Who lost weight?

The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.


I went wheat-free and I . . .


Gained weight 6 (3%)

Lost no weight 41 (21%)

Lost less than 10 lbs 28 (14%)

Lost more than 10 lbs 34 (17%)

Lost more than 20 lbs 22 (11%)

Lost more than 30 lbs 28 (14%)

I'm still losing weight! 30 (15%)

(189 respondents)


This means that, by eliminating wheat:

24% had no success

31% had moderate success (less than 10 lbs or more than 10 lbs)

25% had extravagant results with 20 lbs or more lost


It would be interesting to know where along the weight-loss spectrum the last category, "I'm still losing weight," group falls. (Anyone with a good story please speak up!)

I believe we can conclude from this casual exercise that, as a simple strategy, wheat elimination is surprisingly effective.

Why would 3% gain weight? Well, without knowing the details, there are several possible explanations:

1) Weight gain developed through other foods. For instance, I've had people eliminate wheat only to replace it with fattening gluten-free alternatives. Remember: wheat-free is not gluten-free. Others load up on the wrong foods, e.g., Craisins and other dried fruit; overdo dairy; or snack on wheat-free but unhealthy foods like ice cream and chips.

2) Too much alcohol

3) Hypothyroidism--A lot more common than you'd think. In fact, this has been the case with a majority of people who have done everything right, yet either failed to lose weight or gained weight.

Those are the biggies.

I'd like to hear your personal stories of wheat elimination--the ups and downs, your success or failure, how you felt during the process, how easy or difficult, your eventual results. Just post them as a response to this blog post.

A niacin primer

A reader of Life Extension reminded me of a piece I wrote about niacin a couple of years back.

Anyone desiring a primer on how and why to use niacin to correct lipid and lipoprotein patterns might find this useful.

While some people, no matter what they do, cannot tolerate niacin (about 10% of people), many others enjoy spectacular benefits.


Q: I recently had a cholesterol profile blood test and learned that I may be at risk of heart disease because my levels of beneficial HDL (high-density lipoprotein) are too low. I read that niacin could help increase my HDL, but my doctor said niacin is dangerous. Whom should I believe?

A: Your doctor would be right—if we were still living in 1985. Since then, however, we have learned how to use niacin (vitamin B3) safely and effectively. Unfortunately, many physicians have not yet caught up, or are still trapped by the idea that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are the only way to decrease cardiovascular disease risk. I have personally prescribed niacin for thousands of patients as part of our program to reverse coronary disease. In fact, niacin is the closest thing we have available to a perfect treatment that corrects most of the causes of coronary heart disease.

Continued here.

What would life be like . . . ?

What if coronary heart disease could be prevented--no eliminated--applying methods that were accessible, easy, and cheap?

What if coronary heart disease and, thereby, angina, heart attack, sudden cardiac death, ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, and the cerebrovascular equivalent, stroke, could be eliminated using readily available tools available to virtually everyone in the U.S.? And, over a year, it cost less than a once-a-week latte at Starbucks?

How would the healthcare landscape change? What would become of hospitals, manufacturers of the billions of dollars of hospital equipment necessary to supply the cardiovascular hospital industry (e.g., stent manufacturers, catheter manufacturers, defibrillator and pacemaker manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers who no longer have to produce the volume of antiplatelet agents, inotropic drugs, antiarrhythmic agents, etc.)?

How would our lives change? What would the end of life look like if people stopped dying of heart attack, sudden cardiac death, congestive heart failure at age 55, 65, or 75, but lived out their lives to die of something unrelated?

What if the solution had little or nothing to do with drugs but evolved from simple nutritional strategies, supplements meant to correct the deficiencies that accompany modern lifestyles, and a few unique strategies targeted towards the genetic predispositions that lead to heart disease?

What if all this were possible at a cost of a few hundred dollars per year?

It would certainly be a cataclysmic change. Hospitals would shrink to a small remnant of their current gargantuan, dozens-per-city presence. The need for hospital staff would be slashed by over half. The rare cardiologist would tend to congenital heart disease sufferers and other unusual forms of heart disease and he or she might have a colleague or two in all of a major city.

Healthcare costs would plummet, no longer having to sustain the enormous cardiovascular healthcare machine of hospitals, staff, industry, and long-term care. Health insurance, private or public, would drop by 50%.

It would free up nearly a trillion dollars that could be redirected towards other pursuits, like schools and research. Extraordinary leaps forward in quality of life and science would emerge, given that magnitude of funding.

