ing to convince them that these cereals are somehow healthy for their bodies. Sure, they're better than the sugary cereals, but all those grains are metabolized as sugar inside the body, so you might as well be eating Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops!
Many of these "healthy" cereals contain as many carbohydrates in a single bowl without the milk as I would eat in an entire day. Raisin Bran, for example, which used to be my favorite cereal before my low-carb lifestye, has a whopping 47 grams of carbohydrates. Needless to say, I don't touch that with a ten-foot pole nowadays because I would surely gain weight and get back on the blood sugar rollercoaster ride that I was on prior to beginning the Atkins diet on January 1, 2004. Plus, all those carbs just make you hungrier sooner, so it's better just to eat some delicious eggs cooked in butter, a couple of slices of sausage, and tomato slices to start your day off right. You'll get enough fiber in your body the rest of your day.
TYP: 180 lbs of weight loss in your first year is absolutely astounding.
I take it that you've continued this trend and have lost more weight since your early success. What role did exercise play during your first year and subsequently? How are your food choices today different from that first year?
JM: Yes, that weight loss was indeed one of the greatest accomplishments I have ever experienced in my life. It was a hard-fought battle that even included a 10-week period where I was stalled with no weight loss. But I knew my chosen diet was the right one for me because I felt better than I ever had on a diet, was never hungry because I ate every 2-3 hours, and could see myself doing this for the rest of my life. So far, so good!
It has been close to four years since I began this journey and I am indeed continuing this pathway to better health. My low weight in 2004 was 230 pounds and I currently weigh 225 pounds. As long as I keep my carbs reduced, I am able to maintain my weight right where it is. I've had minor fluctuations in both directions where I got down to as low as 215 pounds at one point (but didn't feel good at that weight) and as high as 252 pounds (when I was allowing myself one too many high-carb foods here and there).
There's a balance that people need to find for themselves and it's different for all of us. I am one of the unlucky people who has to keep his carbohydrate intake below 50g daily or I gain. It's just a fact of life that I've come to grips with and realize is a necessity in order to manage my weight for the rest of my life. But I wouldn't have it any other way!
Exercise was indeed a part of my low-carb weight loss success in 2004 as I forced myself to do cardio every single day as a commitment to this journey. In hindsight, that was probably not the best thing for me to do since the body has a rather peculiar way of telling you it needs to wiggle and move spontaneously on its own rather than forcing the issue. But I consider the exercise I did to be such an integral part of my success that I dedicated an entire chapter of my book to the subject.
Today, my daily cardio routine is out the window and I choose instead to engage in activities outside the gym that let me burn calories and have some fun in the process. I regularly play volleyball, basketball, and referee flag football at my church which all give me quite a workout. I'm very physically active and fit on my 6'3" body and just enjoy burning off all this excess energy that I have been given since losing nearly have my weight! I do want to get into a little more organized resistance training routine soon to try to shape and tone some areas of my body that still show signs of that 410-pound man I used to be (although the loose, hanging skin in my abdomen and inner thighs isn't going to get any better with exercise since the elasticity has been ruined from being stretched out so far). Here is a link to some posts and pictures I have written about this subject: http://lowcarblinks.blogspot.com/2007/04/theme-based-low-carb-links-loose-skin.html
As for my food choices today compared to my weight loss year in 2004, they haven't really changed a whole lot. This was a lifestyle change in every sense of the phrase and I've learned to implement this way of eating into a permanent and healthy diet that I can and will gladly live with forever and ever amen. I probably eat more berries, melons, and nuts today than I did then, but otherwise it's the identical diet.
TYP: I'm sure that you are as impressed as I am that much of the wisdom in healthy eating doesn't always come from doctors or clinical studies, but from the collective wisdom that emerges from this national experiment (inadvertent, for the most part) in eating. Your Livin' La Vida Low-Carb is, in my view, a perfect example of the sort of wisdom that is helping all of us understand what happened to our health over the last 20 years.
Does the approach you advocate today differ in any substantial way from the diet as originally articulated by Dr. Atkins?
JM: Actually, my personal diet is precisely based on the teaching of the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins in his classic bestseller DR. ATKINS' NEW DIET REVOLUTION (DANDR) book. But most people are surprised when they learn I do not necessarily advocate the Atkins diet as the nutritional approach for everyone.
Nope, I sure don't!
