Showing posts with label cholesterol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cholesterol. Show all posts

Friday, August 12, 2011

IGNORANCE AT ITS FINEST!

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...







Link

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

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

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....?

Monday, July 25, 2011

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

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

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Disconnect Seen Between PCPs, Obese Patients

This was the headline of an article I just read this morning in Family Practice News, the April 1, 2010 edition Vol. 40, No. 6. The article itself was on page 5. Basically the article goes on to say that 'Patients want information on weight control, but physicians say they don't have enough training.'

It was very encouraging reading that statement because it is true. We physicians receive very little instruction in the treatment of obesity and what we do learn in medical school, internship, residency and at our conferences is just plain wrong. I received 2 weeks of 'formal'instruction in nutrition in medical school taught to me by an overweight dietitian. I didn't learn the correct way to eat until many years later.

I would go on to add that not only do physicians need more information on the treatment of obesity, but heart disease and type 2 diabetes as well. You see, the common denominator in the treatment of these diseases is the understanding that it is sugar molecules (glucose, fructose, galactose) that the body converts into plaque forming deadly cholesterol and makes us fat. Until physicians are taught this, we will not solve any of the medical problems as delineated above.

I gave a lecture to a small group last night and one of the participants stated her doctor told her flat out that carbohydrate consumption does not increase inflammation in the body. This is false, it does. I bet this same doctor does not understand that cholesterol and fat production starts with sugar molecules, yet, it does.

My point is that when doctor's believe certain things, like what they are taught in medical school, they hold on tenaciously to that belief despite overwhelming contradictory evidence proving otherwise. Beliefs are hard to crack.

We need to start educating our health care providers on the correct way to eat so they can properly educate the millions of patients they collectively see throughout our nation.

dr jim 'the shock doc'

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

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

Really? You mean I have it all wrong?

This was a statement said to me by a patient who told his sister to check out my videos (or book, he wasn't sure which one she saw or read); and that was her comment back to him. I would have no problem if this statement was uttered by a layperson, but it turns out she happens to be a pediatrician. This frightened me because as a pediatrician she obviously sees children and if she does not understand the basics of biochemistry she cannot tell the parents the correct way their children should be eating.

Does this scare anyone? It scares the crap out of me and is the reason I so titled my book the way I did.

We have a childhood obesity pandemic, we are seeing diseases we only saw in adults now in children under 10; and this will never change until we start teaching our medical students the correct biochemical approach to eating. We doctors are not the solution, we are the problem and are making it worse.

As I am writing this my Nurse Practitioner saw what I was writing and stated "Well, that makes for an interesting debate?" But I propose that there is no debate. I am dealing with the facts of nutritional biochemistry. It's like debating that 1+1 is not 2, it could be 3 or even 4. Any doctor, nutritionist, or dietitian who thinks that cholesterol and fat production does not start with simple sugars (glucose, fructose) has forgotten their basic foundational biochemistry, period.

You see, it starts with a process called glycolysis which yields a molecule called Acetyl Co A. Turns out, Acetyl CoA is a pivotal biomolecule and can be the starting point for both cholestrol and fat production. Anybody reading this can type in 'glycolysis' in any search box and see the pathway yourself.Then type in Acetyl CoA and see what hits you get. Then review the pathway for cholesterol synthesis and notice what molecule starts the whole process. That's right, Acetyl CoA.

A few weeks ago a good friend of mine Greg e-mailed me because he got into a discussion with a biochemist who told him that cholesterol and fat production does not start with simple sugars. The biochemist, being skeptical not cynical, told Greg he would do a little research and get back to him with his results. After he did his research he notified Greg and stated that he, the biochemist, was wrong and that Greg was indeed correct. The glaringly obvious point is that here's a biochemist who wasn't trained the correct way, even though he studied all the pathways, it just wasn't tied together for him; he had to do that for himself after his 'official' training.

Make no mistake about it, cholesterol and fat production starts with simple sugars. If you do not understand or want to debate me, you are part of the problem, not the solution and you should not be educating people on the correct way to eat!

dr jim 'the shock doc'

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Plaque Builup

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!

