Look like Jimmy Stewart

15. January 2010 William Davis (23)

"This diet works great," Don declared. "But I think I've lost too much weight."

At 67 years old and 5 ft. 11 inches, Don began the program weighing 228 lbs (BMI 31.9). Because of high triglycerides, high blood sugar, high c-reactive protein, and excessive small LDL, I instructed Don to eliminate all wheat products from his diet, along with cornstarch and sweets. His intake of lean meats, eggs, vegetables, oils, raw nuts, etc. was unlimited.

Don now weighed 194 lbs, down 34 lbs over 6 months (BMI 27.1). Triglycerides, blood sugar, blood pressure, and well-being had improved dramatically; small LDL, however, had dropped only 30%--still room for improvement.

"My friends say I'm too skinny. They ask if I have cancer!"

I've heard this many times: Someone loses weight in a relatively short period of time and friends and family tell you you're too skinny. "It must be cancer. Nobody loses weight like that."

Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten what normal looks like. Normal is certainly not a 190-lb, 5 ft 4 in woman, nor is it a 228 lb, 5 ft 11 inch man. But Americans have put on so much weight that the prevailing view of what constitutes "normal" weight has been revised upward. Normal is closer to what we see in old movies from the 1940s and '50s with people like Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. That's what we are supposed to look like.

So Don actually remains mildly overweight but is judged as "too skinny," or even cancer-ridden, by friends and family.

Ignore such comments. As you lose pounds and approach a truly desirable weight, realize that you are returning to the normal state, not the vision of "normal" now held by most Americans.
Tags :

Comments (23) -

  • AllenS

    1/15/2010 8:40:24 PM |

    This is funny because as a 5'11" male I'm 165lbs and considered by some to be "emaciated" even though I have 10% body fat and quite a bit of muscle. I remember 45 years ago as a kid when my 6' tall father weighed 170lbs. Nobody ever called him skinny because he pretty much looked like all of his friends. He was considered normal at that time. I remember his weight at that time because he often boasted about it seeing as how he only weighed 125 lbs when he was drafted into the Navy.

    We have indeed forgotten what normal looks like.

  • Sarah

    1/15/2010 9:07:45 PM |

    I think you're onto something with this 'standards' business. I'm down to 171 pounds (nearly 70 pounds!) since going on my diet. It hasn't been a FAST loss, but people who haven't seen me in a while are surprised and remark that I look like a 'stick'.

    Since when did 171 fall into the 'stick' range for a 5'4" woman? Maybe >30 BMI is thin for Kentucky.

    Note: I love Jimmy Stewart!

  • Jeanie Campbell

    1/15/2010 10:32:44 PM |

    Excellent post!  My question, then, is, where do we find a reliable place to find out what our desirable weight IS?  I'm not sure I trust the ones I have found on-line.  Can you recommend one?  Especially for folks over 50.  Thanks!

  • whatsonthemenu

    1/15/2010 11:44:56 PM |

    "Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten what normal looks like. Normal is certainly not a 190-lb, 5 ft 4 in woman, nor is it a 228 lb, 5 ft 11 inch man."

    So true.  Walking through the airport terminal on a visit from Asia immediately oriented me back to the US with the long chain of fast food franchises and big, waddling passengers.  A trip to Walmart to see morbidly obese people in motorized carts is a tourist attraction for Asians.  They can't believe it until they see it.

  • jnkdaniel@hotmail.com

    1/16/2010 1:16:58 AM |

    Yes, this blog is definitely detrimental to my fat.

    For five months, I've swam, taken fish oil, cut out juice and bread from my fridge.  As a result I've lost 16 pounds, 12 beats per minute, and 3 off my blood pressure.

    I'm currently 29m 6'2 and at 184 lb, 48 bpm resting, and at 125 for blood pressure.

    It is truly scary to see how easy it is to lose weight once you know how bad certain foods are.  It is borderline addicting!

    I'm curious to see if I will hit an equilibrium or I will have to do something to stop the weight loss once I reach 175-180.

  • Anonymous

    1/16/2010 2:01:02 AM |

    This is so true, many of my friends think I'm extremely skinny, yet I'm at my optimal weight. My mom refuses to lose more weight,she says "people will say that I look old and sick"

  • Anonymous

    1/16/2010 6:26:42 AM |

    You hit the nail on the head. I too, as a 50-something year old male, was about 220 at 5'10" last year this time, and as I approached 185 mid-year, several folks asked, "Are you all right?" and "Did you intend to lose the weight?" Yet I still am not at an ideal weight for my height, and although I look slim in comparison, I still have abdominal fat that needs to go. I've also had people tell me, "You look too thin," and "Don't lose any more weight." We must recapture a sense of normal. However, during a recent visit to a Glen Ivy Spa in So. Cal. my wife and I marveled at how many grossly obese people there were sauntering around in swimsuits. We've definitely got a problem here. For me, I'd rather look like Jimmie Stewart or Jack Lalane or Art Devany, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it!

