Dr James Carlson Low Carb Nutritional Expert

Dr. Oz Truly is The Bane of My Existence!

2012-02-03T08:40:00.000-08:00

Definitions of bane from American Heritage Dictionary;

1.Fatal injury or ruin: "Hath some fond lover tic'd thee to thy bane?" (George Herbert).

2.
a. A cause of harm, ruin, or death: "Obedience,/Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,/Makes slaves of men" (Percy Bysshe Shelley).

b. A source of persistent annoyance or exasperation:

3. A deadly poison.

Sorry Dr. Oz, but it's true. You fit precisely with definition 2 b (or not 2 b, sorry, couldn't resist. Definition 3 could easily pertain to the consumption of carbs, but I'm here mainly to vent out my frustrations against Dr. Oz)

Whenever I have a chance to peruse his show I always get this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that millions of viewers are watching him & believing the nutritional nonsense he spews forward & then I pace back & forth, back & forth and wonder why this guys on television and then my auditory hallucinations start again and all I hear is the repetitive mantra Oprah...Oprah...Oprah (I know that was a run-on sentence so just put your red pens down and follow me on this one :-)

The latest comments from and about his show are how he is promoting baryatric surgery as the be-all-end-all solution to weight loss and as a diabetes cure to name a few. While my patients know I am not against gastric bypass and/or the lap band (we now have a gastric sleeve procedure to add into the mix) as a 'tool' to help facilitate weight-loss; everyone needs to understand that this surgical option should not be promoted as first-line therapy.

So long as Dr. Oz continues to disseminate the incorrect way to eat, millions of people will continue to believe that low-fat, low-cholesterol is the right way to eat. The end result will be exactly what we physicians continue to see on a daily basis; people getting heavier, cholesterol panels getting worse, blood sugars & pressures going higher and the list goes on and on.

A few weeks back when I was unlucky enough to come across his show..ok I was channel surfing and I heard someone mentioning L-arginine and my biochemical ears became pointy and my fingers immediately came off the channel up button and there it was...the Dr Oz show. He was talking about L-arginine and how it can help increase the pituitary's production & secretion of Growth Hormone, which, by the way, it cannot and this was shown in studies performed years ago. I then wondered why anyone would even mention the L in front of arginine as the only arginine our bodies can utilize is the L version so its superfluous to even say 'L'-arginine. It only suggests to me that that person just wants to look clever in the eyes of others. (As an aside the letter L is a designation of the chirality of particles, that is, bio molecules can have mirror images of one another referred to as enantiomers, the mirror image of the L is the D molecule go do an Internet search to learn more if you wish)

Anyway, my point is that I just happened across his show, heard an amino-acid mentioned, noticed it was the Dr Oz show and couldn't stop myself from watching. A good analogy here is like when you are cleaning out your refrigerator (finally) and you come across that Tupperware container you know you put in there about a year ago; you simply cannot discern for the life of you what once resided in there, you just know it's been there for about a year; and you must, just must take the top off and smell what now remains before discarding the decomposed organic remnants into 5 thick padded garbage bags, immediately rushing these hermetically sealed bags outside to the garbage for fear your smoke detectors will go off due to the thick pungent odor you can cut with a knife;; then worrying you might have to explain to fire rescue what that 'terrible odor' is....ok, I think I've made my point.

The fact of the matter is I actually like Dr. Oz, but I vehemently opine he should not be attempting to educate us on any way to eat. But then of course why should I be picking on Dr. Oz? The vast majority of doctors, nutritionists, dietitians and just about every self-proclaimed health guru promotes the low-fat, low-cholesterol dietary myth, so now I guess I've come full circle....

I guess what's happening is that I am just sick & tired of people promoting the wrong dietary message and believing in it's so-called virtues, despite the fact that we are getting heavier, still dying from heart disease and the complications of diabetes and failing to see 'the emperor's new clothes' for what they really are.

As I've implored many times in the past....

"When will it all end?"

I really do not know.

OK, my dogs need to go outside and i need to figure out what I'm going to eat for lunch today before i work out later with my beautiful & wonderful wife Gloria; yes, I have actually started to train once again....could body-building Jim, er, Dr. Jim be making a come-back? You all just have to wait and see :-) Have a great weekend everyone!

And before I forget......GO GIANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dr jim
http://www.drjamescarlson.com/

BRINGING THE LOW-CARB MESSAGE TO BRAINERD MN!

2012-01-06T05:17:00.000-08:00

LISTEN LIVE @ 9:30 AM ET TODAY! CLICK HERE!

Nationwide Interview in 10 Minutes w/ Jim Brown!

2011-12-04T07:21:00.001-08:00

Click Here To Listen!

To Fix This; Eat MORE Fat & Cholesterol---Not Less!

2011-11-12T05:14:00.001-08:00

Here’s what I suggested for a patient who’s Lipid Profile and blood sugar showed the following;

Total Cholesterol-239
HDL-37
Triglycerides-106
LDL-181

Glucose-115

Hi There!

What I didnt like was the HDL at 37. Were you fasting for these labs? I would suggest to my patients to eat MORE fat & cholesterol and definitely back off on the carbs even more, dropping to no more than 10 grams carbs per meal. With an HDL at 37 this puts you at increased risk for a heart attack which is why I would recommend a statin drug NOT for cholesterol lowering, but for plaque stabilization. Make sure you take Coenzyme Q 10 along with the statin (at least 200 mg a day), I'd want you on at least a low dose aspirin (as long as you have no medical reason against taking aspirin) and I'd want 4 grams of fish oil a day. The interesting thing is that you actually need to INCREASE your cholesterol! This is because you need to increase your HDL (again, by eating MORE fat & cholesterol) and when HDL increases it will drive up your total; so ignore your total. Oh, and ignore your LDL as well. Another interesting point is that when triglycerides (tgs) get close and below 100, the molecular characteristic of your LDL changes and it actually begins to help the HDL.

Another reason why we ignore the LDL is because it is a calculated number. As your HDL increases, driving up your total cholesterol and your triglycerides drop even further, based upon the mathematical calculation the LDL will INCREASE, not decrease; this fact cannot be emphasized enough; yet doctors miss this point ALL the time. Once your HDL hits 50 I would drop the statin. Hope this helps :-)

Oh, before I forget, I didn’t see a test known as the HgBA1c, or Vitamins B 12, Vitamin D 25 hydroxy (total), Folic Acid or a TSH; these are tests that also should be checked especially the HgBA1c as your sugar was a little high. Oh, and write down all the foods you eat for a week and e-mail me the list so I can see if you’re getting some hidden carbs somewhere.

Dr jim :-)
http://www.drjamescarlson.com/

Interview w/ George From THE TICKETT! Tomorrow @ 8 AM EDT!

2011-10-14T20:49:00.000-07:00

Dont forget, get up at 8 AM EDT tomorrow (Saturday) and hear the truth about DIABETES! http://www.theticket.com/

Interview Tomorrow 8 AM EDT!

2011-10-14T19:08:00.000-07:00

Live Show tomorrow 8 AM EDT! Set your clocks, get up & listen! http://www.theticket.com/ This one's on the correct treatment of diabetes. ENJOY!

Back to Back Shows Today!

2011-10-14T08:32:00.001-07:00

Listen Live @ 12:05 PM ET today where I'll bash those carbs again down in Mississippi! http://www.supertalk.fm/index.php Enjoy!

Live Show @ 10 AM This Morning With Dr. Andrea Fanti!

2011-10-14T06:10:00.000-07:00

Listen to me live this morning @ 10 AM EDT! Dr. Andrea Fanti & myself will be discussing the CORRECT way to eat! Enjoy! http://wbtclive.com/

My Very First Podcast Ever! How nostalgic...:-)

2011-09-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

It was with Jimmy Moore creator of the Livin La Vida Low Carb web site that I had my first podcast interview. Since then, Jimmy has acquired National recognition as an individual who understands at a very in-depth level the importance of eating low carbs for one's lifetime. His website has received and continues to receive hundreds of thousands of hits from readers all over the world. I was and continue to be honored to have had an opportunity to discuss the importance of low carbs with Jimmy!

Click here to listen to my very first podcast and enjoy!

CONGRATULATIONS TO JIMMY MOORE ON HIS 500TH PODCAST!!!!

2011-09-25T07:50:00.000-07:00

Click here to listen to Jimmy's 500th Podcast! He is truly an inspiration to all of us Low-Carb/Paleo individuals who UNDERSTAND the correct way to eat!

ENJOY!

dr jim :-)

Hi All! Listen To Me Live Today At KMMS AM @ 5 PM EDT

2011-09-24T06:50:00.000-07:00

Click Here to Listen to me live and enjoy!

Another Dr Jim Original....

2011-09-21T14:00:00.000-07:00

Every now and then a new joke pops into my head. I never know when it will happen, it just does. Yesterday was one of those days. The following joke came to me as I was seeing patients and just in time for Halloween;

'Why did the Vampire need to see the lung doctor?'

'Because he was always Coffin!'

I know, I know kinda corny but hey, I made that up all by my lonesome. I'm soooooo bloody clever. LOL.

Other Dr Jim originals;

'Why did the spider want a computer?'

'Because she wanted her own web page!'

Notice how I used the pronoun she as I believe only female spiders weave webs. How about;

'Why did one paramecium make the other paramecium laugh?'

Because he was acting very cilia!'

Or,

'Why was the salt molecule making sodium and chloride nervous?'

'Because it had its ion them!'

And finally,

'Why did the lady mold like hanging out with the guy mold?'

'Because he was a real fungi !'

Don't worry, I wont quit my day job.........yet :-)

dr jim :-)

www.drjamescarlson.com

The CDC Reports 'Kids May Not Be Drinking Enough Low Fat Milk!' Thank God For That!

2011-09-19T08:01:00.000-07:00

Click here to read the report....it's really scary.

OK, first off, thank goodness our children are drinking mainly whole milk. Forget my take on why we shouldn't be drinking milk from another species, I'm thankful our kids are drinking more whole milk irregardless of that. (As a side note, I was told by one of my blog readers that on a farm there will often times be intermingling of calves suckling on a sheep and vice-versa, but let's stick with the topic at hand; I'm a city boy anyway, my idea of a farm is Pepperidge Farm :-)

The geniuses at the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics are obviously still holding on tenaciously to the misbelief that fat, especially saturated fat, is bad for us. Not only do the representatives need to read my book (click here to order my soon to be # 1 best-seller :-), but Gary Taube's Good Calories, Bad Calories as well. My input on Taube's book is that it should be the last book anyone has to write or read on the correct way to eat. Unfortunately, it will not be.

The article gives statistical breakdowns about how children at the poverty level drink more whole milk than the upper echelon, who drink more low fat stuff; but the bottom line is that neither the CDC nor the American Academy of Pediatrics understands the correct way to eat. Does this frighten anyone?

The most disturbing comment from that article was the following;

"The overall low consumption of low-fat milk suggests the majority of children and adolescents do not adhere to recommendations by Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, and the American Academy of Pediatrics for all children aged 2 years and over to drink low-fat milk," the report said.

