Against the Grain

You really are what you eat

2008-06-14T20:38:00.002+10:00

Our obsession with 'nutrition' is making us sick. It's time we return to the love of eating real food.

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." This message - central to Michael Pollan's latest, fascinating book In Defence Of Food - is beginning to sink in, in the wake of his recent visit to Sydney.

Pollan - a professor of science and environmental journalism at the University of California, Berkeley - argues that Western consumers are eating the wrong food and that we live in an era where nutrients have been elevated to ideology. He says instead of "worrying about nutrients, we should avoid any food that has been processed to such an extent that it is more the product of industry than nature".

In short, don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognise as food.

Pollan's message is eat fresh, eat organically or eat food from farmers' markets, where you can question the growers about their farming methods. "You are what you eat eats, too," he maintains.

When it comes to vegetables, he says, plant a garden and grow your own food. Pollan is an avid gardener and the author of two of my favourite gardening books - Second Nature and The Botany Of Desire. During the recent Sydney Writers' Festival, Pollan told me that his work has actually been inspired by his gardening.

"You can learn everything you need to know about the human place and nature in the garden," he told me. "I think gardeners are more aware of where their food comes from and have more curiosity about the food chain. They don't simply accept the supermarket or fast-food version of reality that food comes in a package. They realise there is photosynthesis behind there somewhere, that there is a food chain and it leads back to the soil, which has an impact on the quality of the food. We know that because of our own gardening experiences."

Pollan emphasises that growing food isn't trivial, as it's an important part of the climate - change solution.

"If we are concerned about the carbon footprint of our food system - and we should be, as 20 per cent of the climate-change problem is the way we are feeding ourselves - then we should start to grow our own. Food we grow ourselves is ultimately the free lunch.

"With a little bit of time and some seeds, you can grow some percentage of your food with no carbon footprint whatsoever."

Pollan believes that there are important spiritual and philosophical reasons for home production.

"When we do something for ourselves - use our bodies to support our bodies in some way - we get out of the cheap energy mindset that has us using money as a proxy for everything we need done. We have specialised our lives to such an extraordinary extent - we have doctors take care of our health, chefs to cook for us, environmentalists to deal with the environment - everything is outsourced.

"I think that leaves us feeling rather helpless. We have forgotten the basics. If you are prepared to grow food and cook it for yourself, you realise you are not helpless ... that is the beginning of some of the very important changes that we need to make."

Pollan considers that using fossil fuel to replace labour and make us sedentary - then using fossil fuel when driving to the gym to get exercise - is one of modern life's great ironies. How absurd is that? As Pollan points out, gardening is good exercise and we can do a little bit every day.

In Defence Of Food argues that food is passed through families and cultures and when it comes to food, "culture is a fancy word for mother". Pollan claims that fresh, real food, which used to be passed down through the generations, has become confused with the notion of food used by nutritional scientists, food industry marketers and journalists - and this is making us sick.

According to Pollan, "lunch" should be taught in schools as an academic subject. "I think it is that important a life skill - to learn how to eat well, to grow food, cook it and eat it. This is as important as anything we teach in school right now. Because there are so many parents who don't know how to cook or garden, that chain has been broken and school is the place to intervene."

"The beauty about teaching 'lunch' as a subject is that you learn about so many different things," he says. "You can't learn about food without learning about ecology, without understanding co-evolution and Darwin, without understanding the carbon cycle and the energy cycles and what links us to the sun. You learn about chemistry, biology and you learn about physics, plus you learn about history and anthropology.

"Food is a brilliant vehicle for teaching a whole lot of other academic subjects. And it really hits home as it ends up on a plate in your house and you feel very connected to it."

Appendix explained

2007-10-14T14:31:00.000+10:00

Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for the gut.

That is the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal.

For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous. Doctors could find no function for it. Surgeons removed them routinely. People live fine without them. But when infected the appendix can turn deadly. It becomes inflamed quickly, and some people die if it is not removed expeditiously.

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria that populates the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. More bacteria inhabit the typical body than human cells. Most of the bacteria are good and help digest food.

But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

The appendix "acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. The location of the appendix, just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac, helps support the theory, he said.
Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts as a bacteria factory to cultivate the good germs, Parker said.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialised society, Parker said. If the gut flora dies, they usually can be repopulated easily with germs picked up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it was not as easy to grow back that bacteria, and the appendix came in handy.

In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the United States, other studies have shown, Parker said.

The appendix, which is about 6 to 10 centimetres long, may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system, he said. Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said.

Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions. The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense." The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: "I'll bet eventually we'll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils."

My question is, why the hell do males have nipples!

Sweetness and lies - dirty tricks in the breakfast food aisle

2007-10-14T14:13:00.000+10:00

Was there ever some golden age of breakfast food when you could count on honesty in nutrition claims? If there was it's long gone. I was in the cereal aisle of the local supermarket when another shopper stopped me - could I help her figure out if her choice of breakfast cereal was high in sugar? On the face of it this product ticked lots of healthy boxes - 98 per cent fat free, high in calcium, iron and folate said the really big writing on the front of the pack. It was only the tiny print in the nutrition panel on the back that told you it had 23g of sugar per 100g - meaning it was almost 25 per cent sugar. I could have stopped there, giving it the benefit of the doubt - maybe all the sugar came from dried fruit. But a glance at the ingredient list (more fine print) listed sugar ahead of dried fruit, meaning the sugar content outstripped the fruit content!

But the real prize for misleading packaging went to the Abundant Earth organic children's cereal further up the aisle. Its tasteful brown pack declared its organic credientials and said 'eating organic makes you feel better'. The problem was it contained chocolate (organic, of course) and that hiding behind the organic label was lots of - organic - sugar. It contained 44g of sugar per 100 g - nudging 50 per cent sugar and making it more like birthday cake than breakfast.

When time is short, it's easy to be misled by packaging that spruiks half truths and uses words like 'light', 'preservative-free' and 'organic' to imply a health benefit. It's a good argument for a traffic light system of labelling that would tell us with a glance at the front of the pack whether a product has high, medium or low levels of sugar, sodium, and saturated fat - green for low, amber for medium and red for high.

It's a proposal put forward for consideration by political parties before the election by the Obesity Policy Coalition, an organisation established by Diabetes Australia Victoria, The Cancer Council Victoria and the WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin University, to lobby for policy and regulatory initiatives to tackle obesity.

"It's difficult for people to make their way through the maze of information - especially when the positive points of the product are highlighted in big print on the front of the pack and you have to search the fine print at the back to find out what's really in the product," points out Jane Martin, Senior Policy Advisor with the Coalition,

A similar traffic light system is already in use on some foods sold in the UK, though at this stage, it's only voluntary and manufacturers aren't compelled to use it - read about it on the UK's Food Standard Agency http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/trafficlights/.

In the meantime, if you need help to negotiate half truths in the supermarket, try this easy guide from the current issue of Smart Living, the Cancer Council NSW magazine which explains how to gauge from the nutrition panel whether or not a food is high or low in sugar, sodium, fat and fibre.

The quantities given are per 100g

Sugar: a little = 5g ; a lot = 15g

Total fat: a little = 3g ; a lot = 20g

Saturated fat: a little = 1g ; a lot = 5g

Dietary fibre: a little = 0. 5g ; a lot = 3g

Sodium (salt): a little = 0.1g ; a lot = 0.5g

Do you think a traffic light system of labelling on packaged foods would make shopping easier?

The circle of life

2007-10-07T18:25:00.000+10:00

This is an article that was written for Australian Shooter magazine (ISSN-1442-7354) by columnist Warren McKay. I added the hyperlinks.

Page 8 – Around the campfire by Warren McKay

Every living thing has a beginning. It lives and sooner or later it dies. And all, including humans, end up feeding, in life or death, something else.

To try to stave off the inevitable, many cultures have employed some form of embalming in an attempt to forestall the eventual “indignation” of being consumed by some of Nature’s smallest creatures. For all of our existence, man has looked to an afterlife to avoid the finality of death. The spirit may live on but the body does not.

Those of us that live in developed countries are sheltered from a lot of the realities of this cycle. Go to a “Third World” country and it is right in your face. It can be very unsettling to see the conditions under which many people live. Birth, the daily necessity of obtaining food, survival and eventual death are there for all to see. We are so shielded that many lose contact with reality. For us, the biggest concern about food gathering is whether or not we make it to the shop before closing time.

Not that far back, though, we were observers, as well as participants, in the circle of life. Many births were in the home, not hidden by hospital walls. Infant mortality was a fact of life and a death was often in the home surrounded by the extended family. Now, we tend to shield our children from what we perceive as the unpleasant parts of reality. Back then, the circle of birth, life and death was part of everyone’s lives.

Again, not that far back, many households kept chickens. They supplied eggs and the roosters became the Sunday roast. People understood where their food came from. Chopping the head off the rooster was as normal as pulling carrots out of the garden. Imagine the outcry today if you carried out that act with someone less in touch with the realities of life watching.

Very few of our western population have the task of supplying their own food. Most of us work to make the money to pay someone else to do it for us. We are so divorced from the need or responsibility for hunting and gathering our own food that this has led to a loss of connection with the natural world and the understanding of man’s role in that system.

It is this loss of understanding of our place in the natural scheme of things, I propose, that has led to an illogical line of thinking and the resultant emergence of radical animal rights groups. They scream cruelty for just about everything to do with animals, yet are prepared to ignore the fact that the meat they eat was a living animal. When confronted with the hypocracity of her stance one activist that I “crossed swords with” could only put forward as a defence, “But that is different”.

Once our supermarket meat came on a white polystyrene tray with a white absorbent mat. Now you’ll notice the trays and mats are black. Why? The sensitivities of some people are upset by the sight of blood. It offends them in one of two ways: either it reminds them that the meat was once a living, breathing animal whose death they are responsible for by wanting meat to eat, or it reminds them of their own mortality. They don’t like the reality of either.

We are a living organism on this planet. We are just as much a part of the circle of life as every other living thing and like all animals, we have to eat to survive and that means something else dies so that we may live.

Thermodynamics and weight loss

2007-10-06T17:40:00.000+10:00

The following is a post about thermodynamics on the Michael R. Eades blog. It makes for a great read and helps explain why a calorie in vs calorie out is not really the case.

Probably no laws of physics have been so over invoked and less understood than the laws of thermodynamics. Everyone it seems is using the laws of thermodynamics to justify every position imaginable in the field of weight loss. Journalists often throw out the laws of thermodynamics to prove or disprove dietary regimens they’re writing about. Authors of various blogs and other online sites rabbit on about how the laws of thermodynamics are aligned with their pet theories. And even worse, research scientists - who really should know better - more often than not misquote the laws of thermodynamics, especially when talking about the possibility of a dietary metabolic advantage. ‘It can’t be valid,’ they sniff, ‘it violates the laws of thermodynamics.’
So, I figured is was time to delve into these mysterious laws so that readers of this blog at least can know thermodynamic nonsense when they see it.
When you get a grasp of the laws of thermodynamics it becomes pretty easy to see how they can be confusing not only to the great unwashed masses but even to scientists who have never really taken the time to study them. Thermodynamics are seemingly simple at first glance, but the more you dig into them, the more complex they become. To see what I mean, take a look at the syllabus for the thermodynamics course at MIT and skim through a few of the lectures.
Before we jump into these laws, I want to show you why scientists typically heap scorn on anyone who claims to have somehow violated the laws of thermodynamics.
The author of a book of thermodynamics that I have writes the following:
No violation of any law of thermodynamics is known to have occurred in over 200 years of research in this area.
Most physicists consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics the most universal ‘governor’ of natural activity that has ever been revealed by scientific study.
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in 1915
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
And Ivan Bazarov wrote the following in a thermodynamics text from 1964:
The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke. It is not possible to find any other law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed violation would bring more skepticism than this one. Not even Maxwell’s laws of electricity or Newton’s law of gravitation are so sacrosanct, for each has measurable corrections coming from quantum effects or general relativity. The law has caught the attention of poets and philosophers and has been called the greatest scientific achievement of the nineteenth century.
Now that you somewhat understand the strong feelings of those in the know about thermodynamics, you can see why they would disparage anyone purporting to break or repeal these laws. And it helps to understand the vituperation heaped on Robert Atkins who wrote one of the most hubristic and outright ignorant statements imaginable showing a total lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics when he said:
When I make this claim, that you can lose more weight on a higher number of calories, I seem to be breaking the law—one of the hallowed laws of thermodynamics. Many powers-that-be get terribly provoked when I repeal their laws. But the calorie theory is a false law that is meant to be broken, and ketosis/lipolysis is the instrument for breaking it.
As reported in Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, this comment and others like it may have lead John Yudkin to say of Atkins’ book that its “chief consequence [may have been] to antagonize the medical and nutritional establishment.”
But, since Atkins wasn’t really a physicist, it’s easy to see how he could have become confused.
There are four laws of thermodynamics, but we’re going to concern ourselves in this post only with the first and second laws. The other two laws - the zeroth law and the fourth law involve temperature, are highly theoretical, and aren’t really relevant to the discussion at hand.
The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy law and states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Another way of stating this law is to say that the energy of a system plus surroundings is constant in time. This first law is where the mistaken idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ that misguided people always want to parrot comes from. And on the surface it seems to make sense. If energy can’t be created or destroyed why wouldn’t a calorie always be a calorie? That’s where the second law comes in.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process. What this means is that it is impossible for a system to turn a given amount of energy into an equivalent amount of work. It is this second law that is really the ‘a calorie is a calorie’ law, and, in fact, the second law shows, in terms of weight loss at least, that a calorie isn’t necessarily a calorie.
These two laws of thermodynamics can be summed up cleverly. The first law says you can’t get something for nothing, and the second law tells you that you can’t break even.
Since it’s the second law that applies to living, breathing animals, and since it is the one most often confused in the calorie issue, let’s look at it a little more closely. The second law is the law driving chemical reactions, and since we’re nothing but a bunch of walking chemical reactions it is the one that applies most to us.
The second law is a dissipation law in that it says that in any reaction that is irreversible (most of the chemical reactions that give us life) there is a loss or dissipation of energy in that reaction. If substance A converts to substance B via a chemical reaction in the body, then substance B has a lower energy than substance A. In other words energy is lost to the universe in that reaction. There is no reaction that doesn’t end up without a loss of some energy to the universe. This loss of energy is called entropy.
The second law can kind of be summed with this equation:
calories in = calories out + entropy
If we substitute numbers in the above equation it could look like this:
100 calories in = 70 calories out + entropy
If we solve this equation for entropy, we can see that entropy is 30 calories. Or, in this case, 30 calories of energy are lost.
The larger the number for entropy, the more inefficient the system is, i.e., more energy lost from the system forever.
For example, when you drive a car only about 10-12 percent of the energy contained in the gasoline actually is converted to the work of propelling the car - the rest is lost to heat (entropy). This irretrievable loss is the reason a perpetual motion machine can never be built although many have tried. No matter how efficiently such a machine might be designed it will ultimately run down because of these little energy (entropy) leaks here and there. (I’ve used entropy as if it is synonymous with energy when in technical terms it really isn’t, but it’s easier to think of it that way.)
How does this apply to weight loss?
Each of the many chemical reactions in the body end up dissipating energy. We get our energy in the form of calories from the food we eat. This energy gets consumed in all the countless chemical reactions that go on all the time. Just like an automobile, we are not all that efficient. We don’t convert calories to energy on a one to one basis because of the loss of energy to the universe described by the second law.
This is all basic stuff, but it gets interesting when we start to look at how the different macronutrients (fat, protein and carbohydrate) affect the process.
As I’ve discussed in this blog frequently, we need to maintain our blood sugar in a fairly narrow range. We need blood sugar to supply energy to certain cells that can’t use it in any other form (the red blood cells, some brain cells and others). We can get plenty of sugar into our blood and have no trouble keeping our blood sugar up if we eat carbohydrates. The carbohydrate-containing foods get broken down into their sugar molecules that are then absorbed from the intestines directly into the blood. In our high carb world our problem isn’t too little sugar but too much. But in the early years of our existence on the planet it wasn’t like this. We didn’t have access to the bounty of easily absorbed carbs that we do today, yet we still had the need for sugar in our blood. As a consequence we evolved mechanisms to convert other nutrients - primarily protein - into sugar.
If we have a diet containing plenty of carbohydrate, the carbohydrate goes into the blood as sugar. There are very few chemical reactions along the way, and there is a loss of energy to the universe with each of these reactions. But, since there aren’t many conversions, there isn’t a lot of energy loss.
If we have no carbohydrates (or few) in the diet, however, it’s a different story. In order to maintain the necessary sugar level in the blood the body is forced to make sugar out of protein, which isn’t a simple operation. Look in any basic biochemistry textbook and you can see all the reactions required to convert protein to sugar, and each one of these reactions consumes energy just to take place but loses energy to the universe in the process as well. It’s much less efficient for the body to convert protein to sugar than it is to simply take the sugar as it comes in already formed.
The second law of thermodynamics virtually mandates that there be a larger loss of energy when one has to convert protein to sugar instead of merely using the sugar as it comes in. Since there are 4 kcal of energy in a gram of sugar and 4 kcal of energy in a gram of protein, it should be apparent that less of the 4 kcal in a gram of sugar will be dissipated than will be the 4 kcal in a gram of protein if this gram of protein has to first be converted to sugar.
And, consequently, one would think that a diet low in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat (both of which have to be converted to sugar) would bring about a greater weight loss than a diet of the same number of calories but with higher levels of carbohydrate. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics predicts this very phenomenon. But despite this rather obvious notion that complies perfectly with the second law, many ignorant people continue to cling to the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ despite that idea flying in the face of the second law. I suppose these people discount the second law. If so, then they should spend their time putting together a perpetual motion machine, which, if they could, would garner them a lot more fame than their inane posturing on the inevitability of the second law might do.
A classic example of how the second law works is in the difference between regular and premium gasoline. Both regular and premium have the same exact number of calories per gallon, but premium burns more efficiently. In other words, the calories contained in the premium gas get ‘wasted’ at a lower percentage in propelling the car along the road than do the calories in the regular. A high-performance automobile designed to squeeze the most out of a gallon of gas will get better mileage on premium than on regular gasoline, yet the calories in are exactly the same.
In the human body this inefficiency can be measured as an increase in metabolic rate and an increase in body heat being produced under laboratory conditions. One would assume that since the second law is inviolable and always in operation that people eating a diet low in carbohydrates and high in protein would produce more heat than those consuming the same number of calories but composed of a much higher percentage of carbohydrates. And that is exactly what is found.
In a paper (full text here) published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition researchers examined this effect in ten healthy young women who consumed either a high-protein, low-carbohydrate or a lower-protein, higher-carb diet of the same number of calories. The researchers used these women as their own controls, providing them with the first diet followed by measurements in the lab, then 54 days later with the second diet and lab evaluation.
Precise measurement of heat and metabolic rate showed that when the women followed the high-protein, low-carb diet they produced almost twice as much heat as they did when consuming the higher carb diet of the same calories. In the higher-carb diet the entropy was smaller than in the higher-protein diet, which would be expected from the second law.
As the authors of the paper put it:
These data demonstrate that meal-induced thermogenesis at 2.5 hours post-meal averages about twofold higher on a HP, low fat diet versus a HC, low-fat diet. Generally, postprandial thermogenesis has been associated with the protein content of a meal, and our data confirm this relationship. However, the difference in the energy cost of HP versus HC diets, particularly in the context of weight loss promotion, has not been addressed by healthcare professionals. Increased diet-induced thermogenesis, in association with the preservation of REE [resting energy expediture], may contribute to the reported weight loss success of diets high in protein with moderate levels of carbohydrate and lends credence to the observation that weight loss on HP diets is predominately body fat, not body water.
Bear all this in mind the next time you tell someone that it is possible to lose more weight on a greater number of calories as long as those calories are low-carb calories, and that someone pooh poohs you with the old ‘That can’t be possible. It violates the laws of thermodynamics. A calorie is after all a calorie.’ Ask them precisely which laws of thermodynamics it violates and ask them to tell you how. Then sit back and watch the fun.

