You might think...

... that after a while, the chorus of inaccurate information would be drowned in the sea of evidence. MSNBC's Health Today posted an article four days ago (I've been busy) on Paula Deen's diabetes. They basically say the same old tired non-sense about how it has nothing to do with what you eat, that if you only maintain your weight and exercise more you won't get diabetes, unless of course you are predisposed to it because of genetics.

What’s important when it comes to diabetes prevention is not what you eat, but rather, how much, said Linda Siminerio, director of the Diabetes Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

“To my knowledge no particular food has been linked to an increase in the risk of diabetes,” Siminerio said. “It’s being overweight and inactive.”

Linda Siminerio ought to be ashamed of herself. How does one become director of a Diabetes Institute without having a grasp on biochemistry? What in the hell does she think makes people gain weight? What food could be cut out to make them lose weight effortlessly? I'll give you three guesses. Carbohydrates(!) make you gain weight (if you are insulin resistant). End of discussion.

Excessive carbohydrate intake (along with damage to your mitochondria, maybe from eating trans-fats or all the fake processed crap or something else unknown or all of the above) exacerbate insulin resistance, which in time leads to diabetes. See! I understand that and I'm a freakin' artist. I'm probably more qualified than she is to talk about what diabetics and those at risk of diabetes ought to eat. Why? Because I have a brain, some common sense, and can look at the data and draw a conclusion. Ms. Siminerio on the other hand is beholden to the "establishment". She can't say anything that hasn't already been dictated or she'd probably lose her cushy position as director of some Institute on Something.

Oh, but you say, "Some people eat carbohydrates and they don't get fat or get diabetes." And I say, that's fantastic for them. The bottom line is, if your metabolism is "broken" you can't eat carbohydrates. I know, it's very sad. I like brioche and donuts as much as the next person. But like recovering alcoholics liking their alcohol, I know that if I eat them, I will gain all the weight back.

Here's the deal. Doctors and these "experts" are just humans. Half of them probably aren't even as smart as the average person. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that none of them have even half the common sense of your average American. That's a sad state of affairs. I've seen day laborers with more sense than Ms. Siminerio and her "expert" friends.

I'm rambling now, and I have a ton of other things to do than rage about the stupidity of people. How many more people have to DIE before these asshats stop spreading lies and misinformation? >_<

I'll leave you with something heartening, on the way home today, I saw a sign at a local Tex Mex place that said "Low Carb Plate $7.95" :)

Face-Palm Thursdays: Because two million years of evolution is obviously wrong

I should start a new trend where I publish things that make me face-palm on Thursdays. Actually, in this subject I could probably find enough things to make me face-palm every day of the week, possibly multiple times a day. US News has the skinny on what will make you skinny. Not really.

Face Palm: Best Diets for the New Year 2012

Top of the list? A diet, called the DASH diet, developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). You guessed it, eat your recommended number of carbs plus all those "healthy" whole grains, and just don't eat salt and saturated fat and you'll lose weight, especially if you cut back on calories! How does that work anyway? And they say that "rigorous studies" showed that this diet can lower blood pressure. Funnily enough, they don't quote exactly which "rigorous studies" they're referring to.

I'm not going to list all of the craptacular diets they put at the top of the list, (and believe me, I know all about craptacular diets having been obese for most of my life and trying repeatedly to lose the weight and being unable to), but they put Atkins towards the bottom. While their "rigorous studies" obviously prove that cutting back salt and eating whole grains defeats heart disease (really! I'm super cereal! pun totally intended) they dis Atkins because all the studies were too short and the data was not statistically significant. You can read that again, but I assure you, you didn't misread it.




Now, the Vegan Diet did better than Atkins and the Paleo diet despite the fact that it "may not provide enough of some nutrients." No kidding. But it ranks higher than ones that are better for you? Well, I believe that's called cognitive dissonance.

And what did they put at the bottom of the list? The Paleo Diet. Because 2 million years of evolution is obviously wrong. To whatever quack job wrote the article on US News, go live with the Inuit for a year like Stefansson did and get back to me on the lack of dairy and grains. Here's what they say about the nutritional breakdown of the Paleo Diet:

Fat. At about 39 percent of daily calories from fat, a sample Paleo menu exceeds the government’s 35 percent cap by a bit.

Protein. The government recommends 10 to 35 percent of daily calories come from protein; the Paleo diet clocks in around 38 percent.

Carbohydrates. At 23 percent of daily calories from carbs, it’s far below the government’s 45 to 65 percent recommendation.

