adherence to one-size-fits-all template crafted to a great degree by drug industry interests and "experts" who often stand at arm's length from real live patients.
Keith's "residual" abnormalities are all readily correctable. He has since made dramatic improvements in all parameters. Among the strategies used is a wheat- and cornstarch-free diet that resulted in 12 lbs lost within the first few weeks of effort.
If you are on the "Russert Protocol," have a serious conversation with your doctor about the continued advisability of remaining on this half-assed approach to heart disease. Or, consider finding another doctor.
A petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being circulated in response to the mis-statement made in an NIH-sponsored study, ACCORD.
The ACCORD Trial included over 10,000 type II diabetics and compared an intensive, multiple-medication group to achieve a target HbA1c of <6.0%, with a less intensively treated group with a target HbA1c of 7-7.9%. (HBA1c is a long-term measure of glucose, averaging approximately the last 3 months glucose levels.) To the lead investigators' surprise, the intensively treated group experienced more death and heart attack than the less intensive group. The conclusion suggested that intensive management of diabetes may not be a desirable endpoint and may result in greater risk for adverse events.
The petitioners argue that the problem was not with intensive glucose control per se, but the use of multiple side-effect-generating medications. Unfortunately, the ACCORD conclusions give the impression that loose control over blood sugar may be desirable.
The petition originates from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a non-profit organization seeking to promote carbohydrate restriction.
The petition reads:
National Institute of Health re: the ACCORD Diabetes Study: "Intensively targeting blood sugar to near-normal levels ... increases risk of death. "
This statement is untrue. This study lowered blood glucose levels only by aggressive drug treatment.
Preventative measures and proven non-drug treatments are being ignored by the NIH, ADA and many other governing agencies.
There is abundant scientific evidence proving a carbohydrate restricted diet can be as effective as drugs in lowering blood glucose levels safely. Many times diet is more effective than medication in controlling diabetes - all without side effects or increased risk of death.
I ask that the NIH publicly retract the above statement. It is misleading the public.
I also request that the NIH acknowledge the existing science and fund more research by the experts who have experience with carbohydrate restriction as a means of treatment for diabetes.
For more info, or to help people with diabetes, please e-mail info@nmsociety.org .
Thank you.
I added my comment:
In my preventive cardiology practice, I have been employing strict carbohydrate restriction in both diabetics and non-diabetics. This results in dramatic improvement in lipids and lipoprotein abnormalities, substantial weight loss, and improved insulin sensitivity. This experience has been entirely different from the heart disease-causing and diabetes-causing low-fat diets that I used for years.
I have a substantial number of diabetics who have been to reduce their reliance on prescription medication for diabetes or even eliminate them. In my experience, the power of carbohydrate-restricted diets is profound.
However, better clinical data to further validate this approach is needed, particularly as diabetes and pre-diabetes is surging in prevalence. I ask that more funding to further explore and validate this research be made available if we are to have greater success on a broader basis.
If you are interested in adding your voice, you can also electronically sign the petition. It is optional, but you can also add your own comments regarding your own views or experiences.
It happens in the hospital every so often: A clean-cut, law-abiding person is hospitalized for, say, pneumonia, kidney stones, knee surgery, etc.
Everything's fine until . . . they're running down the hospital hallway stark naked, screaming about snakes on the wall, accusing nurses of trying to kill him, all while yanking out IV's and monitor patches.
It's called alcohol withdrawal. Alcohol withdrawal can range from tremulousness and sweatiness, all the way to delirium tremens, the full-blown form that leads to disorientation, seizures, fever, even death. Withdrawal can also be associated with a number of chronically used agents, such as sedatives/sleeping pills, pain medication/opiates, among others.
How about wheat?
I wouldn't have believed it, but after witnessing this effect countless times, I am convinced there is such a phenomenon: Wheat withdrawal.
You'll recognize it in someone who previously ate bread and other wheat flour-containing products freely, then eliminates them. This is followed by extreme cravings, usually for bread, cookies, or cake; profound fatigue; shakiness; mental fogginess; blue moods. The syndrome can last for up to one week.
Then, bam! Sufferers of wheat withdrawal report mental clarity superior to their wheat-crazed days, improved energy, decreased appetite and cravings, heightened mood, and, of course, fantastic drops in weight.
Why would removal of wheat from the diet trigger a withdrawal phenomenon? I can only speculate, but I believe that at least part of this response is due to a physical conversion from a glycogen (sugar)-burning metabolism to that of a fatty acid (fat mobilizing) metabolism. People who lived in the up-and-down cycle of craving and eating wheat constantly fed the sugar furnace for years and are enzymatically impaired in fat burning; they've been growing fat stores. Eliminating wheat deprives the body of this easy source of glycogen, forcing it to mobilize fatty acids in the fatty tissues. Sluggish at first, people feel fatigue, mental fogginess, etc. Once the enzymatic capacity for fat mobilization revs up, then these feelings dissipate.
Could it also relate to the opioid sequences apparently present in wheat? I wasn't even aware of this fact until a reader of The Heart Scan Blog, Anne, left this comment:
Wheat protein contains a number of opiod peptides which can be released during digestion. Some of these are thought to affect the central and peripheral nervous systems.
When I gave up gluten, I felt much worse for a few days. This is a very common reaction in those who stop eating gluten cold turkey.
Whatever the mechanism, I believe it is a real phenomenon. It can, at times, be so overwhelming that about 20% of people who try to eliminate wheat find they are simply unable to do it without being incapacitated. Of course, that might be a lesson in itself: If withdrawal is so profound, it hints that there must be something very peculiar going on in the first place.