Well, thank goodness for that!!!!

Before I read this disturbing article, I was reading an article about the increasing rates of ADD; think there's a connection, I do. Suggesting children age 2 and older drink low fat milk is just plain wrong! These children, because of the incorrect recommendations of those HUGE organizations, will not be giving their still developing brains what they need to develop correctly! I wonder how many millions of people will read this crazy article and start forcing their children to drink the low fat milk crap. And people wonder why the title of my book is GENOCIDE, followed by exclamation points !!!!

As I've been stressing throughout my blog post rants is that major organizations who disseminate information to millions of people, when it comes to how we should be eating are still perpetuating the low fat, low cholesterol myth. When will this stop?

Got me....

But until it stops my ranting and ravings will continue. Uh oh, I just had a thought. What if they do get it one day, what the heck am I going to write about? As a side note the reason I started calling my blog a 'rant' is because one of my critics on Amazon (you can actually read his comments if you go to Amazon, or just click here and scroll through my reviews ) referred to my book as a 'ranting and raving' which I actually kinda liked :-)

As far the article above, I have no comments on the sugary sodas and soft-drinks because you all know where I stand on that one.

Have a great rest of the week everyone!

dr jim :-)

Way To Go 'THE HEART HOSPITAL BAYLOR' in Plano, TX-YOUR KILLING PEOPLE WITH YOUR INFO!!!!

2011-09-16T09:10:00.000-07:00

First off, I want to thank my blog readers for putting up with my 'educational' rants and for sending me what's happening and incorrect information being disseminated in other parts of our Nation. I received this next Q & A article from one of my followers (I'll leave your name out to protect you from any repercussions of the truth :-) and it originated from The Heart Hospital Baylor situated in Plano, Texas. I'll put my comments in parenthetical italics like I did last week.

This is from THE HEART HOSPITAL Baylor Plano, TX website. (Wow, the 'Heart Hospital' sounds impressive)

HIGH-PROTEIN DIETS FOR WEIGHT LOSS

Q: What is the scoop on high-protein diets? I've been losing weight easily since I stopped eating bread, bagels, pasta, and other fattening carbohydrates. Is this a good way to lose weight?

(I love the way the question stated fattening carbohydrates, that's exactly what they are)

A: High-protein diets are not a good way to lose weight. When the high-protein craze first began about 20 years ago many thought it was the answer. But clearly it was not: Americans are heavier than ever. Why should high-protein diets work any differently today?

(Hey, numnuts, first off low carbohydrate dieting as an effective way to lose weight has been around for hundreds of years. Ever hear of 'Banting' ? This was shown to be a very effective way to loose weight at the turn of the century. What craze and how can you even state that' clearly it is not? YOU are part of the problem. Yes, Americans are heavier than ever because they are eating more LOW FAT and LOW CHOLESTEROL foods which will be top loaded with carbohydrates. And another thing, they're NOT 'high-protein diets' you fool, they're lower carb, and more appropriate amounts of fat, cholesterol and protein.)

Carbohydrates are not fattening, nor is protein slimming, despite popular belief. Weight is lost by creating a calorie deficit. Just as you will gain weight if you eat extra calories, you will lose weight if you eat fewer calories. Period.

('Carbohydrates are not fattening' ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!????????? Did you ever hear about Glycolysis giving rise to Pyruvate which when decarboxylated gives rise to Acetyl CoA the starting point for fatty acid synthesis. Have you heard of Acetyl-CoA Carboxylase (ACC), 'a biotin dependent enzyme that catalyzes the IRREVERSIBLE carboxylation of Acetyl-CoA to produce Malonyl-CoA' and that 'the most important function of ACC is to provide the Malonyl-CoA substrate for the biosynthesis of fatty acids' this was taken right from Wikipedia, I added the caps. Obviously, you don't have a clue that what you saying is just plain WRONG!!! I mean really??!! 'Nor is protein slimming' you go on to write. Ummmm, yes it is. So long you're not overconsuming carbs with it. I will concede that there are glucogenic amino acids out there that our bodies can convert into glucose, so be careful with the protein, but if one starts eating strictly protein (which I do not promote as there was something called the Last Chance Diet back in the 70's which was all protein and little carbs and fat which was killing people) you will lose weight. 'Weight is lost by eating a calorie deficit diet' Oh yeah, the old calorie in-calorie out crap. IT DOESNT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you worked with any patients on this, obviously not. By the way, CALORIES ARE IRRELEVANT IN HUMAN NUTRITION!!!!!!!! Looks like yopu need to go back and re-read your biochemical textbooks, I mean did yopu even study biochemistry....did you?? And who is this yopu character? I love this one 'Period.' Uh huh, that's the final word, like 'Yeah man I got this all worked out, I'm the dude who knows what I'm talking about so dont dare question me.')
The reason why these high protein diets are so popular is because they seem to work, and work quickly. In the end, though, they will fail.

(Once again, they are not high-protein diets showing the profound ignorance of the person writing this crap; and they are popular because they work, THAT'S WHY I TELL MY PATIENTS TO EAT THIS WAY YOU FOOL!!! Am I living a mass delusion? Are my thousands upon thousand off patients who have come off meds, who had their labwork come back excellent, are we all living a mass delusion??!! "In the end they will fail.' Really, well Ill have you know I'm still waiting for that 'end' to arise. I haven't seen it and this is after being involved with low-carb eating for the last 14 years.)

Dieters who eat low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets lose weight quickly at first due to water loss. When you first stop eating carbs, you lose body water. This is because the carbohydrates you eat are stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver. Glycogen is heavy with water. When you begin to diet and you do not eat carbohydrates, your body taps into these glycogen stores for quick energy. As you deplete glycogen, you lose water, and you lose weight, in the form of water, quickly. When you begin to eat carbohydrates again, two to four pounds or more of water weight is rapidly regained.

(I love that 'due to water loss' mumbo jumbo. Uh huh, so when I lost 70 LBs that was all water huh? When my friends Jimmy and Greg lost well over a hundred fifty pounds that was all water---Are YOU KIDDING ME?? I will concede one point though, when we start a low carb diet there is a diuretic effect, which is why blood pressure drops independently of weight loss, but the vast majority of weight loss is from the utilization of free fatty acids for fuel and these fatty acids come directly form adipocytes (ya fat cells). ' This is because the carbohydrates you eat are stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver. Glycogen is heavy with water.' This is partly true, but anyone engaged with a low fat, low cholesterol diet will overconsume carbs, glycogen stores will be quickly re-stored and all the excess carbs will now be stored as fat. Let me also add that glucogenic amino-acids, free fatty acids and the glycerol backbone of triglycerides can also be used to create glycogen, so we dont even need to consume carbs at all to replete glycogen stores. Just for the record, the amount of glycogen stored in the muscle is very little (around 1-3 % of body mass depending on your citation) and about 8 % of the mass of the liver and as an aside the liver is the only organ which can supply other tissues with glycogen. 'When you begin to diet and you do not eat carbohydrates, your body taps into these glycogen stores for quick energy.' Actually, glycogen is often referred to as a 'secondary' fuel source, not primary. Yes, your body will tap into these glycogen stores, but when someone lowers their carb intake, the metabolic picture changes and we begin to utilize our primary source of energy which is free fatty acids.'As you deplete glycogen, you lose water, and you lose weight, in the form of water, quickly. When you begin to eat carbohydrates again, two to four pounds or more of water weight is rapidly regained.' While this is minisculely true, look at what I just stated was the percentage of glycogen in the muscles and liver, 3 % and 8 % respectively. Those percentages pertain to the weight of the muscle and the liver, NOT overall body weight. Lets look at the weight of a typical liver. The average weight of a human liver is about 3 LBs or 1/40th of our bodyweight. 8 % of 3 pounds equals 0.24 pounds, hardly a lot of weight at all. Skeletal muscle comprises 40% of our overall weight. Taking into consideration and I'll use the higher percentage of 3 %, this means that 3 % of that 40% consists of glycogen. So let's do some simple calculations. Using 200 LBs as a guide, this means that in a 200 Lb human; 0.03 x .40 x 200 equals 2.4 LBs. Summing all this up, in a 200 LB person, one will see a 2.4 lb weight loss with complete depletion of glycogen stores. But we need to account for the fact that water is stored along with glycogen, so how much is stored along with the glycogen and how much weight are we talking about here. Any google search will reveal that about 2.7 grams of H2O combine with 1 gram of glycogen. Converting 2.4 LBs into grams we get 1088.62 grams. Now we need to multiply by 2.7 grams to get the actual grams lost, this equals 2939.27 grams; converting back to pounds we get about 6.5 LBs of water and glycogen weight. But we need to add back the glycogen weight as glycogen will be replenished lowering the actual weight lost to 6.5-2.4 = 4.10 LBs. So the 2-4 LBs weight loss fits with this calculation. Riddle me this, where did my other 65 LBs of weight loss come from...obviously by depleting my fat stores. Why do all the self-proclaimed nutritionists always hang their hat on glycogen stores and water loss, it is minuscule at best.)

High-protein diets are more filling than high-carbohydrate diets because protein foods linger longer in the stomach. This satiety factor helps you consume fewer calories so you create a calorie deficit, which causes weight loss. The problem is, restrictive high-protein diets, which may have you eating eggs or meat for breakfast, minus the toast and orange juice, will leave you craving carbohydrates. This sets you up for overeating carbohydrate-rich foods like sweets, pasta, and breads.

(Actually, if one consumes strictly protein and low fat, carbs and cholesterol they will not feel full and will crave more food. Protein digestion does indeed begin in the stomach from the effects of hydrochloric acid and an enzyme called pepsin but it certainly doesn't linger there unless there is some other kind of disease process causing this. There is no satiety factor with strictly protein consumption, satiety is created by the presence of fats and cholesterol in our diet. I don't understand how eating eggs (with the fat and cholesterol yolk) and meat will leave anyone 'craving' carbs. This is simply false. Eating strictly protein will leave you hungry and you will want to eat because you are hungry; if you're on a high-protein diet, which no-one who understands the correct way to eat will ever promote, you will get hungry quicker and reach for the food that's on your diet plan----more protein. One who follows a low fat, low cholesterol diet will crave more carbs because this is essentially what they are eating.)

The pertinent question is not what is the best way to lose weight quickly, but rather what is the best way to keep weight off once you have lost it. A diet that offers short-term success through drastic measures probably won't help keep weight off long-term. How long can you endure eating all meat and few carbs? Certainly not for a lifetime.

(I agree with the first sentence..I Know, I know, calm down everyone...but who's talking about short-term success? And what drastic measures? And yes, I've kept my weight off and stayed off meds for over 14 years; I have many patients who have been eating the correct way longer than me and they remain healthy. The 'Certainly, not for a lifetime' comment is a smug, ignorant, arrogant statement made by someone who hasn't a clue what they're talking about. If you want to be and remain healthy for a lifetime and stay off meds then you need to stay on lower carbs and more appropriate amounts of protein, fat and cholesterol.)

