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
Showing posts with label nutrition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nutrition. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
This Was My Post on A Site Discussing Childhood Obesity
Click Here to read the article I responded to.
I really liked this post and feel the need to make some statements. I am a family physician who focuses on the use of nutrition to treat a whole host of medical problems. A major medical problem I see on a daily basis is obesity. It is shocking the numbers of obese people, especially children, that are out there. The problem with childhood obesity, which for the most part is treatable, preventable and curable; is that the medical profession, with all its major breakthroughs, does not understand what is causing the obesity epidemic (pandemic?); despite the fact the answer is right in front of their eyes.
I agree the first reason a child becomes overweight is due to their genetics, which they cannot change. The second major reason children (and adults) are over weight is due to the medical profession's profound ignorance of dietary science. Sure eating at, say, McDonald's is not helpful and lack of exercise plays a role, but the 2 major reasons we have an obesity pandemic is genetics and physician ignorance.
Now let's take this a step further. Let me run through the 4 biggest dietary myths we continually see and hear on a daily basis;
Myth # 1--Eating fat makes us fat. False. Eating fat (including saturated fat, which everyone likes to pick on, but we actually should be eating more of it, not less) does not make us fat, so long we are not eating too many carbohydrates along with that fat.
Myth # 2--Eating cholesterol and saturated fatty containing foods causes not only obesity, but increases one's risk for heart disease. False. Not only is this not true, by eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods, we will decrease one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, diabetes and cancer.
Myth # 3--The calorie means something in human nutrition. False. the calorie means nothing. Do not use them or count them, they need to be ignored.
Myth # 4--We need to exercise in order to lose weight. False. We do not need to exercise to lose weight. Of course, it is best to exercise for heart health and all; but forcing a 200+ child to exercise is just plain negligent and could put them in harms way.
I know the above statements will, for most, appear controversial; but they are all true. They are facts. The above myths are not what I 'believe', they are not my theories, suppositions or opinions...they are factual. It must be understood that all of the extra weight we carry around as fat on our bodies is actually stored 'carbohydrate' from the diet, not stored fat from the diet.
Everyone needs to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar and that no matter where the sugar comes from, well, it is still sugar. There really is no such thing as a natural sugar molecule. Our bodies do not know a sugar molecule came from a piece of whole wheat bread, or fruit or a snickers bar. All our bodies see is sugar and once that sugar molecule gets inside our cells, if we have eaten too many carbs,which is very easy to do if one has the genetics for obesity, that sugar molecule will be transformed into either plaque forming deadly cholesterol or stored as fat.
These are the facts.
To cure the childhood obesity epidemic, or the whole obesity pandemic, those individuals need to be eating more fat, cholesterol and protein, and much, much, less in the way of carbs. For anyone interested in further inquiry, go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first ten chapters of my groundbreaking, whistle blowing, I-no-longer-have-any-physician-friends-and-the-pharmaceutical-companies-hate-me-too book Genocide:How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Dr Jim
A special hello goes out to my 8th follower, Matt! Thanks for joining!
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
I really liked this post and feel the need to make some statements. I am a family physician who focuses on the use of nutrition to treat a whole host of medical problems. A major medical problem I see on a daily basis is obesity. It is shocking the numbers of obese people, especially children, that are out there. The problem with childhood obesity, which for the most part is treatable, preventable and curable; is that the medical profession, with all its major breakthroughs, does not understand what is causing the obesity epidemic (pandemic?); despite the fact the answer is right in front of their eyes.
I agree the first reason a child becomes overweight is due to their genetics, which they cannot change. The second major reason children (and adults) are over weight is due to the medical profession's profound ignorance of dietary science. Sure eating at, say, McDonald's is not helpful and lack of exercise plays a role, but the 2 major reasons we have an obesity pandemic is genetics and physician ignorance.
Now let's take this a step further. Let me run through the 4 biggest dietary myths we continually see and hear on a daily basis;
Myth # 1--Eating fat makes us fat. False. Eating fat (including saturated fat, which everyone likes to pick on, but we actually should be eating more of it, not less) does not make us fat, so long we are not eating too many carbohydrates along with that fat.
Myth # 2--Eating cholesterol and saturated fatty containing foods causes not only obesity, but increases one's risk for heart disease. False. Not only is this not true, by eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods, we will decrease one's risk for not only heart disease, but obesity, diabetes and cancer.
Myth # 3--The calorie means something in human nutrition. False. the calorie means nothing. Do not use them or count them, they need to be ignored.
Myth # 4--We need to exercise in order to lose weight. False. We do not need to exercise to lose weight. Of course, it is best to exercise for heart health and all; but forcing a 200+ child to exercise is just plain negligent and could put them in harms way.
I know the above statements will, for most, appear controversial; but they are all true. They are facts. The above myths are not what I 'believe', they are not my theories, suppositions or opinions...they are factual. It must be understood that all of the extra weight we carry around as fat on our bodies is actually stored 'carbohydrate' from the diet, not stored fat from the diet.
Everyone needs to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar and that no matter where the sugar comes from, well, it is still sugar. There really is no such thing as a natural sugar molecule. Our bodies do not know a sugar molecule came from a piece of whole wheat bread, or fruit or a snickers bar. All our bodies see is sugar and once that sugar molecule gets inside our cells, if we have eaten too many carbs,which is very easy to do if one has the genetics for obesity, that sugar molecule will be transformed into either plaque forming deadly cholesterol or stored as fat.
These are the facts.
To cure the childhood obesity epidemic, or the whole obesity pandemic, those individuals need to be eating more fat, cholesterol and protein, and much, much, less in the way of carbs. For anyone interested in further inquiry, go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first ten chapters of my groundbreaking, whistle blowing, I-no-longer-have-any-physician-friends-and-the-pharmaceutical-companies-hate-me-too book Genocide:How Your Doctor's Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Dr Jim
A special hello goes out to my 8th follower, Matt! Thanks for joining!
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
More Cancer Than Ever and I Know Why, but the American Cancer Society Doesn't...
Ok, so I go to check my e-mail yesterday and new guidelines were published by the American Institute for Cancer Research. There were actually eight which I will get to in a minute. It's important that you read the article in its entirety (it's not too long), so I copied and pasted it below. Please note, I added the italics;
'Can diet make a difference? The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer. We know there are some things we can’t control. We can’t change risk factors like our family history. But it’s clear that eating well is part of doing everything you can to tip the odds in your favor-and the best benefit is knowing that you’re doing what you can to promote overall good health.
A well-nourished, well-rested body is the best nutritional strategy for keeping your immune system strong. Eat a variety of foods that provide a natural abundance of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, particularly those rich in vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene and selenium, antioxidants that, according to some studies, may help prevent disease, including some cancers. These healthy recipes will get you started-they all contain at least 15 percent daily value of at least one of those vitamins or minerals.'
I'll post the eight suggestions after we analyze the above paragraphs. First off, I have no problem with the second paragraph and I agree with everything being said. The problem lies in the italicized part of paragraph one, repasted below;
'The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
The links between dietary patterns and cancer is not murky. I repeat, it is not murky. We have study after study showing that the more sugar one is exposed to, the greater one's risk for cancer. The problem becomes 'murky' when the researchers do not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. These same supposed 'experts' in their field just don't get that glucose from a carrot, tomato or corn, is the same glucose molecule as is found in a snickers bar or a piece of cake.
Our cells have no way of knowing where the glucose molecule came from, they just react as they react. In my book in my Cancer-Carb connection Chapter, I outline the facts that when we eat sugar, our pancreas will secrete insulin. Insulin works via a second messenger system to get glucose inside the cell. This second messenger system will release known cancer causing substances which can turn on cancer genes and helps already existing cancer to spread.