History rewritten by skulls

2007-08-25T18:50:00.000+10:00

THE discovery of two fossils has challenged the belief our ancestor homo erectus evolved from homo habilis, according to an article in the British magazine Nature.

The finds, on the eastern bank of Lake Turkana in Kenya, suggested the species may have co-existed for some 500,000 years in East Africa.

The team that found the remains was led by mother-daughter team Mary and Meave Leakey of the famed Kenyan anthropological family who have uncovered a host of critical human and hominid remains in east Africa.

One of the fossils was an upper jaw bone of homo habilis that dated back 1.44 million years.

It was nevertheless more recent than any of the previously found fossils of its kind.

The second was a remarkably well preserved skull of homo erectus, which, paradoxically dates back even further, to some 1.55 million years ago.

"What is truly striking about this fossil is its size," said Fred Spoor of London's University College, one of the paper's lead authors. "It's the smallest homo erectus found anywhere in the world."

This suggests male and female skulls were different sizes -- challenging current thinking.

The discoveries have created a stir among academics tracing humankind's roots, because it challenges the presumed evolutionary timeline of the species: homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapiens.

"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that homo erectus evolved from homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper.

"The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition."

Homo habilis is thought to have lived from about 2.5 million to 1.8 million years ago.

Homo erectus is important because it is believed to be the first hominid to leave Africa.

Meat back on menu

2007-08-25T18:39:00.000+10:00

Australian families are turning back to "meat and three veg" as staple fare, according to a new study published in the Nutrition and Dietetics journal.

The study, funded by Meat and Livestock Australia, reveals 88 per cent of Australian households eat red meat at least once a week, while 96 per cent put meat on the table every month.

Meat and Livestock Australia managing director David Thompson says the figure represents a small but significant change in eating habits, and there are a number of reasons behind it.

"People are becoming more aware of the health benefits of fresh food," Mr Thompson said.
"They're becoming disenchanted with processed food. They're responding by going back to more traditional food.

The study found that red meat plays a vital role in child development.

"The nutrients in red meat are so important for childhood development, particularly early childhood," Mr Thompson said.

"Red meat is the major deliverer of iron, zinc and vitamin B12 in our diets, and a little known fact is that it's also second only to seafood in omega-3."

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott lent his support to the study. "I have always enjoyed red meat," Mr Abbott said. "It's important to rehabilitate red meat as part of the Australian diet. Apart from anything else, red meat is an important Australian industry."

Australians consume 35 per cent of domestic production of red meat.

Japan and the United States are our biggest meat export destinations.

Child obesity rate is 'likely to double'

2007-02-15T01:14:00.000+11:00

Australia's obesity epidemic is reaching crisis point and the number of overweight children will rise to 60 per cent within 30 years unless the Government invests billions, according to a health expert.

Kevin Norton, professor of exercise science at Sport Knowledge Australia, accused state and federal governments of failing to stem rising obesity rates, which could cripple the national health system.

In the first study to look at the weight of Australian children over the last century, researchers found that obesity rates jumped from 4 per cent in 1901 to more than 30 per cent in 2003.

The study found that in 30 years' time the number of overweight or obese children will double, matching the current rate of adult obesity.

Professor Norton likened the seriousness of the problem to that of climate change and said failure to act now could have devastating consequences.

"We are going to need new money — in the same way we've done with the climate change issue — for interventions to tackle the problem," he said. "If we're going to have an impact we'll need hundreds of millions, if not billions … because we're running out of money and the health-care costs can't continue."

The report, published in the International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, took in data from 41 studies since 1901 that weighed 500,000 Australian children aged five to 15.

The figures reveal a low, steady rate of obesity until the 1970s when the rate increased.

Professor Norton said the spike coincided with a decline in physical education in schools, and called for compulsory classes from year 1 to year 12.

"It's got to be put in the same bracket as maths and English and reading and writing skills. If we do national testing for that surely we should educate our kids about their health through physical activity and nutrition programs in schools," he said.

"Last year's estimates of direct financial costs placed the obesity epidemic throughout Australia at somewhere around $3.5 billion."

The Age revealed last year that Australia has the fastest growing rate of childhood obesity in the world.

Professor Norton described recent Government prevention measures — such as a ban on soft drinks in Victorian state schools — as little more than "tinkering".

Professor Norton said policies such as adding half a cent per litre to the price of petrol could generate enough money to put one physical education teacher into every school in Australia for a year.

Chimp "Stone Age" finds are earliest nonhuman ape tools

2007-02-14T21:20:00.000+11:00

Humans might not be as pioneering as we're cracked up to be.

That's one possible explanation for new evidence that West African chimpanzees learned to use stone tools on their own to crack nuts at least 4,300 years ago.

The research pushes back chimpanzee tool use thousands of years. It casts into doubt the long-standing theory that direct human ancestors were the only animals to independently develop tools—and that chimps learned to use stone tools by watching humans.

Instead both humans and chimps could have inherited the ability to crack nuts with rocks from a common ancestor, Julio Mercader of the University of Calgary in Canada and co-authors report in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Or chimps may have developed the behavior on their own. In either case, it's no longer likely that chimps learned to use stones as tools only by imitating humans.

At 4,300 years old, the chimps' tools correspond to the late Stone Age of human history—before the advent of agriculture in West Africa.

"Until recently people used to say that among modern-day chimpanzees the behavior came from imitation of farmers," Mercader said. "That assumption is no longer valid. What we present predates the presence of farming."

Mercader and colleagues found subtly altered rocks in the Ivory Coast in Africa at a research site that houses the only known prehistoric chimpanzee settlement.

The excavated stones resemble those used by ancient humans and modern chimpanzees to smash nuts—showing evidence of flakes, chips, and worn edges.

Also, several types of starch grains were found on the stones, which the researchers say is residue from cracking local nuts.

Some experts had believed that the chimps at Mercader's study site learned to crack nuts by watching people break apart the seeds of African palm oil trees and other tropical species.

Agustín Fuentes, an anthropologist at Indiana's University of Notre Dame, said he's not surprised by the new research, but he's happy about it.

"It puts the nail in the coffin on those who say chimp tool use is atypical," he said.

"Most people have already bought into that. But now you can say, Look, you've got a 4,000-year-old tradition."

The most primitive human stone-tool sites are in Olduvai Gorge in East Africa. Tools there date back to 2.6 million years ago, when people were deliberately modifying stone tools by flaking rocks to create razorlike edges. Chimps today don't change the shapes of the stones they use as nutcrackers.

But the chimps' stones may be similar to stone tools used by humans before our ancestors began to chisel rocks for specific purposes.

Today in Côte d'Ivoire's Taï rain forest, mother chimpanzees still teach their infants the art of nut cracking.

It takes young chimps about seven years to master the technique. To split a nut without pulverizing it, the chimps must apply 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of force.

Fuentes said that Mercader and colleagues' work emphasizes that the difference between chimps and humans is not the ability to use tools, but the ability to modify the tools and share that information.

For Fuentes, the research "knocks humans off the pedestal of tool use," but it affirms our unique ability to communicate.

A chimp mother might teach her offspring to crack nuts, but chimps are not really communicating about how to use tools and where to get them, he said.

"Nothing," he said, "goes to the level of information-sharing and technology that humans are capable of."

The Paleo Diet Newsletter

2007-02-09T06:22:00.000+11:00

I've been meaning to blog about Dr. Loren Cordain's website and free e-newsletter for a while now. Here are some valuable links for you, my Hunter-Gatherer friend.

Dr' Cordain's website, ThePaleoDiet.com

Newsletters:
Paleo Diet Newsletter Vol. 3 Issue 1

The Paleo Diet Newsletter Courier, Vol. 2, Issue 5

The Paleo Diet Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 4

The Paleo Diet Newsletter Courier, Vol. 2, Issue 3

The Paleo Diet Newsletter Courier, Vol. 2, Issue 2

The Paleo Diet Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 1

The Paleo Diet Newsletter, Vol. 1, Issue 3

The Paleo Diet Newsletter, Vol. 1, Issue 2

The Paleo Diet Newsletter, Vol. 1, Issue 1

Dr. Cordain is also the author of one of the better books on Paleo nutrition: The Paleo Diet. He has also written The Paleo Diet for athletes and The dietary cure for acne. I haven't read the latter two yet, but the first one was one of the texts that first opened my eyes to this way of life.

Fat Men Can't Hunt

2007-02-09T06:04:00.000+11:00

One of the more interesting shows (potentially) for Paleo eaters is a new show on the BBC in Britain called "Fat men can't hunt". It's a four part series shot in the Kalahari Desert in Namibia. From the BBC website is the following:

If you can't kill it and cook it, you'll be going hungry...
Most of us love our convenient Western lifestyles - supermarket shelves groaning with every possible type of food known to man, takeaway deliveries only a phone call away, and handy fridges to keep everything fresh.

However, our Stone Age ancestors lived on a hunter/gatherer diet - and many of the health problems that we in the West currently face can be linked directly back to the change in the way we eat.

In some parts of the world, people still need to hunt, kill, prepare and cook all of their own foodstuffs. Just how would a group of overweight, out-of-condition Brits cope with having to search for their supper?

Fat Men Can't Hunt is a four-part series that follows a group of eight men and women to see if they can live among the San Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert in Namibia.

The men will have to join hunts, spending days at a time foraging for food. Meanwhile the women will have to stay in the camp, living their lives according to the strict social rules that govern local women.

Isolated in one of the world's harshest environments, will our brave volunteers adapt to their new lifestyle or end up begging to be airlifted to the nearest kebab shop?

It looks to me that it has the potential to be a "reality" show that's actually worth watching. I hope it come on the TV in Australia very soon. Perhaps channel 9 can do an Aussie version in the Aussie desert with some local indigenous people.

Dog's breakfast - so what's a dog really meant to eat?

2007-02-08T23:57:00.000+11:00

If you thought human nutrition was a minefield of conflicting information, it's no easier if you're a pooch. At one extreme of the dog diet spectrum is the Biologically Appropriate Raw Food (or BARF diet) - this is the canine equivalent of the human Paleolithic diet which recommends a raw food diet that's as close as possible to what wild dogs evolved to eat - at the other are those who argue dogs do just fine on a vegetarian diet; and somewhere in the middle are the vets who recommend a healthy mixed diet.

If research into the effects of dog ownership on human health is to be believed, dogs deserve the right diet - whatever that might be. Owning a dog appears to be good for human health, helping lower blood pressure and cholesterol. But while they're busy protecting us from heart disease, living with a human is no guarantee for good canine health - otherwise why would vets be running weight-loss programs, or a canine anti-obesity drug be poised for release in the US? So what should - and shouldn't - go into a dog's dinner?

Off the menu for all dogs are foods known to be toxic to them. These include grapes, raisins, chocolate, macadamia nuts, tomatoes, onion and garlic (there goes garlic's reputation as a natural flea repellant). Cooked bones can splinter and injure the dog.

Raw bones are fine and don't feed salty foods to dogs who are overweight or have problems with their heart or blood pressure.

Like overweight humans, overweight dogs are prone to diseases like diabetes, arthritis and cancer - to keep them around longer, keep them active and don't overfeed.

I suggest a mixed diet that includes a good quality dried food, together with raw beef or lamb and vegetables. Dried food is a more concentrated source of nutrients (compared with canned food which can contain as much as 60 per cent water) - but provide lots of water.

Vegetables like raw broccoli and carrots are good to add extra nutrients and fibre. Raw chicken wings mimic a wild diet and provide calcium and other nutrients. As for fruit, not much is known about fruit and dog nutrition, though some dogs enjoy it. I know mine certainly does! She collects dropped apricots from the tree (they're too high to reach) and she actually picks peaches from the tree!

If beagles are anything to go by, a little fruit might be a good thing - a University of Toronto study found older dogs whose diet was supplemented with fruit and vegetables did better at learning new tasks.

Not everyone agrees with feeding dogs commercial dog food. The BARF diet, developed by Australian vet Dr Ian Billinghurst, recommends a diet based on raw muscle and organ meat and vegetables - and no grains. Meanwhile, many vegetarian organisations, including the Vegetarian Network Victoria, believe dogs can thrive on a plant-based diet.

So tell us what goes into your dog's bowl to keep them in good shape? Have you tried BARF or even a vegetarian diet?

BARF

Raw Meaty Bones

Previous posts on canine nutrition: 1,

Eat A Tasty Animal for PETA Day (EATAPETA)

2007-02-08T04:14:00.000+11:00

Ingrid Newkirk's PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) claims to be an animal rights group, but their outrageous headline-grabbing tactics are rarely more than criminal thuggery laced with fits of blatant bloody-handed hypocrisy.

In response to the "Holocaust On Your Plate" media campaign that mocked the Holocaust, blogger Meryl Yourish responded with "Eat A Tasty Animal For PETA Day" (EATAPETA) campaign on March 15, 2003. Bloggers and non-bloggers are invited to revolt against PETA's ham-fisted tactics by eating animals on this day.

This year will be the Fifth Annual International Eat an Animal for Peta Day.

So, how can you join in the fun?

Sure, you can eat animal food products all by your lonesome, but you are encouraged to organize and promote your own gathering place to celebrate the carnivore side of your omnivorous nature.

I intend to organise a BBQ at home with some close friends. On the menu will be Prawns (Hey, I'm an Aussie so apparently I have to have crustaceans on the BBQ), lamb chops, Pork chops and rump steak. My wife will make up an egg salad.

That covers seafood, sheep, pigs, cows and chickens. I think I'll act like Noah and have two of every animal ..........

McHealthy meals win National Heart tick

2007-02-06T21:22:00.000+11:00

FAST food giant McDonald's has secured the National Heart Foundation's tick of approval for several low-fat meals to be added to its menu this month.

But leading dietitian Rosemary Stanton says this may just encourage more people to buy McDonald's - and not necessarily the healthy meals.

The foundation gave nine new meals - switching the winning chips-and-soft drink combination for salad and juice - a tick.

Big Macs missed out, but McNuggets and Filet-o-Fish burgers can wear the tick when paired with the healthy side-dishes.

Foundation chief executive Lyn Roberts said the firm had spent a year reducing trans fats and sodium and adding vegetables to meal combinations.

McDonald's follows Qantas in tick-approval since the foundation introduced the scheme for meals eaten out. Ticks previously only went to supermarket foods meeting strict nutritional standards: companies paying for the privilege.

Tick scheme national manager Susan Anderson would not say how much McDonald's would pay but said it would only cover foundation expenses.

McDonald's was charged $330,000 for 12 Months of approval. In a forum I contribute to, another user (that claims to work at the National Heart Foundation) has this to say on the subject: (The post has been edited only to correct spelling mistakes)

Let me clarify this for everyone because I actually work at the Heart Foundation.
The license fee charged to manufacturers is based on a proportion of expected revenue. This money is used to cover costs only - the money stays inside the tick program and is not released to any other part of the Heart Foundation. In the case of McDonalds 2 restaraunts will be tested per week for 12 months to check their food is meeting the strict standards set by the Tick program, this includes clinical analysis, human resources etc. This is where the $330,000 is going. The Tick is granted only to the nine meals that will be released later in the month, and it does not apply to the whole of McDonalds. The meals are no longer tick certified if you change them in any way. Obviously if you buy fries with a Tick meal you are not eating according to Tick guidelines.

The Heart Foundation "Tick" of approval is nothing short of a pathetic joke. McDonald's can get the tick for a "heart healthy" meal, yet there is no tick of approval for fruit and vegetable growers or livestock producers.

The truth is, the Heart Foundation's "Tick of approval" is purely a revenue raiser for a pathetic government - it has nothing to do with the food being heart healthy.