The best way to lose weight and keep it off is to eat what you like to eat, but 20 percent less of it. This creates a small calorie deficit that will leave you content, but not full, and allow you to lose weight and function normally in a carbohydrate world without feeling denied or deprived. It's the key for long-term success.

(I like the way this ignorant buffoon used the phrase 'carbohydrate world' because indeed it is. But that doesn't mean we should be eating all these carbs. We live in a carbohydrate world because we continue to believe that eating fat and cholesterol is bad for us. WE CREATED THIS CARBOHYDRATE WORLD!!! Just because we created it, does not mean it is the correct way to eat!! Eating 20 % less of what? I don't get it. Alright, my fingers are getting tired, I'm done.)

It must be reiterated that that Q & A forum or whatever is coming out of a proclaimed 'Heart Hospital.' If that doesn't scare the crap out of anyone then I haven't truly gotten my message across. OK everyone, have a great weekend and have some nice fatty steaks and egg yolks because that's what I'll be doing. Oh, by the way, who was the author of that 'answer' anyway.....

dr jim :-)
www.drjamescarlson.com
Video of Correct Way to Eat
My Critique of USDA 2010 MisGuidelines

Interview w/ Andy & Pam 1290 AM CJBK London, ON

This Is The Stuff That Just Really Makes Me Angry!!!!!

2011-09-09T07:57:00.000-07:00

OK, so I have an anger management problem.....whatever! But let me relate to you what got my goat this morning. I get these complimentary Web MD magazines to place in my waiting room. I notice one of the articles was entitled FOOD SMARTS: White House Chef's 5 Lunchbox Tips, on p. 44. So of course and once again against my better judgment, I flip over to page 44 and begin reading the article.

I really don't understand why I do this to myself. I know darn well that all the foods we shouldn't be eating are going to be listed, but what the hey....maybe this will be the day that I'll actually read an article where they got it right.......Unfortunately, this ain't the day. My comments will be italicized and in parentheses (like I need to tell you that :-) and below each day.....

OK, so let's go through the '5 Lunchbox Tips' that Master Chef Sam Kiss of the Whitehouse proposes and how he wants to poison our children (by the way on p. 48 of this issue he is standing in front of our First Lady and it looks like they're doing the train dance or something).

MONDAY-Turkey wrap made with lettuce and a slice of cheddar cheese (hmmm, this sounds good, maybe they've finally got it?) on a whole-wheat tortilla baby carrots, grapes and two small oatmeal cookies (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Let's summarize Monday's mostly poisonous Lunch Box-Turkey wrap, lettuce and cheddar cheese--all good. Whole wheat tortilla, baby carrots, grapes and two small oatmeal cookies-all bad. Evidently the geniuses at the White House haven't a clue that sugar is sugar is sugar and accept the wolves in sheep's clothing.By allowing our children to eat the tortilla etc we are providing them with more sugar further perpetuating our obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cholesterol epi (pan) demic.

TUESDAY-Whole wheat pasta tossed with pesto (what the heck is pesto and what kid would even like it, I mean, really??!!),chopped cooked spinach, applesauce and two whole grain crackers (Huh?)

Our kids are like totally in trouble with this Tuesday meal! The only thing good for us here is the spinach, but then where's our protein, fat and cholesterol for this meal? Even the sugar found in the spinach, that's right there's sugar in spinach once the carbs are broken down. And yes, the body can convert even the sugar from spinach into cholesterol and fat. Don't believe me, then go back and relearn your biochemical pathways because I have no time for yopu right now! That's right yopu, I have no time for you.....ummmm, who's yopu??

WEDNESDAY-Sliced chicken on whole-wheat bread spread with hummus (WHAT KID OUT THERE LIKES HUMMUS??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!),small low sugar yogurt, baby carrots and two fig bars (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

OK, sliced chicken was a nice start but then, huh?!! I mean hummus for my kid, are you kidding me? Does anyone really even like hummus...disgusting. And then the rest of the poisonous lunch box is simply sugar and sugar and sugar...this is bad, really, really bad....How about you just pack a rattlesnake in the lunch box, it's a quicker way to get to where you're going to eventually wind up anyway.....

THURSDAY-Tiny sandwiches made with a dollop of tuna salad (why a 'dollop' that's the best part ya morons, aside from the possible mercury and arsenic toxicity...oh yeah, I just thought of another Dr. Jim original just in time for Halloween "What kind of witch likes deli-meat?"..."A sand-witch." Or, "What kind of witch likes the beach?" Yup, that's right, "A sand-witch." I'm so bloody clever....), between two cucumber slices (ahhhhh, I get the dollop now...anything more and you'll have a dollop on the floor...), kids can assemble them at lunch (not happening, trust me on this one), a quartered orange, two celery sticks filled with peanut butter, and two whole grain crackers.

OK, do I really even need to elaborate on this one..I just want to finish already.....

Thank God It's

FRIDAY-Cheese quesadilla made with a whole wheat or vegetable tortilla, diced tomatoes, red pepper or your child's favorite vegetable (uh, huh, what would that be..spinach, broccoli?), an apple, a banana, and two small chocolate chip cookies (I mean like why do the chocolate chip cookies have to be small, make them extra-super-mega size...what's the difference, most of this lunch is sugar anyway)

Not understanding that sugar is sugar is sugar lies at the foundation of this very disturbing weekly lunch menu. They might as well have created the following menu;

MONDAY-Ring ding.

TUESDAY-Devil dog.

WEDNESDAY-Yodel.

THURSDAY-Twinkies.

FRIDAY-Suzy-Q

It's the same thing; the same darn thing! Oh, I can hear some of you screaming "Wait, but there's chicken and cheddar cheese and peanut butter and tuna!!" While you are correct and those are indeed our friends, the sugar content far outweighs any good this "White House' menu will provide. My final comment "Be afraid, very, very afraid as to where we are heading health-wise and do not adhere to the My Plate campaign."

Ahhhhh, I feel so much better now and thanks once again for listening to my rant for today! Now it's time to spell check :-) Have a great weekend everyone!

Dr jim
www.drjamescarlson.com
Video of Correct Way to Eat
My Critique of USDA 2010 MisGuidelines
Interview w/ Andy & Pam 1290 AM CJBK London, ON

Listen To My Interview With Andy and Pam From London, Ontario!

2011-09-03T05:26:00.001-07:00

CLICK HERE!

They Almost Got It, But Then Ignorance Quickly Consumed Them!

2011-08-16T05:37:00.000-07:00

Click Here to read what I am going to rip apart today!

OK, so I log on and what catches my eyes but "20 Habits That Make You Fat." Of course I go and read the article and they actually started out by stating correctly that 'eating fat does not make us fat.' Wow, I say to myself, is this the Eureka moment I've been waiting for, where the Nation will suddenly understand the fact that eating fat DOES NOT make us fat??!!

Hold on to your seats ladies and gentlemen, wait for it....wait for it....

Ummm, no; no Eureka moment ensued :-(

The article started out right but then went astray by bringing the bane of my existence into the conversation....that's right, they started talking about calories. While saying that eating too many calories will cause us to gain weight misses the whole point. Yes, eating too many calories that are in the form of carbohydrates will increase weight gain; but when we eat our calories in the form of mostly fat with very little carbs, one will not gain weight. In fact, when we consume our calories with a preponderance of fat, one remains fuller longer and will not be looking to eat anything for a longer period of time. Get those calories mainly in the form of carbohydrates and say hello to some more excess adipose tissue.

No, please don't take my mentioning the calorie as any endorsement into the calorie's usefulness, for the counting of calories is a waste of one's time; and as I've said before is simply a red herring. What's more important is what you are eating 'calorie' wise. More calories from carbs look for weight gain, increased blood pressure, metabolic syndrome which will lower HDL (the good guy) and raise triglycerides and eventually lead to an increase in blood sugar facilitating overt type 2 diabetes. More calories from fat, cholesterol and protein containing foods and look forward to overall health and a reversal of the maladies as mentioned above.

Those are the facts!

Since I despise even hearing the calorie mentioned I initially ignored Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. That's because like many of my counterparts in medicine I can be thickheaded at times too. It was a patient of mine who brought an excerpt of Taube's book to my attention and forced me to read it. Like any physician who is 'forced' to do anything against their will, I acted like most physicians who are placed in this situation; I acted like a whiny little snot-nosed tempter tantrum filled pre-schooler...

But I finally read the excerpt and thank goodness I did!

When I read the short blurb about Mr. Taube's book I immediately understood that he understood the correct way to eat. While he is not a physician his book basically reveals how no study, in any language in any country ever supported the low fat low cholesterol opinion. (I was going to use the word hypothesis or theory in lieu of the word opinion but I thought those 2 words might have lent more credence to the low fat low cholesterol myth.)

Before I end today's rant, pay close attention to the author of 20 Habits That Make You Fat, it's Dave Zinczenko. Now what book was mentioned at the end of page 1 of this article? That's right, Eat This, Not That. Oh wait, who was one of the authors of that politically correct way to eat book? That's right, the same guy.

Need I say more?

dr jim :-)
www.drjamescarlson.com
drjim@drjamescarlson.com

Another Riduculous Study!

2011-08-14T05:03:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I log on to check my e-mail and this study jumps out at me CLICK HERE to read.
I only found 3 of the 9 probably good for us, which means 2/3rds of the article is giving us information which is absolutely wrong! Which foods do you think I'm OK with?

Watermelon to fight chronic fatigue??!! Really??!! One of the highest sugar containing foods out there touted as helping with fatigue??!! I mean where do these people/articles come from? Any way, I'll let you get back to me and let me know what you think I thought was OK with the article :-)

Since it's a rainy Sunday over here in NY, I think I'll just read and watch silly movies all day! See ya on Monday!

dr jim :-)
www.drjamescarlson.com
drjim@drjamescarlson.com

IGNORANCE AT ITS FINEST!

2011-08-12T06:36:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading through a best-selling book on diet last night. The title was Eat This, Not That. I don't remember who the author was, nor do I care to; I just remember something about him being an editor or something for Men's Health. The problem with this best-seller was that most of the information was and is just plain wrong. To make statements (not verbatim from book) like Don't use mayonnaise or stay away from cheeses is entirely 100% ignorant.

You see, the book's premise is that calories and fat are bad for us, but this belief is simply not true. How and when did simple basic nutritional facts become misunderstood? Why is the new "My Plate" campaign not being seen for what it is--------it is simply perpetuating ignorance and is the food pyramid in disguise.

I just completed going through a few hundred consults from various providers--Cardiologists, Endocrinologists, Nephrologists---and the dietary advice WAS ALL WRONG!!!!