Sunday, December 27, 2009

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

Dr. Carlson,
I have listened to your thoughts on low carb from your interview with Jimmy Moore and wanted to get your advice. I had my cholesterol checked 2 days ago and here are the comparisons from my previous results.
From August of 2009 before starting low carb:

LDL = 153 HDL= 54 Trigs= 50

Yesterday's Results:

LDL= 158 HDL= 65 Trigs=37

The nurse told my wife that she was gonna talk to the doc and that something had to be done (I'm assuming statins). Tell me your thoughts...... Also, what are those equations Total/HDL or Trig/Total or something? I would think my risks would be lower now with the better HDL and lower Trigs.

Thanks!!!

My response:

Hi There!

First off, your numbers are obviously better. I noticed you didn't mention what the Total Cholesterol was; that is good because it means nothing anyway. I ignore the LDL because it is usually calculated and I can guarantee by the way you reported it to me it was.

So the only 2 numbers you need to worry about are the HDL and the Trigs.Notice your HDL went higher and your Trigs went lower. Once the HDL becomes greater than 59, you have a negative risk for heart disease (and many other disease processes).

Now the ratio I use is the Trig/HDL ratio and I want this at 2 or less. Yours is obviously less than 1. Great job!

My only argument for the use of statins is for plaque stabilization. That is, if there is plaque already on an artery, the statins make it less likely for the plaque to rupture as it is the rupturing of plaque that causes the heart attacks and strokes.

How do you know if you have plaque on the coronary arteries? Well, if you've been eating low fat/cholesterol and you're in your forties, you probably have plaque within your coronary arteries.

Important point: the plaque that builds up on our arterial walls comes from the modification of sugar molecules in the diet NOT from the fat/cholesterol in the foods we eat.Most doctors think the opposite to be true.

So if you're in your forties, been eating low fat/cholesterol, you probably have plaque. I generally start a statin while I'm waiting for the HDL to raise, once I get my patient on the right way to eat. But your HDL is 65, so I could easily argue against the use of a statin.

BTW, if your doc tries to start you on anything other than a statin...just say no. The agents such as Zetia, Tricor and Trilipex are a waste of a drug, and the only docs who use them are the one's who are ignorant of the correct way to eat. Oh wait, that means just about every doctor...

One last thing. An indirect way to assess if you might have coronary artery plaque is by having a carotid Doppler done. If you have mild thickening on the carotids, studies have shown you most likely have thickening on the smaller diameter coronary arteries. In this case I start my patients on a baby aspirin (so long they are not pregnant or nursing).

If no plaque is present, and I start you on the correct way to eat, no matter what your lipid panel is to start---YOU GET NO CHOLESTEROL LOWERING MEDS FROM ME!

And I'll leave with the statement "Lowering total cholesterol has never been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease.never,ever,ever..."Hope that helps!

Dr Jim

Monday, December 21, 2009

How Profound the Ignorance Goes

I think all my followers thus far realize the profound invasive ignorance of the medical profession in regards to the correct way to eat. Even though laypersons continue to represent the majority of people who understand the correct way to eat; there are still many people who fall victim to the profound, abysmal, heinous, egregious dissemination of the incorrect dietary info---this all has to stop.

Click here to review the story as it pertains to food packaging labeling changes. More importantly, read the responses. Mine is on page 4 as of this date.

Dr Jim

PS. Sorry I haven't been blogging as much. The Holiday season gets kinda hectic on my end, but something tells me I'm preaching to the choir.

Bye for now...

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Live Web Cast!

Hello everyone! Was down for the count, but I'm back and preparing for my live Web Cast this Saturday. Log on to http://www.dreamweaverradio.com/ at 10 am to watch my live Web Cast. I will focus on, of course, nutrition and will expose the 5 biggest dietary myths that most physicians still propagate today.

I am very excited about the show Saturday as I will also answer any questions my viewers wish to ask. A phone number and e-mail will be displayed so anyone can call in to ask not only nutritional questions, but any medical question for that matter.

Hope everyone is doing well! The Web Cast will last about an hour. Hopefully I wont choke when the cameras go on :-) But that would be fun to watch too, I guess. LOL.

Let me know how I do.

Dr Jim

Thursday, October 1, 2009

This Was My Post on A Site Discussing Childhood Obesity

Click Here to read the article I responded to.

