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
Sunday, November 15, 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