This is a fact and it scares the heck out of me whenever I see a guideline stating we need to eat more fruit and whole grains to lower our cancer risk. Now fruit contains the sugar fructose which does not require insulin to get into the cell. Having said this, ask any diabetic what happens to their blood 'glucose' whenever they eat fruit and they will tell you their blood 'glucose' rises. Now insulin will be secreted and the second messenger with the subsequent release of cancer causing substances comes into play.
Whole grains will simply supply glucose and stimulate insulin secretion and you now know the rest. Here are the 8 Guidelines and my comments, in italics, will immediately follow each tip;
'The American Institute for Cancer Research just published its most up-to-date food, nutrition and activity recommendations to help prevent cancer.'
Here are eight quick tips from the report:
1)Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
We should actually be a little heavier than the actuarial tables suggest. While being lean is certainly appealing, research has shown that a little extra weight may be quite beneficial, especially as we get older. This is referred to as 'insurance weight.' The point is that if we get sick, having a little extra weight will provide a physiological reserve of energy to help us get better quicker. A person who is lean has no reserve to dip into and instead will dip into muscle and bone for energy, thereby suppressing the immunological system and places the person at risk for a longer recovery.
2)Be physically active for at least 30 minutes every day.
I would change this to maybe 4-5x a week. Too much exercise puts the body in stress mode where cortisol may be secreted in larger quantities. One of the things cortisol does is to tell the liver to make sugar. This will cause an insulin release with subsequent turning on of the second messenger system (among many other things.)
3) Avoid sugary drinks. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods (particularly processed foods high in added sugar, or low in fiber, or high in fat).
I agree with most of this, with the exception of the fat. Certainly avoid the sugars; foods low in fiber tend to be high in carbs and sugar; we need to be eating more saturated fat not less. Increased saturated fat consumption has never been shown to increase one's risk for cancer. We actually have studies, the results which were never reported, that increased saturated fat consumption lowered women's risk for breast cancer. Let me also add that trans fats, that is the margarines and a whole host of other foods, does increase one's risk for not only heart disease, but cancer as well. Also, a new fat has arrived on the scene. It goes by the name of interesterified fatty acids, which some researchers say is more dangerous than trans fats.
4)Eat more of a variety of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, such as beans.
Stay away from carb dense veggies like carrots, corn (really a fruit), tomatoes, potatoes (of any color), I just found out that artichokes are loaded with carbs as well; avoid fruit of any kind; whole grains we now know are very bad for us due to the increased carb count found in these foods;legumes can be sugar dense so you'll need to research the carb amount for what you're eating; and lastly beans do have a good amount of carbs, but usually have a good amount of fiber so the effect of the carbs is neutralized. The other thing about beans is that they contain a sugar known as stachyose, which we cant digest that well and this is what leads to the whole flatulence problem with beans.
5)Limit consumption of red meats (such as beef, pork and lamb) and avoid processed meats.
Absolutely, one-hundred percent false!!!! Eat as much of these foods as you can. They provide our bodies with cholesterol, fat and protein and help lower our risk for heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and CANCER!!!! Eat only those meats where no hormones, antibiotics or other growth enhancers were used. Do not eat lean meats. You want the fat. As a side note, most doctors, nutritionists and dietitians think the fat in meats is predominantly saturated. This is false. Beef fat is 55% unsaturated; Pork fat (or lard) is 65% unsaturated; and chicken/turkey fat is 80% unsaturated. So the fat from meat is more unsaturated than saturated. Oops, I guess the powers to be got that wrong too.
Oh yeah, I do agree to avoid processed meats, but their actually safer for you than fruits and whole grains--pretty wild, Huh?
6)If alcohol is consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to two for men and one for women a day.
I thought it was 2-3 for men and 1-2 for women. This is referred to as moderate drinking and can cut your heart disease risk by 38%--no joke.
7)Limit consumption of salty foods and foods processed with salt (sodium).
I agree, but remember salt only becomes an issue when large amounts of insulin are secreted, which occurs when we eat too many carbs.
8)Don't use supplements to protect against cancer.
I totally disagree on this one. The only reason we see conflicting results when we look at antioxidants and cancer is that the researchers are feeding the participants more whole grains, fruits and carb dense veggies. This throws a monkey wrench into the whole study and makes the researchers think antioxidants weren't effective; when indeed what was happening was the carb dense alleged 'healthy foods' were increasing the cancer rates. Use antioxidants--they protect us against cancer, help us improve our energy level, and are good as anti-aging defenses. I take 'em and you should too. If interested, Click Here to see my Optimum Health web-site and all the Nutraceuticals I promote.
So, from my comments above, we can easily see why 'Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
That's because they are being given the wrong dietary information and this is why they are getting cancer (excluding, of course, people who are exposed to environmental things like smoking, too much alcohol or job related exposures).
Dr Jim
Just want to say hello to Carol, my 7th follower; who will be number 8?
A quick message to my readers. If you live in NYC, any of the 5 Burroughs, Westchester County or Long Island, listen to 620 on your AM dial, this Saturday from 9-10 AM where I am a featured guest and will be discussing the childhood obesity epidemic.
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
'Can diet make a difference? The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer. We know there are some things we can’t control. We can’t change risk factors like our family history. But it’s clear that eating well is part of doing everything you can to tip the odds in your favor-and the best benefit is knowing that you’re doing what you can to promote overall good health.
A well-nourished, well-rested body is the best nutritional strategy for keeping your immune system strong. Eat a variety of foods that provide a natural abundance of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, particularly those rich in vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene and selenium, antioxidants that, according to some studies, may help prevent disease, including some cancers. These healthy recipes will get you started-they all contain at least 15 percent daily value of at least one of those vitamins or minerals.'
I'll post the eight suggestions after we analyze the above paragraphs. First off, I have no problem with the second paragraph and I agree with everything being said. The problem lies in the italicized part of paragraph one, repasted below;
'The links between cancer prevention and specific dietary patterns are still pretty murky. Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
The links between dietary patterns and cancer is not murky. I repeat, it is not murky. We have study after study showing that the more sugar one is exposed to, the greater one's risk for cancer. The problem becomes 'murky' when the researchers do not understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. These same supposed 'experts' in their field just don't get that glucose from a carrot, tomato or corn, is the same glucose molecule as is found in a snickers bar or a piece of cake.
Our cells have no way of knowing where the glucose molecule came from, they just react as they react. In my book in my Cancer-Carb connection Chapter, I outline the facts that when we eat sugar, our pancreas will secrete insulin. Insulin works via a second messenger system to get glucose inside the cell. This second messenger system will release known cancer causing substances which can turn on cancer genes and helps already existing cancer to spread.
This is a fact and it scares the heck out of me whenever I see a guideline stating we need to eat more fruit and whole grains to lower our cancer risk. Now fruit contains the sugar fructose which does not require insulin to get into the cell. Having said this, ask any diabetic what happens to their blood 'glucose' whenever they eat fruit and they will tell you their blood 'glucose' rises. Now insulin will be secreted and the second messenger with the subsequent release of cancer causing substances comes into play.
Whole grains will simply supply glucose and stimulate insulin secretion and you now know the rest. Here are the 8 Guidelines and my comments, in italics, will immediately follow each tip;
'The American Institute for Cancer Research just published its most up-to-date food, nutrition and activity recommendations to help prevent cancer.'