I really liked this post and feel the need to make some statements. I am a family physician who focuses on the use of nutrition to treat a whole host of medical problems. A major medical problem I see on a daily basis is obesity. It is shocking the numbers of obese people, especially children, that are out there. The problem with childhood obesity, which for the most part is treatable, preventable and curable; is that the medical profession, with all its major breakthroughs, does not understand what is causing the obesity epidemic (pandemic?); despite the fact the answer is right in front of their eyes.

I agree the first reason a child becomes overweight is due to their genetics, which they cannot change. The second major reason children (and adults) are over weight is due to the medical profession's profound ignorance of dietary science. Sure eating at, say, McDonald's is not helpful and lack of exercise plays a role, but the 2 major reasons we have an obesity pandemic is genetics and physician ignorance.

Now let's take this a step further. Let me run through the 4 biggest dietary myths we continually see and hear on a daily basis;

Myth # 1--Eating fat makes us fat. False. Eating fat (including saturated fat, which everyone likes to pick on, but we actually should be eating more of it, not less) does not make us fat, so long we are not eating too many carbohydrates along with that fat.

Myth # 2--Eating cholesterol and saturated fatty containing foods causes not only obesity, but increases one's risk for heart disease. False. Not only is this not true, by eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods, we will decrease one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, diabetes and cancer.

Myth # 3--The calorie means something in human nutrition. False. the calorie means nothing. Do not use them or count them, they need to be ignored.

Myth # 4--We need to exercise in order to lose weight. False. We do not need to exercise to lose weight. Of course, it is best to exercise for heart health and all; but forcing a 200+ child to exercise is just plain negligent and could put them in harms way.

I know the above statements will, for most, appear controversial; but they are all true. They are facts. The above myths are not what I 'believe', they are not my theories, suppositions or opinions...they are factual. It must be understood that all of the extra weight we carry around as fat on our bodies is actually stored 'carbohydrate' from the diet, not stored fat from the diet.

Everyone needs to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar and that no matter where the sugar comes from, well, it is still sugar. There really is no such thing as a natural sugar molecule. Our bodies do not know a sugar molecule came from a piece of whole wheat bread, or fruit or a snickers bar. All our bodies see is sugar and once that sugar molecule gets inside our cells, if we have eaten too many carbs,which is very easy to do if one has the genetics for obesity, that sugar molecule will be transformed into either plaque forming deadly cholesterol or stored as fat.

These are the facts.

To cure the childhood obesity epidemic, or the whole obesity pandemic, those individuals need to be eating more fat, cholesterol and protein, and much, much, less in the way of carbs. For anyone interested in further inquiry, go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first ten chapters of my groundbreaking, whistle blowing, I-no-longer-have-any-physician-friends-and-the-pharmaceutical-companies-hate-me-too book Genocide:How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Dr Jim

A special hello goes out to my 8th follower, Matt! Thanks for joining!

Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

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

Ok, so I go to check my e-mail yesterday and new guidelines were published by the American Institute for Cancer Research. There were actually eight which I will get to in a minute. It's important that you read the article in its entirety (it's not too long), so I copied and pasted it below. Please note, I added the italics;

'Can diet make a difference? The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer. We know there are some things we can’t control. We can’t change risk factors like our family history. But it’s clear that eating well is part of doing everything you can to tip the odds in your favor-and the best benefit is knowing that you’re doing what you can to promote overall good health.

A well-nourished, well-rested body is the best nutritional strategy for keeping your immune system strong. Eat a variety of foods that provide a natural abundance of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, particularly those rich in vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene and selenium, antioxidants that, according to some studies, may help prevent disease, including some cancers. These healthy recipes will get you started-they all contain at least 15 percent daily value of at least one of those vitamins or minerals.'

I'll post the eight suggestions after we analyze the above paragraphs. First off, I have no problem with the second paragraph and I agree with everything being said. The problem lies in the italicized part of paragraph one, repasted below;

'The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'

The links between dietary patterns and cancer is not murky. I repeat, it is not murky. We have study after study showing that the more sugar one is exposed to, the greater one's risk for cancer. The problem becomes 'murky' when the researchers do not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. These same supposed 'experts' in their field just don't get that glucose from a carrot, tomato or corn, is the same glucose molecule as is found in a snickers bar or a piece of cake.