  • pmpctek

    1/16/2010 7:20:44 AM |

    I had a friend say to me once, "you lost a lot of weight, are you sick 'r something?"

    I'm a 5' 9" 49 y.o. North American male and went from 192 lbs. to 168 lbs. in nine months.  This was a couple years ago. I lost most of it off my mid-section and face.  I have the incredible shrinking waist (now 30 inches.)

    I did this by simply eliminating grains, starches, and sugars.  I actually had to slightly increase my daily calorie intake (than when I weighed 192) because I too was concerned I might have been losing too much weight.

    When I share with family and friends why I look so lean, that it's from permanent grain, starch and sugar abstention, they always respond with "oh no, I can't do that"  or "how can you do that?"

  • Kurt

    1/16/2010 1:36:58 PM |

    This is reassuring. I've been worrying because, since I started a heart healthy diet, I've gone from 183 lbs to 167 lbs, which is less than I weighed when I was 18 years old (170).

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/16/2010 3:00:21 PM |

    Hi, Jeannie--

    There are a number of ways to determine ideal weight. BMI, though an imperfect concept, is a good starting place. Here's a BMI calculator: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

    This gives me an idea for a future post: "What is ideal weight?"

  • Aaron Blaisdell

    1/16/2010 4:20:20 PM |

    I won't even tell you what my Chinese in-laws think. Two English words my Chinese-speaking mother-in-law knows are "eat more." I always fend her of with with the retort "Che bao la."

  • Eclecbit

    1/16/2010 6:07:27 PM |

    There's also the problem of finding clothes that fit. I'm a 5'11" male and weigh 152lbs. I've got a 32" waist, but when I try on 32" waist pants they fall off of me because they're really 34" (I believe this is called vanity sizing), so I look for the 30" waist pants and guess what? There are none!

    Maybe it's because I live in the South, but 30" waist pants are pretty much non-existent, and the ones that I do find are always too short.

    My wife used to think I was too skinny, but then she remembered all her Oriental friends back in California who are as skinny as I am. For them it's considered normal.

  • Steve L.

    1/16/2010 6:26:22 PM |

    I say revel in it!  I knew from past temporary weight loss that people would start to notice after I lost 30 pounds or so.  Since I needed to lose 70 to get to ideal weight, I also knew that those comments were nothing but signs of sucess.  We truly have adapted to a new normal in our perceptions.  The shock value does diminish over time though.  Now three years out from adopting a healthy diet (currently 6'3", 190 lbs.), I got all the comments along the way, but now people have adjusted to my new look (as have I).  Once in a while though, I see someone, usually business-related, that I haven't seen for a few years, and they're shocked.  I just enjoy it, and try to recruit them over from the dark side.

    The thing that I find interesting now is that, while I was losing people were interesting in why I was losing, and several adopted the low-carb/paleo approach with great success.  But now that I have reached an ideal weight, the memory of the previous me fades, and few see me as a potential source of healthy diet information.  I think some actually think I must be a bit of a freak for having done so well, and so there's nothing useful to be learned from me by non-freaks.

  • Anne

    1/16/2010 9:36:40 PM |

    I am another who lost weight when I dropped all grains and sugars and greatly limited high carb veges and fruits. The weight just melted away. I did not need to lose much and when I hit 20 lbs, the weight loss stopped. I have been at 120-125 for many months now. I am 5' 4". I never feel hungry eating the higher fat diet. Honestly, sometimes I do miss the junky food but not enough to eat it and jeopardize my health.

  • Nick

    1/17/2010 3:38:15 AM |

    I wonder if anyone has information on cornstarch and why it places right next to wheat as a 'food' to avoid?  I have seen a great deal of convincing argument with regard to wheat, but almost none with regard to cornstarch (other than for those who may need to closely watch blood glucose levels).  

    If anyone can lead me to more information on how it affects our organism, I would great appreciate it.

