Many commentators have stated the surprising combination of both childhood malnutrition and parental obesity in the same family.
Mainly within deprived areas.
The answer is obvious, they cannot afford sufficient sources of quality proteins and fats and rely on cheap carbohydrate.
Carbs provide energy and will fatten the parents, but they are empty in terms of growing bone, muscle, brains and all of the rest that children need.
So the children are malnourished and emaciated, whilst the parents who are fully grown have excess blood sugar that is converted to fat via the release of Insulin.
So, instead of the parents wickedly starving their children and eating all of the food (which is not what parents in any species will do, but is the internal bias of the observer) it is a function of the cheap, carb-rich, diet that they eat.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Monday, 11 June 2012
Dope heads?
Wheat is alleged to have an opoid response on the brain which drives the consumption of wheat, or in other words, you stuff the pizza into your mouth because it is addictive.
What is the compound that is supposed to drive this addiction response? - something called Gliadin.
Gliadin is a glycoprotein, and together with Glutelin, combine to form Gluten, which forms some 80% of the protein to be found within the wheat seed.
The earliest study I can find comes from 1979 (some 33 years ago) where the final sentence on the abstract states " It is suggested that peptides derived from some food proteins may be of physiological importance."
So some 33 years ago researchers already had a clue that the digestive products from wheat consumption had "physiological importance" - namely addiction.
The abstract is here.
In 1984 researchers were looking for possible links between schizophrenia and celiac disease and thus interested in which wheat gluten proteins exibited an opioid-like activity.
The results were clear, and I quote "The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex." Thus was gliadin fingered as the culprit in the addictive nature of wheat.
The abstract is here.
The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was when the FDA approved the process whereby a new drug called "Contrave" manufactured by a company called "Orexigen" could be approved for use within the United States of America. Orexigen need to conduct;
"a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial prior to approval. The objective of the trial is to demonstrate that Contrave does not unacceptably increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The Company plans to initiate the Contrave outcomes trial late in the second quarter of 2012."
The press release is here.
Contrave is a combination of two approved drugs, bupropion and naltrexone. Bupropion is an anti-depressant, whereas Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist. The two together means that Naltrexone will block the ability of gliadin to generate the addiction and thus the desire for wheat, and Buproprion will handle the psychological impact (depression) of not getting the "high" caused by wheat consumption.
Wonderful stuff - but let's just walk ourselves through this from a governance point of view.
What is the role of the FDA??
Its website has the tagline here that states "Protecting and promoting your health".
So, a US Government agency, supposedly focussed on protecting and enhancing the health of the citizens of the United States of America is prepared to licence a drug that deals with the reality that a major component of the SAD (Standard American Diet) is actually addictive.
This is where the conflict called 'double think' a term coined by George Orwell comes to mind. A state agency - knowing two things that are mutually incompatible, is still prepared to believe in both 'realities' knowing full well that they 'are' mutually contradictory.
i.e. Wheat is addictive and injurious to human health, yet nothing is mentioned, yet a drug that works because it targets the addictive nature of wheat is in the process of being licensed.
And I quote;
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
If wheat was a new drug, would the FDA licence it knowing that it was both; one - addictive, and; two - leads to obesity due to both the blood-sugar spike - insulin release and the consequent fat storage mechanism.
I don't think that we need to know what the true answer is, we can already guess.
What is the compound that is supposed to drive this addiction response? - something called Gliadin.
Gliadin is a glycoprotein, and together with Glutelin, combine to form Gluten, which forms some 80% of the protein to be found within the wheat seed.
The earliest study I can find comes from 1979 (some 33 years ago) where the final sentence on the abstract states " It is suggested that peptides derived from some food proteins may be of physiological importance."
So some 33 years ago researchers already had a clue that the digestive products from wheat consumption had "physiological importance" - namely addiction.
The abstract is here.