Instead, my philosophy is simple: Find the diet plan that will work for YOU, read and research everything you can about that chosen plan, follow that plan exactly as prescribed by the author of that book, and then KEEP doing that plan for the rest of your life. If you do that, then there's no reason why you can't succeed just like I did.
Anyone interested in doing the low-carb lifestyle and needs help finding which plan is right for them, let me HIGHLY encourage you to pick up a copy of Dr. Jonny Bowden's LIVING THE LOW-CARB LIFE (read my review: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2005/05/must-have-book-for-everybody-doing-low.html). It's the perfect overview of low-carb living with a comparison and recap of the major plans.
THANK YOU again for allowing me to share my story with you and your readers, Dr. Davis!
TYP: And thanks to you, Jimmy!
For more on Jimmy Moore's lively and informative discussion of these issues, go to
Some people have called CT heart scans the "mammogram of the heart." The analogy contains a lot of wisdom.
First of all, both--mammograms and CT heart scans--are screening tests, one for cancer, of course, the other for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Both are performed in specific age groups, mammograms in women 40 years and over (generally), heart scans in women 50 years and over (generally).
Mammograms: Left, normal; right, a small mass. (Courtesy Nat'l Institutes of Health and Wikipedia.)
Both are also meant to be repeated periodically when normal as a surveillance process.
Both use low quantities of radiation of about 0.3-0.4 mSv (the most real-life measure of total body exposure), a modest quantity of radiation.
Both are good for their purposes, though not perfect. Can a mammogram performed properly miss a small cancerous mass? Sure it can, but it's still unusual. Can a CT heart scan miss the non-calcified plaque prone to rupture? Sure it can, but this is also unlikely (<5% probability).
Given the exorbitant costs of medical tests, both are quite inexpensive. On the flip side, they are both also quite unprofitable for the centers providing the tests. Unfortunately, this means that mammography centers and heart scan centers come and go because of the difficulties of the profit-side of these services.
Both tests initially struggled to gain acceptance among the medical community. In 1960, for instance, mammograms were performed on standard x-ray devices, the same as that used to perform chest x-rays--low precision, high radiation back then. In 1969, dedicated mammography devices made the scene. However, it took over 10 years for even these new dedicated devices to become widely used. Use of mammograms has gradually increased over the ensuing 20 years. In other words, 47 yearshave passed since the introduction of mammography.
CT heart scans, of course, have had a shorter history of approximately 20 years, since engineer, Dr. Douglas Boyd, first invented the "ultra-fast" EBT devices, the first devices with sufficient scanning speed to scan the heart and coronary arteries.
One interesting difference between the two: In a woman between the age of 50 and 60, the likelihood of detecting cancer is 1 in 237. The likelihood of detecting coronary atherosclerotic plaque? About 1 in 4. Coronary disease eventually kills 1 in 3 females, hugely overshadowing breast cancer in frequency.
Progress on both fronts, one in cancer detection, the other in atherosclerotic coronary plaque detection. But still lots more progress to go.
I’m fascinated by the perspectives that nutritionists (free-thinking ones, at least), food scientists, and biochemists bring on nutrition and nutritional supplements.
A few months ago, I met a fascinating nutritionist/biochemist named Susie Rockway, PhD. Dr. Rockway brings a world of experience in the world of nutritional supplements, clinical trials with supplements, and their development. She has special expertise in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), having been among the scientists who initially developed CLA as a supplement. We are also exploring CLA as a possible addition to the Track Your Plaque program and wanted to get Dr. Rockway’s perspectives.
So I asked Dr. Rockway if she’d answer a few questions for us.
TYP: Dr. Rockway, we understand that you are particularly excited about the prospects of CLA for FAT loss and perhaps for regression of atherosclerosis. Can you tell us about the origins of your interest in CLA and why you're so enthusiastic?
Dr. Rockway: I have been fascinated with this unique fatty acid since the early 1990’s when CLA was first being discussed as nature’s most potent anti-carcinogen. I was then working in the granting/funding section of the National Dairy Council and saw this molecule as truly one of the future functional fats that would likely benefit people (next to omega-3’s!)
I think the benefits of CLA have just begun to be investigated—animal studies are extraordinary for showing fat reduction, lean mass (muscle) increases, immune enhancements, blood glucose normalization, anti-inflammatory properties and plaque reduction!
