Comments on: Big Pharma’s sins of omission

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:00:37 +0000

Google�s cache might not have the most recent blog comments, but it will have the older comments from the archives.
In fact, Google has added so many more computers lately that it should have added new comments to its index within a few hours.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:26:26 +0000

Re: the search option

A search method that does search the comments is Google. Enter the search terms along with:

site:www.proteinpower.com

That will confine the search to this site. Google’s cache might not have the most recent blog comments, but it will have the older comments from the archives.

By: LCforevah

LCforevah — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:43:26 +0000

This is one of the many reasons why studies should never be done by the interested parties themselves. Universities should be doing this free of any connection with Big Pharma. As Taubes has pointed out, too many of the scientists seeking grants from both government and private sources have to present proposals that compromise the science before it even gets started.

By: Lowcarbarama

Lowcarbarama — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:11:22 +0000

“The UN (surprise, surprise) has declared 2008 as �The Year of the Potato� portraying the potato, a carbohydrate rich food and source of energy, as the salvation of third world nations.”

Because it did such a fantastic job in the 19th century in Ireland!

Indeed! Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Hines

Hines — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:56:14 +0000

Dr Eades,
I really hope this comment reaches you.
Please dont flame me for my ineptitude, but I searched and also I didnt know where to contact you. (I probably didnt spend enough time looking, I’m so very sorry.)

BTW, on a related note to the pharma saga, we get goodies and catered lunches all the time from the drug companies, not just when they give presentations for the doctors, but ‘just because’. Their logos are all over the clinic (cardiology.) I have to admit I cant turn down a free sandwich.

Anyway, I just came across this 3 year old study regarding ketosis and methylglyoxal while researching CRON. I have not heard about this compound before and only did a quick internet search on it. I have read about glycation and AGE’s though.

http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1043/1/201

“Ketosis Leads to Increased Methylglyoxal Production on the Atkins Diet

BENJAMIN G. K. BEISSWENGER, ELIZABETH M. DELUCIA, NANCY LAPOINT, REBECCA J. SANFORD AND PAUL J. BEISSWENGER

Sections of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire 03756, USA

Address for correspondence: Paul J. Beisswenger, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756.Voice: 603-650-8630/1808; fax: 603-650-2240/1808. paul.j.beisswenger@dartmouth.edu

In the popular and widely used Atkins diet, the body burns fat as its main fuel. This process produces ketosis and hence increased levels of �-hydroxybutyrate (BOB) acetoacetate (AcAc) and its by-products acetone and acetol. These products are potential precursors of the glycotoxin methylglyoxal. Since methylglyoxal and its byproducts are recognized as a significant cause of blood vessel and tissue damage, we measured methylglyoxal, acetone, and acetol in subjects on the Atkins diet. We found that by 14-28 days, methylghyoxal levels rose 1.67-fold (P = 0.039) and acetol and acetone levels increased 2.7- and 6.12-fold, respectively (P = 0.012 and 0.028). Samples from subjects with ketosis showed even greater increases in methylglyoxal (2.12-fold), as well as acetol and acetone, which increased 4.19- and 7.9-fold, respectively; while no changes were seen in samples from noncompliant, nonketotic subjects. The increase in methylglyoxal implies that potential tissue and vascular damage can occur on the Atkins diet and should be considered when choosing a weight-loss program.

Key Words: Atkins diet � ketosis � methylglyoxal � acetone � acetol”

I dont really have any particular thoughts on it because as I get older I am finding out that there always seems to be a good and a bad side to just about everything.
The only thing I’m concerned of is that this methylglyoxal thing appears to be particularly and extremely toxic.

Thank you so so much for your time!

- Hines

Hi Hines–

I’ve answered this question in the comments at least four or five times so far, which is one of the reasons that I want to quit spending so much time on comments. A lot of people don’t read them and the search option doesn’t really search them. Unless you are a comment reader you wouldn’t know, so don’t think I’m taking you to task for asking the question. I almost never read the comments on the blogs I read, so I figure a large number of people don’t read the comments on mine. It’s much better to put this kind of info in a post so that all can read it and newcomers can find it by using the search option.

If you go to this post and scroll down through the comments to the four or five comment exchange I had with Tim Lundeen (it’s near the bottom of the comment list), you can find my thoughts on this issue.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Nita

Nita — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:18:56 +0000

Now Merck wants the FDA to approve OTC low-dose cholesterol-lowering drugs, that you can buy right alongside your aspirin and Pepto. Of course, all the “studies” show that we must lower our cholesterol or we’re going to die, so John Q. Public can go to his local discount store and buy this OTC drug so he can have low cholesterol, even though he has no idea what is a good number, has no way to check his levels, probably doesn’t know anything about LDL vs HDL, just knows that he “must” have lower cholesterol or he’s sure to keel over any day now with a major heart attack. And as gullible as many people are, especially older people who believe everything the doctor tells them, and take whatever the doctor prescribes without question, Merck is bound to make a fortune if the FDA approves this. After all, if lower cholesterol levels are healthier, then this stuff is sure to be good. Right?

