This was the headline of an article I just read this morning in Family Practice News, the April 1, 2010 edition Vol. 40, No. 6. The article itself was on page 5. Basically the article goes on to say that 'Patients want information on weight control, but physicians say they don't have enough training.'
It was very encouraging reading that statement because it is true. We physicians receive very little instruction in the treatment of obesity and what we do learn in medical school, internship, residency and at our conferences is just plain wrong. I received 2 weeks of 'formal'instruction in nutrition in medical school taught to me by an overweight dietitian. I didn't learn the correct way to eat until many years later.
I would go on to add that not only do physicians need more information on the treatment of obesity, but heart disease and type 2 diabetes as well. You see, the common denominator in the treatment of these diseases is the understanding that it is sugar molecules (glucose, fructose, galactose) that the body converts into plaque forming deadly cholesterol and makes us fat. Until physicians are taught this, we will not solve any of the medical problems as delineated above.
I gave a lecture to a small group last night and one of the participants stated her doctor told her flat out that carbohydrate consumption does not increase inflammation in the body. This is false, it does. I bet this same doctor does not understand that cholesterol and fat production starts with sugar molecules, yet, it does.
My point is that when doctor's believe certain things, like what they are taught in medical school, they hold on tenaciously to that belief despite overwhelming contradictory evidence proving otherwise. Beliefs are hard to crack.
We need to start educating our health care providers on the correct way to eat so they can properly educate the millions of patients they collectively see throughout our nation.
dr jim 'the shock doc'
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
"Tell your doctor his chemistry is wrong, cholesterol and fat are not made from sugar..."
Really? You mean I have it all wrong?
This was a statement said to me by a patient who told his sister to check out my videos (or book, he wasn't sure which one she saw or read); and that was her comment back to him. I would have no problem if this statement was uttered by a layperson, but it turns out she happens to be a pediatrician. This frightened me because as a pediatrician she obviously sees children and if she does not understand the basics of biochemistry she cannot tell the parents the correct way their children should be eating.
Does this scare anyone? It scares the crap out of me and is the reason I so titled my book the way I did.
We have a childhood obesity pandemic, we are seeing diseases we only saw in adults now in children under 10; and this will never change until we start teaching our medical students the correct biochemical approach to eating. We doctors are not the solution, we are the problem and are making it worse.
As I am writing this my Nurse Practitioner saw what I was writing and stated "Well, that makes for an interesting debate?" But I propose that there is no debate. I am dealing with the facts of nutritional biochemistry. It's like debating that 1+1 is not 2, it could be 3 or even 4. Any doctor, nutritionist, or dietitian who thinks that cholesterol and fat production does not start with simple sugars (glucose, fructose) has forgotten their basic foundational biochemistry, period.
You see, it starts with a process called glycolysis which yields a molecule called Acetyl Co A. Turns out, Acetyl CoA is a pivotal biomolecule and can be the starting point for both cholestrol and fat production. Anybody reading this can type in 'glycolysis' in any search box and see the pathway yourself.Then type in Acetyl CoA and see what hits you get. Then review the pathway for cholesterol synthesis and notice what molecule starts the whole process. That's right, Acetyl CoA.
A few weeks ago a good friend of mine Greg e-mailed me because he got into a discussion with a biochemist who told him that cholesterol and fat production does not start with simple sugars. The biochemist, being skeptical not cynical, told Greg he would do a little research and get back to him with his results. After he did his research he notified Greg and stated that he, the biochemist, was wrong and that Greg was indeed correct. The glaringly obvious point is that here's a biochemist who wasn't trained the correct way, even though he studied all the pathways, it just wasn't tied together for him; he had to do that for himself after his 'official' training.
Make no mistake about it, cholesterol and fat production starts with simple sugars. If you do not understand or want to debate me, you are part of the problem, not the solution and you should not be educating people on the correct way to eat!
dr jim 'the shock doc'
This was a statement said to me by a patient who told his sister to check out my videos (or book, he wasn't sure which one she saw or read); and that was her comment back to him. I would have no problem if this statement was uttered by a layperson, but it turns out she happens to be a pediatrician. This frightened me because as a pediatrician she obviously sees children and if she does not understand the basics of biochemistry she cannot tell the parents the correct way their children should be eating.
Does this scare anyone? It scares the crap out of me and is the reason I so titled my book the way I did.
We have a childhood obesity pandemic, we are seeing diseases we only saw in adults now in children under 10; and this will never change until we start teaching our medical students the correct biochemical approach to eating. We doctors are not the solution, we are the problem and are making it worse.
As I am writing this my Nurse Practitioner saw what I was writing and stated "Well, that makes for an interesting debate?" But I propose that there is no debate. I am dealing with the facts of nutritional biochemistry. It's like debating that 1+1 is not 2, it could be 3 or even 4. Any doctor, nutritionist, or dietitian who thinks that cholesterol and fat production does not start with simple sugars (glucose, fructose) has forgotten their basic foundational biochemistry, period.
