If…you are eating crap and getting fatter and you start eating more crap, you’ll get even fatter.

Probably.

If…you are eating really well and becoming leaner and you start eating more (of all the right stuff), you’ll stop getting leaner and get fatter.

Probably.

This is how calories count.

But…

Eating more or less calories is not the mechanism by which we get fatter or leaner.

FACT: You can eat the same amount of calories and by altering how much fat, protein or carbohydrate you eat, you can lose fat, gain fat or stall fat loss. Same total calorie intake, but because the combination of foods affects our hormones differently, the response (fat loss, fat gain, energy output, etc.) will be different.

Probably.

Take a look at this graphic, created by and graciously lent to me by Dr. Richard Feinman, professor of cellular biology at SUNY Downstate Medical School. He uses this slide to teach medical students nutrition:

• Carbohydrate and fat are different metabolically.
• Carbohydrate is not just a fuel but a control element (directly and via insulin).
• Glucose is the major stimulus for the secretion of  insulin (dietary fat does not stimulate insulin).
• Insulin controls disposition of dietary fat. Insulin is primarily anabolic and favors deposition of TAG.

(NOTE: You don’t get to have an opinion on this by the way. There are some things that are known in nutritional science and the above is several of them.)

So even when your carb intake is low (which keeps insulin low) which makes it harder to store fat, if you eat more than you were eating before you might stall your fat loss and even increase your fat stores.  After all, the extra has to go somewhere.

Remember, excess caloric intake is not a mechanism by which fat is stored. But more energy in can and will contribute to how the mechanisms are affected, resulting in excess fat storage.

Probably.

So, as the saying goes, too much of even a good thing can be “bad.”

Wouldn’t that be nice? Imagine steak being proclaimed as a health food…as it once was. Sigh. Will those days ever return? Not if certain researchers have anything to say about it!

I’m sure that many of you saw the recent article in the NY Times about a study that showed the bacteria in our guts converts the carnitine found in red meat into an evil, deadly substance, and how this might be the reason why meat is responsible for heart disease.

The researchers argument was that our intestinal bacterial convert carnitine into a toxic substance called trimethylamine oxide (TMAO) in the liver which then may be the cause or one cause of atherosclerosis in humans. Earlier work by the two main researchers found that choline coverted to TMAO in mice genetically modified to get heart disease and are now extending this idea to humans via the carnitine found in red meat.

Not that red meat is the only food that causes such a conversion mind you. In another study researchers found that lots of the foods tested caused this conversion to happen including heart healthy vegetables. But as we all know, red meat is bad for us and veggies are definitley good for us. So, it’s the red meat that’s to blame!

If you haven’t read the article yet,  Here it is. The abstract of the study here. Notice the title of the abstract:

Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis.

Wow. How damning. Is this really true? Does the study show that red meat promotes heart disease? And if so, just red meat? I can hear my doting mother in-law’s fingers banging away at the keyboard now composing an urgent email to make me stop eating steak:

My dear SON – please did you see it? The study by the doctors?! They know meat is bad now!! Please don’t eat meat anymore!! Love you Mom. PS – did the sweater fit?

Oy veyishameer.

As I see it, the idea itself is total nonsense for several reasons. For one, humans have been eating meat for, well, a very long-ish time. If eating meat didn’t kill us all off several hundred thousand years ago, why would we think that meat would try to kill us now? Hmmm. I know that is not a very scientific explanation but think about it.

For those of you who are religious and at the same time think that your evening steak is killing you, if you recall from your Bible studies God said we could and should eat meat. I have read the Bible and nowhere in it do I recall the big man tossing in any caveats about meat in general being deadly like:

Fear thou my children TMAO – a by-product of eating my fleshy creations and thus limit the amount you consume. The same goes for my plant matter creations but these are heart healthy so worry not!

It’s true that certain animals were forbidden to the Jews (but God never says why exactly). Still, meat is clearly on God’s menu for all of us. If it was so bad, why advise us to eat it? Food for thought for my religious brothers and sisters…

The unfounded bias against meat in the world of nutrition is, to me at least, shockingly blatant. It pervades the thoughts of virtually every nutritionist’s dietary recommendations. Statements like, “Even though there is no conclusvie evidence to support the idea that red meat or meat in general is harmful, common sense tells us to limit our intake of meat, especially red meat,” are rampant in popular nutritional press.

On page one of the study the researchers state:

However, a recent meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed no association between dietary saturated fat intake and CVD, prompting the suggestion that other environmental exposures linked to increased meat consumption are responsible

Yeah, OK, so the fat in meat is now found innocent in the court of nutritional law, but it’s STILL the meat that’s to blame. Of course, we should all feel free to go face down in vegetalbes as often as we like, even though studies have shown that peas produce far more of the supposed harmful, artery-clogging substances than meat. But vegetables are healthy for us so there can’t be any meaningful association there, right?

Again, research has shown that the cholesterol and saturated fats in meat can no longer be wrongly tormented as criminals to our health. You can see this fact for yourself here. But I don’t notice anyone apologizing for the years of false accusations and shunning tactics made about meat as if they were Amish children gone rouge. Why? Because there STILL must be something about meat that is bad for us. There just must be. We were wrong about the fat, but we’re right about it being meat.

A really brilliant PhD friend wrote the following referring to the study:

I think it (referring ot the paper) has some interesting things however irrelevant for human health. It is a kind of microcosm of what’s wrong with medical science, exaggerating minor points and using statistics to hide rather than explain the truth. For those who don’t have time, I provide a synopsis of the introduction:

…is linked to…presumably…prompting the suggestion …the suspicion…may not be sufficiently high enough …has been linked …  raise the possibility …may … have not been fully clarified … has not been evaluated.

I agree.

