Hi Jim
Is there any scientific truth in the statement that the bacteria inside Yogurt ‘eats’ the sugar and therefore it’s actually a low-carb (sugar) product ?
Especially Plain Yogurt with more fat that the low-fat version..
Regards
JayCee
My response;
Hi JayCee!
So the most common bacteria in yogurt, providing the active yogurt cultures is the Lactobacillus acidophilus organism. Lactobacillus is a facultative anaerobe, meaning it needs a little bit of oxygen to survive, but too much oxygen and it will die.
There are some species of lactobacillus that are indeed used to produce beer ( L. casei and L. brevis), but the species found in yougurt generally is not. Lactobacillus produces more lactic acid than anything and this will result in a lower ph reading, giving the acidy flavor to the yogurt, more detectable in the plain yogurt.
L. acidophilus is important in intestinal health as it prevents the overgrowth of other bacteria, thus preventing infections. An intestinal infection sometimes seen when antibiotics are used is something referred to as Clostridium difficle or C. difficile colitis. Since some antibiotics selectively kill off the normal protective L. acidophilus, and not the C. difficile bacteria, C. difficile will grow unchecked and can create a life threatening infection.
L. acidophilus is also found in the vaginal flora and this is why some women experience yeast infections after taking antibiotics. Same thing happens in the vagina that happened in the intestine. Only within the vagina it is a fungus that overgrows.
LOL. Never heard this one:-) Where'd you come across this statement:-)
An interesting outcome, if the bacteria in yogurt utilized the sugar and created alcohol, alot more people would be, uh, happier after eating their yogurt...
I can see it already..No, ossifer, i waz jus eaching mine yogurts, I swearz I haz noding to drunk,hiccough!!
So I guess my final answer, being that I never got drunk or even buzzed after eating yogurt is; No, doubt it. Interesting fact is that plain yogurt does indeed have fewer carbs than the ones with fruit. Since plain yogurt tastes kinda yucky, everyone goes for the low fat, higher carb containing yogurts which are bad for us as they provide more sugar; but do taste alot better.
As always, just love your questions...
jim
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Here's My Answer to a Question Posed to Me on My Website About Cholesterol Profiles
Dr. Carlson,
I have listened to your thoughts on low carb from your interview with Jimmy Moore and wanted to get your advice. I had my cholesterol checked 2 days ago and here are the comparisons from my previous results.
From August of 2009 before starting low carb:
LDL = 153 HDL= 54 Trigs= 50
Yesterday's Results:
LDL= 158 HDL= 65 Trigs=37
The nurse told my wife that she was gonna talk to the doc and that something had to be done (I'm assuming statins). Tell me your thoughts...... Also, what are those equations Total/HDL or Trig/Total or something? I would think my risks would be lower now with the better HDL and lower Trigs.
Thanks!!!
My response:
Hi There!
First off, your numbers are obviously better. I noticed you didn't mention what the Total Cholesterol was; that is good because it means nothing anyway. I ignore the LDL because it is usually calculated and I can guarantee by the way you reported it to me it was.
So the only 2 numbers you need to worry about are the HDL and the Trigs.Notice your HDL went higher and your Trigs went lower. Once the HDL becomes greater than 59, you have a negative risk for heart disease (and many other disease processes).
Now the ratio I use is the Trig/HDL ratio and I want this at 2 or less. Yours is obviously less than 1. Great job!
My only argument for the use of statins is for plaque stabilization. That is, if there is plaque already on an artery, the statins make it less likely for the plaque to rupture as it is the rupturing of plaque that causes the heart attacks and strokes.
How do you know if you have plaque on the coronary arteries? Well, if you've been eating low fat/cholesterol and you're in your forties, you probably have plaque within your coronary arteries.
Important point: the plaque that builds up on our arterial walls comes from the modification of sugar molecules in the diet NOT from the fat/cholesterol in the foods we eat.Most doctors think the opposite to be true.
So if you're in your forties, been eating low fat/cholesterol, you probably have plaque. I generally start a statin while I'm waiting for the HDL to raise, once I get my patient on the right way to eat. But your HDL is 65, so I could easily argue against the use of a statin.
BTW, if your doc tries to start you on anything other than a statin...just say no. The agents such as Zetia, Tricor and Trilipex are a waste of a drug, and the only docs who use them are the one's who are ignorant of the correct way to eat. Oh wait, that means just about every doctor...
One last thing. An indirect way to assess if you might have coronary artery plaque is by having a carotid Doppler done. If you have mild thickening on the carotids, studies have shown you most likely have thickening on the smaller diameter coronary arteries. In this case I start my patients on a baby aspirin (so long they are not pregnant or nursing).
If no plaque is present, and I start you on the correct way to eat, no matter what your lipid panel is to start---YOU GET NO CHOLESTEROL LOWERING MEDS FROM ME!
And I'll leave with the statement "Lowering total cholesterol has never been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease.never,ever,ever..."Hope that helps!
Dr Jim
I have listened to your thoughts on low carb from your interview with Jimmy Moore and wanted to get your advice. I had my cholesterol checked 2 days ago and here are the comparisons from my previous results.
From August of 2009 before starting low carb:
LDL = 153 HDL= 54 Trigs= 50
Yesterday's Results:
LDL= 158 HDL= 65 Trigs=37
The nurse told my wife that she was gonna talk to the doc and that something had to be done (I'm assuming statins). Tell me your thoughts...... Also, what are those equations Total/HDL or Trig/Total or something? I would think my risks would be lower now with the better HDL and lower Trigs.
Thanks!!!
My response:
Hi There!
First off, your numbers are obviously better. I noticed you didn't mention what the Total Cholesterol was; that is good because it means nothing anyway. I ignore the LDL because it is usually calculated and I can guarantee by the way you reported it to me it was.
So the only 2 numbers you need to worry about are the HDL and the Trigs.Notice your HDL went higher and your Trigs went lower. Once the HDL becomes greater than 59, you have a negative risk for heart disease (and many other disease processes).
Now the ratio I use is the Trig/HDL ratio and I want this at 2 or less. Yours is obviously less than 1. Great job!
My only argument for the use of statins is for plaque stabilization. That is, if there is plaque already on an artery, the statins make it less likely for the plaque to rupture as it is the rupturing of plaque that causes the heart attacks and strokes.
How do you know if you have plaque on the coronary arteries? Well, if you've been eating low fat/cholesterol and you're in your forties, you probably have plaque within your coronary arteries.
Important point: the plaque that builds up on our arterial walls comes from the modification of sugar molecules in the diet NOT from the fat/cholesterol in the foods we eat.Most doctors think the opposite to be true.
So if you're in your forties, been eating low fat/cholesterol, you probably have plaque. I generally start a statin while I'm waiting for the HDL to raise, once I get my patient on the right way to eat. But your HDL is 65, so I could easily argue against the use of a statin.
BTW, if your doc tries to start you on anything other than a statin...just say no. The agents such as Zetia, Tricor and Trilipex are a waste of a drug, and the only docs who use them are the one's who are ignorant of the correct way to eat. Oh wait, that means just about every doctor...
One last thing. An indirect way to assess if you might have coronary artery plaque is by having a carotid Doppler done. If you have mild thickening on the carotids, studies have shown you most likely have thickening on the smaller diameter coronary arteries. In this case I start my patients on a baby aspirin (so long they are not pregnant or nursing).
If no plaque is present, and I start you on the correct way to eat, no matter what your lipid panel is to start---YOU GET NO CHOLESTEROL LOWERING MEDS FROM ME!
And I'll leave with the statement "Lowering total cholesterol has never been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease.never,ever,ever..."Hope that helps!
Dr Jim
Monday, December 21, 2009
How Profound the Ignorance Goes
I think all my followers thus far realize the profound invasive ignorance of the medical profession in regards to the correct way to eat. Even though laypersons continue to represent the majority of people who understand the correct way to eat; there are still many people who fall victim to the profound, abysmal, heinous, egregious dissemination of the incorrect dietary info---this all has to stop.
Click here to review the story as it pertains to food packaging labeling changes. More importantly, read the responses. Mine is on page 4 as of this date.
Dr Jim
PS. Sorry I haven't been blogging as much. The Holiday season gets kinda hectic on my end, but something tells me I'm preaching to the choir.
Bye for now...
Click here to review the story as it pertains to food packaging labeling changes. More importantly, read the responses. Mine is on page 4 as of this date.
Dr Jim
PS. Sorry I haven't been blogging as much. The Holiday season gets kinda hectic on my end, but something tells me I'm preaching to the choir.
Bye for now...
Saturday, December 12, 2009
My Response To A Question About Low Carbs and Pancreatitis
Tying in to the low carb/health theme here, I've got a relative who'sbeen having issues related to a fatty liver. He's in a hospital rightnow with complications resulting from gall stones blocking hispancreatic duct(s) and has a nasty case of pancreatitis. Nearly everything I've read on the web recommends (not surprisingly) a highcarb, low fat diet for pancreatitis, which just strikes me as soooooowrong (fat is inflammatory and will make your pancreas work harder??)!I've found great articles on low carb for fatty liver, but nothingdefinitive regarding pancreatitis. Any ideas?Thanks!
My response;
Pancreatitis is a tricky thing.The term pancreatitis refers to inflammation of the pancreas. Unfortunately in this condition the pancreas literally 'eats itself.' When the pancreas is inflamed the treatment is generally to starve the body and allow the inflammation of the pancreas to subside. Problem is that the pancreas is responsible in the digestion of all foods. That is, carbs, proteins and fats.So even backing off on the carbs, the inflammation will persist since the pancreas creates the enzymes needed to digest protein and fat (cholesterol is utilized in a different manner, it is not digested like proteins and fats are.)
Having said that, certainly backing off on carbs will help the pancreas heal because it will not have to create the enzymes needed for carb digestion, and since insulin is also created by the pancreas, this secretion will be less as well. Thus, backing off on carbs will help the pancreas get its well needed rest, and will be beneficial in this disease as well. Of course, the individual will stay on a restricted carb regimen for the rest of their life; not jut while they treat the pancreatitis.
Now with a patient with gallstones, all bets are off. First off, they usually need the gallbladder removed, this almost always cures the pancreatitis. (Side note-the 2 most common causes of pancreatitis are gallstones and alcohol abuse.) If the stones have blocked the pancreatic duct, they will usually have a diagnostic test referred to as an MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangio Pancreatography) this will help show the docs where all the stones are that may be blocking the pancreatic duct. In this particular situation, that is, gallstones which have migrated to the pancreatic duct, the gallbladder will be removed.
Once the gallbladder is out, the person may start a low carb regimen. The only caveat is that they need to be careful with their fat and cholesterol consumption in the first few months, and sometimes up to a year after the gallbladder was removed. This is to allow the body to adjust to the amounts of fat/cholesterol the person is consuming. Therefore, this person may well have to eat 5-6 meals a day, instead of the usual/customary three.
Remember that the gallbladder is the reservoir for bile and in response to a fatty or cholesterol containing meal (and after the gallbladder is greeted with a hormone referred to as cholecystokinin) it contracts, releases bile, and the bile helps to emulsify the fatty/cholesterol containing food particle; thus aiding in digestion.
I have had many a patient start a low carb eating style after removal of their gallbladders. So long they eat smaller fatty/cholesterol meals, they do just fine. As a side note, since the gallbladder contracts in response to a fatty/cholesterol meal, that is precisely why we need to avoid these foods when we have stones. If we eat a meal with fat/cholesterol, the gallbladder will contract. Not only is this extremely painful for the person, it can cause infection of the gallbladder and facilitate the progression to a gangrenous gallbladder.
As another side note, the reason we develop gallstones is because we are NOT eating fat/cholesterol in our foods. Reason: The gallbladder responds to a fat/cholesterol meal by releasing the bile stored within. If one follows a fat/cholesterol free diet, the gallbladder has nothing to do, the bile just sits there, and eventually starts to precipitate stones. It is because the person is not eating fat/cholesterol that stones develop. After the stones develop and the person eats fat/cholesterol, it will cause severe pain and the person winds up in the ED or doc's office. It is there that the misguided physician will exclaim "Ah,hah. See eating fat and cholesterol did this, so you need to not ever eat that stuff again." This doc obviously does not understand that it was the avoidance of fat/cholesterol that created the stones, not the other way around.
There was mention of steatosis, or fatty liver, and yes, this condition absolutely responds to a low carb regimen. I have a number of patients with this condition who have been cured with a low carb approach. Unfortunately, I have a few patients who had a fatty liver and were treated the conventional way (low fat/cholesterol) before they got to me who went on to develop cirrhosis. Luckily, they are responding to a low carb approach and even though I limit their protein intake, they are still eating more than mainstream medicine suggests; and their numbers continue to improve.
Hope this helps!
dr jim
My response;
Pancreatitis is a tricky thing.The term pancreatitis refers to inflammation of the pancreas. Unfortunately in this condition the pancreas literally 'eats itself.' When the pancreas is inflamed the treatment is generally to starve the body and allow the inflammation of the pancreas to subside. Problem is that the pancreas is responsible in the digestion of all foods. That is, carbs, proteins and fats.So even backing off on the carbs, the inflammation will persist since the pancreas creates the enzymes needed to digest protein and fat (cholesterol is utilized in a different manner, it is not digested like proteins and fats are.)
Having said that, certainly backing off on carbs will help the pancreas heal because it will not have to create the enzymes needed for carb digestion, and since insulin is also created by the pancreas, this secretion will be less as well. Thus, backing off on carbs will help the pancreas get its well needed rest, and will be beneficial in this disease as well. Of course, the individual will stay on a restricted carb regimen for the rest of their life; not jut while they treat the pancreatitis.
Now with a patient with gallstones, all bets are off. First off, they usually need the gallbladder removed, this almost always cures the pancreatitis. (Side note-the 2 most common causes of pancreatitis are gallstones and alcohol abuse.) If the stones have blocked the pancreatic duct, they will usually have a diagnostic test referred to as an MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangio Pancreatography) this will help show the docs where all the stones are that may be blocking the pancreatic duct. In this particular situation, that is, gallstones which have migrated to the pancreatic duct, the gallbladder will be removed.
Once the gallbladder is out, the person may start a low carb regimen. The only caveat is that they need to be careful with their fat and cholesterol consumption in the first few months, and sometimes up to a year after the gallbladder was removed. This is to allow the body to adjust to the amounts of fat/cholesterol the person is consuming. Therefore, this person may well have to eat 5-6 meals a day, instead of the usual/customary three.
Remember that the gallbladder is the reservoir for bile and in response to a fatty or cholesterol containing meal (and after the gallbladder is greeted with a hormone referred to as cholecystokinin) it contracts, releases bile, and the bile helps to emulsify the fatty/cholesterol containing food particle; thus aiding in digestion.
I have had many a patient start a low carb eating style after removal of their gallbladders. So long they eat smaller fatty/cholesterol meals, they do just fine. As a side note, since the gallbladder contracts in response to a fatty/cholesterol meal, that is precisely why we need to avoid these foods when we have stones. If we eat a meal with fat/cholesterol, the gallbladder will contract. Not only is this extremely painful for the person, it can cause infection of the gallbladder and facilitate the progression to a gangrenous gallbladder.
As another side note, the reason we develop gallstones is because we are NOT eating fat/cholesterol in our foods. Reason: The gallbladder responds to a fat/cholesterol meal by releasing the bile stored within. If one follows a fat/cholesterol free diet, the gallbladder has nothing to do, the bile just sits there, and eventually starts to precipitate stones. It is because the person is not eating fat/cholesterol that stones develop. After the stones develop and the person eats fat/cholesterol, it will cause severe pain and the person winds up in the ED or doc's office. It is there that the misguided physician will exclaim "Ah,hah. See eating fat and cholesterol did this, so you need to not ever eat that stuff again." This doc obviously does not understand that it was the avoidance of fat/cholesterol that created the stones, not the other way around.