In 1984 researchers were looking for possible links between schizophrenia and celiac disease and thus interested in which wheat gluten proteins exibited an opioid-like activity.
The results were clear, and I quote "The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex." Thus was gliadin fingered as the culprit in the addictive nature of wheat.
The abstract is here.
The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was when the FDA approved the process whereby a new drug called "Contrave" manufactured by a company called "Orexigen" could be approved for use within the United States of America. Orexigen need to conduct;
"a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial prior to approval. The objective of the trial is to demonstrate that Contrave does not unacceptably increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The Company plans to initiate the Contrave outcomes trial late in the second quarter of 2012."
The press release is here.
Contrave is a combination of two approved drugs, bupropion and naltrexone. Bupropion is an anti-depressant, whereas Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist. The two together means that Naltrexone will block the ability of gliadin to generate the addiction and thus the desire for wheat, and Buproprion will handle the psychological impact (depression) of not getting the "high" caused by wheat consumption.
Wonderful stuff - but let's just walk ourselves through this from a governance point of view.
What is the role of the FDA??
Its website has the tagline here that states "Protecting and promoting your health".
So, a US Government agency, supposedly focussed on protecting and enhancing the health of the citizens of the United States of America is prepared to licence a drug that deals with the reality that a major component of the SAD (Standard American Diet) is actually addictive.
This is where the conflict called 'double think' a term coined by George Orwell comes to mind. A state agency - knowing two things that are mutually incompatible, is still prepared to believe in both 'realities' knowing full well that they 'are' mutually contradictory.
i.e. Wheat is addictive and injurious to human health, yet nothing is mentioned, yet a drug that works because it targets the addictive nature of wheat is in the process of being licensed.
And I quote;
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
If wheat was a new drug, would the FDA licence it knowing that it was both; one - addictive, and; two - leads to obesity due to both the blood-sugar spike - insulin release and the consequent fat storage mechanism.
I don't think that we need to know what the true answer is, we can already guess.
Monday, 4 June 2012
Scandinavian researchers blow another hole in the "Cholesterol is Bad" hypothesis.
Hat tip to Peter of Hyperlipid
Researchers from Norway, Iceland and Sweden reviewed data from the ten year Norwegian HUNT2 study to see whether the official guidance that high Cholesterol levels being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) were valid.
Guess what - hilarious result - high levels of cholesterol is not linked to risks of CVD or Total Mortality.
In fact, for women, higher levels of Cholesterol are associated with increased longevity - sorry lads!.
See the study here in more detail.
They are circumspect in their language in that they say "clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised" and initially I thought 'fantastic, brave guys, hooray' but then the Civil Servant in me (I was one for 14 years) began to read the 'Discussion' section and I got a bit peeved.
They are almost apologetic for their findings and try to come up with reasons why the results contradict the official guidance, which having read it a number of times maybe what was inserted was required to get it through the process of publication. So I think that they truely understand the enormity of what they have published.
What is great is the final paragraph
"‘Know your numbers’ (a concept pertaining to medical risk factor levels, including cholesterol) is currently considered part of responsible citizenship, as well as an essential element of preventive medical care. Many individuals who could otherwise call themselves healthy struggle conscientiously to push their cholesterol under the presumed ‘danger’ limit (i.e. the recommended cut-off point of 5 mmol L−1), coached by health personnel, personal trainers and caring family members. Massive commercial interests are linked to drugs and other remedies marketed for this purpose. It is therefore of immediate and wide interest to find out whether our results are generalizable to other populations. "
Damn right mate !
Researchers from Norway, Iceland and Sweden reviewed data from the ten year Norwegian HUNT2 study to see whether the official guidance that high Cholesterol levels being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) were valid.
Guess what - hilarious result - high levels of cholesterol is not linked to risks of CVD or Total Mortality.
In fact, for women, higher levels of Cholesterol are associated with increased longevity - sorry lads!.
See the study here in more detail.