Here are eight quick tips from the report:
1)Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
We should actually be a little heavier than the actuarial tables suggest. While being lean is certainly appealing, research has shown that a little extra weight may be quite beneficial, especially as we get older. This is referred to as 'insurance weight.' The point is that if we get sick, having a little extra weight will provide a physiological reserve of energy to help us get better quicker. A person who is lean has no reserve to dip into and instead will dip into muscle and bone for energy, thereby suppressing the immunological system and places the person at risk for a longer recovery.
2)Be physically active for at least 30 minutes every day.
I would change this to maybe 4-5x a week. Too much exercise puts the body in stress mode where cortisol may be secreted in larger quantities. One of the things cortisol does is to tell the liver to make sugar. This will cause an insulin release with subsequent turning on of the second messenger system (among many other things.)
3) Avoid sugary drinks. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods (particularly processed foods high in added sugar, or low in fiber, or high in fat).
I agree with most of this, with the exception of the fat. Certainly avoid the sugars; foods low in fiber tend to be high in carbs and sugar; we need to be eating more saturated fat not less. Increased saturated fat consumption has never been shown to increase one's risk for cancer. We actually have studies, the results which were never reported, that increased saturated fat consumption lowered women's risk for breast cancer. Let me also add that trans fats, that is the margarines and a whole host of other foods, does increase one's risk for not only heart disease, but cancer as well. Also, a new fat has arrived on the scene. It goes by the name of interesterified fatty acids, which some researchers say is more dangerous than trans fats.
4)Eat more of a variety of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, such as beans.
Stay away from carb dense veggies like carrots, corn (really a fruit), tomatoes, potatoes (of any color), I just found out that artichokes are loaded with carbs as well; avoid fruit of any kind; whole grains we now know are very bad for us due to the increased carb count found in these foods;legumes can be sugar dense so you'll need to research the carb amount for what you're eating; and lastly beans do have a good amount of carbs, but usually have a good amount of fiber so the effect of the carbs is neutralized. The other thing about beans is that they contain a sugar known as stachyose, which we cant digest that well and this is what leads to the whole flatulence problem with beans.
5)Limit consumption of red meats (such as beef, pork and lamb) and avoid processed meats.
Absolutely, one-hundred percent false!!!! Eat as much of these foods as you can. They provide our bodies with cholesterol, fat and protein and help lower our risk for heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and CANCER!!!! Eat only those meats where no hormones, antibiotics or other growth enhancers were used. Do not eat lean meats. You want the fat. As a side note, most doctors, nutritionists and dietitians think the fat in meats is predominantly saturated. This is false. Beef fat is 55% unsaturated; Pork fat (or lard) is 65% unsaturated; and chicken/turkey fat is 80% unsaturated. So the fat from meat is more unsaturated than saturated. Oops, I guess the powers to be got that wrong too.
Oh yeah, I do agree to avoid processed meats, but their actually safer for you than fruits and whole grains--pretty wild, Huh?
6)If alcohol is consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to two for men and one for women a day.
I thought it was 2-3 for men and 1-2 for women. This is referred to as moderate drinking and can cut your heart disease risk by 38%--no joke.
7)Limit consumption of salty foods and foods processed with salt (sodium).
I agree, but remember salt only becomes an issue when large amounts of insulin are secreted, which occurs when we eat too many carbs.
8)Don't use supplements to protect against cancer.
I totally disagree on this one. The only reason we see conflicting results when we look at antioxidants and cancer is that the researchers are feeding the participants more whole grains, fruits and carb dense veggies. This throws a monkey wrench into the whole study and makes the researchers think antioxidants weren't effective; when indeed what was happening was the carb dense alleged 'healthy foods' were increasing the cancer rates. Use antioxidants--they protect us against cancer, help us improve our energy level, and are good as anti-aging defenses. I take 'em and you should too. If interested, Click Here to see my Optimum Health web-site and all the Nutraceuticals I promote.
So, from my comments above, we can easily see why 'Even people with extensive health knowledge, who seem to get everything right, get cancer.'
That's because they are being given the wrong dietary information and this is why they are getting cancer (excluding, of course, people who are exposed to environmental things like smoking, too much alcohol or job related exposures).
Dr Jim
Just want to say hello to Carol, my 7th follower; who will be number 8?
A quick message to my readers. If you live in NYC, any of the 5 Burroughs, Westchester County or Long Island, listen to 620 on your AM dial, this Saturday from 9-10 AM where I am a featured guest and will be discussing the childhood obesity epidemic.
Click Here to read the first ten chapters of my book for free.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Losing Weight Does Not Always Mean You Will Be Healthier
Unless you lose weight the correct way. This blog will be exploring different weight loss regimens and how losing weight does not always mean your health will improve.
We've always been told that if we are obese and suffer from heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes, that if we lose the weight; those diseases will go away. That is not always the case.
Allow me to focus now on 'Weight Watchers,' the biggest of the weight loss companies out there right now. Weight Watchers has been around for many years. I have seen many of my patients lose collectively tons of weight over the years and I also noticed an interesting thing. Those patients who lost 10-20 or even up to 75 pounds, if they suffered from high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes (type 2 is the type of diabetes where you do not need insulin and is supposed to be able to be controlled on diet alone); they still needed to remain on their medications. Yes, they took less medications, but most were unable to stop their meds as their BPs or sugars remained too high for me to stop their meds.
Back in the day when I was still ignorant about the benefits of low carbs, this didn't bother me much because I was happy I was able to reduce the medications of most people; I never once wondered why I couldn't stop these medications in their entirety; heck, I was happy that I got to reduce any meds in the first place.
When I became aware and understood the correct way to eat, and started my patients on low carbs; most patients were able to stop their meds entirely. It has gotten to the point now that even if a patient walks in my door with a BP of 170/110 or a blood sugar of 400; within a week I (really 'I' should be 'they', as it was the patient who put in all the work, I just told them about it) will have almost normalized their BP and their sugars generally have been cut in half to around 200 or less. Remember, this is all without using medications!
Now I was in a good position to give some thought as to why the Weight Watcher regimen, while allowing people to lose weight, most people still needed to take meds. It was because those on Weight Watchers were consuming too many carbs and in those people with high blood pressure and diabetes, carbs will have an independent effect (aside from the obvious obesity concern) on both BP and sugar control.
Before a patient (on a low carb diet) even loses a large amount of weight, BPs and sugars begin to lower. As the weight steadily declines the effect becomes even greater with, in most individuals, a complete normalization of BP and blood sugar---again, without the need for medication.
Weight Watcher's participants continue to eat large amounts of sugar, in the form of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing'--fruits and whole grains and the high sugar containing carrots and corn. Due to this high consumption of sugar, the BPs and sugars will not normalize and the patients will still have to continue with their meds.
Remember, it's all about the sugar---and do not think for a second that fruits and whole grains are better for us---------They are not! Well, come to think of it, they are good for the drug companies, as the more of that supposed good stuff we eat, the more we need to give our money to the drug companies.
Just my thoughts for today, have a great weekend everyone!
BTW (OMG did I just do BTW for 'by the way', oh my god, er, I mean OMG; I think I've been texting too much:-)
But seriously, if you are in the 5 Burroughs of New York, North Jersey, Nassau County or the South Shore of Long Island, listen-in tomorrow on 620 AM, starting at 9 am, where I will be devoting one hour on the radio to discuss the 'correct' way to attack the epidemic of childhood obesity.
A special thanks goes out to Tom, my 6th follower!
Working on number 7.....
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Check out the nutritional products I endorse by clicking HERE!
We've always been told that if we are obese and suffer from heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes, that if we lose the weight; those diseases will go away. That is not always the case.