There was mention of steatosis, or fatty liver, and yes, this condition absolutely responds to a low carb regimen. I have a number of patients with this condition who have been cured with a low carb approach. Unfortunately, I have a few patients who had a fatty liver and were treated the conventional way (low fat/cholesterol) before they got to me who went on to develop cirrhosis. Luckily, they are responding to a low carb approach and even though I limit their protein intake, they are still eating more than mainstream medicine suggests; and their numbers continue to improve.
Hope this helps!
dr jim
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Makeover for Food Labels?
So here was my response to an article on the proposed new food labeling.
Click Here to read the article first, then read my response below. Notice how an add for a psychotropic (Seroquel) appears at the top of the page;
While I agree that knowing the sugar and carbohydrate content is (the most) important information; the 'new' labeling still continues to propagate the incorrect dietary thoughts/beliefs that have created our obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer pandemics.
We all need to realize that eating saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods DOES NOT cause an increase in obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes or cancer risk; in fact, when we eat foods containing the alleged 'bad stuff' (cholesterol and fat) we lower our risk of the above disease entities (as well as many others).
Implicit in this new label is that saturated fat and cholesterol is bad, whole grains are good, and the ever present myth of this fictitious 'natural sugar' still pervades.
I urge anyone who wishes to learn the correct way to eat to go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first 10 chapters of my book for free. Also, go to you tube and type in the search box 'dr james carlson' to watch an hour long presentation of the correct way to eat, and how/why physicians dietary ignorance continues to kill and mame us, all while allowing the drug companies to take our hard earned dollars away from us.
Dr. Jim
Click Here to read the article first, then read my response below. Notice how an add for a psychotropic (Seroquel) appears at the top of the page;
While I agree that knowing the sugar and carbohydrate content is (the most) important information; the 'new' labeling still continues to propagate the incorrect dietary thoughts/beliefs that have created our obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer pandemics.
We all need to realize that eating saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods DOES NOT cause an increase in obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes or cancer risk; in fact, when we eat foods containing the alleged 'bad stuff' (cholesterol and fat) we lower our risk of the above disease entities (as well as many others).
Implicit in this new label is that saturated fat and cholesterol is bad, whole grains are good, and the ever present myth of this fictitious 'natural sugar' still pervades.
I urge anyone who wishes to learn the correct way to eat to go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first 10 chapters of my book for free. Also, go to you tube and type in the search box 'dr james carlson' to watch an hour long presentation of the correct way to eat, and how/why physicians dietary ignorance continues to kill and mame us, all while allowing the drug companies to take our hard earned dollars away from us.
Dr. Jim
Monday, December 7, 2009
Diet Coke is Now 'In Support of Women's Heart Health Programs.'
My first thought when I saw this on the 12 pack of Diet coke I bought over the weekend was, uh oh. So I just went to the site a few minutes ago to review what they think is the proper 'heart health.' Turns out Diet Coke has teamed up with the American Dietetic Association (also known as the ADA; remember the other ADA is the American Diabetes Association), and is promoting the ADA's view on what the ADA feels is the right way to eat. Here are a couple of excerpts I am taking verbatim (I tried to cut and paste but I wasn't allowed for some reason);
'When it comes to fruits and vegetables,more matters'
The site goes on to say;
'Here are some easy ways to meet your daily recommendation:
Toss a handful of berries or sliced fruit on cereal, pancakes or waffles or in a cup of plain low-fat yogurt.
Add a refreshing crunch to sandwiches with a slice of pineapple or apple. Replace jelly with banana slices on a peanut butter sandwich.
Fruit is an excellent on-the-go snack. Bring an apple with you in your gym bag, throw a banana in your briefcase or a plum in your purse.
Pack more nutrition into pasta dishes by adding colorful steamed vegetables.
Boost your intake by adding vegetables to sandwiches and pizzas.'
My comment;
OMG! Are they serious? Remember the whole sugar is sugar is sugar thing? Uh, I hate to break the bad news, but most of what was written on that site I could write a whole book on why it's wrong....Oh wait, I did that already:-)
Another comment taken directly from the Diet Coke site;
'Which is healthier, butter or margarine?'
The ADA's answer, on Diet Coke's site;
'From a fat and calorie standpoint, butter and margarine are the same with about 35 calories and four grams of fat per teaspoon. Both are primarily fat; only the source differs. Butter contains more saturated fat than most margarine. Because margarine is made from vegetable oil, it has no cholesterol.
For a spread with less saturated fat and minimal or no trans fat, buy soft tub or liquid margarine. Whipped versions of butter or margarine have less fat per tablespoon, too. Reduced-fat margarine is also available but is not suitable for some recipes.
Whether you prefer the taste of butter or margarine, enjoy in small portions. And for margarine, choose liquid or tub, rather than stick.'
My comment-
obviously the ADA feels that margarine is better than butter, which is completely false from a biochemical perspective. They did mention trans fats, but failed to mention that the majority (if not all)of margarines contain trans fats.Hmmm, I guess the ADA isn't aware of how dangerous trans fats are and the fact that margarine implicitly has trans fats contained within it.
I really don't know what I was thinking. I should've known better when I saw Diet Coke trying to be heart healthy..is that, like, an oxy-moron. Any way, I had to check out the website to see what they had to say. There was so much wrong on this site I just hope no woman goes to this site for information.
And why would they; I mean, does anyone equate Diet Coke with being healthy--I know, I know, how can I pick on them when I drink it myself. I'm not bashing diet coke per se, moreso the fact they think they are providing us with useful information..it is anything but...
Bye for now...
Dr Jim
'When it comes to fruits and vegetables,more matters'
The site goes on to say;
'Here are some easy ways to meet your daily recommendation:
Toss a handful of berries or sliced fruit on cereal, pancakes or waffles or in a cup of plain low-fat yogurt.
Add a refreshing crunch to sandwiches with a slice of pineapple or apple. Replace jelly with banana slices on a peanut butter sandwich.
Fruit is an excellent on-the-go snack. Bring an apple with you in your gym bag, throw a banana in your briefcase or a plum in your purse.
Pack more nutrition into pasta dishes by adding colorful steamed vegetables.
Boost your intake by adding vegetables to sandwiches and pizzas.'
My comment;
OMG! Are they serious? Remember the whole sugar is sugar is sugar thing? Uh, I hate to break the bad news, but most of what was written on that site I could write a whole book on why it's wrong....Oh wait, I did that already:-)
Another comment taken directly from the Diet Coke site;
'Which is healthier, butter or margarine?'
The ADA's answer, on Diet Coke's site;
'From a fat and calorie standpoint, butter and margarine are the same with about 35 calories and four grams of fat per teaspoon. Both are primarily fat; only the source differs. Butter contains more saturated fat than most margarine. Because margarine is made from vegetable oil, it has no cholesterol.
For a spread with less saturated fat and minimal or no trans fat, buy soft tub or liquid margarine. Whipped versions of butter or margarine have less fat per tablespoon, too. Reduced-fat margarine is also available but is not suitable for some recipes.
Whether you prefer the taste of butter or margarine, enjoy in small portions. And for margarine, choose liquid or tub, rather than stick.'
My comment-
obviously the ADA feels that margarine is better than butter, which is completely false from a biochemical perspective. They did mention trans fats, but failed to mention that the majority (if not all)of margarines contain trans fats.Hmmm, I guess the ADA isn't aware of how dangerous trans fats are and the fact that margarine implicitly has trans fats contained within it.
I really don't know what I was thinking. I should've known better when I saw Diet Coke trying to be heart healthy..is that, like, an oxy-moron. Any way, I had to check out the website to see what they had to say. There was so much wrong on this site I just hope no woman goes to this site for information.
And why would they; I mean, does anyone equate Diet Coke with being healthy--I know, I know, how can I pick on them when I drink it myself. I'm not bashing diet coke per se, moreso the fact they think they are providing us with useful information..it is anything but...
Bye for now...
Dr Jim
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Disturbing Restrictions Hidden Within National Health Care Reform
In one of my many medical journals I receive weekly, was some very disturbing information. Now, I am not out to re-start the age old pro-choice v pro-life debate; but hidden in this bill is the fact that women would only be allowed to have abortions under cases of incest, rape, or if the mom's health is at risk due to the pregnancy.
This would make it illegal for any women covered under the National Health care coverage, which would be many, to have an abortion under any other situation. It would also make it illegal for physicians to provide those services as well.
My mind immediately flashed back to back alley abortion clinics, clandestine, surreptitious clinics performing abortions; and all the de-regulation that comes with any medical procedure not fully scrutinized.
I was frightened, very frightened. What else is in the bill I thought?
A doctor in Sweden was recently cited for malpractice when she attempted to put her patients on a low carb regimen to help them loose weight. This doctor who was once overweight, placed herself on low carbs, lost a good amount of weight, so she decided to share this with her patients. Gosh, it's what I do for my patients on a daily basis.
The Swedish medical societies would have none of that; they immediately sued her for malpractice; the reason, because everyone 'knows' that eating more fat and cholesterol is bad for us.' You read that right. The Doctor was not sued by any of her patients, it was her medical governing bodies that brought the suit. It took this doctor 2 years to finally win the trial, but I ask myself "At what cost?"
Please keep in mind that the Swedish Health Care System is all government funded.
Is this what I have to look forward to?
The good news is "I'm ready for the fight!"
Dr Jim
This would make it illegal for any women covered under the National Health care coverage, which would be many, to have an abortion under any other situation. It would also make it illegal for physicians to provide those services as well.
My mind immediately flashed back to back alley abortion clinics, clandestine, surreptitious clinics performing abortions; and all the de-regulation that comes with any medical procedure not fully scrutinized.
I was frightened, very frightened. What else is in the bill I thought?
A doctor in Sweden was recently cited for malpractice when she attempted to put her patients on a low carb regimen to help them loose weight. This doctor who was once overweight, placed herself on low carbs, lost a good amount of weight, so she decided to share this with her patients. Gosh, it's what I do for my patients on a daily basis.
The Swedish medical societies would have none of that; they immediately sued her for malpractice; the reason, because everyone 'knows' that eating more fat and cholesterol is bad for us.' You read that right. The Doctor was not sued by any of her patients, it was her medical governing bodies that brought the suit. It took this doctor 2 years to finally win the trial, but I ask myself "At what cost?"
Please keep in mind that the Swedish Health Care System is all government funded.
Is this what I have to look forward to?
The good news is "I'm ready for the fight!"
Dr Jim
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
My Take on the White House Party Crashers
OK, so this couple allegedly crashed a party at the White House. Though uninvited (on a morning show today they said they were invited, uh huh, then why all the hoopla) they managed to get by, supposedly, the best security the world has to offer, eat a meal, dance, and even shake hands with our President.
Now the couple faces charges because they were able to pull off this amazing feat. This scenario is a prime example as to how most people, including major organizations, tend to focus on the wrong thing and not analyze how or what they should be focused on.
Instead of bringing this couple up on charges, they should be asking this duo how they got by (the worlds best??) security without an invitation. This is the more important issue. What if they were terrorists? What if they were there to not only hurt our President but others at this event?
Thankfully they were not terrorists just two people looking for a free meal, a nice dance floor to rumba on, and to hopefully meet with the most powerful leader of the free world.
Prosecuting the party crashers is missing a major point. Just like saying that eating fat and cholesterol containing foods are bad; the major organizations and societies are missing a major point as well. They are not focused on analyzing what they should be, but instead continue to follow their inquiries down the wrong path, which results in incorrect proclamations about the truth.
When I heard about the party crashers and how they would be brought up on charges, I immediately drew a corollary between that event and the pervasive ignorance about nutritional biochemistry that still holds true today. Some may think it's a far-fetched analogy; but I don't think so. This whole White House party crashing thing just underscores the profound, abysmal ignorance organizations so ostentatiously exhibit, whenever they focus on the wrong issues, and ignore the more pressing ones.
Dr Jim
Sorry I haven't Blogged in a while. Between the Holiday, the radio show and Web Cast, its been difficult to get on here. Thanks again for following me on my almost daily Blog :-)
Click Here to watch my first Web Cast and let me know what you think!
Now the couple faces charges because they were able to pull off this amazing feat. This scenario is a prime example as to how most people, including major organizations, tend to focus on the wrong thing and not analyze how or what they should be focused on.
Instead of bringing this couple up on charges, they should be asking this duo how they got by (the worlds best??) security without an invitation. This is the more important issue. What if they were terrorists? What if they were there to not only hurt our President but others at this event?
Thankfully they were not terrorists just two people looking for a free meal, a nice dance floor to rumba on, and to hopefully meet with the most powerful leader of the free world.
Prosecuting the party crashers is missing a major point. Just like saying that eating fat and cholesterol containing foods are bad; the major organizations and societies are missing a major point as well. They are not focused on analyzing what they should be, but instead continue to follow their inquiries down the wrong path, which results in incorrect proclamations about the truth.
When I heard about the party crashers and how they would be brought up on charges, I immediately drew a corollary between that event and the pervasive ignorance about nutritional biochemistry that still holds true today. Some may think it's a far-fetched analogy; but I don't think so. This whole White House party crashing thing just underscores the profound, abysmal ignorance organizations so ostentatiously exhibit, whenever they focus on the wrong issues, and ignore the more pressing ones.
Dr Jim
Sorry I haven't Blogged in a while. Between the Holiday, the radio show and Web Cast, its been difficult to get on here. Thanks again for following me on my almost daily Blog :-)
Click Here to watch my first Web Cast and let me know what you think!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
New Study: Pot Might Ease Stress
Ok, so I'm checking my e-mail a few minutes ago and I come across this Headline on Bing. My first thought was, Ya Think, and you know I had to read the study.
So it's a study out of Israeli (I didn't know they were so cool over there:-) and the study focused on the use of the active ingredient in marijuana to relieve the symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder. This particular study used rats. And then I thought "How the heck do you get a rat to smoke a blunt?" I then envisioned all these rats smoking a joint with sunglasses on, laying on chaise lounges, eating Doritos...
And then reality struck.
I was disappointed to learn the rats received a synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana, poor rats. It was also disturbing to me that these rats were shocked with electricity and while this should not have come as a shock to me, er, I meant surprise; I was just flummoxed that an experiment like this would even have to be done.
How much money was spent in proving the obvious I wondered? Ask any person who smokes marijuana and they will tell you it relieves their stress. Now look, I don't smoke, and I'd be exaggerating if I said I've seen anymore than 2 marijuana cigarettes in my entire life; but why would anyone waste any money on trying to prove the obvious??!! It's like having a debate as to what color is white milk, who's buried in Grant's tomb, what time is it at 2 o clock....
Oh yeah, and this study was published in the Journal of Neuroscience, hey, I want to join their club :-)
Hope everyone is having a great Weekend!
Dr Jim
So it's a study out of Israeli (I didn't know they were so cool over there:-) and the study focused on the use of the active ingredient in marijuana to relieve the symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder. This particular study used rats. And then I thought "How the heck do you get a rat to smoke a blunt?" I then envisioned all these rats smoking a joint with sunglasses on, laying on chaise lounges, eating Doritos...
And then reality struck.
I was disappointed to learn the rats received a synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana, poor rats. It was also disturbing to me that these rats were shocked with electricity and while this should not have come as a shock to me, er, I meant surprise; I was just flummoxed that an experiment like this would even have to be done.
