I want to thank for your work. I am a big fan of the site. As a Nephrologist, unfortunately, not only do I see many patients under going a cardiac cath but they may also receive "drive by" angiograms of the renal arteries with stenting. A recent study in the Annals of Interal Medicine, July 16, 2009 showed no difference in medical management and stenting of the renal arteries. Moreover, 2 patients in the stenting arm of the study died within 30 days of stenting. From a Renal prospective, there are complications of renal angiograms and stenting which are aneurysms, bleeding, infections and the possibility of worsening kidney failure which can be permanent. I fear that more patients are under going this procedure than necessary. I will be commenting more about this study in my blog:
www.nephropal.blogspot.com.

Thank you for your hard work.

Kenneth Tourgeman, MD

Dr. Davis-

What are your recommendations for females under 30?  I was told that I am not eligible for a heart scan due to my age, but I have a strong family Hx of CVD (father had bypass at age 50).

rom a Renal prospective, there are complications of renal angiograms and stenting which are aneurysms, bleeding, infections and the possibility of worsening kidney failure which can be permanent. I fear that more patients are under going this procedure than necessary.

If you're going to base your diet on the bible, then you shouldn't be eating pork (Leviticus 11:7), and you should eat plenty of locusts and crickets (Leviticus 11:22)

Oooh, wait'll the God-deniers get a load of this one.

Actually, I've wondered about the proper interpretation of passages like those mentioned, and this post is helpful for me.

I appreciate this & putting the verses into context - but was human excrement to be used as content in the bread, or the fuel source to bake it?

I'm pretty sure the dung was not to go into the bread, it was to be used as fuel for the fire over which the bread was baked. But your point still holds very well. They also omit the lying on your side for 390 days. If eating Ezekiel bread is so healthy, so must be lying on your side for over a year.

I prefer to "kill the fattened calf."

LOL

Dung was probably not an ingredient, but the fuel used to cook the bread.  (Still pretty unsavory, though.)

1) All religion is poetry...

-- Paul Tillich

2) I have a huntch that, uh, folks from a couple thousand years ago, uh, never heard of macronutrients, glucose, insulin, etc.

3) Peace

For those who are interested in the Bible's statements on food, here's a link to a brief overview of kosher laws:

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/soul_food/

Combining a lesson in both religion and medicine, Love It!!

I agree with you, Dr. Davis, that religious issues are very important to many people concerned about dieting. And it is important to discuss them, even though some people think that religious issues should not be part of any discussion related to diet.

In fact, a lot of people who think  about diet issues from a scientific standpoint tend to think that religiosity is a product of pure stupidity. This post and the comments in response to it illustrate what I am talking about:

http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/05/atheism-is-recent-neolithic-invention.html

Waiting for my local library to get a copy of Pandora's Seed by Spencer Wells. In it, he examines the unforeseen costs of farming, which began to transform society 10,000 years ago (using a scientific timescale), such as diabetes and obesity.

Definitely one of man's worst inventions.

Interesting fact:  The Catholic church will not use anything other than wheat to make the wafers for the Eucharist.  If you have wheat intolerance, you can request a low-gluten wafer.  But a non-wheat wafer will never be used as part of that sacrament, no matter how badly one might react to wheat.

I think that stance is a bit much, but I am not a devout Catholic.

Dr. D.
As the Brits say; you are on a losing wicket.

No person of religion will be pursued to move from the crowd. That is why they follow.

Great post! I've never understood how people can take the Bible literally. As someone mentioned in the comments, it's mainly poetry, and it describes a frame of reference and customs of thousands of years ago. Would be very weird to apply all that literally to our high-tech society.

I looked the Bible fragment up in Dutch. It says he has to bake it on human dung (i.e. using the dung as fuel). The fun thing is that a couple of verses later Ezechiel complains and says he has never eaten anything impure in his life and then God gives in and says, 'OK then, you can use cattle dung instead of human dung.'

Sounds to me like the beginning work on "fecal transplant".

But, here's the question: do you think the Ezekiel Bread is worth eating for health reasons?

Other translations have the dung as a source of fuel.  
As much fat as I eat, you'd probably have to put a wick in it.
I don't think that would give it a nice smoke flavor or anything.