My gripe or frustration with best-selling books as mentioned above is just that--they're best-selling. So millions of people are reading that stuff thinking it's true, while all the while most of the information is just plain wrong! I just checked what the best-selling book on nutrition was at Amazon.com and came across The 17 Day Diet Workbook: Your Guide To Health by Dr. Mike Moreno. So of course I want to read more and the description did not surprise me at all; it is the same politically correct way to eat we have seen again and again. As calorie is mentioned throughout I immediately knew that while some contents may be accurate, the premise of the book will be completely flawed. Without even reading this book I know with a very high degree of certainty that there will be a focus on calories and avoidance of fats. My point again is this; millions of people are reading this book and remain convinced of the calorie's importance, even though it is absolutely irrelevant in human nutrition. Chapter Six of my book explains what the calorie really is. CLICK HERE to read.

Anyway, yes, I am jealous my book is not number one (yet :-), or even in the top 400,000 best-seller list :-( but I know that when someone purchases a copy, either online or in my office, they will get the correct info on the correct way to eat. I really don't care for politically correct anything, I think I'm getting to old for that stuff. As a great example of this I came across a book in the top 20 called Go The F--- To Sleep, which by the way was number one in Parenting and Families and number 4 in entertainment. Other books which caught my eye were Monsters Eat Whiny Children, Raising The Perfect Child Through Guilt and Manipulation and All My Friends Are Dead. Yes, I am ordering these books, but through my kindle of course because it's cheaper :-)
All right, I, myself have whined enough today (I guess the monsters will get me tonight :-) Have a great weekend everyone! And if you're not doing it yet, go follow me on Twitter!

dr jim :-)
www.drjamescarlson.com
Video of Correct Way to Eat
My Critique of USDA 2010 MisGuidelines
CLICK HERE to order my soon to be Number 1 Bestseller everywhere so you can say you knew me when...

Don't Forget, My Live Interview Tonight With Michael Ray Dresser!

2011-08-09T09:55:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE at 7:56 PM EDT and Enjoy!

Interview Tomorrow Night With Michael Ray Dresser!

2011-08-08T06:32:00.000-07:00

To all, CLICK HERE tomorrow night at 7:53 EDT to listen live! Of course I'll be talking about the correct way to eat!

dr jim :-)

Way to Go American Dietetic Association! Thanks for Helping to Make Us Sicker!

2011-08-03T06:27:00.000-07:00

Check this link out CLICK HERE where the American Dietetic Association supposedly shows us 5 foods that can lower our cholesterol....

Then CLICK HERE to see what foods the geniuses over at the organization above say are bad for us...

Can anyone guess what my comments are going to be....?

A Massive Dietary Delusion

2011-08-02T06:13:00.000-07:00

A delusion is defined as a 'fixed false personal belief.' When it comes to the correct way to eat there is a massive delusion in thinking that low fat, low cholesterol is the right way to eat....it is not. Either I am correct when I tell my patients to lower their carbs and eat more fat, cholesterol and protein..or I am not. Since I have seen patient after patient for the last 14 years now (i've been practicing for over 20) do phenomenally well when they start eating less carbs and more of the things they've been brainwashed to think are bad for them, I figure I must be on to something here :-)

Oh wait, "what about the long term effects of eating that way"my delusional critics often exclaim. Well, umm, the long-term effects are that people will stay healthier longer and will require very little if any medications.

To continue to believe low fat, low cholesterol diets are healthy, is to continue on in a delusional state. But how do we cure this delusion? No amount of antipsychotics will change the delusional dietary thinker around, the eureka moment has to come when they (and 'they' represents millions and millions of people and huge, oftentimes government funded 3 letter entities) begin to understand the correct way to eat.

Hey, I'm not even talking about complicated biochemical facts, I'm talking about basic nutritional biochemistry here. Such as cholesterol and fat production starts with glucose and fructose; that the more insulin one secretes (as a result of eating carbohydrates), the fatter we get, the more cholesterol we produce, the more cell damage occurs.....I can go on and on here but my point is that the reality, the truth of the correct way to eat is out there, one just needs to understand it.

I had the pleasure to speak with a producer for the Martha Stewart show last Friday and when I explained the correct way to eat to her, she exclaimed what many people still think "I've never heard that before, that is a very interesting concept." Those of us who understand the correct way to eat need to continue to tell others, so that they may be as healthy and enjoy life longer, healthier just like us.

Thanks for taking the time to read my Blog today and go to www.cjbk.com next Thursday between 10-11 am EST where I will be interviewed live on a London, Ontario based radio show.

Enjoy!

dr jim:-)
www.drjamescarlson.com
drjim@drjamescarlson.com
CLICK HERE to order my Whistle Blowing Book on Physician's dietary ignorance!

When Are Doctors Going To Get It??!!

2011-07-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

Check out this interesting read.....

CLICK HERE!

My Presentation Down In D.C. Arguing Against the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines

2011-07-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

If you havent done so already, check out my presentation at The National Press Club down in D.C. on February 14th of this year!

Click Here!

dr jim

James E. Carlson B.S.,D.O.,M.B.A.,J.D.
www.drjamescarlson.com
drjim@drjamescarlson.com

IS THIS 'HEALTHY LIVING' ARTICLE REALLY HEALTHY?

2011-02-06T08:47:00.000-08:00

Click here for the link!

My response;

"I read with incredulity and disdain the pseudoscience as proclaimed in this article. If I were to recommend any aspect of these carb myths to my patients they would get heavier, blood pressures, triglycerides and blood sugars would increase, HDLs would lower, and the overall health of my patients would deteriorate; all while lining the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies.

Nice work Healthy Living, or should I say 'Unhealthy Living.' Unfortunately this is just another example of beliefs, theories, suppositions and myths reigning over the facts.

I have nothing further to say..."

Dr. James E. Carlson B.S., D.O., M.B.A., J.D.

www.drjamescarlson.com

Author of GENOCIDE: HOW YOUR DOCTOR'S DIETARY IGNORANCE WILL KILL YOU!!!!

Carbohydrates Can Kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2011-01-31T05:41:00.000-08:00

And yes they can! Check out my interview with Dr. Robert Su about infant/pediatric nutrition!

Click here to listen to entire interview!

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2011-01-03T06:30:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to all of us who made it through yet another year and are ready to face 2011 head-on! I know I am!

That being said I am glad to be back where I belong, blogging about the dangers inherent in carbs and to continue my fight against 'The Medical Establishment's' continued grotesque dissemination of the incorrect way to eat!

They should all be ashamed of themselves!

They are still supporting and disseminating the incorrect dietary information (that is, low fat, low cholesterol) which puts us at great risk for obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and of course cancer!

THIS HAS TO STOP!

This past year has seen the creation of the 'Coalition for a Healthy Nation.' This organization is devoted to exposing the truth behind the current dietary regulations. What is this truth? The truth is that there is no sound scientific criteria for the current recommendation of low fat, low cholesterol diets in regards to the treatment of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer.

2 members of this phenomenal organization (Adele H. Hite M.A.T.and Pamela A. Schoenfeld R.D.) published in the Journal Nutrition a premier paper entitled “In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee" in the journal Nutrition, by Hite, A, et al. Click here to view the full article

This is obviously a step in the right direction!

While we are seeing more physicians and dietitian coming to the understanding of the correct way to eat, there is still a preponderance of laypersons who understand the correct way to eat; as a medical professional, I am truly embarrassed by that fact.

The first non-medical individual who comes to mind is Jimmy Moore who understands the correct way to eat on such a profound level, sometimes I think he knows more than me. OK, so maybe he does but Shhhhh, dont tell him I said that :-)

Then there's my good friend JayCee from South Africa who continually sends me excellent articles on the fallacies of low fat, low cholesterol and awesome biochemical insights as well.

As an aside I recently had the privilege to be interviewed by Dr. Robert K. Su M.D. for his wonderful podcasts which can be heard at his website Carbohydrates Can Kill; I love that title because it is so so true!

Click Here to listen to my interview with Dr. Robert Su M.D.

One last comment; alot of people think that when I explain the correct way to eat that this is my opinion, theory, supposition or belief.

This is not true!

The correct way to eat is just that; the correct way to eat. Just because someone doesn't want to 'believe' that eating more fat, cholesterol and protein is the correct way to eat does not make it false. The truth is just that, the truth. Hey, I didn't create the biochemistry behind why we need to eat the way we need to eat. Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong, the facts just are.

So if you're still grappling with accepting that eating more fat/cholesterol/protein is safe; get over it already. There are excellent books on the market from Atkins, to the Eades (Protein Power); Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories and a whole host of other books explaining the correct way to eat.

Don't waste your time (or mine) telling yourself I'm crazy because that is what I believe. Remember, I don't believe anything. Quick question: How many people does it take to believe in something that's not true or real before it becomes real; millions of children believe in Santa Clause, unicorns and dragons...to date I have yet to see any of these famous people or animals.

As an aside, I would think unicorns are low carb (from the Equus or horse family?) and I wonder how they taste; I'm thinking they probably taste gamey, more like deer maybe...I dunno, maybe with a little BBQ sauce...but then of course I would think unicorns would be on like an endangered species list and we couldn't hunt them; and then there's the whole imagery of shooting the unicorn not knowing little Suzy or Billy were watching me and that they had to travel through some worm hole in their great aunts bedroom closet to finally actually see a unicorn first hand and then I shoot the darn thing right in front of them, and then I envisage all the unicorns in unicorn land trampling me; but then I think unicorns are supposed to be lovable creatures and all that...ahhh crap, was that a run on sentence or what....

As far as dragons being low carb, I would hazard a guess yes, but then how do you kill a dragon? I'm pretty sure you just cant kill a dragon you have to slay it; and it has to be done with a knight or something like that. Of course, you'd have all of these taxes put on dragon meat; the slaying tax, the knight tax, the "I-had-to-traverse-a-closet-worm-hole-tax" and blah, blah, blah.

Would dragons and unicorns be protected by PETA?

Ohhh, the things that keep me up at night.....

OK, I really went tangential on that one! Hey, cut me some slack, it's been awhile since I blogged :-)

Once again, Happy New Year to all!

Glad to be back!

dr jim

Genocide: How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You!!!!

Disconnect Seen Between PCPs, Obese Patients

2010-04-20T06:53:00.000-07:00

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'

"Tell your doctor his chemistry is wrong, cholesterol and fat are not made from sugar..."

2010-04-13T06:52:00.001-07:00

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'

OMG!

2010-04-03T13:23:00.000-07:00

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'

LEAVE MY BUTTER ALONE!!!!!!!

2010-04-03T10:40:00.000-07:00

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'

Defiance At Its Finest

2010-03-29T09:43:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I'm eating lunch with my daughter yesterday when she shares with me that she had a nutritional quiz last week. Of course I'm thinking "Uh oh" and am wondering what kind of questions, or should I say, brainwashing, is going on at the fourth grade level.

Before I had a chance to ask her what kinds of questions they asked her she told me one of them;

The question asked "Pick the healthiest snack from the foods listed below;"

A. apple
B. potato chips
C. cookie
D. ice cream

So what does my daughter do, who btw knows the correct way to eat? She tells me that she wrote an E. under the D. and writes 'none of the above' and circles that as her answer. Yes, the water I was drinking did indeed come out of my nose.