How much money was spent in proving the obvious I wondered? Ask any person who smokes marijuana and they will tell you it relieves their stress. Now look, I don't smoke, and I'd be exaggerating if I said I've seen anymore than 2 marijuana cigarettes in my entire life; but why would anyone waste any money on trying to prove the obvious??!! It's like having a debate as to what color is white milk, who's buried in Grant's tomb, what time is it at 2 o clock....
Oh yeah, and this study was published in the Journal of Neuroscience, hey, I want to join their club :-)
Hope everyone is having a great Weekend!
Dr Jim
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Say that three times fast. I thought of this while I was posting yesterday's Blog. but forgot to bring it up. Basically argumentum ad verecundiam refers to the argument that a claim must be true because the person(s) who stated it are professionals or authorities in their field.
Using this reasoning, the diet as put forth by the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and American Cancer Society, all of whom promote a low fat/low cholesterol eating style; must be right because they are all authorities in their field. I am sure most people reading this know that the above 3 organizations are dead wrong with the diets they promote. With emphasis on the dead!
We see it all the time in medicine. I was reading this morning about the eight best foods to lose weight, and on that list were berries and oranges.
Really?
The report used the medical journal Endocrinology to bolster their claims. The reasoning goes like this; if a respected medical journal said it , then it has to be true. Take yesterday's Blog where I attacked the study about the whole carb/mood connection. Now I don't doubt the researchers didn't believe their results (double negative meant), but the problem is that since that one limited , short-term study was publicized all over the Internet and national TV; people are really, truly going to believe that they should be eating more carbs to be happy.
The bottom line is this; just because a respected member of society, a specialist, or any professional makes a comment or statement, it does not make that statement immediately true.
Always question authority---I know I do:-)
Dr Jim
A special thanks goes out to www.freetheanimal.com for enlightening me on the existence and meaning of argumentum ad verecundiam.
Using this reasoning, the diet as put forth by the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and American Cancer Society, all of whom promote a low fat/low cholesterol eating style; must be right because they are all authorities in their field. I am sure most people reading this know that the above 3 organizations are dead wrong with the diets they promote. With emphasis on the dead!
We see it all the time in medicine. I was reading this morning about the eight best foods to lose weight, and on that list were berries and oranges.
Really?
The report used the medical journal Endocrinology to bolster their claims. The reasoning goes like this; if a respected medical journal said it , then it has to be true. Take yesterday's Blog where I attacked the study about the whole carb/mood connection. Now I don't doubt the researchers didn't believe their results (double negative meant), but the problem is that since that one limited , short-term study was publicized all over the Internet and national TV; people are really, truly going to believe that they should be eating more carbs to be happy.
The bottom line is this; just because a respected member of society, a specialist, or any professional makes a comment or statement, it does not make that statement immediately true.
Always question authority---I know I do:-)
Dr Jim
A special thanks goes out to www.freetheanimal.com for enlightening me on the existence and meaning of argumentum ad verecundiam.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
More Bread=Happy?????
OK, so here is yet another example of the anti low-carb sentiment that is sweeping the Nation, with a study released 2 days ago stating the more carbs we eat, the happier we are.
Hmmm, really?
The researchers actually had the testicular fortitude to state that weight loss was the same whether one ate low carb, more protein versus low fat, more carbs.
Again, really?
The Headline in the HealthDay Reporter read "To Feel Better, Low-Fat Diet May Be Best."
The author quotes one of the researchers, Grant D.Brinkworth, from Adelaide, Australia as stating "Both an energy-reduced, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet and a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet are equally effective for achieving weight loss in overweight and obese individuals."
My only response to that statement was again,
Really?
As soon as I saw that it was an Australian researcher, I immediately remembered that one of the most referenced textbooks on something known as the Glycemic Index (GI) is just plain wrong. The GI is supposed to tell us how quickly sugar is released into our bloodstream and there have been many cookbooks and other reference texts based on this concept.
When I first came across the concept of the GI, the theory seemed correct so I attempted to use it in my daily practice. I started implementing the GI with two groups of people in my practice; my diabetics and obese patients. The only problem with the GI was it did not work to any significant degree to control blood sugars or to help people to loose weight. So just as quickly as I started placing patients on a GI based diet, I stopped. I now place the GI concept under the title of pseudo-science.
Now back to the study.
Allow me to restate what this study was allegedly analyzing; the correlation between mood and type of diet one consumes. The Nov. 9 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine goes on to state that, 'Only the low-fat diets will result in long-term improvement in mood." To which I reply "Is that a fact?" And of course, it is indeed not. We all must remember that this was just one study with only 108 participants followed over one year only; with a mean age of 50.
I have been placing my patients on low carb, more fat, cholesterol and protein diets for about 10 years. It's interesting because I do not see what this study purports to claim; most patients are happier and are jubilant that they have lost weight, controlled their blood sugar and blood pressure, cured their relux esophagitis (aka heartburn) MOST OF THE TIME WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MEDICATIONS!!!! And most of my patients are able, if they were on medications, to stop them completely! I almost never see this when a patient continues on a low fat, high carb diet.
I have 20 times the amount of people in my practice eating low carb, more fat, from all age groups (most of whom are indeed in the 50 year category as this is when most people start to take their health seriously),than the Archives of Internal Medicine Study; and my study is well over a year, over 10 years for most people; AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT MOOD ALTERATIONS AS THIS RIDICULOUSLY LIMITED CLOSE MINDED STUDY SUGGESTS I SHOULD BE SEEING!!!!
This study stated that the mood was better in the low fat group at a year than the low carb arm of the study. So this explicitly means the study only lasted a year. In my practice, as stated above, I have 1000+ patients who have been following a low-carb lifestyle for 5, 10, to 15 years, most of whom are ecstatic they do not need meds and if they do; very little. How do we reconcile what I have witnessed first hand in my clinical practice with this limited study?
It is important to stress that such a limited study (108 participants over only a year) has received major National coverage. Not only Internet coverage, but in morning news shows as well. The ABC morning News Show in NY featured a spot on this study, and of course, all this does is paint a bad picture as to the way most of us should be eating in order to enjoy Optimum Health.
Since the Archives of Internal Medicine is recognized as a top peer reviewed medical journal; it enjoyed a media frenzy. This should scare everyone reading this Blog! Why has not my book GENOCIDE: How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You!!! enjoyed as much publicity. My book was based on 9 years of clinical experience with the further support of proven nutritional biochemical tenets; not just one year as this study was based. My book was written only after I had witnessed thousands of case histories, not just 108 as this study had.
All I can say is WOW! The pervasive, profound, abysmal ignorance of the medical profession continues; but I'm not done yet.
The article states, "Health organizations, such as the American Heart Association, tend to advocate higher-carb, low-fat diets." Yeah, because the AHA does not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. They do not understand that plaque forming deadly cholesterol is made from glucose and fructose; they fail to realize that the consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods LOWERS one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, type 2 diabetes and cancer as well. The AHA is ignorant to the tenth degree where the degree equals infinity (and beyond). The AHA is responsible for the slow, and oftentimes quick deaths we see, when we follow their dietary guidelines. The AHA is responsible for the deaths of our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives, children---need I go on. The AHA, by promoting their ignorant guidelines, is allowing the drug companies to take trillions of our health care dollars.
Another comment from the study;
"A year later, average weight loss was about the same in each group: 30.2 pounds."
Really?
Well I cannot refute their number, but how come I haven't seen that same number in my practice? Recently a patient of mine came in having lost 100 Lbs in 10 months; usual weight loss is 30 LBs in as little as two months. In my clinical career, spanning almost twenty years, I have not seen the same numbers this study reported.
"Both diets restricted calories to about 1,433 to 1,672 a day."
Uh huh. Obviously the researchers are missing the fundamental point that calories mean nothing, absolutely nothing, in human nutrition.
I love this statement, "Dr. Ewald Horvath, interim chairman of psychiatry at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said the study was the first "to show both long-term weight loss and improved mood."
First off, I hope interim chairman means he will not be there that long. How could such an ignorant statement be uttered from an alleged medical professional??!! Are you kidding me??!! 'The first long term study." I guess their equating long-term with one year. Gee, I seem to remember a little point in my medical school training that if you're unlucky enough to be at risk for heart disease or diabetes that this risk will stay with you FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE AND NOT JUST ONE YEAR!!!!
As far as the improved mood BS, I suggest the researchers follow me a month in my practice, where I see 2-3 x the amount of people they had in their study, who have been doing low carb for well over one year, sticking to it, and are pretty darn happy their not putting fuel in the jet planes of the CEOs at the drug companies.
"But many overweight and obese people are propelled toward the high-fat diets such as Atkins, "Livin' La Vida" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories," perhaps because of quick initial weight loss, Horvath said."
With all due respect Dr. Horvath,
Number 1) many overweight people are not 'propelled' toward high fat diets, they unfortunately usually wind up in Weight Watchers or the Jenny Craig diets; gaining all their weight back after a few years and then suffer from depression or anxiety as a result. Is that increased mood?--I DON'T THINK SO!!!! Alot of times I have to put these people on antidepressants due their increased depression as a result of diet failure on the low fat, high carb plans;
Number 2) Good Calories, Bad Calories is NOT a diet plan; but a phenomenal book revealing how any and all nutritional dietary studies over the last 100 years HAVE NEVER SHOWN THAT EATING SATURATED FAT OR CHOLESTEROL CONTAINING FOODS CAUSES HEART DISEASE, INCREASES ONE'S RISK FOR OBESITY OR PLACES ONE AT RISK FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES!!!! Dr. Horvath, "Have you read the book?"
Number 3) Congratulations go out to 'Livin La Vida' who has received the recognition it should. And if I am correct, this is Jimmy Moore's site and the complete description is Livin La Vida Low Carb.' Jimmy should get global recognition because he understands more about the importance of the low carb lifestyle than most doctor's I know.
As far as the 'quick initial weight loss comment.' Yes, there is a quick initial weight loss, which is followed by more weight loss, then more, with an interesting thing happening along the way. Blood pressures and sugars normalize; heartburn goes away, energy increases, medications are stopped; and people become healthier; and I might add---HAPPIER!!!
The 'powers that be' need to stop publishing these ridiculous, one sided, close minded, limited, short-term 'we-are-looking-through-the-lens-of-our-myths-and-continue-to-only-see-the-myths' mentality; and need to focus on doing the proper double blind prospective placebo controlled studies to show them once and for all the truth/facts behind low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle changes. But while I think of it; that'll mean some people will have to consume too many carbs and not enough fat and this frightens me.
I think I'll stop now. Oh, I have weeks of this...
Bye for now
Dr Jim
If you haven't done so already Click Here to watch my hour long presentation on the correct way to eat; and always remember that sugar is sugar is sugar.
Hmmm, really?
The researchers actually had the testicular fortitude to state that weight loss was the same whether one ate low carb, more protein versus low fat, more carbs.
Again, really?
The Headline in the HealthDay Reporter read "To Feel Better, Low-Fat Diet May Be Best."
The author quotes one of the researchers, Grant D.Brinkworth, from Adelaide, Australia as stating "Both an energy-reduced, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet and a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet are equally effective for achieving weight loss in overweight and obese individuals."
My only response to that statement was again,
Really?
As soon as I saw that it was an Australian researcher, I immediately remembered that one of the most referenced textbooks on something known as the Glycemic Index (GI) is just plain wrong. The GI is supposed to tell us how quickly sugar is released into our bloodstream and there have been many cookbooks and other reference texts based on this concept.
When I first came across the concept of the GI, the theory seemed correct so I attempted to use it in my daily practice. I started implementing the GI with two groups of people in my practice; my diabetics and obese patients. The only problem with the GI was it did not work to any significant degree to control blood sugars or to help people to loose weight. So just as quickly as I started placing patients on a GI based diet, I stopped. I now place the GI concept under the title of pseudo-science.
Now back to the study.
Allow me to restate what this study was allegedly analyzing; the correlation between mood and type of diet one consumes. The Nov. 9 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine goes on to state that, 'Only the low-fat diets will result in long-term improvement in mood." To which I reply "Is that a fact?" And of course, it is indeed not. We all must remember that this was just one study with only 108 participants followed over one year only; with a mean age of 50.
I have been placing my patients on low carb, more fat, cholesterol and protein diets for about 10 years. It's interesting because I do not see what this study purports to claim; most patients are happier and are jubilant that they have lost weight, controlled their blood sugar and blood pressure, cured their relux esophagitis (aka heartburn) MOST OF THE TIME WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MEDICATIONS!!!! And most of my patients are able, if they were on medications, to stop them completely! I almost never see this when a patient continues on a low fat, high carb diet.
I have 20 times the amount of people in my practice eating low carb, more fat, from all age groups (most of whom are indeed in the 50 year category as this is when most people start to take their health seriously),than the Archives of Internal Medicine Study; and my study is well over a year, over 10 years for most people; AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT MOOD ALTERATIONS AS THIS RIDICULOUSLY LIMITED CLOSE MINDED STUDY SUGGESTS I SHOULD BE SEEING!!!!
This study stated that the mood was better in the low fat group at a year than the low carb arm of the study. So this explicitly means the study only lasted a year. In my practice, as stated above, I have 1000+ patients who have been following a low-carb lifestyle for 5, 10, to 15 years, most of whom are ecstatic they do not need meds and if they do; very little. How do we reconcile what I have witnessed first hand in my clinical practice with this limited study?
It is important to stress that such a limited study (108 participants over only a year) has received major National coverage. Not only Internet coverage, but in morning news shows as well. The ABC morning News Show in NY featured a spot on this study, and of course, all this does is paint a bad picture as to the way most of us should be eating in order to enjoy Optimum Health.
Since the Archives of Internal Medicine is recognized as a top peer reviewed medical journal; it enjoyed a media frenzy. This should scare everyone reading this Blog! Why has not my book GENOCIDE: How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You!!! enjoyed as much publicity. My book was based on 9 years of clinical experience with the further support of proven nutritional biochemical tenets; not just one year as this study was based. My book was written only after I had witnessed thousands of case histories, not just 108 as this study had.
All I can say is WOW! The pervasive, profound, abysmal ignorance of the medical profession continues; but I'm not done yet.
The article states, "Health organizations, such as the American Heart Association, tend to advocate higher-carb, low-fat diets." Yeah, because the AHA does not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. They do not understand that plaque forming deadly cholesterol is made from glucose and fructose; they fail to realize that the consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods LOWERS one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, type 2 diabetes and cancer as well. The AHA is ignorant to the tenth degree where the degree equals infinity (and beyond). The AHA is responsible for the slow, and oftentimes quick deaths we see, when we follow their dietary guidelines. The AHA is responsible for the deaths of our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives, children---need I go on. The AHA, by promoting their ignorant guidelines, is allowing the drug companies to take trillions of our health care dollars.
Another comment from the study;
"A year later, average weight loss was about the same in each group: 30.2 pounds."
Really?
Well I cannot refute their number, but how come I haven't seen that same number in my practice? Recently a patient of mine came in having lost 100 Lbs in 10 months; usual weight loss is 30 LBs in as little as two months. In my clinical career, spanning almost twenty years, I have not seen the same numbers this study reported.
"Both diets restricted calories to about 1,433 to 1,672 a day."
Uh huh. Obviously the researchers are missing the fundamental point that calories mean nothing, absolutely nothing, in human nutrition.
I love this statement, "Dr. Ewald Horvath, interim chairman of psychiatry at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said the study was the first "to show both long-term weight loss and improved mood."
First off, I hope interim chairman means he will not be there that long. How could such an ignorant statement be uttered from an alleged medical professional??!! Are you kidding me??!! 'The first long term study." I guess their equating long-term with one year. Gee, I seem to remember a little point in my medical school training that if you're unlucky enough to be at risk for heart disease or diabetes that this risk will stay with you FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE AND NOT JUST ONE YEAR!!!!