I think quite soon the registered dieticians of the world will suddenly snap out of their curse of the mummy approach to nutrition, unravel their blinding bandages and start denouncing vegan diets while eating a leg of lamb with their bare hands. I just can’t wait. But it’s not for today.

In the mean time, smarty pants people like Chris Kresser and Chris Masterjohn have written about this study with much greater expertise and brain power than I ever could, so, I won’t even try to explain it better. In his blog post, which you must read if you want to be able to explain the thing to your own mother in-law, Masterjohn exposes the following confounder (of which there are dozens):

Adjusting for body weight, this is like a human eating a thousand steaks per day. This is beyond the capacity of even the most die-hard meat-lovers.

Well, maybe not Jimmy Moore (Oh, c’mon, I KID Jimmy). This of course got me to thinking…why didn’t the researchers come to the same conclusions as Masterjohn (and Kresser) and state the same points in their discussion? Why didn’t they express the same caveats and confounders? Why instead did they come to the conclusion that meat promotes heart disease? I think I know why.

On the last page of the paper, the researchers state:

Our studies reveal a new pathway potentially linking dietary red meat ingestion with atherosclerosis pathogenesis. The role of gut microbiota in this pathway suggests new potential therapeutic targets for preventing CVD.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Medicines. New drugs. Big profits. Since the good Lord knows that people will keep eating red meat regardless of our brilliant findings, let’s just kill the gut bacteria with a new, powerful antibiotic and viola! Heart disease will vanish. Good thinking. Like a famous boxing trainer once said “Kill the body and the head will die.”

Titles of papers like this one:

Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis

are the very fodder that the press love to pretzel into statments like:

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it! Another Deadly Nail in the Coffin for Red Meat – and You! Eat Meat and Your Heart Will Die.

Both of the lead researchers have ties to big pharma by the by. How surprising.

And if after reading this blog post and all the links therein you still think eating meat will kill you, you can always enjoy Denise Minger’s mind on the matter of meat and heart health.

So there you have it. Now I have to go write a response to my doting mother in-law’s forthcoming email – I know it’s on the way. How shall I start it…

Dear Mom – thanks for the sweater. Of course it fits! Now, as for meat…

ADDITION: I neglected to add the Science Friday radio piece on this subject. After reading this and Chris Masterjohn’s blog, listen to the show. You’ll hear how biased – or clueless – the scientist being interviewed truly is.

Even more!

Or, do you just eat a lot when you’re seven feet tall? Think this is a dumb point to make?

When this young man walks into a room, does anyone think “Wow – that is one tall kid! He must be eating too much!”

No. Of course not. We know that he has a hormonal disorder. And yes, he eats more food than a five foot tall kid of the same age. But he didn’t grow to be seven feet tall because he stuffed his face with excess calories.

But when an obese kid (or adult) walks into a room, does anyone think “Wow – that is one obese person! He must be eating too much!”

Yes. Everyone does.

And while in most cases the obese person is eating more than a lean person, just like the super tall person eats more than the normal sized person, the cause of the excess intake is the same – a hormonal disorder.

Fat gain is the cause of obesity – not caloric consumption.

Obesity is a hormonal issue – not a numbers issue. Repeat after Gary Taubes – It’s biology, not physics.

Food for thought.

Protein is the major structural component of every cell in the human body. The word “protein” is thought to come from the Greek word proteios which means “the first quality.” Protein is a very important dietary nutrient and many people do not eat adequate amounts of it or the most nutritious forms of it on a consistent basis. This is not such a good idea as you’ll learn shortly.

Of all the foods that contain protein, animal protein (like those pictured above) are the only sources that provide all of the essential amino acids (EAA) and in their proper ratios. This is not a debatable issue. It is a fact.

Essential Amino Acids
EAAs are used throughout the body to repair and build muscle as well as other cells and tissues. They function as enzymes, and hormones that control and regulate many of the body’s critical functions. These little powerhouses cannot be synthesized (created) by your body and therefore must be supplied in the diet.

While non-animal protein foods like beans, broccoli, etc. contain protein, they do not, as I stated before, contain all of the essential amino acids or in their proper ratios. Because of this, it is vitally important that you make sure you are getting your daily protein minimums to meet your EAA needs from animal sources. If you don’t eat enough protein, your body will eat its own muscle tissue to make up for the shortfall – the heart muscle too!

The Protein Intake Chart

Take a look at the chart above. It gives you your daily protein needs in grams and ounces to help you figure your individual minimum (EAA) and maximum (GNG) protein needs by body weight. This chart is designed specifically for those people who are over fat or obese and not exercising.

For example, if you are a 160 pound man or woman, you should aim to take in about 69 to 82 grams of protein which equates to 10 to 12 ounces from whatever choice of animal protein you prefer. If you look at the protein sources list below, you’ll see it’s pretty easy to accomplish this. Remember that animal protein sources contain all the EAA’s and in their proper ratios, so if you eat the minimum protein for your weight (EAA column) from animal based foods (meat, poultry, game, fish, eggs, cheese), you’re off to a good start.

If you perform strength training exercises (and you should be!) and especially if you want to build  a good deal of muscle,  you’ll need a bit more protein but not much more. If you have, say,  10+ more pounds of muscle than the typical person or want to build it, bump yourself up to a higher body weight level. So if you weigh 160 pounds, follow the recommended protein intake for a 170 pound person. Best thing is to shoot for one gram of protein per pound of body weight if you’re lean.

The GNG column on the chart is the maximum amount of protein you should eat if fat loss is your primary goal. GNG stands for gluconeogenesis which is the process of converting digested proteins into blood sugar (glucose). All humans require about 150 grams of glucose per day for a healthy, functioning nervous system. You can get this by eating 150 grams of carbohydrate per day or via gluconeogenesis (GNG) or a combo of the two.

