I was never very satisfied with the look and feel of D-solve. It seemed to detract from the power of the message contained within the site. I spent last weekend retooling the look and feel of the site and feel it now matches the quality of the content (which has been updated as well). I hope people get a chance to browse the site and as always please send me any feedback (positive or constructive). The site received a lot of increased traffic (thanks Google Analytics) after receiving mention in Dr. Richard Feinman's DiabetesHealth article titled Why You Don't Want the "Experts" to Tell You What to Eat. I highly recommend the article--it is a wonderful synopsis of the value of low carb / low insulin in diabetes management.
With D-solve refreshed I am not going to dedicate more time to promoting the website and it's message--I hope anyone reading this that knows anyone with diabetes will forward them to the website. The doctor's are treating their symptoms and complications, but the content on that page can manage the disease and prevent the symptoms and complications from ever occurring. The establishment is still not there even though it is SO common sense--don't eat the things that raise your blood sugar. Not to mention those same things are relatively new to our human diet. I am excited about what the future holds for D-solve and feel we are close to a tipping point with our message of low carb and low insulin diabetes management. Again, please forward the site to anyone you know with type 1 or 2 diabetes--it could save their life.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Study Shows that Kids That Eat More Fat Are Less Obese
When will people learn that the old addage you are what you eat is complete bull? I mean, if I eat tomatoes does that mean I will turn red? It is by this same logic that many human minds have fallen into the false beleif that eating fat makes you fat. I am grateful I have been feeding my kids their bacon and eggs (hold the toast), walnuts, and cream laden protein shake on special occasions. At least this study gives me some hope that people will finally catch on that in my opinion our genetic heritage is one of a fat burning machine. It is my opinion that a 70% fat diet, 20 % protein, and 5% carb (from green leafy vegetables) is about as optimal as it gets (note: the body has multiple mechanisms for raising blood sugar, but only one for loowering it--insulin, this anecdotal evidence leads me to deduce we were never meant to have the gluttony of carbs associated with grains).
The saddest part of the article is right in the beginning when we get a glimpse into the sad mind set of our most current dietician researchers who are still held by this "you are what you eat" nonsense:
Researcher Malin Haglund Garemo, a dietician from Gothenburg University in Sweden, said that more studies are planned to investigate if obesity was being caused by an early increase in insulin, and not fat. "Such results would go against the common perception that fat causes increased insulin production as a result of insulin resistance," she said. If I could ask Malin just one question it would be what are you talking about? Fat causes increased insulin production??? The precise reason a high fat diet is beneficial is because it DOES NOT cause insulin production--carbs cause a large degree of insulin production as they convert to glucose (some like potatoes convert almost as fast as eating a candy bar), protein also is also convertable by the body and hence when I eat it I have to take insulin to cover the glucose (it is much less and slower then carbohydrate conversion to glucose). Anyhow, not sure exactly what she is even referring to--I really hope she isn't referrin gto her own "common perception".
In a sad but related story a UK mom may lose her son due to his obesity. In my opinion, if there is gross negligence with regards to childhood nutrition then step one should be educating the parent and then if they continue to disregard you might have a case for taking the child away. But this is the kicker, what would they educate the parent to do? Most likely they would stick with their own bad advise of low fat and high carb (grains, pasta, etc.) and with a child as shown in that article I would assume there is already a high degree of sensitivity to insulin and wouldn't be surprised if he did just as bad on a low fat diet unless you went to extremes and starved him calorically.
Lastly, there is the following related story out of Sweden's The Local which speaks the younger and younger age at which Type 2 diabetes is being diagnosed in Sweden:
Young children suffering with Type-2, or adult-onset, diabetes have been discovered in Sweden for the first time.
"We are already seeing the early signs of adult-onset diabetes in five year olds," said professor Claude Marcus, head of the National Centre for Child Obesity in Huddinge, to Svenska Dagbladet.