Allow me to focus now on 'Weight Watchers,' the biggest of the weight loss companies out there right now. Weight Watchers has been around for many years. I have seen many of my patients lose collectively tons of weight over the years and I also noticed an interesting thing. Those patients who lost 10-20 or even up to 75 pounds, if they suffered from high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes (type 2 is the type of diabetes where you do not need insulin and is supposed to be able to be controlled on diet alone); they still needed to remain on their medications. Yes, they took less medications, but most were unable to stop their meds as their BPs or sugars remained too high for me to stop their meds.
Back in the day when I was still ignorant about the benefits of low carbs, this didn't bother me much because I was happy I was able to reduce the medications of most people; I never once wondered why I couldn't stop these medications in their entirety; heck, I was happy that I got to reduce any meds in the first place.
When I became aware and understood the correct way to eat, and started my patients on low carbs; most patients were able to stop their meds entirely. It has gotten to the point now that even if a patient walks in my door with a BP of 170/110 or a blood sugar of 400; within a week I (really 'I' should be 'they', as it was the patient who put in all the work, I just told them about it) will have almost normalized their BP and their sugars generally have been cut in half to around 200 or less. Remember, this is all without using medications!
Now I was in a good position to give some thought as to why the Weight Watcher regimen, while allowing people to lose weight, most people still needed to take meds. It was because those on Weight Watchers were consuming too many carbs and in those people with high blood pressure and diabetes, carbs will have an independent effect (aside from the obvious obesity concern) on both BP and sugar control.
Before a patient (on a low carb diet) even loses a large amount of weight, BPs and sugars begin to lower. As the weight steadily declines the effect becomes even greater with, in most individuals, a complete normalization of BP and blood sugar---again, without the need for medication.
Weight Watcher's participants continue to eat large amounts of sugar, in the form of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing'--fruits and whole grains and the high sugar containing carrots and corn. Due to this high consumption of sugar, the BPs and sugars will not normalize and the patients will still have to continue with their meds.
Remember, it's all about the sugar---and do not think for a second that fruits and whole grains are better for us---------They are not! Well, come to think of it, they are good for the drug companies, as the more of that supposed good stuff we eat, the more we need to give our money to the drug companies.
Just my thoughts for today, have a great weekend everyone!
BTW (OMG did I just do BTW for 'by the way', oh my god, er, I mean OMG; I think I've been texting too much:-)
But seriously, if you are in the 5 Burroughs of New York, North Jersey, Nassau County or the South Shore of Long Island, listen-in tomorrow on 620 AM, starting at 9 am, where I will be devoting one hour on the radio to discuss the 'correct' way to attack the epidemic of childhood obesity.
A special thanks goes out to Tom, my 6th follower!
Working on number 7.....
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Check out the nutritional products I endorse by clicking HERE!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
"Get A Free Cholesterol Check Today"
Sorry it's been awhile since I posted. Been a rough week :-) Anyhow, so I'm driving to a Wedding this weekend when I see the above banner ad outside a CVS store. The first thing I thought was "Cool, do I just need to tell them how much they can make the check out for?" The next thing that came to mind was that the only thing this advertisement does for CVS is to show the people who understand what cholesterol is all about, is that CVS has not a clue that total cholesterol means nothing.
First off, this is a check of your total cholesterol only. And what have we learned about total cholesterol? That's right, total cholesterol means nothing....nothing at all. Total cholesterol is simply the addition of the HDL + LDL + VLDL; these are all added up to arrive at the total cholesterol.
As I've mentioned in previous blogs and throughout my book, if one's HDL or protective cholesterol is elevated, this will usually drive up the total and one's total cholesterol can easily be above 200 with an HDL in the 50-60-or 70 range.. Thus, if you just have your total checked and not the profile I can offer you no useful information about what the number means.
For instance, one may have a total of 240-280, but without the HDL, I cannot tell you if this is bad or good.
"But wait a minute!" I hear some of you yell. If my total is below 200 then it is all good and I don't have to worry about my cholesterol at all. "Not so fast there," I'll respond. I have a good many patients whose total cholesterol's are below 200, but their HDLs are under 40, 30 or even under 20. These people are at high risk for heart disease due to the very low HDLs. These patients need to raise their HDLs to protect themselves against heart disease.
I also get a good number of people whose total cholesterol's are above 200, sometimes close to 300 who need to raise their cholesterol's. This almost always gets a 'are you crazy glare.' I used 'glare' not 'stare' as people can get downright nasty when I give the correct advice, but all their heads are filled up with is the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to, so they think I am a stark raving lunatic when I suggest this.
So the bottom line is that without the HDL and triglycerides, I can offer no useful advice about what one needs to change dietarily. Once again, total cholesterol means nothing...It is a waste of a number.
Thanks CVS for continuing to propagate one of the biggest cholesterol myths out there. Of course the drug companies all advertise that if one's cholesterol is above 200 you must be on meds. This is absolutely false and can place a person in danger. Oh wait, doesn't CVS dispense the prescription medications which lower cholesterol? Hmmm. Having said that, I don't really feel CVS is intending to do anything malicious, it is just continuing to propagate the incorrect beliefs that still persist strongly today, because CVS believes them to be true.
Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong...facts just are...
Dr Jim
PS: Thanks Keri-Ann for being my 5th follower! Who will be my 6th follower? Any takers :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
First off, this is a check of your total cholesterol only. And what have we learned about total cholesterol? That's right, total cholesterol means nothing....nothing at all. Total cholesterol is simply the addition of the HDL + LDL + VLDL; these are all added up to arrive at the total cholesterol.
As I've mentioned in previous blogs and throughout my book, if one's HDL or protective cholesterol is elevated, this will usually drive up the total and one's total cholesterol can easily be above 200 with an HDL in the 50-60-or 70 range.. Thus, if you just have your total checked and not the profile I can offer you no useful information about what the number means.
For instance, one may have a total of 240-280, but without the HDL, I cannot tell you if this is bad or good.
"But wait a minute!" I hear some of you yell. If my total is below 200 then it is all good and I don't have to worry about my cholesterol at all. "Not so fast there," I'll respond. I have a good many patients whose total cholesterol's are below 200, but their HDLs are under 40, 30 or even under 20. These people are at high risk for heart disease due to the very low HDLs. These patients need to raise their HDLs to protect themselves against heart disease.
I also get a good number of people whose total cholesterol's are above 200, sometimes close to 300 who need to raise their cholesterol's. This almost always gets a 'are you crazy glare.' I used 'glare' not 'stare' as people can get downright nasty when I give the correct advice, but all their heads are filled up with is the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to, so they think I am a stark raving lunatic when I suggest this.
So the bottom line is that without the HDL and triglycerides, I can offer no useful advice about what one needs to change dietarily. Once again, total cholesterol means nothing...It is a waste of a number.
Thanks CVS for continuing to propagate one of the biggest cholesterol myths out there. Of course the drug companies all advertise that if one's cholesterol is above 200 you must be on meds. This is absolutely false and can place a person in danger. Oh wait, doesn't CVS dispense the prescription medications which lower cholesterol? Hmmm. Having said that, I don't really feel CVS is intending to do anything malicious, it is just continuing to propagate the incorrect beliefs that still persist strongly today, because CVS believes them to be true.
Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong...facts just are...
Dr Jim
PS: Thanks Keri-Ann for being my 5th follower! Who will be my 6th follower? Any takers :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Monday, September 14, 2009
LOSE 100 LBs IN TEN MONTHS!!!!