It's not as grand a thought experiment as Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, in which he imagines what the world would be like without humans altogether.

How long would it take to recover lost ground and restore Eden to the way it must have gleamed and smelled the day before Adam, or Homo habilis, appeared? Could nature ever obliterate all our traces? How would it undo our monumental cities and public works, and reduce our myriad plastics and toxic synthetics back to benign, basic elements?

But I believe this thought experiment--what would life be like without heart disease because it was eliminated using inexpensive tools-- is more plausible, more likely to occur. In fact, it has already begun to occur.

See those vines growing up the side of the hospital?

Are jelly beans heart healthy?

Total Fat

3 g or less

Less than 6.5 g





Saturated Fat



1 g or less

1 g or less





Cholesterol

20 mg or less

20 mg or less





Sodium

480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving

480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving





Nutrients

Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1 of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber



Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber





Trans fat

Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving



Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving





Whole Grain

N/A



51 percent by weight/RACC*







Minimum Dietary Fiber



N/A

1.7 g/RACC of 30 g

2.5 g/RACC of 45 g

2.8 g/RACC of 50 g

3.0 g/RACC of 55 g





(RACC=Reference Amount Customarily Consumed)

Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard

Rich has been taking Synthroid or levothyroxine for many years.

When Rich came to my office for continuing management 10 years after his bypass surgery, I checked his thyroid panel:

TSH 7.44 uIU/L

Free T4 1.88 ng/dl (Ref range 0.80-1.90 ng/dl)

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml (Ref range 2.3-4.2 pg/ml)


Rich's thyroid hormone distortions--high TSH, low T3--are sufficient to account for a tripling of heart attack risk long-term.

As Richs' thyroid was being managed by his primary care physician, I notified this doctor of Rich's panel. He therefore increased Rich's levothyroxine from 75 mcg per day to 100 mcg per day. Another thyroid panel several months later showed:

TSH 0.98 uIU/L

Free T4 2.38 ng/dl

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml



As you would expect, increasing the intake of the T4 hormone (levothyroxine) increased free T4 and suppressed TSH.

But what about T3? It's unchanged.

Indeed, Rich says that he feels no better and, in fact, wakes up in the morning foggy and requires a nap in the afternoon.

In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement.

Rich's increased levothyroxine dose decreased (calculated) LDL cholesterol by 10 mg/dl. Based on my experience, I'll bet that his lipid panel would likely be further improved with T3 correction.

What I find incredible is the absolutely rabid resistance waged by primary care physicians and endocrinologists against this notion of T3, mostly due to fears of the remote likelihood of inducing atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis, while they are ready to prescribe lifelong statin drugs without a moment's hesitation.

Launch of new Track Your Plaque newsletter: Cardiac Confidential

Track Your Plaque has just launched a new version of our newsletter. We call it Cardiac Confidential.

Cardiac Confidential is meant to be a no-holds-barred, go-for-the-throat exposé of the world of heart disease. We will expose the dishonest, reveal what we view as the underlying truth. We'll even have an occasional "undercover" report of what goes on in hospitals and the go-for-the-money world of heart procedures.

Read the first issue here (open to everyone) in which "Laurie" describes her encounter with a sleazy, profiteering cardiologist. She survives, but not without paying a dear price.

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

Nutrition Syllogism

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.




Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.



These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.



Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Is pomegranate juice healthy?


Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g




In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!


(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon


Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.



Image courtesy Wikipedia
Slash carbs . . . What happens?

Slash carbs . . . What happens?

Cut the carbohydrates in your diet and what sorts of results can you expect?

Carbohydrate reduction results in:

Reduced small LDL--This effect is profound. Carbohydrates increase small LDL; reduction of carbohydrates reduce small LDL. People are often confused by this because the effect will not be evident in the crude, calculated (Friedewald) LDL that your doctor provides.

Increased HDL--The HDL-increasing effect of carbohydrate reduction may require 1-2 years. In fact, in the first 2 months, HDL will drop, only to be followed by a slow, gradual increase. This is the reason why, in a number of low-carb diet studies, HDL was shown to be reduced.--Had the timeline been longer, HDL would show a significant increase.

Decreased triglycerides--Like reduction of small LDL, the effect is substantial. Triglyceride reductions of several hundred milligrams are not at all uncommon. In people with familial hypertriglyceridemia with triglyceride levels in the thousands of milligrams per deciliter, triglyceride levels will plummet with carbohydrate restriction. (Ironically, conventional treatment for familial hypertriglyceridemia is fat restriction, a practice that can reduce triglycerides modestly in these people, but not anywhere near as effectively as carbohydrate restriction.) Triglyceride reduction is crucial, because triglycerides are required by the process to make small LDL--less triglycerides, less small LDL.

