A clear association has been established between insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease as a result of the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (funded by the successor to the National Heart Institute, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute) conducted in the US in the early 90s.

In-depth analysis in 2003 of the response to questionnaires from that study by researchers from the Department of Epidemiology (medical statistics) at the Universities of South Carolina, Minnesota and Wake Forest confirmed the subsidiary conclusion from the original study, that fibre increases insulin sensitivity. This means that the fibre in fruit appears to have a protective effect against the lipid production caused by the fructose in the fruit. So perhaps fruit is only bad for us when we eat the fructose and throw away the fibre (also known as fruit juice).

I’m not so sure that fiber is the magic substance many people think it is. It does reduce the rate at which sugars absorb, but I can’t see how it could affect insulin sensitivity. It can, however, cause damage to the GI tract.

Changes in Eating Habits
During the war rationing at home and K-rations abroad changed the eating habits of Americans and changed the business of farming.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/life_24.html

According to the article here are a few of the new foods that were first produced and sold in the 1940s.

* Mrs. Paul’s frozen fish sticks
* Cheerios (first sold as Cheeri Oats, the first read-to-eat oat
cereal) and Kellogg’s Raisin Bran
* Minute Rice
* Reddi-Whip whipped cream
* Nestles Quick powdered drink mix
* Packaged cake mixes
* M&Ms Chocolate Candies, Peppermint Patty, Junior Mints, Almond
Joy, Whoppers malted milk balls, Jolly Rancher Candies
* Deep Dish Pizza (Pizzeria Uno, Chicago)

Looks like the beginnings of carbohydrate revolution to me. Does this give anyone an idea of how the nature of farming changed? Back in the days before the RDA and K-Ration, most people bought everything they needed for their meals from a corner grocery store, a vegetable stand, a butcher shop and perhaps a fish monger. That was in the pre-carbinean era. Today, thanks to carb based manufactured edible products, we have huge super markets with thousands of new pseudo foods – all made possible because of the events of WW II.

Thanks again,

David and Susan Futoma

PS: I have the same weakness for fresh summertime tomatoes as well, despite some carbs!

Very few carbs in the summertime tomatoes.

It was also a back door way of invalidating a restricted or low carbohydrate diet with in many cases is less than 5% of the total energy requirements. Since carbohydrate restriction goes hand in hand with a high fat intake the RDA energy recommendation limiting fat intake caught the carb restricted diet in a pincer vise.

The inclusion and prominence of carbohydrates in the Food Guide is an important issue because carbohydrate is a non-essential nutrient. As far as I have been able to ascertain the fact that no requirement in human nutrition has been identified for carbohydrate has never been indicated with recommendations for the allowance for this macro nutrient.

The above issues raise the question of whether the campaign against fat and cholesterol has its roots in a program to promote carbohydrate consumption.

From the reading of “Protein Power,” I was wondering if the author’s thoughts on various topics evolved over the years. For example, the author recommends “Beta-carotene (for vitamin A) 25,000 IU.” This is under the category of “In Search of an Excellent Vitamin and Mineral Supplement.”

My education is in clinical dietetics (B.S.) and in human performance and nutrition (M.Ed.). My job (funded by the USDA) is to counsel women during and after pregnancy, including how to feed their infants and children (WIC). My “expertise” in nutrition does not include the nutritional approach to fat loss as advocated by our host, Michael Eades, M.D. – a more-and-more useful field of expertise.

So, when Dr. Eades ventures from weight-loss (“fat loss”) to an area of nutrition science where I have more insight, I wonder how his knowledge has evolved.

None of us knew in 1996 that Beta-carotene in supplements, and added to foods, would ‘perform’ adversely in studies on cancer and heart disease. The recommendation now is to consume carotenoids (not just Beta-carotene) naturally from foods (as opposed to artificially from chemical companies, e.g., DSM and BASF, in the form of vitamin supplements), as carotenoids seem to work together as a team to prevent cancer and heart disease, whereas too much Beta-carotene interferes with the “teamwork” – increasing the incidence of oxidative and inflammatory diseases.

I am used to categorizing people nutritionally: athletes, pregnant women, infants, elderly, and so forth. Obviously, a patient in the “burn ward” has different nutritional needs than a patient with end-stage renal disease. I respect the fact Dr. Eades knows as much or more about these different sub-populations, in terms of their nutritional needs, as I. “Protein Power” is directed at a very specific sub-population – those who need to lose and to prevent excess body fat.

My interests recognize that particular need, but I am also interested in studying how concepts in “Protein Power” are (or are not) useful to health apart from fat loss.

The USDA’s stance on this sub-population (people in need of fat loss) is to advocate eating a diet based on the food pyramid and increasing physical activity (known as “Eat Smart / Move More”).

We (public nutritionists) are against low-carb diets for at least two “scientifically-based” reasons: 1. The Glycemic index is commonly misunderstood and misused for diet books, e.g., The South Beach Diet (most people do not eat two-cups of a single food after fasting, so why eliminate nutrient-dense foods from our diets based on this index?); and, 2. The low-carb diet is relatively high in saturated fat and cholesterol – “killers.” So, upon this “scientific knowledge” we recite “Eat Smart / Move More” to everyone who insists on talking about “losing weight” (not a public-health nutritionist’s favorite topic, I can tell you).