Our cells have no way of knowing where the glucose molecule came from, they just react as they react. In my book in my Cancer-Carb connection Chapter, I outline the facts that when we eat sugar, our pancreas will secrete insulin. Insulin works via a second messenger system to get glucose inside the cell. This second messenger system will release known cancer causing substances which can turn on cancer genes and helps already existing cancer to spread.

This is a fact and it scares the heck out of me whenever I see a guideline stating we need to eat more fruit and whole grains to lower our cancer risk. Now fruit contains the sugar fructose which does not require insulin to get into the cell. Having said this, ask any diabetic what happens to their blood 'glucose' whenever they eat fruit and they will tell you their blood 'glucose' rises. Now insulin will be secreted and the second messenger with the subsequent release of cancer causing substances comes into play.

Whole grains will simply supply glucose and stimulate insulin secretion and you now know the rest. Here are the 8 Guidelines and my comments, in italics, will immediately follow each tip;

'The American Institute for Cancer Research just published its most up-to-date food, nutrition and activity recommendations to help prevent cancer.'

Here are eight quick tips from the report:

1)Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.

We should actually be a little heavier than the actuarial tables suggest. While being lean is certainly appealing, research has shown that a little extra weight may be quite beneficial, especially as we get older. This is referred to as 'insurance weight.' The point is that if we get sick, having a little extra weight will provide a physiological reserve of energy to help us get better quicker. A person who is lean has no reserve to dip into and instead will dip into muscle and bone for energy, thereby suppressing the immunological system and places the person at risk for a longer recovery.

2)Be physically active for at least 30 minutes every day.

I would change this to maybe 4-5x a week. Too much exercise puts the body in stress mode where cortisol may be secreted in larger quantities. One of the things cortisol does is to tell the liver to make sugar. This will cause an insulin release with subsequent turning on of the second messenger system (among many other things.)

3) Avoid sugary drinks. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods (particularly processed foods high in added sugar, or low in fiber, or high in fat).

I agree with most of this, with the exception of the fat. Certainly avoid the sugars; foods low in fiber tend to be high in carbs and sugar; we need to be eating more saturated fat not less. Increased saturated fat consumption has never been shown to increase one's risk for cancer. We actually have studies, the results which were never reported, that increased saturated fat consumption lowered women's risk for breast cancer. Let me also add that trans fats, that is the margarines and a whole host of other foods, does increase one's risk for not only heart disease, but cancer as well. Also, a new fat has arrived on the scene. It goes by the name of interesterified fatty acids, which some researchers say is more dangerous than trans fats.

4)Eat more of a variety of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, such as beans.

Stay away from carb dense veggies like carrots, corn (really a fruit), tomatoes, potatoes (of any color), I just found out that artichokes are loaded with carbs as well; avoid fruit of any kind; whole grains we now know are very bad for us due to the increased carb count found in these foods;legumes can be sugar dense so you'll need to research the carb amount for what you're eating; and lastly beans do have a good amount of carbs, but usually have a good amount of fiber so the effect of the carbs is neutralized. The other thing about beans is that they contain a sugar known as stachyose, which we cant digest that well and this is what leads to the whole flatulence problem with beans.

5)Limit consumption of red meats (such as beef, pork and lamb) and avoid processed meats.

Absolutely, one-hundred percent false!!!! Eat as much of these foods as you can. They provide our bodies with cholesterol, fat and protein and help lower our risk for heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and CANCER!!!! Eat only those meats where no hormones, antibiotics or other growth enhancers were used. Do not eat lean meats. You want the fat. As a side note, most doctors, nutritionists and dietitians think the fat in meats is predominantly saturated. This is false. Beef fat is 55% unsaturated; Pork fat (or lard) is 65% unsaturated; and chicken/turkey fat is 80% unsaturated. So the fat from meat is more unsaturated than saturated. Oops, I guess the powers to be got that wrong too.
Oh yeah, I do agree to avoid processed meats, but their actually safer for you than fruits and whole grains--pretty wild, Huh?