On a properly formulated low carbohydrate diet (see the menu below) which is shown in numerous research papers to be a smart approach for shedding excess fat and for improving overall health, GNG supplies you with all the glucose your brain and nervous system needs. So strive to take in enough protein to meet your GNG requirements. If you exceed GNG, that’s OK. It’s certainly nothing to worry about. However, falling under your EAA needs is a whopping no-no for everybody.

Here’s a list of animal foods that will give you an idea of the choices you can make to eat to meet your protein requirements:

Beef
• Hamburger patty, 4 oz – 28 grams protein
• Steak, 6 oz – 42 grams
• Most cuts of beef – 7 grams of protein per oz

Chicken
• Chicken breast, 3.5 oz – 30 grams protein
• Chicken thigh – 10 grams (for average size)
• Drumstick – 11 grams
• Wing – 6 grams
• Chicken meat, cooked, 4 oz – 35 grams

Fish
• Most fish fillets or steaks are about 22 grams of protein for 3 ½ oz (100 grams) of cooked fish, or 6 grams per oz
• Tuna, 6 oz can – 40 grams of protein

Pork
• Pork chop, average – 22 grams protein
• Pork loin or tenderloin, 4 oz – 29 grams
• Ham, 3 oz serving – 19 grams
• Ground pork, 1 oz raw – 5 grams; 3 oz cooked – 22 grams
• Bacon, 1 slice – 3 grams

Eggs and Dairy
• Egg, large – 6 grams protein
• Cottage cheese, ½ cup – 15 grams
• Yogurt, 1 cup – usually 8-12 grams, check label
• Soft cheeses (Mozzarella, Brie, Camembert) – 6 grams per oz
• Medium cheeses (Cheddar, Swiss) – 7 or 8 grams per oz
• Hard cheeses (Parmesan) – 10 grams per oz

Below is a sample day’s menu (hat tip to the brilliant Regina Wilshire for this) for an average sized person (160 pounds). It contains ALL of the micronutrients you need and in their proper ratios. Smaller people would reduce the amount of eggs, chicken, and shrimp in the meals. Again, refer to the protein chart to determine your specific needs.

Breakfast: Florentine Omelet made with 2-3 large eggs, 1/4 cup cooked spinach, 2 slices bacon and 2 tablespoons feta cheese, cooked in butter.

Lunch: Chicken Caesar Salad made with 2 cups shredded romaine, 6 cherry tomatoes, 1/2 sliced medium cucumber, 1 cup grilled chicken breast diced, 1 tablespoon ground flax seeds, 1 ounce macadamia nuts chopped (in place of croutons for the crunch), 1/2 avocado sliced and creamy Caesar (wheat and flour free) dressing.

Dinner: Salad made with 1 cup shredded romaine, 3 cherry tomatoes, 4 sliced cucumber, 1TBS shredded carrots, 1TBS shredded red cabbage, topped with creamy dressing. Shrimp Scampi made with 6-ounces cooked shrimp, sautéed in butter, garlic and herbs (oregano, basil and parsley), with 12 sliced baby zucchini and a side dish of 3/4 cup cooked spinach. Healthy additions to salads are sea vegetables like Nori, dulse, etc.

The above menu is just a sample of course. Make substitutions to the food choices listed using the types of foods that you prefer. That said you shouldn’t substitute your lamb chops for spinach or vice versa. You must make substitutions using the same types of foods – meats for meats, veggies and fruits for veggies and fruits.

Don’t Fear Fat
And in case you’re worried about how much fat and cholesterol there is in this diet, don’t be. Cholesterol and saturated fats are actually essential to your good health. There is virtually no scientific evidence to support the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol are detrimental to your health or that when you eat fat and cholesterol they make a beeline directly into your arteries and stick there. In fact the opposite is true – we need these very important substances. All the negative information you hear about saturated fat and cholesterol spewing from the mouths of experts like Dr. Oz, Dr. Ornish and others of their misinformed ilk are largely unsubstantiated.

In fact, a 2010 meta-analysis (meaning a compilation of many studies on the subject) conducted by Ronald Krauss M.D. (one of the country’s leading nutritional researchers) and his team titled “Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease,” concluded the following:

“A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”

Not only did the researchers not find any direct evidence, there wasn’t even an association! The idea that animal fats are unhealthy is baloney (I just had to say that). It’s hype and marketing to scare you into buying loads of fake, non-fat, low cholesterol foods – the real contributors to heart disease. Don’t buy it or buy into it.

So to sum it all up, to maximize health, fat loss and muscle and bone strength, make sure you at least meet your minimum protein requirements via animal sources and try your darnedest to take in all the protein you need.

Popeye was wrong – that should be meat coming out of that can!

The purveyor of the potato/starch diet, John McDougall M.D., strikes again with more starchy gobbledy-gook nonsense about low carb/paleo diets.

There is so much to dissect and render inert in his article that it may take me three parts to accomplish the task. Perhaps I can lick it in two. But whether it takes two or twenty parts, lick it I will. I sure ain’t no Denise Minger, but I just can’t let this guy get away with such nonsense. His misinformation must not go un-blogged. (BTW, after you read this blog, DO go back and read Denise’s wonderful dissection of the China Study. Have coffee in hand.)

OK, now, I know the doctor means well. I know he wants the best for his patients. I know that deep down inside he truly feels he’s Dr. PotatoMan to the rescue. The question is, is he willing to concede and admit that the majority of the information in the article in question is in error? Can a man like Dr. McDougall take it on the chin and reverse his position stand on paleo/low carb nutrition?