I think some of these comments are missing the point. Whether the dung was used as fuel or incorporated into the recipe makes little difference to the interpretive thrust of the passage. According to Mosaic ceremonial law (which was typological, not perpetual), excrement was to be covered with dirt. You don't touch it, and you certainly don't cook with it. The point is that the bread was polluted, and this served as a typological symbol of Israel's pollution and rejection. Israel, the elect and "clean" nation, has become filthy.

God didn't make Ezekiel write this stuff down so we could whip up a great recipe 2400 years later. And by the way, the same goes for the book of Daniel. Just because Daniel and his buddies ate nothing but vegetables and water for ten days doesn't mean that vegetarianism is the best diet. That's not even close to the original intent of the passage. Yet I see these kinds of non-contextual claims all the time. It saddens me when I see fellow Christians using the Bible this way.

FYI: The "Wheat and the Bible" article can be accessed in its entirety on my website here: http://www.reforminghealth.com/Wheat_and_the_Bible.pdf

David

Thanks, David.

For anyone else interested, David's article provides a very nice overview of the broader topic of Wheat and the Bible.

Dr. Davis, I appreciate your courage in tackling this difficult subject. Dr. Kurt Harris has also discussed the fact that even traditional methods of processing wheat do not eliminate all of its negative qualities: http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/12/28/avoid-poison-or-neutralize-it.html.

Religious concerns are undoubtedly one of the trickiest issues that biologically appropriate diets raise. Everyone on the planet is not going to abandon what they see as their religion principles for health reasons, so I try to meet people where they're at. For those Christians who tell me that wheat must be healthy because it's in the New Testament and the Levitical diet, I say, sure, the Levitical diet is older and healthier than the SAD of today, but there was an even earlier diet in the Bible that's even healthier. It's composed of God-made foods instead of man-made foods. It usually occurs to them that this is the diet of wild foods available at the time of humanity's creation, which I also refer to as the "Garden of Eden diet", which was free of wheat bread, even unleavened, and certainly wouldn't contain any pizza, pasta or processed breakfast cereal. This doesn't always convince people, but it rarely fails to give them pause.

Plus, in Genesis 3:17-19, bread is part of a curse, not a blessing. So wheat could be regarded as a blessing compared to starvation, but a curse or penance compared to the original Biblical foods of the Creator's making.

Also, at times in the Bible, suffering is treated as an opportunity for penance or purification. It doesn't mean the bad stuff that causes the suffering (ie wheat) is "good" in and of itself. Perhaps this could be a way to explain Jesus' direction to eat bread in remembrance of Him? I generally avoid this subject as potentially too touchy, so I'm curious for input from wheat-avoiding Christians on how they deal with this.

On top of all the above, bread is no longer necessary for survival in wealthy modern cultures, like it may have been in some of the regions and times covered by the Bible. So the contexts are very different.

Hope this helps.

Paleo Phil,

As a wheat-avoiding Christian, I deal with this issue by actually trying to return the focus to the intent of the Biblical text(s). Was it the biblical author's intent to communicate wheat/grain as perpetually appropriate and required foods for all time (unlikely), or was it rather simply that the biblical narrative existed within an agricultural context and was thus accommodated to those times? I think the latter option is the reasonable one.

In the biblical account, all of creation is said to be "good" (as opposed to Gnosticism, which says that matter is intrinsically evil) but I think it is a mistake to take this as synonymous with "harmless," and it is important to remember that despite being "good," elements within creation can be either appropriate or inappropriate depending on the use and context. Plant toxins are "good" in the creational sense in that they make for a balanced and workable ecosystem, but are relatively "bad" for the unwary animal that eats them. The wheat/grain issue is no different. Grains might be creationally good and play an important role somewhere in the broader order of things, but this doesn't mean they're harmless if the circumstances are right (e.g. genetic modification, improper preparation methods, etc., etc.).

Appealing to the "Garden of Eden diet" might work for some Christians, but I think there's a deeper problem going on. Too many modern Christians see the Bible as a sort of "prescription" for what they should or should not eat. For instance, the Levitical diet (clean vs unclean foods) is often pointed to as the ultimate "healthy diet." However, the health aspects had nothing to do with the actual declared purpose of the restrictions. The diet was purely typological and temporary, and any health benefits were merely coincidental side-benefits. These typological requirements have had an antitypical fulfillment, however, so the diet should have no bearing on anyone today.