  • steve

    1/17/2010 4:21:28 PM |

    Dr. Davis.  If you do a post on ideal weight, it might be helpful to include a discussion of muscle mass.  Many athletes are heavier than those of comparable ages in the general population, but have body fat levels that are extremely low.  There is a trade-off with weight loss and muscle loss, and I suppose a happy equilibrium at some leve.  Perhaps body fat level is a better gauge than absolute weight level, but hard to accuratley measure.  Thanks,

  • Claire

    1/18/2010 6:40:22 AM |

    I read an newspaper article about how parents in the UK didn't realise their children were obese. Yes, that's obese - not just overweight.

    We have lost sight of what it is to be of normal weight. I catch myself looking at people's sizes in old movies to remind myself of what "normal" should be.

  • AllenS

    1/18/2010 5:43:56 PM |

    I really don't like the BMI indicator. First, there is no differentiation between males and females or body type. Fit males who have any kind of muscle tone or who may be big-boned will invariably have a BMI greater than 25. I'm very close even though I'm only 10% body fat.

    Instead, I think that a better measure is to ignore weight altogether and get your % body fat computed. Ideally it should be 14-17% for males and 21-24% for females.

    I too have difficulty finding pants that fit. I wear a 30" waist. Its tough to find anything smaller than a 38"-40" waist which is pretty sad.

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2010 11:57:30 PM |

    Based on the posts here on HeartScan and my brothers insistence Atkin's was his preferred effective weight control solution, I started eating meat again after 10 years of being a pescatarian. I put on 12 lbs in 3 months.  OK, I am not too keen on eating slabs of meat and may have gone overboard with sausage meat / chicken wings but I hope my next blood test will show an increase in HDL as a result of the added fat and lower wheat/grains

    BTW. I stopped my 20mgs crestor and got a base line several months back (too scary !). I have taken 20mgs and 40mgs crestor with the latter leading to some muscle pain but perfect LDL (60). HDL only went up with Niacin (31 to 45 )

    What I want is no more than 20mgs crestor (which gives me LDL circa 75 and I can tolerate well) and to elevate my HDL to 60 without having to eat raw cow.

    This site is a great resource. I would like to see Dr D square off against the celeb TV Dr Oz who pushes high grain diets and low saturated fat.
    Trev

  • Apolloswabbie

    1/30/2010 10:03:43 PM |

    I think some of the response to too skinny is because folks are faced with how 'not skinny' they are looking at those who are not.

  • Anonymous

    2/8/2010 10:14:07 PM |

    I'm a caucasian male, 6'2" and I've been healthily below 160.  I have a thin body.  I don't know if it's because my bones are smaller, or what, but this is normal for me.

    And, I feel for the thin folks in the south.  When we lived in TN for a few years, I had a heck of a time finding 32" waist pants.  Now that I'm back in CA, it's much easier.

  • lockeender

    5/6/2010 4:09:25 AM |

    Jimmy Stewart was thought too skinny by Hollywood and the Army at the time.  When he was first signed to MGM they recognized that Stewart had an uncanny screen charisma and great star potential, but they considered him just so goofy looking that they didn't buy him having any male star sex appeal.  MGM wanted someone to compete with Tyrone Power, Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy and up and comers like Cary Grant (Grant would be a better example for you than Stewart).  Before MGM ever put Stewart in a movie they put him with one of the studio weight trainers, hoping to add some muscle to his physique.  The trainer had Stewart lifting weights and drinking a gallon of milk everyday.  After a month of this regimen Stewart had gained about three pounds, mostly of bloat.  MGM put him in a variety of bit parts but they figured he was basically useless to them so they loaned him out to Columbia for a pair of pictures, You Can't Take it with You and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  Stewart's star was made and he returned to MGM to make a slew of great films, Destry rides again, Philadelphia Story, & The shop Around the corner.  Stewart came from a very patriotic, midwestern family.  in 1940 Stewart basically quit his studio contract (after filming A Mortal Storm) and recognizing the world situation, he went to enlist in the Army with the idea of entering the Air Corps to train as a pilot.  He was rejected flat out because he did not weigh enough for the minimum standard to enlist.  And Stewart was 6' 3&3/4" he weighed next to nothing!  Since he was only a few lbs under, Stewart went back the next week, this time after waterloading himself.  he barely made it through the physical before bursting, but he was able to eek over that minimum weight standard by a single pound.  By the time Pearl Harbor hit, Stewart was a certified pilot and he spent most of the war continually flying bombing missions over Europe.

    Cary Grant on the other hand, would be a superb example. Grant began life as a circus tumbler, and he maintained his athleticism throughout his life.  His remarkable lack of aging until his final decade was due to his  eschewing alcohol and smoking in his private life, which was both very rare at the time and ironic considering the suave characters he played always drank and smoked.  He may also have been one of the oddball anti-sugar hollywood types (Gloria Swanson was one) that refused to eat anything with sugar in it.  But I'm not certain on that.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:43:15 PM |

    Ignore such comments. As you lose pounds and approach a truly desirable weight, realize that you are returning to the normal state, not the vision of "normal" now held by most Americans.