I hate to say it but I seriously doubt it. He’s got too much invested in it already to say “I’ve been wrong.” And as we all know this is typical of many doctors and experts in the nutritional field like Dean Ornish, Caldwell Esselstyn, T. Colin Campbell, Joel Fuhrman, etc. who spew forth more nutritional misinformation than the wind passed at a bean festival.

But we can hope, right?

I know that a lot of people reading this will think “But Fred – who cares about Dr. McWho? He’s not even on the radar screen of most people.” But it seems to me that when you let these unknowns go unassailed, they wind up on Dr. Oz and the world follows their every syllable. Given what Dr. McDougall is uttering, that can’t be allowed to happen!

Alrighty then, let’s get to it. Dr. McDougall states the following:

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) diets are fueling the destruction of human health and our planet Earth. “Low-carbohydrate” means a diet high in animal foods and low in plant foods. Only plants synthesize carbohydrates (sugars). The body parts of animals, including red meat, poultry, seafood, and fish, and eggs, contain no carbohydrates. Animal secretions (like mammalian milk) contain sugars synthesized by plants (the cow eats the grass that made the sugar). The original Atkins Diet is the ultimate in low-carb eating. This diet works by starving the human body of carbohydrates in order to induce a state of illness (ketosis), which can result in weight loss. People become too sick to eat too much.

Wowee. Where does one begin? And this is just the very first paragraph!

OK sportsfans, how exactly does tossing the bun off your burger or saying “No thanks” to the bread basket at your favorite restaurant equate to fueling the destruction of human health?

But of course his point is that attempting to feed every single human being on earth enough daily grams of quality animal protein per day would have us seeing cows and chickens roaming the highways and bi-ways of the earth and sleeping next to you in your bed. Of course this is nonsense. Truth is, there’s plenty of seafood in the sea (as long as we stop polluting it) as well as larva and insects for us all. A lobster is nothing but a giant sea bug right? Even the bible says (Leviticus 11:22) it’s OK to eat all kinds of bugs:

These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.

Ya hear that?! And luckily, no where in the Bible does it forbid us to fry them in coconut oil and/or drizzle them with dark chocolate! And there’s plenty of these little suckers to go around - trillions of them in fact – especially come plague time.

The largest known swarm covered 513,000 km², comprising approximately 12.5 trillion insects and weighing 27.5 million tons.

And that’s just the locusts. We can eat all the crickets and beetles too.

Like idiots, we try to wipe these little high quality protein morsels out of existence in order to save crops of soy and corn – the very foods that are arguably a strong contributor to what makes us fat and diabetic. I think we have our heads screwed on backwards.

I say, let the little fiends feast on the fields. Let them land on the crops and allow them to sink their little mandibles in for a minute or two. Let them think they’re in like Flynn. Then, when they’re not looking, BAM! We gather them up and feed the world! We’d have to develop some kind of giant whale-like, baleen aircraft to scoop them all up at swarm time. Then we put all 70 trillion of them into a huge machine that mashes them all up and makes locust loaves and cricket cakes out of them.

Why, I daresay I think I just cured world hunger.

OK sure – it might seem gross to eat such things, but soy burgers and tempeh cakes are pretty gross too. Blah. Give me a katydid crisp drizzled with milk chocolate any day. And for those of you who believe that the bible is the one, true word of God, seems to me eating animal matter is pretty OK:

These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. You may eat all clean birds.

And this is just for the Jews. Non-Jews can eat a host of other things like animals that died naturally, pigs, camels and other animals that do not cheweth the cud. So if meat was so bad for us, why would God himself screw it up?

I’m jumping around the article like a grasshopper here, but McDougall states at the end of his article:

Dr. Cordain finishes his 2011 revision of his national best-selling book The Paleo Diet by warning, “Without them (starches, like wheat, rice, corn, and potatoes), the world could probably support one-tenth or less of our present population…” (p 215) Choose 10 close friends and family members. Which nine should die so that the Paleo people can have their uncivilized way?

Uncivilized? Pshaw. Here Dr. McDougall misses the point entirely. Even if it were true that the world could not survive eating mostly animals, its overpopulation that is the problem, not an animal-based diet. Personally, I am not going to eat like a gorilla and destroy my meat-oriented digestive system and watch my muscles wither away because there are currently too many people on the planet. No thank you very much.

Take a look at this paper. It’s mostly biased drivel, but go to page 490 or the third page. Look at the difference between the human small and large intestine and the other apes. Big difference wouldn’t you say?

But Dr. McDougall thinks we should be eating like them:

I know of no large populations of primates who have been strict vegans (ate no animal foods at all). However, plants have, with very few exceptions, provided the bulk of the calories for almost all primates.

And that exception is US. Humans. Homo Sapien Sapien.

Second, a low carb diet is not, as Dr. McDougall states, low in plant food. It’s low in grain “food” tis true. But this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a paleo/low carb diet is. Not even the Atkins Diet save for the first two weeks of the induction phase limits non-starchy plant foods.

McDougall says: “only plants synthesize carbohydrates (sugars).” Hmm. This statement confused me so much it made me look up the word synthesize to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind. Synthesize means to “produce.” OK. So, what’s the point of this statement I wonder? Why does it matter? Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Dr. McDougall states the obvious when he says that the body parts of animals don’t contain carbohydrates.) Well, they do a little.) But again, so what? He seems to think that carbohydrates are necessary in the human diet when they are not. The are, in fact, the only nonessential macronutrient for humans.

He says that the Atkins diet is the ultimate low carb diet. I don’t think so. I think the traditional Inuit got Atkins beat by a mile. Nary a leaf or a fruit is found in their world.

And now for the kicker:

“This diet (referring to Atkins) works by starving the human body of carbohydrates in order to induce a state of illness (ketosis), which can result in weight loss. People become too sick to eat too much.”

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Moses.