Likewise, many Christians point to the supposedly vegetarian diet in Genesis as the "original" diet that mankind was created for. But again, this misses the point of the author's literary intent. What was going on in the Genesis creation account? Was Moses telling us how to eat, or was he telling us something completely different? Most Christians are clueless here. As it turns out, the creation story has nothing to do with scientific explanations or dietary prescriptions. It was written in an ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context where creation myths abounded, and Moses was contrasting the Hebrew God with the surrounding deities of the ancient world. The account is not relating scientific facts, but is rather a literary polemic written to combat other ANE pagan religions point for point. The God of Israel is not like Ptah, or Shu, or Marduk, or Baal. The Genesis account powerfully overturns the Enuma Elish and other ANE creation stories. That was its historical intent.

Unless one is familiar with ANE culture, many of the subtleties within the Genesis account will not make sense, and you will end up with an interpretive disaster, like Young-Earth Creationism or Vegetarianism, for instance. The Bible does say that God created, but it does not tell us how He created. This is nowhere near the intent of the original author.

(Continued)

As I read the chapter, it looks more like Ezekiel is instructed to act in a symbolic manner.  He is instructed to symbolically lay seige to a model of Jerusalem that is drawn or built on a tile--even building miniature seige engines. In essence, the call to moral behavior in the book is a "seige" against the transgressions done within the city.  Thus, the "bread" is also to be made and eaten as a symbol.  The context is fairly plain.  Nowhere is there any statement that Israel, or even just Jerusalem, is to make or eat the stuff.  Ezekiel is told to bake and eat the bread "in their sight" or "in the sight of the people" and then tell anyone who sees him that this is the level of wretchedness they will be reduced to, I presume because of their faithlessness and obstinacy after many warnings, given the general context of the Book of Ezekiel.

Thus, "Ezekiel bread" is actually a symbol of the wrath of God against the obstinately faithless and not a "recipe" for what God wants a faithful believer to eat daily.

I've been taking vitamin D for about five months now after reading Dr. Davis' excellent blog.
Was taking two Thompson's D 1000 caps/day. Latest test result for 25 hydroxy came back at 142 nmol/l so have cut back to one cap/day. So yes, dose depends on body type and sun level (summer here).

I've just done the conversion to ng/mL. Is that by dividing by 2.5? Perhaps I should keep up the two caps/day?

Yes. 142 nmol/L = 56.8 mg/dl.

Thanks for blogging on this, Dr. Davis.  I just got my test for the first time and was alarmed that I came in at only 30 ng/mL after supplementing with 1000 IU daily for about a year.  I had previously lived in Syracuse, NY, the cloudiest city just behind Seattle.  And on a grain-based crap diet, too.  No longer.  Here's my vitamin D story:  http://sparkasynapse.blogspot.com/2009/03/vitamin-d-results.html

I've been wheat-free for 9 months now, but this makes me really curious about my lipid profile...  I still have a ways to go to reach optimum health.  I'm only 34 so hopefully plenty of time to correct this problem.  Unfortunately for my older relatives they were not so lucky.  Cancers, diabetes, heart disease abound.

Have you any comment on this:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html

Article in yesterday NY Times regarding high doses of D3 protecting against fractures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/health/research/31aging.html?ref=health
Unfortunate that the title says pills not capsules.

I was also very shocked with my vitamin d test results. After 5 months @ 6000iu daily my level was only 34 ng/mL. It is winter but I work outside and seldom use suncreen.

The Toronto study suggests there are polymorphisms of the D-binding protein. Isn't this a separate entity than VDR, which is present on cellular surface in many tissues? Maybe I am misunderstanding something ....Thomas

Dr. Davis, should runner's use some suncreen? I was reading this article and decided to ask here: http://dailyviews.runnersworld.com/2009/03/i-will-never-ev.html

As the evidence currently stands everyone should wear sunscreen *and* supplement vitamin D. (benefits of red & blue light can be had without dangerous UVR)

Basically, we should all be getting full-spectrum sunlight in moderate amounts.  Moderate means that you have browning or slight reddening of the skin (if you're still red the next day, that was too much).  This does increase your risk of carcinomas (a low risk type of cancer), but minimizes your risk of melanomas (an extraordinarily high risk type of cancer).  Repeated sunburns increases your risk of melanoma and should be avoided if at all possible.

As a runner, it's often difficult to control the length of time you spend in the sun to moderate your exposure.  The length of time you spend running will usually have more to do with your exercise goals than your sun-exposure goals.  This means that you will most likely not be able to maintain moderation and would put yourself at increased risk of dangerous cancers.