Add comment

Loading
All posts by william-davis

Medicine ain't what it used to be

15. June 2011 William Davis (0)
The practice of medicine ain't what it used to be.

For instance:

White coats are out-of-date--Not only do they serve as filthy reservoirs of microorganisms (since they hang unwashed after repeated use week after week), they only serve to distance the practitioner from the patient, an outdated notion that should join electroshock therapy to treat homosexuality and other "disorders" in the museum of outdated medical practices.

Normal cholesterol panel . . . no heart disease?

15. June 2011 William Davis (19)
I often hear this comment: "I have a normal cholesterol panel. So I have low risk for heart disease, right?"

While there's a germ of truth in the statement, there are many exceptions. Having "normal" cholesterol values is far from a guarantee that you won't drop over at your daughter's wedding or find yourself lying on a gurney at your nearest profit-center-for-health, aka hospital, heading for the cath lab.

Statistically, large populations do indeed show fewer heart attacks at the lower end of the curve for low total and  LDL cholesterol and the higher end of HDL. But that's on a population basis. When applied to a specific individual, population observations can fall apart. Heart attack can occur at the low risk end of the curve; no heart attack can occur at the high risk end of the curve.

First of all, to me a "normal" lipid panel is not adhering to the lax notion of "normal" specified in the lab's "reference range" drawn from population observations. Most labs, for instance, specify that an HDL cholesterol of 40 mg/dl or more and triglycerides of 150 mg/dl or less are in the normal ranges. However, heart disease can readily occur with normal values of, say, an HDL of 48 mg/dl and triglycerides of 125 mg/dl, both of which allow substantial small oxidation-prone LDL particles to develop. So "normal" may not be ideal or desirable. Look at any study comparing people with heart disease vs. those without, for instance: Typical HDLs in people with heart attacks are around 46 mg/dl, while HDLs in people without heart attacks typically average 48 mg/dl--there is nearly perfect overlap in the distribution curves.

There are also causes for heart disease that are not revealed by the lipid values. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is among the most important exceptions: You can have a heart attack, stroke, three stents or bypass surgery at age 40 even with spectacular lipid values if you have this genetically-determined condition. And it's not rare, since 11% of the population express it. How about people with the apo E2 genetic variation? These people tend to have normal fasting cholesterol values (if they have only one copy of E2, not two) but have extravagant abnormalities after they eat that contribute to risk. You won't know this from a standard cholesterol panel.

Vitamin D deficiency can be suggested by low HDL and omega-3 fatty acid deficiency suggested by higher triglycerides, but deficiencies of both can exist in severe degrees even with reasonably favorable ranges for both lipid values. Despite the recent inane comments by the Institute of Medicine committee, from what I've witnessed from replacing vitamin D to achieve serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 60-70 ng/ml, vitamin D deficiency is among the most powerful and correctable causes of heart disease I've ever seen. And, while greater quantities of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are associated with lower triglycerides, they are even better at reducing postprandial phenomena, i.e., the after-eating flood of lipoproteins like VLDL and chylomicron remnants, that underlie formation of much atherosclerotic plaque--but not revealed by fasting lipids.

I view standard cholesterol panels as the 1963 version of heart disease prediction. We've come a long way since then and we now have far better tools for prediction of heart attack. Yet the majority of physicians and the public still follow the outdated notion that a cholesterol panel is sufficient to predict your heart's future. Nostalgic, quaint perhaps, but as outdated as transistor radios and prime time acts on the Ed Sullivan show.

 

Idiot farm

11. June 2011 William Davis (10)
The notion of genetic modification of foods and livestock is a contentious issue. The purposeful insertion or deletion of a gene into a plant or animal's genome to yield specific traits, such as herbicide resistance, nutritional composition, or size, prompted the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international effort to regulate the safety of foods, to issue guidelines concerning genetically-modified foods.

The committee is aware of the concept of unintended effects, i.e., effects that were not part of the original gene insertion or deletion design. In their report, last updated in 2009, they state that:

Unintended effects can result from the random insertion of DNA sequences into the plant genome, which may cause disruption or silencing of existing genes, activation of silent genes, or modifications in the expression of existing genes. Unintended effects may also result in the formation of new or changed patterns of metabolites. For example, the expression of enzymes at high levels may give rise to secondary biochemical effects or changes in the regulation of metabolic pathways and/or altered levels of metabolites.