He means ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis and ketosis are not the same thing. Says Dr. Peter Attia:

Ketoacidosis (DKA) is a pathologic (i.e., harmful) state that results from the complete or near absence of insulin. This occurs in the setting of type 1 diabetes or very end-stage type 2 diabetes, and often as the result of a physiologic insult (e.g., an infection) where the patient is not receiving sufficient insulin to bring glucose into their cells. A person with a normal pancreas, regardless of how long they fast (including the fellow I reference above who fasted for 382 days!) or how much they restrict carbohydrates, can not enter DKA because even a trace amount of insulin will keep B-OHB levels below about 7 or 8 mM, well below the threshold to develop the pathologic acid-base abnormalities associated with DKA. Let me reiterate, it is physiologically impossible to induce DKA in anyone that does not have T1D or very, very, very late-stage T2D with pancreatic “burnout.”

And in case you’re wondering, this is not a question of which doctor is right. It’s a question of fact. And McDougall has got his facts wrong. I love getting the chance to insert this quote:

Here’s what’s actually so. Dr. Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D., has done countless amounts of research focused on physiological adaptations to low carbohydrate diets with emphasis on outcomes related to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Here is what he says:

When you reduce your carbohydrate intake significantly – typically to less than 50 to 75 grams per day -you enter a metabolic state known as ketosis. Ketosis is a term used to describe the NORMAL process of using ketones for energy. Ketones aren’t bad. They’re actually a fat breakdown product. That is, whenever fat is burned, ketones are created. So they’re always present in the body.

On a high carb diet, your body uses glucose, the simplest form of carbohydrates, as its primary fuel. But when glucose isn’t readily available to your body for energy your body begins burning fat at an accelerated rate, producing more ketones. These ketones are really just storage units, holding the excess energy that’s produced from the rapid breakdown of fat so that it can be used later as fuel. As ketone levels rise, your body’s reliance on glucose decreases.

In the simplest terms, ketosis is just a shift from using carbohydrates (glucose) as the body’s main energy source, to using fat (ketones). It’s NOT a dangerous condition; it’s simply your body adjusting to your diet so that it’s using the most efficient form of fuel.

Unfortunately many health professionals believe ketosis to be a dangerous metabolic condition. Why? Because over a hundred years ago, physicians discovered an overabundance of ketones in the urine of diabetics who were unable to control their disease. Naturally, the association of high levels of ketones with poorly controlled diabetes led to negative views of ketones. The high level of ketones in diabetics was given the name diabetic hyperketoacidosis (now known simply as diabetic ketoacidosis).

Diabetic ketoacidosis, which represents extremely high levels of ketones, is a life-threatening state that can occur in type-1 diabetics who aren’t treating their condition appropriately. While diabetic ketoacidosis is serious, the mere presence of ketones is not. The point here is that sometimes a lot of something causes problems, but a little can be advantageous. Sort of like your heart beating 300 times a minute might be bad, but your heart beating 60 times a minute is ideal – and certainly better than not at all. Now consider: the ketone levels in people with diabetic ketoacidosis are 8 times higher than those following a low carb diet.

Interestingly, ketones have many benefits. In fact, they may be the perfect fuel for dieters. Since ketones spare the use of carbohydrates for energy, they prevent the protein from your muscles from being broken down and converted to glucose. And that ensures that the calories you’re burning are far more likely to be fat, compared to typical diets where muscle loss almost always accompanies fat loss. Ketones also suppress your appetite. Research shows that increased levels of a compound called betahydroxybutyrate – the primary ketone in the blood -act as a satiety signal , meaning that it tells your brain that you’re full.

Of course, the other knock on ketosis is that even if it burns fat faster, it deprives your brain of glucose, reducing your mental capacity. However, your brain only requires a small amount of glucose, which can be met through gluconeo-genesis, the process of converting protein to glucose. Although not high in protein, by it’s nature a low-carb diet provides ample incoming protein. So there’s plenty available for the small amount of glucose that your brain needs, without having to breakdown muscle. In addition, encouraging new research from National Institutes of Health scientist Richard Veech MD, PhD, has found that ketones may help both your brain and heart run 25 percent more efficiently.

So as you can see, Dr. McDougall is sorely mistaken. Nutritional ketosis is not only not harmful, but a natural and beneficial state to be in. This is not a matter of one mans opinion vs. anothers. This is a matter of fact vs. fiction.

In part II we’ll tackle the other nonsense remarks about low carb/paleo diets that Dr. McDougall makes. Stay tuned and stay ketotic!

Here’s why.

Listen closely to what Bill Davis M.D. is saying (and try not to listen to Oz).

What isn’t said well on this Dr. Oz episode is that wheat is pervasive. It is put in foods you’d never realize like soy sauce, creamed spinach, french onion soups made with beer, french fries (to make them brown and crispy), some sushi rice, and many, many other foods that you’d never think would have it included. You have to read labels and ask your service person. So when eating out, ask and ask until you are certain.

I once asked a waitress if there was flour in a certain dressing used in a salad I wanted to order. She said “Nope, no flour.” I said “Are you certain?” She said “Yep, there’s no flour in the dressing sir.” I said “Really, looks sort of thick and rich. Are you positive there isn’t any in it?” She said “They don’t put flour in the dressing sir.” I said “That’s cool. Looks delish. Hard to believe there isn’t any in this dressing. Well, do me a favor would you – could you go back and ask the chef?” “Sure.” she said.

There was flour in it alright.

The moral: Don’t take no for an answer at first blush. Insist.

Now, just because you eat bread and cake and your head is still affixed to your shoulders doesn’t mean you are not being adversely affected. Everyone is adversely affected by, as Dr. Davis calls it “Frankenwheat.” You can’t see or feel the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, but harmful it is to everyone who lights up and puffs away.