As far as the improved mood BS, I suggest the researchers follow me a month in my practice, where I see 2-3 x the amount of people they had in their study, who have been doing low carb for well over one year, sticking to it, and are pretty darn happy their not putting fuel in the jet planes of the CEOs at the drug companies.
"But many overweight and obese people are propelled toward the high-fat diets such as Atkins, "Livin' La Vida" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories," perhaps because of quick initial weight loss, Horvath said."
With all due respect Dr. Horvath,
Number 1) many overweight people are not 'propelled' toward high fat diets, they unfortunately usually wind up in Weight Watchers or the Jenny Craig diets; gaining all their weight back after a few years and then suffer from depression or anxiety as a result. Is that increased mood?--I DON'T THINK SO!!!! Alot of times I have to put these people on antidepressants due their increased depression as a result of diet failure on the low fat, high carb plans;
Number 2) Good Calories, Bad Calories is NOT a diet plan; but a phenomenal book revealing how any and all nutritional dietary studies over the last 100 years HAVE NEVER SHOWN THAT EATING SATURATED FAT OR CHOLESTEROL CONTAINING FOODS CAUSES HEART DISEASE, INCREASES ONE'S RISK FOR OBESITY OR PLACES ONE AT RISK FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES!!!! Dr. Horvath, "Have you read the book?"
Number 3) Congratulations go out to 'Livin La Vida' who has received the recognition it should. And if I am correct, this is Jimmy Moore's site and the complete description is Livin La Vida Low Carb.' Jimmy should get global recognition because he understands more about the importance of the low carb lifestyle than most doctor's I know.
As far as the 'quick initial weight loss comment.' Yes, there is a quick initial weight loss, which is followed by more weight loss, then more, with an interesting thing happening along the way. Blood pressures and sugars normalize; heartburn goes away, energy increases, medications are stopped; and people become healthier; and I might add---HAPPIER!!!
The 'powers that be' need to stop publishing these ridiculous, one sided, close minded, limited, short-term 'we-are-looking-through-the-lens-of-our-myths-and-continue-to-only-see-the-myths' mentality; and need to focus on doing the proper double blind prospective placebo controlled studies to show them once and for all the truth/facts behind low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle changes. But while I think of it; that'll mean some people will have to consume too many carbs and not enough fat and this frightens me.
I think I'll stop now. Oh, I have weeks of this...
Bye for now
Dr Jim
If you haven't done so already Click Here to watch my hour long presentation on the correct way to eat; and always remember that sugar is sugar is sugar.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
This is a saying most of us have heard or even used in the past. I recently had a patient who suffered a traumatic brain injury while she was graciously volunteering her time at a festival, face painting the children at this event.
The injury occurred when a large tree limb fell and the patient, leaping forward to protect the child from danger, had the tree limb fall on her head, instead of on the child; who would have most definitely suffered severe injury or death. When I finally saw this patient it was, I believe, about 6 months after the injury.
She presented to my office complaining of profuse watery discharge from her nostrils. Since the trauma from the tree limb had happened months ago, and since the patient never lost consciousness (nor did she go to the ED),; I diagnosed the patient with allergies and prescribed typical anti-allergy medications.
Her profuse discharge persisted.
She finally went to an allergist who, very astutely I might add, checked the fluid which was emanating from her nostrils; discovering that it was not mucous from allergies, but indeed was something called cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF. The only way CSF could flow out of the nostrils would be due to a traumatic brain injury. An MRI ensued and it was found she had suffered a cribriform plate fracture. The cribriform plate seperates the upper part of the nostrils from the outside world.
She saw a neurosurgeon who fixed the fracture and now she is doing well. When she returned to my office for follow-up, we both jokingly made the statement that 'no good deed goes unpunished' and we both laughed.
Then I stopped and thought about the whole sequence of events. Both I and the patient started wondering what would have happened if the patient wasn't at the face painting event. Would this child have been struck by the tree limb? What type of injury or worse would this child have suffered if this patient was not there to protect this child. We both shuddered at the possibilities...
We both came to the conclusion that even with something as tragic as a traumatic brain injury requiring neurosurgical repair; that this was indeed a good deed, as the patient undoubtedly saved a child from serious injury or death; and no, the tree limb falling on her head was not punishment, but just a freak accident.
I now view the statement which started this blog in a whole new light.
Dr Jim
Click Here to watch my You-Tube Video!
The injury occurred when a large tree limb fell and the patient, leaping forward to protect the child from danger, had the tree limb fall on her head, instead of on the child; who would have most definitely suffered severe injury or death. When I finally saw this patient it was, I believe, about 6 months after the injury.
She presented to my office complaining of profuse watery discharge from her nostrils. Since the trauma from the tree limb had happened months ago, and since the patient never lost consciousness (nor did she go to the ED),; I diagnosed the patient with allergies and prescribed typical anti-allergy medications.
Her profuse discharge persisted.
She finally went to an allergist who, very astutely I might add, checked the fluid which was emanating from her nostrils; discovering that it was not mucous from allergies, but indeed was something called cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF. The only way CSF could flow out of the nostrils would be due to a traumatic brain injury. An MRI ensued and it was found she had suffered a cribriform plate fracture. The cribriform plate seperates the upper part of the nostrils from the outside world.
She saw a neurosurgeon who fixed the fracture and now she is doing well. When she returned to my office for follow-up, we both jokingly made the statement that 'no good deed goes unpunished' and we both laughed.
Then I stopped and thought about the whole sequence of events. Both I and the patient started wondering what would have happened if the patient wasn't at the face painting event. Would this child have been struck by the tree limb? What type of injury or worse would this child have suffered if this patient was not there to protect this child. We both shuddered at the possibilities...
We both came to the conclusion that even with something as tragic as a traumatic brain injury requiring neurosurgical repair; that this was indeed a good deed, as the patient undoubtedly saved a child from serious injury or death; and no, the tree limb falling on her head was not punishment, but just a freak accident.
I now view the statement which started this blog in a whole new light.
Dr Jim
Click Here to watch my You-Tube Video!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Don't Forget Live Web Cast!
Don't forget about my live Web Cast later this morning between 10-11 AM. I hope everyone enjoys. If you miss it, no worries, it will be archived at www.dreamweaverradio.com
Bye for now
Dr Jim
Bye for now
Dr Jim
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Live Web Cast!
Hello everyone! Was down for the count, but I'm back and preparing for my live Web Cast this Saturday. Log on to http://www.dreamweaverradio.com/ at 10 am to watch my live Web Cast. I will focus on, of course, nutrition and will expose the 5 biggest dietary myths that most physicians still propagate today.
I am very excited about the show Saturday as I will also answer any questions my viewers wish to ask. A phone number and e-mail will be displayed so anyone can call in to ask not only nutritional questions, but any medical question for that matter.
Hope everyone is doing well! The Web Cast will last about an hour. Hopefully I wont choke when the cameras go on :-) But that would be fun to watch too, I guess. LOL.
Let me know how I do.
Dr Jim
I am very excited about the show Saturday as I will also answer any questions my viewers wish to ask. A phone number and e-mail will be displayed so anyone can call in to ask not only nutritional questions, but any medical question for that matter.
Hope everyone is doing well! The Web Cast will last about an hour. Hopefully I wont choke when the cameras go on :-) But that would be fun to watch too, I guess. LOL.
Let me know how I do.
Dr Jim
Thursday, October 22, 2009
More On Quitting Smoking
I only placed the quit smoking banner yesterday and have received numerous e-mails asking me the difference between the 'natural' way to quit versus this new e-cigarette that is now available.
The difference is that the banner I placed on my Blog yesterday, which I'll place again today, uses a homeopathic blend to create an aversion to cigarettes to aid in quitting. The e-cigarette, with the 'e' standing for electronic, gives the user nicotine without the 2000-3000 carcinogens one gets by smoking a regular cigarette.
What alot of people do not know is that nicotine does not cause cancer. What causes the increased risk of cancer, heart and vascular problems is the combustion of the tobacco leaf. The combustion of the tobacco leaf releases all the cancer causing particles and it is through this combustion process nicotine is also obtained.
Since the e-cigarette is not a combustion process, no carcinogens are released. What the e-cigarette provides is simply nicotine, which is what the smoker is really after. So basically, all the e-cigarette provides is nicotine without any cancer causing particles.
I had to laugh at the ridiculous statement made by the FDA in regards to the e-cigarette. The comment was made that these safer alternatives should be banned because some of the brands contained up to 4 or 5 carcinogens. Let's see, if I was a smoker, would I rather be exposed to 4 or 5 cancer causing things or 2000-3000. Hmmmm.
I think I know how most of you would answer.
Click Here to view more about the e-cigarette, which I am not opposed to, and feel it really does provide a safer alternative to smoking a tobacco cigarette.
Oh yeah, and if you haven't seen my You Tube Video yet, promoting my live WebCast, that's right, I did say 'Live' Click Here to check it out!
Dr Jim
The difference is that the banner I placed on my Blog yesterday, which I'll place again today, uses a homeopathic blend to create an aversion to cigarettes to aid in quitting. The e-cigarette, with the 'e' standing for electronic, gives the user nicotine without the 2000-3000 carcinogens one gets by smoking a regular cigarette.
What alot of people do not know is that nicotine does not cause cancer. What causes the increased risk of cancer, heart and vascular problems is the combustion of the tobacco leaf. The combustion of the tobacco leaf releases all the cancer causing particles and it is through this combustion process nicotine is also obtained.
Since the e-cigarette is not a combustion process, no carcinogens are released. What the e-cigarette provides is simply nicotine, which is what the smoker is really after. So basically, all the e-cigarette provides is nicotine without any cancer causing particles.
I had to laugh at the ridiculous statement made by the FDA in regards to the e-cigarette. The comment was made that these safer alternatives should be banned because some of the brands contained up to 4 or 5 carcinogens. Let's see, if I was a smoker, would I rather be exposed to 4 or 5 cancer causing things or 2000-3000. Hmmmm.
I think I know how most of you would answer.
Click Here to view more about the e-cigarette, which I am not opposed to, and feel it really does provide a safer alternative to smoking a tobacco cigarette.
Oh yeah, and if you haven't seen my You Tube Video yet, promoting my live WebCast, that's right, I did say 'Live' Click Here to check it out!
Dr Jim
Saturday's Radio Show and News on the Webcast
Saturday's radio show will continue to focus on autism. I will highlight the latest treatment options and will explore other, more controversial methods of treatment; such as radio pulse frequency and ultrasonic stimulation of the brains of autistic children.
Many of you have e-mailed me (by the way, feel free to e-mail me with any of your questions at drjim@drjamescarlson.com) and have asked what the deal is with the www.dreamweaver.com site. Well, we are working on getting the site up and running for October 31st's first live web cast (very exciting)!
The plan is to place the already taped radio shows on the site for everyone to view and to also place other links of interest on the site.
I thank you all for your patience!
Dr Jim
Many of you have e-mailed me (by the way, feel free to e-mail me with any of your questions at drjim@drjamescarlson.com) and have asked what the deal is with the www.dreamweaver.com site. Well, we are working on getting the site up and running for October 31st's first live web cast (very exciting)!
The plan is to place the already taped radio shows on the site for everyone to view and to also place other links of interest on the site.
I thank you all for your patience!
Dr Jim
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
For Those of You Who Smoke
I placed the banner below for my patients who are struggling with trying to quit smoking. Out of the 20 or so patients I saw today, 12 smoked. All of them know how dangerous it is to continue to smoke, but all are also addicted to the nicotine.
The banner provides information on how to successfully quit tobacco use, without using nicotine or any tobacco related products.
Good luck! You can quit, I know you can!
Dr Jim
The banner provides information on how to successfully quit tobacco use, without using nicotine or any tobacco related products.
Good luck! You can quit, I know you can!
Dr Jim
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Live Virtual Webcast
Just a little reminder to all that my live virtual webcast's first show is Halloween Day between 10 and 11 am EST. Thanks go out to everyone for adding comments to my You-Tube Video trailer attempting to destroy the 4 biggest dietary myths.
A few comments wondered why I was so angry, almost to WWF hype. Well, it's more frustration than anger as millions of people continue to suffer and die every day due to the persistence of physicians dietary ignorance. This has to stop.
Watch the video again. Click Here to watch. Share the link with your friends, relatives, neighbors and anyone you care about as the myths I dispel will help save millions of lives and allow us to save trillions of dollars wasted on unneeded medications that the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe you need. This needs to stop.
Bye for now. Talk soon!
Dr Jim
A few comments wondered why I was so angry, almost to WWF hype. Well, it's more frustration than anger as millions of people continue to suffer and die every day due to the persistence of physicians dietary ignorance. This has to stop.
Watch the video again. Click Here to watch. Share the link with your friends, relatives, neighbors and anyone you care about as the myths I dispel will help save millions of lives and allow us to save trillions of dollars wasted on unneeded medications that the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe you need. This needs to stop.
Bye for now. Talk soon!
Dr Jim
Monday, October 19, 2009
Check Out My You-Tube Video!
Hello Everyone! I am very excited to be able to offer a Live Web Cast show which will begin this Halloween day. It will start at 10 am and will run an hour. While I will focus mainly on Nutritional Wellness, I will take questions relating to any and all of your health care needs. The web site to log into the Web Cast is http://www.dreamweaverradio.com/. The number to call to ask me any medical question you wish is 347 - 568 - 0859. You can also e-mail me your questions at DrJim@DrJamesCarlson.com and I will most likely have a way you can contact me live during the show with your medical questions.
Click Here to watch my You-Tube Video!
Click Here to watch my You-Tube Video!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Increased Autism Rates Analyzed From Different News Perspectives
I want to thank Rosa for sending me this link where you can watch a video, which analyzes different news perspectives, as to why we are seeing increased rates of autism.
Click Here to watch the video.
Also, listen to 620 on your AM dial between 9 and 10 am tomorrow, Saturday October 10th, as the show plans on focusing on autism. (Can only be heard in NYC and surrounding regions.)
(To Rosa, I tried sending an e-mail back to you but couldn't send it. Not sure if I typed wrong address or not.)
Have a great weekend everyone!
Dr Jim
Click Here to watch the video.
Also, listen to 620 on your AM dial between 9 and 10 am tomorrow, Saturday October 10th, as the show plans on focusing on autism. (Can only be heard in NYC and surrounding regions.)
(To Rosa, I tried sending an e-mail back to you but couldn't send it. Not sure if I typed wrong address or not.)
Have a great weekend everyone!
Dr Jim
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Latest Statistics on Autism--Very Disturbing
The latest statistics on autism are troublesome.Only a few years ago the rates of autism were 1 child in every 150. Currently, 1 in every 91 children will be diagnosed with autism. Since autism is seen 4-5x as frequently in males than females, this increases the risk of having a male child with autism to 1 in every 58 males born.
1 in every 58!
I am deeply troubled by these statistics and would like to offer my opinion as to what is causing this increased frequency of having a child with autism. First off, autism is multi factorial. This means there are many different reasons contributing to the creation and development of an autistic child. Autism indeed has a genetic influence and while research out of Massachusetts General Hospital places that statistic at 90% (genetic), researchers stated "the majority of autism cases cannot be attributed to known inherited causes."
Looking at specific genes, it appears that chromosomes # 5, 6 and 20 contained genes which encode for some autistic traits (commonly known as phenotypes). This information was obtained from analyzing 1000 families in the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange (AGRE) and the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), where about a "half million genetic markers" were analyzed.
For those of you who like the specifics, it was a variation in the genetic code on chromosome 5 near the gene known "as semaphorin A" whose function is thought to be to help with the growth of neurons and their axons within the central nervous system. This particular gene's ability to be active , or 'expressed,' is what is thought to underlie the increase in autism rates.