They are circumspect in their language in that they say "clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised" and initially I thought 'fantastic, brave guys, hooray' but then the Civil Servant in me (I was one for 14 years) began to read the 'Discussion' section and I got a bit peeved.
They are almost apologetic for their findings and try to come up with reasons why the results contradict the official guidance, which having read it a number of times maybe what was inserted was required to get it through the process of publication. So I think that they truely understand the enormity of what they have published.
What is great is the final paragraph
"‘Know your numbers’ (a concept pertaining to medical risk factor levels, including cholesterol) is currently considered part of responsible citizenship, as well as an essential element of preventive medical care. Many individuals who could otherwise call themselves healthy struggle conscientiously to push their cholesterol under the presumed ‘danger’ limit (i.e. the recommended cut-off point of 5 mmol L−1), coached by health personnel, personal trainers and caring family members. Massive commercial interests are linked to drugs and other remedies marketed for this purpose. It is therefore of immediate and wide interest to find out whether our results are generalizable to other populations. "
Damn right mate !
Thursday, 31 May 2012
An excellent article by Gary Taubes from Science Magazine which is the article quoted by my post from Barry Groves website, thoroughly readable.
When the U.S. Surgeon General's Office set off in 1988 to write the definitive report on the dangers of dietary fat, the scientific task appeared straightforward. Four years earlier, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had begun advising every American old enough to walk to restrict fat intake, and the president of the American Heart Association (AHA) had told Time magazine that if everyone went along, "we will have [atherosclerosis] conquered" by the year 2000. The Surgeon General's Office itself had just published its 700-page landmark "Report on Nutrition and Health," declaring fat the single most unwholesome component of the American diet.
All of this was apparently based on sound science. So the task before the project officer was merely to gather that science together in one volume, have it reviewed by a committee of experts, which had been promptly established, and publish it. The project did not go smoothly, however. Four project officers came and went over the next decade. "It consumed project officers," says Marion Nestle, who helped launch the project and now runs the nutrition and food studies department at New York University (NYU). Members of the oversight committee saw drafts of an early chapter or two, criticized them vigorously, and then saw little else.
Finally, in June 1999, 11 years after the project began, the Surgeon General's Office circulated a letter, authored by the last of the project officers, explaining that the report would be killed. There was no other public announcement and no press release. The letter explained that the relevant administrators "did not anticipate fully the magnitude of the additional external expertise and staff resources that would be needed." In other words, says Nestle, the subject matter "was too complicated." Bill Harlan, a member of the oversight committee and associate director of the Office of Disease Prevention at NIH, says "the report was initiated with a preconceived opinion of the conclusions," but the science behind those opinions was not holding up. "Clearly the thoughts of yesterday were not going to serve us very well."
The Soft Science of Dietary Fat
Gary Taubes  |
When the U.S. Surgeon General's Office set off in 1988 to write the definitive report on the dangers of dietary fat, the scientific task appeared straightforward. Four years earlier, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had begun advising every American old enough to walk to restrict fat intake, and the president of the American Heart Association (AHA) had told Time magazine that if everyone went along, "we will have [atherosclerosis] conquered" by the year 2000. The Surgeon General's Office itself had just published its 700-page landmark "Report on Nutrition and Health," declaring fat the single most unwholesome component of the American diet.
All of this was apparently based on sound science. So the task before the project officer was merely to gather that science together in one volume, have it reviewed by a committee of experts, which had been promptly established, and publish it. The project did not go smoothly, however. Four project officers came and went over the next decade. "It consumed project officers," says Marion Nestle, who helped launch the project and now runs the nutrition and food studies department at New York University (NYU). Members of the oversight committee saw drafts of an early chapter or two, criticized them vigorously, and then saw little else.