"That means reduced sensitivity to insulin and evident effects on the blood vessels. It's very serious because Type-2 diabetes is an illness which affects the whole system."Putting the dots together shouldn't be as hard as it is being made out to be by the scientific community. Our genes were not meant to be overridden with processed sugars, refined flours (or perhaps grains in any form), etc. I beleive high fat, low carb (in the form of green leafy vegetables and non root vegetables), with a moderate amount of natural protein (fish, fowl, meat) is the solution--and this is just basic common sense and deduction--why is it so hard for the scientific community to even acknoledge they may have gone very awry. Seems to take too long for it to correct major errors. An analysis of how and why they have gotten so wrong would be a book unto itself and I think would be an interestin root cause analysis for the scientific process in general.
This form of diabetes, which is non-insulin-dependent, is becoming increasingly widespread in developed countries.
Some 1.2 percent of children at the centre in Huddinge have been shown to have Type-2 diabetes. The first case of adult-onset diabetes in a Swedish teenager was recorded just two years ago.
For anyone interested in learning more about the myths that eating fat makes you fat and how this myth exploded into our collective consciousness take a look at Anthony Colpo's The Great Cholesterol Con or The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease.
For diabetics interested in exploring a low carbohydrate approach to treating diabetes AND for feeding your kids browse around D-solve which has tons of low carb links.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Connecting the Big Pharma Dots
Someone on the Dr. Bernstein forum posted a link to the following Seattle Times article which is actually just one story in a series focused on the astounding influence of pharmaceutical companies on the ever increasing amount of preventative treatment in our society. As stated in the article:
A related big pharma dot that I wanted to connect to that article is with regards to the following New York Times article which relates how a series of diabetic clinics focused on helping people make lifestyle changes. The article discusses why the clinics had to shut down:
They did not shut down because they had failed their patients. They closed because they had failed to make money. They were victims of the byzantine world of American health care, in which the real profit is made not by controlling chronic diseases like diabetes but by treating their many complications.
When are we going to realize how messed up the situation is and demand that our government, primarily the FDA an NIH get a grip on their sad scientific state of affairs and stop the corporatacracy?
Honestly, it is so self-evident and as I sit here in a hospital with an injured family member it is enough to make you doubt so and double check absolutely everything. I can't sum it up any better then with the following quote by a doctor in the Seattle Times article:
"You can't tell me that three-quarters of my population is sick before I start," he said. "That just doesn't pass the laugh test.
You are suddenly sick, simply because the definitions of disease have changed. And behind those changes, a Seattle Times examination has found, are the companies that make all those newly prescribed pills.
The Times found that:
• Pharmaceutical firms have commandeered the process by which diseases are defined. Many decision makers at the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and some of America's most prestigious medical societies take money from the drug companies and then promote the industry's agenda.
• Some diseases have been radically redefined without a strong basis in medical evidence.
• The drug industry has bolstered its position by marketing directly to the health-conscious consumer, leading younger and healthier people to consider themselves at risk and to start taking medications.
While the article is a bit dated, I think it is almost more relevant now.A related big pharma dot that I wanted to connect to that article is with regards to the following New York Times article which relates how a series of diabetic clinics focused on helping people make lifestyle changes. The article discusses why the clinics had to shut down:
They did not shut down because they had failed their patients. They closed because they had failed to make money. They were victims of the byzantine world of American health care, in which the real profit is made not by controlling chronic diseases like diabetes but by treating their many complications.
When are we going to realize how messed up the situation is and demand that our government, primarily the FDA an NIH get a grip on their sad scientific state of affairs and stop the corporatacracy?
Honestly, it is so self-evident and as I sit here in a hospital with an injured family member it is enough to make you doubt so and double check absolutely everything. I can't sum it up any better then with the following quote by a doctor in the Seattle Times article:
"You can't tell me that three-quarters of my population is sick before I start," he said. "That just doesn't pass the laugh test.
"Our business is in a hard place right now," Welch said. "A lot of docs know it's not right."