So then I asked how she did on the test to which she happily exclaims "Oh, I failed that one." Then she quickly added that it was a practice quiz and didn't count as her grade. When I asked her what her teacher thought would be the right answer she said 'apple' and then immediately responded that an apple contains way too much sugar and is a dangerous thing to eat as a snack.

You go girl!

So here's just another example as to how my daughter knows more about nutrition than the vast majority of medical professionals.

dr jim

Hypothyroidism and Depression

2010-02-06T06:08:00.000-08:00

Here's a few questions/answers on hypothyroidism I just answered today.

1) How prevalent, if known, is depression as a secondary problem to hypothyroidism?

While listed in the textbooks as a common symptom of hypothyroidism, clinically, most depression I see is not associated with hypothyroidism.

When I see a patient with depression one of the first things I do is run routine lab tests. Part of these tests includes a check of thyroid function (TSH,T3,T4). The vast majority of the time the thyroid functions are normal.

Interestingly enough, most patients I diagnose with hypothyroidism do not have any symptoms of depression at all and if they do have symptoms it is usually fatigue.

2) Can hypothyroidism first begin progressing very gradually, and then suddenly escalate?

Yes, it can. We know this by watching the TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone), a hormone secreted by the front portion of the pituitary. A high TSH indicates an under active thyroid gland (hypothyroidism); while a low TSH indicates over activity of the thyroid (hyperthyroidism).

This is counterintuitive to most people, as one would think the opposite to be true. I.e. Low TSH=Hypothroidism; High TSH=Hyperthyroidism.

This is the case as it is the pituitary that is secreting the TSH, not the thyroid. If the thyroid is not secreting its hormones (T4, T3) effectively, the pituitary will know (because it ill see less of those hormones) and will increase its secretion of TSH. If the thyroid is secreting too much T4, T3, this will tell the pituitary to secrete less TSH.

The escalation of hypothyroidism will be seen biochemically as an increase in the TSH. The physician will then increase the amount of thyroid hormone they are giving the patient. The escalation can also be seen clinically, usually as an increase in fatigue, prompting the astute clinician to check the TSH with subsequent manipulation of the thyroid med dose.

3) Must a person take thyroxine lifelong, or can this disorder spontaneously remit?

When dealing with true hypothyroidism spontaneous remission will not occur. I make this statement definitively as hypothyroidism is a result of the thyroid gland losing its ability to make the thyroid hormones T4 and T3. These hormones are made via the modification of a substance within the thyroid known as thyroglobulin.

In the most common type of hypothyroidism known as Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, the body begins to think the thyroglobulin is a foreign invader and begins to attack it. This is an autoimmune phenomenon as antibodies are created that then destroy the thyroglobulin. If there is no thyroglobulin, the body has no way to make the thyroid hormones. Thus, the only way to get the hormones would be via medication i.e. Thyroxine.

The medication will have to be taken for the person’s entire life.

4) Is the depression from hypo any different from a clinical depression that just comes for no reason, or the type that is triggered by chronic stress?

Yes, it is. Clinically, patients present more with fatigue complaints than with true clinical depression. When a patient presents with classic clinical depression, they are rarely hypothyroid. Even if a patient does have depression with concomitant hypothyroidism, treatment of the hypothyroidism will generally not eradicate the depression. Even though we learn in medical school and residency that we should always think of hypothyroidism when we diagnose depression, it is rarely the case that it is found.

Hope these answers help!

dr jim

Me and Mr Bones, fighting the fight against the medical establisment's dietary ignorance and we will not stop until everyone knows the truth.

Look for me and Mr. Bones March 6th on TV 55 (7:30 am-8:00 am)!

Glyceroneogenesis and Weight Loss

2010-02-01T03:59:00.000-08:00

Huh? Lol.

Here was my response to questions posed to me on my fan page in face book.

The Question;

Yesterday, JayCee mentionned something about a mechanism where your body can accumulate or at least not lose fat because of dietary protein intake. I've heard about diabetics having to restrict carbs and protein. If someone is experiencing a weight loss stall while keeping the carbs very low, they should eat less meat/protein, not less fat.

How many grams of protein do you think is too much?

Do you have to use a glucometer to know? Are milk proteins worse than other proteins?

I've heard cheese is insulinogenic. I don't really know what that means practically. Does it mean we should avoid cheese for weight loss purposes?

My response:

Alrighty, finally read through the link as posted by JayCee. Very interesting read. Now I must state at the outset I had never come across the term Glyceroneogenesis, so the article was helpful in defining that term.

Yes, glycerol is the backbone of the triglyceride molecule and once released from the 3, what are referred to as acyl groups (an acyl group is simply one of the fatty acid chains that was attached to glycerol) it (the glycerol molecule) can now be used to make glucose. I knew that glycerol was not created from glucose, but yes, other biomolecules such as amino acids can produce glycerol.

Now let me get to some very insightful questions. Let me just also add that I am absolutely astounded at the depth of biochemical questions coming from non medical people. WOW. I wish the doctors would start asking questions as thought provoking as these are.

Ok, with a weight loss stall one definitely has to lower protein intake. Proteins are made up of amino acids. Amino acids can be either glucogenic, that is, they can be used to make glucose; or ketogenic, and they can be used to make ketone bodies. When an amino acid is used to make a glucose molecule that process is referred to as gluconeogenesis. That was what I thought JayCee meant when I originally read the word glyceroneogenesis.

Now I knew all about glycerol production and degradation, I just never knew they developed a term to define it. So just like gluconeogenesis literally translated means the production of new glucose; the term glyceroneogenesis would refer to the production of new glycerol molecules.

Ok, so back to protein. Yes, one can definitely over consume protein, allowing the glucogenic amino acids to be converted to glucose, this can cause a sugar rise, subsequent release of insulin and that is what is causing your weight loss stall or possibly weight gain. Yes, you can use a glucometer to see if you are consuming too much protein, good call. I’ll often tell my diabetic patients, or my patients trying to loose weight, that if they are consuming low carbs and their sugars are still elevated, or if they cannot loose weight, to back off of their protein intake.

Click on the link to see the glucogenic (and ketogenic) amino acids;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucogenic_amino_acid

Now, here’s where we have to be careful. Let us not forget about that glycerol molecule which formed the backbone of triglycerides. Glycerol can also be converted to glucose, so theoretically on could eat too much fat, create too much sugar, and now your problems start all over again. JayCee’s link was correct in stating that protein consumption, like carbohydrates, can cause a release of insulin at the level of the pancreas. Fat does not tend to do this.

Your next question asked was/is milk protein worse than other proteins. About 80% of the protein found in milk is casein. Now milk is an interesting topic because we humans are the only species that consume milk beyond our infancy; and also the only species that consumes other species milk. In nature, you do not see a calf suckling on a deer teat, or a pig suckling on a cow teat, well, you get my point I’m sure. I have a problem with milk in general because as an adult, we probably shouldn’t be consuming milk in the first place. Many people have milk allergies and this is due to the casein found in milk. Another problem is that some studies have suggested a link between milk proteins and autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes. I generally tell my patients to avoid milk.

Cheese being insulinogenic? Dunno. Of course we get cheese from milk, which is where the whey protein comes in, and whey is often touted as being a highly absorbed protein, but how would it be insulinogenic. Well, I know some cheeses do have some glucose, also it’s that whole glucogenic amino acid thing all over again; maybe that’s what’s happening. I’ll have to do a little more research on that one.

No, I generally don’t tell my patients to avoid cheese.

Hope that helps and thanks for the great questions!

dr jim

Click here to watch my Ultimate Wellness! shows.

How A Low Carb Lifestyle Has Similar Effects As Aspirin

2010-01-31T12:22:00.000-08:00

A question was asked as seen below about low carbs and aspirin;

Do you advise your patients to take a low dose aspirin each day if they are on a low carb diet?

My Response;

Before I start anyone on aspirin I will perform a carotid doppler to check the carotid arteries (the arteries that supply the brain with blood). If there is even mild thickening I will start them on 81 mg of aspirin a day. If there is no thickening and they are on low carb, I tell them not to take aspirin.

The reason I start aspirin on even mild thickening is that a study was performed about 4 years ago (in the Journal 'Stroke') which showed that even mild thickening of the carotids equated with thickening within the smaller diameter coronary arteries, with a subsequent increased risk of heart attacks seen.

Now here's where it gets very interesting from a biochemical perspective. Aspirin works by irreversibly inhibiting an enzyme known as cyclooxygenase. This enzyme creates prostaglandin and thromboxane, two chemicals which act to make our platelets more stickier, hence facilitating the formation of clots. Stop the production of those chemicals, stop the creation of clots.

It's that simple.

Guess what else inhibits that cyclooxygenase thing. That's right, a low carb diet. This is where it gets a little trickier but here's how it works;

When we eat less carbs, we release less insulin. Insulin exerts it's effects on cells by working through something known as the second messanger sytem. One of these messangers found inside the cell contains a molecule known as arichidonic acid. What i didn't mention above is that cyclooxygenase works on arichidonic acid to create thromboxane and prostaglandin. When we eat less carbs we have less arichidonic acid around for the creation of those 2 molecules that make clots. Thus, low carb diets equate with thinner blood so to speak and this is why people on a low carb diet can get away without taking aspirin.

Hope I didn't confuse you.

I guess the short answer is if we are on a low carb diet, we will biochemically create less clots. I should've just said that, but I like the biochemical explanation as well.

dr jim

Here's A Question About Kidney Stones

2010-01-27T04:17:00.000-08:00

The question,

If you have a patient who comes in with kidney stones do you have him do a glucose tolerance test or something? I was listening to Mary Vernon and I think she said that high insulin creates calcium oxalate crystals. Did I get that right? Were you aware of this? Its the first time I am hearing this. Thanks in advance!

My response,

If I have a patient who presents with kidney stones the first thing I do is analyze what the stone is made of. There are different types of stones and calcium oxalate is just one type and is the most common. There are also calcium phosphate, cystine stones (due to a genetic defect) and struvite stones.

I dont immediately think of diabetes as a cause of stones, but with the right genetics and the dehydration that results from diabetes, there will be a more favorable physiological environment for the creation of stones.

No, i didnt know of any connection between insulin and calcium oxalate creation, but I wouldnt be surprised if there was. I have treated many patients with kidney stones (the calciun oxalate type) and had them start low carbs, and sure enough, they generally dont have any more stone problems. It's when they start eating more carbs that stone formation becomes an issue.

As I answer your question it becomes apparent to me that another disease can be cured/treated successfully with low carbs. I didnt even put this in my book. There's just so many positive benefits to low carbing that I guess even I forget them all.