I agree the Glycemic index is misapplied.

I agree with Dr. Eades – the goal is not to lose weight, but to lose fat. I also agree the cholesterol concern is misgiven, and probably for the worst possible reason – the ties between “researchers” at the NIH and the drug companies that manufacture statins.

Knowing nutrition as it pertains to human performance, I am amazed at how most nutritionists remain on the anti-cholesterol bandwagon by failing and refusing to analyze this issue independently. I do not laugh at the number of people who stopped eating eggs and dairy products, since this tragedy outweighed the humor (e.g., trans-fat margarines).

My physician tells me I have a 1% chance of heart disease, based on my activity level, family history, lab results, EKG, BMI, blood pressure and on other data (but not based on a review of my diet).

Most of my calories are from complex carbohydrates, followed by fats and then proteins (I don’t drink – alcohol is readily converted to uric acid).

I don’t eat beef or pork. I am against the conditions under which too many of these animals are subjected. I only eat out once or twice a year and I’m too lazy to cook chicken.

Fish, dairy products (1% milk, cheeses and non-fat yogurt), eggs and beans are my protein sources.

I find my knowledge evolving. Stephen J. Barrett, M.D., posted a statement on low-carb diets on his Quackwatch website. Based on various studies, he acknowledged low-carb diets are an acceptable option for weight loss for a sub-population of people. His reputation and his position on low-carb diets inspire me to keep an open mind and to learn more.

The anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties of foods are more likely to help prevent heart diseases and cancers than the concept of “fats versus carbohydrates.”

So, is Omega-3 superior to saturated fat as an anti-inflammatory agent? Are saturated fats less oxidative than PUFA in vitro (PUFA’s, e.g., Omega-3 fatty acids, are escorted by tocopherols)?

In “Protein Power,” the idea is to limit carbohydrates (30 grams / 120-calories per day in “Phase I”) and limit protein (~ 72 grams / 288-calories for me per day), but “don’t worry” about such limitations for fat, except to choose “healthy fats”: “olive oil, nut oils, avocado, and butter.”

This daily diet is equivalent to about one slice of bread and 12 large eggs. (Vasily Alekseyev, who set 80 world records in weight lifting in the 1970’s, ate a 36-egg omelet each breakfast when weight-lift training. Yet, he still lives…)

Well, if my energy demand for a given day is 2,400 calories, then I would need an addition 221 grams of fat to maintain my weight. That’s ~ 16 tablespoons of those “healthy fats” listed above. So, one slice of bread, 12 large eggs and 16 tablespoons of “healthy fats” (“good eicosanoids”) per day in “Phase I.”

I’m already glad I don’t need to lose fat. But, I recognize many people do have this need.

The first question I need to answer before I present “Protein Power” as an option for certain patients to discuss with their physicians is on how fat is metabolized in the absence of insulin.

I cannot agree complex carbohydrates are “bad.” Can we agree any energy is “good,” so long as: 1. Energy intake does not exceed total energy demand; and, 2. The specific energy source, e.g., strawberries, does not promote oxidative damage and promote inflammation?

Fats enter fat cells with insulin, but fats enter non-fat cells without insulin (how could fats be useful to us on the “Protein Power” diet if not?). Even if fats could not enter non-fat cells without insulin, then would we want excess fat remaining in our blood (increasing blood viscosity, etc.)?

This is the heart of my concern – If excess calories are not stored as triglycerides in fat cells via insulin, then … where are excess calories going? (This is not an issue if there are no excess calories. But, “Protein Power” tells us “don’t worry” [about the amount of fat intake].)

Dr. Eades promotes exercise (”weight-lifting is best”). If a person loses fat with this diet and exercise (not just loses “weight,” e.g., dehydration), then the fat is being used aerobically for energy. (Only carbohydrates are used for anaerobic exercise.) In this case, fats would not pose a risk to organ function, as the fat is entering muscle cells to do work without insulin.

But if a person does not lose weight on the “Protein Power” diet, then I would “worry” there is too little exercise and too much fat intake, and the fats may be entering non-fat cells without insulin which could pose a risk to organ function. My plan is to study this concern. Perhaps I will find where Dr. Eades already addressed this issue.

In the meantime, posts here about – “fats good, carbohydrates bad” – while neglecting to mention exercise – concern me. Speaking for all nutritionists, we do not like the hopeless quest to be fit by dieting without exercise. Dieting without exercise is not what Dr. Eades is prescribing, so why not post comments discussing our exercise habits, too?

I exercise daily, but thanks to my car, my desk job, my local grocery store and so forth I doubt I get half the physical activity as my “Paleolithic ancestors.” So, why eat like them if we’re not going to move (and migrate) like them?

Without the exercise Dr. Eades recommends, I cannot imagine any diet building muscle tissue or bone density, with or without carbohydrates and insulin.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to learn more about healthful fat loss by decreasing carbohydrates, calculating protein intake, unmeasured fat intake (“good eicosanoids”) and with exercise.