Sounds like hype from an infomercial or some Enquirer magazine type article. The thing in this case is it's true. This was the comment made to me from my patient Greg (I received permission to use his name so it's OK. Oh wait, you don't know his last name so I guess all's ok anyway, so much for HIPAA :-)
Greg is a patient of mine who listened to the biochemical nutritional facts I presented to him and began a low carb lifestyle change 10 months ago. At 360 LBs, his blood pressure was elevated, his triglycerides were over 800, he was dehydrated, and had a fatty liver with elevated liver function studies (this indicates an irritated liver with some people progressing toward overt liver failure, that is, cirrhosis, because of this).
3 months after starting low carbs, his triglycerides dropped into the 300 range (still elevated but much, much better), his liver enzymes normalized and he was no longer dehydrated (this was reflected in his BUN/CR which were now normalized). Now 10 months out, he is 100 LBs lighter and I am awaiting his most recent set of labs which he will go for sometime soon.
For any of you who think Greg is an exception, he is not an exception, he is the rule. Simply stated, when one follows a low carb lifestyle, and if they suffer from obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides or low HDL--starting a low carb lifestyle will correct these and many other medical problems, often without the need for medications. By the way, Greg is now off his blood pressure medication and is no longer giving money to the pharmaceutical companies. All these pharmaceutical companies want everyone to believe is that we all need to be on some-type of medication for one reason or another.
As a side note-remember my blog where I was ripping apart the new drug Trilipix? I actually came across a sample box which had the warning that 'THIS PACKAGE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT YOUNG CHILDREN'
Huh??!!
How about we re-state that warning and say;
THIS PACKAGE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY HOUSEHOLDS AS THE MANUFACTURERS STATED IN THEIR COMMERCIAL THAT IT DID NOT LOWER ANYONE'S RISK FOR HEART DISEASE AND STROKE AND DON'T BOTHER YOUR DOCTOR WITH ANY FOOLISH INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS MEDICATION'
Ok,Ok, back to Greg....
So here's a patient of mine who lost 100 LBs, is off his BP meds, is normalizing his triglycerides, corrected underlying liver irritation and now will never develop cirrhosis from this, and no longer is dehydrated.
Wow, is this magic? No, it's simply the miracle of the low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle change. I've seen it before and I will continue to see it again and again and again.
Greg-------Congratulations to you! Keep up the great work!
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Greg is a patient of mine who listened to the biochemical nutritional facts I presented to him and began a low carb lifestyle change 10 months ago. At 360 LBs, his blood pressure was elevated, his triglycerides were over 800, he was dehydrated, and had a fatty liver with elevated liver function studies (this indicates an irritated liver with some people progressing toward overt liver failure, that is, cirrhosis, because of this).
3 months after starting low carbs, his triglycerides dropped into the 300 range (still elevated but much, much better), his liver enzymes normalized and he was no longer dehydrated (this was reflected in his BUN/CR which were now normalized). Now 10 months out, he is 100 LBs lighter and I am awaiting his most recent set of labs which he will go for sometime soon.
For any of you who think Greg is an exception, he is not an exception, he is the rule. Simply stated, when one follows a low carb lifestyle, and if they suffer from obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides or low HDL--starting a low carb lifestyle will correct these and many other medical problems, often without the need for medications. By the way, Greg is now off his blood pressure medication and is no longer giving money to the pharmaceutical companies. All these pharmaceutical companies want everyone to believe is that we all need to be on some-type of medication for one reason or another.
As a side note-remember my blog where I was ripping apart the new drug Trilipix? I actually came across a sample box which had the warning that 'THIS PACKAGE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT YOUNG CHILDREN'
Huh??!!
How about we re-state that warning and say;
THIS PACKAGE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY HOUSEHOLDS AS THE MANUFACTURERS STATED IN THEIR COMMERCIAL THAT IT DID NOT LOWER ANYONE'S RISK FOR HEART DISEASE AND STROKE AND DON'T BOTHER YOUR DOCTOR WITH ANY FOOLISH INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS MEDICATION'
Ok,Ok, back to Greg....
So here's a patient of mine who lost 100 LBs, is off his BP meds, is normalizing his triglycerides, corrected underlying liver irritation and now will never develop cirrhosis from this, and no longer is dehydrated.
Wow, is this magic? No, it's simply the miracle of the low carb, more fat/cholesterol/protein lifestyle change. I've seen it before and I will continue to see it again and again and again.
Greg-------Congratulations to you! Keep up the great work!
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Why is Nutritional Biochemistry thought to be a Belief?
So I'm with a patient today who would absolutely benefit from a low carb lifestyle (who wouldn't) when the conversation became borderline confrontational. Not for me , of course, but I could tell the patient was becoming aggitated with my suggestion of the correct way to eat.
The comment was made that 'us' doctors all have our different 'feelings' about how to eat. This was an excellent opportunity for me to educate this patient that what I am telling them to do dietarily is not based on my 'feelings' or 'beliefs.'
How do you think I did this?
Those of you who've received my dietary lectures already know the way I explain the difference between beliefs and facts. Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong---facts just are. I used to believe in Santa Claus, and, uh, that didn't turn out to good for me. It was a false belief. Sometimes beliefs are true, sometimes they are false.
I like to use the earth analogy to explain the major difference between beliefs and facts.
It goes like this; I ask the question "Is the Earth flat or round?" Almost everyone answers 'round.' (Those who answer 'flat' get an immediate referral to a psychiatrist. I was just messing with ya, no one has ever answered flat:-)
Then I ask "Is this your belief?" Most answer that "Yes, It is my belief." I immediately correct them and state that "No, it is not your belief, you know this to be true for it is a fact and facts just are. Whether or not you believe the world is round is irrelevent, it is round, that's it and life goes on."
So when I lecture about nutritional biochemistry, I am giving everyone the facts; not my 'belief', 'theory', opinion', or 'supposition.' What I state 'just is' as are facts--they just are.
Most of my collegues become downright agitated when I have a discussion about the facts of nutritional biochemistry; I'm sure because it doesn't gist (is gist really a word?) with what they 'believe' to be true. The big issue with beliefs is that they can become so firmly entrenched in our minds, even when the facts are staring us right in the eye---we miss them and continue on with our beliefs.
Just because a million people 'believe' something to be true, it will never become true if it is not true. A great analogy is found in religious beliefs. Look at the three big religions-Judaism, Christian/Catholicism and the Muslim faith. All the followers of these three big religions believe something different within their faith. Are they all right? Whose wrong? More importantly--Who's right?
I am certain that some people out there may have become offended that I would even use religion to help define the word 'belief' and if you were offended. Good.
Did that offend you even more? Stay with me now. This is important. Become conscious of the emotion you're experiencing right now, especially if you were offended somewhat. Is it anger? frustration? even worse--hatred? Beliefs become such a part of us that the emotions we experience if someone attacks our belief structure run so deep it's hard to know where the emotions are derived from.
This is exactly what happens when I discuss the dietary facts with someone who believes that low fat/low cholesterol is the correct way to eat. The emotions, the tempers, run high. People (doctors) become offended, irritated, aggitated, start raising their voices and some become enraged.
Why?
Because I am attacking their belief system with the facts, and no-one likes their beliefs to be questioned. Unfortunately, this is antithetical to progress.
Do I get emotional when I'm discussing nutritional facts with people who do not understand what I tell them is true. Rarely, but it does happen. (I will confess that when collegues of mine start getting emotional I will often laugh, and,yes, that pisses them off even more. I'll then ask them why they are getting so exited and most have no idea why.)
I guess I'll close it here by saying that it is very important we are able to tell the difference between beliefs and facts. When we can do this, we will discover the truths about the world we live in; and this will help us make progress and guards against stagnation.
Have a great weekend! And a hello goes out to all my 4 followers, with a special welcome to my fourth :-)
Who will be the 5th.......