Thanks for a great question! Keep the questions coming and have a great day!

dr jim

Here is the Actual Dismissal E-mail from Google

2010-01-26T03:14:00.000-08:00

Hello,

While going through our records recently, we found that your AdSense account has posed a significant risk to our AdWords advertisers. Since keeping your account in our publisher network may financially damage our advertisers in the future, we've decided to disable your account.Please understand that we consider this a necessary step to protect the interests of both our advertisers and our other AdSense publishers. We realize the inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.If you have any questions about your account or the actions we've taken,please do not reply to this email.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

Gee, thanks Google, especially the part where I cannot even question your decision, even though we all know why I was kicked off. How cool is that, Google hates me now.

Will I have any friends when this battle is over? We'll see, and unfortunately for Google my fight has only just begun.

Dr Jim and Mr Bones, Fighting The Fight!

'Your Google Adsense Account Has been Disabled

2010-01-25T10:04:00.000-08:00

Apparently I must have pissed off the people at Google Adsense. I get this message in my e-mail with a more detailed message about how it would be in the best interest of Google and the people who advertise through Google to not allow any more advertisements on my wwwdrjamescarlson.com site or through my Blog as well.

Now these were advertisements that were placed on my sites. For anyone who actually clicked on them, they deal mainly with other diets and meds and just other health food products. Funny thing is, most of the advertisements were for diets that just are not right and for products that are a bunch of malarkey.

So why would I allow these ads to be placed on my site in the first place; especially if I disagree with the vast majority of them? Well, why not? Any one who clicked on an add could easily ask me what my thoughts were on a particular product or service; and you have. I felt they stimulated useful dialogue. And most of the time, like I already stated, the product or service was either not helpful and just a waste of money; or in some cases even harmful.

So why shut me down now Google? Obviously someone over at Google, or maybe it was one of their advertisers who actually read the contents of my website or Blog and since I sit at odds with a lot of these useless or even harmful products or diets; they pulled their ads from my sites. I guess Google feared that it would lose millions (billions?) in advertising funds because of me telling the truth.

Am I becoming more popular than I realize?

Hmmmmm...

dr jim

Can Low Carbs Reverse Prior Damage Done to Our Bodies?

2010-01-23T05:48:00.000-08:00

Here is another question from my website, and please keep them coming, I enjoy answering them. Just be patient with me because I do receive a bunch a day. Thanks!

The question;

I found you on Jimmy Moores site and you totally make sense! I have gone low carb and am reaping the benefits. Will this lifestyle reverse any previous damage of 30 years of poor nutrition? I was taking HB meds and I had my thyroid irradiated in the 80's and will take thyroid meds forever.

Thanks
60 years young.

My response,

Hi There!

I am so glad you have realized that eating low carbs, and more protein/fat/cholesterol is the correct way to eat. Not only does it make sense , it is the right way for humans, with rare exceptions, to be eating. As far as reversing any previous damage your body may have realized, it all depends upon what damage was done.

Looks like you're off your BP meds, excellent!

Lowering carb intake will have an independent effect on lowering BP, before any major weight loss is even seen. It will also raise your HDL, lower triglycerides, normalize blood sugar, stop any further plaque build-up on our arteries (most notably the coronary and carotids), eliminate heartburn (which will stop any further irritation via acid on the lower part of our esophagus's, within the stomach itself and upon the first part of the small intestine, known as the duodenum), helps to lessen the irritation of many different skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis, any hyperpigmentation skin problems, will decrease the pain associated with colitis; will help someone with irritable bowel disease become more regular; helps diminish a good part of the inflammation seen with fibromyalgia; can help decrease intraocular pressure seen in glaucoma; will help a woman who experienced problems in a prior pregnancy such as pregnancy induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia to not have those problems in a future pregnancy. Has been shown in my practice to help with Multiple Sclerosis flare-ups and it has also helped my patients with severe asthma to become better controlled on less meds.

So I guess I am right back to my answer as above; it all depends upon what damage was done. Certainly, no further damage will occur once you begin a low carb eating lifestyle change and depending on the medical problems you had, reversal can occur. This is because you have stopped giving the body what was causing the problem in the first place, and are now giving the body what it needs to repair itself, that is, fat/cholesterol and protein.

A great example of reversal of damage is seen in my diabetic patients whose kidneys have been affected by the elevated blood sugar. This is referred to as diabetic nephropathy. In this condition the elevated blood sugar creates subcellular chages, altering the kidneys ability to function. One of the many functions of our kidneys is that of filtration. In diabetic nephropathy, this filtration mechanism is altered and large amount of protein will be seen in the urine. Normally, the urine does not contain large amounts of protein, but since the elevated blood sugars have altered the kidneys ability to filter properly, the protein winds up in the urine. It is also true that when the kidneys fail to filter protein appropriately, this is the first step towards kidney failure and the subsequent need for dialysis.

Now here is where the medical profession's ignorance in nutrition really worsens a diabetics condition. The 'powers to be' especially in this case the American Diabetes Association, your Endocrinologist, your Nephrologist, and anyone with formal training in medicine, thinks that the damge to the kidneys is from increased protein intake, not the sugar (carbs), and will incorrectly tell the diabetic patient to eat less protein not more; and to increase their sugar amount. This will cause more damage to the kidney, accelerate the failure, and congratulations, the diabetic will now require dialysis sooner than later.

In my practice, I have had people with large amounts of protein in their urine (over 1000 in some cases) have their kidney function go back to normal, by greatly lowering their sugar/carb amount and eating more of the very stuff they were told not to eat.

Another example of reversal of disease damage is steatosis of the liver. This is just a fancy way of saying fatty liver. Since the vast majority of medical professionals think a fatty liver is from eating too much fat, they tell their patients to eat less fat/cholesterol which makes this condition worse. Fact is, a fatty liver comes from the over consumption of carbs/sugar, not from eating too much fat. This condition is completely reversible by lowering one's carb intake and, again, eating more of the very things they tell you not to eat, that is,fat/cholesterol and protein. Unfortunately i have a patient right now whose fatty liver progressed to cirrhosis and now she needs a liver transplant to survive. She came to me too late and the very people who were trying to help her, sealed her fate. What's worse, she cant even sue for negligence (not that I promote law suits but this should be one, and yes, I do have a Law Degree), because everyone would agree that what she was told dietarily was correct, when in fact in this case it was wrong, dead wrong.

Hope this helps!

dr jim

PS Oh yeah, welcome to the club!

Enjoy and have a great weekend everyone!

Is it okay to run on an empty stomach?

2010-01-20T03:47:00.000-08:00

This was an interesting question posed to me, here's my answer;

The quick answer is, it all depends. If one has not eaten in 5 to 6 hours then it would probably not be a good idea to go running. But then this would all depend upon many things. What was the person’s last meal, are they a seasoned/conditioned runner, do they suffer from any medical problems most notably diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure.

If the person is already a conditioned runner and does not have any medical problems for which they take any meds for, they could most likely run in the morning before having anything to eat. I have patients in my practice who run first thing in the morning without any adverse effects. But it needs to be stressed they are in shape and are not amateurs to the running world.

Even if the person does take meds for certain medical problems, as long as they gradually built themselves up to the level they are at, they’ll be fine too. It’s all about consistency and continuity.

One very, very important side note. I have had many a patient over my nearly 20 years in the practice of medicine who I have ordered stress tests on who responded back, “Well, I don’t need a stress test, I run 20 or so miles a week; surely if something was wrong with my heart I would know it.” My response is always the same, “When you are running, you are not being monitored like you are on a treadmill in the cardiologist’s office.” And yes, if I had a nickel for every runner that I found out had blockages in their coronaries, due to my gentle but firm persuasion to have a stress test…well, we all know the rest

Now, if one is just starting out on a running routine, they would want to have had a meal at least 2 hours prior to the run. This meal should, interestingly enough, consist of more protein/fat/cholesterol with minimal carbs (carbohydrates). The carbs, contrary to popular belief, will actually make one more tired prior to a run. The carbs in the diet will be stored first as glycogen (muscle and liver) and then as fat, and will also cause a shift in the ratio of sleep inducing amino acids causing the patient to experience the classic ‘food coma.’ Another biochemical fact is that after the glycogen stores are used up, the body has to rely on free fatty acids for fuel (fuel in the form of something known as ATP, our life molecule, we really don’t ‘burn’ anything) and this is what the skeletal muscles and heart will use to function.

Of course the converse of this question would be “Is it OK to run on a full stomach” and the answer would be a resounding no. This is because as we exercise we will shunt blood from the gastrointestinal track to the muscles and this will slow down the digestive process and could cause abdominal cramping, pain and diarrhea.

dr jim

Dr Jim and Bones Fighting the Fight against the Medical Establishment's Dietary Ignorance!

Plaque Builup

2010-01-19T13:18:00.000-08:00

Hi Doc,

I just discovered your blog, and I'm liking it very much!

You mention in one of your posts that you want to see a Trig/HDL ratio that is 2 or less, and if it's higher you worry about a plaque rupture until it comes down (enter statins). Can you explain how lowering this ratio reduces the risk of a plaque rupture (as opposed to further plaque build-up)? Also, can switching to a low-carb diet reverse plaque build-up?

Thanks,JW

My answer;

Hi There!

Yes, I want a TG/HDL ration at or under 2 as this equates with a lower relative insulin level in the bloodstream. Now its not so much that this will lower the possibility of plaque rupture, it is more to prevent the further buildup of plaque, which increases the possibility of rupture. More plaque= higher probability of plaque rupture since there is more plaque within the arterial wall, which could rupture.

This goes for all arteries, not just the carotid or coronary.Since the plaque buildup comes from the transformation of sugar molecules into cholesterol, following a low carb diet will not give our bodies what it needs to create the plaque in the first place.

It's interesting that we have no studies which show that the fat/cholesterol in the diet has ever been linked to the plaque buildup within our arteries; but we do have studies that every carbon atom in cholesterol can come from sugar. Also, a review of the biochemical pathways reveals the direct way that a sugar molecule will be transformed to cholesterol.Also, the only thing that I've seen significantly raise the good cholesterol, the HDL, has been the consumption of more saturated fat/cholesterol in our diet.

The whole system, and all the organizations promoting low fat/low cholesterol are so bass ackwards, it'd amazing we all aren't dropping dead from heart disease...oh, wait a minute we are...

Dunno if a low carb diet will reverse plaque buildup, no studies I know about, but it will certainly halt the creation and buildup of anymore plaques and this will be very advantageous for us.

Hope this helped!

Thanks for the questions!

dr jim

Go to Shock Doc to subscribe for free to watch me give the correct dietary advice!

Back to That Calorie Thing.....?

2010-01-16T05:28:00.000-08:00

Another question....

Hi, Doc,I read your chapters online the other day and ordered the book from Amazon and got it today. Very interesting, thanks for writing it.

I do have a question about calories, though. You say calories don't count. I follow your explanation on this, it makes sense, and I do understand about the effects of insulin---been reading and doing low carb diets on and off for 12 years. But you must have some handle for judging the amount of total food that anyone needs to eat this way, don't you?