Repeat after me, THERE ARE NO ESSENTIAL CARBOHYDRATES.

The Usual Fare: How your body adapts to what you're eating

After reading some of the comments on the news articles I read for what I wrote last night, about how McDonald's made the commenters sick, I got to thinking about it and the mum-in-law pointed out that most of them probably are vegetarian and perhaps ate it in a pinch, and then did get sick because their bodies did not have enough of the enzyme to digest the meat. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was McDonald's. If they'd eaten at Austin Land and Cattle, they'd have had the same response, and I don't think a $42 steak should make you sick. Unless your body just isn't used to eating meat.

Your body responds to what you usually eat by making enzymes (like protease) and hormones (like insulin) to deal with your daily food intake. This goes for all food components, fat, carbohydrates and protein. I personally don't eat very many carbs, usually. I still need to lose about twenty pounds, so I'm going to keep on the very low carb band wagon until I lose all the weight. Now, yesterday, if you read my post about what we ate for lunch, you'll know that we all felt like crap afterwards. This is because your insulin production is based on what you ate for the last meal and maybe overall on what you ate in the last day or two. If you do very low carb and want to eat sugar again, just like with a vegetarian who hasn't eaten meat in a while, you have to go gradually off of it. If you are vegetarian and decide that you're going to eat meat again, and you eat a double Whopper, you're probably going to be sick. And it isn't because of the food itself. The same happens if you're a low carber. Say for instance, you go to France on holiday and you eat half a dozen pain au chocolat, you're going to be sick. I suggest ramping up for that LOL

According to Lippincott's Illustrated biochemistry text, the things that stimulate insulin synthesis (production) are glucose, amino acids, and gastrointestinal hormones, and it says that "the synthesis and release of insulin are decreased when there is a scarcity of dietary fuels [i.e. carbohydrates]..." p.310

In other words, if you don't eat carbohydrates, your body isn't making very much insulin. Why would it? That would be inefficient. Luckily the body is highly adaptable, and in the case of former vegetarians will go back to making the enzymes for digesting meat in a couple of days. Same for the low carb folks. Fall off the wagon, and your body will start making insulin again. If we weren't so adaptable, you wouldn't be sitting here reading this because your ancestors wouldn't have lived.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And a little tangential thing I read today while I was researching the above, for your amusement. It's about the stupidest thing I've ever read actually. From a study,

Protein dietary reference intakes may be inadequate for vegetarians if low amounts of animal protein are consumed:

"The health benefits of vegetarian diets are well-recognized; however, long-term adherence to these diets may be associated with nutrient inadequacies, particularly vitamins B12 and D, calcium, irno, zinc and protein...

Results and Discussion...

Furthermore, two food groups (nuts/seeds and fruits/vegetables) contributed to nearly 20% of dietary protein, sources not recognized by the DRI report. These are important distinctions because protein from cereals and vegetables (particularly if these foods are less refined) has poor digestibility. Traditional vegetarian diets (e.g., Indian and Guatemalan vegetarian diets) with low amounts of animal proteins and large proportions of cereal and vegetable protein have protein digestibility scores averaging 70% (range 54–77%) compared with plant-based diets with a large proportion of animal protein (mean 88%, range 78–93%)..."

Now you tell me how a diet is simultaneously healthy and yet long-term adherence causes deficiencies. And not only that, in the results of this paper, they even say that plant protein is not as digestible as animal protein. The prior is codswallop if I ever read it and the latter should really have some vegans and vegetarians raising an eyebrow about what they've been fed (hint: lies). Someone has an agenda, and it ain't in the interest of your health. If I eat meat only, as Stefansson (and the Inuit) did, no supplements are required. Chew on that.

Sugar Crash

Today we went out for lunch. We rarely do that. A friend of ours runs a little restaurant and we ate there. I have to admit that I had way too many carbs for lunch, and afterwards felt like crap. I would have probably been fine, except our friend always wants to give us desert, and then how can you not eat it? That would be rude. So anyway, I was tired and jittery all at once. I walked about a half mile after and that helped a lot though. This is why I don't like eating out. I mean, before I started this, I enjoyed eating out once in a while. Now, it's nearly impossible to do so with some exceptions. I mean, you can get a burger and toss the bun. Or you can get a steak. But you have to be at the right place for that. And even then, you're probably consuming vegetable oil, since that's what the restaurants cook everything in. It's so much easier just to cook for yourself.