You’ll thank Dr. Davis later. I promise you. Removing wheat and other grains completely cured my chest/facial eczema. Removing all grain cured my GERD and greatly improved my gut irritability.

It did not, however, grow my hair back, nor did it rid me of back hair. But hey – ya can’t have everything.

Consider going grain free – really grain free – for at least 30 days. Let me know how it goes.

One of my favorite times of the year is here again. And once again, my family Thanksgiving table will NOT have placed upon it one iota of fake, grain-ridden, fraken-foods that so many people year after year “enjoy.” Celebrating a holiday with loved ones is not the time for going face down in the foods that require a bucket of Tums to neutralize. In fact, it is my opinion that it is time for the exact opposite to happen in your family. Its a time to enjoy only the most healthful foods that money can buy.

Let me ask you all a question – if you ran out of pet food, would you ever feed your dog or cat a bowl of Quaker Oats instead? How about cereal – would you place a bowl of breakfast cereal like Wheat Chex or Captain Crunch down on the ground for your best friend to eat? Pancakes? Waffles? Pop-tarts?

So why then do you feed this stuff to your kids? (Yes my parents were guilty as charged too.)

Human behavior is really interesting. We do all sorts of things to ourselves and to our loved ones that are harmful without the slightest thought. Halloween candy? Sure! (But just not too much we warn, as if even one candy bar isn’t too much.) The irony: You get livid at your teenager for smoking a cigarette, when for the past 13 years of her life you’ve fed her foods that have harmed her health to a far greater extent than that one silly smoke.

I feel as if most of us are walking in our sleep when it comes to nutrition.

We blindly accept this Cheerios heart healthy symbol without stopping to think that the entire idea of it completely nuts. So why do we believe such nonsense? Why do we believe that whole wheat bread is healthy and white bread is evil? Are we really this dim-witted?

Of course not. So what is going on? Marketing you say? C’mon. Do you think even the largest and wealthiest companies could ever market you into believing that eating a medley of wood and metal flakes sprinkled with sugar and salt was healthful?

Think again. And again.

Make this years Thanksgiving a true giving and only put on your table foods that nourish. Make every dish a dish of love that harms not. Splurge for a free-range Turkey. Make a wonderful salad with roasted pine nuts and cranberries instead of mashed instant white potatoes. Or if you must have potatoes, mash real yams. Load it up with grass-fed butter and raw cream instead of marshmallows (that’s what my mom put on our potatoes).

“It’s tradition!” you shout. Tough noogies, say I. You’re afraid you’re going to hurt grandma’s feelings if you don’t eat her gluten-ridden gravy on top of her wheat-encrusted stuffing? You’re health is far more important than her feelings about her stuffing. And when you explain to her what you know about such foods and the reason why you just cannot eat them, she just might surprise you next year. In fact I know she will.

You could also share this recipe for gluten/wheat free stuffing.

Honesty is the best policy.

Happy Thanksgiving to you all and safe travels! I’d love to hear what you changed this year to make your turkey-day healthier!

I am in the process of finishing this paper to help my clients understand how to lose fat successfully without having to read a novel-sized diet book (which a lot of folks just won’t do). I thought it might make a nice blog post.

It is NOT grammar checked so be kind when you comment. It also doesn’t flow quite right. Regardless, I hope the info may help you or a loved one understand how the basic processes to lose fat successfully without losing lean mass at the same time. So, please take what you can from it and enjoy!

All comments pro and con are welcomed.

The Serious Strength Real Food, Fat loss Eating Plan

“You are not what you eat. You are what your body does with what you eat.” – Dr. Jeff Volek, PhD, RD

So, you want to maximize fat loss and, at the same time, take in all of the nutrients you need to live most healthfully, right? Right. So let’s get started.

Important note: Fat loss should be an outcome of healthful eating. It should not come about by counting calories or starving yourself. Though many people use these approaches with some degree of success, these approaches always fail in the long run. They also cause micronutrient (vitamins and mineral) deficiencies and result in lean tissue (muscle, bone, organs) loss. So please, abandon these approaches to fat loss. They are an unnatural, unhealthy and impermanent approach to becoming healthier and attaining a desirable level of body fat.

Blood Sugar is the Key
Eating healthfully normalizes your blood sugar which in turn allows stored body fat to be used as your primary source of fuel. It also promotes strength building. So again, the main idea of this plan is to reset your metabolism so that your body uses stored fat as its primary source of fuel by keeping blood sugar normal.

To lose fat successfully without losing lean tissue (muscle and bone), it’s best to eat in a manner that keeps your blood sugar levels normal and supplies you with adequate amount of quality proteins. The amount of glucose (blood sugar) that our adult body considers normal is about a teaspoon or, a few grams at most. To put this in perspective, your morning multi- grain muffin can have as much as 10 times this amount. Add this to the sugar in your coffee, your glass of juice, your banana and perhaps that “healthy” bowl of cereal in the morning and you have shoveled more sugar into your blood in the morning than you should eat in a week. Most people are completely unaware of this.

When you keep your blood sugar normalized, this keeps your level of a hormone called insulin normal. This in turn allows more fat to freely exit your fat cells and makes it much more difficult to store calories as fat.

According to the current edition of Lehninger’s Principles of Biochemistry, when blood insulin levels are high, fat is more readily stored in the adipocytes (fat cells) and is less available for usage:

“High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen (sugar) and triaglycerols (fat), while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue.”

What this means is this: the more foods you eat that raise your blood sugar, the higher you will raise your insulin levels. When insulin is high, you will potentially store more body fat and less body fat will be burned as fuel.

Believe it or not, you now know more than what 95% of all registered dieticians know on how lipids (fat) are stored and used for fuel. What you need to know now is which foods cause the problems and which foods don’t.