I mean, a woman of 125 pounds is going to eat differently (or should, I expect) than a woman who weighs 225 or 325 pounds and needs to reduce that weight, doesn't she? Or do you simply look at it as, say, eat 50 grams of protein and 20-30 grams of carbs and the fat wherever it ends up that day and everyone eats the same?

Thanks,

My Response;

Hi There!

First off, thanks for reading my book! And yes, you are correct; people of different weights will eat/require different amounts of food, measured in carbs of course, not calories. But here's where it gets weird. A woman who is 200-300 Lbs will actually require more calories, yes, I did say calories (lol) than a woman who weighs less. This is because the heavier woman requires more fat and protein for her physiology than the lighter woman.

Think of it this way. If you weigh, say, 120 Lbs and place another 100 Lbs on your shoulders, you will need to create more ATP (our life molecule) to get you through the day. So it is so with the woman who weighs an extra 50, 100 Lbs or so. Since they are carrying around more weight on their frame they need to create more ATP to carry this extra weight around, which is why the caloric need actually increases in a person carrying around more weight. As the weight comes off, the person will need less and less in the way of protein/fat to get them through the day, and yes, I hate to say it, but now the caloric need lowers.

Since the calorie, unfortunately, is intricately related to protein/fat/carbs; it's hard to stop using that term. And as a quick side note, that life molecule, ATP, will be created from fat/protein (and of course carbs) which is why a heavier person needs more of these foods (with the exception of the carbs), not less (hence the caloric need increases).

But always remember, the calorie indeed means nothing and is misleading, very misleading if a person is obese, that is because they will require more calories, not less, in the beginning of their weight loss quest.

Thanks for the question!

Now go have a steak to start the day off right!

If you haven't done so already, go subscribe for free to my Ultimate Wellness! show on the Internet. Go to You Tube and type in 'shock doc dr james carlson' and enjoy the show!

dr jim

Another Question on My Website...Keep 'em coming!

2010-01-14T05:13:00.000-08:00

Hi Dr. Jim,

I've read the first 10 chapters of your book, and would like to find out how I can get a digital copy. I also plan to get a hard copy from Amazon to share with my in-laws, and quite possibly my doctor, who is progressive, holistic, and still not quite on-board with low carb (yet!).

You mentioned in your blog about cholesterol profiles that you would start your patients on a baby aspirin if there was mild thickening on the carotids, which indicates probable thickening on the smaller diameter coronary arteries.

I am 40, and have been back and forth between low carb and the see-food diet (you see food, you eat it), for probably 5 years. I have also been taking a baby aspirin daily for about that long (or nearly daily -- I tend to slack off on supplements when on the see-food diet, ugh).

Should I be overly concerned with coronary plaque, or do you think that I may have headed some of it off with intermittent low carb and the baby aspirin?I have made the commitment for 2010 to go fully low carb, and stay there. No more back and forth. This is a lifestyle change I feel strongly about, and it's time I "git r done."

Also, at some point, would you be willing to do a blog on what effect low carb diets have on thyroid function (if any, good, bad, otherwise)?

Thanks!

My response;

Hi There!

Getting a digital copy is easy. Just send $11.99 to my PayPal account using drjim@drjamescarlson.com as the -e-mail and I'll e-mail a copy right on over.

Ahhh, the infamous see-food diet. LOL.

Being that you've been going back n forth between low carb and not, you most likely have little if any coronary artery plaque buildup. Don't know if you're a smoker or overweight, both of which ten to facilitate plaque buildup; if the answer to those 2 questions is no; I would think you'd have very little plaque on those coronary arteries of yours.

Have you had a carotid doppler? I see no reason to even bother if you start and continue forever on a low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein regimen. Now lets get r done!

As far as the aspirin is concerned, it is only effective while on it and then for about a week after stopping. Remember, aspirin is a platelet inhibitor, making platelets less likely to stick together forming a clot; so the protective effect only lasts while you are on it. As a side note, you can get a similar effect by taking fish oils. These also make the platelets less sticky and have a vasodilatory effect on our arteries, coronaries included.

And yes, I will absolutely blog on low carbs and it's effect on thyroid function.

Bye for now,

dr jim

A Question About Water and Weight Loss

2010-01-12T04:00:00.000-08:00

3) Why is water so important for weight loss?

Actually, it isn’t. The only thing water is important for is to help us stay hydrated. Yes, there are many diets out there or statements in general that claim we must consume anywhere from 6 to 8 eight ounces of water a day. This is fine as it helps prevent dehydration, which helps our kidneys to function, helps to maintain an appropriate blood pressure, provides the aqueous medium our tissues need to allow our electrolytes to work properly (electrolytes refer to sodium, potassium, magnesium, chloride, bicarbonate etc.).

But it must be emphasized that one can consume too much water. Unfortunately we live in a society where if a little is ok, then more is better. I more than occasionally have a patient who I have to admit to the hospital due to water intoxication. In this clinical scenario, the person has actually drunk too much water. When someone over consumes water, it will dilute out and cause a lowering of the important electrolytes as mentioned above.

The one electrolyte that appears especially vulnerable is sodium. When sodium levels are low this is referred to as hyponatremia. This is a very serious condition. The person who is experiencing hyponatremia will present with the appearance of being intoxicated on alcohol, they may have seizures, and they will certainly feel weak and confused. This is a condition that requires hospitalization to correct, and deaths have resulted from improperly raising the sodium level too quickly. A condition known as central pontine myelinolysis (CPM) can occur which is basically a disruption of the central nervous system function, with seizures and death possibly a result.

Now the consumption of water before a meal, it has been said, fills up the stomach, giving you a fuller feeling before you eat. The theory is that if you have a fuller feeling before you eat, well, you’ll tend to eat less. A simple understanding of physiology will help dispel this myth. When we consume liquids, they will pass into and out of the stomach a lot more quickly than solids. This is because some digestion of solids does occur at the level of the stomach, mainly with a protein meal, but the stomach also helps digestion of non protein solids as it has a ‘grinding/mashing’ effect on solid food, helping in the digestive process. The more ‘mashed’ up the solid food is before it arrives at the small intestine, the easier it is for digestive enzymes to work.

Since liquid passes pretty quickly into and out of the stomach, the full feeling does not last all that long and the person will start feeling hungry again, sooner than they thought. And yes, they will most likely overindulge hindering efforts at weight loss. Especially if they're not eating low carbs.

dr jim

Fatty acid and Cholesterol Digestion

2010-01-11T12:43:00.001-08:00

Here is my answer to a question proposed to me by a fellow low carber;

Dr. Jim,

You explain quite often how carbohydrates and sugar (whoops, they are both the same!) are processed in the human body. Could you explain how dietary fat and cholesterol are processed in the body?

Also, is Ultimate Wellness still on the air? I hope the link did not change.

Thank you for all that you are doing to promote proper nutrition!

My response;

Hi there!

First off, yes Ultimate Wellness! is still on the air, but the format has changed. It is now a free subscription and the segments are much shorter, 6-8 minutes to be precise. There will be about 1-3 videos per week. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfvdJVrQ1ZA to subscribe and watch the first video. As always feedback is greatly appreciated!

Yes, I do talk alot about carbohydrate digestion, so lets talk a little bit about fat and cholesterol digestion :-)

Fats are found as triglycerides in most of the foods we eat. A triglyceride is simply 3 fatty acid molecules all linked to another molecule known as glycerol. So when we break down a triglyceride we wind up with 3 fatty acids and a glycerol molecule. The fatty acids can be used for the production of ATP or stored as fat, and this is all dependent upon how much sugar was consumed with the fat. If we eat alot of carbs with a fatty meal, the body will store not only the carbs as fat, but the triglycerides as well. If the fat is consumed with very little to no carbs, it will be utilized for the production of ATP, thus, it will not be stored. Notice how I am refraining from using words like 'burned for fuel' or other words which imply a combustion process.

Always remember, digestion is not a combustion process. It is a controlled process which creates our ultimate energy molecule, ATP, with the release of CO2 and O2 in the process. This is why the calorie is irrelevant. Calories are determined via a combustion process, not a digestive process, so it is ok to ignore them.

Now what happens with cholesterol in the foods we eat?

Cholesterol digestion is different as it is not digested in the true sense of the word, the molecule isn't broken down like carbs, fats or proteins; cholesterol is already in its most basic form. Remember that carbs are broken down into sugars (the most basic part), proteins are broken down into amino acids (its most basic part) and triglycerides are broken down into fatty acids and glycerol.

The cholesterol molecule will be encapsulated by bile acid pigments in the small intestine and transported to the liver where it can meet many fates. Since cholesterol is a type of fat, a sterol to be precise, it cannot be transported in our blood stream without a carrier molecule. This is because our blood is more of a watery (aqueous) environment and we all know that fat and water dont mix. Without these special carrier molecules, cholesterol would just all clump together (as would triglycerides which also need a carrier molecule, known as chylomicrons and VLDL) and it couldn't get anywhere in our body. The carrier molecules for cholesterol are referred to as the HDL, LDL and the lessor known IDL. Adding all of these carrier molecules together is how we derive our total cholesterol.

Now I stated that the fats in the foods we eat will either be stored or used for the production of ATP. So what happens to cholesterol after it gets to the liver? It can have many fates. It can either be carried out of the body via the stool; it can be used to create steroid hormones like estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, bile acid pigments or cortisol etc; it can be used to turn off the very enzymes that make cholesterol that is HMG Co-A; it can diffuse into the nucleus of the cell and attach to RNA, DNA and turn off the very creation of the enzymes that make cholesterol.

Another thing I have seen with increased cholesterol consumption is an increase in the amount of HDL circulating in the blood.

Hope this helps!

Thanks again for the questions!

dr jim

Here's My Answer to a Great Question On Insulin Resistance.

2010-01-05T07:50:00.000-08:00

Hi Jim

I have heard that the body can repair itself by creating new cells etc.

Is the same true for insulin resistant cells ? Can they be fixed or even better, automatically be replaced by NEW non-insulin resistant cells ?
regards

JayCee

My answer;

Hi JayCee!

In insulin resistance, there is an increase in the amount of insulin circulating in the blood. Due to the increase of insulin in the bloodstream when the insulin gets to the level of the cell, there is a down regulation of the insulin receptors. All this means is that since the cell is seeing alot more insulin than it should the cell says to itself-"Hey, I don't need all these receptors cause I got alot of insulin around me" so the cell starts decreasing the amount of receptors.

If the insulin levels remain high, and it will if the person continues to consume carbohydrates, there will be such a dramatic decrease in insulin receptors, that the body will then see a rise in circulating sugar. It is at this point, with the rise of blood sugar due to extracellular insulin receptor downregulation, that the person now becomes a type 2 diabetic.

This process is completely reversible in most people. How, by just starting them self on a low carb regimen. I see this in clinical practice all the time. The current thought is that one needs to be obese to be insulin resistant. This is not true. It is insulin resistance which occurs first, then one has the propensity to become over weight.