So starting from a completely different set of assumptions, I reach the same conclusion as Kismet, that you should probably be wearing sunscreen and supplementing with Vitamin D3 gelcaps.

Ricardo

Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma

and everyone else will benefit from  watching the Edward Gorham's video or if time is short at least look at the slides used in his presentation
Skin Cancer/Sunscreen -- the Dilemma slides PDF
No one should ever allow skin to burn. Prolonged UVB exposure   processes any vitamin d near the skin surface into suprasterols that are not usable, so alternating short sun sessions with time for the skin to cool down and Vitamin D to be absorbed will optimize the process.

This lecture is entertaining and informative:
Vitamin D

I have always purchased Vitamin D3 from fish oil but discovered while shopping this weekend that there is also a Vitamin D3 obtained from 'wool' or 'lanolin'.  I had never seen this before.  Which is preferable? from fish oil or from lanolin?

thanks,
nancy

Can someone list the effects of overdosing on D3?

Dr. Davis,
Isn't a catheter used for an angiogram?  I thought an angiogram is a necessity before surgery for an aortic abdominal aneurysm?  What are the other alternatives if catheters make so much rubbish?  Just wondering since my mother is considering having surgery for her AAA and needs to have an angiogram first.
Thanks,
Josephine Keliipio
Hawaii

Dr. Davis doesn't answer questions posted to his blog any longer. He announced this some time ago.

I think the point of his little story about being green is to avoid having to have such a procedure done in the first place. I don't believe he is suggesting that you ask the Hospital to recycle all the left over rubbish from such a procedure. At the rate of pay of those people, they'd probably have to charge you a couple of hundred dollars to sort everything out that could be recycled..  

I am only a lay person but I believe there is no alternative (less rubbish producing that is) to the procedure your Mom needs done. Don't worry about the trash and focus on your Mom's outcome instead.

Good luck with your Mom's procedure.

Catheter angiogram is no longer needed to demonstrate arteries, especially arterial anatomy in the abdomen, extremities,head and neck, including, carotids and intracerebral arteries, arteries in the arm or legs. There is now, an alternative, non-invasive. This consist of CT, CTA, or even better, without radiation an MRI,MRA. The only indication for catheter angiogram is if there is plan for angioplasty, or placement of a stent.
No one or nobody should be subjected, to a catheter angiogram, in this day and age.
I hope this helps.

Dr. Davis,

Much obliged for the post.  It provides me with a wonderful counter to claims that a grain-based diet has less of an environmental impact.

Wheat=Heart Disease=Medical Waste

jonathan

Anonymous #2,
Thanks for your comment about angiograms. I am still learning about this procedure and am glad to know that there may be other alternatives. My mom had no plans for a stent or an angioplasty but it seems that angiograms are the standard for elderly patients electing to fix AAAs. Anyway, lots of questions to ask the cardiologist when we see him again in a few weeks. Josephine

Mmmm...stay out of the surgical ICU also, if you can help it. We generated on average 3-4 large cans of waste per room (14) per shift (12hr) per day. Efforts to separate out recyclables were futile. And let's not even get into hand washing. This was in 2000. I hope things have improved.

Thanks for the information Santa. I notice that you are drinking a Coke. You should lay off of that, too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to fellow TYPers!!!  Here is to a successful 2008, slim Santas and if anyone sees Rudolph and his bright red nose, you might mention to him that drinking alcohol to excess raises triglyceride levels.

There isn't much vitamin D in the North Pole, is there? Rudolph's red nose could also be remedied...

But, Coke and cookies are soooo good!

Love this post! Just thought I'd say HI! I found your blog via BlogRush!

Deborah

Hi, Santa!

Thanks, as always, for your on-the-mark, pertinent information!

However, Santa, with all due respect, Santa, Christmas is o-v-e-r, so please post a new blog, perhaps pertaining to the upcoming Valentine's Day, which would be perfectly appropriate, since that special day symbolizes "hearts".

And so it goes. I'm tempted to put Santa's testimonial on our homepage, but I think that may be tooting our own horn a bit too much.