6)If alcohol is consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to two for men and one for women a day.

I thought it was 2-3 for men and 1-2 for women. This is referred to as moderate drinking and can cut your heart disease risk by 38%--no joke.

7)Limit consumption of salty foods and foods processed with salt (sodium).

I agree, but remember salt only becomes an issue when large amounts of insulin are secreted, which occurs when we eat too many carbs.

8)Don't use supplements to protect against cancer.

I totally disagree on this one. The only reason we see conflicting results when we look at antioxidants and cancer is that the researchers are feeding the participants more whole grains, fruits and carb dense veggies. This throws a monkey wrench into the whole study and makes the researchers think antioxidants weren't effective; when indeed what was happening was the carb dense alleged 'healthy foods' were increasing the cancer rates. Use antioxidants--they protect us against cancer, help us improve our energy level, and are good as anti-aging defenses. I take 'em and you should too. If interested, Click Here to see my Optimum Health web-site and all the Nutraceuticals I promote.

So, from my comments above, we can easily see why 'Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
That's because they are being given the wrong dietary information and this is why they are getting cancer (excluding, of course, people who are exposed to environmental things like smoking, too much alcohol or job related exposures).

Dr Jim

Just want to say hello to Carol, my 7th follower; who will be number 8?

A quick message to my readers. If you live in NYC, any of the 5 Burroughs, Westchester County or Long Island, listen to 620 on your AM dial, this Saturday from 9-10 AM where I am a featured guest and will be discussing the childhood obesity epidemic.

Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Losing Weight Does Not Always Mean You Will Be Healthier

Unless you lose weight the correct way. This blog will be exploring different weight loss regimens and how losing weight does not always mean your health will improve.

We've always been told that if we are obese and suffer from heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes, that if we lose the weight; those diseases will go away. That is not always the case.

Allow me to focus now on 'Weight Watchers,' the biggest of the weight loss companies out there right now. Weight Watchers has been around for many years. I have seen many of my patients lose collectively tons of weight over the years and I also noticed an interesting thing. Those patients who lost 10-20 or even up to 75 pounds, if they suffered from high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes (type 2 is the type of diabetes where you do not need insulin and is supposed to be able to be controlled on diet alone); they still needed to remain on their medications. Yes, they took less medications, but most were unable to stop their meds as their BPs or sugars remained too high for me to stop their meds.

Back in the day when I was still ignorant about the benefits of low carbs, this didn't bother me much because I was happy I was able to reduce the medications of most people; I never once wondered why I couldn't stop these medications in their entirety; heck, I was happy that I got to reduce any meds in the first place.

When I became aware and understood the correct way to eat, and started my patients on low carbs; most patients were able to stop their meds entirely. It has gotten to the point now that even if a patient walks in my door with a BP of 170/110 or a blood sugar of 400; within a week I (really 'I' should be 'they', as it was the patient who put in all the work, I just told them about it) will have almost normalized their BP and their sugars generally have been cut in half to around 200 or less. Remember, this is all without using medications!

Now I was in a good position to give some thought as to why the Weight Watcher regimen, while allowing people to lose weight, most people still needed to take meds. It was because those on Weight Watchers were consuming too many carbs and in those people with high blood pressure and diabetes, carbs will have an independent effect (aside from the obvious obesity concern) on both BP and sugar control.

Before a patient (on a low carb diet) even loses a large amount of weight, BPs and sugars begin to lower. As the weight steadily declines the effect becomes even greater with, in most individuals, a complete normalization of BP and blood sugar---again, without the need for medication.

Weight Watcher's participants continue to eat large amounts of sugar, in the form of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing'--fruits and whole grains and the high sugar containing carrots and corn. Due to this high consumption of sugar, the BPs and sugars will not normalize and the patients will still have to continue with their meds.

Remember, it's all about the sugar---and do not think for a second that fruits and whole grains are better for us---------They are not! Well, come to think of it, they are good for the drug companies, as the more of that supposed good stuff we eat, the more we need to give our money to the drug companies.

Just my thoughts for today, have a great weekend everyone!