Finally, in June 1999, 11 years after the project began, the Surgeon General's Office circulated a letter, authored by the last of the project officers, explaining that the report would be killed. There was no other public announcement and no press release. The letter explained that the relevant administrators "did not anticipate fully the magnitude of the additional external expertise and staff resources that would be needed." In other words, says Nestle, the subject matter "was too complicated." Bill Harlan, a member of the oversight committee and associate director of the Office of Disease Prevention at NIH, says "the report was initiated with a preconceived opinion of the conclusions," but the science behind those opinions was not holding up. "Clearly the thoughts of yesterday were not going to serve us very well."
Monday, 28 May 2012
Why the Blog?
This blog is my record of my journey from ignorance to enlightenment about the real truth about food and health, and why what is promulgated as 'healthy' is actually false and is the cause behind modern ill health.
A number of years ago I had a complete health assessment with BUPA (a British private healthcare company) and was diagnosed as 'pre-diabetic'.
Or in other words, if I did nothing, I would be injecting insulin within 10 years.
The advice was to cut the saturated fat and increase my consumption of 'heart healthy' whole-grains.
As a guy with a Financial background who has worked in both industry and public sector, this seemed strange to me as when we have problems in business we always go back to 'root cause'.
So if we have lost money on a deal, we need to understand 'why' so that we do not repeat it, whereas, if we have made more money than we expected, let's understand 'why' so we may be able to repeat it.
So, my thought process was this;
I then found Martin Berkhans web-site, which began to open my eyes to what I felt instinctively to be 'right'. Then I read Dr John Briffa's excellent book "Waist Disposal", and in reading his blog you see how he has also been on a voyage of discovery on what actually contribute to 'whole health' and has arrived as the same view as people such as Gary Taubes.
The views across the spectrum of the 'low carb' community are wide and disparate, and as a 'finance guy' I have been always trying to reduce the guidance down to a singe cogent phrase. As a UK trained Accountant we believe in 'principles' as opposed to 'rules' as they are more encompassing, and leave less room 'for manouvre' than simple rules.
So despite some of the focus on aspects of certain carb's, (see the excellent Dr William Davis in his crusade against Wheat) my view is this;
Avoid all and any foodstuffs that will cause a significant insulin release.
Why?
Insulin release is the primary indicator that blood sugar has risen to a level that is contrary to human health, and that the resulting blood sugar hike and related elevated levels of insulin will cause irreparable damage to certain tissues within the body leading to many of the modern 'diseases' which aren't actually diseases;
But we could, infrequently, access rich sources of carbs/sugar - fruit in autumn/fall, or wild honey. We evolved to handle the windfall of sugar by having a mechanism to grab the increased blood sugar and tuck it away for later - namely shoving it into the fat cells.
Fast forward a couple of millenia, and what do we find?
Ape decendants who evolved to handle a blood sugar 'spike' maybe 1 month out of twelve having to deal with it every day due to a diet full of 'heart healthy, low fat' breakfast cereals, low fat lunchs of pasta, evening meals of lean protein with potatoes etc etc.
No wonder we are all fat - the daily insulin release is trying to shove all of the blood sugar into fat storage.
As someone said - carbs drive blood sugar, blood sugar drives insulin, and insulin drives fat storage.
How do we reverse this?
The counter hormone to insulin is Glucagon, when insulin levels are low, Glucagon levels rise and trigger the release from the liver of stored glycogen stores, but also the presence of glucogon (and the absence of insulin) allows the process of Lipolysis whereby the body is able to mobilise fat stores to be burned by the body as fuel, Glucagon is our friend.
Don't like those fatty thighs?, got a beer belly?, double chins ? - adopt a diet that enables you to keep insulin levels low (or lowish) and enables you to eat your own fat stores.
See the attached diagram from Endocrineweb.com
How do we do this? - eliminate all foods with a high Glycemic Load (which is basically the Glycemic Index expressed in real terms of impact on the body).
i.e. Water Melon has a GI of (say) 72, but a GL of 4 as it is not a dense carbohydrate.