My thoughts exactly.  I,too, used to use and recommend sterol ester containing margarine.  Stanols,as you pointed out, aren't absorbed, but who knows if they are worth the money. Obviously not everything that lowers our cholesterol is good for us. Still, lowering your cholesterol by 15% makes many of us feel like we just got an A+ on our report card, regardless of whether or not we have done something good for our health.
I do believe that fish oil raises LDL cholesterol (probably large fluffy LDL) as it lowers triglycerides. But the evidence seems overwhelming that DHA and EPA are good for my health. But then I shudder about my report card.  Off smart balance, on Ghee, on 3,000 mg/day DHA/EPA.....

Now they are esterifying fish oil. Lovasa, Big Pharma's new improved fish oil.  Now made more chemically stable. I wonder about it too. Is it the new trans fish oil?

Since you wrote about how good almonds are for lowering LDL and how about half the calories don't get absorbed I have been eating close to half pound a day.  I wonder if that's a lot of sterol.

The next frankenfood.  Sigh.  When will we, as a culture, learn that it's extraordinarily difficult to synthesize something as nutritious and as wholesome as what nature provides?

Give me butter, eggs, whole milk, chicken with skin on, and red meat with a healthy rind of fat any day of the week.  Twice on Sunday.

On a diet dominated by those foods, my weight is steady as a rock and my lipid panel has never been better.

The previous poster made an interesting comment abour esterified fish oil, which I am hoping Dr. Davis writes about one of these days.

Fish oil's natural form is triglyceride, I believe, and there are only a couple of brands out there that sell this form. Everything else is ester.

But is one form healthier than another? I know of 2 absorption studies that state omega-3 esters are the worst form regarding absorption. And are there any unknown health risks from taking altered Omega 3s long term?

I'm personally sticking with the triglyceride form of fish oil for now, until this issue is studied properly.

A recent reference:  Vascular effects of plant sterols, Weingartner O, J Amer Clin Cardiol April 22, 2008.
   Mice with higher plant sterol levels had significantly more endothelial damage than those with low levels.

Interesting discussion. I'm nurse practitioner (male). I've been fine tuning my diet and looking into fish oil's benefits for some time, as well as taking it.

Would anyone know of non-esterified fish oil source(s) ?

Also, with regards to the food content of esters, how do we know how to avoid them, since I can't seem to recall if labels display whether or not esters are part of the ingredients/manufacturing method.

Thanks

I'm a nurse practitioner (male) ever optimizing my diet, exercise and other modifiable risk factors for CVD.

Regarding fish oil, would anyone know of company(ies0 manufacturing ester-free fish oil ? I recall one poster mentioning that most are esterified though.

So far as foods, I don't think esters are shown on any food label--although I might be off. So, how would one avoid esters in foods, as it seems to be a growing issue.

Many thanks.

Here's a post on this topic from another blog:

http://www.gooznews.com/archives/001187.html

"FACT: Researchers in Norway found that when 14 healthy male volunteers took equivalent amounts of omega-3 as ethyl esters or glycerol esters (triglyceride form), the absorption from both forms of omega-3 was just as good. As reported in the medical journal, “Thus, after administration twice daily for 14 days, the amounts of EPA and DHA in total serum lipids and in serum phospholipids were essentially identical for the two ester forms of the n-3 fatty acids.” [i]

FACT: Another human study comparing the absorption of omega-3 fatty acids in the form of ethyl esters or triglycerides, showed that both were well absorbed and had produced results. According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, “This study showed that n-3 fatty acids in fish oil given as ethyl esters or triglycerides were equally well absorbed.”[ii]"

[i] The enteral bioavailability of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid is as good from ethyl esters as from glyceryl esters in spite of lower hydrolytic rates by pancreatic lipase in vitro. Biochim Biophys Acta 1993 May 20;1168(1):59-67

[ii] Absorption of the n-3 eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids as ethyl esters and triglycerides by humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1991 Vol 53, 1185-1190


"Res-Q 1250 offers an ethyl ester form of omega-3 which is appropriate for encapsulation (Res-Q 1250 Capsules), and a triglyceride form (Res-Q 1250 Liquid) which is appropriate for a liquid product."

http://n3oceanic.blogspot.com/2008/09/triglycerides-versus-ethyl-esters-fact.html

I've noticed a huge increase in these and use them in both my cooking oil and margarine.  I wonder if I should switch?  It should just be common knowledge that there is a good and bad side to everything, I don't know why we are not more careful about this from the beginning.