Decreased inflammation--This will be reflected in the crude surface marker, c-reactive protein--Yes, the test that the drug industry has tried to convince you to take statins drugs to reduce. In my view, it is an absurd notion that you need to take a drug like Crestor to reduce risk associated with increased CRP. If you want to reduce CRP to the floor, eliminate wheat and other junk carbohydrates. (You should also add vitamin D, another potent CRP-reducing strategy.)

Reduced blood pressure--Like HDL, blood pressure will respond over an extended period of months to years, not days or weeks. The blood pressure reduction will be proportion to the amount of reduction in your "wheat belly."

Reduced blood sugar--Whether you watch fasting blood sugar, postprandial (after-meal) blood sugars, or HbA1c, you will witness dramatic reductions by eliminating or reducing the foods that generate the high blood sugar responses in the first place. Diabetics, in particular, will see the biggest reductions, despite the fact that the American Diabetes Association persists in advising diabetics to eat all the carbohydrates they want. Reductions in postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars, in particular, will reduce the process of LDL glycation, the modification of LDL particles by glucose that makes them more plaque-causing.


You may notice that the above list corresponds to the list of common plagues targeted by the pharmaceutical industry: blood pressure, diabetes (diabetes being the growth industry of the 21st century), high cholesterol. In other words, high-carbohydrate, low-fat foods from the food industry create the list of problems; the pharmaceutical industry steps in to treat the consequences.

In the Track Your Plaque approach, we focus specifically on elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, the most offensive among the carbohydrates. The need to avoid other carbohydrates, e.g., barley, oats, quinoa, spelt, etc., depends on individual carbohydrate sensitivty, though I tend to suggest minimal exposure.

Comments (20) -

  • Emily

    3/26/2010 4:17:02 PM |

    you forgot one more benefit- effortless wieght loss! at least for many of us...

  • Tony

    3/26/2010 4:28:57 PM |

    I've eliminated almost all sugar, and all refined grains, but I still  eat brown rice, oatmeal, and whole spelt bread. On my recent VAP test, my triglycerides were 78, HDL was 63, and my LDL was Pattern A (large, buoyant LDL). Also, my Cardiac C Reactive Protein was .84. I'm concluding that some whole grains are appropriate for me, and I use the blood glucose monitor to monitor postprandial glucose.

    By the way, thank you for all the info.

  • JustJoeP

    3/26/2010 4:47:04 PM |

    Dr. Davis, following your advice as well as several other clarion voices in the nutritional wilderness, over the last 9 months I went from:
    HbA1C 6.6, Fasting glucose 125mg/dl, BP135/85, LDL nearly 200, HDL below 30, body weight 245 (6ft tall, 40 in waist) on a mainly carb diet, to:

    HbA1C 5.5, Fasting glucose 105mg/dl, BP115/70, LDL nearly in 1/2, HDL above 65, body weight 204 (still 6ft tall, but a 33 in waist) on a very low carb diet.

    I've got 4 friends - all males in their 40s - who have also moved their personal numbers in these directions by greatly reducing carbs.  I'm trying to get my severely type II diabetic father to follow the same regimen, but his Medicare provided dietitian is fighting me every step of the way, with a diet based upon bread!  The struggle continues.

    Thank you for being a consistent, well informed, voice of reason.  You've helped more people than you know.  (linked to you here).  Be well.

  • Isaac

    3/26/2010 5:18:11 PM |

    And I'm so unimpressed with the lack of any good hard endpoint data associated with the insulin sensitizers and such.  These dietary options really need to be explored further but, sadly, won't so long as physicians aren't reimbursed for it.

  • Daniel

    3/26/2010 5:45:40 PM |

    I agree regarding fructose.  

    In people with impaired glucose tolerance, slashing starch too may indeed be beneficial.  But is there any evidence that slashing starch benefits people who have a healthy liver and pancreas?  In such people, I suspect slashing starch is just treating numbers and has nothing to do with health.  Otherwise, how do you explain Kitava, Peru, and Asia?

  • jandro

    3/26/2010 8:25:13 PM |

    Sometimes I think that the results given with these studies are mostly due to the reduction of grains (lectins) and refined sugar and not carbohydrates themselves. I want to believe it is as simple as reducing carbohydrates but it doesn't explain how populations like Kuna and Kitava have good health markers even though they eat a high carb diet. Dr. WD, do you have any ideas related to this specific topic?