You see, it starts with a process called glycolysis which yields a molecule called Acetyl Co A. Turns out, Acetyl CoA is a pivotal biomolecule and can be the starting point for both cholestrol and fat production. Anybody reading this can type in 'glycolysis' in any search box and see the pathway yourself.Then type in Acetyl CoA and see what hits you get. Then review the pathway for cholesterol synthesis and notice what molecule starts the whole process. That's right, Acetyl CoA.
A few weeks ago a good friend of mine Greg e-mailed me because he got into a discussion with a biochemist who told him that cholesterol and fat production does not start with simple sugars. The biochemist, being skeptical not cynical, told Greg he would do a little research and get back to him with his results. After he did his research he notified Greg and stated that he, the biochemist, was wrong and that Greg was indeed correct. The glaringly obvious point is that here's a biochemist who wasn't trained the correct way, even though he studied all the pathways, it just wasn't tied together for him; he had to do that for himself after his 'official' training.
Make no mistake about it, cholesterol and fat production starts with simple sugars. If you do not understand or want to debate me, you are part of the problem, not the solution and you should not be educating people on the correct way to eat!
dr jim 'the shock doc'
Saturday, April 3, 2010
OMG!
Ok, so I found out what PGPR was. Remember, it was one of the ingredients in the Land O Lakes 'Light' Butter.
Click Here to read the full description.
dr jim 'the shock doc'
Click Here to read the full description.
dr jim 'the shock doc'
LEAVE MY BUTTER ALONE!!!!!!!
Ok, so I'm shopping for eggs and stuff to eat for today and when I'm grabbing my regular butter my eyes wandered and I caught a glance of Land O Lakes 'LIGHT' Butter. My first thought was, "It feels like it weighs the same to me" but then I went into low carb mode (like when am I not in low carb mode?).
All of us low-carbers already have figured out what 'Light' butter is all about; that's right, just another way to ruin the food by taking the fat out of it. So I'm standing there reading all the information on this psuedo food product and it occurred to me that the continued dietary ignorance just wont stop.
One statement on the packaging was"50% less fat and 47% fewer calories than regular butter." I'm thinking, "Uh huh, good job you morons. First off we need the fat, and second off CALORIES DONT MEAN ANYTHING!!!!." Of course I'm muttering under my breath and the people around me gave me glances like "I think this guy just escaped from some insane asylum" and they quickly scurried away. Scary thing was that most people grabbed the "Light' version of the butter and I just shuddered (yes, scaring even more people away).
So there I am all pissed off in the dairy aisle and what do I do, knowing full well it will send me into a low carb vitriolic tirade; drooling at the mouth, temporal artery visibly pulsating; I go and read the ingredient list....
Ok, so regular butter's ingredients are cream and salt. The ingredients for the 'light' version were as follows, you ready?
Butter, water, food starch-modified, and less than 2% of the following; tapioca, maltodextrin,salt, vegetable mono and diglycerides, lactic acid, potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, PGPR (emulsifier), xanthan gum, natural flavor, Vitamin A palmitate, and lastly beta-carotene.
Like WTF bigtime, and most people were buying this and would soon be putting this crap in their mouth and eating it. I don't even know what PGPR is (I'll look it up for you), and as far as the rest of the ingredients, I mean come on...obviously another example of profound dietary ignorance.
Do I really blame Land O Lakes? Not really. All they're doing is trying to sell a product and are providing what they think is the, and I use this term loosely, healthier alternative. But this low fat or no fat pseudo food is everywhere; most people think it's the safer way to go and do consume these dangerous foods being masqueraded as healthy on a daily basis.
This is a major problem and is not going away any time soon. Dr. Oz continues with his low carb mantra; the Today show is in love with the writer/editor of the "Eat This, Not That' book and have had this person on their show promoting and perpetuating the "Saturated fat and cholesterol is bad myth' and continue to think that the calorie actually means something in human nutrition.
The last Today Show I saw they were comparing foods and stating which had more saturated fat and more calories and I'm there yelling at the TV, and of course Matt Lauer (spelling?), screaming "Saturated fat is good for us and calories dont mean anything, nothing, zilch, niente', neechavo" wondering if my neighbors could hear me and scaring my poor yellow lab to death. As a side note, there was a show on CNN or some channel like that that was discussing how other cultures eat dog and it is considered a delicacy, and I wondered aloud "I wonder what dog tastes like?"
She doesn't really get too close to me anymore...hmmmm....
Oh yeah, while I'm mentioning CNN they had this Fit Nation segment, of course, espousing all the wrong dietary info. and get this, it was sponsored by Whole Wheat Cheerios; woo hoo, way to go CNN, you should rename your show 'Unfit and Obese Nation.'