As was mentioned earlier, autism is not the result of a single defect of a single gene, nor is it the result of a single environmental influence.
Many parents have attempted to blame the presence of thimerosal preservative in some vaccinations (no longer found in most vaccinations), as causing the vast majority of autistic cases. There are two problems with this theory. Number 1; Thimerosal is no longer found in the vaccinations we give our children (unless it is a multi dose vial, but parents can still request a single dose which will contain no thimerosal); yet the rates of autism have doubled despite the disappearance of thimerosol; and Number 2; Autism does not resemble mercury toxicity of the central nervous system. So even if thimerosal were still present in vaccines, the way children present with mercury toxicity, again, is dissimilar to how a child presents with autism.
For the most comprehensive analysis of autism I've ever encountered Click Here. I cannot show any of the specific information on my blog due to copyright concerns.
So what do I theorize is contributing to the increase in autism. Those of you who have been following my blog pretty much know where I'm going with this one. While there certainly may be some environmental factors, I believe one of the biggest contributors is how the child is treated before it is conceived, while it is developing in-utero (in the womb), and how it is treated after it is born.
It seems pretty weird that I would suggest that autism may start before a child is even conceived, that is, before the sperm ever meets the egg, but allow me to explain. Most women are trying dutifully to read up on all the proper nutrition and eat the right way, especially those women who are even remotely thinking about getting pregnant. So women read all the journal's and magazine articles, perform online searches to find the latest nutritional studies, and what they end up with is the incorrect 'accepted' dietary information.
The problem becomes even greater because the incorrect 'accepted' dietary approach, because it is the 'accepted' approach; will be the same in just about every article the women come across. All these articles will promote low fat/low cholesterol diets; inherently limiting an expectant mom's protein intake as well; and the stage is now set for increasing her risk of having an autistic child.
You see, even before an egg is fertilized, the ovary (and eggs) all need to be bathed in the proper macro and micro-nutrients. Macro-nutrients represent the protein, fat, cholesterol and carbohydrates found in the body. While the micro-nutrients represents the vitamins & minerals a woman needs for the proper health of both herself and her baby.
It is interesting that there is general uniformity about the micro nutrients, the best example being that of folic acid and neural tube health; but the medical profession lags very far behind in understanding the proper macro-nutrient nutrition of a hopeful mom, as well as a mom to be, and to extrapolate even further, that of the newborn child.
A mom who is looking to conceive in a few months or a year, will do well to lower her carb intake, and consume more protein, fat and cholesterol. This is because the consumption of too many carbohydrates is known to create an inflammatory environment within our bodies. Since a mom's eggs are static, that is, they are not constantly being renewed (like sperm), this will allow the eggs to be surrounded in an inflammatory medium, possibly affecting the chromosomal material within each egg, thus increasing the possibility of abnormal nervous system development; possibly contributing to a rise in autistic probability.
Let's presume now the mom is pregnant. A mom who consumes less protein, fat and cholesterol and more carbohydrates, and this will happen if the mom is following the accepted low fat/low cholesterol diet; will be at risk for weight-gain, the development of pregnancy induced hypertension (high-blood pressure), gestational diabetes (with its attendant issues with larger babies and the inability to be delivered vaginally), edema of the ankles with the subsequent development of preeclampsia (high blood pressure, edema, and protein in urine) and now the mom faces the danger of becoming eclamptic (seizures with potential of death to mom and baby).
Aside from all the health risks the mom faces. the developing baby who is exposed to more sugar (as it is the sugar which will cross the placental barrier), can now experience growth enlargement (threatening its ability to be born vaginally) and will have problems with organ development (which occurs i the first trimester of pregnancy, also known as the embryological stage). It's important to note that in the first trimester, or the first 3 months, alot of women are not even aware they are pregnant. So women will be harming their babies before they even know they are pregnant. (This is why avoidance of alcohol and tobacco and of course any drug which can harm the baby, needs to be avoided when a mom makes a decision to conceive.)
It needs to be stressed that a developing baby needs protein, fat and cholesterol to develop all their organs normally. It also needs to be stressed that there are essential proteins and fats, which our bodies cannot make and need to be supplied from the diet. Consuming a low fat/low cholesterol diet will make it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain these crucial food supplements. These essential fats and proteins cannot be made from carbohydrates and need to be received from only fat and cholesterol in the diet; and they are imperative for not only all organ development, but especially the central nervous system(which includes the brain).
Carbohydrates cannot be used to create these essential food items. Also, while all our carbohydrate needs can be obtained from protein and fat; the reverse is not true as stated above. That is, the essential fatty acids and proteins (really amino acids, the building blocks of protein) need to be obtained from the diet. If they are not, the developing baby's organ system development, which includes the Central nervous system as stated above, will be jeopardized.
Let me just add that our bodies are made up of water, fat/cholesterol and protein, with a mere 2% of our bodies existing in the form of carbohydrate. And our brains continue with this breakdown as the brain is comprised of predominantly water, fat/cholesterol and protein with, again, only 2% of our brains consisting of carbohydrate or sugar. So when a pregnant woman eats low fat/low cholesterol and more carbohydrate (whole grains and fruits-yes, you read that right), she is not providing the baby's developing nervous system with what it needs to develop normally. This could absolutely increase this baby's risk for autism.
But I'm not done yet. Assuming the baby makes it through the onslaught of the sugar it has been presented with throughout its uterine life, it is now born into a carbohydrate worshipped world. What I mean by this is that most babies in America are not breastfed, they receive formula. For anyone who disputes this, be aware that a woman will be stated to have breastfed if she only breastfeeds for a month, and this includes women who are not even exclusively breastfeeding! So the statistics on breastfeeding are very misleading. What do you think human breast milk is comprised of-well, it does contain carbohydrate (certainly not alot), but it also contains high amounts of fat,cholesterol and protein. Mom's who don't breastfeed are giving their babies too much sugar and this will impair central nervous system growth and development (which continues well into a child's 5th birthday and beyond).
Of course, most children when they are weaned from the bottle (or even the breast) will then start to eat a diet high in carbs and low in fat/cholesterol and protein and of course this will only prolong and encourage any abnormal development of brain.
So there you have some of my ideas as to why we are seeing an almost doubling of autism in our society. Again for the most comprehensive analysis of autism from a leading autism advocate, just Click Here.
Thanks so much for your time!
Dr Jim
Hello Jim! My twelfth follower!
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
1 in every 58!
I am deeply troubled by these statistics and would like to offer my opinion as to what is causing this increased frequency of having a child with autism. First off, autism is multi factorial. This means there are many different reasons contributing to the creation and development of an autistic child. Autism indeed has a genetic influence and while research out of Massachusetts General Hospital places that statistic at 90% (genetic), researchers stated "the majority of autism cases cannot be attributed to known inherited causes."
Looking at specific genes, it appears that chromosomes # 5, 6 and 20 contained genes which encode for some autistic traits (commonly known as phenotypes). This information was obtained from analyzing 1000 families in the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange (AGRE) and the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), where about a "half million genetic markers" were analyzed.
For those of you who like the specifics, it was a variation in the genetic code on chromosome 5 near the gene known "as semaphorin A" whose function is thought to be to help with the growth of neurons and their axons within the central nervous system. This particular gene's ability to be active , or 'expressed,' is what is thought to underlie the increase in autism rates.
As was mentioned earlier, autism is not the result of a single defect of a single gene, nor is it the result of a single environmental influence.
Many parents have attempted to blame the presence of thimerosal preservative in some vaccinations (no longer found in most vaccinations), as causing the vast majority of autistic cases. There are two problems with this theory. Number 1; Thimerosal is no longer found in the vaccinations we give our children (unless it is a multi dose vial, but parents can still request a single dose which will contain no thimerosal); yet the rates of autism have doubled despite the disappearance of thimerosol; and Number 2; Autism does not resemble mercury toxicity of the central nervous system. So even if thimerosal were still present in vaccines, the way children present with mercury toxicity, again, is dissimilar to how a child presents with autism.
For the most comprehensive analysis of autism I've ever encountered Click Here. I cannot show any of the specific information on my blog due to copyright concerns.
So what do I theorize is contributing to the increase in autism. Those of you who have been following my blog pretty much know where I'm going with this one. While there certainly may be some environmental factors, I believe one of the biggest contributors is how the child is treated before it is conceived, while it is developing in-utero (in the womb), and how it is treated after it is born.
It seems pretty weird that I would suggest that autism may start before a child is even conceived, that is, before the sperm ever meets the egg, but allow me to explain. Most women are trying dutifully to read up on all the proper nutrition and eat the right way, especially those women who are even remotely thinking about getting pregnant. So women read all the journal's and magazine articles, perform online searches to find the latest nutritional studies, and what they end up with is the incorrect 'accepted' dietary information.
The problem becomes even greater because the incorrect 'accepted' dietary approach, because it is the 'accepted' approach; will be the same in just about every article the women come across. All these articles will promote low fat/low cholesterol diets; inherently limiting an expectant mom's protein intake as well; and the stage is now set for increasing her risk of having an autistic child.
You see, even before an egg is fertilized, the ovary (and eggs) all need to be bathed in the proper macro and micro-nutrients. Macro-nutrients represent the protein, fat, cholesterol and carbohydrates found in the body. While the micro-nutrients represents the vitamins & minerals a woman needs for the proper health of both herself and her baby.
It is interesting that there is general uniformity about the micro nutrients, the best example being that of folic acid and neural tube health; but the medical profession lags very far behind in understanding the proper macro-nutrient nutrition of a hopeful mom, as well as a mom to be, and to extrapolate even further, that of the newborn child.
A mom who is looking to conceive in a few months or a year, will do well to lower her carb intake, and consume more protein, fat and cholesterol. This is because the consumption of too many carbohydrates is known to create an inflammatory environment within our bodies. Since a mom's eggs are static, that is, they are not constantly being renewed (like sperm), this will allow the eggs to be surrounded in an inflammatory medium, possibly affecting the chromosomal material within each egg, thus increasing the possibility of abnormal nervous system development; possibly contributing to a rise in autistic probability.
Let's presume now the mom is pregnant. A mom who consumes less protein, fat and cholesterol and more carbohydrates, and this will happen if the mom is following the accepted low fat/low cholesterol diet; will be at risk for weight-gain, the development of pregnancy induced hypertension (high-blood pressure), gestational diabetes (with its attendant issues with larger babies and the inability to be delivered vaginally), edema of the ankles with the subsequent development of preeclampsia (high blood pressure, edema, and protein in urine) and now the mom faces the danger of becoming eclamptic (seizures with potential of death to mom and baby).
Aside from all the health risks the mom faces. the developing baby who is exposed to more sugar (as it is the sugar which will cross the placental barrier), can now experience growth enlargement (threatening its ability to be born vaginally) and will have problems with organ development (which occurs i the first trimester of pregnancy, also known as the embryological stage). It's important to note that in the first trimester, or the first 3 months, alot of women are not even aware they are pregnant. So women will be harming their babies before they even know they are pregnant. (This is why avoidance of alcohol and tobacco and of course any drug which can harm the baby, needs to be avoided when a mom makes a decision to conceive.)
It needs to be stressed that a developing baby needs protein, fat and cholesterol to develop all their organs normally. It also needs to be stressed that there are essential proteins and fats, which our bodies cannot make and need to be supplied from the diet. Consuming a low fat/low cholesterol diet will make it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain these crucial food supplements. These essential fats and proteins cannot be made from carbohydrates and need to be received from only fat and cholesterol in the diet; and they are imperative for not only all organ development, but especially the central nervous system(which includes the brain).
Carbohydrates cannot be used to create these essential food items. Also, while all our carbohydrate needs can be obtained from protein and fat; the reverse is not true as stated above. That is, the essential fatty acids and proteins (really amino acids, the building blocks of protein) need to be obtained from the diet. If they are not, the developing baby's organ system development, which includes the Central nervous system as stated above, will be jeopardized.
Let me just add that our bodies are made up of water, fat/cholesterol and protein, with a mere 2% of our bodies existing in the form of carbohydrate. And our brains continue with this breakdown as the brain is comprised of predominantly water, fat/cholesterol and protein with, again, only 2% of our brains consisting of carbohydrate or sugar. So when a pregnant woman eats low fat/low cholesterol and more carbohydrate (whole grains and fruits-yes, you read that right), she is not providing the baby's developing nervous system with what it needs to develop normally. This could absolutely increase this baby's risk for autism.
But I'm not done yet. Assuming the baby makes it through the onslaught of the sugar it has been presented with throughout its uterine life, it is now born into a carbohydrate worshipped world. What I mean by this is that most babies in America are not breastfed, they receive formula. For anyone who disputes this, be aware that a woman will be stated to have breastfed if she only breastfeeds for a month, and this includes women who are not even exclusively breastfeeding! So the statistics on breastfeeding are very misleading. What do you think human breast milk is comprised of-well, it does contain carbohydrate (certainly not alot), but it also contains high amounts of fat,cholesterol and protein. Mom's who don't breastfeed are giving their babies too much sugar and this will impair central nervous system growth and development (which continues well into a child's 5th birthday and beyond).
Of course, most children when they are weaned from the bottle (or even the breast) will then start to eat a diet high in carbs and low in fat/cholesterol and protein and of course this will only prolong and encourage any abnormal development of brain.
So there you have some of my ideas as to why we are seeing an almost doubling of autism in our society. Again for the most comprehensive analysis of autism from a leading autism advocate, just Click Here.
Thanks so much for your time!
Dr Jim
Hello Jim! My twelfth follower!
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Sugar is Sugar is Sugar
I just wanted to take some time to reiterate to my readers this very important point. Please always remember that sugar is sugar is sugar. This is such an important point that it bears repeating it to yourself a thousand times a day.
By remembering this simple saying, you will not fall victim to the incorrect thinking that our body's somehow use a glucose molecule differently, if it comes from different food sources. For instance, the medical profession, registered dietitians and nutritionists alike, think if a glucose molecule comes from whole wheat bread it is somehow treated differently than if it came from a cake or candy item. The glucose molecule will be treated the same by our body no matter where it came from.
Now do not think I am promoting the consumption of cakes and candies over whole wheat bread. I am not. Actually, I wouldn't promote the consumption of either as they all contain high amounts of glucose in them. What happens once the glucose molecule gets inside our cells is that it will be converted into plaque forming deadly cholesterol as well as the fat we call a triglyceride. These are the facts.
Please do not forget that the sugar fructose, found in fruits, will also be converted into plaque-forming deadly cholesterol. Again, this is a fact. For some reason the medical profession thinks that the sugar fructose is somehow better for us, but the facts are that it is transformed into cholesterol and triglycerides faster than glucose.
I present the facts, but yet I am seen as being controversial. Interesting....
Well, I'm going to keep this one short as I am feeling a little under the weather today. Need my rest.
Let me welcome my 10th follower Lentpond, thanks for following!
Dr Jim
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free!
By remembering this simple saying, you will not fall victim to the incorrect thinking that our body's somehow use a glucose molecule differently, if it comes from different food sources. For instance, the medical profession, registered dietitians and nutritionists alike, think if a glucose molecule comes from whole wheat bread it is somehow treated differently than if it came from a cake or candy item. The glucose molecule will be treated the same by our body no matter where it came from.
Now do not think I am promoting the consumption of cakes and candies over whole wheat bread. I am not. Actually, I wouldn't promote the consumption of either as they all contain high amounts of glucose in them. What happens once the glucose molecule gets inside our cells is that it will be converted into plaque forming deadly cholesterol as well as the fat we call a triglyceride. These are the facts.