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
The comment was made that 'us' doctors all have our different 'feelings' about how to eat. This was an excellent opportunity for me to educate this patient that what I am telling them to do dietarily is not based on my 'feelings' or 'beliefs.'
How do you think I did this?
Those of you who've received my dietary lectures already know the way I explain the difference between beliefs and facts. Remember, beliefs can be right or wrong---facts just are. I used to believe in Santa Claus, and, uh, that didn't turn out to good for me. It was a false belief. Sometimes beliefs are true, sometimes they are false.
I like to use the earth analogy to explain the major difference between beliefs and facts.
It goes like this; I ask the question "Is the Earth flat or round?" Almost everyone answers 'round.' (Those who answer 'flat' get an immediate referral to a psychiatrist. I was just messing with ya, no one has ever answered flat:-)
Then I ask "Is this your belief?" Most answer that "Yes, It is my belief." I immediately correct them and state that "No, it is not your belief, you know this to be true for it is a fact and facts just are. Whether or not you believe the world is round is irrelevent, it is round, that's it and life goes on."
So when I lecture about nutritional biochemistry, I am giving everyone the facts; not my 'belief', 'theory', opinion', or 'supposition.' What I state 'just is' as are facts--they just are.
Most of my collegues become downright agitated when I have a discussion about the facts of nutritional biochemistry; I'm sure because it doesn't gist (is gist really a word?) with what they 'believe' to be true. The big issue with beliefs is that they can become so firmly entrenched in our minds, even when the facts are staring us right in the eye---we miss them and continue on with our beliefs.
Just because a million people 'believe' something to be true, it will never become true if it is not true. A great analogy is found in religious beliefs. Look at the three big religions-Judaism, Christian/Catholicism and the Muslim faith. All the followers of these three big religions believe something different within their faith. Are they all right? Whose wrong? More importantly--Who's right?
I am certain that some people out there may have become offended that I would even use religion to help define the word 'belief' and if you were offended. Good.
Did that offend you even more? Stay with me now. This is important. Become conscious of the emotion you're experiencing right now, especially if you were offended somewhat. Is it anger? frustration? even worse--hatred? Beliefs become such a part of us that the emotions we experience if someone attacks our belief structure run so deep it's hard to know where the emotions are derived from.
This is exactly what happens when I discuss the dietary facts with someone who believes that low fat/low cholesterol is the correct way to eat. The emotions, the tempers, run high. People (doctors) become offended, irritated, aggitated, start raising their voices and some become enraged.
Why?
Because I am attacking their belief system with the facts, and no-one likes their beliefs to be questioned. Unfortunately, this is antithetical to progress.
Do I get emotional when I'm discussing nutritional facts with people who do not understand what I tell them is true. Rarely, but it does happen. (I will confess that when collegues of mine start getting emotional I will often laugh, and,yes, that pisses them off even more. I'll then ask them why they are getting so exited and most have no idea why.)
I guess I'll close it here by saying that it is very important we are able to tell the difference between beliefs and facts. When we can do this, we will discover the truths about the world we live in; and this will help us make progress and guards against stagnation.
Have a great weekend! And a hello goes out to all my 4 followers, with a special welcome to my fourth :-)
Who will be the 5th.......
Dr Jim
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
"Lowering Cholesterol Has Not Been Shown to Lower One's Risk for Heart Disease"
This is a comment made, very quickly I might add, whenever we see an advertisement for cholesterol lowering medications. Tha latest med being heavily advertised is Trilpix. This med is supposed to be helpful with lowering one's total cholesterol, raising the HDL and lowering the triglycerides, which is where the first three letters of this drug came from I suppose.
This drug too mentions the caveat that this medication has not been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease or stroke. The ad also goes on to provoke the patient to 'ask your doctor' about this med.
So now I am a little confused. First off, lowering total cholesterol has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease; this medication holds itself out as lowering one's total cholesterol; the ad clearly states this med has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease (and stroke); but the viewer is still told to ask their doctor about the drug.
What the h@#$ for!!??
Surely the makers of this product do not, cannot, honestly think a physician who is conscious of this whole cholesterol debacle will prescribe what I like to call a 'waste' of a medication. If a physician knows that their patient should be eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods; their patient will have normal triglycerides and a good HDL number. Therefore, there will be no need to use this new med.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of physicians still hold on tenaciously to the myth of cholesterol lowering to reduce heart disease risk, despite not a single study supporting this.
The fact is that most patients need to raise their cholesterol, the HDL to be precise, which in turn will actually raise the Total as total cholesterol is a function of what the HDL is.
So to my 3 followers (I'm working on getting more, LOL) my comment is don't be fooled into thinking you need to take this med or even ask your doctor about it. If your doctor trys to put you on this med--my advice---Get a new doctor and do it fast!
Dr Jim
PS: Now that summer is over I will make every attempt to have an actual 'daily' blog :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
This drug too mentions the caveat that this medication has not been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease or stroke. The ad also goes on to provoke the patient to 'ask your doctor' about this med.
So now I am a little confused. First off, lowering total cholesterol has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease; this medication holds itself out as lowering one's total cholesterol; the ad clearly states this med has not been shown to lower one's risk of heart disease (and stroke); but the viewer is still told to ask their doctor about the drug.
What the h@#$ for!!??
Surely the makers of this product do not, cannot, honestly think a physician who is conscious of this whole cholesterol debacle will prescribe what I like to call a 'waste' of a medication. If a physician knows that their patient should be eating more saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods; their patient will have normal triglycerides and a good HDL number. Therefore, there will be no need to use this new med.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of physicians still hold on tenaciously to the myth of cholesterol lowering to reduce heart disease risk, despite not a single study supporting this.
The fact is that most patients need to raise their cholesterol, the HDL to be precise, which in turn will actually raise the Total as total cholesterol is a function of what the HDL is.
So to my 3 followers (I'm working on getting more, LOL) my comment is don't be fooled into thinking you need to take this med or even ask your doctor about it. If your doctor trys to put you on this med--my advice---Get a new doctor and do it fast!
Dr Jim
PS: Now that summer is over I will make every attempt to have an actual 'daily' blog :-)
Please go to Amazon.com to order my book or go to DrJamesCarlson.com and request a digital copy of my book for only $11.99!
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!
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!
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
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
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
THEY'RE NOT CHOLESTEROL LOWERING MEDICATIONS!
All of us physicians need to stop referring to the medicines we use for cholesterol control as 'cholesterol lowering medications.' This is just not so and another example of the ignorance of physicians. For most people, even those with cholesterols over 200; we need to raise their cholesterol, not lower it. By this I mean we need to raise their HDL or heart protective cholesterol.
So what's all this cholesterol lowering mumbo jumbo. We learned in an earlier blog that lowering the total cholesterol number has not had an effect on lowering the prevelence of heart disease. This is because total cholesterol is an irrelevent number. It means nothing. All it is is the summation of all the carrier molecules of cholesterol, one of these being the HDL. When one's HDL is greater than 59, it will almost always drive up the total just based on the fact total cholesterol depends on how high (or low) the HDL is.
What we are really doing by using the so-called 'cholesterol lowering medications' is causing an effect known as plaque stabilization. You see, it is the buildup of plaque with the subsequent breaking off of a piece of that plaque that creates the problems. Once a plaque ruptures, the body will attempt to heal this by accumulating platelets at the rupture site. If we accumulate too many platelets at a plaque site, this will prevent the flow off blood past this site. Since blood cannot flow past this area, a heart attack or stroke can occur. The medications like Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor etc. stabilize plaques making it less likely to rupture and hence lower one's risk for heart attacks or strokes. This is obviously a good thing.