Mars bars not to be marketed to under-12s

2007-02-05T13:39:00.000+11:00

CONFECTIONERY giant Masterfoods, which owns the Mars, Maltesers, Topic, Revel and Snickers candy bar brand names, has said it will stop marketing its "core products" to children under the age of 12 by the end of this year the first time a big foodmaker has set such a high global age limit for products.

The policy will apply to all advertising, including online and new media, The Financial Times reported.

"We have decided to make an official policy change to a cut-off age of 12 years for all our core products," read a Masterfoods letter to the European Commission's director-general for health and consumer protection Robert Madelin, according to the business paper.

Core products reportedly include snack foods and confectionery.

The newspaper said that while Masterfoods already had a policy of not advertising to children younger than six, rivals Nestle and PepsiCo do not have a global age limit for targeting children.

According to the paper, CadburySchweppes does not advertise to children less than eight, while Kraft does not advertise to children younger than six, though it said that it only markets "better for you" products such as fruit juices and wheat crackers to children between six and 11.

The measure reflects mounting concerns about the links between advertising and childhood obesity and follows moves by some public authorities to bring in tighter food regulations.

Parents blind to fat children

2007-02-05T03:05:00.000+11:00

Most parents don't think their overweight children are fat - and heavy parents are the worst judges of them all, a study has found.

A survey of more than 1,200 Melbourne families has revealed the majority of caregivers believe their kids are of normal weight when they are overweight or even obese.

Parents of 5 to 6-year-olds were the worst, with 90 per cent wrongly judging their overweight child.

And 63 per cent of parents of overweight 10 to 12-year-olds made the same mistake.

Deakin University researcher David Crawford said the findings, published in the journal Public Health Nutrition, were alarming given Australia was in the grip of an obesity epidemic.

"These are quite troubling results and suggest that current obesity prevention campaigns are not hitting the mark with parents," said Prof Crawford, head of the Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research.

"Parents are part of the front line in the battle to reverse the trend of obesity in children.

"It is therefore essential that they are armed with information and practical strategies that they understand and can easily build into their daily lives."

He said the results were not surprising because waistlines were expanding across the whole population, making obesity harder to recognise.

"Almost one in two people are overweight now ... so it's almost more usual than unusual," Prof Crawford said.

Children are also growing quickly, making it hard to judge weight, and many parents also believe their child will grow out of it which, research shows, is not the case.

Mothers in particular tended to judge a weight problem on whether their child was teased at school - a poor marker of overweight.

Interestingly, it was the overweight adults that were least likely to recognise their child's weight problem, probably because they don't recognise it in themselves, Prof Crawford said.

Despite not recognising the problem, most parents said they took care to promote a balanced diet and physical activity and cut back on junk food in the home.

But few parents boosted fruit and vegetables intake, limited television viewing or stopped children drinking high energy drinks to control weight.

Parents need to follow the pyramid below and encourage (insist!) that their kids do the same.

Monday, September 04, 2006

2006-09-05T17:00:00.000+10:00

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week.

Low Carb Dave is back from Holidays in FNQ. I wonder what he's been up to? Any comments Dave? As soon as he got back he's been posting like mad on his blog.

I still haven't posted my review about Anthony Colpo's book The Great Cholesterol Con. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait a bit longer as I've been rather busy lately helping to plan our Wedding.

Jimmy Moore is keeping true to form and posting every day. Check out his fascinating blog. He's also managed to lose six pounds doing his 30-in-30 weight loss challenge.

I will be absent from this Blog for nearly a month. I'm getting married on Saturday 09/09/06 and will be starting the honeymoon almost immediately. After the honeymoon, we're driving up to see a good friend of mine in Brisbane so we wont be back until about the start of October. So stay on track, keep the carbs low and I'll post again when I'm back.

Pre Paleo medical checkup.

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Steve...

Soft-drink makers pledge to lift game

2006-08-30T19:24:00.000+10:00

Soft-drink makers will remove sugared drinks from school canteens and stop advertising directly to children.

The Australian Beverage Council yesterday unveiled tough guidelines in response to pressure to alleviate childhood obesity. Signed by almost all major bottlers of carbonated, non-carbonated, juice and water-based drinks, they will be introduced over two years.

The measures include the removal of all sugar-sweetened drinks from primary school canteens and the supply of them to high schools only on request.

The companies also propose that they will not advertise any such drinks directly to primary school-age children or in children's TV programs. So-called diet drinks would not be included in the bans.

The companies will also declare kilojoule content and additional nutritional information on labels.

Australian Beverages Council chief executive Tony Gentile said the changes would help consumers make informed choices.

Nine other initiatives include increasing the range of low-calorie products, encouraging smaller portions and boosting educational programs.

Disease on the march

2006-08-30T19:18:00.000+10:00

More Australians are being admitted to hospital for diabetes, statistics show.

Hospital admissions rose by up to 20 per cent between 2000-01 and 2003-04, an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report reveals.
Data for 2003-04 shows more than 473,000 Australians with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were admitted to hospital.

Of those, 86 per cent were admitted for conditions associated with diabetes, such as strokes.

More than a million Australians have diabetes.

Most have type 2 or lifestyle diabetes caused by poor nutrition and lack of exercise, the report, Diabetes Hospitalisations in Australia 2003-04(PDF), says.

Doctors have blamed the nation's obesity crisis for the worsening problem.

A big night out ......

2006-08-29T16:18:00.000+10:00

Well it's two days after, and I'm virtually fully recovered from my buck's night. I was right about the "bad" nutrition. Too many beers and bourbons but it was only one night I suppose.

We started off at the Sandy hotel where surprisingly everyone turned up. I was expecting only a few and for everyone to be at the cricket club. We had a few beers, played some pool and watched the Melbourne / Geelong draw on the footy, then headed back to the club.

My brother cooked up an excellent BBQ with prawns, snags, burgers and lamb chops. All LC, HP foods. Wonderful stuff. Thanks mate for doing that. When we arrived there was a barmaid in action already so we got our share of the beers.

An hour or so later the police turned up. The best man's cousin is a cop and he set me up with them. Good laugh all around, but I have to admit my pulse was up a bit for a while!

The first act started and she was a very friendly girl! A great show and I wish I had a buck's night every Saturday night.

About an hour later, the second act started and this girl could virtually tie herself into pretzels! Extremely flexible and a very "full on", fast paced show. Craig, did you ever get your belt back?

After the second show a few guys (that were driving and had commitments the following day) started to leave. I ended up getting home about 05:45. A long night but well worth it.

Thanks to Millsy, Ando, Donno and Glenn. You know who you are.

Steve

P.S. My ass is still sore from that second show !!!!!

Caveman Cuisine

2006-08-22T19:50:00.000+10:00

This is a copy of an article posted in 1999 on the Weston A. Price Foundation website. It was written by Sally Fallon, President of the foundation, and Mary G. Enig, author of Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol.

Sally Fallon

Mary G. Enig Ph. D.

It is an older article but still very relevant. It mentions the high fat content of the food our Paleolithic bretheren ate and they also mention the domestication of our meat product via animal husbandry, farming and selective breeding.

Lowfat diets, claim the pundits of medical orthodoxy, have been associated with good health and longevity throughout the globe and since the dawn of time. The research of Weston Price proves otherwise. From the Eskimo of Alaska to the hardy Alpiner, from Gaelic villager to African tribesman, Price discovered that all healthy indigenous people had a plentiful source of animal fat in the diet. Such Neolithic groups could still be found when Price embarked on his eventful travels back in the 1930s. But no one, of course, not even the indefatigable Dr. Price, could visit our Paleolithic forbearers, the so-called cave men. The lack of direct evidence about our hunter-gatherer ancestors—who by definition neither cultivated crops nor domesticated farm animals—allows limitless conjecture about the content of their diets. The low fat school claims that the cave man ate lean meat, supplemented by copious amounts of plant foods in the form of sprouts, roots, fruits, berries and leaves; dissenting investigators assert that the cave man imbibed animal fat first and foremost, along with the meat to which it was attached, and very little in the way of foods from the vegetable kingdom. Both schools of thought are in agreement that the cave man diet was otherwise Spartan, lacking foodstuffs that were either salty or sweet.

Dr. Walter L Voegtlin argues for the high fat model in his book The Stone Age Diet, published in 1975. Humans are carnivorous animals he asserts, and the Stone Age diet was that of a carnivore—chiefly fats and protein, with only small amounts of carbohydrates. He notes that like the carnivorous dog, man has canine teeth, ridged molars and incisors in both jaws. His jaw is designed for crushing and tearing, and moves in vertical motions. Mastication of his food is unnecessary and he does not ruminate. His stomach holds two quarts, empties in three hours, rests between meals, lacks bacteria and protozoa, secretes large quantities of hydrochloric acid and does not digest cellulose. His digestive tract is short relative to body length, his cecum is nonfunctional and his appendix vestigial. His rectum is small, contains putrefactive bacterial flora and does not contribute to the digestive process. The volume of feces is small; digestive efficiency borders on 100%; his gall bladder is active and well developed. Both the dog and man feed intermittently and can survive without a stomach or colon. The herbivorous sheep, by contrast, lacks canines, has flat molars and incisors only in the lower jaw. His jaw is designed for grinding and rotary movments. Mastication and rumination are vital functions. His stomach holds eight and one-half gallons, contains bacteria and protozoa, never empties and has but weak production of hydrochloric acid. His colon and cecum are long and capacious; the cecum performs a vital function; the bacterial flora of his rectum is fermentative rather than putrefactive; feces are voluminous; gall bladder function is weak or absent; and total digestive efficiency is 50% or less. The sheep feeds continuously. He cannot live without his stomach or colon. His entire digestive tract is about five times longer, as a ratio of body length, than that of man and his dog.

Voegtlin argues that gross differences in the anatomy of man and the herbivorous animals make him unable to successfully adapt to a diet based on plant foods, particularly carbohydrate-rich grains, as well as to a diet in which milk products, rich in lactose, predominate; and that the whole range of modern diseases stems from his abandonment of the food choices of his primitive ancestors, based largely on meat and rich in fat. He notes that, with the exception of vitamins C and K, all essential nutrients can be derived from animal foods, and that the cave man diet was certainly much richer in vitamins and minerals than our own. Modern devitalized plant foods—such as sugar and white flour—only hasten our decline.

A decade later, in 1988, Dr. Boyd Eaton published the Paleolithic Prescription in which he argues that the cave man diet was low in fat, particularly saturated fat, low in salt and rich in dietary fiber from plant foods. His Paleolithic prescription for optimum health is, in fact, very much akin to the so-called prudent diet of the American Heart Association. The typical Paleolithic macronutrient profile, he asserts, contained 33% of total energy from protein, principally but not entirely animal protein, 46% from carbohydrates and a mere 21% from fat. Journalist Joe Friel translates these suppositions about Paleolithic eating habits into the following dietary recommendations: Select the leanest cuts of meat (wild game, if possible), trim away all visible fat from meat, include fish and fowl, eat low- or non-fat dairy products and include moderate amounts of monounsaturated fat in the diet in the form of oils and spreads of almonds, avocado, hazelnut, macadamia nut, olive and walnut. He lumps natural saturated fats in with newfangled hydrogenated oils as fats to be avoided. The cave man, it seems, thriving on a diet of lean venison along with roots, shoots and fruits, was altogether politically correct in his low-fat dietary habits.

Or was he? In a recently published collection of essays, Ice Age Hunters of the Rocky Mountains, we learn that the hunter-gatherers of the North American continent ate the following animals: mammoth, camel, sloth, bison, mountain sheep, small mammals including beaver, pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer, horse, llama and large members of the dog family. Mammoth, sloth, mountain sheep, bison and beaver are fatty animals in the modern sense in that they have a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, as do the many species of bear and wild pig whose remains have been found at Paleolithic sites throughout the world. The bison and camel have humps composed largely of tallow. Furthermore, if the dietary patterns of present day African hunter-gatherers can serve as a guide, the Paleolithic hunter preferred the fatty portions of the carcass including organs, brains, tongue, feet and marrow. Archeological remains indicate that whereas meat from game carcasses was often left uneaten, the long bones were carried back into camps and chopped into pieces so that the marrow could be extracted. Organ meats were eaten immediately—and often raw—but muscle meat was preserved by drying, or by mixing it with tallow to make pemmican. Some investigators believe that the cave mans's preference for the fatty portions of his kill led to profligate practices—wasteful killing of mammoths simply to extract their fatty tongues, for example—and that selective hunting of the fattier animals was a prime factor leading to the extinction of large mammals such as mammoths, sloths and rhinoceros.

Bones of the bear predominate in many European sites. Archeologist Myra Shakley reports on an important Neanderthal site in Hungary where 90 percent of the remains were those of bear. Whole carcasses were brought to the site—not just portions as was the case for other animals—and the manner in which the carcasses were cut up suggests that the skins were removed. Obviously the pelts were used to protect the hunter-gatherer from the severe climate. The subcutaneous fat would not have been wasted; in fact, it could have been used for preserving other foods. Altars containing bear skulls found in caves in the Swiss Alps, and dated back as far as 75,000 years, indicated that the bear was worshiped as a sacred animal.

Present-day hunter-gatherers, as well as those of the ancient past, possess greater dietary wisdom than the majority of our modern Ph.D.'s. They understood that a diet of lean meat, lacking in fat, was the surest route to weakness, disease and death. Steffanson, who studied the Eskimos and Indians of the far north, reports that when lean caribou was the only meat available, anxiety set in. These natives knew that a month or more on such meat, without the addition of marine animals or fatty fish, would make them sick and prone to disease. The ancient tribes of the American West would not eat female bison in the Spring because nursing and pregnant bison cows burned off their fat reserves during the winter months. In fact, most bison hunts occurred in the late Summer and Fall when the bison were naturally fattened on the ripe grain of prairie grasses. Anthropologist Leon Abrams reports that the Aborigine will throw away a kangaroo he has killed if he discovers that its carcass does not contain sufficient fat. Members of Randolph Marcy's 1856 expedition to Wyoming grew weak and sick consuming a politically correct low-fat regime of six pounds of lean horse and mule meat per day; Dr. Wolfgang Lutz reports that a very efficient way of eliminating jailed political prisoners in South and Central America is to feed them a diet composed exclusively of lean meat. They soon develop severe diarrhea and succumb. The explanation is that fats contain nutrients like vitamin A that the body needs to utilize the amino acids and minerals in flesh foods; without fat in the diet, the body rapidly uses up its own stores of fat soluble vitamins. When these vital nutrients are depleted, the human organism can no longer fight off disease.

Was the cave man diet simply rich in unsaturated fats, but low in saturated fats? Antelope and caribou fat is over 50% saturated—about the same as beef—and mountain sheep fat would be the similar. Buffalo fat is 56% saturated—more saturated than beef! All ruminant animals contain lots of saturated fat because the protozoa in their capacious guts do an efficient job of saturating the oils found in plant foods—whether these oils come from dried hay or green grass, from feedlot corn or the ripe grains of prairie grasses. (Of course naturally-fed meat is richer in vitamins and minerals.) The bison were hunted in the late Summer and Fall when their fat stores would have been highest. Grazing animals spend several months eating the carbohydrate-rich seeds of wild grasses, which begin to ripen as early as the month of May—grain fattening in feedlots merely mimics this natural process.

Camel fat, from the kind of animal the Neanderthals apparently hunted to extinction, is a whooping 63% saturated! Wild boar fat is about 41% saturated, exactly the same as lard from a domestic pig. Kidney fat—which modern man avoids but which the cave man would have eaten—is highly saturated. Buffalo kidney fat is 58% saturated, antelope kidney fat is 65% saturated, elk kidney fat is 62% saturated and mountain goat kidney fat is 66 % saturated. Caribou marrow has a preponderance of monounsaturated fat, and a small amount of polyunsaturated, but still contains more than 27% saturated fat. Figures for elephant tongue are unavailable but beef tongue is 45% saturated. Bears, which yield 48% of their kilocalories as fat, have a preponderance of monounsaturated fat, the same kind found in olives, almonds and other nuts.

Seafood in coastal regions would also have provided fat for primitive man, particularly the valuable omega-3 fatty acids; insects, grubs and worms are a source of additional fat in all regions except the arctic.

So the high-fat proponents are the most likely winners of the great Paleolithic fat debate; but they are probably wrong in their assertions that plant foods, particularly grains, are new to the human diet. Remains of plant foods at Paleolithic sites include seeds, berries, roots, leaves and bulbs. Sunflower seeds, prickly pear seeds, amaranth seeds and limber pine seeds have been found at Rocky Mountain sites. Various types of nuts were consumed by primitives in the Americas and on the European continent. The amount of plant food in the cave man diet varied according to the climate and locality. Obviously plant foods were minimal in the diets of those in arctic climates, but played a large role in tropical regions. Nuts, of course, provided additional fat. The pecan, consumed in large quantities by the Indians of the Southeast, contains 85% of calories as fat. In tropical regions, palm nuts and coconuts provide large quantities of saturated fats.

Present day hunter-gatherers employ special preparation methods for carbohydrate-rich foods. Acorns, for example, are soaked in water and lye to remove tannins; tubers are buried in the ground, pounded or cooked in hearth ashes; seeds are soaked, pounded and allowed to ferment in various ways. It is safe to assume that the ancient hunter-gatherers employed similar techniques to neutralize the many enzyme inhibitors, irritants and mineral blocking substances found in tubers and seeds. In fact, a large portion of the primitive woman's day was spent in just such preparations—pounding, soaking, sieving, souring and putting the finishing touches on various types of root and seed foods. The men, on the other hand, divided their time between dangerous hunting forays, in which physical stamina and strength was at a premium, and periods of idleness when they would work on their weapons—and gossip.