BTW (OMG did I just do BTW for 'by the way', oh my god, er, I mean OMG; I think I've been texting too much:-)

But seriously, if you are in the 5 Burroughs of New York, North Jersey, Nassau County or the South Shore of Long Island, listen-in tomorrow on 620 AM, starting at 9 am, where I will be devoting one hour on the radio to discuss the 'correct' way to attack the epidemic of childhood obesity.

A special thanks goes out to Tom, my 6th follower!

Working on number 7.....

Dr Jim

Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

Check out the nutritional products I endorse by clicking HERE!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

"Get A Free Cholesterol Check Today"

Sorry it's been awhile since I posted. Been a rough week :-) Anyhow, so I'm driving to a Wedding this weekend when I see the above banner ad outside a CVS store. The first thing I thought was "Cool, do I just need to tell them how much they can make the check out for?" The next thing that came to mind was that the only thing this advertisement does for CVS is to show the people who understand what cholesterol is all about, is that CVS has not a clue that total cholesterol means nothing.

First off, this is a check of your total cholesterol only. And what have we learned about total cholesterol? That's right, total cholesterol means nothing....nothing at all. Total cholesterol is simply the addition of the HDL + LDL + VLDL; these are all added up to arrive at the total cholesterol.

As I've mentioned in previous blogs and throughout my book, if one's HDL or protective cholesterol is elevated, this will usually drive up the total and one's total cholesterol can easily be above 200 with an HDL in the 50-60-or 70 range.. Thus, if you just have your total checked and not the profile I can offer you no useful information about what the number means.

For instance, one may have a total of 240-280, but without the HDL, I cannot tell you if this is bad or good.

"But wait a minute!" I hear some of you yell. If my total is below 200 then it is all good and I don't have to worry about my cholesterol at all. "Not so fast there," I'll respond. I have a good many patients whose total cholesterol's are below 200, but their HDLs are under 40, 30 or even under 20. These people are at high risk for heart disease due to the very low HDLs. These patients need to raise their HDLs to protect themselves against heart disease.

I also get a good number of people whose total cholesterol's are above 200, sometimes close to 300 who need to raise their cholesterol's. This almost always gets a 'are you crazy glare.' I used 'glare' not 'stare' as people can get downright nasty when I give the correct advice, but all their heads are filled up with is the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to, so they think I am a stark raving lunatic when I suggest this.

So the bottom line is that without the HDL and triglycerides, I can offer no useful advice about what one needs to change dietarily. Once again, total cholesterol means nothing...It is a waste of a number.

Thanks CVS for continuing to propagate one of the biggest cholesterol myths out there. Of course the drug companies all advertise that if one's cholesterol is above 200 you must be on meds. This is absolutely false and can place a person in danger. Oh wait, doesn't CVS dispense the prescription medications which lower cholesterol? Hmmm. Having said that, I don't really feel CVS is intending to do anything malicious, it is just continuing to propagate the incorrect beliefs that still persist strongly today, because CVS believes them to be true.

Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong...facts just are...

Dr Jim

PS: Thanks Keri-Ann for being my 5th follower! Who will be my 6th follower? Any takers :-)

Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

Monday, September 14, 2009

LOSE 100 LBs IN TEN MONTHS!!!!

Sounds like hype from an infomercial or some Enquirer magazine type article. The thing in this case is it's true. This was the comment made to me from my patient Greg (I received permission to use his name so it's OK. Oh wait, you don't know his last name so I guess all's ok anyway, so much for HIPAA :-)

Greg is a patient of mine who listened to the biochemical nutritional facts I presented to him and began a low carb lifestyle change 10 months ago. At 360 LBs, his blood pressure was elevated, his triglycerides were over 800, he was dehydrated, and had a fatty liver with elevated liver function studies (this indicates an irritated liver with some people progressing toward overt liver failure, that is, cirrhosis, because of this).

3 months after starting low carbs, his triglycerides dropped into the 300 range (still elevated but much, much better), his liver enzymes normalized and he was no longer dehydrated (this was reflected in his BUN/CR which were now normalized). Now 10 months out, he is 100 LBs lighter and I am awaiting his most recent set of labs which he will go for sometime soon.