It is a complex issue to be sure, but I want to believe we are merely at an extreme and that our system of governance and the scientific process itself will help pull it back a bit towards center before it is too late. Reminds me of the parodied press release, "Cholesterol Theory Wipes Out the Human Race"--hopefully we don't allow ourselves to get much further down the path towards that press release becoming a reality in many different disease dimensions.Friday, February 23, 2007
Amercian Indians Have the Highest Diabetes Rate...Wanna Know Why?
American Indians have highest diabetes rate, experts say: American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer from diabetes more than any ethnic group and the disease is increasingly affecting young Indians, government health experts told Congress. "In some communities, the prevalence rate is as high as 60 percent among adults," Charles Grim, the head of the Indian Health Service, told the Senate Indian Affairs Committee last Thursday. Grim said that agency statistics show that diabetes increased 128 percent among teens ages 15 to 19 between 1990 and 2004. The disease increased 77 percent among young people younger than 15 during the same time frame, he said. (The following fact was originally found reported in Diabetes In Controller Newsletter.)
If you spend a bit of time browsing at D-solve you will realize that I am a big proponent of a paleolithic diet. My two cents on the above situation is that Native American's were living a very natural diet of high fat with protein and a small amount of carbs up until Europeans showed up. For an interest read on this topic I have linked to the following write up: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects
Suffice it to say that I beleive Native American's probably have a superior set of "thrifty" genes that are well equipped to handle periods of starvation much better then genes from cultures that have little starvation in their recent past (although I beleive we all have loads of this trait in our distant past). This great trait becomes a weakness in today's modern society with mass doses of refined sugars unless they control their diets and ultimately keep them in line with their ancestors (which probably included bursts of intense physical activity with intermitent restful periods). All in all, I am not a doctor but it makes common sense to me (and various others I have linked to on my site here) that groups like these (as well as Aborigines of Australia and other recent converts to modern societies diets) ought to go back to their dietary roots of 70% fat (of all types of meat from all parts of the animal), 25% protein, and 5% carbs from rough greens predominantly with nuts and berries tossed in here and there as well.
Dr. Mike Eades of Protein Power has the following blog entry with this great commentary in line with what I beleive to be my own pragmatic and common sense deduction based observations--I especially love his quoting of Dr. Donaldson:
"Given the above facts, it’s pretty clear that early man ate a fair amount of meat. After all, it takes only a couple of 16 ounce fatty steaks to provide 3000 kcal, which is a whole lot easier to down than 3 gallons of blackberries. It would then stand to reason that as a species we would perform better on a meat, or at the very least, a higher protein, lower carb diet since that’s what we had to eat for a few million years. In one of my favorite quotes, Dr. Blake F. Donaldson, a crusty old physician from New York who wrote a book called Strong Medicine, says:
"During the millions of years that our ancestors lived by hunting, every weakling who could not maintain perfect health on fresh fat meat and water was bred out."
Well there you have it--my two cents. Eat fat (70%), eat protein (25%), and eat your greens (5%).
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
What Prevents Doctors from Counseling Their Patients to Lose Weight, Exercise, and Quit Smoking?
There is a nice summary of a recent report on why more doctors don't promote lifestyle changes even though they think they are supposed to by the University of Haifa (as reported by Diabetes In Control) at: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4571
Upon reading this it brought up some personal observations and opinions that I wanted to throw out here for comment. These are pure conjecture and opinion and go well above that which was reported in the study.
First off, check out this fact from the article, "Ninety-nine percent of doctors believe that part of their job is to encourage their patients to live a healthier lifestyle, but only 20% actually do it."