In fact, elevated triglycerides are due to insulin resistance at the level of the adipocyte (or fat cell). Normally, an adipocyte in the presence of insulin will increase its storage of triglycerides. But if the adipocyte is resistant to insulin, this cannot occur and the cell will start to breakdown triglycerides and this will cause a rise in the fat level in the blood.

Yes, cells have a lifespan, so the insulin resistant cells will eventually die off to be replaced by new ones. If the high insulin levels have not been corrected, for instance, the person is still eating too many carbs, these new cells will not manufacture enough insulin receptors to correct the problem.

Now, if the person is fortunate enough to have the proper dietary advice, the insulin level will fall, receptor up regulation will occur, and then there will be enough insulin receptors now to correct the problem.

So, yes, this whole insulin resistant, metabolic syndrome, obesity, CAD, type 2 diabetes etc can all be CURED by avoidance of carbs. And yes, I used the word cured...

And yes, another great question from JayCee!

Hey, JayCee, do you just like stay up at night (or for me it'd be the morning) and think these questions up? LOL.

Have a great day my friend!

jim

Another Great Question from JayCee!

2009-12-28T07:35:00.000-08:00

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

Here's My Answer to a Question Posed to Me on My Website About Cholesterol Profiles

2009-12-27T14:24:00.000-08:00

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

How Profound the Ignorance Goes

2009-12-21T14:57:00.000-08:00

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...

My Response To A Question About Low Carbs and Pancreatitis

2009-12-12T13:10:00.000-08:00

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

A Makeover for Food Labels?

2009-12-10T13:06:00.001-08:00

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

Diet Coke is Now 'In Support of Women's Heart Health Programs.'

2009-12-07T11:58:00.000-08:00

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

Disturbing Restrictions Hidden Within National Health Care Reform

2009-12-03T09:42:00.001-08:00

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

My Take on the White House Party Crashers

2009-12-01T09:30:00.000-08:00

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!

New Study: Pot Might Ease Stress

2009-11-15T08:52:00.000-08:00

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

Argumentum ad Verecundiam

2009-11-12T09:31:00.000-08:00

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.

More Bread=Happy?????

2009-11-11T05:32:00.000-08:00

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.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

2009-11-04T09:35:00.000-08:00

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!

Don't Forget Live Web Cast!

2009-10-31T02:12:00.000-07:00

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

Live Web Cast!

2009-10-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

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

This Is The Natural Homeopathic Way to Quit Tobacco

2009-10-22T04:09:00.000-07:00

More On Quitting Smoking

2009-10-22T03:50:00.000-07:00

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

Saturday's Radio Show and News on the Webcast

2009-10-22T03:26:00.000-07:00

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

For Those of You Who Smoke

2009-10-21T14:02:00.000-07:00

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

Stop Smoking Now!

2009-10-21T09:56:00.000-07:00

2009-10-20T15:21:00.001-07:00

Live Virtual Webcast

2009-10-20T10:07:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-19T07:33:00.001-07:00

Check Out My You-Tube Video!

2009-10-19T07:23:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-10-09T12:53:00.001-07:00

Increased Autism Rates Analyzed From Different News Perspectives

2009-10-09T12:43:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-08T09:29:00.001-07:00

Latest Statistics on Autism--Very Disturbing

2009-10-08T05:52:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-05T10:02:00.001-07:00

Sugar is Sugar is Sugar

2009-10-05T09:34:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-10-01T11:56:00.001-07:00

This Was My Post on A Site Discussing Childhood Obesity

2009-10-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

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.

More Cancer Than Ever and I Know Why, but the American Cancer Society Doesn't...

2009-09-29T10:00:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-25T13:00:00.001-07:00

Losing Weight Does Not Always Mean You Will Be Healthier

2009-09-25T12:27:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-09-23T09:23:00.001-07:00

"Get A Free Cholesterol Check Today"

2009-09-23T08:57:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-09-14T11:53:00.001-07:00

2009-09-14T11:51:00.001-07:00

alzheimers, Atkins, cancer, cholesterol, coenzymeQ10, diabetes, fiber, health, heart disease, heartburn, low carb diets, minerals, muscle mass, nutrition, pregnancy, protein, vitamin D, vitamins

LOSE 100 LBs IN TEN MONTHS!!!!

2009-09-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-09-11T11:56:00.000-07:00

Why is Nutritional Biochemistry thought to be a Belief?

2009-09-11T11:16:00.001-07:00

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!

2009-09-08T10:20:00.001-07:00

"Lowering Cholesterol Has Not Been Shown to Lower One's Risk for Heart Disease"

2009-09-08T09:56:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-08-29T06:57:00.001-07:00

Nonfasting Lipid Level Measures Deemed OK

2009-08-29T06:30:00.000-07:00

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 :-)

2009-08-27T05:59:00.001-07:00

Low Carbs and Man's Best Friend

2009-08-27T05:54:00.000-07:00

First off, isn't 'man's' best friend a bit gender biased. Shouldn't it be more like everyone's best friend or people's best friend. Since everyone is not a dog lover, or animal lover for that matter, I guess those two are out. So forgive the politically incorrect colloquialism and on with my blog.

I have been involved with low carb (lc) dieting for so long (over 11 years now), that I have had countless reports of how people have placed their dogs on lc diets to help their dog lose weight with excellent success. I currently have an 18 month old yellow lab who I provide lc food to who is in great shape. The point of this blog is to discuss the benefits of feeding our doggies the lc way.

Whenever I purchase food for Princess (my yellow lab's name in case you're wondering) I always read the ingredient list and make sure the first ingredients are meat or protein related. I wasn't too surprised to see that most dog foods first 3-5 ingredients were carbohydrate laden. We humans think that a fat and cholesterol presence is dangerous in our foods, so why wouldn't we bring this same ignorance to the animal kingdom. I guess it's not enough we're killing off our own species; we need to eradicate the canine world as well.

This is even more prevelant when I read the ingredient list for the dog foods which are supposed to help our canine companions 'lose weight.' It was the same low fat, low cholesterol mentality that we adhere to in the human world.

No wonder we are seeing alot of overweight dogs out there. It is interesting to note the weight of the owner of that overweight pooch; almost always, like doggie, like owner. This is because the poor dog is eating too many carbs as fed to them by their owner, who, by the way, is obviously eating the same way.

Low carb eating is safe for your beloved doggie as well as yourself. In fact, there is a feeding method out there known as BARF, which is an acronym for Biologically Appropriate Raw Food. The BARF eating style is simply a low carb eating regimen for your pet. It focuses on feeding your furry family member raw foods) obviously, which includes raw meats (as they would find in the wild) along with nutrient rich vegetables and some fruits. Just type in BARF diet in your web browser and you'll get a bunch of hits.

Just a little public service message for all you dog lovers out there.

Dr Jim

To purchase my book go to Amazon.com or go to DrJamesCarlson.com to request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

2009-08-25T10:18:00.001-07:00

7 to 9 Teaspoonfuls of Sugar??!!

2009-08-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

So the American Heart Association has demonstrated their extreme dietary ignorance yet again. Last night, the evening news stated the AHA recommended that women consume no more than 7 teaspoonfuls of sugar a day and males were/are allowed 9. This equates to 28 grams of sugar a day for females and 36 a day for males. The female anchor made the witty comment that "Once again, males are allowed more than women."

Of course I was at first shocked and then wondered why I was shocked. I already know the AHA drops the ball way far of the goal line when it comes to dietary recommendations. One must remember that this sugar intake is in addition to the whole grains and fruits that they already recommend we all eat on a daily basis. The AHA has absolutely no understanding that sugar is sugar is sugar.

It is sad that the very organization which is supposed to be protecting is, is in fact putting us in harms way. When will they understand that sugar is sugar is sugar? How can they even remotely suggest that it is OK to have table sugar on a daily basis, when it provides us with no nutritive value whatsoever? How can they continue to support the consumption of large amounts of fruits and whole grains on a daily basis, when all this does is supply our bodies with what we need to make plaque forming deadly cholesterol and get us fatter and more insulin resistant?

One word helps explain why----Ignorance. This is dietary ignorance at its finest.
Way to go AHA, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Dr James E Carlson B.S.,D.O., M.B.A., J.D.

PS-I'll talk about our furry friends maybe tomorrow. I just felt compelled to comment on the riduculous guideline the AHA just published.

To purchase my book go to Amazon.com or go to DrJamesCarlson.com to request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

2009-08-24T10:04:00.001-07:00

94 % Fat Free!

2009-08-24T09:46:00.000-07:00

I just love the marketing tactics used to try to get us to purchase products. When it comes to food, these gimmicks run rampant. For instance, I was using a low carb wrap to put my eggs and bacon in over the weekend when I noticed at the top it stated "94% Fat Free." I immediately wondered why I hadn't read this before, realized I probably had and just ignored it; and then wondered to myself 'how much fat is in a non-low carb piece of bread or wrap?'

Of course the answer is that most breads are pretty low in fat as they are made from wheat, or processed from wheat or multi-grains etc. The 94% fat free comment is there to coerce the fat phobic consumer to purchase the product, as most people (doctors) still hold on tenaciously to the fallacy that eating fat is dangerous.

Actually, those who have read my book or have been following my blog know that eating fat is not only safe, but healthy. And the more saturated fat one eats, the higher the HDL will go. So we really do not want the food we're eating to be low fat. We want the fat and by this I am referring to saturated, poly and monounsaturated fatty acids.

So in my mind when I see fat free or low fat, I say to myself 'No, I want the food that has the fat in it' and I try to avoid eating low fat foods. In fact, I tell my patients to try to avoid eating low fat/low cholesterol products whenever they can.

It also makes me chuckle when I see a product that has always been low carb, now with the words "Low in Carbs" written on the package. I've seen this on hot dog, sausage, chicken and believe it or not on mayonnaise as well. This is good for us low carbers for alot of people just starting out aren't sure how many carbs are in the food they're about to eat--it makes me laugh as to how food manufactures, who could care less about your health, change their marketing to opportunize certain diets.

Just my thoughts for the day. Tomorrow I'll talk a little bit about how our pets should be eating. That's right, I did say pets, but my focus will be mainly on our canine friends.

Dr Jim

To purchase my book go to Amazon.com or go to DrJamesCarlson.com to request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

2009-08-10T09:49:00.001-07:00

Jelly Fish Have No Brains

2009-08-10T09:40:00.000-07:00

I found this to be amazing. Seems to me that when most doctor's analyze a lipid profile, they use a jellyfish mentality when looking at the numbers. They emphasize the total cholesterol and calculated LDL, the two numbers which offer the least useful information; and use these numbers to determine if one should be started on a cholesterol lowering medication.

We learned in an earlier blog that the term 'cholesterol lowering medication' is really a misnomer as most people's cholesterol needs to be raised, not lowered. Specifically, the HDL needs to be raised. So by saying we are starting someone on a cholesterol lowering medication is truly misleading.

The fact is, total cholesterol is an absolutely irrelevent number, let's all stop thinking that it is more important than it is.

Dr Jim