On the way home I heard an ad for some company that will remove your fat, as in plastic surgery. I thought, why don't people just stop eating the carbohydrates? And then I remembered. They'd have to be told the truth. And they'd have to want to make the decision to do so. Like an alcoholic, carbs can be addictive for some people, and even if they're diabetic and it's killing them, they won't want to give the carbohydrates up. A piece of cake is more important to them than their health.

Cholesterol and Colon Cancer

I read an article today about a study that showed that higher HDL could decrease the risk of colon cancer. If you realize that cholesterol is vital for cellular function, then it's not a stretch of the imagination that by lowering cholesterol, you're doing damage to your body.

The article states that this was independent of other markers for colon cancer, which "include inflammation, insulin resistance and oxygen free radicals."

What increases inflammation, insulin resistance and free radical formation? If you said Carbohydrates, you're correct! What do you suppose the article says you should do to reduce your risk? If you said limit intake of red meat, you are also correct! Except that red meat has nothing to do with it. The studies they cite that show that meat has anything to do with colon cancer do not control for variables. People eat hamburgers and then say the meat is responsible.

This is just one more reason, besides all the terrible side effects, of why you should avoid statins. Lowering cholesterol is the last thing you want to do. If you want to be healthy, and avoid these diseases, then avoid sugar and refined carbohydrates, and don't worry about your cholesterol. If you are overweight or diabetic, then you should probably limit all carbohydrate intake.

Oh noes! Trans fats might make you depressed...

o_O

Articles are popping up today about how trans fats cause depression. Now, I'm not saying artificial trans fats are good, quite the opposite. It seems they cause damage on a cellular level as well. But you know what else isn't good? The quality of research that has been put into some of these articles. Like this one:

"Of all these, the participants with a high level of consumption of trans-fats, artificially present in industrial cakes and biscuits and in fast food, and naturally in certain full-fat milk products, "showed an increase in risk of depression of up to 48% compared to those participants who did not consume these,"..."

Where do these people get off? I'd really like to know. I'd like to know how you can have a survey of people and act like it's a clinical trial. I'd like to know how you can have confounding variables out the wazzoo and act like you've controlled for a single variable. I'd also like to know why these people don't understand that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. It's so simple, and yet soooooo beyond the grasp of your basic nutrition "expert" or "journalist".

I don't need to point out that industrial cakes, biscuits and fast food are very high in carbohydrates. But did they decide that carbohydrates cause depression? No. Of course not.

But the thing that is really wrong with this article, and why I decided to write about it, is that it equates naturally occurring trans fats with the industrially manufactured ones. There are trans fats in nature, but they are not the same in chemical structure as the commercially developed ones. The most common one, Conjugated Linoleic Acid does indeed occur in dairy, eggs and meat. (Of course, those are all bad for you! Run away!) What's ironic, is CLA is known to be an anti-carcinogen. Yeah, how does that grab ya? Certain forms of CLA also reduce inflammation and thereby prevent cardiovascular disease. What was that about not eating eggs, whole milk and meat?

And even Time jumped on the band wagon, and failed to do any research on the difference between artificial and naturally occurring trans fatty acids:

"The results of the study may be especially bad news for Americans. While the average Spaniard gets about 0.4% of his or her calories from trans fats — mostly from natural or whole-food sources like milk, butter, meat and cheese — Americans log an average of 2.5% of total calories from trans fats. Americans not only eat more overall, but also eat worse-quality food, getting many trans fats from sources like processed snack foods and fried or fast food."

What do these "journalists" get paid to do? Copy and paste? It took me five minutes to find out about CLAs, and to realize they're not the same as artificial trans fats. But more than that, I realize that this "study" is flawed, and not even worth considering as evidence of anything, except that out of 12k people, a few got depressed.

Insulin Resistance and Response

I've spent my day reading all about insulin resistance and insulin response. It's a very fascinating subject.

What prompted this was that I saw arguments on some forums that insulin has a short half-life, therefore it cannot have an adverse impact on tissue. I think that this is quite frankly, codswallop. Not because it's been proven one way or the other, but because the amount of time (or exposure) is not the only thing that determines damage. Frequency is just as important to take into consideration. Temporary high blood sugar spikes could possibly damage your internal organs. If it happens once, it might not be a problem, but when it happens repeatedly every day, over the course of time, it would come as no surprise if organ damage developed. Insulin does indeed have a short half-life, it is estimated to be between 9 and 16 minutes in humans.

However, this does not mean that insulin does it's job in this amount of time, nor does it mean that insulin is reduced completely in that amount of time. By definition, a half life is the amount of time it takes half of the thing in question to decay. Because it is always half, if you understand basic math, you will realize that it's exponential as to how long it takes for something to be cleared completely¹ from a system.