Please do not forget that the sugar fructose, found in fruits, will also be converted into plaque-forming deadly cholesterol. Again, this is a fact. For some reason the medical profession thinks that the sugar fructose is somehow better for us, but the facts are that it is transformed into cholesterol and triglycerides faster than glucose.
I present the facts, but yet I am seen as being controversial. Interesting....
Well, I'm going to keep this one short as I am feeling a little under the weather today. Need my rest.
Let me welcome my 10th follower Lentpond, thanks for following!
Dr Jim
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
This Was My Post on A Site Discussing Childhood Obesity
Click Here to read the article I responded to.
I really liked this post and feel the need to make some statements. I am a family physician who focuses on the use of nutrition to treat a whole host of medical problems. A major medical problem I see on a daily basis is obesity. It is shocking the numbers of obese people, especially children, that are out there. The problem with childhood obesity, which for the most part is treatable, preventable and curable; is that the medical profession, with all its major breakthroughs, does not understand what is causing the obesity epidemic (pandemic?); despite the fact the answer is right in front of their eyes.
I agree the first reason a child becomes overweight is due to their genetics, which they cannot change. The second major reason children (and adults) are over weight is due to the medical profession's profound ignorance of dietary science. Sure eating at, say, McDonald's is not helpful and lack of exercise plays a role, but the 2 major reasons we have an obesity pandemic is genetics and physician ignorance.
Now let's take this a step further. Let me run through the 4 biggest dietary myths we continually see and hear on a daily basis;
Myth # 1--Eating fat makes us fat. False. Eating fat (including saturated fat, which everyone likes to pick on, but we actually should be eating more of it, not less) does not make us fat, so long we are not eating too many carbohydrates along with that fat.
Myth # 2--Eating cholesterol and saturated fatty containing foods causes not only obesity, but increases one's risk for heart disease. False. Not only is this not true, by eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods, we will decrease one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, diabetes and cancer.
Myth # 3--The calorie means something in human nutrition. False. the calorie means nothing. Do not use them or count them, they need to be ignored.
Myth # 4--We need to exercise in order to lose weight. False. We do not need to exercise to lose weight. Of course, it is best to exercise for heart health and all; but forcing a 200+ child to exercise is just plain negligent and could put them in harms way.
I know the above statements will, for most, appear controversial; but they are all true. They are facts. The above myths are not what I 'believe', they are not my theories, suppositions or opinions...they are factual. It must be understood that all of the extra weight we carry around as fat on our bodies is actually stored 'carbohydrate' from the diet, not stored fat from the diet.
Everyone needs to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar and that no matter where the sugar comes from, well, it is still sugar. There really is no such thing as a natural sugar molecule. Our bodies do not know a sugar molecule came from a piece of whole wheat bread, or fruit or a snickers bar. All our bodies see is sugar and once that sugar molecule gets inside our cells, if we have eaten too many carbs,which is very easy to do if one has the genetics for obesity, that sugar molecule will be transformed into either plaque forming deadly cholesterol or stored as fat.
These are the facts.
To cure the childhood obesity epidemic, or the whole obesity pandemic, those individuals need to be eating more fat, cholesterol and protein, and much, much, less in the way of carbs. For anyone interested in further inquiry, go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first ten chapters of my groundbreaking, whistle blowing, I-no-longer-have-any-physician-friends-and-the-pharmaceutical-companies-hate-me-too book Genocide:How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Dr Jim
A special hello goes out to my 8th follower, Matt! Thanks for joining!
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
I really liked this post and feel the need to make some statements. I am a family physician who focuses on the use of nutrition to treat a whole host of medical problems. A major medical problem I see on a daily basis is obesity. It is shocking the numbers of obese people, especially children, that are out there. The problem with childhood obesity, which for the most part is treatable, preventable and curable; is that the medical profession, with all its major breakthroughs, does not understand what is causing the obesity epidemic (pandemic?); despite the fact the answer is right in front of their eyes.
I agree the first reason a child becomes overweight is due to their genetics, which they cannot change. The second major reason children (and adults) are over weight is due to the medical profession's profound ignorance of dietary science. Sure eating at, say, McDonald's is not helpful and lack of exercise plays a role, but the 2 major reasons we have an obesity pandemic is genetics and physician ignorance.
Now let's take this a step further. Let me run through the 4 biggest dietary myths we continually see and hear on a daily basis;
Myth # 1--Eating fat makes us fat. False. Eating fat (including saturated fat, which everyone likes to pick on, but we actually should be eating more of it, not less) does not make us fat, so long we are not eating too many carbohydrates along with that fat.
Myth # 2--Eating cholesterol and saturated fatty containing foods causes not only obesity, but increases one's risk for heart disease. False. Not only is this not true, by eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods, we will decrease one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, diabetes and cancer.
Myth # 3--The calorie means something in human nutrition. False. the calorie means nothing. Do not use them or count them, they need to be ignored.
Myth # 4--We need to exercise in order to lose weight. False. We do not need to exercise to lose weight. Of course, it is best to exercise for heart health and all; but forcing a 200+ child to exercise is just plain negligent and could put them in harms way.
I know the above statements will, for most, appear controversial; but they are all true. They are facts. The above myths are not what I 'believe', they are not my theories, suppositions or opinions...they are factual. It must be understood that all of the extra weight we carry around as fat on our bodies is actually stored 'carbohydrate' from the diet, not stored fat from the diet.
Everyone needs to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar and that no matter where the sugar comes from, well, it is still sugar. There really is no such thing as a natural sugar molecule. Our bodies do not know a sugar molecule came from a piece of whole wheat bread, or fruit or a snickers bar. All our bodies see is sugar and once that sugar molecule gets inside our cells, if we have eaten too many carbs,which is very easy to do if one has the genetics for obesity, that sugar molecule will be transformed into either plaque forming deadly cholesterol or stored as fat.
These are the facts.
To cure the childhood obesity epidemic, or the whole obesity pandemic, those individuals need to be eating more fat, cholesterol and protein, and much, much, less in the way of carbs. For anyone interested in further inquiry, go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first ten chapters of my groundbreaking, whistle blowing, I-no-longer-have-any-physician-friends-and-the-pharmaceutical-companies-hate-me-too book Genocide:How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Dr Jim
A special hello goes out to my 8th follower, Matt! Thanks for joining!
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
More Cancer Than Ever and I Know Why, but the American Cancer Society Doesn't...
Ok, so I go to check my e-mail yesterday and new guidelines were published by the American Institute for Cancer Research. There were actually eight which I will get to in a minute. It's important that you read the article in its entirety (it's not too long), so I copied and pasted it below. Please note, I added the italics;
'Can diet make a difference? The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer. We know there are some things we can’t control. We can’t change risk factors like our family history. But it’s clear that eating well is part of doing everything you can to tip the odds in your favor-and the best benefit is knowing that you’re doing what you can to promote overall good health.
A well-nourished, well-rested body is the best nutritional strategy for keeping your immune system strong. Eat a variety of foods that provide a natural abundance of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, particularly those rich in vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene and selenium, antioxidants that, according to some studies, may help prevent disease, including some cancers. These healthy recipes will get you started-they all contain at least 15 percent daily value of at least one of those vitamins or minerals.'
I'll post the eight suggestions after we analyze the above paragraphs. First off, I have no problem with the second paragraph and I agree with everything being said. The problem lies in the italicized part of paragraph one, repasted below;
'The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
The links between dietary patterns and cancer is not murky. I repeat, it is not murky. We have study after study showing that the more sugar one is exposed to, the greater one's risk for cancer. The problem becomes 'murky' when the researchers do not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. These same supposed 'experts' in their field just don't get that glucose from a carrot, tomato or corn, is the same glucose molecule as is found in a snickers bar or a piece of cake.
Our cells have no way of knowing where the glucose molecule came from, they just react as they react. In my book in my Cancer-Carb connection Chapter, I outline the facts that when we eat sugar, our pancreas will secrete insulin. Insulin works via a second messenger system to get glucose inside the cell. This second messenger system will release known cancer causing substances which can turn on cancer genes and helps already existing cancer to spread.
This is a fact and it scares the heck out of me whenever I see a guideline stating we need to eat more fruit and whole grains to lower our cancer risk. Now fruit contains the sugar fructose which does not require insulin to get into the cell. Having said this, ask any diabetic what happens to their blood 'glucose' whenever they eat fruit and they will tell you their blood 'glucose' rises. Now insulin will be secreted and the second messenger with the subsequent release of cancer causing substances comes into play.
Whole grains will simply supply glucose and stimulate insulin secretion and you now know the rest. Here are the 8 Guidelines and my comments, in italics, will immediately follow each tip;
'The American Institute for Cancer Research just published its most up-to-date food, nutrition and activity recommendations to help prevent cancer.'
Here are eight quick tips from the report:
1)Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
We should actually be a little heavier than the actuarial tables suggest. While being lean is certainly appealing, research has shown that a little extra weight may be quite beneficial, especially as we get older. This is referred to as 'insurance weight.' The point is that if we get sick, having a little extra weight will provide a physiological reserve of energy to help us get better quicker. A person who is lean has no reserve to dip into and instead will dip into muscle and bone for energy, thereby suppressing the immunological system and places the person at risk for a longer recovery.
2)Be physically active for at least 30 minutes every day.
I would change this to maybe 4-5x a week. Too much exercise puts the body in stress mode where cortisol may be secreted in larger quantities. One of the things cortisol does is to tell the liver to make sugar. This will cause an insulin release with subsequent turning on of the second messenger system (among many other things.)
3) Avoid sugary drinks. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods (particularly processed foods high in added sugar, or low in fiber, or high in fat).
I agree with most of this, with the exception of the fat. Certainly avoid the sugars; foods low in fiber tend to be high in carbs and sugar; we need to be eating more saturated fat not less. Increased saturated fat consumption has never been shown to increase one's risk for cancer. We actually have studies, the results which were never reported, that increased saturated fat consumption lowered women's risk for breast cancer. Let me also add that trans fats, that is the margarines and a whole host of other foods, does increase one's risk for not only heart disease, but cancer as well. Also, a new fat has arrived on the scene. It goes by the name of interesterified fatty acids, which some researchers say is more dangerous than trans fats.
4)Eat more of a variety of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, such as beans.
Stay away from carb dense veggies like carrots, corn (really a fruit), tomatoes, potatoes (of any color), I just found out that artichokes are loaded with carbs as well; avoid fruit of any kind; whole grains we now know are very bad for us due to the increased carb count found in these foods;legumes can be sugar dense so you'll need to research the carb amount for what you're eating; and lastly beans do have a good amount of carbs, but usually have a good amount of fiber so the effect of the carbs is neutralized. The other thing about beans is that they contain a sugar known as stachyose, which we cant digest that well and this is what leads to the whole flatulence problem with beans.
5)Limit consumption of red meats (such as beef, pork and lamb) and avoid processed meats.
Absolutely, one-hundred percent false!!!! Eat as much of these foods as you can. They provide our bodies with cholesterol, fat and protein and help lower our risk for heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and CANCER!!!! Eat only those meats where no hormones, antibiotics or other growth enhancers were used. Do not eat lean meats. You want the fat. As a side note, most doctors, nutritionists and dietitians think the fat in meats is predominantly saturated. This is false. Beef fat is 55% unsaturated; Pork fat (or lard) is 65% unsaturated; and chicken/turkey fat is 80% unsaturated. So the fat from meat is more unsaturated than saturated. Oops, I guess the powers to be got that wrong too.
Oh yeah, I do agree to avoid processed meats, but their actually safer for you than fruits and whole grains--pretty wild, Huh?
6)If alcohol is consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to two for men and one for women a day.
I thought it was 2-3 for men and 1-2 for women. This is referred to as moderate drinking and can cut your heart disease risk by 38%--no joke.
7)Limit consumption of salty foods and foods processed with salt (sodium).
I agree, but remember salt only becomes an issue when large amounts of insulin are secreted, which occurs when we eat too many carbs.
8)Don't use supplements to protect against cancer.
I totally disagree on this one. The only reason we see conflicting results when we look at antioxidants and cancer is that the researchers are feeding the participants more whole grains, fruits and carb dense veggies. This throws a monkey wrench into the whole study and makes the researchers think antioxidants weren't effective; when indeed what was happening was the carb dense alleged 'healthy foods' were increasing the cancer rates. Use antioxidants--they protect us against cancer, help us improve our energy level, and are good as anti-aging defenses. I take 'em and you should too. If interested, Click Here to see my Optimum Health web-site and all the Nutraceuticals I promote.
So, from my comments above, we can easily see why 'Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
That's because they are being given the wrong dietary information and this is why they are getting cancer (excluding, of course, people who are exposed to environmental things like smoking, too much alcohol or job related exposures).
Dr Jim
Just want to say hello to Carol, my 7th follower; who will be number 8?
A quick message to my readers. If you live in NYC, any of the 5 Burroughs, Westchester County or Long Island, listen to 620 on your AM dial, this Saturday from 9-10 AM where I am a featured guest and will be discussing the childhood obesity epidemic.
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
'Can diet make a difference? The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer. We know there are some things we can’t control. We can’t change risk factors like our family history. But it’s clear that eating well is part of doing everything you can to tip the odds in your favor-and the best benefit is knowing that you’re doing what you can to promote overall good health.
A well-nourished, well-rested body is the best nutritional strategy for keeping your immune system strong. Eat a variety of foods that provide a natural abundance of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, particularly those rich in vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene and selenium, antioxidants that, according to some studies, may help prevent disease, including some cancers. These healthy recipes will get you started-they all contain at least 15 percent daily value of at least one of those vitamins or minerals.'
I'll post the eight suggestions after we analyze the above paragraphs. First off, I have no problem with the second paragraph and I agree with everything being said. The problem lies in the italicized part of paragraph one, repasted below;
'The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
The links between dietary patterns and cancer is not murky. I repeat, it is not murky. We have study after study showing that the more sugar one is exposed to, the greater one's risk for cancer. The problem becomes 'murky' when the researchers do not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. These same supposed 'experts' in their field just don't get that glucose from a carrot, tomato or corn, is the same glucose molecule as is found in a snickers bar or a piece of cake.
Our cells have no way of knowing where the glucose molecule came from, they just react as they react. In my book in my Cancer-Carb connection Chapter, I outline the facts that when we eat sugar, our pancreas will secrete insulin. Insulin works via a second messenger system to get glucose inside the cell. This second messenger system will release known cancer causing substances which can turn on cancer genes and helps already existing cancer to spread.
This is a fact and it scares the heck out of me whenever I see a guideline stating we need to eat more fruit and whole grains to lower our cancer risk. Now fruit contains the sugar fructose which does not require insulin to get into the cell. Having said this, ask any diabetic what happens to their blood 'glucose' whenever they eat fruit and they will tell you their blood 'glucose' rises. Now insulin will be secreted and the second messenger with the subsequent release of cancer causing substances comes into play.
Whole grains will simply supply glucose and stimulate insulin secretion and you now know the rest. Here are the 8 Guidelines and my comments, in italics, will immediately follow each tip;
'The American Institute for Cancer Research just published its most up-to-date food, nutrition and activity recommendations to help prevent cancer.'
Here are eight quick tips from the report:
1)Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
We should actually be a little heavier than the actuarial tables suggest. While being lean is certainly appealing, research has shown that a little extra weight may be quite beneficial, especially as we get older. This is referred to as 'insurance weight.' The point is that if we get sick, having a little extra weight will provide a physiological reserve of energy to help us get better quicker. A person who is lean has no reserve to dip into and instead will dip into muscle and bone for energy, thereby suppressing the immunological system and places the person at risk for a longer recovery.
2)Be physically active for at least 30 minutes every day.