Again, cholesterol lowering is not what we should be focused on when using these meds. We need to change our thinking and stop saying cholesterol lowering and start focusing on plaque stabilization. Once this happens we will be in a better position to prevent heart disease.
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!
So what's all this cholesterol lowering mumbo jumbo. We learned in an earlier blog that lowering the total cholesterol number has not had an effect on lowering the prevelence of heart disease. This is because total cholesterol is an irrelevent number. It means nothing. All it is is the summation of all the carrier molecules of cholesterol, one of these being the HDL. When one's HDL is greater than 59, it will almost always drive up the total just based on the fact total cholesterol depends on how high (or low) the HDL is.
What we are really doing by using the so-called 'cholesterol lowering medications' is causing an effect known as plaque stabilization. You see, it is the buildup of plaque with the subsequent breaking off of a piece of that plaque that creates the problems. Once a plaque ruptures, the body will attempt to heal this by accumulating platelets at the rupture site. If we accumulate too many platelets at a plaque site, this will prevent the flow off blood past this site. Since blood cannot flow past this area, a heart attack or stroke can occur. The medications like Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor etc. stabilize plaques making it less likely to rupture and hence lower one's risk for heart attacks or strokes. This is obviously a good thing.
Again, cholesterol lowering is not what we should be focused on when using these meds. We need to change our thinking and stop saying cholesterol lowering and start focusing on plaque stabilization. Once this happens we will be in a better position to prevent heart disease.
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, July 28, 2009
A New Look at Autism
I spent the weekend reviewing some very interesting videos and data on the treatment of autism, a major problem in our society. This treatment paradigm was very unique as it treated autism with radiofrequency waves introduced into the brain via a patch as well as ultrasound treatments to the brain. The researchers have reported very positive results and I had the pleasure to sit and speak with these brilliant key researchers last evening.
Before anyone goes and thinks this is a bunch of malarkey or pseudoscience I submit the following; we know as physicians that the brain emits electromagentic waves as we can record these via an EEG (electroencephalogram). On top of this, each of our organs emits an electrical impulse. The greatest example of this is the heart measured through the EKG (electrocardiogram). We also know that we can shock the heart back into its regular rhythm by using a defribrillator--hence, we can control what the heart does internally,externally with the use of the paddles.
Why cannot the same be done to the brain?
It was interesting to note that the brain's gamma waves were absent when the subjects were not interactive with their environment and before treatment (as measured by the EEG), only to return after the subjects received the radiofrequency and ultrasound stimulation. Concomitant with the gamma waves reappearance after treatment was an increased interactivity with the environment in a more appropriate fashion. This included increased interaction with the subject's parents as well as increased vocal/speach patterns.
As I've been reading alot about our conscious state recently (the current book I'm reading is Julian Jaynes' "The Emergence of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind")
I immediately wondered 'Do gamma waves need to be present in order for consciousness to exist?' Which led to my next thought, "If gamma waves need to be present, does their absence create the unconscious autistic mind?'
Now when I say unconscious, I don't mean passed out on the floor unconscious. I am referring to being in a state that is simply reactionary to the environment, with no ability to think of oneself as oneself. That person would also lack the ability to be introspective. This is exactly how we were only 3000 years ago. It was around 3000 years ago that we became 'conscious' as a species, developing the ability to think about our reactions before we reacted, and also to reflect upon our thoughts without being active. This is the conscious state.
Is this unique and groundbreaking methodology for the treatment of autism awakening these patients to the concsious state? I think it may well be.
So what is my involvment, you may be wondering? Well, it will come as no shock to anyone that I will be placing the subjects on a restrictive carb intake, along with the other treatments, to see if we can increase the cognitive functioning even further. As you might imagine, these patients are eating an overabundance of carbs, and not enough fat,cholesterol and protein.
Now using a low carb approach in children is not unique. Dr John Freeman from John's Hopkins has used what he calls the Ketogenic Diet-which is a low carb, higher fat, and more cholesterol and protein approach. He treats mainly children with severe recalcitrant epilepsy and has treated some who were autistic who were experiencing seizures with excellent results. (His book is "The Ketogenic Diet".)
It must be emphasized our brains are mainly fat and need fat to function properly. If we are underconsuming fat we will probably not be getting enough essential fatty acids-these are fats which we cannot manufacture on our own-into the brain. I propose that one not eating enough fat will not be giving the brain what it needs to function properly.
I feel very privileged to be a part of what I feel will be a major step forward in the treatment of this debilitating disease.
Tomorrow I'll talk about plaque stabilization and how doctors should not be using the phrase "cholesterol lowering medication", but should be telling their patients the med (the statins such as Crestor, Lipitor etc...) is being used for plaque stabilization.
Dr Jim
Before anyone goes and thinks this is a bunch of malarkey or pseudoscience I submit the following; we know as physicians that the brain emits electromagentic waves as we can record these via an EEG (electroencephalogram). On top of this, each of our organs emits an electrical impulse. The greatest example of this is the heart measured through the EKG (electrocardiogram). We also know that we can shock the heart back into its regular rhythm by using a defribrillator--hence, we can control what the heart does internally,externally with the use of the paddles.
Why cannot the same be done to the brain?
It was interesting to note that the brain's gamma waves were absent when the subjects were not interactive with their environment and before treatment (as measured by the EEG), only to return after the subjects received the radiofrequency and ultrasound stimulation. Concomitant with the gamma waves reappearance after treatment was an increased interactivity with the environment in a more appropriate fashion. This included increased interaction with the subject's parents as well as increased vocal/speach patterns.
As I've been reading alot about our conscious state recently (the current book I'm reading is Julian Jaynes' "The Emergence of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind")
I immediately wondered 'Do gamma waves need to be present in order for consciousness to exist?' Which led to my next thought, "If gamma waves need to be present, does their absence create the unconscious autistic mind?'
Now when I say unconscious, I don't mean passed out on the floor unconscious. I am referring to being in a state that is simply reactionary to the environment, with no ability to think of oneself as oneself. That person would also lack the ability to be introspective. This is exactly how we were only 3000 years ago. It was around 3000 years ago that we became 'conscious' as a species, developing the ability to think about our reactions before we reacted, and also to reflect upon our thoughts without being active. This is the conscious state.
Is this unique and groundbreaking methodology for the treatment of autism awakening these patients to the concsious state? I think it may well be.
So what is my involvment, you may be wondering? Well, it will come as no shock to anyone that I will be placing the subjects on a restrictive carb intake, along with the other treatments, to see if we can increase the cognitive functioning even further. As you might imagine, these patients are eating an overabundance of carbs, and not enough fat,cholesterol and protein.
Now using a low carb approach in children is not unique. Dr John Freeman from John's Hopkins has used what he calls the Ketogenic Diet-which is a low carb, higher fat, and more cholesterol and protein approach. He treats mainly children with severe recalcitrant epilepsy and has treated some who were autistic who were experiencing seizures with excellent results. (His book is "The Ketogenic Diet".)
It must be emphasized our brains are mainly fat and need fat to function properly. If we are underconsuming fat we will probably not be getting enough essential fatty acids-these are fats which we cannot manufacture on our own-into the brain. I propose that one not eating enough fat will not be giving the brain what it needs to function properly.
I feel very privileged to be a part of what I feel will be a major step forward in the treatment of this debilitating disease.
Tomorrow I'll talk about plaque stabilization and how doctors should not be using the phrase "cholesterol lowering medication", but should be telling their patients the med (the statins such as Crestor, Lipitor etc...) is being used for plaque stabilization.
Dr Jim
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Total Cholesterol Means NOTHING!!!!
