Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Yup, the ADA has new recommendations coming out for 2008. They are adding in following a low carb lifestyle.
You can read further about it in the links at the bottom of the page. The issue I want to address is a comment found on Dr Vernon's post. Jenny, a well educated advocate for diabetics, had this to say:
How many hundreds of thousands of people with diabetes have gone blind, lost their limbs, or gone on dialysis thanks to the ADA's decades of promoting the high carb diet? How many more will suffer these fates in the next decade thanks to this tepid endorsement which will go unnoticed by anyone except us long term low carb activists.
The ADA's magazines for patients are still full of high carb recipes. Their "educational" materials still warn people that achieving "Tight control" which they define as a 2 hour post-meal blood sugar of 180 mg/dl may be "dangerous." Even for people controlling with DIET alone!
When will the medical community expose the ADA for what it is--an advocacy group for big pharma and the junk food companies who prey off people with diabetes NOT an organization that promotes the interests of people WITH diabetes.
If anything the ADA's policies ensure that diabetes will continue to flourish, kind of like how the American Timber Association makes sure we still have timber.
They're still telling people to take Avandia, too.
Did you know that the major contributors to the ADA are food companies like Cadbury and pharmaceutical companies. No wonder they have taken so long to get on the low carb bandwagon. Plus this less than overwhelming support now shows that they just didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
HAS THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION SPARKED YET ANOTHER ATKINS REVOLUTION?
Apparently, Hell Has Just Froze Over
Friday, December 28, 2007
NAMI sent a questionnaire on leading mental health issues to all the presidential candidates. Candidates are answering and we encourage you to view their positions on our new Explore the Candidates page.
NAMI will be posting additional responses and materials as they are received after this date, so please check our Explore the Candidates page regularly for updates. NAMI does not endorse specific candidates. Any materials posted are intended for educational purposes only.Questionnaire
View a copy of NAMI's candidate questionnaire.
Here are the responses so far:
John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Gov. Richardson has provided NAMI with his Mental Health Platform in lieu of a response to our questionnaire.
All other candidates have a response pending. Check back frequently for updates.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
That's right folks. Exercise does NADA as far as weight loss is concerned.
Too many people use exercise as a form of losing weight. You find it everywhere. The problem with this is people are under the mistaken assumption they are burning loads of calories while exercising. Look at the charts all around the web showing you how many calories an activity is burning. What they fail to tell you is that the majority of those calories would be burned just by lying in bed all day long.
There also is a seldom mentioned complication in calculating calories burned during exercise: you should subtract off the number of calories you would be using if you did nothing. Almost no one does that, Dr. Bouchard said. But for moderate exercise, the type most people do, subtracting the resting metabolic rate can eliminate as much as 30 percent of the calories you think you used, he added.
Resting metabolic rates, though, differ from individual to individual and also differ depending on age, gender, body mass, body composition and level of fitness, so guessing at your resting rate also is fraught with error.
Also it has been shown that exercising can actually make you GAIN weight.
Finnish investigators looked at the results of the dozen best-constructed experimental trials that addressed weight maintenance—that is, successful dieters who were trying to keep off the pounds they had shed—they found that everyone regains weight. And depending on the type of trial, exercise would either decrease the rate of that gain (by 3.2 ounces per month) or increase its rate (by 1.8 ounces). As the Finns themselves concluded, with characteristic understatement, the relationship between exercise and weight is “more complex” than they might otherwise have imagined.I'm not advocating sitting around on your duff all day doing nothing and expect to be healthier. Exercise in and of itself is good. The release of endorphins gets it an A+ in my book. It just makes you "feel" better.
So in this New Year, make exercise a regular part of your routine. Just do it for the right reasons. Not because you want to lose a few pounds. That strategy may back fire on you.
Check this out for further reading:
- Putting Very Little Weight in Calorie Counting Methods
- Does Exercise Really Make Us Thinner?
- Gene-Nutrition and Gene-Physical Activity Interactions in the Modulation of Type 2 Diabetes Risks
- Human Variation in the Response of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk Factors to Regular Exercise - Results from the HERITAGE Family Study
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Posted by BamaGal at 12:51 PM
Saturday, December 22, 2007
I've been looking lately into ways to increase traffic to my blog. I feel like there are others out there who have dealt with some of the same issues I have. So I've been digging around on the net looking for information.