I would change this to maybe 4-5x a week. Too much exercise puts the body in stress mode where cortisol may be secreted in larger quantities. One of the things cortisol does is to tell the liver to make sugar. This will cause an insulin release with subsequent turning on of the second messenger system (among many other things.)
3) Avoid sugary drinks. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods (particularly processed foods high in added sugar, or low in fiber, or high in fat).
I agree with most of this, with the exception of the fat. Certainly avoid the sugars; foods low in fiber tend to be high in carbs and sugar; we need to be eating more saturated fat not less. Increased saturated fat consumption has never been shown to increase one's risk for cancer. We actually have studies, the results which were never reported, that increased saturated fat consumption lowered women's risk for breast cancer. Let me also add that trans fats, that is the margarines and a whole host of other foods, does increase one's risk for not only heart disease, but cancer as well. Also, a new fat has arrived on the scene. It goes by the name of interesterified fatty acids, which some researchers say is more dangerous than trans fats.
4)Eat more of a variety of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, such as beans.
Stay away from carb dense veggies like carrots, corn (really a fruit), tomatoes, potatoes (of any color), I just found out that artichokes are loaded with carbs as well; avoid fruit of any kind; whole grains we now know are very bad for us due to the increased carb count found in these foods;legumes can be sugar dense so you'll need to research the carb amount for what you're eating; and lastly beans do have a good amount of carbs, but usually have a good amount of fiber so the effect of the carbs is neutralized. The other thing about beans is that they contain a sugar known as stachyose, which we cant digest that well and this is what leads to the whole flatulence problem with beans.
5)Limit consumption of red meats (such as beef, pork and lamb) and avoid processed meats.
Absolutely, one-hundred percent false!!!! Eat as much of these foods as you can. They provide our bodies with cholesterol, fat and protein and help lower our risk for heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and CANCER!!!! Eat only those meats where no hormones, antibiotics or other growth enhancers were used. Do not eat lean meats. You want the fat. As a side note, most doctors, nutritionists and dietitians think the fat in meats is predominantly saturated. This is false. Beef fat is 55% unsaturated; Pork fat (or lard) is 65% unsaturated; and chicken/turkey fat is 80% unsaturated. So the fat from meat is more unsaturated than saturated. Oops, I guess the powers to be got that wrong too.
Oh yeah, I do agree to avoid processed meats, but their actually safer for you than fruits and whole grains--pretty wild, Huh?
6)If alcohol is consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to two for men and one for women a day.
I thought it was 2-3 for men and 1-2 for women. This is referred to as moderate drinking and can cut your heart disease risk by 38%--no joke.
7)Limit consumption of salty foods and foods processed with salt (sodium).
I agree, but remember salt only becomes an issue when large amounts of insulin are secreted, which occurs when we eat too many carbs.
8)Don't use supplements to protect against cancer.
I totally disagree on this one. The only reason we see conflicting results when we look at antioxidants and cancer is that the researchers are feeding the participants more whole grains, fruits and carb dense veggies. This throws a monkey wrench into the whole study and makes the researchers think antioxidants weren't effective; when indeed what was happening was the carb dense alleged 'healthy foods' were increasing the cancer rates. Use antioxidants--they protect us against cancer, help us improve our energy level, and are good as anti-aging defenses. I take 'em and you should too. If interested, Click Here to see my Optimum Health web-site and all the Nutraceuticals I promote.
So, from my comments above, we can easily see why 'Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
That's because they are being given the wrong dietary information and this is why they are getting cancer (excluding, of course, people who are exposed to environmental things like smoking, too much alcohol or job related exposures).
Dr Jim
Just want to say hello to Carol, my 7th follower; who will be number 8?
A quick message to my readers. If you live in NYC, any of the 5 Burroughs, Westchester County or Long Island, listen to 620 on your AM dial, this Saturday from 9-10 AM where I am a featured guest and will be discussing the childhood obesity epidemic.
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Losing Weight Does Not Always Mean You Will Be Healthier
Unless you lose weight the correct way. This blog will be exploring different weight loss regimens and how losing weight does not always mean your health will improve.
We've always been told that if we are obese and suffer from heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes, that if we lose the weight; those diseases will go away. That is not always the case.
Allow me to focus now on 'Weight Watchers,' the biggest of the weight loss companies out there right now. Weight Watchers has been around for many years. I have seen many of my patients lose collectively tons of weight over the years and I also noticed an interesting thing. Those patients who lost 10-20 or even up to 75 pounds, if they suffered from high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes (type 2 is the type of diabetes where you do not need insulin and is supposed to be able to be controlled on diet alone); they still needed to remain on their medications. Yes, they took less medications, but most were unable to stop their meds as their BPs or sugars remained too high for me to stop their meds.
Back in the day when I was still ignorant about the benefits of low carbs, this didn't bother me much because I was happy I was able to reduce the medications of most people; I never once wondered why I couldn't stop these medications in their entirety; heck, I was happy that I got to reduce any meds in the first place.
When I became aware and understood the correct way to eat, and started my patients on low carbs; most patients were able to stop their meds entirely. It has gotten to the point now that even if a patient walks in my door with a BP of 170/110 or a blood sugar of 400; within a week I (really 'I' should be 'they', as it was the patient who put in all the work, I just told them about it) will have almost normalized their BP and their sugars generally have been cut in half to around 200 or less. Remember, this is all without using medications!
Now I was in a good position to give some thought as to why the Weight Watcher regimen, while allowing people to lose weight, most people still needed to take meds. It was because those on Weight Watchers were consuming too many carbs and in those people with high blood pressure and diabetes, carbs will have an independent effect (aside from the obvious obesity concern) on both BP and sugar control.
Before a patient (on a low carb diet) even loses a large amount of weight, BPs and sugars begin to lower. As the weight steadily declines the effect becomes even greater with, in most individuals, a complete normalization of BP and blood sugar---again, without the need for medication.
Weight Watcher's participants continue to eat large amounts of sugar, in the form of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing'--fruits and whole grains and the high sugar containing carrots and corn. Due to this high consumption of sugar, the BPs and sugars will not normalize and the patients will still have to continue with their meds.
Remember, it's all about the sugar---and do not think for a second that fruits and whole grains are better for us---------They are not! Well, come to think of it, they are good for the drug companies, as the more of that supposed good stuff we eat, the more we need to give our money to the drug companies.
Just my thoughts for today, have a great weekend everyone!
BTW (OMG did I just do BTW for 'by the way', oh my god, er, I mean OMG; I think I've been texting too much:-)
But seriously, if you are in the 5 Burroughs of New York, North Jersey, Nassau County or the South Shore of Long Island, listen-in tomorrow on 620 AM, starting at 9 am, where I will be devoting one hour on the radio to discuss the 'correct' way to attack the epidemic of childhood obesity.
A special thanks goes out to Tom, my 6th follower!
Working on number 7.....
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Check out the nutritional products I endorse by clicking HERE!
We've always been told that if we are obese and suffer from heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes, that if we lose the weight; those diseases will go away. That is not always the case.
Allow me to focus now on 'Weight Watchers,' the biggest of the weight loss companies out there right now. Weight Watchers has been around for many years. I have seen many of my patients lose collectively tons of weight over the years and I also noticed an interesting thing. Those patients who lost 10-20 or even up to 75 pounds, if they suffered from high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes (type 2 is the type of diabetes where you do not need insulin and is supposed to be able to be controlled on diet alone); they still needed to remain on their medications. Yes, they took less medications, but most were unable to stop their meds as their BPs or sugars remained too high for me to stop their meds.
Back in the day when I was still ignorant about the benefits of low carbs, this didn't bother me much because I was happy I was able to reduce the medications of most people; I never once wondered why I couldn't stop these medications in their entirety; heck, I was happy that I got to reduce any meds in the first place.
When I became aware and understood the correct way to eat, and started my patients on low carbs; most patients were able to stop their meds entirely. It has gotten to the point now that even if a patient walks in my door with a BP of 170/110 or a blood sugar of 400; within a week I (really 'I' should be 'they', as it was the patient who put in all the work, I just told them about it) will have almost normalized their BP and their sugars generally have been cut in half to around 200 or less. Remember, this is all without using medications!
Now I was in a good position to give some thought as to why the Weight Watcher regimen, while allowing people to lose weight, most people still needed to take meds. It was because those on Weight Watchers were consuming too many carbs and in those people with high blood pressure and diabetes, carbs will have an independent effect (aside from the obvious obesity concern) on both BP and sugar control.
Before a patient (on a low carb diet) even loses a large amount of weight, BPs and sugars begin to lower. As the weight steadily declines the effect becomes even greater with, in most individuals, a complete normalization of BP and blood sugar---again, without the need for medication.
Weight Watcher's participants continue to eat large amounts of sugar, in the form of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing'--fruits and whole grains and the high sugar containing carrots and corn. Due to this high consumption of sugar, the BPs and sugars will not normalize and the patients will still have to continue with their meds.
Remember, it's all about the sugar---and do not think for a second that fruits and whole grains are better for us---------They are not! Well, come to think of it, they are good for the drug companies, as the more of that supposed good stuff we eat, the more we need to give our money to the drug companies.
Just my thoughts for today, have a great weekend everyone!
BTW (OMG did I just do BTW for 'by the way', oh my god, er, I mean OMG; I think I've been texting too much:-)
But seriously, if you are in the 5 Burroughs of New York, North Jersey, Nassau County or the South Shore of Long Island, listen-in tomorrow on 620 AM, starting at 9 am, where I will be devoting one hour on the radio to discuss the 'correct' way to attack the epidemic of childhood obesity.
A special thanks goes out to Tom, my 6th follower!
Working on number 7.....
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Check out the nutritional products I endorse by clicking HERE!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
"Get A Free Cholesterol Check Today"
Sorry it's been awhile since I posted. Been a rough week :-) Anyhow, so I'm driving to a Wedding this weekend when I see the above banner ad outside a CVS store. The first thing I thought was "Cool, do I just need to tell them how much they can make the check out for?" The next thing that came to mind was that the only thing this advertisement does for CVS is to show the people who understand what cholesterol is all about, is that CVS has not a clue that total cholesterol means nothing.
First off, this is a check of your total cholesterol only. And what have we learned about total cholesterol? That's right, total cholesterol means nothing....nothing at all. Total cholesterol is simply the addition of the HDL + LDL + VLDL; these are all added up to arrive at the total cholesterol.
As I've mentioned in previous blogs and throughout my book, if one's HDL or protective cholesterol is elevated, this will usually drive up the total and one's total cholesterol can easily be above 200 with an HDL in the 50-60-or 70 range.. Thus, if you just have your total checked and not the profile I can offer you no useful information about what the number means.
For instance, one may have a total of 240-280, but without the HDL, I cannot tell you if this is bad or good.
"But wait a minute!" I hear some of you yell. If my total is below 200 then it is all good and I don't have to worry about my cholesterol at all. "Not so fast there," I'll respond. I have a good many patients whose total cholesterol's are below 200, but their HDLs are under 40, 30 or even under 20. These people are at high risk for heart disease due to the very low HDLs. These patients need to raise their HDLs to protect themselves against heart disease.
I also get a good number of people whose total cholesterol's are above 200, sometimes close to 300 who need to raise their cholesterol's. This almost always gets a 'are you crazy glare.' I used 'glare' not 'stare' as people can get downright nasty when I give the correct advice, but all their heads are filled up with is the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to, so they think I am a stark raving lunatic when I suggest this.
So the bottom line is that without the HDL and triglycerides, I can offer no useful advice about what one needs to change dietarily. Once again, total cholesterol means nothing...It is a waste of a number.
Thanks CVS for continuing to propagate one of the biggest cholesterol myths out there. Of course the drug companies all advertise that if one's cholesterol is above 200 you must be on meds. This is absolutely false and can place a person in danger. Oh wait, doesn't CVS dispense the prescription medications which lower cholesterol? Hmmm. Having said that, I don't really feel CVS is intending to do anything malicious, it is just continuing to propagate the incorrect beliefs that still persist strongly today, because CVS believes them to be true.
Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong...facts just are...
Dr Jim
PS: Thanks Keri-Ann for being my 5th follower! Who will be my 6th follower? Any takers :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
First off, this is a check of your total cholesterol only. And what have we learned about total cholesterol? That's right, total cholesterol means nothing....nothing at all. Total cholesterol is simply the addition of the HDL + LDL + VLDL; these are all added up to arrive at the total cholesterol.
As I've mentioned in previous blogs and throughout my book, if one's HDL or protective cholesterol is elevated, this will usually drive up the total and one's total cholesterol can easily be above 200 with an HDL in the 50-60-or 70 range.. Thus, if you just have your total checked and not the profile I can offer you no useful information about what the number means.
For instance, one may have a total of 240-280, but without the HDL, I cannot tell you if this is bad or good.
"But wait a minute!" I hear some of you yell. If my total is below 200 then it is all good and I don't have to worry about my cholesterol at all. "Not so fast there," I'll respond. I have a good many patients whose total cholesterol's are below 200, but their HDLs are under 40, 30 or even under 20. These people are at high risk for heart disease due to the very low HDLs. These patients need to raise their HDLs to protect themselves against heart disease.
I also get a good number of people whose total cholesterol's are above 200, sometimes close to 300 who need to raise their cholesterol's. This almost always gets a 'are you crazy glare.' I used 'glare' not 'stare' as people can get downright nasty when I give the correct advice, but all their heads are filled up with is the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to, so they think I am a stark raving lunatic when I suggest this.
So the bottom line is that without the HDL and triglycerides, I can offer no useful advice about what one needs to change dietarily. Once again, total cholesterol means nothing...It is a waste of a number.
Thanks CVS for continuing to propagate one of the biggest cholesterol myths out there. Of course the drug companies all advertise that if one's cholesterol is above 200 you must be on meds. This is absolutely false and can place a person in danger. Oh wait, doesn't CVS dispense the prescription medications which lower cholesterol? Hmmm. Having said that, I don't really feel CVS is intending to do anything malicious, it is just continuing to propagate the incorrect beliefs that still persist strongly today, because CVS believes them to be true.
Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong...facts just are...
Dr Jim
PS: Thanks Keri-Ann for being my 5th follower! Who will be my 6th follower? Any takers :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Monday, September 14, 2009
LOSE 100 LBs IN TEN MONTHS!!!!
Sounds like hype from an infomercial or some Enquirer magazine type article. The thing in this case is it's true. This was the comment made to me from my patient Greg (I received permission to use his name so it's OK. Oh wait, you don't know his last name so I guess all's ok anyway, so much for HIPAA :-)
Greg is a patient of mine who listened to the biochemical nutritional facts I presented to him and began a low carb lifestyle change 10 months ago. At 360 LBs, his blood pressure was elevated, his triglycerides were over 800, he was dehydrated, and had a fatty liver with elevated liver function studies (this indicates an irritated liver with some people progressing toward overt liver failure, that is, cirrhosis, because of this).
3 months after starting low carbs, his triglycerides dropped into the 300 range (still elevated but much, much better), his liver enzymes normalized and he was no longer dehydrated (this was reflected in his BUN/CR which were now normalized). Now 10 months out, he is 100 LBs lighter and I am awaiting his most recent set of labs which he will go for sometime soon.
For any of you who think Greg is an exception, he is not an exception, he is the rule. Simply stated, when one follows a low carb lifestyle, and if they suffer from obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides or low HDL--starting a low carb lifestyle will correct these and many other medical problems, often without the need for medications. By the way, Greg is now off his blood pressure medication and is no longer giving money to the pharmaceutical companies. All these pharmaceutical companies want everyone to believe is that we all need to be on some-type of medication for one reason or another.
As a side note-remember my blog where I was ripping apart the new drug Trilipix? I actually came across a sample box which had the warning that 'THIS PACKAGE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT YOUNG CHILDREN'
Huh??!!