There is a review on plant sterol esters and hypercholesterolemia:

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/30/4/404

It is open access !

Interesting review on plant sterol esters! Seems to be a pretty hot discussion. Wounder why the stuff is still available !!!

my 3 year old grandson has sitosterolemia and because of the way our food today is made with all the sterols to keep us healthy it is virtually impossible to buy him anything that it is ok for him to eat .   Plant sterols are in almost everything but not always advertised that they are there.   The long term outlook for our grandson is pretty bleak and i would be gratefull if anyone could give us some ideas on what it is actually possible for him to eat.

To Patricia.  I am sorry that your grandson has sitosterolemia.  I am a 60-ish mother of three grown men and I raised them all on home cooking of whole foods: Fruits, vegetables, lean meats, lean dairy, cheese, yogurt, eggs, nuts, wild rice, small amounts of potatoes, olive oil and small amounts of butter. I was not a stay at home mom, either. It fascinates me that people have to ask the question, what to feed a child when you can't count on verity in packaging.  Please, feed them whole food, organic whenever possible.

Sterol can be pretty dangerous as trans fat or sugar. So FDA must ban it too for the sake of our population. I wonder whatswhy FDA doesn't search healthy alternatives for us.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

I feel better then I have in Years.

...and no-one on a low-carb diet will eat those.  There are much better alternatives.  No story here.

May as well have put pasta on the list.

Yes looking at it like that you realise how a diet based on starchy veg, grains and fruits (not to mention all the processed cereals and refined sugars) can add up to one hell of a lot of carbs! No wonder we're such a sickly species.

Dr. Davis: Where to you get adequate carbs when you are running long distances, including the marathon distance?

Would like to see what Dr. Davis' opinion is about coconuts and their products.

It the picture in the head of the blog and there no single post about it!

There are those who seek to achieve a no carb diet - see this forum for details: http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/

Here is a forum that talks about achieving zero carb - http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/

...and those 30 grams of carbs would mean you were on a very low carb diet indeed.  As a percentage of 2,000 calories, it would be 6%.  The other 94% would have to come from protein and fat.  Since too much protein taxes the kidneys and will turn to glucose if needed, your only choice in this very low carb scenario would be to go ~ 80% fat.

Just clarifying that this is the intent of the 30g example.

Are these total carbs or net carbs? My understanding is that carbs that are fiber aren't digested.

This is quite a bit of food, too.

To answer bobby's question, you don't!  I routinely run 50K events and just ran the San Francisco Marathon on very-low carb, pre-race, during the race, and post-race.  If you're adapted to a low-carb diet and fat-burning, you don't need carbs at all for fueling muscle activity.  In fact running fat-fueled gives you more stable long-lasting energy, no highs and lows, no bonking, and you can go much longer on no added fuel at all.

David

I would think the opened coconut is not dissimilar in representing plaque build up in our vessels.

Funny though, because I believe coconut is beneficial in many ways. I started cooking with it recently due to its high tolerance to heat, my perspective change in saturated fats and exploration of Indian foods.

BTW, I have cut out wheat, rarely eat corn starches and keep sugar usually in the single digits g/day while eating 70% of the items posted in Dr. Davis' on my low carb regimen. Some of the benefits so far are 40+ pounds lost and a decrease in BP. Systolic is now normal (reducing the resting pressure is a bit more challenging). Looking forward to what the next two months bring . . . .

Bobby and Drs. Cynthia and David-

I have seen the gamut of carbohydrate needs with elite levels of endurance exercise, from those who need to use a glucose source, such as bananas or Goo with exercise, to those who need nothing but water.

There seems to be individual variation in glucose needs during extreme endurance exercise, though needs clearly diminish the longer you follow a low-carbohydrate restriction.

Think of how hunter gatherers of eons ago ran tens of miles on empty stomachs.

Well, when you eat a no-carb diet you avoid those low-carb foods. Instead, you only eat food containg no (or very close to zero) carbs: meat, fish, egg, clarified butter (ghee), and coconut oil.

If you are liberal, you may add ordinary butter and some cheese. Giving you no more than 1-2 grams of carbs per day.

Here you can find Swedish guy, Michel Blomgren, that eats almost no carbs, and train hard: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://michelblomgren.blogspot.com/p/vad-jag-ater.html&sl=sv&tl=en

There's a body builder at my gym who's in his 60s, and he's been eating a very low carb diet for 15+ years. While his musculature is great, his skin looks saggy and old. It makes me wonder if his skin might look better if he'd had greater intake of Vit C (for collagen) and other phytonutrients (antioxidants).