So the comparison of the human digestive tract with that of the dog, while interesting, does not tell the whole story. Man can benefit from the many nutrients in plant foods as long as he takes care in their preparation. Primitive plant preparation methods—pounding, soaking, and fermenting—imitate the time-consuming processes that take place in the sheep's digestive tract, beginning with his flat grinding molars and ending with the fermentative bacteria in his lower bowel. The Paleolithic hunter-gatherer had the good sense not only to eat the fattier portions of meat, but to prepare his plant foods correctly. Modern man, particularly the modern professor of nutrition, does not.

Dogs, apparently, were the first animal to be domesticated by man—or, as the current theory holds, the dogs adopted man and went to work for him. A man with five or six dogs can track down and kill the largest of wild animals. Dogs made hunting less dangerous, and allowed our intrepid cave man to stand back and kill his prey with something he threw—an arrow or light spear—rather than with a lance that he physically had to thrust in. Almost certainly, the advent of the dog at man's side hastened the extinction of the large fatty animals that had given the cave man his physical prowess and resistance to disease. But the dog would also have helped the hunter move into his Neolithic phase, by rounding up wild sheep, cattle and goats and helping to keep them in flocks, so that their fatty meat and milk would be available throughout the year. Such milk was much richer than milk from today's Holsteins which have been bred to produce low-fat milk The neo-agriculturist would have been ruled by his tastebuds, rather than modern advertising, and consumed his milk products whole.

Assuming that man's tastebuds are not superfluous, but nature's way of guiding him to the food he needs, let us examine the notion that the cave man diet satisfied only the bitter, sour or pungent portion of his tasting apparatus, and not the salty or sweet. A number of studies report that honey, far from being a rare delicacy, contributed a substantial portion of the calories in many primitive diets. The Hazda of Tanzania, the Mbuti pygmies of the Congo, the Veddas or Wild Men of Sri Lanka, the Guayaka Indians of Paraguay, the Bushmen of South Africa and the Aborigines of Australia, all put a high value on honey and consumed it in large amounts. East coast American Indians consumed plentiful portions of maple syrup, and used it in the production of pemmican. Wild fruits and berries are incredibly sweet at the peak of ripeness, and can be preserved in various ways for consumption throughout the year. Fermented foods of the Eskimo are described as tasting as sweet as candy. Primitive man did not consume refined sweeteners, as we do, but neither did he neglect his sweet tooth.

It is hard to imagine that he would have neglected his taste for salt. It occurs naturally in meat and blood and, as animals seek out natural salt licks, so our sensible cave man would have done the same. The manufacture of salt can be accomplished simply by filling a hollowed out log with sea water and letting the brine evaporate. The evidence of place names in England indicates that salt was the earliest commodity to be traded from the seacoast, or from salt pits, to other areas. In extremely remote locations, such as the Himalayas or the interior of Africa, the ashes of sodium-rich marsh grasses are added to food. It is reported that the members of the Yanomami tribe in the Amazon basin do not take in any added salt. In an apparant adoptive measure, they also excrete almost no salt in the urine.

Milk is salty because mammals need salt for the production of hydrochloric acid and for the development of the brain and nervous system. Without dietary salt, the human mind does not fully develop and man must live, not by his wits like the ingenious cave man from the dawn of time, but as a brute, even if he happens to be born in this modern age.

Fat obscures scans

2006-08-22T09:56:00.000+10:00

Doctors are facing a new challenge in the war against obesity.

More and more obese patients are unable to be scanned in X-ray and MRI machines because they are too big.

Traditional MRI machine

Even if big patients can fit into scanners, the machinery will not work because X-ray beams and soundwaves cannot penetrate deep fat.

With 60 per cent of Australians either overweight or obese, radiologists say the problem is becoming more common in hospital patients.

Royal Melbourne Hospital head of radiology Prof Brian Tress said standard X-rays, CT scans, MRI scans and ultrasounds were sometimes ineffective when used on obese people, making diagnosis extremely difficult.

"The more flesh there is, the more the X-ray beam gets attenuated or scattered and produces grey results," Prof Tress said. This is one of many methods doctors and clinicians use to measure adipose tissue (fat).

"This is just another indication of the extent of the obesity problem."

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists spokeswoman Dr Liz Carter said X-ray images became blurry when used on a patient weighing 100kg (220lb) or more.

Ultrasounds were virtually impossible on these patients, but Dr Carter said CT scans and MRI scans could often be used as a last resort.

As well as the personal health risks of obesity, large patients also posed risks to medical staff. "There is the risk to the equipment, of it being broken, and to the staff if they have to move the patients," Dr Carter said.

X-rays, CT scans, ultrasounds and MRI scans are used to look for broken bones, fetuses, blood clots, tumours, diseased organs and other internal abnormalities.

Most scanning equipment can hold patients up to 250kg (550lb).

But those who cannot fit into a scanner must be referred to hospitals with open-sided MRI equipment, such as Sunshine and Goulburn Valley.

Open MRI machine

Steve

Monday mixed Grill - August 21st 2006

2006-08-21T12:19:00.000+10:00

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week.

The Age newspaper are conducting a poll on Diabesity. View the current results here.

I've managed to finish Anthony Colpo's book The Great Cholesterol Con. Stay tuned for my review coming in the next few days.

Jimmy Moore is going to be coming out of your speakers now too!! He is involved in a podcast with three other guys. Find out about it here. The podcast service is going to start up next week.

Speaking of next week, I anticipate a bad night (nutrition wise) on Saturday night (26th August). My mates are throwing me a bucks night. That's right, this cave man has clubbed himself a cave woman and is tying the knot! I'll let you know how Saturday night pans out in a future blog post.

Thigs seem to be very quiet at the moment over at the Low Carb Dave site. It looks like he's a very busy man.

Pre Paleo medical checkup.

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Steve...

Crackdown on danger food

2006-08-21T12:01:00.000+10:00

PACKAGED food, margarines and even Chiko Rolls may soon carry warnings about their trans fat content, which recent research has revealed can increase the chance of developing coronary heart disease by more than 20 per cent.

But Rosemary Stanton and other nutritionists say food regulators should go further and adopt the Danish standard, banning all products with more than 2 per cent trans fat. "Manufacturers don't have to have this stuff. They can process their fats by other methods, it's just a bit more expensive," Ms Stanton said.

Clinical trials conducted by Oxford University recently published in the British Medical Journal found that a 2 per cent increase in the consumption of trans fatty acids can lead to a 23 per cent increase in coronary heart disease. Trans fats are added to most fast foods and to a range of baked supermarket goods, confectionary and sandwich spreads, to improve taste, texture and shelf life.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand said it was examining the level of trans fat in the Australian diet and may change food labelling laws so consumers would know how much of the fat was used in particular products. "We have formally started the review process and been working on it since the beginning of this year," said FSANZ spokeswoman Lydia Buchtmann, adding that the process should be complete by the beginning of next year.

FSANZ last examined the use of trans fats in 2000. Ms Buchtmann said at that time there was not evidence to show that sufficient quantities of trans fats were consumed in Australia to become a health threat.

However, Ms Stanton said consumers had been lulled into a false sense of security. She said while two major margarine manufacturers had stopped using trans fat, most house brand and cheaper brands still had high trans fat content.

"We are also totally ignoring it in things like chicken nuggets, fast foods and pastries and things like Nutella," she said.

Professor Paul Nestel, senior principal research fellow in cardiovascular nutrition at the Baker Heart Research Institute, who started studying trans fats more than a decade ago, said most locally produced food stuffs have much lower levels than that produced in the United States or Europe.

Currently manufacturers must only reveal saturated fat content and total fat content that includes trans fat. Still, he expects that food labelling laws will be changed following the review.

Footnote: Rosemary Stanton runs a consulting business, whos clients include State and Commonwealth government departments, sports associations and teams, primary industry groups, selected sections of the food industry and a major retailer. Her major role within these groups is to further the aims of educating the public about food and nutrition. I see a conflict of interest here. Does any one else? If she is being paid by "selected sections of the food industry" and a "major retailer", whos interests do you think she has in mind? Ours, or the people that pay her?

Steve

Obesity experts call for cheaper fruit and vegetables

2006-08-16T16:15:00.000+10:00

Fruit and vegetables should be subsidised to cut fresh food prices and help overcome "tragic" new obesity rates in Australian kids, experts say.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has released research showing Australia is the only country in the world where childhood obesity rates have overtaken adult rates.

The number of overweight and obese children has doubled since 1985, with 23 per cent of all Australians under 16 now fitting into the two categories.

Obesity experts Professor Ian Caterson from Sydney University and Paul Zimmet from Monash University have labelled the figures a tragedy for Australia.

Prof Caterson, who will address the Chronic Diseases Summit in Canberra tomorrow, said he was particularly concerned by statistics showing people aged 20 to 35 were gaining weight the fastest.

"Our worry is that if our kids are getting fat quicker and people in their 20s to 30s are getting fat faster (than the previous generation), when they're middle aged we're going to have a real problem," he told AAP.

The academics support calls by US-based WHO researcher Professor Barry Popkin to institute a so-called calorie tax on manufacturers to lift the price of unhealthy food.

But they said it may be even more effective to subsidise fresh food to make fruit and vegetables cheaper.

"Over the last few years, the things we want people to eat have gone up in price more than processed food," Prof Caterson said.

"So if we make them cheaper, we're rewarding people for eating the right things rather than punishing them for eating the wrong things."

He said while eating habits were largely ingrained, (no pun intended) research had proved that price affects what people buy.

One study showed that halving the price of apples boosted sales three fold.

Prices would need to come down substantially through subsidies offered either to growers, transporters or supermarkets by both state and federal governments, Prof Caterson said.

The move would bring the price of fresh produce back into line with processed foods and get fruit and vegetables to people quicker and fresher.

The experts will tackle Australia's childhood obesity epidemic at the International Congress on Obesity in Sydney next month.

"We live in an affluent society and Australian children are now suffering from 'affluenza'," Prof Caterson said.

"Preventing obesity is a better way of reducing chronic disease and simpler because you can do it with eating and lifestyle intervention."

Curry's qualities are food for thought

2006-08-16T00:31:00.000+10:00

Compounds found in curry and onions may help prevent colon cancer in those at risk, according to findings from a small US study.

In the research, patients with pre-cancerous polyps in the colon who took a pill containing a combination of curcumin, which is found in the curry spice turmeric, and quercetin, an antioxidant found in onions, experienced a marked reduction in both the size and number of polyps.

"We believe this is the first proof of principle that these substances have significant effects in patients with FAP [familial adenomatous polyposis]," said Dr Francis M. Giardiello, of The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

The condition is an inherited disorder characterised by the development of colorectal polyps and, eventually, colon cancer.

In their study, Giardiello's team gave five patients with the disorder, who had five or more polyps in their lower-intestinal tract, 480 milligrams of curcumin and 20 mgs of quercetin three times daily.

The average number of polyps dropped by 60 per cent, and the average size dropped by 51 per cent during an average time of six months, the team reports in the medical journal, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Side effects among the patients were reported as "minimal", but I for one would like to know what they were.

Steve

Professor pushes for fat tax

2006-08-15T04:53:00.000+10:00

Governments should tax junk food to help people fight the fat, a US nutritionist says.

World Health Organisation figures show there are more than a billion overweight adults worldwide, Prof Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina said.

Make some low-nutrition, high-energy foods such as soft drinks dearer, and subsidise fruit and vegetables, Prof Popkin told ABC radio.

This is a great idea, and I mention something along these lines in this post. Basically I say:

"If both Government legislation and parents contribute to this epidemic it would be quite easy to defeat it.

Government
1- Remove ALL vending machines from schools and shopping centres.
2- Make sporting activities MANDATORY for all children between 5 and 17. 1 hour per week (including dressing and showering etc) at school is not enough. It should be government policy (enforcable by fines) that all kids participate in a weekly sporting activity.
3- No "junk food" advertisments for or by fast food vendors until after 8pm.
4- A ban on "junk food" sponsorship for sporting events (at any level).
5- MASSIVE taxes on takeaway type foods that will undoubtedly get passed on to the consumer.

Parents.
1- Prepare more meals (including school lunches) at home.
2- Eat more at home. The more you "eat out", the more ingredients you don't know what you are eating.
3- Follow the "Zone pyramid" (or similar) as best as you can."

Steve

What kind -vore am I?

2006-08-14T17:31:00.000+10:00

The suffix vore comes from the Latin word vorare, meaning to devour, and is used to form nouns indicating what kind of a diet an animal has. Equivalent adjectives can be formed through use of the suffix vorous.

Chances are, if you're reading this, you'll fit into the first category. The following is a list of words ending in vore, as well what kind of diet the word indicates.

Omnivore - Plants and meat. Some fish, some birds and many mammals including pigs, bears, humans and foxes.
Carnivore - Meat. Felines, Polar bears (probably not through choice), birds of prey, snakes and sharks.
Herbivore - Plants. Horses, deer, rhinos, giraffes, some primates some birds and rabbits.
Detritivore - Decomposing material. Worms and dung beetles.
Folivore - Leaves. Sloths, koalas and Iguanas
Frugivore - Fruit. Some birds, some bats and lemurs.
Granivore - Seeds. Some insects and some birds.
Insectivore - Insects. Frogs, lizards, some bats and some spiders.
Limnivore - Mud. Some fish mainly catfish.
Nectarivore - Nectar. Some insects, some birds, some bats and the Australian Honey Possum.
Mucivore - Plant juices. Some insects.
Mycovore - Fungi. Mainly (micro)organisms.
Palynivore - Pollen. Bees, wasps butterflies, and moths.
Piscivore - Fish. Some fish.
Sanguinivore - Blood. Vampirte bats, leeches, mosquitoes and allegedley Count Vlad the impaler.

Personally, I fit into the first category with strong leanings toward the second one. How about you?

Steve.

UPDATE: I just thought of one that I think should be included in the list..

Technovore Unnatural food/chemicals. Humans that eat anything that contains Trans fatty acids, Highly refined flour, processed white sugar or juice squeezed out of a cow.

$2 worth of mixed Veg please...

2006-08-14T16:52:00.000+10:00

The fact that vegetables are good for you isn't news. But scientists are trying to pin down exactly why they are good for you. A study has shown that eating a mix of five vegetables can reduce the formation of plaques in arteries, and so the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The research was on mice, though the team thinks the results should be applicable to humans, and so do I. There is no point whatsoever in testing human metabolic changes in mice. The team fed one group of mice a mixture of broccoli, green beans, corn, peas and carrots, while another group went on a vegetable-free diet. Those eating vegetables developed plaques that were about 38 per cent smaller than those in the second group of mice.

The researchers, at Wake Forest University, also found that a marker of inflammation was lower in the vegetable-eating mice - they think anti-inflammatories in the vegetables might explain the results.

Footnote: Mice generally live on a herbivore diet, but are actually omnivores: they will eat meat, the dead bodies of other mice, and have been observed to self-cannibalise their tails during starvation. Grasshopper mice are an exception to the rule, being the only fully carnivorous mice. Mice eat grains and fruits for a regular diet, which is the main reason they damage crops.
Steve

Monday mixed Grill - August 14th 2006

2006-08-14T13:33:00.000+10:00

Monday mixed Grill - August 14th 2006

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week.

You should get some tests done before you start your new Paleo way of life. Check out this post for a sample of what you should do both at home and at Pathology.

Crazy John Ilhan takes up the good fight.

I received an email from Matt at the Obesity Discussion forum. Check his forum out - lots of good info there.

The Brits are following in the footsteps of the Japanese and are going to be selling square watermellons to their "round" citizens.

Jimmy Moore interviews Dr. Jonny Bowden, and also asks if you think this is the body of an obese man.

Low Carb Dave blogs about a new group for meat and eggs followers on his Auslowcarb forum, and also tells us a bit about the Kimkins diet.

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Steve...

The new square meal.

2006-08-12T17:14:00.000+10:00

From Sky news UK comes this story.

Square watermelons - created for easy storage - are to be introduced to Britain.

The bizarre-looking cuboid fruit caused a sensation in Japan when they went on sale there five years ago.

Now UK shoppers will get their first taste of the Brazilian-grown melons from October as a supermarket starts selling them.

Farmers create the fruit's unusual shape by putting them in transparent boxes while they grow.

The melons take around 60 days to reach maturity.

Tesco's exotic fruit buyer, Damien Sutherland, said the cuboid melons would be easier to store and eat.

He said: "We've seen samples of these watermelons and they literally stop you in your tracks because they are so eye-catching.

"These square melons will make it easier than ever to eat because they can be served in long strips rather than in the crescent shape."

The cuboid watermelons cost around £46 each in Japan ($113AUD) but will be more reasonably priced at less than £5 ($12 AUD) each when they go on sale in Tesco this autumn.

Not exactly what I'd call natural fruit, but I guess if all the grower does is grow it in a box to influence the shape, then fruit is fruit I s'pose.

Steve

"Crazy" John takes up the fight.

2006-08-09T12:49:00.000+10:00

Most Aussies would recognise this bloke.

That's right, he's the mascot for "Crazy John's", Australia's self proclaimed leading mobile phone retailer. The owner, John Ilhan, has made the paper again today, calling on the food industry to improve labelling standards.

Apparently, his daughter, Jaida, 5, has a severe allergy to nuts. That is very unfortunate and my best wishes go to Jaida and her family.

Mr. Ilhan has in the past donated $1 million for a new allergy research foundation at the Royal Children's Hospital. Good on you John!

I ask my reader to support him because of his efforts in helping find out what causes these food allergys.

Mr Ilhan said he and his wife Patricia have to closely monitor the food Jaida eats as her allergy is life-threatening.

"There are thousands and thousands of children at risk and we need to do something about it," he said.

An overhaul of the food industry's labelling practices could cost millions, but Mr Ilhan said it would be worth it.

"If it's good enough to ban smoking in restaurants, it's good enough to protect our kids," he said.

AMA federal president Mukesh Haikerwal said too many producers are stamping their products with vague, meaningless warnings such as: "This product may contain traces of nuts".