They make the point that food crops generated using techniques without genetic modification are released into the food supply without safety testing:

New varieties of corn, soybean, potatoes and other common food plants are evaluated by breeders for agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, but generally, foods derived from such new plant varieties are not subjected to the rigorous and extensive food safety testing procedures, including studies in animals, that are typical of chemicals, such as food additives or pesticide residues, that may be present in food.

In other words, conventional plant breeding techniques, such as hybridization, backcrossing, and introgression, practices that include crossing parental plants with their progeny over and over again or crossing a plant with an unrelated plant, yield unique plants that are not subject to any regulation. This means that unintended effects that arise are often not identified or tested. Plant geneticists know that, when one plant is crossed with another, approximately 5% of the genes in the offspring are unique to that plant and not present in either parent. It means that offspring may express new characteristics, such as unique gliadin or gluten proteins in wheat, not expressed in either parent and with new immunological potential in consuming humans.

Dr. James Maryanski, the FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator, stated during Congressional testimony in 1999 that:

The new gene splicing techniques are being used to achieve many of the same goals and improvements that plant breeders have sought through conventional methods. Today's techniques are different from their predecessors in two significant ways. First, they can be used with greater precision and allow for more complete characterization and, therefore, greater predictability about the qualities of the new variety. These techniques give scientists the ability to isolate genes and to introduce new traits into foods without simultaneously introducing many other undesirable traits, as may occur with traditional breeding. [Emphasis mine.]

Efforts by the Codex Alimentarius and FDA are meant to control the introduction and specify safety testing procedures for genetically modified foods. But both organizations have publicly stated that there is another larger problem that has not been addressed that predates genetic modification. In other words, conventional methods like hybridization techniques, the crossing of different strains of a crop or crossing two dissimilar plants (e.g., wheat with a wild grass) have been practiced for decades before genetic modification became possible. And it is still going on.

In other words, the potential hazards of hybridization, often taken to extremes, have essentially been ignored. Hybridized plants are introduced into the food supply with no question of human safety. While hybridization can yield what appear to be benign foods, such as the tangelo, a hybrid of tangerines and grapefruit, it can also yield plants containing extensive unintended effects. It means that unique immunological sequences can be generated. It might be a unique gliadin sequence in wheat or a unique lectin sequence in beans. None are tested prior to selling to humans. So the world frets over the potential dangers of genetic modification while, all along, the much larger hazard of hybridization techniques have been--and still are--going on.

Imagine we applied the hybridization techniques applied by plant geneticists to humans, mating an uncle with his niece, then having the uncle mate again with the offspring, repeating it over and over until some trait was fully expressed. Such extensive inbreeding was practiced in the 19th century German village of Dilsberg, what Mark Twain described as "a thriving and diligent idiot factory."

Eat triglycerides

8. June 2011 William Davis (31)
Dietary fats, from olive oil to cocoa butter to beef tallow, are made of triglycerides.

Triglycerides are simply three ("tri-") fatty acids attached to a glycerol backbone. Glycerol is a simple 3-carbon molecule that readily binds fatty acids. Fatty acids, of course, can be saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated.

Once ingested, the action of the pancreatic enzyme, pancreatic lipase, along with bile acids secreted by the gallbladder, remove triglycerides from glycerol. Triglycerides pass through the intestinal wall and are "repackaged" into large complex triglyceride-rich (about 90% triglycerides) molecules called chylomicrons, which then pass into the lymphatic system, then to the bloodstream. The liver takes up chylomicrons, removes triglycerides which are then repackaged into triglyceride-rich very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL).

So eating triglycerides increases blood levels of triglycerides, repackaged as chylomicrons and VLDL.

Many physicians are frightened of dietary triglycerides, i.e, fats, for fear it will increase blood levels of triglycerides. It's true: Consuming triglycerides does indeed increase blood levels of triglycerides--but only a little bit. Following a fat-rich meal of, say, a 3-egg omelet with 2 tablespoons of olive oil and 2 oz whole milk mozzarella cheese (total 55 grams triglycerides), blood triglycerides will increase modestly. A typical response would be an increase from 60 mg/dl to 80 mg/dl--an increase, but quite small.

Counterintuitively, it's the foods that convert to triglycerides in the liver that send triglycerides up, not 20 mg/dl, but 200, 400, or 1000 mg/dl or more. What foods convert to triglycerides in the liver? Carbohydrates.