Human data to date is very encouraging for fat reduction. As a nutritionist seeing the massive increase in abdominal fat (stomach fat) in the world population and the direct relationship to cardiovascular disease, I see CLA as a great supplement to take to help this. Of course eating lots of vegetables, fruit, lean protein and whole grain products is also a must for maximizing good health.
I am studying the impact of CLA in reducing muscle loss in aging women—a condition known as sarcopenia. As we lose muscle with age, we lose strength, falls increase, we become frailer, and eventually many of us lose our independence. Along with the muscle atrophy, most people gain fat—never a good thing! So, if CLA can reduce fat and increase muscle, our bodies are more likely to withstand the hurdles that life throws at us much more efficiently.
So, how can you not be excited about this very bioactive molecule?
TYP: What are your specific areas of interest in nutrition and health?
Dr. Rockway: I strive to understand the role of bioactive molecules that can be taken to improve the aging process and enhance health.
As a trained nutritional biochemist, we tend to look at cell metabolism in a very ideal sense: what we learned in our biochemistry texts years ago where all substrates, proteins, enzymes, etc. are made exactly when we need them, where all cells behave as they should.
Unfortunately, little research has been devoted to understanding the changes in metabolism as we age. Do we still produce everything as efficiently as when we were 20? I suspect not. So, I think we need a little help, and supplements are a key to getting there.
Two nutrients that I think are emerging as “super nutrients” are the fatty acids found in fish oil (EPA and DHA) and vitamin D. Where we know these two nutrients are essential for life, we are seeing that they play a huge role in the QUALITY of life. Mood, depression, PMS, wound healing, bone growth, atherosclerosis, and arthritis are clinical areas where we see a direct benefit with doses of omega-3 and Vitamin D that are probably much greater than the RDA. Our current requirements for nutrients are really based on fixing deficiencies and not maximizing health, and maximizing health is where I’m at.
Thus, I am very interested molecules like CLA as mentioned above, and other bioactive ingredients such as plant derived ingredients (phytochemicals) called flavonoids that may well help explain why people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables are less likely to have certain cancers and heart disease. Reducing oxidative stress through foods that provide these active molecules (think colored fruits and veggies) is a new and exciting area of research.
TYP:The big "diet experiment" in America has clearly steered people in the wrong direction, usually by 50 or more pounds. As a scientist in nutrition, what are your thoughts?
Dr. Rockway: The American Heart Association was keen 20 years ago to promote the low-fat diet for all Americans as the key way to reduce cholesterol levels and decrease chance of heart disease, the number one killer of men and women. However, I must admit the nutritional community bought into this one, too. Unfortunately, the general public took this message to reduce percent fat in their diet (and they did a bit), but increased overall calories instead—and a large portion of the increased calories was from simple carbohydrates. I’m convinced that this in itself has been part of the huge rise in obesity…we simply eat more food and it’s not the healthy kind of food either.
When you increase sugar intake beyond what you burn off, you will store some of it as glycogen in the liver and muscles, but you will convert most of the excess into fat—and that we can store very efficiently! The fat that is made in the liver is sent to the blood as VLDL’s which are the precursor to the class of lipids called low density lipoproteins (LDL) that are the “lethal” type of cholesterol circulating in our blood.
So, Americans now have to listen to a new message that they need to eat more fruits and vegetables in hopes they will cut down on fast foods—tending to be high in fat (saturated particularly), low in fiber and low in nutrients and other high calorie dense foods. We nutritionists have our work cut out for us, that’s for sure.
TYP: We are especially excited that nutritionists are assuming a leading role in shining light on the confusion in diet and nutrition that has characterized the last 40 years. Do you have a sense for the emerging important issues for the next 10 years?
Dr. Rockway: Certainly, the scientists in the nutritional field are well aware of the problems facing this nation—it’s in fixing them that we fall short!
We aren’t very well coordinated to get a single message out, nor do we all agree on what that message should be. I feel that people need to eat healthy MOST OF THE TIME, exercise all of the time, and take supplements that have clear evidence of benefit. Lots of my colleagues would not concur with supplement use. Our bodies were designed to move a lot and eat a lot…we just do the latter now and are paying the price!
One emerging and very exciting area that we have to teach Americans is that all fat is not bad. The different types of fat—omega-6 vs. omega-3, are where we need to focus our education.