"It's a cop-out and it's only being done as a means of protection," Dr Haikerwal said.

Health Minister Bronwyn Pike has called on peak food control body Food Standards Australia New Zealand to investigate tougher labelling rules.

Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Dick Wells said it had been working with manufacturers to minimise "may contain" warnings.

One in three Australian children has food allergies.

Good luck with your quest, John.....

Steve

School fast food ban...

2006-08-09T12:25:00.000+10:00

Appearing in yesterday's paper was this story about Dandenong P.S. banning parents coming to school at lunchtime and delivering KFC, Hungry Jacks (Burger King) and McDonalds to their kids.

The excuse is that they don't have enough time in the morning to make their lunches.

Surely if you can spare the time at lunchtime, you can spare the time to make something wholesome at home? These people are killing their kids with this ridiculous practice and I can only give top marks to Leonie Fitzgerald, Principal, for introducing this scheme.

Apparently the parents are supportive of it too. Ms Fitzgerald said that "the ban had drawn a positive response from parents who were taking the school's advice to prepare healthier lunches for their children".

Well, that is good news. Even though the parents were "guilted" in to it, I say - whatever works.

In other, related news, Ms Fitzgerald said "the school had also employed a fitness instructor to help teachers get fit and was reviewing the canteen menu".

A nutritionist would also speak to students, staff and parents next week.

All good news from what I can tell from here. I wonder what the "revised" canteen menu will offer? No doubt, the Australian Heart Foundation food pyramid will be a big factor in deciding the new menu. Pity.

In today's paper, Premier of Victoria Steve Bracks has supported Dandenong Primary School in their descision, saying "good on them for working with parents. This is really parent power in action".

He fails to take it to the next level and ban this sort of food state wide in public schools though.

Addmittedly, the government has already announced a ban on soft drink at schools and is considering restricting lollies and chips. I guess we have to take it in baby steps.

Steve

Bigger and beefier

2006-08-08T15:39:00.000+10:00

Remember 2004? Jet was the biggest band in the nation, Princess Mary won our hearts and a film by the name of Super Size Me was released.

In it, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock became very unhealthy when he ate only McDonald's for a month. The film helped spur McDonald's into adding healthier options to its menus and focused both the US and Australia on our expanding obesity problems.

Well, the Yanks seem to have forgotten about all of that.

How else to explain Burger King's latest product - the Quad Stacker. That's four patties of beef, cheese and bacon (no vegetables or salad) squeezed into a bun. At first I thought the story was a joke (once again something The Onion wrote comes true) but, no, there it is on the Burger King's US website, exploding out of the screen (oh, and there are toys to go with it - c'mon kids, eat a burger that's larger than your head!).

The Quad Stacker is perhaps a challenger to KFC's Famous Bowls - named by the Los Angeles Times as the worst fast food in the nation. The Famous Bowls (famous for what, exactly?) consist of a tub of mashed potatoes or rice, with yellow corn, fried chicken nuggets, gravy and three types of cheese. This is not a boxed meal with various separate parts - it's one big bowl of stuff all mixed in together.

Now if only KFC would add four beef patties to the bowl, we could have ourselves an outright winner.

So, if you were forced to eat one of these items, which one would you choose? (For those who care about calories, the bowls have 710, but the burger gets up to 1000. Whopper indeed.)

Monday mixed Grill - August 7th 2006

2006-08-07T17:39:00.000+10:00

Monday mixed Grill - August 7th 2006

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week.

Tomorrow night, Tuesday August 8th, is Census night in Australia. Don't forget to mark your religion down as Jedi.

Jimmy Moore celebrates 11 years of Marrige.

Low Carb Dave asks if you are Fat phobic.

Here's how to calculate you BMI (Body Mass Index).

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Steve...

Pre Paleo checkup

2006-08-06T14:33:00.000+10:00

In this post I'll talk about some of the medical tests you should get done before starting to follow a Palaeolithic Nutrition Plan for the rest of your life.

The tests you do are important for several reasons.

They will give you a baseline to work from.

They will point out any problem areas that you may specifically need to target.

They will (hopefully) be some sort of proof to your doctor that natural food and vitamin supplementation is a better cure for modern diseases than prescription drugs.

We'll start with easy tests you can do at home.

Test 1. Weight.
Weigh yourself. Although you are not interested in weight loss, you are interested in fat loss, knowing your weigh helps in calculating your BMI and it also provides a motivational tool later in your new way of life as you see kilos (or pounds) come off.

Test 2. Height.
This is mainly needed to assist in calculating your BMI.

Test 3. BMI.
The Body Mass Index test is the simplest to do and it can be done at home if you like. I use this online one. Choose Metric or "standard".

Test 4.
Take measurements (as accurately as possible) of the following areas on your body:

Around your chest

Around your waist

Around your hips

Around a thigh

Around a humerous (upper arm)

That's about the extent of the "home" tests you can do (without spending money on various home test kits). In Australia, you can go to your GP (preferably a "bulk billing" one so it's free) and get a referral for pathology work. The following pathology tests should be done.

Test 5.
Body fat percentage. This is basically a "skin fold test" done with a pair of callipers at selected points on the body. These are done on the tricep, (midway between the shoulder and the tip of the elbow on the back of the upper arm) sub scapula, (diagonal fold across the back, just below the shoulder blade) bicep (halfway between the elbow and top of the shoulder on the front of the upper arm) and suprailiac (diagonal fold following the natural line of the iliac crest, just above the hip bone). An alternative is the Yuhasz Skin fold Test which uses six points. The four results are taken in millimetres then averaged. The result is put into a calculator like this one.

Alternatively, you can visit a practitioner that uses Bioimpedance technology in their clinic. This is the most accurate and quickest test available to patients. It takes about 30 seconds to do the test. This will not only accurately measure your fat mass and percentage, it will also measure your muscle mass and other important biological markers.

Test 6.
A Blood Lipid profile. This will include HDL, LDL and Serum (total) cholesterol levels. Make sure you let your Doctor know that you want all three readings.

Test 7.
Triglycerides. This substance is a fat that is carried in your blood stream. This test will be done at the same time as your Cholesterol test.

Test 8.
Blood Pressure. Your GP should be able to do this test him/her self.

Test 9.
Fasting glucose. Performed first thing in the morning is easiest as you have to do with out food or drink for eight to ten hours before the test.

Test 10.
OGTT (Oral Glucose Tolerance Test) An OGTT is a series of blood glucose tests. A fasting glucose and insulin level is measured, (Test 9) then you drink a standard amount of a glucose solution to "challenge" your system. This is followed by one or more additional glucose and insulin tests performed at specific intervals to track their levels over time.

Test 11.
Homocysteine. This is one of the primary clinical indicators of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). Again, this will be done at the same time as your cholesterol and triglyceride tests.

Test 12.
TSH. (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) This test will check for hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism symptoms can include fatigue and low energy levels, depression, unexplained weight gain and intolerance to cold temperatures amongst others. Make sure you are very clear to your GP that you also want "free" T3 (tri-iodothyronine) and "free" T4 (thyroxine) levels checked. This has nothing to do with the price! The "free" T3 and T4 levels will indicate how "active" they are. Just a serum or total level will not be the accurate reading you require.

Finally, record your age, sex, any prescription drugs you take, any supplements you take, the date of these tests and the date you started eating like a caveman (or woman). As you progress through the next few months, keep a diary about any problems you come across or how you feel. The information that you collect can be very important to your Health care professional so the more you collect the better.

For the pathology tests, you should schedule a series of follow up tests at the six month and twelve month mark. After that once per year is fine to make sure you keep all your results in the "good" range. The home tests mentioned above can be done on a weekly basis. Make sure you record all results.

Steve

Folic acid and DNA?

2006-08-06T08:10:00.000+10:00

Folic acid taken before and during pregnancy can prevent some brain and spinal cord birth defects, such as spina bifida. That much is well known.

But new research, published in the British Journal of Cancer, has found that daily supplements of 200 micrograms of folic acid seem to improve the stability of DNA in adults - and the team thinks this could reduce the risk of various cancers.

Earlier work has suggested that people with a folate deficiency are more likely to develop precancerous lesions that, in some cases, will develop into tumours.

Meanwhile, a recent report from the American Cancer Society concluded that folic acid could lessen the severity of prostate cancer. Folate, the natural form of the B vitamin, is found in green, leafy vegetables, eggs and beans.

Beans are not strictly part of the Paleolithic way of life, so I would only eat them if I weren't taking a 5mg supplement of folate per day.

Steve

The secret of a successful diet?

2006-08-05T09:41:00.000+10:00

Smaller bowls and smaller utensils may be a key to a successful diet, according to a small experiment that used nutrition professionals as subjects.

At a social gathering of 85 faculty members, graduate students and staff at the department of food science at the University of Illinois, the partygoers served themselves ice-cream.

They did not know they were also the subjects of an experiment. Half the participants were given bowls with a half-litre capacity, and half were given litre-capacity bowls.

In addition, half were given 60ml spoons to scoop their ice cream and half were given 90ml serving spoons. With larger spoons, people served themselves 14.5 per cent more, and with a larger bowl, they heaped on 31 per cent more.

With both a large spoon and a large bowl, the nutrition experts helped themselves to 56.8 per cent more ice cream than those who used the smaller utensils. And almost all of them ate all the ice-cream they took.

The findings will appear in the The American Journal of Preventive Medicine; reported by The New York Times.

Can anyone tell me why nutritionists are eating Ice cream? It annoys me that we are supposed to be taking their advice, while they can't follow it themselves! And if they are advising eating ice cream, then as nutritionists, they aren't worth a damn.

Steve

Body Dysmorphic Disorder (or when the mirror lies)

2006-08-05T09:11:00.000+10:00

People with "body dysmorphic disorder" are 45 times more likely to commit suicide than people in the general population, a new US study shows.

The findings underscore the importance of recognising and treating this "often secretive" psychiatric disorder, Dr Katherine Phillips, the study's co-author, said.

Individuals with body dysmorphic disorder, or BDD, have a distorted body image and think obsessively about their appearance, often for hours a day, explained Phillips, who is at Butler Hospital and Brown Medical School in Providence, Rhode Island.

The disorder frequently leads to self-loathing and social isolation, she added. It is not uncommon for people with BDD to tell no one about their condition, even a spouse or very close friends.

"I've worked with these patients for about 15 years now," Phillips added. "In my clinical experience they're often thinking about suicide. They're an unusually distressed group of people."

Philips and her colleague William Menard conducted the first investigation in which a group of patients with BDD were followed over a period of time, and report the findings in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

During each year of the study, 58 per cent of the 185 study participants reported thinking about suicide, and 2.6 per cent tried to kill themselves. Two people completed suicide attempts, making the suicide rate among the patients roughly 45 times greater than for people in the general population.

Studies have suggested that up to 2.4 per cent of people have BDD, Phillips said. While most of us have concerns about appearance, she added, a person with BDD obsesses about these concerns and is virtually crippled by them.

"It's easy to trivialise BDD, it's easy to confuse it with vanity," she added.

Most people with BDD can be helped by treatment with antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which include Prozac and Zoloft, or a type of counselling known as cognitive behavioural therapy, Phillips said.

"The good news is that there are two forms of treatment that seem to be helpful for most people with this disorder," she added. "This just underscores the importance of recognising this illness and recognising that it's a severe illness that can potentially respond very well to mental health treatment."

(Dr Katherine Phillips is the author of The Broken Mirror: Understanding and Treating Body Dysmorphic Disorder, and for more information on BDD you can purchase her book from Amazon.

Steve

Monday mixed Grill - July 31st 2006

2006-07-31T19:05:00.000+10:00

Monday mixed Grill - July 31st 2006

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week.

The Australian Census should have been delivered to your home by now. Don't forget to mark your religion as Jedi.

I've managed to get delivery of a few books over the last few days. Life without Bread, is one, Colpo's book is another.

Sam Neill is still busy getting the good word out.

Here's how to calculate you BMI (Body Mass Index).

*********************************
The monday funny.......

This is my kind of sandwich!

Steve...

Sam Neill is at it again

2006-07-27T12:08:00.000+10:00

Adding to his good work here, Sam Neill has starred in another TV commercial for red meat. Check out this new ad titled "Library".

His first one was called "Evolution" and can be seen here.

Both ads are part of an ad campaign, for Meat and Livestock, Australia. The aim of it, according to general manager of marketing, David Thomason, is to encourage people to have red meat as part of their everyday diet. The idea is to move red meat from a “feel good” to “foundation food.”

Ministers push for junk food ad ban

2006-07-27T11:30:00.000+10:00

From this article in today's Melbourne Age....

Health ministers meeting in Brisbane today are expected to ask Prime Minister John Howard for a partial ban on junk food television advertising to try to curb growing rates of obesity.

Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson said health ministers had already unsuccessfully raised the matter with his federal counterpart Tony Abbott, because Mr Abbott believes it would lead to a "nanny state".

Is this what a catholic education gives us as a Health minister? Nothing short of a total ban on junk food advertising in primetime is only the first step in curbing childhood obesity!

Mr Robertson said the next step was to take the matter to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) when it next meets in Canberra.

But the Queensland proposal would stop short of the New South Wales plan for a total ban on junk food ads until after 8.30pm.

This is an excellent start. For N.S.W. kids of course. It seems the Quensland Health minister, Stephen Robertson, hasn't quite got the spine to demand/request a total ban. Pity.

"We want to restrict advertising of so-called junk food to about 20 per cent of the overall advertising content," Mr Robertson told ABC Radio today.

"This is now the fourth time health ministers, I think, around Australia have debated this issue and on each occasion, Tony Abbott has been the stumbling block.

"I would like to see it elevated onto the COAG agenda, the national agenda.

"I think we will get a better hearing out of the Prime Minister than we will out of Tony Abbott."

A large proportion of Australian children were now overweight and obese and this set them up for health problems in later life, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.

Mr Robertson said he and Mr Abbott had just returned from a visit to the Torres Strait where 30 per cent of the population suffered from diabetes.

What do you think our chances are of getting even a slight ban on junk food advertising? Personally, I think none, nada, zip. It's a real shame because we're killing our kids (and ourselves) slowly with this highly processed crap.

Steve

Update: I just noticed a link on Tony Abbott's webpage that links to th department of health and ageing. Their recommended diet for a male aged 31 to 50 is as follows:

Healthy Eating Guidelines for Men aged 31-50 years
The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommends the following servings per day:

6 - 12 servings from the bread, cereals, rice, pasta, noodles group.

An example of one serve is 2 slices of bread; 1 medium bread roll; 1 cup of cooked rice, pasta or noodles; or 1 1/3 cup of breakfast cereal flakes.

There is an allowance of about 30g a day for poly or monounsaturated fats and oils that can be used to spread on breads or rolls or used elsewhere in the diet.

5 servings from the vegetables, legumes group.

An example of one serve is 75 grams or 1/2 cup cooked vegetables; 1/2 cup cooked dried beans, peas, lentils or canned beans; 1 cup of salad vegetables; or 1 small potato.

2 servings of fruit.

An example of one serve is 1 medium apple; 2 small pieces (150g) of fruit (apricots, kiwi fruit, plums); 1 cup of diced fruit pieces or canned fruit; 1/2 cup of fruit juice; or 1 1/2 tablespoons of sultanas.

2 servings from the milk, yoghurt, cheese group.

An example of one serve is 250 ml of milk; 250ml of soy beverage; 40 grams (2 slices) of cheese; or 200g (1 small carton of yoghurt).

1 serving from the lean meat, fish, poultry, eggs, nuts and legumes group.

An example of one serve is 65-100 grams cooked meat or chicken; 2 small chops; 2 slices of roast meat; 1/2 cup of cooked (dried beans); 80-120 grams of fish fillet; 1/2 cup of peanuts (almonds); or 2 small eggs.

Have you heard of Little Becky?

2006-07-27T09:21:00.000+10:00

According to ABC radio in Perth (720Hz AM), Little Becky is a 12 year old girl that works for an Irish radio station in Dublin (98FM).

She makes prank calls to various people and with her accent and attitude, she's very funny.

Have a listen to these:
Advance Pitstop: Little Becky has an issue with a spare tyre
Dublin Zoo: Little Becky has a strange request
Des Bishop: Comedian Des Bishop finds the joke’s on him!
Driving Test: Little Becky wants to hit the road!
Channel 4: Big Brother’s got a new star!
Peter Mark: Little Becky considers her career options
Harvey Norman: Little Becky tackles “those” ads
Orange Order: Little Becky works on Cross-Border Relations
Mariah: Little Becky lives the life of Mariah Carey!
Crane Hire: Little Becky sorts out her lazy dad!

Or you can listen to or download 6 of the files from Gold 104 in Melbourne, or you can get the full collection from Dublin 98FM.

To this philistine in the colonies, she sounds more Welsh to me but I guess I wouldn't know. Have a listen and enjoy ......

Steve

Jedi 'religion' grows in Australia

2006-07-26T01:21:00.000+10:00

From this article from BBC news in August 2001.

More than 70,000 people in Australia have declared that they are followers of the Jedi faith, the religion created by the Star Wars films.

A recent census found that one in 270 respondents - or 0.37% of the population - say they believe in "the force", an energy field that gives Jedi Knights like Luke Skywalker their power in the films.

Most of the 70,509 people who wrote Jedi on their census forms were suspected to have done so in response to an e-mail encouraging all Star Wars fans to get it recognised as an official religion. But the Australian Bureau of Statistics said it would be categorised as "not defined".

"When you look at it you probably have got about 5,000 people in that 70,000 that were true hard-core people that would believe the Jedi religion carte blanche," Chris Brennan from the Australian Star Wars Appreciation Society told ABC Radio.

"Then you would have 50,000 fans that said 'oh yeah we'll just put down Jedi for fun, we don't actually have a religion of our own'.

"Then you probably have 15,000 people who did it just to give the government a bit of curry," he said.