    ** I am not debating the results of low carb (I personally do paleo), and if your metabolism is already damaged low carb is the only way, but what if it is not? (you were never obese, diabetic, started healthy habits at a young age, etc).

  • Anonymous

    3/26/2010 10:28:29 PM |

    Would these benefits also accrue to someone who does not get postprandial spikes in blood glucose on a low-carb diet - like the regular commentator "DrStrange"?

  • Ned Kock

    3/26/2010 10:57:59 PM |

    Actually, in the study reviewed in the post below, a 2-week replacement of refined carbs and sugars with dietary fat (mostly saturated) and cholesterol, led to a significant increase in HDL (14 percent increase in HDL from baseline for men).

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/02/want-to-improve-your-cholesterol.html

    That was two weeks only.

    In my own experience, higher consumption of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol has immediate effects on HDL, and those effects are especially strong with elimination of refined carbs and sugars.

  • gindie

    3/26/2010 10:59:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    You mentioned Vitamin D.  I just got tested, level is 14.  However, I get episodes of calcium-based kidney stones (every 3-4 years or so).  How do you treat such patients?

  • Anonymous

    3/27/2010 12:15:47 AM |

    One thing I don't understand is if all these benefits are independent or if they are all linked to glucose level.
    If a particular carbohidrate causes little glucose spike will it still cause the other poblems?
    Or if carbohidrate intake is followed by intense physic actvity which seems to take BG down does it still causes all the other problems?

  • I Pull 400 Watts

    3/27/2010 12:32:49 AM |

    Just letting you know, very nice post!

  • Kim

    3/27/2010 2:53:35 AM |

    I totally agree.  I continued to struggle with my cholesterol the first year or so on a low carb diet.  After 3 years, my HDL has gone from 40 to 87 and my LDL has improved.  My blood pressure also improved over time.  My triglycerides were never high, but are usually in the 35 range now.  It's an awesome thing!

  • Stan (Heretic)

    3/27/2010 3:50:02 AM |

    Welcome to Low Carb Dr. Davis!  From now on, your life will never be the the same

    8-Smile

    In addition to what you have listed, which I can confirm in 100%, more beneficial effects will become apparent, such as:

    - self-healing of teeth with no need for dental intervention, and roughly twice as fast healing of broken bones.

    - healing of common cardiovascular diseases (arteriosclerosis, cardio myopathy and arrhythmia)

    - rapid self-healing of hepatic diseases (i.e post hep-C cirrhosis healed in 6 months),

    - improved kidney disease recovery (I heard of a patient  surviving on Optimal Diet without dialalysis with only 1/3 of 1 kidney left)

    - normalization of one's body weight (obese loose, underweight gain),

    - much stronger immune system (for instance, I never had a flu since yr 2000, before - twice a year)

    - stronger more benign reaction to stress, no more paralyzing panic, no more total body vascular contraction and probably related better resistance to cold temperature.  

    - no need to drink water frequently (fat metabolism releases water as an end product)

    - never feel hungry again, no need to snack, eating once or twice a day becomes the norm.   For me no breakfast, no supper, only lunch and dinner, typically.  

    - improved ability to hold breath longer when diving, generally we also naturally breath less frequently,

    - different (improved) mood, subtle changes in the way one thinks, solves problems and react to life events, as no doubts, you will find out...  8-Smile

    Regards,
    Stan (Heretic)

  • Lori Miller

    3/27/2010 1:59:21 PM |

    Daniel, I've tested my own blood glucose before and after meals and it's normal. However, I cut way back on all carbs a couple of months ago, and now eat around 47 grams of carbs per day. Results: I find that I don't need Sudafed or acid blockers at all now and I rarely take ibuprofin (an anti-inflammatory). The twinge in my shoulder and knee are gone. I've lost 10 pounds while working out *less.* I seldom get headaches, and when I do, they're mild. I also need a lot less sleep.

    Should anyone care for details, I've chronicled my experience in my blog.

  • Stan (Heretic)

    3/27/2010 3:26:56 PM |

    jandro - it is a very good question.  I wonder too but the studies I am reading (see for example Lancet. 1996 ) seem to indicate that carbohydrate reduction is beneficial in all cases, including healthy rural young populations.  

    I see it now in the same light as for example alcohol consumption: if you are healthy and young, a  harm may be minimal and some wine  (in moderation) may even provide you with some calories and micronutrients (i.e. resveratrol), but why bother consuming all that starchy and sugary plant food that we are not that well adapted for, that is useful only if we have nothing else to eat and that was probably meant for us only as a temporary food to get us over some rough periods of fauna decline.