How about we re-state that warning and say;
THIS PACKAGE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY HOUSEHOLDS AS THE MANUFACTURERS STATED IN THEIR COMMERCIAL THAT IT DID NOT LOWER ANYONE'S RISK FOR HEART DISEASE AND STROKE AND DON'T BOTHER YOUR DOCTOR WITH ANY FOOLISH INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS MEDICATION'
Ok,Ok, back to Greg....
So here's a patient of mine who lost 100 LBs, is off his BP meds, is normalizing his triglycerides, corrected underlying liver irritation and now will never develop cirrhosis from this, and no longer is dehydrated.
Wow, is this magic? No, it's simply the miracle of the low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle change. I've seen it before and I will continue to see it again and again and again.
Greg-------Congratulations to you! Keep up the great work!
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Greg is a patient of mine who listened to the biochemical nutritional facts I presented to him and began a low carb lifestyle change 10 months ago. At 360 LBs, his blood pressure was elevated, his triglycerides were over 800, he was dehydrated, and had a fatty liver with elevated liver function studies (this indicates an irritated liver with some people progressing toward overt liver failure, that is, cirrhosis, because of this).
3 months after starting low carbs, his triglycerides dropped into the 300 range (still elevated but much, much better), his liver enzymes normalized and he was no longer dehydrated (this was reflected in his BUN/CR which were now normalized). Now 10 months out, he is 100 LBs lighter and I am awaiting his most recent set of labs which he will go for sometime soon.
For any of you who think Greg is an exception, he is not an exception, he is the rule. Simply stated, when one follows a low carb lifestyle, and if they suffer from obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides or low HDL--starting a low carb lifestyle will correct these and many other medical problems, often without the need for medications. By the way, Greg is now off his blood pressure medication and is no longer giving money to the pharmaceutical companies. All these pharmaceutical companies want everyone to believe is that we all need to be on some-type of medication for one reason or another.
As a side note-remember my blog where I was ripping apart the new drug Trilipix? I actually came across a sample box which had the warning that 'THIS PACKAGE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT YOUNG CHILDREN'
Huh??!!
How about we re-state that warning and say;
THIS PACKAGE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY HOUSEHOLDS AS THE MANUFACTURERS STATED IN THEIR COMMERCIAL THAT IT DID NOT LOWER ANYONE'S RISK FOR HEART DISEASE AND STROKE AND DON'T BOTHER YOUR DOCTOR WITH ANY FOOLISH INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS MEDICATION'
Ok,Ok, back to Greg....
So here's a patient of mine who lost 100 LBs, is off his BP meds, is normalizing his triglycerides, corrected underlying liver irritation and now will never develop cirrhosis from this, and no longer is dehydrated.
Wow, is this magic? No, it's simply the miracle of the low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle change. I've seen it before and I will continue to see it again and again and again.
Greg-------Congratulations to you! Keep up the great work!
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Why is Nutritional Biochemistry thought to be a Belief?
So I'm with a patient today who would absolutely benefit from a low carb lifestyle (who wouldn't) when the conversation became borderline confrontational. Not for me , of course, but I could tell the patient was becoming aggitated with my suggestion of the correct way to eat.
The comment was made that 'us' doctors all have our different 'feelings' about how to eat. This was an excellent opportunity for me to educate this patient that what I am telling them to do dietarily is not based on my 'feelings' or 'beliefs.'
How do you think I did this?
Those of you who've received my dietary lectures already know the way I explain the difference between beliefs and facts. Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong---facts just are. I used to believe in Santa Claus, and, uh, that didn't turn out to good for me. It was a false belief. Sometimes beliefs are true, sometimes they are false.
I like to use the earth analogy to explain the major difference between beliefs and facts.
It goes like this; I ask the question "Is the Earth flat or round?" Almost everyone answers 'round.' (Those who answer 'flat' get an immediate referral to a psychiatrist. I was just messing with ya, no one has ever answered flat:-)
Then I ask "Is this your belief?" Most answer that "Yes, It is my belief." I immediately correct them and state that "No, it is not your belief, you know this to be true for it is a fact and facts just are. Whether or not you believe the world is round is irrelevent, it is round, that's it and life goes on."
So when I lecture about nutritional biochemistry, I am giving everyone the facts; not my 'belief', 'theory', opinion', or 'supposition.' What I state 'just is' as are facts--they just are.
Most of my collegues become downright agitated when I have a discussion about the facts of nutritional biochemistry; I'm sure because it doesn't gist (is gist really a word?) with what they 'believe' to be true. The big issue with beliefs is that they can become so firmly entrenched in our minds, even when the facts are staring us right in the eye---we miss them and continue on with our beliefs.
Just because a million people 'believe' something to be true, it will never become true if it is not true. A great analogy is found in religious beliefs. Look at the three big religions-Judaism, Christian/Catholicism and the Muslim faith. All the followers of these three big religions believe something different within their faith. Are they all right? Whose wrong? More importantly--Who's right?
I am certain that some people out there may have become offended that I would even use religion to help define the word 'belief' and if you were offended. Good.
Did that offend you even more? Stay with me now. This is important. Become conscious of the emotion you're experiencing right now, especially if you were offended somewhat. Is it anger? frustration? even worse--hatred? Beliefs become such a part of us that the emotions we experience if someone attacks our belief structure run so deep it's hard to know where the emotions are derived from.
This is exactly what happens when I discuss the dietary facts with someone who believes that low fat/low cholesterol is the correct way to eat. The emotions, the tempers, run high. People (doctors) become offended, irritated, aggitated, start raising their voices and some become enraged.
Why?
Because I am attacking their belief system with the facts, and no-one likes their beliefs to be questioned. Unfortunately, this is antithetical to progress.
Do I get emotional when I'm discussing nutritional facts with people who do not understand what I tell them is true. Rarely, but it does happen. (I will confess that when collegues of mine start getting emotional I will often laugh, and,yes, that pisses them off even more. I'll then ask them why they are getting so exited and most have no idea why.)
I guess I'll close it here by saying that it is very important we are able to tell the difference between beliefs and facts. When we can do this, we will discover the truths about the world we live in; and this will help us make progress and guards against stagnation.
Have a great weekend! And a hello goes out to all my 4 followers, with a special welcome to my fourth :-)
Who will be the 5th.......
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
The comment was made that 'us' doctors all have our different 'feelings' about how to eat. This was an excellent opportunity for me to educate this patient that what I am telling them to do dietarily is not based on my 'feelings' or 'beliefs.'
How do you think I did this?
Those of you who've received my dietary lectures already know the way I explain the difference between beliefs and facts. Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong---facts just are. I used to believe in Santa Claus, and, uh, that didn't turn out to good for me. It was a false belief. Sometimes beliefs are true, sometimes they are false.
I like to use the earth analogy to explain the major difference between beliefs and facts.
It goes like this; I ask the question "Is the Earth flat or round?" Almost everyone answers 'round.' (Those who answer 'flat' get an immediate referral to a psychiatrist. I was just messing with ya, no one has ever answered flat:-)
Then I ask "Is this your belief?" Most answer that "Yes, It is my belief." I immediately correct them and state that "No, it is not your belief, you know this to be true for it is a fact and facts just are. Whether or not you believe the world is round is irrelevent, it is round, that's it and life goes on."
So when I lecture about nutritional biochemistry, I am giving everyone the facts; not my 'belief', 'theory', opinion', or 'supposition.' What I state 'just is' as are facts--they just are.
Most of my collegues become downright agitated when I have a discussion about the facts of nutritional biochemistry; I'm sure because it doesn't gist (is gist really a word?) with what they 'believe' to be true. The big issue with beliefs is that they can become so firmly entrenched in our minds, even when the facts are staring us right in the eye---we miss them and continue on with our beliefs.
Just because a million people 'believe' something to be true, it will never become true if it is not true. A great analogy is found in religious beliefs. Look at the three big religions-Judaism, Christian/Catholicism and the Muslim faith. All the followers of these three big religions believe something different within their faith. Are they all right? Whose wrong? More importantly--Who's right?
I am certain that some people out there may have become offended that I would even use religion to help define the word 'belief' and if you were offended. Good.
Did that offend you even more? Stay with me now. This is important. Become conscious of the emotion you're experiencing right now, especially if you were offended somewhat. Is it anger? frustration? even worse--hatred? Beliefs become such a part of us that the emotions we experience if someone attacks our belief structure run so deep it's hard to know where the emotions are derived from.
This is exactly what happens when I discuss the dietary facts with someone who believes that low fat/low cholesterol is the correct way to eat. The emotions, the tempers, run high. People (doctors) become offended, irritated, aggitated, start raising their voices and some become enraged.
Why?
Because I am attacking their belief system with the facts, and no-one likes their beliefs to be questioned. Unfortunately, this is antithetical to progress.
Do I get emotional when I'm discussing nutritional facts with people who do not understand what I tell them is true. Rarely, but it does happen. (I will confess that when collegues of mine start getting emotional I will often laugh, and,yes, that pisses them off even more. I'll then ask them why they are getting so exited and most have no idea why.)
I guess I'll close it here by saying that it is very important we are able to tell the difference between beliefs and facts. When we can do this, we will discover the truths about the world we live in; and this will help us make progress and guards against stagnation.
Have a great weekend! And a hello goes out to all my 4 followers, with a special welcome to my fourth :-)
Who will be the 5th.......
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
"Lowering Cholesterol Has Not Been Shown to Lower One's Risk for Heart Disease"
This is a comment made, very quickly I might add, whenever we see an advertisement for cholesterol lowering medications. Tha latest med being heavily advertised is Trilpix. This med is supposed to be helpful with lowering one's total cholesterol, raising the HDL and lowering the triglycerides, which is where the first three letters of this drug came from I suppose.
This drug too mentions the caveat that this medication has not been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease or stroke. The ad also goes on to provoke the patient to 'ask your doctor' about this med.
So now I am a little confused. First off, lowering total cholesterol has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease; this medication holds itself out as lowering one's total cholesterol; the ad clearly states this med has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease (and stroke); but the viewer is still told to ask their doctor about the drug.
What the h@#$ for!!??
Surely the makers of this product do not, cannot, honestly think a physician who is conscious of this whole cholesterol debacle will prescribe what I like to call a 'waste' of a medication. If a physician knows that their patient should be eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods; their patient will have normal triglycerides and a good HDL number. Therefore, there will be no need to use this new med.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of physicians still hold on tenaciously to the myth of cholesterol lowering to reduce heart disease risk, despite not a single study supporting this.
The fact is that most patients need to raise their cholesterol, the HDL to be precise, which in turn will actually raise the Total as total cholesterol is a function of what the HDL is.
So to my 3 followers (I'm working on getting more, LOL) my comment is don't be fooled into thinking you need to take this med or even ask your doctor about it. If your doctor trys to put you on this med--my advice---Get a new doctor and do it fast!
Dr Jim
PS: Now that summer is over I will make every attempt to have an actual 'daily' blog :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
This drug too mentions the caveat that this medication has not been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease or stroke. The ad also goes on to provoke the patient to 'ask your doctor' about this med.
So now I am a little confused. First off, lowering total cholesterol has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease; this medication holds itself out as lowering one's total cholesterol; the ad clearly states this med has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease (and stroke); but the viewer is still told to ask their doctor about the drug.
What the h@#$ for!!??
Surely the makers of this product do not, cannot, honestly think a physician who is conscious of this whole cholesterol debacle will prescribe what I like to call a 'waste' of a medication. If a physician knows that their patient should be eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods; their patient will have normal triglycerides and a good HDL number. Therefore, there will be no need to use this new med.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of physicians still hold on tenaciously to the myth of cholesterol lowering to reduce heart disease risk, despite not a single study supporting this.
The fact is that most patients need to raise their cholesterol, the HDL to be precise, which in turn will actually raise the Total as total cholesterol is a function of what the HDL is.
So to my 3 followers (I'm working on getting more, LOL) my comment is don't be fooled into thinking you need to take this med or even ask your doctor about it. If your doctor trys to put you on this med--my advice---Get a new doctor and do it fast!
Dr Jim
PS: Now that summer is over I will make every attempt to have an actual 'daily' blog :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Nonfasting Lipid Level Measures Deemed OK
This was the title of one of the articles in Family Practice News which holds themselves out as "The Leading Independent Newspaper for the Family Physician-Since 1971."
The first paragraph of this story stated "Nonfasting lipid status may be a better marker for impaired lipid metabolism than fasting lipids..." What all this mumbo-jumbo means is that it may be better for us docs to tell our patients not to fast before they give their blood to check their lipid panel.
My patients already know that I tell them not to fast before they give their blood for their routine lipid checks. I've been telling my patients for years that when they fast they are changing their blood chemistry into what it normally isn't. I want to see their blood chemistry as it normally is. I have called fasting "cheating" as it changes the blood chemistry, specifically the triglycerides and blood sugar, and can bring these numbers into the normal range with as little as an 8 hour fast.
By telling patients to fast, we docs will miss those patients who are insulin resistant as their triglycerides (trigs) and blood sugars can become normal with even an 8 hour fast. I have caught many new onset insulin resistant, type 2 diabetics by telling them NOT to fast prior to giving blood for lipid analysis.
For instance, even a trig value of say, 170, will tell me that I have a potential type 2 diabetic in the making. This trig value is certainly high, but it is a trig value which will easily correct itself by as little as an 8 hour fast. So if I would have told my patient to fast, I would have missed this as the trig value would have been normal; and I would not have been able to counsel my patient accordingly.
The same is true with blood sugar readings. By telling my patients not to fast, I catch many a type 2 diabetic extremely early in their disease and I can intervene alot quicker than other practitioners, solely because I told my patient not to fast.
All docs need to tell their patients not to fast before they give blood for routine lipid analysis.
Do I have to say to my colleagues "I told you so." Nah, that would be just plain rude :-)
Dr Jim
(The full article can be found in Family Practice News, Vol. 39, No. 14, p.15.)
Have a great weekend everyone and if you live in the NorthEast---stay dry :-)
The first paragraph of this story stated "Nonfasting lipid status may be a better marker for impaired lipid metabolism than fasting lipids..." What all this mumbo-jumbo means is that it may be better for us docs to tell our patients not to fast before they give their blood to check their lipid panel.
My patients already know that I tell them not to fast before they give their blood for their routine lipid checks. I've been telling my patients for years that when they fast they are changing their blood chemistry into what it normally isn't. I want to see their blood chemistry as it normally is. I have called fasting "cheating" as it changes the blood chemistry, specifically the triglycerides and blood sugar, and can bring these numbers into the normal range with as little as an 8 hour fast.
By telling patients to fast, we docs will miss those patients who are insulin resistant as their triglycerides (trigs) and blood sugars can become normal with even an 8 hour fast. I have caught many new onset insulin resistant, type 2 diabetics by telling them NOT to fast prior to giving blood for lipid analysis.
For instance, even a trig value of say, 170, will tell me that I have a potential type 2 diabetic in the making. This trig value is certainly high, but it is a trig value which will easily correct itself by as little as an 8 hour fast. So if I would have told my patient to fast, I would have missed this as the trig value would have been normal; and I would not have been able to counsel my patient accordingly.
The same is true with blood sugar readings. By telling my patients not to fast, I catch many a type 2 diabetic extremely early in their disease and I can intervene alot quicker than other practitioners, solely because I told my patient not to fast.
All docs need to tell their patients not to fast before they give blood for routine lipid analysis.
Do I have to say to my colleagues "I told you so." Nah, that would be just plain rude :-)
Dr Jim
(The full article can be found in Family Practice News, Vol. 39, No. 14, p.15.)
Have a great weekend everyone and if you live in the NorthEast---stay dry :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