Once again, it's census time in Australia. This year, you can to choose to do it online as well. I strongly encourage you, if you're an Aussie, that when you fill in the census this year, put "Jedi" as your religion.

Let's try and beat the 70,000 (0.37% of the population) we got in 2001.

May the force be with you.....

Increase in Lipitor memory loss claims

2006-07-25T23:46:00.000+10:00

Reports of memory loss in people taking Australia's most popular prescription drug have increased over the past 18 months.

The Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee has received 52 reports of amnesia from patients taking the cholesterol-fighting drug Lipitor - 32 in the past year-and-a-half.

In New York, two lawsuits were recently launched against Pfizer, Lipitor's maker, by plaintiffs claiming a range of side-effects, including memory loss. Pfizer is fighting the claims, which it says have no scientific basis.

Lipitor, which protects against heart problems, is the Federal Government's single biggest expense on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In 2004-05, it cost taxpayers $508 million for 7.6 million prescriptions.

Associate Professor Duncan Topliss, chairman of the committee, said amnesia was mentioned in the product information but there was no proven link between memory loss and Lipitor. However, he said the committee would continue to monitor the side-effect.

"We are not saying that this is something to be completely discounted, but we don't think this is a particularly crucial or major problem," said Dr Topliss, director of The Alfred's department of endocrinology and diabetes.

He said the increase in reports might be linked to a visit to Australia by US doctor Duane Graveline, who was promoting his book Lipitor: Thief of Memory. "The most important thing about these drugs is that they do save lives," Dr Topliss said. "But if people are concerned they have a side-effect, they should tell their GP."

Steve

Monday mixed Grill - July 24th 2006

2006-07-24T17:13:00.000+10:00

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week. Thanks to LCDave for the idea!

This is just about the last chance to enrol in Health Schools Australia's last seminar for this year. The last one is titled "Breast to the Prostate: Hormonally Dependent Cancer Solutions" it will be held on Saturday the 07/OCT/06 in Melbourne and the following day in Sydney. Please contact Health Schools Australia for enrolment information.

Jimmy Moore at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb has been very busyas usual and keeping us well informed.

LC Dave has been busy too, with plenty of informative posts on his Blog.

The Mandatory Food supplement debate rages in Europe and Australia.

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Steve...

Food alone not to blame for fatter kids

2006-07-24T16:59:00.000+10:00

After deciding to "survey" a bunch of kids about obesity and their lifestyle, we get this gem from The Department of Bleedin' Obvious.

Kids are getting fatter, but what they eat may not be to blame, according to an Australian authored historical analysis of children's diets and activity patterns.

A report in the latest edition of Australasian Science magazine says a 12-year-old Australian boy in 2006 is, on average, seven kilograms heavier and 25 per cent fatter than his counterpart from 1970.

The changes are due to increasing overweight caused by an energy imbalance brought about by either an increase in energy intake or a decrease in energy expenditure, or both, according to the report.

The article brings together 1,600 studies on more than 257,000 children and their diets from 25 developed countries.

Children's diets have changed dramatically over the past century due to the effect of technologies such as improved transport, canning and refrigeration, the report says.

The fat content of diets appears to have reached a peak in about
1965, when it accounted for about 40 per cent of total daily kilojoules.
But the report says the contribution of fat has been falling since then and in most developed countries it is now about 35 per cent.

Between 1955 and 1985 reported energy intake fell by four per cent per decade and there was a further flattening out in energy intake between 1985 and 1995, according to Australasian Science.

"These results are very surprising given that these apparent decreases in energy intake were occurring at a time when childhood overweight and obesity were increasing rapidly," the report says.

"If energy intakes really were declining, there must have been drastic declines in energy expenditure."

The average Australian child now spends about four hours a day in front of a screen of some sort, a finding which the report says suggests massive energy expenditure decreases over the past decades are conceivable.

The report also found that recent data indicates that energy intake may be on the rise again.

"If these trends are confirmed, children face the double impact of reduced energy expenditure and increased energy intake."

Steve

The 7 myths about low carb diets

2006-07-23T08:24:00.000+10:00

I was browsing the web today and came across this article by Laura Dolson on her website.

The Most Common Low Carb Misconceptions
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about low carb diets. Anti-low carb information often draws an image of people eating very unhealthy diets, with no vegetables or fruits, guzzling cream and eating bacon dipped in butter all day. We are courting heart disease, and are on a dangerous road to poor health. The truth is that low carb diets focus on nutritious, healthy food, and research into reducing carbs continues to show more and more positive results. Here are the myths about low carb diets I hear most often.

1. Low Carb=No Carb
This misconception is the idea that a “low” carb diet must be really really low in carbohydrates. You will read that low carb diets attempt to “eliminate carbohydrates”, for example.

Fact: Not one low carb diet author advocates this. Even Atkins Induction, which is very low in carbohydrates, is not “no carb”, is only meant to last two weeks, and actually can be skipped altogether, according to the Atkins Web site.

Fact: Diet authors who recommend reducing carbs have all sorts of different ideas about carb levels.

Fact: The carbohydrate level should be adjusted to the individual.

Fact: Over the years, the “nutritional establishment” has been gradually lowering the range of recommended carbohydrate in the diet, at the same time condemning reduced-carb diets, some of which may be recommending the lower end of the new “accepted range”, or close to it. Example: Dr. Dean Edell, a prominent media physician, once stated that the Zone Diet, a 40% carbohydrate low saturated fat diet, “could be dangerous” because it is too low in carbohydrates. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences began recommending a range of 45%-65% of the diet to be carbohydrate, depending upon the individual.

See:
What is a Low Carb Diet?
What is a “No Carb” Diet?
Finding the Right Carb Level

(I think that the good people amongst us that are writing about, talking about and indeed living this sort of lifestyle, need to change the name from "low" carb to "controlled" carb. Clearly "low" or "no" carb is too controversial for many in the mainstream media.)

2. Low Carb Diets Discourage Eating Vegetables and Fruits
Because vegetables and fruits are mainly carbohydrate, people believe that they are not allowed on low carb diets.

Fact: The opposite is true – non-starchy vegetables are usually at the bottom of the “low carb pyramids” meaning they are the “staff of life” of the diet (replacing grains in that role) and people who follow a low carb way of eating almost always eat more vegetables than the general population. For the most part, vegetables and fruits ARE the carbs eaten when following a low carb way of eating.

See: The Most Common Low Carb Misconception: Vegetables – includes suggestions for working veggies into your diet.

(Since going Against the grain, I have never eaten more vegetables or fruit in my life! The choices you have are absoulutly stunning!. For more information you need to purchase and read some of the books in my "Recommended reading" section, on your right.)

3. Low Carb Diets Have Inadequate Fibre
The reasoning goes that since fibre IS carbohydrate, a low carb diet MUST be low in fiber.

Fact: Since fibre remains undigested (in fact, it lessens the impact of other carbohydrates on blood sugar), it is encouraged on low carb diets. Lots of low carb foods are high in fibre, and on diets that encourage carb counting, fibre does not enter into the calculation.

See: Low Carb, High Fiber.

4. People Eating Low Carb Are Courting Heart Disease
Fact: In study after study, blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, and other markers for heart disease risk decline on low carb diets.

See:
20 Benefits of Low Carb Diets
FAQ: Low Carb Diets and Cholesterol
Study: Low Carb Diets Improve Cholesterol Even Without Weight Loss

5. Low Carb Diets Will Damage the Kidneys
The reasoning here is that because people with kidney disease are usually encouraged to eat LOW protein diets, a diet that is higher in protein will CAUSE kidney disease.

Fact: This has never been shown to be the case, and, in fact, a low carb diet is often not higher in protein than the latest recommended levels.

(I beleive that the confusion here stems from simple phoenetics. When on a controlled carb way of life like Against the grain, you can go into a state called Ketosis. This is a natural occurance and in fact, everyone produces ketones all the time - just at very small levels. As you restrict your carb intake, there is less carbs available for your body to burn as fuel, so it switches to burning fat as fuel - your fat! I believe that the confusion about kidney disease comes from a condition called ketoacidosis. Quoting directly from Wikipedia, "Some diets (such as the Atkins diet) are reported to induce a mild-to-moderate state of ketosis, but this does not result in ketoacidosis if the dieter drinks an appropriate amount of water. Any diet which burns fat molecules at a significant rate results in an increased production of ketone bodies. (My emphasis))

6. Low Carb Diets Will “Suck the Calcium Out of Your Bones”
Again, this is based on the idea that low carb diets are always high in protein. People on higher protein diets tend to have more calcium in their urine. But this turns out to be a red herring.

Fact: it turns out that protein, rather than cause bone loss, actually protects our bones.

See: FAQ: Low Carb Diets and Bone Loss

7. Atkins "Died of His Own Diet"
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this one – and I am STILL hearing it.

Fact: Robert Atkins, originator of the Atkins Diet, died from head injuries resulting from a fall. See his death certificate. Also, he was not fat when he died, but took on a lot of fluid in the hospital while in Intensive Care after his injury.

Laura Dolson is a health and science writer and longtime follower of a low-carbohydrate way of eating. She holds a B.S. in physical therapy, an M.A. in clinical psychology, and she completed the coursework and training for a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

Kids to be measured in obesity survey

2006-07-19T11:33:00.000+10:00

Thousands of Australian children will reportedly be measured, weighed and interviewed as part of an obesity epidemic-busting plan to be announced by the federal government.

Fairfax newspapers report existing government programs promoting after-school sports and physical activity could be expanded as part of the scheme.

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott, Communications Minister Helen Coonan and Education Minister Julie Bishop are launching a package of anti-obesity measures, including a $3 million national nutrition survey.

A spokesman for the prime minister's office said a proposal to cut rising obesity levels, put forward by Tasmanian Liberal senator Guy Barnett, was now being examined, The Age newspaper said.

The national nutrition survey will be the most comprehensive stock-taking in more than 10 years (the last one was in 1995) of what Australian kids eat and their levels of physical activity, the government says.

Four thousand children aged between two and 16 will be measured and interviewed next year, and the survey results used to formulate policies to fight obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes, The Age said.

I personally don't know what information they expect to get from 2 year olds but maybe they are worried about vitamin and mineral levels, plasma blood sugar and folate supplementation as well.

If they want to get rid of childhood obesity (which would hopefully follow on to adult fitness as well) then as far as I can see, it can be done in 8 easy steps.

If both Government legislation and parents contribute to this epidemic it would be quite easy.

Government
1- Remove ALL vending machines from schools and shopping centres.
2- Make sporting activities MANDATORY for all children between 5 and 17. 1 hour per week (including dressing and showering etc) at school is not enough. It should be government policy (enforcable by fines) that all kids participate in a weekly sporting activity.
3- No "junk food" advertisments for or by fast food vendors until after 8pm.
4- A ban on "junk food" sponsorship for sporting events (at any level).
5- MASSIVE taxes on takeaway type foods that will undoubtedly get passed on to the consumer.

Parents.
1- Prepare more meals (including school lunches) at home.
2- Eat more at home. The more you "eat out", the more ingredients you don't know what you are eating.
3- Follow the "Zone pyramid" (or similar) as best as you can.

Draconian? Maybe. Effective? Definitely.

Steve

Update: This article in the Age goes on to say that the survey will be ongoing, so once children have been measured other groups such as adults will be targeted.

International Diabetes Institute CEO Paul Zimmet said the nutrition survey would be "a very important study … It would have been nice if it had been done five or 10 years ago, because now we have to wait for the results to see what action might come."

There had been a study on children that began about 15 years ago, Professor Zimmet said, but at that time "they didn't have good measures for, say, the risk of diabetes and heart disease … in terms of diabetes outcomes it didn't even do blood sugars."

Steve

Health risk fears as fortified flour faces acid test

2006-07-19T11:06:00.000+10:00

A follow up article in the Age the other day about the addition of folic acid (folate) to flour.

Mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid will prevent only a small percentage of birth defects but could pose long-term health risks, it has been claimed.

Mark Lawrence, an expert on folate fortification, believes a proposal by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to add folic acid to all bread-making flour, is premature and constitutes a "population-wide experiment".

Dr Lawrence, a senior lecturer in the School of Exercise and Nutrition Science at Deakin University, said it was well documented that folic acid supplementation reduced the rate of birth defects such as spina bifida.

But the level of fortification proposed by the food regulator (approximately 200 micrograms of folic acid per 100 grams of flour) would reduce neural tube defects by an average of only 8 per cent - or 26 conceptions - a year.
Meanwhile, an entire population, not just women of child-bearing age who were the target of the proposal, could be exposed to potential health risks, he said.

Dr Lawrence, who wrote his PhD thesis on folate fortification, said two recent research papers had suggested potential links between raised folate levels and an increased risk of certain cancers, including colorectal and breast cancer.

One paper, published in the British medical journal Gut, concluded that the "possibility of a detrimental component to the role of folate in carcinogenesis (the formation of cancers) could have implications in the ongoing debate in Europe concerning folate fortification of foods".

Dr Lawrence said there were also concerns that high levels of folic acid could mask vitamin B12 deficiency, particularly in the elderly - leading to neurological damage.

The food regulator's own assessment of the safety of the proposal acknowledges that "it cannot be concluded that mandatory fortification is completely without health risks".

In a paper released this week, FSANZ noted there were "uncertainties associated with mandatory fortification, particularly chronic exposure to increased folic acid intakes beginning in childhood".

However, the regulator's chief scientist, Marion Healy, said the benefits of adding folic acid to bread far outweighed any potential risks. Dr Healy said there was no conclusive evidence linking raised folate levels with an increased risk of cancer, indeed many studies had suggested it might be protective.

"Certainly, it's not possible to say that there is an established link between folate intake and cancer," she said.

Nevertheless, the food regulator had taken a cautious approach and proposed a very low level of fortification, she said. Women planning a pregnancy would still need to take a folic acid supplement. Any potential adverse health effects of fortification would be closely monitored.

About 300 to 350 pregnancies in Australia each year are affected by neural tube defects, and about 70 per cent of these are terminated. Women of child-bearing age can reduce their risk of conceiving a baby with a neural tube defect by taking 400 micrograms of folic acid daily before and during the first three months of pregnancy. But it is estimated that as few as one in three women do so.

Dr Lawrence said that as 92 per cent of neural tube defect conceptions would not be prevented by fortification at the levels proposed, more effort should be made to ensure women of child-bearing age took folic acid supplements.

"When you start thinking that the effectiveness is only going to be 8 per cent and FSANZ acknowledge we're going to have to promote supplements anyway, and there are all these potential risks," he said.

"I just struggle to see how we can support mandatory fortification as an approach. Why don't we invest in a supplementation program (instead)?"

But Professor Fiona Stanley, a strong advocate of the proposal, said that programs to promote folate supplementation had failed. Voluntary fortification of some foods, in place since 1995, had not gone far enough.

She said the women most at risk of having a baby with a birth defect - Aboriginal women, women who smoke, young women and those whose pregnancies were unplanned - were the ones not getting enough folate.

"If you don't now mandatorily fortify, you're denying those women who are the most vulnerable in our community the opportunity to reduce their risk of having a baby with a major birth defect," she said.

Professor Stanley, the director of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research at the University of Western Australia, said it was a question of human rights.

I have sent Dr. Mark Lawrence the following e-mail. I wonder if I get a response?

I read an article in the Age the other day that quotes you as saying: "folic acid supplementation reduced the rate of birth defects such as spina bifida." and "two recent research papers had suggested potential links between raised folate levels and an increased risk of certain cancers, including colorectal and breast cancer."

Can you please point me in the direction of these papers? Both my partner and I are planning on pregnancy in the near future and we BOTH take a 5mg Megafol tablet each morning, She to decrease the risk of neural tube defects and I take it to keep my homocysteine levels in check.

Should I be concerned about the alleged increased risk of various cancers?

UPDATE 1: I received an "out of office" response to my e-mail. Dr. Lawrence will be back at work on Tuesday the 25th of July. Hopefully I'll get a response then.

UPDATE 2: I received a reply from Dr. Lawrence. It seems the good doctor is still at work, even though he's not in his office.

Dear Steve

The references for the two papers that you ask about are:

Guelpen, B. Hultdin, J. Johansson, I. Hallmans, G. et al. Low folate levels may protect against colorectal cancer. Gut, 2006,

Stolzenberg-Solomon, R. Z. Chang, S. C. Leitzmann, M. F. Johnson, K. A, et al. Folate intake, alcohol use, and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Am J Clin Nutr, 2006, 83: 895-904. (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Unfortunatly, I'm not a member so I can't read the paper.)

Please speak with your doctor for their advice on using folic acid supplements - certainly there is strong evidence that folic acid supplements are associated with reduced risk of neural tube defects.

Regards
Mark

From the above paper .....

"Conclusions: Our findings suggest a decreased CRC (colorectal cancer) risk in subjects with low folate status. This possibility of a detrimental component to the role of folate in carcinogenesis could have implications in the ongoing debate in Europe concerning mandatory folate fortification of foods."

The debate is happening in Australia too!

Steve

Monday mixed Grill - July 17th 2006

2006-07-17T10:03:00.000+10:00

Monday mixed Grill - July 17th 2006

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week. Thanks to LCDave for the idea!

The list of 2007 seminars from Health Schools Australia are only just around the corner now.

Jimmy Moore at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb has done an excellent review on Anthony Colpo's new book "The Great Cholesterol Con".

LC_Dave gives us quick biology lesson about Insulin and Low GI foods.

Contributing author to "Against the Grain", Stephen Eddey has written his first article for us.

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Steve...

Folic acid may be added to bread

2006-07-13T02:53:00.000+10:00

Bakers could soon play a major role in the prevention of devastating birth defects under plans to add folic acid to all bread.

The trans-Tasman regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, has revealed a draft food standard to make folic acid mandatory in all bread-making flour to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects, such as spina bifida.