      Since there is so little modern research done specifically on this subject we are still largely in the domain of hypotheses and theories. However not all that is speculative.  For example existing archaeological research does show us that paleolithic human diet consisted typically over 2/3 of meat!  We are talking about millions of years of human adaptation.

    ---

    Dr. Davis,  I forgot to add to my above list of benefits the following point:

    - reliable improvement (in almost every case) in treating the autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, eczema, psoriasis etc,

    - intestinal disease (Crohns, IBS , very high fat only!).  

    - Multiple sclerosis (not 100% especially if nerve damage is too advanced but improvement in most cases)

    There is a lot of patient cases (hundreds) of the above disease reported by Dr. Jan Kwasniewski, from his medical practice in the 1980-ties, described in his books, especially "Homo Optimus" and "Optimal Nutrition".  

    I think you will find those books extremely interesting, highly recommended.  

    Stan

  • Ellen

    3/27/2010 8:03:15 PM |

    Um Heretic.. I think Dr. Davis has been low carb for quite a while now. No need to welcome him to something he's already quite familiar with Smile

  • jandro

    3/27/2010 10:55:06 PM |

    Stan, thanks for your response:

    I read the abstract of the study you link and don't see how it is related to what I mentioned. It is comparing a vegetarian population with one that eats around a pound of fish a day. Seriously, is there a question there as to which is healthier? I also don't think they are healthier primarily because they consume less carbohydrates, but rather because they consume a pound of fish a day compared to no animal fat/flesh in the other group.

    If you read my original post again you will notice I am not saying a vegetarian diet (in fact, I eat over a pound of meat a day), I am just questioning whether the true problem is carbohydrates or if it is lectins, assuming you have a generous amount of animal fat and protein. I personally eat around 20% carbs, mostly coming from tubers and squashes as I find fruits too sweet (I agree that fructose should be reduced). Generally eat one piece of fruit a day.

    I also don't see any evidence to your claim that humans are not adapted to plant foods. We are omnivores, and that's how we have succeeded. We are adapted to a diet similar to what equatorial hunter gatherers have, since we evolved in a similar environment. People bring many archeological references of sites located outside of Africa not realizing that the environment outside of Africa is nearly as new to us as grains are. Most HGs living in Africa have plant food present on their diet. The information you tell yourself claims 2/3 of our diet was meat, what happened to the other 1/3?

  • Anonymous

    3/29/2010 8:33:04 AM |

    And what if someone goes really lowcarb (mostly meat) and his LDL rises up to 500? No info on the the LDL size. The remaining bloodwork results are  really good. Is this something to be worried about?

  • scall0way

    4/21/2010 7:21:12 PM |

    Hmm, well I eliminated wheat and all glutens from my diet in January 2009. I eliminated sugar at the same time. I also eliminated high Omega-6 vegetable oils. I basically eat low carb. I love to use coconut oil. Smile I've lost over 100 pounds.

    But my cholesterol just goes UP and UP! At least total and LDL - HDL remains in the 58-62 range and triglycerides remain in the 60-70 range. But Total cholesterol went from 229 6 months ago to 279 3 months ago, to 280 today, and LDL went from 165 6 months ago, to 190 3 months ago, to 206 today.

    And I can't understand why! Of course my doctor is rabid to put me on stations and crazy with me that I refuse, and looks at me cross-eyed when I request an NMR/VAP test for LDL particle size.

    But it still bothers me that it continues to go up and up and up, as I feel like I'm doing all I can to lower it. I was also diagnosed with Hashimoto's 6 months ago and put on 50 mcg of Levoxyl. Then three months ago it was upped to 75 mcg. Today it was upped to 88 mcg.

    Slashing carbs eliminating the bad stuff sure is not helping my total numbers, which means a huge argument with the doctor every visit, and I hate to argue. :-(

  • julianne

    9/7/2010 1:42:40 AM |

    I'm so glad I found this post!. I've had a group of clients take on paleo eating as a 6 week trial, doing so has naturally decreased their carbs. I had each person do before and after blood tests and I was concerned that 80% had a reduction in HDL. They also had reductions in Triglycerides and LDL and blood pressure and significant weight loss - but couldn't figure this one out. Thanks so much for keeping us informed of what goes on for your clients, so I know what is happening with mine is normal.

    Julianne
    By the way here are some of the results in people's own words
    http://paleozonenutrition.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/6-week-paleo-trial-results/

Loading