After swallowing a piece of multigrain bread, for instance, carbohydrates are released by salivary and gastric amylase, yielding glucose molecules. Glucose is rapidly absorbed through the intestinal tract and into the liver. The liver is magnificently efficient at storing carbohydrate calories by converting them to the body's principal currency of energy, triglycerides, via the process of de novo lipogenesis, the alchemy of converting glucose into triglycerides for storage. The effect is not immediate; it may require many hours for the liver to do its thing, increasing blood triglycerides many hours after the carbohydrate meal.

This explains why people who follow low-fat diets typically have high triglyceride levels--despite limited ingestion of triglycerides. When I cut my calories from fat to 10% or less--a very strict low-fat diet--my triglycerides are 350 mg/dl. When I slash my carbohydrates to 40-50 grams per day but ingest unlimited triglycerides like olive oil, raw nuts, whole milk cheese, fish oil and fish, etc., my triglycerides are 50 mg/dl.

Don't be afraid of triglycerides. But be very careful with the foods that convert to triglycerides: carbohydrates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've come a long way, baby

3. June 2011 William Davis (16)
In 1945, the room-sized ENIAC vacuum tube computer was first turned on, women began to smoke openly in public, and a US postal stamp cost three cents. And this was the US government's advice on healthy eating:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green and yellow vegetables; oranges, tomatoes, grapefruit; potatoes and other vegetables and fruits; followed by milk and milk products; meat, poultry, fish, or eggs; bread, flour, and cereals, butter and fortified margarine.

In 2011, the computing power of the ENIAC can be performed by a microchip a few millimeters in width, smoking is now banned in public places, and a first class postage stamp has increased in price by 1466%. And this is the new USDA Food Plate for Americans:



 

 

 

 

 

Have we made any progress over the past 65 years? We certainly have in computing power and awareness of the adverse effects of smoking. But have US government agencies like the USDA kept up with nutritional advice? Compare the 2011 Food Plate with the dietary advice of 1945.

It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions introduced into wheat, corn, and soy; the dangers of fructose; exogenous glycoxidation and lipoxidation products yielded via high-temperature cooking; organic, free-range meats and the dangers of factory farming, etc. None of this, of course, fits the agenda of the USDA.

My advice: The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. They also have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.

 

 

Fasting with green tea

1. June 2011 William Davis (34)
I've been playing around with brief (18-24 hour) fasts with the use of green tea. Of the several variations on fasting, such as juice "fasts,"  I've been most impressed with the green tea experience.

While the weight loss effects of daily green tea consumption are modest, there seems to be a specific satiety effect that has now been demonstrated in multiple studies, such as this and this. In other words, green tea, through an uncertain mechanism, reduces hunger. The effect is not just due to volume, since the effect cannot be reproduced with hot water alone.

I therefore wondered whether green tea might be a useful beverage to consume during a fast, as it might take the "edge" off of hunger. While hunger during a fast in the wheat-free is far less than wheat-consuming humans, there is indeed an occasional twinge of hunger felt.

So I tried it, brewing a fresh 6-8 oz cup evert two hours or so. I brewed a pot in the morning while at home, followed by brewing single cups using my tea infuser at the office. Whenever I began to experience a hunger pang, I brewed another cup and sipped it. I was pleasantly surprised that hunger was considerably reduced. I sailed through my last 18 hours, for instance, effortlessly. The process was actually quite pleasant.

I brew loose Chinese bancha, sencha, and chunmee teas and Japanese gyokuro tea. Gyokuro is my favorite, but also the most expensive. Bancha is more affordable and I've used that most frequently.

If anyone else gives this a try, please report back your experience.

Dreamfields pasta is wheat

28. May 2011 William Davis (11)
An active question on the blogosphere and elsewhere is whether Dreamfields pasta is truly low-carb. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt of Diet Doctor detailed his high blood glucose experience with it. Jimmy Moore of Livin' La Vida Low Carb had a similar experience, observing virtually no difference when compared to conventional pasta.

The Dreamfields people make the claim that "Dreamfields' patent-pending recipe and manufacturing process protects all but 5 grams of the carbohydrates per serving from being digested and therefore lessens post-meal blood glucose rise as compared to traditional pasta." They call the modified carbohydrates "protected" carbs.



In other words, they are making the claim that they've somehow modified the amylopectin A and amylose molecules in durum wheat flour to inhibit conversion to glucose.

I'd like to add something to the conversation: Dreamfields pasta is wheat. It is a graphic demonstration that, no matter how you cut it, press it, sauce it up, "protect" it, it's all the same thing: wheat. (It reminds me of a bad girlfriend I had in my 20s: She'd put on makeup, a pretty dress, I'd take her out someplace nice . . . She was still an annoying person who whined about everything.)