While the University of Haifa sought to answer this very question I had a few ideas and conclusions of my own that were not necessarily in the article. First off, I have to imagine that many of the doctors don't have the innate interpersonal skills required to offer truly successful lifestyle coaching (but I DO think there is a need for this especially with Diabetes and Heart Disease where so much can be done at a lifestyle level alone). By this I mean, it takes a charismatic-leader type individual to inspire and convince. Yes, the doctor has the "authority" figure role for many (but that seems to be dwindling as more and more lose confidence in their medical professionals based strictly on evaluation of outcomes produced) but beyond that in many cases it takes a bit of inspiration and motivation to get people to institute lifestyle changes. In addition it takes a true teacher (educator) which is not as we would think--the ability to truly teach is not that common in my opinion. I believe that part of the reason for a doctor not pushing lifestyle changes could impart be the lack of these essential lifestyle coaching qualities. I think it is imperative to elevate the position of lifestyle coaches for certain ailments as they could probably do far more healing then a doctor without these skills who is merely providing drug treatment.
But what about those unique doctors that actually DO have the unique interpersonal skills required as well as the desire to participate in that sort of coaching I wonder how many are deterred by a lack of confidence in their actual abilities to heal.
Don't laugh, but I know for a fact that most endocrinologists focused on diabetes are apathetic. Lets face it, the ADA has given them a recipe for disaster with respect to guidelines on how to treat a disease that many of them focus on. From what I have seen many of them resort to merely "treating" their patients and are unable to present them with a means for achieving normal blood sugars (even for those that are trying like crazy to do so--it just can't be done on the ADA and typical high-carb/low-fat diet that most medical professionals in the field are pushing). So my thinking is that after some time they come to think that the best they can do is prescribe medicine and treat the illness, with no power to actually solve or heal it (even though those of us using low carb with normal A1Cs know this not to be the case). I wonder if a doctor who practices in a field that has very low success rate in treatment and mostly just sees progression of the disease ultimately loses confidence in themselves such that making lifestyle recommendations seems futile, since in the case of diabetes you can make a lot of lifestyle changes but if you continue to eat the high carb diet you WILL have higher then normal blood sugars, and the disease WILL progress.
Anyhow, these were just a few thoughts on the article which I thought was interesting in and of itself. Makes me feel like there needs to be a Jenny Craig / Weight Watchers type business for the low carb, exercise, component of diabetes as this will be far cheaper for society then having half the population on drugs (I am sure the pharmas would rather see the later).
Until next time.
Upon reading this it brought up some personal observations and opinions that I wanted to throw out here for comment. These are pure conjecture and opinion and go well above that which was reported in the study.
First off, check out this fact from the article, "Ninety-nine percent of doctors believe that part of their job is to encourage their patients to live a healthier lifestyle, but only 20% actually do it."
While the University of Haifa sought to answer this very question I had a few ideas and conclusions of my own that were not necessarily in the article. First off, I have to imagine that many of the doctors don't have the innate interpersonal skills required to offer truly successful lifestyle coaching (but I DO think there is a need for this especially with Diabetes and Heart Disease where so much can be done at a lifestyle level alone). By this I mean, it takes a charismatic-leader type individual to inspire and convince. Yes, the doctor has the "authority" figure role for many (but that seems to be dwindling as more and more lose confidence in their medical professionals based strictly on evaluation of outcomes produced) but beyond that in many cases it takes a bit of inspiration and motivation to get people to institute lifestyle changes. In addition it takes a true teacher (educator) which is not as we would think--the ability to truly teach is not that common in my opinion. I believe that part of the reason for a doctor not pushing lifestyle changes could impart be the lack of these essential lifestyle coaching qualities. I think it is imperative to elevate the position of lifestyle coaches for certain ailments as they could probably do far more healing then a doctor without these skills who is merely providing drug treatment.
But what about those unique doctors that actually DO have the unique interpersonal skills required as well as the desire to participate in that sort of coaching I wonder how many are deterred by a lack of confidence in their actual abilities to heal.