- The best blogging techniques.
- How to get traffic to your blog.
- How to turn your blog into money.
I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to check it out. Meanwhile, I'll keep writing about things I find interesting. I'm hoping you will too.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
I just can not believe it---mainstream media actually writing something positive about consuming dietary fat.
What if bad fat isn’t so bad? - Diet and nutrition- msnbc.com: "Nina Teicholz"
This author writes for Men's Health, so that is not a surprise. They have many writers who support a carb restricted, higher fat dietary approach. Adam Campbell is a good example.
Suppose you were forced to live on a diet of red meat and whole milk. A diet that, all told, was at least 60 percent fat — about half of it saturated. If your first thoughts are of statins and stents, you may want to consider the curious case of the Masai, a nomadic tribe in Kenya and Tanzania.
In the 1960s, a Vanderbilt University scientist named George Mann, M.D., found that Masai men consumed this very diet (supplemented with blood from the cattle they herded). Yet these nomads, who were also very lean, had some of the lowest levels of cholesterol ever measured and were virtually free of heart disease.
Scientists, confused by the finding, argued that the tribe must have certain genetic protections against developing high cholesterol. But when British researchers monitored a group of Masai men who moved to Nairobi and began consuming a more modern diet, they discovered that the men's cholesterol subsequently skyrocketed.
Similar observations were made of the Samburu — another Kenyan tribe — as well as the Fulani of Nigeria. While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved.
I am always preaching to my WLS friends they need to get out of that whole low-fat dogma mind-set. Dietary fat is GOOD for you. Still many of my friends speak of having dumping issues from the fat. I ask you to look at what else you are consuming. Fiber will cause the same "potty" issues many associate with the fat intake.
The diet heart hypothesis is the basis for all the low-fat dogma out there. If you read up on it, you will see it is just a load of crap, with absolutely no proof.
Here's some more interesting things from the article:
Today, it's well established that stearic acid has no effect on cholesterol levels. In fact, stearic acid — which is found in high amounts in cocoa as well as animal fat — is converted to a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid in your liver. This is the same heart-healthy fat found in olive oil. As a result, scientists generally regard this saturated fatty acid as either benign or potentially beneficial to your health.
Do you see that---ANIMAL FAT---is converted to the same type of fat found in olive oil once it gets into your body. So no more of this garbage about "good" fats, "bad" fats junk okay. Go eat a steak and enjoy it---a fatty steak at that. Read on though...
We've spent billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the diet-heart hypothesis. Yet study after study has failed to provide definitive evidence that saturated-fat intake leads to heart disease. The most recent example is the Women's Health Initiative, the government's largest and most expensive ($725 million) diet study yet. The results, published last year, show that a diet low in total fat and saturated fat had no impact in reducing heart-disease and stroke rates in some 20,000 women who had adhered to the regimen for an average of 8 years.
Now let's get into the whole cholesterol thing. Cholesterol is a big bunch of garbage in my opinion, but for those of you who still believe in it---look at this info.
In 1980, Dr. Krauss and his colleagues discovered that LDL cholesterol is far from the simple "bad" particle it's commonly thought to be. It actually comes in a series of different sizes, known as subfractions. Some LDL subfractions are large and fluffy. Others are small and dense. This distinction is important.
A decade ago, Canadian researchers reported that men with the highest number of small, dense LDL subfractions had four times the risk of developing clogged arteries than those with the fewest. Yet they found no such association for the large, fluffy particles. These findings were confirmed in subsequent studies.
Now here's the saturated-fat connection: Dr. Krauss found that when people replace the carbohydrates in their diet with fat — saturated or unsaturated — the number of small, dense LDL particles decreases. This leads to the highly counterintuitive notion that replacing your breakfast cereal with eggs and bacon could actually reduce your risk of heart disease.
So put down that oatmeal and Fiber One cereal for breakfast and have some eggs and bacon instead.
I really have a problem with the whole GI Index concept. It is okay for those really not up on nutritional science to use as a simple guideline. Personally, I feel just the overall carb restriction is a much better gage.
A new study has come out No effect of a diet with a reduced glycemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women. Two of my favorite bloggers have gone head to head on their interpretation of the findings.