The proposed standard is expected to reduce the number of Australian children conceived with neural tube defects by between 14 and 49 a year. Up to 350 unborn children are affected with such defects every year and about 70 per cent of these pregnancies are terminated. It would cost AUS$1 million to implement but save the nation AUS$124.5 million, according to the proposal.

Melanie Fisher, general manager of FSANZ, said bread was the most suitable option for increased folic acid as it was regularly eaten by women of child-bearing age. The risk of conceiving a baby with a neural tube defect can be significantly reduced by consuming extra folic acid a day before conception and during the first three months of pregnancy. However, safety concerns mean the new measure would deliver only half the recommended dose of folate for pregnant women.

Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Dick Wells called the move premature. Folate would be better added to a range of products, he said.

Surely, pregnant women (and those planning to become one), should avoid all grain and flour products and concentrate on dark, leafy, green vegetables such as spinach, watercress, silverbeet, kale and broccoli? Apart from having higher levels of folic acid (a B vitamin also known as Folate), there are also countless other vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals that simply are NOT in grain products - even those fortified with folate!

Just between you and I, my partner and I are planning to become pregnant in the near future. As I do most of the cooking at home, I'm pumping her full of -- you guessed it! Some of the vegetables mentioned above. She doesn't like them all so I don't make her eat them. But she's happy to take this as well.........

......... that's 5mg a day more than what she's getting from vegetables alone.

And do you know what? I take one a day too. I used to lie to the chemist and tell them that it's for my partner, but these days, I make a point of telling them who it's for and why. I take it to help lower my homocysteine levels, one of the key clinical indicators for heart attack, peripheral vascular disease and stroke.

Steve

Against the Grain…

2006-07-12T17:44:00.000+10:00

I really feel for the average consumer when they are bombarded with mixed messages about what is healthy for them. I also believe most people who are overweight and trying to lose weight are not ‘slack’ or ‘lazy’. I know this because I see these people sweating it out at the gym on a cold, dark July morning or pacing the pavements. So why are they over weight? They work out and get plenty of activity, they watch what they eat. They even adhere to the expert nutritional guidance administered from associations such as the Heart Association and the Diabetes Association. Unfortunately, such advice is often outdated, not for them, or, in some cases, just plain wrong.

The Good, Bad and the Ugly

Everyone I speak to about their health knows sugar is bad for you. They also know that processed foods and most take away foods are bad. They also know they should be eating more vegies, salads and fruits. I will not insult your intelligence by reciting this ‘party line’ information. What I will tell you is that some of the so called ‘healthy food’ is making you sick and even killing thousands.

The Good Oil

Don’t put oil in your petrol tank! Why? It is not designed for it. So why put foods in your body that your body is not designed to eat? Ask your vet what your dog or cat should eat. He or she should say that animals need to eat what they find in the wild (hunting and gathering etc.). Humans are the same. For 3-5 million years we evolved to become the dominant species on earth by doing just that, hunting and gathering. We NEVER ate from a ‘pasta plant’, a ‘bread tree’, nor did we hunt down and kill a bowl of wheat. So why should grains make up so much of our diet (6-11 serves a day according to the associations mentioned earlier.)

The Fad Grain Diet

There are people who will say that ‘we have eaten grains for thousands of years’. Yes we have, but even 10,000 years is still less than 1% of our evolution. Grains are a very new addition to our diets. In my opinion, grains are a ‘fad’ food. It really makes me wonder how people can say that cutting grain from your diet is a ‘fad’ diet??? It is in fact the total opposite.

Whole Grain?

There is simply no such thing as ‘whole’ grain bread, pasta or breakfast cereal. These foods are all processed in some way. Most are rolled, toasted, baked etc. Don’t kid yourself and say ‘it’s healthy because it’s brown bread’. It’s still just flour! I dare you to go to a paddock of wheat and eat the ‘whole grain’. I think you would chip a tooth!

The Science

Repeatedly, scientific literature supports the consumption of whole foods such as vegies, fruits, salads, nuts, seeds, eggs, fish, meat, legumes etc. No one dies of a bread deficiency. We do not need flour in our diets. They are dead foods that contribute nothing more than empty calories and soaring obesity (and all its related conditions such as cancer and heart disease.). Compared head to head in the scientific literature, low carbohydrates do much better that high carbohydrate diets.

The Energy Myth

Firstly, you don’t give up on carbohydrates when you give up grains. You will get your carbs from vegies, salads, nuts, legumes and fruits. Have you heard that you need ‘carbohydrates for energy’, and therefore pasta will give you that energy? Most people I know feel like sleeping after eating a big bowl of pasta. Most of us are already carrying too much ‘energy’ in the form of fat. If you restrict carbohydrate intake by eliminating grains and sugars, your body will begin to burn fat. This can be measured as when you burn fat; ketones are eliminated in your urine. I have even heard some colleges say this is a bad thing!!! I ask you as someone I am sure has common sense: How can burning fat be a bad thing??? Isn’t that the idea? Remember, ketones are being produced by everyone, all the time anyway. All we are doing is accelerating the fat loss. This occurs when you cut flour foods from your diet.

Sugar is bad, right?

Did you know that every carbohydrate you eat turns into sugar in your body? Don’t panic because most of the foods I recommend are low in carbohydrates and bursting with nutrients. However, if you do eat grains, begin to worry as grains are a concentrated form of carbohydrates not encountered by humans naturally. All of the rich carbohydrates are converted into sugar in your body. Would you eat 37 teaspoons of sugar for dinner? No? In fact, you already have if you have eaten a moderate serving of 200 grams of pasta. 200 grams of pasta = 37 teaspoons of sugar. Are you still wondering why so many Australians are becoming obese and diabetic?

The Fibre Myth

Who has also heard that we need ‘flour’ foods (bread, pasta etc.) for fibre? Now just imagine if you stop eating flour and swap it with loads of vegies, fruits, salads etc. This will provide you with more fibre than you could ever dream of.

The Nutrient Bounty

When you flick flour and consume more fresh whole foods, your nutrient level will be far higher than ever. Fresh is best, not toasted, rolled, packaged, processed grains.

If I can’t eat flour foods, what can I eat?

I have had countless patients say this to me over the years. It is like I have taken away their reason for living! What you can eat is what your body has evolved to eat. You are a hunter and gatherer. Eat vegies, nuts, seeds, fruits, legumes, meats, eggs, fish etc. The message is quite simple; if you are in a supermarket and you are reading a label on food, the chances are you shouldn’t be eating that food!

Can I eat flour in ‘moderation’?

This is one of my pet hates. Let me make this clear; moderate eating leads to moderate health. Aim for optimal health and total wellness. Don’t be sucked into the ‘I only eat this occasionally’ syndrome. Aim higher, you deserve the best.

By contributing author Stephen Eddey M.H.Sc.; B.H.Sc(Comp.Med); Dip.App.Sc.(Nat.); Ass.Dip.App.Sc(Chem.); Cert.I.V. Director A.T.M.S.

Stephen is Principal and Director of Health Schools Australia, one of Australia’s oldest and most prestigious Natural Medicine Colleges.

Aussies love to meat and greet

2006-07-11T09:54:00.000+10:00

Here is a great man; Enlightened, intelligent and definitely worthy of listening to. His name is Dr. Lionel Tiger, and he's a Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University.

His title reflects his pioneering role in introducing biosocial data into the social sciences. Since the mid-1960's he has been deeply involved in bridging the gap between the natural and social sciences. He has asserted that the words used appear to imply that human social behavior is somehow not natural. But of course it is. Exploring how and why is Tiger's central adventure. As a teacher, writer of books and articles which have been widely published and translated and as co-Research Director of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, he has been an influential figure in broadening our knowledge about why we do what we do.

He combines his scientific expertise with a lively sense of humor to offer original, entertaining and informative lectures that challenge what is entrenched or fashionable, and move intellectually where others fear to tread. Currently he is focused on day care, young males, the pill, college demographics, the workforce, and the ways in which humans are becoming progressively more and more alienated from their biological roots.

In this article in the Melbourne Herald-Sun newspaper, he states that Aussies love to meat and greet. You know gather 'round the barbie, chew on a chop or sit at the table and carve the Sunday roast. I couldn't agree more.

In the article he said "meat cravings were as instinctive to the average Aussie as our desire for human touch."

"It's sort of like sex," Dr Tiger said. Um, either he aint buying the right meat or he's doing something else wrong!!

"Nobody when they're engaged in sexual activity says, 'This is good for the species', but the fact is that it's extremely pleasurable and it does carry on the species.

Dr Tiger's comments came on the back of research that revealed almost eight in 10 Australians rated roast beef or lamb to be among their favourite meals.

"Australians certainly seem to act as if meat is important to them, the Sunday roast and the leg of lamb, these are still punctuation points for family interaction," he said.

Despite vegetarianism being fashionable in some circles, Dr Tiger said taste buds were designed to crave meat because humans needed omega 3, zinc, iron and vitamin B12.

See my post here about Omega-3, zinc iron and V B-12.

"If you're a vegetarian you still need to compensate for the lack of meat, and the simpler answer is to have a piece of meat sometimes," he said.

The research also revealed 96 per cent of Australians loved the social experience of gathering together to carve up a roast.

This simply meant Aussies had not evolved too far from our hunter-gatherer ancestry, where killings would be shared around a campfire, Dr Tiger said.

While I don't do any actuall killing myself (no opportunity), I'm never happier than when my partner and I have people over for a BBQ dinner then sit around the fireplace and tell stories and talk until the wee small hours...

Steve

Fuelling Evolution

2006-07-10T23:59:00.000+10:00

(I always liked Sam Neill)
From The Main Meal website (owned by Meat and Livestock Australia).

The story of red meat and how we came to be.
To understand the importance of red meat, you have to go back millions of years to the time when our ape ancestors came down from the trees and moved to open grasslands.

During this time, only the fittest species of early man would survive. Those who adapted to the new surroundings lived on. The big leap came when our ancestors started to eat red meat.

The nutrients in red meat helped our brains grow. Hunting forced us to think. We learnt how to shape tools, communicate and work together – we were turning into human beings.

Over thousands of years, our bodies adapted to a diet high in red meat. In fact, our bodies and nutritional needs are very similar to our early ancestors.

This is why your body instinctively desires red meat for health and wellbeing.

Today, red meat still remains an important part of the diet. Lean red meat has an impressive bundle of nutrients:

• Omega 3s to help keep the heart in good shape and to support brain function
• Zinc to help maintain the immune system
• Vitamin B12 to help protect DNA and the nervous system
• Iron to carry oxygen in the blood for energy and vitality
• Protein to help satisfy the appetite for longer and help control hunger pangs.

It’s no wonder the Australian Dietary Guidelines continue to recommend we enjoy lean red meat 3-4 times every week. After all, that’s the way nature intended it.

More information:
• Australian Dietary Guidelines go to the Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council's website
• Nutritional composition of lean beef and lamb
• For diet and health information go to foodfacts.com.au
• Click here for some red meat recipes
• View the new TV ad featuring Sam Neill by clicking on the link at the top of this post.

Steve

Monday mixed Grill - July 10th 2006

2006-07-10T23:24:00.000+10:00

Here's a quick summary of events and blogs for the last week. Thanks to LCDave for the idea!

I'm still waiting for Health Schools Australia to send me their list of 2006 seminars. They are due out shortly.

Jimmy Moore at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb has been very busy

David Koch (no, the other one) has been busy too, and thanks Dave for showing me how to host videos on our blogs.

Socceroos Pain Eased With Aussie Win in Beer World Cup .

Stella Nicola has shed almost half her weight to be Victoria's slimmer of the year

Here's how to calculate you BMI (Body Mass Index).

*********************************
The monday funny.......

Is this how the different sexes see ourselves?
Steve...

How's Your Body Image?

2006-07-10T18:34:00.000+10:00

After reading posts on Livin' la vida low-Carb and Stumbling to Bethlehem, I thought I'd try the body image test for myself. Below is the result. It seems to be pretty accurate for me, except for the last line. But I'm working on that....

Your Body Image is 40% Unhealthy, 60% Healthy

You're body image is quite healthy, though you're sometimes a little bit too hard on yourself.
Chances are you've got a rockin' body - so enjoy it!

How's Your Body Image?

Stella sheds 62.5kg to be a winner

2006-07-10T17:25:00.000+10:00

This is Stella Nicola. She has shed almost half her body weight to be Victoria's "Slimmer of the Year".

Mrs Nicola, 37 and mother to three sons and three daughters, decided to lose some of her 129kg after one of her sons was involved in a fight defending his "fat mum".

She joined Weight Watchers in March last year to slowly but surely lose 62.7kg. As well as her son's fight, she said her low self-esteem and declining health were responsible for her decision to diet.

Stella has mentioned the three best reasons that I can think of for losing weight and becoming lean and healthy. Low self esteem, declining health and your own kids.

Stella used to have a BMI of 43.7 which put her in a dangerously obese category.

The Victoria and Tasmania winner of Weight Watchers' 2006 Slimmer of the Year said a family video at her youngest daughter's first birthday showed how far she had let herself go.

All that I can do is congratulate Mrs. Nicola on a phenomenal job well done. Although she didn't go against the grain, she has put in a mammoth effort and it has paid of in spades.

She now has a BMI of 23.2 which is in the "normal" range of 18.5 to 24.9

Stella, if you are reading this, my heartfelt congratulations.

Steve

Death risk rises in obese women

2006-07-08T12:52:00.000+10:00

Obesity is known to increase a person's risk of death and now, new findings from a study of more than 90,000 women indicate that the risk continues to increase as the severity of obesity worsens.

"It's not good enough to consider obesity alone," principal investigator Dr. Kathleen McTigue of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, told Reuters Health. "You need to look at degree of obesity."

In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, McTigue and colleagues evaluated the impact of body weight on death risk in 90,185 women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

On average, the patients were followed for 7 years.

Body mass index (BMI), a measure of body weight for height, was used to classify the women as normal weight, overweight, or obese.

Weight was defined as:

underwieght is a BMI of less than 18.5
normal is a BMI from 18.5 to 24.9,
overweight is a BMI from 25 to 29.9,
obesity 1 is a BMI of 30 to 34.9,
obesity 2 is a BMI 35 to 39.9,
and extreme obesity is a BMI 40 and higher.

As weight increases, so does the risk of death, but the risk is not statistically significant until one becomes obese, McTigue said.

Compared with normal-weight women, she continued, "the risk of dying was increased 12 per cent in all women in obesity category 1, while risk was increased 86 per cent over seven years in women in obesity category 3."

In a University of Pittsburgh release, the researcher pointed out that "earlier studies, which tended to reflect lower degrees of obesity, may underestimate the risks of extremely obese individuals and overestimate the risk for mildly obese individuals in diverse groups."

She concluded, "More accurately assessing weight-related health risk may both improve policy decisions about obesity and assist women in making informed decisions about their health."

(Adult BMI calculator) This calculator provides BMI and the corresponding BMI weight status category. Use this calculator for adults, 20 years old and older.

(Child and teen BMI calculator) This calculator provides BMI and the corresponding BMI-for-age percentile on a CDC BMI-for-age growth chart. Use this calculator for children and teens, aged 2 through 19 years old.

Steve

The Low-Carb Roundtable, Part II

2006-07-08T10:57:00.000+10:00

The Low-Carb Roundtable, Part II
Featuring Charles Poliquin, Cassandra Forsythe,
Dan John, Dave Barr, and Joel Marion
Moderated by Greg McGlone

Note: Miss Part I? You can find it HERE.

T-Nation: Okay, you guys gave us a lot to think about in Part I. Next topic: For competitive athletes, how do you feel about a long term low-carb approach?

Charles Poliquin: If you're talking about energy system sports like kayak or speed skating, then I'd say that low-carb diets don't do well for these because of the demands on their glycogen stores, but those athletes tend to be insulin sensitive anyway.

Though an extremely low-carb diet would probably not be the perfect way to go for Olympic quality athletes, it's interesting that the one study that was done with high performance athletes and a ketogenic diet (a very extreme form of low-carb diet) showed that their performance returned to "normal" (which for them was world class) within a month of being on the diet, showing that adaptation takes place.

T-Nation: Interesting. What's your take, Dave?

Dave Barr: Again, psychology plays a big role here. If you had asked me this question several months ago, I would've suggested that elite athletes need to maintain moderate carb diets for most of their training time — that is, until I began to see the results that John Berardi has been getting with his clients. Hard to argue with results like that.

For people who are less "hardcore," it's not realistic to stick them on a low-carb diet. To be honest, if someone isn't going to make a living at their sport, it's best that they live life and enjoy a wide range of healthy food.

T-Nation: What say you, Miss Forsythe?

Cassandra Forsythe: No matter what diet an athlete follows, they have to eat enough energy to prevent their performance from suffering. A long-term LCD approach doesn't stop you from being a competitive athlete.

Many sports nutritionists tell us that in order to be successful in sports, we have to top off muscle glycogen stores by eating loads of carb foods. However, when you limit carbs, you use intramuscular triglyceride and stored body fat for energy. Once this transition has occurred, athletic performance (even competitive athletic performance) is sustained.

We just need to educate our athletes about the foods they can easily eat when following a lower-carb diet so that energy imbalances are avoided. Some believe that if an athlete follows a strict VLCKD, they also need extra electrolyte support (because of increase sodium and potassium losses in the first weeks of the diet change) and should give careful attention to fatty acid composition (ensure enough omega 3's to reduce inflammation).

For athletes that can get away with eating slightly more carbs due to their high activity levels, they don't need to be so careful, but should ensure that the carbs they eat don't reduce their ability to use fat as a fuel. They can eat some "smart carbs" like sweet potatoes, extra fruit, and oatmeal, but they must keep fat and protein high. It's not necessary for them to consume 65% of their calories from carbs because they get more energy from the increased protein and extra fats.

Overall, as long as they eat enough calories, any competitive athlete can perform just as well eating less calories from carbs and more calories from protein and fat as they would eating a high-carb diet.