“But the exercise must be strenuous and done until muscle exhaustion almost to the point of failure for maximum results” – “Protein Power,” page 192.

I’ll keep reading…

Zach

With the implementation of the RDA the world entered the ‘Age of Carbesity’ as defined by the new religion of the Church of Carbinology and the growing girth of its followers, the carbinists. Carbinologists toiled endlessly to find a process by which cholesterol could be rendered into gold through the art, which came to be known as Statinology. And lo and behold their efforts bore fruit in abundance and the Statinators went forth with their wares. And big pharma was pleased.

Meanwhile, the High Priests of Carbinology ordained thousands of upon thousands of certified nutritionists and dieticians as ‘Carbinators’ and bade them to go forth to spread the gospel according to the scriptures of the RDA, of the good that would come to those who consumed of the carb and the evil that would befall those who indulged in the fat of the land and the excesses of cholesterol as well as the evils of those who preached of the teachings of Atkinsinism.

The Carbamarketers looked over all this. They saw that it was good. And they gloated at their skills of their deception for having fooled so many who thought themselves to be wise. For the Carbamarketers knew full well that it was through their sleight of hand brilliance that the lowly carb had been vaulted from obscurity to a place of prominence in contemporary nutrition and, in so doing, they had overcome the limits of non-essentiality. The Carbamarketers had removed science from nutrition and installed religion in its place. And they saw that it was good. And they rejoiced.

Anyway, I make bacon maybe once every 8 to 12 weeks. I cook it in a frying pan over very low heat so that it doesn’t burn and stays nice and limp, but cooked, the way we like it. Does the fat still oxidize over low heat?

What do you think of my using the leftover bacon grease for cooking — like browning meat, etc.? I pour it into a ceramic dish and keep it covered in the fridge. It lasts for quite a long time (at least I use it for quite a long time, not sure if it actually “keeps” for that long).

Thoughts? Good, bad?

I’m intrigued by rendering lard (ala MD’s current blog). I tried it once, to very mediocre results. Maybe it’s time to try it again, if only I can find some good source for organic lard.

My thoughts on bacon grease are that it is good. We use it a lot.

MRE

I started at 162 and am down 7.5 pounds to 154.5 in three weeks. I have even had some lapses such as a bowl of ice cream and some fruit that put me near 50 g. daily on a few days. Also, flavored coffee most days last week and I don’t have carbs for that but probably a no no. Still, good success and without weight lifting as my schedule is very busy right now. I could probably lose even faster if I really buckled down.

I’m aware that it is a type of sugar found mainly in fruits and that it requires metabolic processing in the liver, which is a big problem I take it. Studies out there have also suggested that consuming too much fructose messes up all kinds of things in the body — they show a correlation with obesity and tends to promote an increase in triglycerides in the blood, which of course are markers for heart disease. And as you’ve already implied…fructose can make the liver look like that of an alcoholic.

So seeing that fructose may be detrimental to one’s health, it would follow that our goal should be to reduce the fructose content as much as possible. But if you look at the % of fructose in some common fruits, compared to equal portions of sucrose, honey, and HFCS-55. (I’ve listed the total sugars in parentheses) you’ll notice something interesting:

Grapes: 42% (18)
Mangos: 54% (15)
Apples: 70% (13)
Strawberries: 52% (6)
Papaya: 60 (6)
Sucrose: 50% (100)
Honey: 53% (82)
HFCS-55: 55% (77)

Looking at those apples and papayas…one can see that they have a high % of fructose, higher even than honey, sugar, and HFCS-55. But does that mean they’re bad? I don’t believe so, especially if you were to look at the total amount of sugars per 100g, then couple that with some fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other goodies that you don’t get in other carbohydrate sources, and also contributing to bulk that limits how much you can eat.

So, I personally don’t feel that we should all get our panties in a twist over fructose thinking that it such an evil thing that we should limit it as much as possible, even if it means avoiding those fruits containing a lot of it. Hasn’t fruit been around for hundreds of thousands of years to nourish our Paleo ancestors? I will say with all due respect Dr. Mike, that I think fruit should not be avoided because of its fructose content, but should be eaten mainly as a dessert. We may need to watch the quantity because of the sugar content, but I sincerely don’t believe anyone is going to get fatty liver disease from eating apples, strawberries, etc.

On the subject of grass-fed beef…I just wanted to add another benefit to eating free-range beef and that is that the CLA content is found in much greater quantities as opposed to the amounts found in grain-fed beef. CLA has been reported in some studies to aid in weight-loss for some reason.

Sky King

The fruits that you find in the supermarkets today bear no resemblance to the fruits our Paleolithic ancestors had to eat. Large, juicy, sweet Washington Delicious apples didn’t exist 20,000 years ago. The apples that were around were little and gnarly. And your ancestors and mine had to fight the birds and the bugs for them during the brief time in the fall that they were ripe. The rest of the time there were no fruits, so although fruits have been around in some form for thousands of years, it ain’t in the form that you find it at Whole Foods today.

MRE