Health & WellnessS


Life Preserver

Your brain on ketones

Image
Ketosis for the body means fat-burning. For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair.
Ketogenic diets have been prescribed for seizures for a long time. The actual research diets used in the past were pretty dismal and seemed to involve drinking a lot of cream and eating a lot of mayonnaise. At Johns Hopkins, pediatric patients were admitted to the hospital for a 48 hour fast and then given eggnog (minus the rum and sugar, I'm guessing) until ketosis was achieved (usually took about 4 days). In addition, ketogenic diets were calorie restricted to just 75-90% of what would be considered a child's usual calorie intake, and often they were fluid-restricted too (1)! If we're talking soybean oil mayonnaise, you could see how someone could get into trouble with mineral deficiencies and liver problems pretty quickly

To understand "dismal," some of the latest research showed that a "modified Atkins protocol" was just as good as the classic ketogenic diet, and so much more liberating, as the patients were allowed up to 10 grams of carbohydrates daily, and they didn't begin with the fast, and they weren't calorie restricted (2)(3). While the classic ketogenic diet was 4:1:1 fat to carbs to protein. If you use MCT oil for 50% of your calories (have to add it in slowly though to prevent vomiting, diarrhea, and cramping!), you could increase the carbohydrates and proteins to a 1.2:1:1 fat:carb:protein and still get the same numbers of magical ketones circulating. And while "MCT oil" sounds nice and yummy when it is gorgeous coconut milk, this MCT Oil 100% Pure 32 fl.oz doesn't look quite as appetizing, especially when that is going the be half of what you eat for the foreseeable future (4). You can see why researchers consider ketogenic diets (especially the original versions) to be extremely difficult and unappetizing (they were), whereas seasoned low-carbers (who have a bit of a different idea what a ketogenic diet is) will find that attitude ridiculous, especially when you compare a ketogenic diet to the side effects of some anti-epileptic medications.

So it looks like modified Atkins (very very low carb, but not zero carb) and a preponderance of MCT is the same, ketone-wise, for the brain as the classic cream-heavy ketogenic diet. And what does it mean to have a ketogenic brain? Before, we talked about protons, but now I'm going to examine neurotransmitters and brain energy more closely. Specifically, glutamate and GABA (5).

If you recall, GABA is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the mammalian nervous system. Turns out, GABA is made from glutamate, which just happens to be the major excitatory neurotransmitter. You need them both, but we seem to get into trouble when have too much glutamate. Too much excitement in the brain means neurotoxicity, the extreme manifestation of which is seizures. But neurological diseases as varied as depression, bipolar disorder, migraines, ALS, and dementia have all been linked in some way to neurotoxicity.

Comment: For more information on the ketogenic diet, check out our threads "Life Without Bread" and "Ketogenic Diet".


Heart - Black

Lowering cholesterol with statin drugs - Big Pharma's Queen of Deception

Image
Big Pharma’s Queen of Deception will make you lose your head among other “mild” side effects that are a result of lowering cholesterol with these dangerous drugs.
The other day I received a message from a high school friend whom I remember to be brilliant, inspiring and creative. She was just a genius. Recently I learned that she also became a medical doctor and has worked in a public health care system treating elderly people ever since. She sent me a message over facebook frustrated because she found herself in the ridiculous situation of pointing out the obvious to Big Pharma reps and colleagues in a heated argument. Statin drugs - which are used to lower cholesterol - were killing old folks. The elderly are falling and getting some serious fractures at the very best and she was certain it was due to the statin drugs. Here is just SOME relevant information for what is worth, in addition to a 101 as to why cholesterol and its quality is so important for our health. May not doctor find him or herself in the situation of having to argue with a pharmaceutical rep or colleague about his or better judgement of eliminating statin drugs and/or advising high quality fat from animal products which saw us thrive for millennia.