I have a friend who is a recognized authority on sports medicine.  He's generally opposed to all processed foods, especially high fructose drinks but endorses the consumption of such drinks during extreme aerobic competitive exercise saying they give a huge quick boost in energy.

"Think of how hunter gatherers of eons ago ran tens of miles on empty stomachs."

I find it difficult to use such examples as good/valid reference points. In my opinion there is s big difference between running by choice and running because you have to for survival.

Belfast Biker is way off the mark - those all legit foods to eat - veggies some fermented diary (cheese), small amounts of seeds and nuts- Pasta is not even close to being sensible for that list.

Dublin pjnoir.

My understanding is there's an obligate requirement for sugar in the Krebs cycle.  If the body runs low on stored carbs it makes its own through gluconeogenesis. But that means catabolising muscle tissue.  In 50 and 100 mile races I eat all the potatoes and sugary sweets available at the aid stations but for daily diet I stick with low carb.  For my Sunday long runs I often run out of glycogen.  At that point my pace falls from 9 to 12mph.

kevin

HOW HEALTHY IS IT TO BE IN CONSTANT KETOSIs though?? There are no long term studies, no hunter gatherer was ever in constant ketosis. he/she was in and out. i understand low carb for glucose problems but it seems to be managing te problem not fixing it. eventually a low carb diet leads to a VLC diet leads to a ZC diet like the crazy people at zeroing in on health. the more you drop your carbs the more insulin resistance you force upon yourself.

Just eat real food, and real fat

about coconut stuff...IMO unless your a kitavan person you dont really need it. does anyone know ANY existing data not supported or sponsored by the coconut industry? i dont think it is all it is cracked up to be. no one has been consuming it long enough, unless again you are a kitavan and also eating like 70% sweet potatos.

there arent coconuts over in africa where we originated

Carbohydrates are not an essential macronutrient. Fat and protein are. There was a study done on two men who ate nothing but meat for a year. The results may suprise some. See Nothing but meat for a year

Dr Davis

After starting fish oil and vitamin D3 and eliminating sugar/wheat/pasteurised milk my hunger seems to have ratcheted up! i wonder whats going on here? Is this normal?
There is no dearth of calories in the diet!

After starting fish oil and vitamin D3 and eliminating sugar/wheat/pasteurised milk my hunger seems to have ratcheted up! i wonder whats going on here? Is this normal?
There is no dearth of calories in the diet!

My weight has always been good and I work out (hard) regularly and have so for the last 30 years (I'm 53). My cholesterol is also good. I  didn't eat much processed food before but in the last 9 months have cut it out completely. No sugar, no white flour, no bread, less of all other grains and now I can't stop weight loss. I am below my desired weight and it keeps coming off. If I even walk too fast I lose weigh!! I tried adding more tubers with no luck. I added larger portions of quinoa...no help. I have now resorted to eating soaked brown rice which hasn't helped yet. I get roughly my bodyweight in protein per day. I am always hungry and I'm eating about every hour. I consume around 3000 calories per day. I'm 5'10 and went from my fighting weight of 183 to 168 as of this morning.  I need to get back to at least 173-175 but it won't happen unless I add back some more grains. I will now start increasing the portion sizes of the grains I'm eating but I am already up to close to 2 cups per serving!!! I have now added rice/quinoa to lunch meals also.

you can train athletically on a low carb diet.  our bodies are highly efficient.  if you don't give it sugar, it will make energy from stored fat.  (and we all have fat, even thin people.)  the best training i ever did and strongest i ever was involved a low carb (vegetable) and hi protein diet.  After a few weeks, your body produces fuel differently.  if you're used to gooing or sports liquid, your body will have to acclimate to training without it.  But one you do, you'll notice your lactic threshold will be higher and you'll bonk much less.  Cashews are great instead of the goo...

The USDA National Nutrient Database for Windows is a great little tool is you're very serious about restricting the total number of carbs eaten in a day.  Combine that with weighing your food, and you can get a very good idea of all the nutrients going into your body.

The aren't many studies showing the benefits of coconut oil.  However, in my case, adding coconut oil to me diet sent my HDL from 32 to 52.

good luck to those who try this no-carb diet.