast cereal, brown rice and potatoes with the skin on. The low-glycemic diet included beans, peas, lentils, pasta, quickly boiled rice and certain breads, like pumpernickel and rye, as well as oatmeal and oat bran cereals.

Both diets are low in saturated fat and trans fat. Both groups were told to limit their consumption of white flour and to eat five servings of vegetables and three servings of fruit each day.

Participants on the low-glycemic diet saw their hemoglobin A1C levels — a measure of blood glucose levels over recent months — reduced slightly, by 0.5 percent on average, but experienced significant improvements in HDL, which increased by 1.7 milligrams per deciliter of blood on average. Those on the high-cereal diet saw smaller reductions in hemoglobin A1C and slight drops in HDL.

Alright, now let's hear from the Village Idiot.

“We’ve been telling people to eat whole grains for a long time," said Emmy Suhl, a nutrition and diabetes educator at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston. "What this study shows is that it’s not enough to have whole grains. It’s these very specific low-glycemic carbohydrates that do a much better job."

Well, Ms. [I presume] Suhl, you really ought to consider not continuing to give people advice that's killing them.

You want HDLs? How about mine, at 106. And what triglyceride levels are you seeing with diabetics following your "eat whole grains" mantra "for a long time?" Given the average in America is continually on the rise, what are you seeing? 180s and above, 200? Mine is 47, sugar. A1C levels? Very low end of the range.

You guys boast of an increase in HDL of 1.7? How about 20? My wife also reduced her triglyceride on my recommended diet by 20 points, down to 52, the very low end.

Ms. Suhl: You're an idiot. And, you're a danger to diabetics.

Later: Want more? I just finally got around to reading Dr. Eades' takedown of this similar study. Have a look. Study organizers Thomas Wolever, Alison Gibbs, Christine Mehling, Jean-Louis Chiasson, Philip Connelly, Robert Josse, Lawrence Leiter, Pierre Maheux, Remi Rabasa-Lhoret, N. Wilson Rodger, and Edmond Ryan — as well as study reviewer Xavier Pi-Sunyer — ought to be ashamed of themselves. Then, they ought to be pelted about the heads and shoulders with rotten fruit, vegetables, and eggs. They ought to recieve no quarter with honest scientists.

Filed Under: General

Animal Fat, Protein & Paleo

December 18, 2008 23 Comments

Back when I answered some reader questions the other day, I forgot to address a couple of things. Trygve had asked:

Also read that you eat less fat now? why is that? and how much are you eating now of the different nutrients?

He also asked how to get down to 6-8% body fat, a question I’ll answer in the immediate: I’ll let you know when I get there.

First I should clarify that I really don’t know, for sure, that I’m eating appreciably less fat. It certainly seems so (I don’t count anything), but it’s also the case that I no longer obsess over it. That is to say: I just increasingly go with what I have an appetite for and I don’t try to single out animal fat for consumption most times. Sometimes it’s a ribeye smothered in melted butter — or a fat-dominant sauce of my own creation — and sometimes I slightly gorge myself on fruit. There’s an aspect of this that takes time — that is: a year to two. I have a clue on that score, which I’ll save for a future blog. Hint: your body fat composition; i.e., what is your own body fat made of in terms of fatty acids: saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated, and how long does it take to shift those ratios? Think about that.

I make myself laugh, sometimes. While I was never one to sit in front of a TV and munch on pure junk (well, very occasionally), I did used to munch on sunflower seeds by the pound, in shells. You see, when I was a kid, my dad ate sunflower seeds. He tossed a small handful in his mouth and shelled, ate them, and spit out the seeds one at a time — all “see mom, no hands” style. All very impressive to a five-yr-old. In short order, I could do it too (it’s all in the tongue), and that habit persisted for decades (hundreds of pounds worth). But I’ve never sat regularly and munched sweets, potato chips, or any of the related products. In spite of that, I ballooned to 230 pounds, at least 50 pounds overweight.

But now, if I do munch or graze over a period of hours in front of the tube — which is less and less — I’m just not that desirous, anymore — it’s gonna be nuts and fruit. For fruit, various grapes are my absolute favorite. It’s my new candy. Cherries, sweet and in season, will certainly do too.

The question really raises a much larger issue: the conflation of adequate healthful diet and optimal healthful diet. I describe my diet as “Paleo-like,” which means I generally ascribe to The Paleo Diet as espoused by Loren Cordain. However, I have a really huge problem with his stance on animal fat — which review of his book I’ll definitely get to later. Why? Because the way I eat is in fairly true “paleo” fashion in terms of quality. But he’s telling me that in term of quantity (relative macro-nutrient ratios: protein, fat, carb), I’m not eating paleo. I’m eating too much fat: “artery clogging saturated fat.” He’s full of shit. To wit:

While Stephan is far too much the detached scientist and gentleman, I — on the other hand — suffer no such limitations. That’s why Stephan would never claim to have put Cordain in short pants, but I believe he has.

The Myth of the High Protein Diet

You really owe it to yourself to get a load of that. It’s really simple mathematics. We really can’t eat that much protein for very long (I have tried). For nearly a week I was eating around only 1,000 calories per day, 95ish% protein and I was stuffed — and probably nutritionally starving. My wife had the same experience.

As a result, I will never even experiment with an unsustainable diet ever again (wait until my Oprah post — maybe tomorrow). Why?