What to Eat and What Not to Eat
The foods that skyrocket blood sugar and thus raise insulin levels the most are grain-based, refined, starchy/sugary carbohydrates. If you can avoid eating these foods, you will achieve your fat loss goals much faster. If you don’t, you probably will not be able to obtain your fat loss goals. For some people, perhaps for you, these sorts of foods can be an addiction. Carb addicition is real and if you feel that you are one so afflicted, please read the book Wheat Belly by Bill Davis M.D. (referenced below).

The acceptable foods on the Serious Strength Real Food Diet are as follows:

All animal matter (e.g., all poultry, all beef, all lamb, all pork including bacon, whole eggs, venison, all fish, shellfish, organ meats, etc.)
All non-starchy plant matter (e.g., leafy greens like kale, chard, spinach, lettuces, cabbage, asparagus, artichokes, Brussels sprouts, celery, carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, onions, peppers, rhubarb, etc.)
Fibrous fruits (e.g., strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, tomatoes, avocados, etc.)
Fruit Oils/animal fats (e.g., butter, coconut oil, lard, tallow, olive oil, macadamia oil, avocado oil)
All herbs and spices

The non-acceptable foods that you would do best to avoid are as follows:
All grain-based foods (e.g., rice, bagels, muffins, breads, oatmeal, pasta, etc.)
Legumes (e.g., peanuts, soy, beans of all kinds)
Starchy/sugary fruits/gourds (e.g., bananas, plantains, papaya, mango, figs, dates, grapes, squash, etc.)
Tubers (e.g., potatoes, yams, taro, cassava, yucca)
Nuts
All dairy (e.g., milk, cream, cheeses, etc.)

Fatty Protein Intake
If you don’t eat adequate fatty proteins (e.g., salmon, lamb, beef, whole eggs, etc.) on a daily basis, you won’t be able to maximize the benefits of resistance training. You also will not enjoy robust health. All human beings require adequate amounts of amino acids derived from fatty protein sources to build cells of all kinds including muscle and bone cells.
You should strive to take in at least 1 gram of quality protein per pound of lean body weight. We will help you determine what your lean body mass is with our computerized body composition device and then will give you an amount of protein to shoot for. You don’t have to count protein grams. It’s actually very simple to eat the right amount of protein.

For example, if you’re lean body weight is 100 pounds, you want to take in about 100 grams of fatty protein per day.

So you could eat:
Breakfast: 3 eggs, 2 slices bacon = ~30gms.
Lunch: Order of sashimi = ~40 gms
Dinner: 4 oz. hamburger, other cuts of beef, pork or lamb = ~27gms.
You could also drink a protein shake of your choice – preferably one that is low in carbohydrates. To provide some fat to the shake, you can add a raw egg or two (if you trust your eggs) or a tablespoon of coconut, olive, flax or MCT oil which stands for “medium chain triglycerides.” A company called NOW makes high quality MCT oil. A quick Google search and it will come up right away. But do not use vegetable oils because they are unhealthy.

So remember, eating refined carbs like bread, pasta, bagels, cakes, cookies and other starch-based carbs like rice, potatoes, oatmeal, beans, etc. increases blood sugar higher than normal which as we’ve discussed, raises insulin and this tells your body to store fat and to keep it locked in the fat cells.

Replacing these foods with high quality fatty proteins like lamb, salmon, beef, eggs, chicken, turkey, pork, etc., and leafy greens and other vegetables tells your body to release fat from your fat cells to be used as fuel and build muscle, bone and other vital tissues. Eating in this manner not only promotes speedy fat loss, but will improve your overall health to a marked degree. Your doctor will be pleased indeed.

Use this knowledge to your advantage!

Strongly suggested readings:
The Protein Power LifePlan by Drs. Michael and MaryDan Eades
The New Atkins for a New You by Drs. Volek, Phinney, Westman
Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes
Wheat Belly by Dr. William Davis

Uh yeah, right...

Don’t even dream about losing fat this fast. It’s horse-hockey my friends.

When approached correctly, fat loss is a slow process. Very slow. At best you can lose about a pound, maybe two per week.

This is especially important to understand when you’re not that over fat to begin with. Patience is a virtue.

Try to purge your mind of what you believe is possible and instead, realize what is actually possible. I hear clients say all too often “Well Fred, it’s just that I thought I’d lose a lot more weight by now.” “Four pounds of fat loss in 4 weeks is excellent Susan. What did you expect to lose?” “I dunno – just more.”

But when politely and patiently pressed, the typical unrealistic client will say something like “Well, I was hoping to lose 15-20 pounds this month.”

Where, oh where, did they get this idea from?

You guessed it – the ragazines.

Photo shopped and air brushed to the max!

Not one statement on the cover of this magazine is true – save for one that I happen to agree with.

So remember – fat loss is a slow, gradual process. If you’re losing a half-pound to a pound a week on the scale, you’re doing fantastic! Relish in your efforts and discontinue your magazine subscriptions. The pages inside of these ragazines aren’t fit to pick up your dogs poop with. Slow and steady wins the fat loss race.

A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else.
- George Savile

See! A calorie IS a calorie - NOT.

The above chart is taken from the infamous 1956 study by Keckwick and Pawan. Their paper is just one of the many papers that does a very good job of showing that calories in is not, by any stretch, the total story of how we gain fat.

A recent study by Ludwig and colleagues supports these findings via a different experiment. It is a never before tried experiment according to Gary Taubes and many are singing it’s praises.