The math is for n, the number of half lives elapsed, the percentage remaining is 100/(2^n). This does not tell you how much is left after n cycles, the quantity being dependent upon the initial amount produced or in the case of insulin, secreted. It takes five half-lives for complete decay to be achieved. This means that after a meal insulin is in your blood at higher than basal levels for at least 45 to 75 minutes based on the 9 to 16 minute half-life. However, in real life, it may be much longer. Insulin remained elevated in subjects after a meal for more than 120 minutes in this study. If you are eating high carb meals with snacks in-between, how often do you think your insulin levels are elevated?

In a healthy person, perhaps this isn't enough time to do damage, even with frequency (although I doubt it, which may be why almost everyone becomes insulin resistant at some point, even if it's when they're old). However, a lot of people become insulin resistant when young. Insulin resistance means that your cells are unable to use the glucose in your blood. Insulin secretion will continue in waves so long as glucose levels in the blood are raised. If glucose levels remain elevated long enough, your pancreas' β-cells may lose their ability to produce enough glucose and this is by definition diabetes.

So is it just carbs? Not completely. If you are insulin resistant, and trying to lose weight, one reason why it's very important to make sure that on a low carb or paleo diet that a good quantity of your diet is from fat, is because protein can cause an insulin response just like carbohydrates. So get the 'low fat' crap out of your head! One study showed that consuming a steak could cause plasma insulin levels to rise nearly 100 pmol/l above fasting levels, whereas cod fillet only caused a rise of 50 pmol/l. This may very well be because steak has about twice the protein as cod fillet. According to caloriecount.about.com, one ounce of steak has between 7.7 and 8.6g of protein (depending upon the type of steak). The same amount of cod fillet has 4.8g of protein. The study's authors say the difference in insulin response could also be attributed to carnosine, a dipeptide which is found in beef but not cod. Regardless, lean meat can cause an insulin response.

Keep in mind that protein is vital for rebuilding muscles, and if you're weightlifting you may need more than someone who's not.

Now, what do all these studies mean? Not a damned thing if you ask me. Honestly, the people funding the study influence the results. The data can really be interpreted to mean anything. And I do mean anything. We now know that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, but rather inflammation and homocysteine probably do. And yet there are dozens of studies about the nefarious effects of cholesterol, most of them poorly done, and the data manipulated to say what the researchers wanted to be said.

So, what causes insulin resistance? It seems no one is very sure, and there may be multiple causes. Some say it's chronically elevated insulin due to elevated blood glucose from over consumption of carbohydrates. Some of it is probably genetic. Whatever causes it, eating low carb or paleo is beneficial, as it reduces inflammation and makes insulin resistance unlikely. Indeed, though it is anecdotal, many people have noticed improved glucose tolerance after eating low carb for a long time.


¹ Insulin is never completely cleared from our system. We secrete insulin in small amounts every few minutes, even when we haven't eaten.

Californian Mom Sues Nutella

It doesn't take a genius to know that Nutella is not really a healthy food for you. But not because of the saturated fat content, but rather because the first ingredient is sugar. Either Athena Hohenberg is an idiot or she's after money. I'm leaning toward the latter personally. Why should she waste the courts time and money by suing, can't she use her brain and read a label? Maybe she hasn't had enough fat in her diet and her synapses are having problems communicating with each other.

If Athena wants healthy children she should be feeding them real, unprocessed foods like eggs and sausage for breakfast. But I digress. The real problem here, is that Athena Hohenberg has been told her whole life that saturated fat is bad for you. It's not, but sugar is, and at least sugar is included in the indictment. The great thing about living in a free country is that one should be able to eat whatever they want, whether it's good for them or not. The problem is, what is good for you? Now we're back to the lies.

So, when is she going to sue the breakfast cereal manufacturers? That's what I want to know.

Breakfast cereal manufacturers are no different than Nutella, advertising that their sugary, wheat infused mixture is a good thing to feed your kids in the morning. In my opinion, cereal is probably one of the worst thing you could feed your kids. Spreading Nutella on a piece of whole wheat bread would probably be about the same. Oh, except that cereal is "low in fat". I guess that makes it okay {/snark}. Even the ones touting to be "healthy", like Raisin Bran and Special K are hardly good for you, never mind the carbohydrate content. I've read the labels on those and they both have High Fructose Corn Syrup in them. Most of the breakfast cereal you'll find is also made with enriched flour, which is white flour with vitamins added back into it. When that hits your blood stream it's the same as if you'd eaten sugar.

*sigh*