Wheat is more than a carbohydrate. It is also a collection of over 1000 proteins, including gliadins, glutens, and glutenins. Gliadins, for instance, are degraded to polypeptide exorphins that underlie the addictive potential of wheat, as well as its withdrawal phenomenon on halting consumption. Gliadin-derived exorphins are also the triggers of auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions in schizophrenia, as well as behavioral outbursts in children with ADHD and autism.

Wheat is a source of lectins that have the curious effect of "unlocking" the proteins of the intestinal lining, the oddly-named "zonulin" proteins, that protect you from ingested foreign molecules. Ingest wheat lectins and all manner of foreign molecules gain entry into your bloodstream. Cholera works by a similar mechanism. (How about a love story: Bread in the time of cholera?)

Glutens, of course, are responsible for triggering celiac disease, the devastating small intestinal disease that now afflicts 3 million Americans, although 2.7 million don't even know it. Glutens are also responsible for neurologic conditions like cerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, and dementia ("gluten encephalopathy") and the skin condition, dermatitis herpetiformis.

Then there are the conditions for which the active wheat components have not been identified, including acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, asthma (excepting "bakers' asthma), rheumatoid arthritis, edema and fluid retention, and a long list of skin conditions from alopecia to gangrene.

My point: Yeah, Dreamfields pastas, from these instructive experiences, acts a lot like conventional durum wheat pasta. But, even if Dreamfields or somebody else perfects the low-carb aspect of it, it's still wheat. Modern wheat is the genetically tarted-up version of Triticum aestivum, the product of genetic shenanigans from the 1960s and 1970s.

Bet you can't fast

26. May 2011 William Davis (28)
People who continue to consume the world's most destructive grain, i.e., wheat, can rarely endure fasting--not eating for an extended period--except by mustering up monumental willpower. That's because wheat is a powerful appetite stimulant through its 2-hour cycle of exaggerated glycemia followed by a glucose low, along with its addictive exorphin effect. Wheat elimination is therefore an important first step towards allowing you to consider fasting.

Why fast? I regard fasting as among the most underappreciated and underutilized strategies for health.

In its purest form, fasting means eating nothing while maintaining hydration with water alone. (Inadequate hydration is the most common reason for failing, often experienced as nausea or lightheadedness.) You can fast for as briefly as 15 hours or as long as several weeks (though I tell people that any more than 5 days and supervision is required, as electrolyte distortions like dangerously low magnesium levels can develop).

Among its many physiological benefits, fasting can:

  • Reduce blood pressure. The blood pressure reducing effect can be so substantial that I usually have people hold some blood pressure medications, especially ACE inhibitors and ARB agents, during the fast since blood pressure will drop to normal even without the drugs. (A fascinating phenomenon all by itself.)

  • Reduce visceral fat, i.e., the fat that releases inflammatory mediators and generates resistance to insulin.

  • Reduce inflammatory measures

  • Reduce liver output of VLDL that cascades into reduced small LDL, improved HDL "architecture," and improved insulin responsiveness. (The opposite of fasting is "grazing," the ridiculous strategy advocated by many dietitians to control weight. Grazing, or eating small meals every two hours, is incredibly destructive for the opposite reason: flagrant provocation of VLDL production.)

  • Accelerate weight loss. One pound per day is typical.


Beyond this, fasting also achieves unique subjective benefits, including reduced appetite upon resumption of eating. You will find that as single boiled egg or a few slices of cucumber, for example, rapidly generate a feeling of fullness and satisfaction. Most people also experience greater appreciation of food--the sensory experience of eating is heightened and your sense of texture, flavors, sweetness, sourness, etc. are magnified.

After decades of the sense-deadening effects of processed foods--over-sugared, over-salted, reheated, dehydrated then just-add-water foods--fasting reawakens your appreciation for simple, real food. On breaking one of my fasts, I had a slice of green pepper. Despite its simplicity, it was a veritable feast of flavors and textures. Just a few more bites and I was full and satisfied.

Once you've fasted, I believe that you will see why it is often practiced as part of religious ritual. It has an almost spiritual effect.

More on fasting to come . . .

Total cholesterol 220

24. May 2011 William Davis (17)
Talking about total cholesterol is like wearing a tie-dyed t-shirt with the peace sign emblazoned on the front: So totally 60s and out of date.

But talk of total cholesterol somehow keeps on coming back. After I spend 45 minutes discussing a patient's lipoprotein patterns, for instance, they'll asking something like, "But what's my total cholesterol?"