Decreasing the corn oil we pour on everything needs to go out the window! Consume olive oil and eat fish or take fish oil supplements—we simply have tons and tons of research showing the benefits of reducing the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. Did you know that cattle that are grass fed actually have less omega-6 in their tissues and more CLA? But most cattle are fed corn-based diets, so we have perturbed their natural selection of food and their fat composition.
See, it all comes back to CLA!
TYP: Thanks, Susie!
Susie Rockway, Ph.D., C.N.S.
Dr. Susie Rockway is an experienced scientist with accomplishments in both the academic and food and supplement industry business directing science/technology research. Her background includes faculty appointments at the graduate level in teaching and research at Rush University Medical Center and industrial experience managing basic and applied research studies.
Dr. Rockway received her Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences, Biochemistry from the University of Arizona. Dr. Rockway has authored several publications in journals such as the Physiological Genomics, Journal of Nutrition, the Journal of Food Science, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health and has published chapters on nutrition on inflammatory bowel diseases. She is a member of the American Society for Nutrition, American Oil Chemists Society, the Institute of Food Technology, American College of Nutrition and is a Certified Nutrition Specialist.
We're also proud to add Dr. Rockway to our panel of Track Your Plaque Experts.
If you have the common pattern of high LDL particle number (NMR) with small LDL--a pattern highly related to coronary plaque--which is better:
Lipitor or a combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat?
Lipitor quite effectively reduces LDL particle number, usually on the order of 40% or so. Effect on LDL particle size: None. Side-effects: plenty, including muscle aches (inevitable in my experience, not the ridiculous 2% they claim) and occasionally mental effects such as impaired short-term memory.
Lipitor does seem to exert a modest effect on reduction of C-reactive protein, around 30%. It also reduces cardiovascular events by 30%.
A combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat:
Reduces LDL particle number commonly by a similar 40% (though variable, depending on body weight). There is substantial improvement in LDL particle size, a large drop in C-reactive protein, often >50%, a 30% or more reduction in cardiovacular events.
On this combination, however, you also:
--Lose weight, often substantially.
--Improve bone health, esp. osteoporosis and arthritis.
--Reduce cancer risk from the vit D supplementation.
--Reduce risk of stroke.
--Reduce postprandial (after-eating) abnormalities like intermediate-density lipoprotein.
--Reduce winter blues.
--Experience more energy.
--Obtain increased clarity of thought (from elimination of wheat).
What I'm referring to is the incredibly lame information I come across that passes as "heart health" on the internet, magazines, and other media. Just to keep abreast of what is being said, I subscribe to multiple newsletters and magazines and I witness the sorts of advice offered to the reading public.
A recent long-winded article on a popular website listed the "exciting" strategies available for a healthy heart:
Eat healthy--by eating a "balanced" diet low in saturated fat
Don't smoke
Exercise
Don't ignore chest pain symptoms or breathlessness
Know your numbers! meaning your cholesterol numbers. "If your cholesterol is high, you may need to speak to your doctor about medication to reduce it."
Surely they must all believe we're stupid. Otherwise, why would they repeat the same obvious information over and over again? Quit smoking? Gee, you think so?
How about some real heart healthy advice:
Get a heart scan--since we have to accept that cholesterol values are a miserable failure in detecting hidden heart disease. So is waiting for symptoms to appear.
If you have any measure of coronary plaque, ask your doctor to assess lipoproteins, not lipids (cholesterol).
Take fish oil for omega-3 fatty acids--At a dose of 1000 mg or more of EPA + DHA, heart attack risk is reduced by at least 28%.
Eliminate wheat and other processed carbohydrates --Small LDL has emerged as the number one cause of coronary plaque, not high cholesterol from saturated fat.
Get vitamin D assessed--The effects are huge--HUGE. There's already a study in a kidney disease population that showed a substantial reduction in mortality with vitamin D supplementation. More data are coming, including our own.
That's a start--truly effective, practical heart healthy strategies that go way beyond the conventional bland advice.
First, let me qualify by saying that heart scan have indeed grown in popularity over the past decade. I think the real question is:
Given the enormous usefulness of CT heart scanning to detect hidden, asymptomatic coronary atherosclerotic plaque, why haven't they more readily been incorporated into conventional medical practice?
That's easy: There's no money in it.
Say, for instance, your doctor orders a heart scan and somehow receives a $1000 for the test. Scan centers would be scanning 100 people a day, falling over themselves to do scans.