The stuff of life

Cholesterol is the one unjustly vilified substance which our bodies can naturally make since it is absolutely essential to our functioning. Cholesterol is so crucial, the liver is careful to produce some 1000-1400 milligrams of it each day. We are told by the "Official Thought-Control Institutions" to eat up to 300 milligrams of cholesterol from our diets. But our liver production of cholesterol is controlled by feedback mechanisms depending on how much we eat. If we eat too much we produce less, leaving much needed liver energy for other important tasks such as detoxification from this most polluted modern world.

So when we eat more fat, our liver makes less, and vice-versa. But if we are hardly eating any cholesterol and we block its production with drugs, then we are literally screwed. That is the real meaning behind the most profitable drugs in the history of the world - statin medications to lower cholesterol blood.

Restricting or eliminating cholesterol overburdens the liver who now has to overproduce it through its enzyme - HMG-CoA reductase from carbohydrates in our diet to make up for the deficit. It is this enzyme the one that is blocked by statins drugs at the expense of depleting our bodies from the so much needed coenzyme CoQ10 - a key nutrient to our heart and overall health. Furthermore, producing cholesterol from carbs yields a bad quality cholesterol profile.

Info

Colorado lawmakers reject required labels for genetically modified food

Image
© seattleorganicrestaurants.com
Colorado lawmakers Thursday rejected a proposal that would have required genetically engineered food to be labeled, amid fears that the mandate would burden farmers and raise food prices.

A Democratic House committee voted 7-2 against the bill after more than five hours of emotional testimony from mothers seeking labels and farmers saying the requirement would hurt them. The lawmakers ultimately sided with farm groups that said the change would need to be done on a federal level and not by an individual state.

"That's a price Washington should not ask one state's citizens to bear," concluded Rep. Kathleen Conti, R-Littleton.

More than 60 countries require genetically modified foods to be labeled, but the U.S. isn't one of them. Only Alaska has enacted legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and shellfish products.

The federal government and dozens more states are considering similar label requirements amid complaints from consumers that genetically engineered foods may be unsafe.

Magnify

Just say "No-No" to nanos

Image
© www.scoop.it
Have you had your minimum daily requirement of "nanos" today?

Nanomaterials, that is - manufactured or natural substances that are broken down in high-tech facilities to be teensie-tiny, molecule-sized particles. Don't look for them on the ingredient list of food packages, because the big corporate processors of our edibles don't want us to know that their goodies include these miniscule, mysterious "things" that, when ingested, go to places in the body that regular foodstuffs don't directly enter - such as straight into your cells.

There has been precious little research on the human health impacts of nanos - though studies have shown them having unpleasant effects on mice. Also, our food regulators have flatly (and ominously) said they don't have enough information even to evaluate the safety of nanomaterials.

So why are they popping up in processed foodstuffs? No one is talking - except a few anonymous food manufacturers who express enthusiasm for the ability for the whatever-they-are to make processed foods seem "creamier" and to "brighten" food colors.

Comment: Read more about Nanotech: The Unknown Risks:

Nanotechnology - the new threat to food
Nanotech in Our Food: Should We Be Afraid?
Food Industry 'Too Secretive' Over Nanotechnology
Study: Potential Hazards of Nanotechnology Not Known
You Think GMO Is Scary? Nano Tech is Here, In Your Store
Widely Popular Nanoparticles Could Be Giving You Cancer, Nutritional Deficiencies
Stunning Research Shows High Potential for DNA Damage from Nanoparticles
Alert over the march of the 'grey goo' in nanotechnology Frankenfoods


Snowflake Cold

Ice Age babies! The babies who nap in sub-zero temperatures

Image
Would you put your baby or toddler outside in the freezing cold for their lunchtime nap? Most Nordic parents wouldn't give it a second thought. For them it's part of their daily routine.

Daytime temperatures this winter in Stockholm have regularly dropped to -5C (23F) but it's still common to see children left outside by their parents for a sleep in the pram.