To help put this ridiculous notion of total cholesterol to rest, let me paint several pictures of what total cholesterol can tell you. Let's start with a theoretical, but very common, total cholesterol value of 220 mg/dl. Recall that:

LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

Note that LDL cholesterol is nearly always a calculated value. (Yes, your doctor has been treating a calculated, what I call "fictitious," value.)

Rearranging the equation:

Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + Triglycerides/5

This relationship means that a great many variations are possible, all under total cholesterol = 220 mg/dl. For example:

LDL 95 mg/dl + HDL 105 mg/dl + Triglycerides 100 mg/dl

(a relatively low-risk pattern for heart disease)

LDL 160 mg/dl + HDL 50 mg/dl + Triglycerides 50 mg/dl

(an indeterminate risk pattern, potentially moderate risk)

LDL 120 mg/dl + HDL 30 mg/dl + Triglycerides 350 mg/dl

(a potentially high-risk pattern)

LDL 60 mg/dl + HDL 25 mg/dl + Triglycerides 675 mg/dl

(an indeterminate risk pattern)

 

That's just a sample of the incredible variation of patterns that can all fall under this simple observation, total cholesterol 220 mg/dl.

Total cholesterol is an outdated concept, one ready long ago for the junk heap of outdated ideas. It's time to throw total cholesterol out in the trash along with beliefs like high-fat intake causes diabetes, whole grains are healthy, and the tooth fairy will leave you money when you leave your molars under the pillow.

Scientists are freakin' liars

14. May 2011 William Davis (3)
So says Tom Naughton, referring to the frequent misinterpretations or misrepresentations of data that characterize much medical research. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt posted Tom Naughton's recent wonderfully engaging and hilarious talk from Jimmy Moore's Low-Carb Cruise on his Diet Doctor blog.

Comedian and blogger Tom Naughton, also the filmmaker of the movie Fat Head, has brought humor and personality into the low-carb movement. I told my wife to watch it and I could hear her laughing from 30 feet away while watching her laptop.

Dr. Eenfeldt is a sensation of sorts himself, making a big low-carb splash in Sweden. While I missed the cruise this year (due to time pressures), it's clear that Eenfeldt and Naughton have contributed substantially to helping people understand the nonsense that passes as dietary advice in the U.S. and the world.

I watched Naughton's talk while eating my three eggs scrambled with ricotta cheese. I almost spit my eggs out at the computer screen I was laughing so hard.

 
Treat the patient, not the test

Treat the patient, not the test

5. October 2008 William Davis (0)
"Treat the patient, not the test."

That is a common "pearl" of medical wisdom often passed on during medical training.

It refers to the fact that we should always view any laboratory or imaging test in the context of the live, human patient and not just treat any unexpected value that doesn't seem to make sense.

I raise this issue because it recently came up on a discussion on the Track Your Plaque Forum. A Member with a high heart scan score of around 1100 was advised by his doctor that it should be ignored, because he'd prefer to treat the patient, not the test. The patient is apparently slender, physically active, and entirely without symptoms, with favorable cholesterol values as well. The high heart scan score didn't seem to jive with the appearance of the patient, as viewed by this doctor.

This common phrase is meant to impart wisdom. It is a reminder that we treat real people, not just a jumble of laboratory values.

But the unspoken part of the equation is that judgment needs to be applied. A well looking person who shows an unexpected rise in white blood cell count could just have a screwy result, or could have leukemia. Liver tests (AST, ALT) that top 400 could represent a fluke, or dehydration incurred during a long workout, or hepatitis from a long ago blood transfusion.

Yes, treat the patient. But don't be an idiot and entirely dismiss the signficance of an unexpected laboratory or imaging test. A heart scan score of 1100 should be as readily dismissed as discovering a white blood cell count of 90,000 (normal is less than 12,000), or a 5 cm mass in the lung. The absence of symptoms or the failure of conventional risk factors to suggest causation is insufficient reason to dismiss the concrete findings of a test.

In this particular person, dismissing the significance of the heart scan finding by suggesting that the doctor should treat the patient, not the test, is tantamount to:

--Colossal ignorance
--Malpractice
--A certain sentencing of the hapless patient to future major heart procedures, heart attack or death (20-25% likelihood every year, or a virtual certainty over the next 5 years).

There is an ounce of wisdom in this old medical pearl. But there's also plenty of room for a knuckleheaded doctor to misconstrue and abuse its meaning for the sake of covering up his/her ignorance, laziness, or lack of caring.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading