TexasCHLforum.com

BTW Clinger one of the people who signed that petition is vegetarian Christopher Gardner, Stanford University.

He oversaw this research which pitted four popular diets against each other, including the one doctors prescribe. Atkins won. Gardner affirms what David Diamond says about excess carbs raising blood triglycerides and lowering HDL

Bitter Clinger wrote:

Tracker wrote:Heart Disease root causes - and the tests that can save your life !

Great post, thanks!!!


Just had my annual and GP wanted to place me on statins based on age, sex and cholesterol levels. I objected and asked if there was a test that might actually provide data upon which to make a more informed decision. He then offered the CT calcium scan, somewhat reluctantly and there is a question as to whether or not insurance will cover. I decided to have the scan regardless, and your posting served to validate my decision, much appreciated.

Also made me rethink carbs intake!

Print off this petition and take it to your GP. The NIH has never done a re review. Note the people who signed it.

https://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/finalnihltr.pdf

I learned about the petition from this talk by prof David Diamond's. High cholesterol is not a good marker for heart disease.

mojo84 wrote:Tracker, the calcium scan is what saved my life 15 years ago. A new heart hospital had opened across the freeway from my office. My assistant came in one day and told me she was concerned about my health because I had become fatigued and grumpy all the time and not very likeable. She told me she heard on the radio about a special the new hospital was running on a new test called a calcium scan. She said it was a $100 and took less than thirty minutes. I had the scan done and the technician wouldn't let me leave. He called in a doctor that reviewed my results and told me to go straight to my cardiologist's office. I did what they told me and a couple days later I had an angiogram done. They found my "widowmaker" artery 90% blocked. I credit God, my assistant, the calcium scan and the cardiologist for saving my life.

I forgot to mention, I had had 3 false negative nuclear stress tests over the previous 2 years.

Cool, Mojo. What I don't understand is why the test isn't routine yet. I tell ya, because my wife is a nurse we get around other nurses. You'd think these healthcare professionals would be interested in this research. Far from it. Their mantra is: "it's just your genes." I bit my tongue for a long time so now my comeback mantra is: "that's just your excuse for being intellectually lazy."

even in this thread I had an MD respond with "wow, i dont have the attention/time to look this over, but looks pretty detailed." After I answered this post;
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1012524

here are some risk factors off the top of my head (cardiovascular disease):
1. high cholesterol
2. smoking
3. uncontrolled diabetes
4. uncontrolled hypertension
5. moderate to severe sleep apnea
6. stress/type A personality
7. lack of quality sleep
8. sedentary lifestyle

obesity in general:
-stress
-lack of sleep
-poor diet
-lack of regular exercise (heck, id be obese if I didnt run 3.5 miles a day for the last 10 years, and im still fat)

Begs some questions:
1. Is someone is running that much a day why are they still overweight?
2. What is the cause of that hypertension?
3. What is causing the increasing rates in type 2 diabetes (including kids which was unheard of 30 years ago) and is there a way to treat without meds?

Heart Disease root causes - and the tests that can save your life !

carlson1 wrote:I believe in exercise, but that plays a small part in loosing weight or at least for me. To date I am down 63lbs since September 1, 2015 (81lbs total) and I have not exercised a lick. I am disable and spent 6 years in a wheel chair and didn't think I would ever walk again. I gained a lot of weight (122lbs) while I was not mobile, but being immobile was not the only issue it was the wrong food I was eating and that wrong food I believed also caused depression.

It is not all about burning what you put in.

And there is a lot of good researched argument to back that up.

It's about hunger regulation. You can eat foods that will increase your appetite. Your cells also develope mitcondra for burning fat if you restrict high glycemic foods. It takes about 3 weeks. In trials, people on an Atkin's diet (actually a Banting that dates back to the 1800s) your told you can eat as much as you want. You can eat to satiety. Isn't that what dieter's want in the end? But when you count the calories most of them are eating while losing weight they are actually cutting back on total calories...until their weight normalized. Who cares? I for one don't. I have no interest in counting calories.

What we care about is the homeostate. Do you consciously regulate you body temp to 98.6 degrees or do you think unconsciously rely on your endocrine system to do that for you? Can yo upset that homeostasis? Sure.

From a survival POV it makes sense to have some body fat. But too much that it affects my mobility is not good. So is there a hormonal homeostasis system regulating body weight? Yeah, it's the interplay between leptin and insulin.

If the average male body only stores ~1600 calories of glycogen (glucose polymer), 400 of which is in the liver to regulate blood sugar, does it make sense you need to eat 1600 calories of carbs each day? Are you really burning through those each day to survive? Those 1200 calorie of glycogen are stored in mostly muscle cells and are there for flight or fight...for quick burst of energy so you wouldn't become tiger food.

It makes more sense to use fat for fuel most of the time. If the bulk of you daily calories had to come from carbs you'd have little time for anything else, let alone develop culture. As someone who knows something about edible wild plants starchy carbs are few and far between. Hunting Animals, esp the fatty organ parts, have way more bang for the buck relative to time/calories expended.

It comes down to figuring out what a natural diet is for humans. Being able to omnivorous That's harder to tease out. Cows OTOH are easier. If I put my cattle in a pin and feed them an unnatural diet of starch grains they are going to put on fat. (Plus their essential fat composition will change to predominantly Omega 6 at the expense of Omega 3). But if I take those cattle out of the lot and put them back on their natural diet of grass their homeostasis is going to regulate their hunger and they will lose weight. Their weight will normalize. They aren't counting calories. There's no conscious accountant in their head going "this many calories in these many calories out." Why would humans be any different?

If you look at a graph of rising US obesity it begins in 1980... Right after the Federal government, in all its wisdom, instituted the dietary guidelines. We were told to cut fat consumption and increase carbs. Food manufacturers came out with fat-free snacks, with added sugar. It had the effect of increasing insulin (which also stresses the pancreas likely leading to increase in type 2 diabetes rates) which is the fat storage hormone once you've topped of your 1600 calore glycogen tank. Many of use can top that off with a latte and bagel for breakfast.

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs

What is your story?

My story is this: I believe that when the weight goes down due to eating fewer calories, exerting more, or both, the bad numbers go down, the good numbers up. I plotted this for my case over a period of 3 years (6 blood analyses), and showed the plot to my doctor. He requested permission to show the plot to his non-believing patients. In other words, what was relevant 70 years ago is still valid, despite the yards of dietary shelf space at the book stores and online. That’s my story. Each to his own belief or understanding, though. Free country.

Dr Peter Attia MD (Stanford medical school and Johns Hopkins residence) is also an undergrad and graduate degrees in engineering. That gives him an advantage over the typical MD in that he actually had to know thermodynamics to get his engineering degrees. Nobody is disputing the energy conservation. But here's what Attia has to say about the whole calories in/out paradigm: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

Basically, it goes like this: the equation X = kcal in - kcal out is descriptive (ie a mathematically correct description). It is not explanatory. It doesn't answer Why questions. That is, the equation does not establish an "arrow of causality."

So I'm going to apply this equation a number of different ways. Each one is mathematically identical.

G = growth
G = Calories in - Calories out.
You have a growing adolescent boy who is eating you out of house and home. Why? What's causing him to do so?

Is he growing because he's in eating more calories then his maintenance needs? Is the arrow of causality this way G <= Calories in - Calories out?
Or
Is he eating more calories then his maintenance because he's growing. Is the arrow of causality this way G => Calories in - Calories out?

I can ask the same question of a pregnant woman: P = Calories in - Calories out. My daughter is pregnant. Where she used to eat like a bird, she now says she's now hungry all the time.

What's going on in the above two equation? Hormones are driving the hunger response and increasing appetite to insure a positive caloric balance.

F = bodyfat
People just assume the arrow of causality is this way: F <= Calories in - Calories out. Maybe that's not true.
Are you getting fat (<=) because you are eating more calories then your maintenance?
Or
Are you eating more calories then your maintenance because you are getting fat (=>)?
If it's this later then what [hormone] is driving fat accumulation and increasing appetite? Insulin.

To quote Attia's link, above:
"What you eat (along with other factors, like your genetic makeup, of course) impacts how your body partitions and stores fat. In case anyone is wondering how I got over 2,000 words into this post without mentioning the i-word, wonder no longer. Insulin, while not the only factor involved in this process, is probably at the top of the list. When you eat foods that have the double whammy of increasing insulin levels AND increasing your cell’s resistance to insulin, your body prioritizes fat storage over fat utilization. Remember the great medical disconnect – no one disputes that insulin is the most singularly important hormone for causing fat cells to accumulate fat. Somehow the dispute centers on what causes people (full of billions of fat cells) to accumulate fat.

All calories are not created equally: The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."

Also from Attia's blog: The great medical disconnect
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... disconnect
"here is probably no greater disconnect in medicine than the root cause of obesity. Even if you think you already know the answer to this “obvious” question, it’s still worth reading on. The reason this question matters, of course, is clear to everyone. Obesity (and more broadly the syndrome we define as metabolic syndrome) predisposes us to virtually every disease afflicting us in the modern age. Above is a simple graphic from the journal Nature showing the linkage between obesity and all of its sequela.

When you are obese, your risk of disease goes up. This is not disputed. Here is where the controversy starts…what actually makes us obese?

Obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation – fat cells accumulate too much fat, relative to how much fat the body breaks down. Conventional wisdom, however, says obesity is a disorder of eating too much and/or exercising too little. These are not the same thing.

Let’s turn to a well-respected source of medical information, Lehninger’s Principles of Biochemistry (the so-called “bible” of biochemistry)......"

carlson1 wrote:

Tracker wrote:My vice is having a glass or two of wine at night I tend to snack on starch when I do. That's all it takes for the weight loss to stop, I'm good with diet the rest of the day, minimal carbs. To lose weight all I have to do is cut out the wine in the evening.

I know a lot of folks that drink a glass of red wine at night for their heart. My doctor wanted me to do the same, but I do not drink alcohol.

If your vice is the taste and flavor I guess grape juice. I know that I found diet Cokes make me crave carbs.

Since I elected to forgo the wine my doctor has me taking Resveratrol twice a day. He says it is the same health benefit as the wine. I buy it at the health food store.

So if some have considered red wine for health you might consider Resveratrol.

I used to drink diet cokes, not every day but weekly. When I changed my diet to paleo/primal I lost my desire for them. Sometimes I wonder if the wine recommendation is a result of the so called "French Paradox." Despite eating more saturated fat (a lot of butter) the French have a low rate of obesity and low cardio diseases. IIRC It was thought that wine was preventing cardio disease. Now there's better evidence that the saturated fat they eat doesn't no cause cardio diseases.

I really like Terry Wahls MD approach to paleo. She had MS and was wheelchair bound for four years. This is a 17 min story of her life and what she did

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs and my wife has lost 26lbs so far. Slow process, but with God all things are possible. We just keep fighting a little at a time. No drugs or surgery.

Carlson's Theology:
1. I didn't get fat overnight so thus I will not become skinny overnight.
2. You can't out run a fork.
3. Everyone is on a diet rather it is a good diet or a bad diet.
4. Lack of prayer is failure at the table.

This is what we have been doing. . .
Eat Every Day:
Fruits
Whole Grains
Leafy Greens
Nuts
Vegetables
Green Tea

Three Times A Week:
Oily Fish
Yogurt
Broccoli
Sweet Potato
Avocado

One Time Weekly:
Red Meat
Pasta
Dessert

Never:
Fast Foods
Soft Drinks
Processed Meals
Canned Soups

Good job dude

My vice is having a glass or two of wine at night I tend to snack on starch when I do. That's all it takes for the weight loss to stop, I'm good with diet the rest of the day, minimal carbs. To lose weight all I have to do is cut out the wine in the evening.

mojo84 wrote:Well, due to this thread, I've gotten serious about changing my eating habits. Early in the year I changed to more of a whole foods diet avoiding sugar and flour with the exception of whole grain bread, pasta and crackers. After reading this thread and studying more of the work of the people featured in the videos, I changed to a low carb high fat diet about three weeks ago. The first couple of weeks I didn't lose any weight, felt terrible like I had the flu and experienced severe leg cramps that wouldn't go away. Even though I wasn't losing weight according to the scale during that period, I could tell something was going on as my pants felt different.

My body finally adjusted and in the last week, I've dropped almost five pounds, moved to a smaller notch on my belt and feel much more energetic and mentally sharper. I also experience almost no hunger, even when it's time to eat. Therefore, I am eating less and feeling complete satisfied.

Looking forward to continuing with the change. Thanks to those that posted here.

I thought this thread died. Only so much ya can say. You're experience is pretty much the same as mine was. I've always researched nutrition and exercise. I read the American Heart Associations book on nutrition. Now I know there was no good science that went into that book. I have no respect for the AHA. The book The Big Fat Surprise is a good journalistic critique of how these guidelines came about and the lack of science that went into those recommendations

and BTW if you haven't watched this video and you've seen enough on the diet stuff....then slide the time bar to 25 minutes where you will get the evidence on how drug companies are scamming you on the positive effects of statin drugs such as Lipitor and Crestor.



Diamond talks about the "ground breaking" study in 1984 claiming a 24% reduction (the Relative Risk Reduction - RRR ) in heart attacks from taking a cholesterol lowering drug. The Actual Risk Reduction (ARR) in the study was only .4%. IOW if you had been in the study and given a sugar pill you had a 98% chance of not having a heart attack within the 7.5 year study. If you were given the drug you had a 98.4% of not having a heart attack.

That study was contested in 2004 and here is the petition sent to the National Institute of Health (NIH) which where you cardiologist gets his guidelines

Notice who wall signed it.

PETITION TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
SEEKING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL TO RE-EVALUATE
THE NATIONAL CHOLESTEROL EDUCATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES
September 23, 2004
Dr. Elias Zerhouni
Director, National Institutes of Health
https://cspinet.org/new/pdf/finalnihltr.pdf


And this is the short reply that the Department of Health and Human services, and the NIH and NCEP, gave to this 9 page petition; from Dr Diamond's power point presentation on page 45: http://www.cas.usf.edu/news/Diamond_USF.pdf

Dear Mr. Goozner:
I am responding to the letter of September 23 addressed to Dr. Zerhouni, Director, National Institute of Health, myself, and Dr. Cleeman, which was submitted by you for the signatories. The letter questions the validity of current Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) recommendation for cholesterol management developed by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) and requests that NCEP conduct a re-review of the data in the studies at issue.

The Institute does not believe a re-review of the data is warranted at the time.

Sincerely,
Barbra Alving, M.D.


And Diamond shows this Lipitor ad. Notice the * after the 36%* which refers to the the blue print on blue background in the lower left. While the ad shows RRR of 36%* in large bold lettering the ARR is only 1%, a difference from 2-3%.



How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 2.18). 02/2015; 8(2):1-10. DOI: 10.1586/17512433.2015.1012494
Source: PubMed
ABSTRACT
We have provided a critical assessment of research on the reduction of cholesterol levels by statin treatment to reduce cardiovascular disease. Our opinion is that although statins are effective at reducing cholesterol levels, they have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes. We have described the deceptive approach statin advocates have deployed to create the appearance that cholesterol reduction results in an impressive reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes through their use of a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR), a method which amplifies the trivial beneficial effects of statins. We have also described how the directors of the clinical trials have succeeded in minimizing the significance of the numerous adverse effects of statin treatment.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... ar_disease