Don't laugh, but I know for a fact that most endocrinologists focused on diabetes are apathetic. Lets face it, the ADA has given them a recipe for disaster with respect to guidelines on how to treat a disease that many of them focus on. From what I have seen many of them resort to merely "treating" their patients and are unable to present them with a means for achieving normal blood sugars (even for those that are trying like crazy to do so--it just can't be done on the ADA and typical high-carb/low-fat diet that most medical professionals in the field are pushing). So my thinking is that after some time they come to think that the best they can do is prescribe medicine and treat the illness, with no power to actually solve or heal it (even though those of us using low carb with normal A1Cs know this not to be the case). I wonder if a doctor who practices in a field that has very low success rate in treatment and mostly just sees progression of the disease ultimately loses confidence in themselves such that making lifestyle recommendations seems futile, since in the case of diabetes you can make a lot of lifestyle changes but if you continue to eat the high carb diet you WILL have higher then normal blood sugars, and the disease WILL progress.
Anyhow, these were just a few thoughts on the article which I thought was interesting in and of itself. Makes me feel like there needs to be a Jenny Craig / Weight Watchers type business for the low carb, exercise, component of diabetes as this will be far cheaper for society then having half the population on drugs (I am sure the pharmas would rather see the later).
Until next time.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Truth About Nutrition (Video)
For a while now I have been wanting to get my brother to help me produce a short 5 minute video on the "Truth about Nutrition". I wanted to have it quickly bundle relevant facts and my own opinions as to where and why we are so far off track at this point. When you think about it, with our massive scientific knowledge base it is frightening how far we have drifted from truth, and what is most interesting is to discover why. It would include themes of paleo diet, evolutionary discordance, grains, diabetes, pharma, national science flaws, etc. This page has some interesting concepts around how we got to where we are and I would like to sketch that out (my own opinion) as well: http://www.biblelife.org/history.htm
I wanted the video to follow a slide show format with very quick flows from shot to shot with a strong narrative in the background. Some elements of the story especially around the whole cholesterol causing heart disease hypothesis may have hints of the conspiracy that it truly is. Other parts I will seek to zero in on some root cause analysis (shift to an agricultural society, industrialization of food supplies, etc.). My reference look and feel would ideally end up something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24
Stay tuned. I am working on a prototype of the script, images, and flow in Powerpoint at the moment, but as soon as I have something up on YouTube I will post it here.
I wanted the video to follow a slide show format with very quick flows from shot to shot with a strong narrative in the background. Some elements of the story especially around the whole cholesterol causing heart disease hypothesis may have hints of the conspiracy that it truly is. Other parts I will seek to zero in on some root cause analysis (shift to an agricultural society, industrialization of food supplies, etc.). My reference look and feel would ideally end up something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24
Stay tuned. I am working on a prototype of the script, images, and flow in Powerpoint at the moment, but as soon as I have something up on YouTube I will post it here.
D-solve Blog Now Live!
So in addition to all the other stuff you get on D-solve such as downloads of medical research, diabetic cheat sheets, book reviews, news articles and most importantly info on how to get normal blood sugars through the use of a low carbohydrate diet, exercise, and proper medical treatment there is also now a blog.
Why a blog with all the other elements of the site? Why not?
The blog is a basically one more place for day to day commentary from the D-solve publishing team (currently just me, but looking for other participants) to post what is on our minds. This is a place to drop a quick note and lay down complete conjecture that may not be backed by medical research as much of the other content on the site is (see the massive collection of medical research showing the benefit of using a low carbohydrate diet to treat diabetes and ultimately allowing a diabetic to have the hope of normal blood sugars).
Stay tuned for future postings.
Ryan Whitaker
D-solve Founder and Operator
Why a blog with all the other elements of the site? Why not?
The blog is a basically one more place for day to day commentary from the D-solve publishing team (currently just me, but looking for other participants) to post what is on our minds. This is a place to drop a quick note and lay down complete conjecture that may not be backed by medical research as much of the other content on the site is (see the massive collection of medical research showing the benefit of using a low carbohydrate diet to treat diabetes and ultimately allowing a diabetic to have the hope of normal blood sugars).
Stay tuned for future postings.
Ryan Whitaker
D-solve Founder and Operator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)