For any of you who think Greg is an exception, he is not an exception, he is the rule. Simply stated, when one follows a low carb lifestyle, and if they suffer from obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides or low HDL--starting a low carb lifestyle will correct these and many other medical problems, often without the need for medications. By the way, Greg is now off his blood pressure medication and is no longer giving money to the pharmaceutical companies. All these pharmaceutical companies want everyone to believe is that we all need to be on some-type of medication for one reason or another.

As a side note-remember my blog where I was ripping apart the new drug Trilipix? I actually came across a sample box which had the warning that 'THIS PACKAGE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT YOUNG CHILDREN'

Huh??!!

How about we re-state that warning and say;
THIS PACKAGE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY HOUSEHOLDS AS THE MANUFACTURERS STATED IN THEIR COMMERCIAL THAT IT DID NOT LOWER ANYONE'S RISK FOR HEART DISEASE AND STROKE AND DON'T BOTHER YOUR DOCTOR WITH ANY FOOLISH INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS MEDICATION'

Ok,Ok, back to Greg....

So here's a patient of mine who lost 100 LBs, is off his BP meds, is normalizing his triglycerides, corrected underlying liver irritation and now will never develop cirrhosis from this, and no longer is dehydrated.

Wow, is this magic? No, it's simply the miracle of the low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle change. I've seen it before and I will continue to see it again and again and again.

Greg-------Congratulations to you! Keep up the great work!

Dr Jim

Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

Friday, September 11, 2009

Why is Nutritional Biochemistry thought to be a Belief?

So I'm with a patient today who would absolutely benefit from a low carb lifestyle (who wouldn't) when the conversation became borderline confrontational. Not for me , of course, but I could tell the patient was becoming aggitated with my suggestion of the correct way to eat.

The comment was made that 'us' doctors all have our different 'feelings' about how to eat. This was an excellent opportunity for me to educate this patient that what I am telling them to do dietarily is not based on my 'feelings' or 'beliefs.'

How do you think I did this?

Those of you who've received my dietary lectures already know the way I explain the difference between beliefs and facts. Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong---facts just are. I used to believe in Santa Claus, and, uh, that didn't turn out to good for me. It was a false belief. Sometimes beliefs are true, sometimes they are false.

I like to use the earth analogy to explain the major difference between beliefs and facts.

It goes like this; I ask the question "Is the Earth flat or round?" Almost everyone answers 'round.' (Those who answer 'flat' get an immediate referral to a psychiatrist. I was just messing with ya, no one has ever answered flat:-)

Then I ask "Is this your belief?" Most answer that "Yes, It is my belief." I immediately correct them and state that "No, it is not your belief, you know this to be true for it is a fact and facts just are. Whether or not you believe the world is round is irrelevent, it is round, that's it and life goes on."

So when I lecture about nutritional biochemistry, I am giving everyone the facts; not my 'belief', 'theory', opinion', or 'supposition.' What I state 'just is' as are facts--they just are.

Most of my collegues become downright agitated when I have a discussion about the facts of nutritional biochemistry; I'm sure because it doesn't gist (is gist really a word?) with what they 'believe' to be true. The big issue with beliefs is that they can become so firmly entrenched in our minds, even when the facts are staring us right in the eye---we miss them and continue on with our beliefs.

Just because a million people 'believe' something to be true, it will never become true if it is not true. A great analogy is found in religious beliefs. Look at the three big religions-Judaism, Christian/Catholicism and the Muslim faith. All the followers of these three big religions believe something different within their faith. Are they all right? Whose wrong? More importantly--Who's right?

I am certain that some people out there may have become offended that I would even use religion to help define the word 'belief' and if you were offended. Good.

Did that offend you even more? Stay with me now. This is important. Become conscious of the emotion you're experiencing right now, especially if you were offended somewhat. Is it anger? frustration? even worse--hatred? Beliefs become such a part of us that the emotions we experience if someone attacks our belief structure run so deep it's hard to know where the emotions are derived from.

This is exactly what happens when I discuss the dietary facts with someone who believes that low fat/low cholesterol is the correct way to eat. The emotions, the tempers, run high. People (doctors) become offended, irritated, aggitated, start raising their voices and some become enraged.

Why?

Because I am attacking their belief system with the facts, and no-one likes their beliefs to be questioned. Unfortunately, this is antithetical to progress.