A question I get asked on a daily basis after someone has bloodwork drawn is "What was my total cholesterol?" Only problem is, total cholesterol means nothing. Nothing at all. The total cholesterol is simply the summation of all the 'carrier' molecules of cholesterol. That is,
Total Cholesterol=HDL+LDL+VLDL+IDL.
Now most of us have heard of the HDL and LDL, but most of us have never heard of the VLDL and the IDL. HDL is referred to as the 'good cholesterol' and the LDL is mistakenly referred to as the 'bad' cholesterol. The VLDL is a function of the triglycerides or fats in the blood and the IDL is a transient thing so it doesn't hang out in the blood too long to be an issue so we can simply ignore its value.
Now back to Total Cholesterol. So the total cholesterol number is derived by adding all those carrier molecules of cholesterol together. One can see that if the HDL goes up, it will most likely raise the total. I often tell my patients that they do not want to 'lower' their cholesterol, they want to raise it. I will get very strange looks from people when I say this, especially if their total cholesterols are above 200. Their immediate response is usually "But I thought my total cholesterol should be below 200" which prompts me down memory lane and the ever so changing incorrect recommendations of what the total cholesterol (and LDL) should be.
When I was growing up in medicine, we were told by the powers to be to try and get the total cholesterol below 250. If we did that, the reasoning went, we would see less heart disease. We were also told to try and get the LDL below 150. This didn't work; we still saw alot of heart disease.
Then we were told to try and get the Total below 220 and the LDL below 120. This didn't work either, we still saw alot of heart disease.
Next came the advice from the 'experts' to get the total below 200 and the LDL below 100 and we should really see a lowering of heart disease. Nope, this didn't work either. We are currently being told to try to get the total below 200 and the LDL below 70. This will not work to lower heart disease cases. Not at all.
You see, total cholesterol means nothing. Nothing at all. It is an irrelevant number. When people ask me what their total cholesterol is I tell them I just bought a goldfish and a kite for my kids and stored the kite in the garage and placed the goldfish on my kitchen table. I then get this puzzled look, as if to say "Er, I don't care what you bought and where you placed it, I just want to know my total cholesterol number."
Just like it was irrelevant what I bought and where I placed it, so too, is the total cholesterol. Again it means nothing. Yet we want to know it. We yearn to know it. We talk about it at cocktail parties, read about it in the paper, worry about it when we are eating. But it means nothing.
Absolutely zilch.
What we need to be focused on is the HDL and the triglycerides. Tomorrow I will tell you why the term 'cholesterol lowering medications' is a misnomer, and why the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies need to stop using that phrase and should focus more on a concept referred to as plaque stabilization.
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!
Total Cholesterol=HDL+LDL+VLDL+IDL.
Now most of us have heard of the HDL and LDL, but most of us have never heard of the VLDL and the IDL. HDL is referred to as the 'good cholesterol' and the LDL is mistakenly referred to as the 'bad' cholesterol. The VLDL is a function of the triglycerides or fats in the blood and the IDL is a transient thing so it doesn't hang out in the blood too long to be an issue so we can simply ignore its value.
Now back to Total Cholesterol. So the total cholesterol number is derived by adding all those carrier molecules of cholesterol together. One can see that if the HDL goes up, it will most likely raise the total. I often tell my patients that they do not want to 'lower' their cholesterol, they want to raise it. I will get very strange looks from people when I say this, especially if their total cholesterols are above 200. Their immediate response is usually "But I thought my total cholesterol should be below 200" which prompts me down memory lane and the ever so changing incorrect recommendations of what the total cholesterol (and LDL) should be.
When I was growing up in medicine, we were told by the powers to be to try and get the total cholesterol below 250. If we did that, the reasoning went, we would see less heart disease. We were also told to try and get the LDL below 150. This didn't work; we still saw alot of heart disease.
Then we were told to try and get the Total below 220 and the LDL below 120. This didn't work either, we still saw alot of heart disease.
Next came the advice from the 'experts' to get the total below 200 and the LDL below 100 and we should really see a lowering of heart disease. Nope, this didn't work either. We are currently being told to try to get the total below 200 and the LDL below 70. This will not work to lower heart disease cases. Not at all.
You see, total cholesterol means nothing. Nothing at all. It is an irrelevant number. When people ask me what their total cholesterol is I tell them I just bought a goldfish and a kite for my kids and stored the kite in the garage and placed the goldfish on my kitchen table. I then get this puzzled look, as if to say "Er, I don't care what you bought and where you placed it, I just want to know my total cholesterol number."
Just like it was irrelevant what I bought and where I placed it, so too, is the total cholesterol. Again it means nothing. Yet we want to know it. We yearn to know it. We talk about it at cocktail parties, read about it in the paper, worry about it when we are eating. But it means nothing.
Absolutely zilch.
What we need to be focused on is the HDL and the triglycerides. Tomorrow I will tell you why the term 'cholesterol lowering medications' is a misnomer, and why the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies need to stop using that phrase and should focus more on a concept referred to as plaque stabilization.
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!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Houston: We Have a Problem!
Ok, so an object the size of Earth collided with Jupiter destroying its atmosphere as a result of the collision. An amateur astronomer from Australia reported this event to American 'Professional' astronomers.
Does this not frighten anyone? Shouldn't the professional astronomers, from any country for that matter, shouldn't they have picked this up? If an object the size of Earth could be missed by all the telescopes and satellites we have monitoring space, well, what else are we not seeing?
This is a perfect example of how easily things are missed, especially when they are right in front of us. Take, for example, eating low carbs. We have all the data right in front of us. We have the successes of the prior clinical trials all pointing to the effectiveness of following a low carb life-style, yet the vast majority of doctor's still do not 'believe' and certainly do not understand the importance of placing patients on a low carb eating style.
Heck, I was blind for at least six years after I had graduated my residency to the importance of low carbs. Having been on both sides of the fence, that is, using low fat/low cholesterol and now using a low carb approach; I have witnessed the effectiveness of low carbs firsthand in thousands upon thousands of patients. Why is the medical profession still blind?
The amatuer asronomer from Australia represents the lay public who understands the importance of low carbs; and the professional astronomers represents the medical profession who continues to 'miss' the fact that low carb lifestyle changes are very beneficial in many different disease processes. Let's face it, more laypersons than physicians understand the importance of low carbs; why is this so?
Oh well, I guess I should be happy that Earth sized thing didn't collide with us :-)
Does this not frighten anyone? Shouldn't the professional astronomers, from any country for that matter, shouldn't they have picked this up? If an object the size of Earth could be missed by all the telescopes and satellites we have monitoring space, well, what else are we not seeing?
This is a perfect example of how easily things are missed, especially when they are right in front of us. Take, for example, eating low carbs. We have all the data right in front of us. We have the successes of the prior clinical trials all pointing to the effectiveness of following a low carb life-style, yet the vast majority of doctor's still do not 'believe' and certainly do not understand the importance of placing patients on a low carb eating style.
Heck, I was blind for at least six years after I had graduated my residency to the importance of low carbs. Having been on both sides of the fence, that is, using low fat/low cholesterol and now using a low carb approach; I have witnessed the effectiveness of low carbs firsthand in thousands upon thousands of patients. Why is the medical profession still blind?
The amatuer asronomer from Australia represents the lay public who understands the importance of low carbs; and the professional astronomers represents the medical profession who continues to 'miss' the fact that low carb lifestyle changes are very beneficial in many different disease processes. Let's face it, more laypersons than physicians understand the importance of low carbs; why is this so?
Oh well, I guess I should be happy that Earth sized thing didn't collide with us :-)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