Wander through the snowy city and you'll see buggies lined up outside coffee shops while parents sip on lattes inside.

And if you are visiting friends and your child needs a nap, you may be offered the garden or balcony instead of a bedroom.

Alarm Clock

Disruptions in circadian clock have health consequences

Body Clock
© agsandrew / Shutterstock
Researchers from Vanderbilt University recently found that disruptions in the body's circadian rhythm are associated with increased risks of developing obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Past studies have looked at the relationship between the body's metabolism and the operation of the body's biological clock. This study is the first to definitively prove that the body's circadian biological clock controls insulin activity.

A hormone produced in the body's pancreas, insulin helps in controlling the body's fat and carbohydrate metabolism. Carbohydrates are broken down during the digestive process into simple sugars called glucose; the glucose is then absorbed into the bloodstream. Insulin also works on transferring glucose into the body's cells, allowing excess glucose to be removed from the blood. When insulin's ability in removing glucose from the blood is diminished, it is known as insulin resistance. Researchers found that, during inactive phases, the body is more sensitive to insulin than high activity periods. As such, glucose is changed into fat during inactive phases and engaged in tissue building or other forms of energy during active phases.

"That is why it is good to fast every day...not eat anything between dinner and breakfast," commented Carl Johnson, a professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University, in a statement.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, the circadian rhythm, otherwise known as the "internal body clock," manages the body's 24-hour cycle of biological processes and is found in both plants and animals.

Health

Top foods to avoid on a gluten free diet


For those just getting started on a gluten free diet, the task can be very daunting. Identifying what to and what not to avoid is where most people get stuck or frustrated. Below we have put together a video and a list of some of the most common foods that will get you into trouble while following a gluten free diet...

1. Grains

As part of the gluten free "Golden Rule", grains should be avoided to prevent reactions to gluten. The most common items are bread, pasta, cereals, muffins, bagels, cookies, and cakes. But there are many more food items on this short list that commonly contain grains - gravies, croutons, bread crumbs, biscuits, rolls, pita, batter-fried foods, noodles, tortillas, ice cream cones, bran, wheat germ, dumplings, pancake mixes, pies, pumpernickel and rye breads, cornbread, vermicelli, doughnuts, buns, pretzels, spaghetti, waffles and pastries. Many companies have started making gluten free versions of these products. Problem is - they are not TRUE gluten free. Other grains like corn and rice are commonly used as alternative safe substitutes despite the research showing their detriment. For more on this, you can view our comprehensive page on food terms to avoid while eating a gluten free diet.

Comment: For more information on why gluten is toxic to everybody whether they are genetically susceptible or not, please read
The Dark Side of Wheat - New Perspectives on Celiac Disease and Wheat Intolerance and Opening Pandora's Bread Box: The Critical Role of Wheat Lectin in Human Disease


Cheeseburger

The extraordinary science of addictive junk food

Image
© Grant Cornett for The New York Times
On the evening of April 8, 1999, a long line of Town Cars and taxis pulled up to the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury and discharged 11 men who controlled America's largest food companies. Nestlé was in attendance, as were Kraft and Nabisco, General Mills and Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars. Rivals any other day, the C.E.O.'s and company presidents had come together for a rare, private meeting. On the agenda was one item: the emerging obesity epidemic and how to deal with it. While the atmosphere was cordial, the men assembled were hardly friends. Their stature was defined by their skill in fighting one another for what they called "stomach share" - the amount of digestive space that any one company's brand can grab from the competition.

James Behnke, a 55-year-old executive at Pillsbury, greeted the men as they arrived. He was anxious but also hopeful about the plan that he and a few other food-company executives had devised to engage the C.E.O.'s on America's growing weight problem. "We were very concerned, and rightfully so, that obesity was becoming a major issue," Behnke recalled. "People were starting to talk about sugar taxes, and there was a lot of pressure on food companies." Getting the company chiefs in the same room to talk about anything, much less a sensitive issue like this, was a tricky business, so Behnke and his fellow organizers had scripted the meeting carefully, honing the message to its barest essentials. "C.E.O.'s in the food industry are typically not technical guys, and they're uncomfortable going to meetings where technical people talk in technical terms about technical things," Behnke said. "They don't want to be embarrassed. They don't want to make commitments. They want to maintain their aloofness and autonomy."