Do I get emotional when I'm discussing nutritional facts with people who do not understand what I tell them is true. Rarely, but it does happen. (I will confess that when collegues of mine start getting emotional I will often laugh, and,yes, that pisses them off even more. I'll then ask them why they are getting so exited and most have no idea why.)

I guess I'll close it here by saying that it is very important we are able to tell the difference between beliefs and facts. When we can do this, we will discover the truths about the world we live in; and this will help us make progress and guards against stagnation.

Have a great weekend! And a hello goes out to all my 4 followers, with a special welcome to my fourth :-)

Who will be the 5th.......

Dr Jim

Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

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

This is a comment made, very quickly I might add, whenever we see an advertisement for cholesterol lowering medications. Tha latest med being heavily advertised is Trilpix. This med is supposed to be helpful with lowering one's total cholesterol, raising the HDL and lowering the triglycerides, which is where the first three letters of this drug came from I suppose.

This drug too mentions the caveat that this medication has not been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease or stroke. The ad also goes on to provoke the patient to 'ask your doctor' about this med.

So now I am a little confused. First off, lowering total cholesterol has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease; this medication holds itself out as lowering one's total cholesterol; the ad clearly states this med has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease (and stroke); but the viewer is still told to ask their doctor about the drug.

What the h@#$ for!!??

Surely the makers of this product do not, cannot, honestly think a physician who is conscious of this whole cholesterol debacle will prescribe what I like to call a 'waste' of a medication. If a physician knows that their patient should be eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods; their patient will have normal triglycerides and a good HDL number. Therefore, there will be no need to use this new med.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of physicians still hold on tenaciously to the myth of cholesterol lowering to reduce heart disease risk, despite not a single study supporting this.

The fact is that most patients need to raise their cholesterol, the HDL to be precise, which in turn will actually raise the Total as total cholesterol is a function of what the HDL is.

So to my 3 followers (I'm working on getting more, LOL) my comment is don't be fooled into thinking you need to take this med or even ask your doctor about it. If your doctor trys to put you on this med--my advice---Get a new doctor and do it fast!

Dr Jim

PS: Now that summer is over I will make every attempt to have an actual 'daily' blog :-)

Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Low Carbs and Man's Best Friend

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!

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

7 to 9 Teaspoonfuls of Sugar??!!

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!

Monday, August 24, 2009

94 % Fat Free!

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!

Monday, August 3, 2009

You Dont Need To Exercise To Lose Weight

It was Saturday morning when I was watching Good Morning America where they had a special on about 3 overweight kids. One child was over 330 LBs. They won a trip to a camp that specializes in weight loss.

Of course, the camp had it all wrong when it came down to diet. One could see that the children were eating bread and corn and fruit, all very high carbohydrate containing foods. Consumption of these foods will make it much more difficult for these highly motivated children to lose weight.

My heart went out to these children, who were not only eating the wrong way, but were engaged in strenuous activities as well. Obviously, the camp leaders are still buying into the myth that one has to exercise to lose weight.

This is not so and I actually include this as my fourth biggest dietary myth.

(Dietary myth # 1-Eating fat makes us fat---False.
Dietary myth # 2-Eating cholesterol containing foods causes heart disease-False.
Dietary myth#3-The calorie means something in human nutrition-False.)

I know one does not need to exercise to lose weight as I have seen it happen thousands upon thousands of times in my patients. In fact, I will argue that it is downright negligent to have a child who is over 330 LBs exercise vigorously (even an adult for that matter), as this will place a tremendous burden on the heart placing that child (or adult) at risk for a cardiac event.

No, I am not against exercising. What I do with my patients is I have them lose weight first. I will allow them to engage in simple exercises, like walking or swimming. I check their hearts out with at least an EKG and an echocardiogram of the heart; and if need be possibly even a stress test.

When I get a good amount of weight off, which is dependent upon the person and as long as their tests come back OK; then I will let them exercise more strenuously.

Physicians, dieticians, weight loss counselors or any one who is involved with weight loss needs to understand that we dont need to exercise to lose weight. And sometimes it can be dangerous or even deadly to do so, without taking weight off first.

Dr Jim