Ok, I guess I'll stop this non-sequitor post and leave you with one last question;
So I'm picking up my Mich-Ultra at the distributor and decide to read most of the side labels to compare the calorie, fat, protein and carb amounts of the lite beers. Turns out beer has no fat in it, that is, it contains zero grams of fat. Even regular beer has zero grams of fat in a 12 ounce serving. Most beer had anywhere from 0.5 to 0.7 grams of protein (with Michelob Light the highest at 1.4 grams of protein per 12 ounces, but unfortunately it had around 8 grams of carbs; BTW, dont confuse Mich-Ultra with Michelob Light, the latter has a higher amount of carbs).
OK, so my question is this; If eating, or in this case drinking fat is supposed to make us fat, and there is no fat in beer, then how does one get a beer belly?
I know, I know kinda silly, but it is low-carb food for thought :-)
OK, gotta go. I'm preparing rabbit for tomorrow's Easter Dinner. Yummy...
dr jim 'the shock doc'
All of us low-carbers already have figured out what 'Light' butter is all about; that's right, just another way to ruin the food by taking the fat out of it. So I'm standing there reading all the information on this psuedo food product and it occurred to me that the continued dietary ignorance just wont stop.
One statement on the packaging was"50% less fat and 47% fewer calories than regular butter." I'm thinking, "Uh huh, good job you morons. First off we need the fat, and second off CALORIES DONT MEAN ANYTHING!!!!." Of course I'm muttering under my breath and the people around me gave me glances like "I think this guy just escaped from some insane asylum" and they quickly scurried away. Scary thing was that most people grabbed the "Light' version of the butter and I just shuddered (yes, scaring even more people away).
So there I am all pissed off in the dairy aisle and what do I do, knowing full well it will send me into a low carb vitriolic tirade; drooling at the mouth, temporal artery visibly pulsating; I go and read the ingredient list....
Ok, so regular butter's ingredients are cream and salt. The ingredients for the 'light' version were as follows, you ready?
Butter, water, food starch-modified, and less than 2% of the following; tapioca, maltodextrin,salt, vegetable mono and diglycerides, lactic acid, potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, PGPR (emulsifier), xanthan gum, natural flavor, Vitamin A palmitate, and lastly beta-carotene.
Like WTF bigtime, and most people were buying this and would soon be putting this crap in their mouth and eating it. I don't even know what PGPR is (I'll look it up for you), and as far as the rest of the ingredients, I mean come on...obviously another example of profound dietary ignorance.
Do I really blame Land O Lakes? Not really. All they're doing is trying to sell a product and are providing what they think is the, and I use this term loosely, healthier alternative. But this low fat or no fat pseudo food is everywhere; most people think it's the safer way to go and do consume these dangerous foods being masqueraded as healthy on a daily basis.
This is a major problem and is not going away any time soon. Dr. Oz continues with his low carb mantra; the Today show is in love with the writer/editor of the "Eat This, Not That' book and have had this person on their show promoting and perpetuating the "Saturated fat and cholesterol is bad myth' and continue to think that the calorie actually means something in human nutrition.
The last Today Show I saw they were comparing foods and stating which had more saturated fat and more calories and I'm there yelling at the TV, and of course Matt Lauer (spelling?), screaming "Saturated fat is good for us and calories dont mean anything, nothing, zilch, niente', neechavo" wondering if my neighbors could hear me and scaring my poor yellow lab to death. As a side note, there was a show on CNN or some channel like that that was discussing how other cultures eat dog and it is considered a delicacy, and I wondered aloud "I wonder what dog tastes like?"
She doesn't really get too close to me anymore...hmmmm....
Oh yeah, while I'm mentioning CNN they had this Fit Nation segment, of course, espousing all the wrong dietary info. and get this, it was sponsored by Whole Wheat Cheerios; woo hoo, way to go CNN, you should rename your show 'Unfit and Obese Nation.'
Ok, I guess I'll stop this non-sequitor post and leave you with one last question;
So I'm picking up my Mich-Ultra at the distributor and decide to read most of the side labels to compare the calorie, fat, protein and carb amounts of the lite beers. Turns out beer has no fat in it, that is, it contains zero grams of fat. Even regular beer has zero grams of fat in a 12 ounce serving. Most beer had anywhere from 0.5 to 0.7 grams of protein (with Michelob Light the highest at 1.4 grams of protein per 12 ounces, but unfortunately it had around 8 grams of carbs; BTW, dont confuse Mich-Ultra with Michelob Light, the latter has a higher amount of carbs).
OK, so my question is this; If eating, or in this case drinking fat is supposed to make us fat, and there is no fat in beer, then how does one get a beer belly?
I know, I know kinda silly, but it is low-carb food for thought :-)
OK, gotta go. I'm preparing rabbit for tomorrow's Easter Dinner. Yummy...
dr jim 'the shock doc'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