However, the verbally colorful personal trainer Anthony Colpo doesn’t agree. He blogged on it and, according to him, the paper doesn’t add to the growing body of evidence that low-carb diets offer a metabolic advantage to fat loss. Or by inference, the ingestion of different types of calories (protein, fat and carbohydrates) do not affect our hormones differently. In other words, to Colpo, there is no advantage to fat loss by eating a low sugar/carb diet over say a low fat high carb/sugar diet. To him, fat loss or gain is essentially a matter of calories in/out and that there is no metabolic advantage to low-carb diets at all.

Talk about living in the stone age.

In the blog, Colpo (referred to as AC from now on) was alerted by a fan of his that Dr. Eades applauded this study by tweeting about it. He poked fun at Dr. Eades by saying that “real men don’t tweet.” I noticed that for some time now, AC hasn’t allowed comments on his blog. I’d like to state for the record that real men allow blog comments.

I won’t get too into how wrong AC is on the entire subject. I do want to point out how incorrect he is with respect to the cortisol/CRP issue in the study which he believes were raised to heart attack, muscle wasting levels in the low carb group. An epic fail in thinking if you ask me.

He states:

If heightened catabolism and inflammation constitute an ‘advantage’, then I’ll give it a miss, thank you. I’ll stick to my highly disadvantageous regimen of intelligent nutrition and regular exercise that sees me maintain with minimal fuss the kind of single-digit bodyfat levels most low-carb devotees will only ever be able to dream about.

How humble. The logical fallacies he commits here boggle the mind. So you’re lean – so what? I have friends who eat crap all day and are lean. It’s entirely beside the point.

And sorry AC, none of the groups experienced any abnormal increases in CRP levels including the low-carb group. CRP is a measure of systemic inflammation. As for cortisol, a stress-related hormone, all levels in all groups were well within the norms.

The researchers state in their discussion (the bolding is my doing):

Although the very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in most metabolic syndrome components examined herein, we identified 2 potentially deleterious effects of this diet. Twenty-four hour urinary cortisol excretion, a hormonal measure of stress, was highest with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

Highest yes, but high? Heck no.

What they don’t say, for whatever reason, is that none of the levels measured for CRP or cortisol reached abnormally high levels. Not even close. The levels in ALL groups were well within the norms. Heightened catabolism AC? Poppycock. In fact, all groups saw a significant improvement in their CRP levels, with all groups falling into the normal range, which neatly tucks them into the low risk category for CRP / cortisol measures.

It’s literally insane for the researchers to say “We identified 2 potentially deleterious effects of this diet…” especially considering the statement that I bolded above. As I see it, the researchers, as well as AC, want to make something big out of absolutely nothing. You can almost smell their disdain for the low-carb hypothesis.

Here are the CRP facts:

Baseline average = 1.75 (slightly elevated)
After:
Low-fat average = 0.78 (normal)
Low-glycemic average = 0.76 (normal)
Low-carb average = 0.87 (normal)

Cortisol (below 100 is considered normal):

Baseline average = 58
After:
Low-fat average = 50
Low-glycemic average = 60
Low-carb average = 71

Frightening eh?

Maybe AC and the researchers should read the study before talking about it.

AC also points to a study by Miyashita and colleagues which he calls the “knock-out punch” to the low carb metabolic advantage hypothesis. Really – the knock-out punch?

Considered by many to be a flawed metabolic study, it actually shows a bunch of metabolic advantages to a low-carb diet. It’s true that it didn’t show significant differences in weight loss. And this is interesting. But in just over four weeks, it’s certainly nothing close to a knock-out punch.

The researchers conclude:

These results suggest that, when restrict diet was made isocaloric, a low calorie/low carbohydrate diet might be more effective treatment for a reduction of visceral fat, improved insulin sensitivity and increased in HDL-C levels than low calorie/high carbohydrate diet in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Hmm. If this paper is what he considers a knock-out punch to the low-carb metabolic advantage, AC must have a glass jaw.

Getting back to the cals in/cals out issue, last I checked our stomachs don’t “burn” food the way calories are burned and calculated by burning food in a calorimeter. The digestion of foods is a complex process. How our bodies manage all that is mind-boggling. But don’t be fooled – it is not nearly as simple as “eat 500 calories less per day than what you need to stay at your current weight and you’ll lose a pound of fat in a week.” No siree.

I’ll use the same pic that AC did:

Enzymes and hormones regulate/control how we gain fat, lose fat, gain muscle, lose muscle, on and on and on.

In this paper, if you look to table 4A, you’ll see excess calories but with low rice protein in the diet as the source of protein. Of the 10 subjects fed excess calories, yet low rice protein, five of them lost weight, two had no change in weight and only three gained weight but the gain was piddly.

In the group fed the amount of calories but less protein than they required, they all LOST weight.

In table 4B, protein was once again lower than what the subjects required, but this time from eggs. Lo and behold, the group fed the amount of calories that was supposed to be a maintenance level, all LOST weight. The group fed excess calories did gain weight as did the subjects in the rice protein group but the gain was not statistically significant. One of the six lost weight with excess calories with low egg protein.

But hey – there must be something wrong with all these papers because, like Anthony Colpo keeps screaming from down under, there is no metabolic advantage to low-carb. All calories regardless of the type will make you fatter or leaner only due to the total amount that you eat or burn off.

Right. Sure. Uh-huh.

In this paper, It demonstrates that as long as carbs are restricted, overfeeding fires up the machinery to burn/use fat in basically the same way caloric restriction does.

Perhaps Colpo would enjoy reading and hopefully understand this blog by Dr. Richard Feinman, a man that Colpo lumps into what he calls the MAD men (metabolic advantage dogma) believers. But it’s not a matter of belief as you can see from the above evidence. It’s a matter of fact.

When ingested, a calorie isn’t just a calorie. Or perhaps it was best said by Dr. Jeff Volek:

You are not what you eat. You are what your body does with what you eat.

Your thoughts?