More here http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm
A number of years ago I had a complete health assessment with BUPA (a British private healthcare company) and was diagnosed as 'pre-diabetic'.
Or in other words, if I did nothing, I would be injecting insulin within 10 years.
The advice was to cut the saturated fat and increase my consumption of 'heart healthy' whole-grains.
As a guy with a Financial background who has worked in both industry and public sector, this seemed strange to me as when we have problems in business we always go back to 'root cause'.
So if we have lost money on a deal, we need to understand 'why' so that we do not repeat it, whereas, if we have made more money than we expected, let's understand 'why' so we may be able to repeat it.
So, my thought process was this;
- My body has a problem in that it has a higher fasting blood sugar level, because it is becoming insulin resistant.
- You are now asking me to increase my consumption of a food category (Carbohydrates) that is guaranteed to spike my blood sugar, thus triggering further insulin release, thus increasing the risk that my body will become ever more resistant than it has been to the insulin release;
- Thus Type 2 Diabetes is virtually guaranteed under this advice.
- Say 'hello' to the products of Drug Companies (go figure!).
I then found Martin Berkhans web-site, which began to open my eyes to what I felt instinctively to be 'right'. Then I read Dr John Briffa's excellent book "Waist Disposal", and in reading his blog you see how he has also been on a voyage of discovery on what actually contribute to 'whole health' and has arrived as the same view as people such as Gary Taubes.
The views across the spectrum of the 'low carb' community are wide and disparate, and as a 'finance guy' I have been always trying to reduce the guidance down to a singe cogent phrase. As a UK trained Accountant we believe in 'principles' as opposed to 'rules' as they are more encompassing, and leave less room 'for manouvre' than simple rules.
So despite some of the focus on aspects of certain carb's, (see the excellent Dr William Davis in his crusade against Wheat) my view is this;
Avoid all and any foodstuffs that will cause a significant insulin release.
Why?
Insulin release is the primary indicator that blood sugar has risen to a level that is contrary to human health, and that the resulting blood sugar hike and related elevated levels of insulin will cause irreparable damage to certain tissues within the body leading to many of the modern 'diseases' which aren't actually diseases;
- Type 2 diabetes
- Heart Disease
- Stroke
- Polycistic Ovarian Disease
- Sleep apnea
- Cancers
- Dementia
- Alzheimers
- Macular Degeneration
- Coronary Artery Disease
- Arthritis
- and many more
But we could, infrequently, access rich sources of carbs/sugar - fruit in autumn/fall, or wild honey. We evolved to handle the windfall of sugar by having a mechanism to grab the increased blood sugar and tuck it away for later - namely shoving it into the fat cells.
Fast forward a couple of millenia, and what do we find?
Ape decendants who evolved to handle a blood sugar 'spike' maybe 1 month out of twelve having to deal with it every day due to a diet full of 'heart healthy, low fat' breakfast cereals, low fat lunchs of pasta, evening meals of lean protein with potatoes etc etc.
No wonder we are all fat - the daily insulin release is trying to shove all of the blood sugar into fat storage.
As someone said - carbs drive blood sugar, blood sugar drives insulin, and insulin drives fat storage.
How do we reverse this?
The counter hormone to insulin is Glucagon, when insulin levels are low, Glucagon levels rise and trigger the release from the liver of stored glycogen stores, but also the presence of glucogon (and the absence of insulin) allows the process of Lipolysis whereby the body is able to mobilise fat stores to be burned by the body as fuel, Glucagon is our friend.
Don't like those fatty thighs?, got a beer belly?, double chins ? - adopt a diet that enables you to keep insulin levels low (or lowish) and enables you to eat your own fat stores.
See the attached diagram from Endocrineweb.com
How do we do this? - eliminate all foods with a high Glycemic Load (which is basically the Glycemic Index expressed in real terms of impact on the body).
i.e. Water Melon has a GI of (say) 72, but a GL of 4 as it is not a dense carbohydrate.
More here http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)