The phrase “low-carbohydrate diet” is a no-no in some circles, because it implies that a diet is high in fat. Often, the euphemism “high-protein diet” is used to avoid the mental image of a stick of butter wrapped in bacon. It’s purely a semantic game, because there is no such thing as a diet in which the majority of calories come from protein. The ability of the human body to metabolize protein ends at about 1/3 of calories (1, 2), and the long-term optimum may be lower still. Low-carbohydrate diets (yes, the ones that are highly effective for weight loss and general health) are high-fat diets. [emphasis added]

Stephan always knows how to give you the overview in the first paragraph. Let me get to my point, mix up another cocktail (not paleo), and admonish you once more to read and grasp Stephan’s — what I consider – inviolable deduction.

I think there’s a huge conflation going on. Remember: it only takes one single observation that contradicts the hypothesis to send you back to the drawing board. I’m not going to take time at the moment to cite examples, but what we know is that we have observed healthful primitives (generally no cancer, heart disease, diabetes, auto-immune diseases, etc.) from both extremes. You have the Inuit at about 80-90% animal fat with all but about 1-2% of the balance protein, and you have — on the other extreme — the Kitavans and Kuna, upwards of 50-60% cabohydrate.

What’s the difference? They don’t eat derivative, processed crap produced by large, state-protected corporations marketed  via TEEVEE to your kids, subsidized through the euphemism of “taxation” (in the Animal world: theft; try it: you’ll see what I mean).

Five minutes later: I forget to make my point about the conflation of adequate with optimal nutrition. The point is, we don’t really know. I question whether it’s worth really finding out. My strategy is intermittency in the relative quantitative consumption of naturally occurring fat (animal) and carbohydrate (fruits). Most vegetables are pretty irrelevant to the equation – so eat up.

Filed Under: General

Testimonial: Bryan Appleyard

December 18, 2008 4 Comments

Back in August, I alerted you to a Bryan Appleyard interview of Art De Vany in the UK Times Online (for a good laugh at lots of naïveté and idiocy, check out a lot of the comments to that article).

Now here comes Bryan again, this time in a short TV interview.

Here's a shot I clipped of his face from that interview.

Bryan-appleyard

Here's an "older" photo I dug up. Looks like it should be the other way around — by about 15 years or so.

DDD_0251-745388

You see, it's not just about "losing weight." It's about losing fat, getting leaner, changing the composition of your body fat (i.e., the fatty acid profile), and above all, gene expression. They really are willing and able to do the heavy lifting.

You just have to let them.

Filed Under: General

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 53
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search FreeTheAnimal

Social Follow

Facebook3k
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Twitter6k
Visit Us
Follow Me
Tweet
Instagram358
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780

Post Notification Options

About FreeTheAnimal

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2020, has 5,000 posts and 120,000 comments from readers. I blog what I wish...from lifestyle to philosophy, politics, social antagonism, adventure travel, nomad living, location and time independent—"while you sleep"— income, and food. I intended to travel the world "homeless" but the Covid-19 panic-demic squashed that. I've become an American expat living in rural Thailand where I've built a home. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. [Read more...]

CLICK HERE to shop Amazon. Costs you nothing.

Shop Amazon

My own on-the-scene expat photos, stories, podcasts, and video adventures, currently from exotic Thailand

Become a Patron

Gastrointestinal Health

Elixa Probiotic is a British biotech manufacturer in Oxford, UK. U.S. Demand is now so high they've established distribution centers in Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey.

Still, sell-outs happen regularly, so order now to avoid a waiting list.

Elixa Probiotic

My Book

Free The Animal Book

Recent Posts

My Thoughts About The 2020 Fraudulent Election

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, let's call it 500 words of thoughts about the election circus spectacle and 500 words about considering ...

Read More

A COVID Cult and Clown Car Roundup

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist ...

Read More

You Can’t Recount Your Way Out of This

It's a hot mess inside of a shitstorm From about 1990 until midterms, 2018, I was a non-voter, even though I generally supported libertarian and ...

Read More

November 3rd

Less than a week out and looking forward to forgetting about it for another 4 years. 320+, and the popular vote. Bank on it. That is all. ...

Read More

Please Wear Your Mask to Help The Spread of Covid-19

Finally some good news. Turns out, via CDC, that habitual mask wearers are the ones spreading the virus around the most. That's fantastic since ...

Read More

Popular Posts

Coronavirus #3: Denise Minger is Thorough But Misses the Boats92 Total Shares
My 8 Weeks in Thailand #188 Total Shares
Covid-19 Is Impeachment 3.0; BLM Riots, 4.0; Re-Lockdown, 5.083 Total Shares
My Musings on the Coronavirus (Covid-19)73 Total Shares
Have You Forgotten? Richard Lothar Nikoley Doesn’t Give An Eff What You “Think”58 Total Shares
Coronavirus #2: The Dumb and the Dumber58 Total Shares
I Met A Dry Fasting Nut39 Total Shares
CovidScam Unravels. Backlash Grows and Intensifies.35 Total Shares
Coronavirus #1: The Innocent and the Guilty30 Total Shares
Everything I Thought I Lost28 Total Shares

Last 10 Comments

  • Richard Nikoley on My Thoughts About The 2020 Fraudulent Election
  • Richard Nikoley on My Thoughts About The 2020 Fraudulent Election
  • EatLessMoveMoore on My Thoughts About The 2020 Fraudulent Election
  • Big on My Thoughts About The 2020 Fraudulent Election
  • Richard Nikoley on You Can’t Recount Your Way Out of This
  • Anonymous on You Can’t Recount Your Way Out of This
  • Chung Ho-Lee on A COVID Cult and Clown Car Roundup
  • Kris on Perfect Salmon and Asparagus in an Air Fryer
  • Richard Nikoley on Coronavirus #3: Denise Minger is Thorough But Misses the Boats
  • John on Coronavirus #3: Denise Minger is Thorough But Misses the Boats

© 2021 All Rights Reserved · Free The Animal Return to top