This would be similar to a heart catheterization. Order a catheterization, do 30 minutes of work, and get $1000. Or, order a nuclear stress test. Depending on how its done and where, $1800-4000 is paid by the insurer.
Order a CT heart scan and how much is paid to the doctor? Usually nothing. At most, a nominal fee might be paid if the doctor reads the scan.
With heart scans, there simply is no big payoff.
We learned the implications of this situation 10 years ago when I was trying to help my friend, Steve Burlingame, the owner of Milwaukee Heart Scan. (I am NOT and NEVER WAS an owner.) Steve was trying to let everybody know about this great new $2 million dollar heart scan device in the Milwaukee area.
The first few years were tough for Steve: Carrying the substantial expense of this device while doctors essentially gave the technology the cold shoulder. It simply did not fit into the financial equation. Why change the way things were, particularly when there was virtually no financial reason to do so? To counter this, Milwaukee Heart Scan followed the model many other scan centers have followed and marketed directly to the public.
I see this as yet another example of why people need to take control of health care away from doctors and hospitals, the current controllers of the system who are providing a disservice to the public they are supposed to be serving. These institutions, for the most part, serve their self-serving financial interests, not your health interests. It's the same equation that drives food manufacturers to make more and more processed carbohydrate foods that they sell for substantial markups, not green peppers and cucumbers that make little money.
I regard heart scans as among the greatest self-empowering tools in health ever conceived. It was that way in 1997; it remains that way in 2007.
Ginnie came in for an opinion about her heart scan score of 393. At age 57, this put her in the 99th percentile, a high score.
As usual, we did a lipoprotein analysis by NMR (Liposcience). Some numbers:
LDL cholesterol: 96 mg/dl This value puts Ginnie's LDL in the most favorable 25% in the country.
LDL particle number: 2140 nmol/l This value is in the worst 25% of the country and is the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 214 mg/dl (take off the zero).
In addition, over 90% of Ginnie's LDL particles fell into the small class.
Had we run some other values, how would they have turned out? These are my estimates (since we didn't actually run them in Ginnie), but having run side-by-side numbers in past, reasonable estimates would have put:
Apoprotein B somewhere in the 120 to 140 mg/dl range
Direct LDL 100-130 mg/dl range.
In other words, conventional calculated LDL is the least reliable of all the ways of examining low-density lipoprotein.
It can also go the other way: High calculated LDL, low LDL particle number or ApoB or direct LDL. And, indeed, these other measures have proven superior in their ability to predict "events" like heart attack over conventional calculated LDL.
Unfortunately, relying on conventional LDL is like a broken speedometer on your car. You really can't gauge accurately how fast you're going; sometimes you could be way off. While insurance companies and many physicians still continue to balk at this argument, the data have already been generated that show that lipoprotein analysis (my bias is NMR) is not just superior, but enormously superior for accuracy and event prediction.
In addition, lipoprotein analysis has proven a crucial tool that accounts for our extraordinary success in reducing and controlling CT heart scan scores in the Track Your Plaque program. I doubt that we could have achieved the same level of success using conventional lipids.
I'm also aware of the logistical difficulties obtaining lipoprotein testing in a world enthusiastically supportive of hospital procedures and smugly ignorant of superior prevention tools like lipoprotein analysis. I've learned just how difficult it can be in our Track Your Plaque Member Forum; I've also learned about some strategies for obtaining these tests that I hadn't been aware of, thanks to the resourcefulness of our Members.
We will be working on some solutions in the coming months.
You correct your lipoprotein pattterns, take fish oil, correct 25-OH-vitamin D3 to 50 ng/ml, correct your other hidden patterns, follow a diet suited to your patterns.
One year later, you get another heart scan. What score would constitute "success"?
With all of our recent talk about record-setting reductions in heart scan scores, is it really necessary to drop your score that much to succeed?
For instance, is our latest record-setting 63% drop in score better than "only" a 10% drop in score? Both represent reversal of coronary plaque. Both signify huge reductions in risk for plaque rupture, or heart attack.
You can read about how we view the various forms of success in the program by reading our latest Track Your Plaque Special Report, Winning Your Personal War with Heart Disease: The Track Your Plaque 5 Stages of Success.
We are making the Report available to everyone. Just go to the www.cureality.com homepage.