Weight of the Evidence: Glycemic Index Doesn't Matter Much in Overall High-Carb Diet
Junkfood Science: Carbs humbug? — Are carbs really fattening?
Check them both out for all the info on this study.
Dr Barry groves sums up my feelings on how usless the GI Index really is here:
GI Blues: The GI Diet - Second Opinions
You will be told that white bread is high-GI and that wholemeal bread is low-GI, but the difference between their GIs is only 2: white bread is 71; wholemeal is 69. Big deal. By the way, the only whole-wheat bread made in the UK which is listed in the official International GI data is one made by Ryvita Co Ltd. This has a GI of 74 – which is higher than white bread! Another problem is that the same food, made by the same manufacturer, but in a different plant can have widely differing GIs. Take Kellogg's All-Bran, for example, which has a GI of 30 in Australia, 38 in the USA and 51 in Canada. I have no idea what the GI of Kellogg's All-Bran is in Britain as it hasn't been tested.WTH!!! Read on.....
And there are some strange anomalies. For example, you might think that foods containing sugar would have a higher GI than the same food made without sugar. But Banana cake, made with sugar is 47, while Banana cake, made without sugar is 55.And here is the real clincher for me----and should be for everyone---so take note...
Then the way a food is cooked or processed also makes a difference to its final glycaemic index, according to a trial conducted at Department of Dietetics, Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Hong Kong.
And there is a last problem as far as diabetics are concerned. The GI of fructose (fruit sugar) is 22, very much lower than sucrose (table sugar) at 64, yet fructose is far more damaging to a diabetic's health than sugar. To sum up, the Glycaemic Index is a very weak index which is over simplified, over hyped, and over sold. While it may have some use in a clinical setting, it is really of very limited use to the general public.
What matters as far as your body is concerned is not the GI of a carbohydrate, but the total amount. A hundred grams of carbohydrate is a hundred grams of carbohydrate whatever its GI is.That about sums it up.....just count the carbs....bottom line....PERIOD....end of story.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Regina Wilshire always does a wonderful job in reporting new research coming out concerning nutrition. She didn't let me down this time either. Check out the full post here.
A newly published study, in the journal Lipids - Comparison of Low Fat and Low Carbohydrate Diets on Circulating Fatty Acid Composition and Markers of Inflammation - found that subjects given a low-carb diet experienced "profound alterations in fatty acid composition and reduced inflammation compared to a low fat diet."
One of the remarkable effects in the data presented that may have contributed to the results is that despite the three-fold greater saturated fat in the diet for the low carb group, saturated fat in the blood turned out to be higher in the low fat group due to the process known as carbohydrate-induced lipogenesis.
Dr. Volek points out that “this clearly shows the limitations of the idea that ‘you are what you eat.’ Metabolism plays a big role. You are what your body does with what you eat.”
I just wanted bring your attention to the paragraph in red---despite eating 3x as much saturated fat on the low carb diet----saturated fat in the blood was GREATER in the low fat group.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
We are SO close! Passage of a strong parity law is within reach. But this session of Congress will end before Christmas. If a parity bill is not passed by then, we risk losing it entirely in election-year deadlock!
Join me and many, many other advocacy groups and individuals in a massive grassroots telephone call-in day Friday, December 7th to press Congress to pass a strong parity bill this year. With more than 30,000 lives lost to suicide each year, we CANNOT allow parity to be punted away to “next year”!
Status of parity legislation: The Senate unanimously passed its parity bill, S. 558, on September 18. A similar, but somewhat broader House bill, H.R. 1424, was approved by three committees. Negotiations on parity have taken place between the House and Senate. Grassroots’ advocacy that calls for passing a strong bill this year can help build momentum for achieving a House-Senate compromise bill that can pass both chambers.
Action: On Friday, December 7th, use the toll-free Parity Hotline, 1-866-parity4 (1-866-727-4894), to call your representative and senators and leave a message urging them to press their leadership to pass mental health parity legislation this year. (The Parity Hotline reaches the U.S. Capitol switchboard, which will connect callers to their representatives and senators’ offices).
Targets: All members of the House and Senate.
Message: “I am calling to ask the senator/representative to press for passage of a strong mental health parity bill this year! Please work with the Leadership to pass parity now!”
Thank you for taking action!