A chemist by training with a doctoral degree in food science, Behnke became Pillsbury's chief technical officer in 1979 and was instrumental in creating a long line of hit products, including microwaveable popcorn. He deeply admired Pillsbury but in recent years had grown troubled by pictures of obese children suffering from diabetes and the earliest signs of hypertension and heart disease. In the months leading up to the C.E.O. meeting, he was engaged in conversation with a group of food-science experts who were painting an increasingly grim picture of the public's ability to cope with the industry's formulations - from the body's fragile controls on overeating to the hidden power of some processed foods to make people feel hungrier still. It was time, he and a handful of others felt, to warn the C.E.O.'s that their companies may have gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns.

Cow

From vegetarian to confirmed carnivore

Meat
© The Independent, UK
Growing up as a working-class kid in the North in the Sixties, food was incredibly limited. It wasn't like today, where everyone has groaning cupboards of unused goods; we had just enough food to get through each week. Meals were plain and boring, but everything was wholesome and home-cooked.

Food changed a lot in the Seventies, with a lot more processed foods becoming available. In 1979 I turned 18 and by then was a bit of a hippy. I was 10 years out of date; this was when punk was really big and I was just getting into Jefferson Airplane and The Grateful Dead. It was around then that I started to think differently about food. By 1982, I was living in the North of Scotland in a sort of croft with my partner, Dawn. Two years later, we decided to stop eating meat because we used to see all the cattle taken away to the slaughterhouse and we were growing a lot of our own food anyway. That's where the adventure into vegetarianism, wholefoods and healthy eating started.

People didn't really get us and I was considered a bit of a freak for my diet. But then in the mid-Eighties, copying American guidelines, the British government's healthy-eating advice changed and it started encouraging people to base their diets on carbohydrates rather than protein and fat. By the early Nineties, the whole "five-a-day" thing came into play and diets that included a lot less animal and saturated fat and even vegetarianism became the default healthy-eating advice. With things such as salmonella in eggs, BSE in beef and the rest of it, the diet we'd chosen based on wholegrains­, lentils, pulses, fruit and veg, and all that other groovy stuff, made us seem like we'd been ahead of the curve.

Beaker

Milk: Does it really do a body good?

Image
Like most nutritionally oriented doctors out there, I certainly have my opinions when it comes to diet, one of the strongest of which is that I do not believe there is any one, single dietary approach that is ideal for everyone. We are individuals, and some of us require individualized dietary plans that can run the gamut of the various options out there.

Low carb? High carb? Low fat? High fat? Paleo? Vegan? USDA Food Pyramid? What is the right answer? Again, my feeling is, it depends. 

That is unless we are taking about one particular food.....

Dairy.

In my practice, I routinely request that my patients do a therapeutic trial of avoiding dairy (and possibly other foods), to see how their bodies respond. More often than not, doing provides a tremendous benefit. For some, it can be life changing.

What about calcium and my bones?

The argument against avoiding dairy I hear the most involves calcium and the concern people have (especially parents) that avoiding dairy, which is touted to be the best source of calcium for us, would mean you will get deficient in calcium. A quick review of the scientific literature and common sense would reveal that:

1. The calcium in dairy products are poorly absorbed. Therefore, even though the amount in them is high, the amount we get from them is relatively low.

2. There are numerous other foods out there that provide a significant source of more usable calcium. According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, here are the top food sources of calcium and their relative absorption rates. Do we need dairy products for calcium? You be the judge:

Comment: For more information read Why milk is so evil.