At least the FDA has turned them down twice. I hope they turn them down for the 3rd time, too.

I hope they turn them down, too. Maybe all this negative press that’s come out will at least inject a modicum of sanity to the debate.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Daedala

Daedala — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:02:18 +0000

I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with the way Western medicine is researched. (This isn’t to say I’m all that fond of New Age interpretations of Eastern stuff either…I can’t speak to real Eastern medicine.) They tend to do big studies on large populations of [white college-age male] Americans, and the drug has to be better than a placebo. But what if a drug works great for older African-American women? For vegetarians? For people who have insulin resistance, or don’t? For people with particular genes or phenotypes? Overall, it’s not going to beat the placebo, because it isn’t better for most people. But sometimes it could be the right thing.

I got to thinking about this when I found I couldn’t tolerate the generic for a patent drug that worked. Since the party line is that the generic is the same and only the ingredient they say is active matters, there’s no way to get the patent version on my health insurance. I finally switched to another patented variation of the drug, which fortunately lets me sleep.

You are correct on all counts. Thanks for the insightful comment.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Joe Halada

Joe Halada — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:30:45 +0000

Interesting fact from: http://www.potato2008.org/en/index.html site: Annual potato consumption / capita in Belarus (highest in the world) is 337.99 kilograms = 745.1404 pounds.

Now, I don’t know how much of that is consumed in form of vodka, but one way or another, it is scary…

Real scary. I wonder what the obesity statistics are for Belarus?

Cheers–

MRE

By: Zack Sloan

Zack Sloan — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:07:20 +0000

Hello Dr. Eades,

Sorry, I couldn’t see where I could just send you an email directly without commenting on a post. I just wanted to send this link for an article about a recent study showing protein had the best appetite suppression abilities and carbs were second best but only in the short term. They soon made people hungrier. Nothing new to you of course but good to see it in the mass media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080118/hl_nm/diets_dc;_ylt=Aq2CL6AwzxGtbd2HwAmqX4as0NUE

Yes, Zack, this is a pretty good paper. I’ve pulled it and skimmed it. I need to read it more thoroughly then post on it.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Wil B.

Wil B. — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:01:40 +0000

Dr. Mike, it occurs to me that a recent article in the WSJ about testosterone deficiency in men is on topic. Here’s the lead in to that article by Dr. Benjamin Brewer:
* * * *
THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE
By BENJAMIN BREWER, M.D.

A decline in Testosterone
May Give Rise to Many Ills
January 17, 2008
My boyhood baseball hero Rich “Goose” Gossage made it into the baseball Hall of Fame last week. His 98-mph fastball and 22-year career as a fearsome relief pitcher were achieved without the use of steroids. His best years were back in the ’70s and early ’80s when men were men and made their own testosterone naturally. But even the most macho among us face a decline in the quintessential male hormone as we age. Recent evidence points to a decline in testosterone levels in the general population of men, regardless of age.
A 20-year study of testosterone levels in men found that testosterone concentrations dropped about 1.2% per year, or about 17% overall, from 1987 to 2004. The downward trend was seen in both the population and in individuals over time……..
* * * * *
If I understand this correctly, the study Dr. Brewer refers to suggests that maybe the apparently normal decline of testosterone in aging men may have started to trend upward or accelerate commencing in the mid 1980s (when statin drugs started to be commonly prescribed?). I know this may be a leap on my part, but it makes me wonder if there could be a connection there. Do you know if there has been any credible research or investigation into this? Is declining testosterone in men as they age really a normal, inevitable phenomenon?

Separately, you wrote in PPLP in 2000 that insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia has an adverse affect on production of the sex hormones. I would be very interested in knowing your take on the trend (if it is a trend) suggested by reading between the lines of the article, as well as any incidental thoughts you may have about the possible relationship between the (unwary or unthinking) acceptance by so many people of the low fat/high carb diet hypothesis and the broader topic addressed in the article.

Best,

Hey Wil–

I can understand the confusion based on the quote you provided. I would have to see the actual study to see what’s going on. There is a definite decrease in testosterone with aging. I don’t know whether or not there is an overall decline in testosterone that is not correlated with aging, however.

Hyperinsulinemia drives the liver to make more sex-hormone binding globulin, meaning that there is less free testosterone, so in that sense elevated insulin levels do in essence decrease sex hormones.

Cheers–

MRE