T-Nation: Bold statements! Let's let Joel chime in.

Joel Marion: What would be the purpose of having athletes on a long-term low-carb diet? If you'd like to keep them lean, then there are certainly other, more enjoyable ways to achieve that goal, without the negative effects that a very low-carb approach will have on muscular strength and hypertrophy and overall performance.

Carbs can still be consumed while maintaining low levels of body fat. The solution is timing them appropriately around exercise and other times of day in which insulin sensitivity is highest, not cutting them out completely.

T-Nation: What do you think, Danny?

Dan John: For my athletes, I think that diet is a long-term health issue. I'm not sure that a thrower or lifter really needs to worry about how diet will impact performance. Really, I've thrown far after having the flu and vomiting for a couple of days. I've also performed awful with perfect conditions.

You could carb up and get to 70% body fat and still probably throw stuff far, but you'll have to account for that later in life. I've heard, though, that the great Kenyan distance guys eat a lot of meat and veggies and never drink those little carb drinks you see on TV that make your sweat change color.

So, low-carb dieting will keep a handle on body fat and may help with food allergies. Not everyone agrees with the food allergy thing, but I don't know of an experienced athlete or coach who won't agree that this problem exists...at some level. It could be as bad as fatal (truly something that would hurt performance and you can quote me on this: "Dan John thinks death hurts performance!") to simply subtle like you find with distance runners who worry a lot about bowel movements on race days.

Performance is an "iffy" thing. If low-carbing eliminates an "if," then I'd be crazy not to recommend it. It won't make you a gold medalist by itself, but it needs consideration.

T-Nation: Okay, I'd like to hear all of your opinions on post-workout (PWO) nutrition. Charles, I know that you've advocated the use of glutamine among other things in PWO period, while Dave has spoken out against glutamine. There's also the debate about ketosis, which as Joel pointed out, may not be necessary at all to make progress. What are your thoughts on PWO nutrition for someone utilizing a low-carb approach?

Dave Barr: I never really understood the whole glycogen repletion with glutamine theory, so I'm looking forward to hearing the other contributors' answers.

For the moment, let's ignore the possibility that glutamine does nothing to enhance glycogen storage, and simply assume that it occurs. Now, wouldn't this newly stored glycogen be used for energy at the expense of fat? Of course it would. So what's the concern here? Stimulating insulin?

Well then, that raises the question of whether 40-80g of glutamine, along with your 40g of fast protein and amino acids, will elevate insulin. This isn't an unreasonable question because glutamine acts like glucose in so many respects. While glutamine isn't known as a powerful insulin secretagogue, the doses in question make this a whole new ball game.

Even if insulin isn't secreted by the protein and mega-dose of glutamine, how would this compare to carbohydrate-induced glycogen repletion? Well, the insulin released due to the PWO carbs and protein would enhance protein synthesis and muscle recovery. This is not so with the glutamine.

Would the insulin shut off fat loss? I don't think it would, compared to glutamine, especially considering that you're PWO and you're already on a low-carb diet. At this time, our body isn't concerned with storing fat, only recovering. Again, we're already assuming that we're storing glycogen with glutamine (for the sake of argument) which is an energy source to be used instead of body fat.

So even if we give glutamine the benefit of the doubt with every question, and that's giving a lot, there's no advantage I can see from glutamine use in a low-carb situation.

Charles Poliquin: Again, insulin management is the key. Glycogen stores are an issue. The right mixture of whey isolates, glutamine, and glycine does wonders for recovery while improving body composition. I've made many hockey players go from 20% to 8% in eight weeks using that post-workout formula. How research applies to the real world is another debate, but practical experience is what counts.

I know that David "Candy" Barr doesn't believe in it, but strength coaches tend to be eight years ahead of exercise physiologists, who are in fact exercise historians. David is a strong believer in economics through volume, hence he sports a keg instead of six pack!

Ketosis is overrated and not necessary for making progress. I agree with Joel on that matter.

Cassandra Forsythe: PWO nutrition doesn't have to be about eating oodles of simple carbs just to quickly replenish glycogen. Most weightlifters don't even deplete glycogen, so why worry about trying to maximize this response by causing horrendous spikes in glucose and insulin?

When you follow a low-carb approach, your body is using both fat and carbohydrate as a fuel, so there's even less glycogen depletion. Thus, ingesting a lot of high-glycemic simple carbs in the PWO period isn't as crucial. It's necessary though to eat something soon after your workout, but the foods chosen will depend on your level of carb restriction.

If you're following a high-calorie LCD you can eat your choice of "smart carbs" in combination with some high quality protein (like oatmeal, fruit, and whey protein). Given that you've increased your insulin and glucose sensitivity by following a low-carb approach, you don't need to consume something like dextrose-maltodextrin to get a good insulin response.

If you're following a VLCKD, you may just want to stick with a high-protein and fat meal so that you avoid knocking yourself out of ketosis. It all depends on your goals and how sensitive you are to carbohydrates. Some people don't feel that a high-carb drink after their workout gives them any benefits. These people do better eating some smaller quantity of carbs in conjunction with a high quality protein source.

The most important issue is to just make sure you eat something within a half hour of your workout, and consume enough energy throughout the day so your next training session isn't ruined.

Dan John: It depends on what day or what year it is for me to tell you my beliefs in post-workout nutrition, because it changes all the time. Every time I go to a workshop, I have a new opinion. With my athletes, dinner is often PWO, so they eat a variety of things, often from a place with a red and gold clown as nutritional advisor.

I know it's the key to a lot of "this." But, outside of a camp situation, we just make do with what we can do. Listen, I'm still trying to get my athletes to eat breakfast, for God's sake!

T-Nation: Dan always keeps us practical! What's your take, Joel?

Joel Marion: Carbs should never be omitted around a resistance training session. There's just no good reason for it. If the reason is worry with regards to fat storage, that's a non-issue with properly timed carb intake during/post exercise.

As David and I have stated, the body isn't concerned with storing fat at this time, only recovery. If the issue is remaining in ketosis, again, not a very good reason, as actually being in ketosis has very little to do with fat loss and progress.

Basically, as I've been saying, there are no drawbacks to carbohydrate consumption at this highly sensitive time, only benefits to be had. So my PWO recommendations to someone utilizing low-carb approach: drop the low-carb approach and get on the nutrient timing wagon!

But what if you couldn't consume carbs, what would the next best thing be? From the research, it's an EAA drink, but as I've mentioned before, I hate hypothetical, unrealistic questions like this. You have the option to consume carbs and there's no reason not to do so.

T-Nation: Okay, some of you prefer a cyclical approach when it comes to carbs. I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on any aspect of cycling carb intake.

Charles Poliquin: Compliance and results dictate how well you'll do in the strength coaching business. I've learned a lot from Mauro DiPasquale about how to cycle carbs. In a nutshell, for most (but not all) individuals, I like this approach:

First phase (initiation): 14 days low-carb, one day off completely

Second phase: As needed to reach goal

I have the client use a 4:1 ratio for as long as needed. That is, four days low-carb, one day off. "Off" is a broad term. The leaner you are, the more you can eat carbs. At 6% you can go crazy.

Every fifth day you should go back to eating more good carbs, as oxidation of branch-chain amino acids is compromised on low-carb diets. The amount of good carbs is inversely proportional to your percentage of body fat.

If they're fat, the client only has the single cheat meal, at dinner, where he or she can eat as many carbs as they want — once they've eaten their protein. If their ass leaves the table, the carb intake is done for the day.

Carbs at dinner doesn't mean that cookies and donuts can be eaten in front of the television all night long. It's important that the cheat meal is at the dinner table; people can eat far more carbs for a longer time in front of the TV. You may start to add a second cheat meal once you hit 8% body fat.

Cassandra Forsythe: Most people probably will agree that if you want to eat certain carb foods, the best time to eat them would be in the hours after your workout. This thought comes from the fact that any increase in insulin elicited from the high-carb meal will be used to shove glucose into those previously worked muscles, rather than converting it to fat and sending it to adipose for storage.

In terms of cyclical approaches, I don't think that's the best way to follow a LCD. If you want to gain the best results from a low-carb approach, just be consistent and keep your carb intake controlled.

Dave Barr: Have I mentioned psychology yet? Using a Metabolic Diet with five days of low carbs and two days of higher carbs is more user friendly than similar diets with different parameters. The Metabolic Diet books go into detail about why the five on, two off system works well physiologically, but for the sake of simplicity, it's great for maintaining muscle and continuing fat loss, all in a nice neat package.

"Low-carb during the week, more-carb on weekends" is relatively easy to follow, because so many people naturally function on a weekday vs. weekend schedule. This also enables you to enjoy your weekend, each and every one, without too much concern that you've blown your diet. Ease of use is the number one determinant of compliance, and coupled with the fact that it works physiologically, the Metabolic Diet is win-win.

Dan John: I had great success on the "five day zero-carbs, two day carb-up plans" — CKD, Anabolic Diet, and the variations. I found that I quickly shrunk it to a 36 hour carb up because I felt awful. I stay fairly low-carb all the time and I have personal issues I think with the grain family, so I feel better just ignoring them completely.

The upside of cycling carbs is that you can eat this or that. The downside is that, well, if you take a little poison, it's still poison. So, this is one of the great "YMMV" of the Atkins forums: Your Mileage May Vary. For me, I do best on meat, veggies, and fruit with a lot of water and fun in my training. When I ignore that advice, bad things happen over time. Which brings us back to "Why do I ignore this advice?"

Joel Marion: I've used, with great success, a couple forms of cyclical carb type diets with clients. One form that I like to use for clients looking to "body comp" or achieve simultaneous fat loss and gains in muscle mass, is an alternating approach between moderate/lower carb days and higher carb days depending on activity.

For example, clients are consuming carbs, and plenty of them, on training days both during and following intense weight training. On non-weight training days, carbs are consumed only in the beginning part of the day and are limited to low GI sources. Carb intake is substantially lower on these days, falling in the "lower carb" category. The amount of carbs that are allowed on each day is dependant on the client's level of body fat.

The leaner the individual, the more carbs they're generally allowed. If the goal is simply maintenance of body fat, more carbs are allowed (this obviously translates into potentially greater gains in lean body mass, although the trade-off is lessened fat loss).

I'll also cycle in a couple of very low-carb days into a fat loss diet every so often after a day of overfeeding to help alleviate any water retention resulting from the previous day's high carbs and calories and quicken progress thereafter. Because leptin levels and other metabolic markers are elevated right after an overfeed, we can get away with a strict low-carb approach during this time.

By using that dietary approach in conjunction with heightened activity (two or three cardio sessions the first day, one or two the next day), it's possible to lose a substantial amount of fat in the two-day period following the metabolic priming of an overfeed.

Make no mistake, I'm still no fan of very low-carb dieting for anything even remotely long term, but I do believe it can be effectively used in extremely short bursts.

T-Nation: Wow, lots of things to think about here! Any closing thoughts?

Dave Barr: Although we've focused a lot on this particular diet, I prefer the idea of just eating a wide variety of healthy food, without any severe restrictions. Of course that's not sexy and won't sell, but food is one of the greatest pleasures in life, and is meant to be enjoyed.

For those who want to use a low-carb diet, I suggest checking out Dr. DiPasquale's Metabolic Diet and The Anabolic Indexby yours truly, which will feature information on how best to increase muscle mass and subsequently lose fat while on both calorie- and carb-restricted diets.

Charles Poliquin: A lot of people are kidding themselves about how many carbs they need. "Man, I need my carbs." Yeah, right! What you need to realize is that there's a difference between a mouth and a vacuum.

It should be more "low-carb lifestyle" than "low-carb diet." Forty to fifty grams per day of good carbs is plenty for most of the population. That is why there are so many fat dieticians and personal trainers. I recently saw a former author of this site at a nutrition conference. He's a legend in his own mind for his dietary counseling prowess and a record holder of never healing weight training injuries.

Look at him, and his physique will you tell that he has never met a carb he didn't like! In my usual diplomatic style, I put an end to his endless diatribe by asking Porky Pig the following three questions:

1) "Enlightened grand master, if you're such a fine nutritionist, how come you have more chins than Chinatown and that you get harpooned when you go swimming?"

2) "Have you ever considered that the number of never healing injuries you brag about are caused by the inflammatory response subsequent to your enormous carb intake?"

3) "If you're never going to stop eating Doritos, could you please call TC and me the night before so we can shore up the supply?"

In fact, the only way this pestering motor mouth will ever get lean is to limit his carb intake to ten licks of a dried prune... spread throughout the day.

One needs to distinguish the difference between carbs and "neo-carbs." Neo-carbs were not accessible to cavemen. Did a caveman have access to donuts? No. Donuts are neo- carbs. Did a caveman have access to pasta? No. Did a caveman have access to raspberries? Yes, raspberries are allowable carbs, except in the initiation phase.

Nutrient timing makes a difference, too. I think a lean 200-pound man can keep his leanness eating 250 grams of carbs a day, if 200 of them are taken post-workout and the other 50 grams spread throughout the day in low glycemic carbs. Remember, I said "stay lean," not getlean. Get lean first if you want to eat carbs. The leaner you are, the more carbs you can eat.

Some more closing thoughts? Here you go:

No one eats enough vegetables. Have you ever heard on anybody having a binge on brussel sprouts?

I don't believe in counting calories. It's a waste of time.

You can dramatically improve insulin sensitivity. Recently, in Toronto, I gave 16 hours of info on that topic alone. There are plenty of nutraceuticals (i.e. R-form stabilized alpha-lipoic acid, not the useless racemic form that everybody sells), and botanicals that will improve insulin sensitivity, and there are functional tests that can determine which ones would work best for you. Insulin sensitivity and the ability to hypertrophy while leaning out are strongly correlated, more so than androgen output.

Finally, low-carb fats without a high intake of smart fats is suicidal. That's probably why many people fail to have results on low-carb programs.

Cassandra Forsythe: The low-carb craze is definitely not dead. In fact, it's not even a craze, but rather a lifestyle modification. We've been fed lies about fat and protein too long. Fat doesn't make you fat, nor increase your risk for heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. Along the same lines, protein doesn't damage our kidneys or contribute to chronic disease.

By now you've probably all heard about the results from the recent Women's Health Initiative, and if you haven't, you should really take a look at the data. Basically, low-fat diets failed to provide any of the health benefits that researchers have told us they would for the past 20 or 30 years.

Researchers were backed into a corner when they tried to explain those results. They said "Oops! We lied and actually had no evidence that a low-fat diet was good, but we told everyone to follow it anyhow. Sorry about that." This gives us even more reason to consider the alternative.

There's an abundance of good science backing up the beneficial application of low-carb approaches for prevention of several metabolic disorders and as a positive lifestyle improvement. We have to stop pretending that low-carb is just a fad.

Dan John: Obviously, I'm still sifting through some of this stuff myself and I'd image others are, too. It's the great paradigm shift of many of our lives. For years, we thought jogging and eating pancakes dripping in syrup while stretching every joint to the brink of snapping was smart training. Well, "we" didn't...

So, now the great glacier of thought in training is turning another direction and we really need to break out of a worldview that was not only wrong but hurtful. So, here we go.

Joel Marion: With regards to carbs and nutrition, it's all about the two T's: timing and type. Yes, Americans are fat because they consume far too many highly processed carbohydrates, but heavy carb restriction is just an oversimplified way of dealing with the issue, and unfortunately the oversimplification carries along with it a lot of drawbacks.

The answer isn't eliminating the macronutrient; it's learning how to make better carb choices and how to time carb intake appropriately during times of the day in which they'll be well accepted. When this is done, there's absolutely no good reason to heavily restrict carbohydrate consumption. Their ingestion during a diet phase is associated with many benefits, both physiological and psychological.

That said, like most other things touted as the be all/end all (kettlebells, Swiss balls, low-fat dieting, etc.), its use on a much smaller scale can have benefit.

Humour's a sweet pill...

2006-07-08T10:37:00.000+10:00

...but why it works is a mystery.

The scientific study of laughter as medicine was popularised by the 1970 publication of Norman Cousins's bestselling book, Anatomy of an Illness, which described the US journalist's use of laughter in recovery from ankylosing spondylitis, a painful disease causing inflammation of the spine.

Cousins watched comic films and read joke books, and claimed 10 minutes of laughter reliably gave him two hours of pain-free sleep, leading to the popular notion that laughter reduces pain - perhaps by stimulating the release of painkilling hormones called endorphins.

However, some scientists say Cousins's recovery could have been influenced by any number of factors, including the large doses of vitamin C he routinely took or certain personality traits. There has even been speculation the disease was misdiagnosed.

Since Cousins's book, several laboratory studies have examined the analgesic effects of laughter. In 1987, Rosemary Cogan of Texas Tech University and her colleagues found pain thresholds of college students were higher after listening to a comic tape than after listening to a dull narrative.

Other studies have shown similar results, but some have found pain thresholds also increase with negative emotional stimuli - a horror film or a Holocaust documentary - suggesting the analgesic effect might be due to general emotional arousal rather than laughter in particular.

In 1971, Dr William Fry of Stanford University showed laughter increases heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen consumption, and that these levels drop soon afterwards, providing a short-term relaxation response. However, a 1989 US study by Sabina White and Phame Camarena found no longer-term changes in the heart rate and blood pressure of volunteers after six weeks of laughter sessions.

By comparison, relaxation sessions over the same period lowered participants' heart rates and systolic blood pressure.

In the most famous study of laughter and immunity, published in 1989, a group led by Lee Berk of Loma Linda University tested blood samples taken from volunteers before, during and after they watched a comic video. After viewing, they found lowered levels of the stress hormone cortisol and enhanced levels of several immune system components.

Some scientists have pointed out methodological problems in this study - and in many studies of the health benefits of laughter - including small sample size and the absence of controls for other potentially influential factors, such as distraction, general emotional arousal and the expectations of volunteers.

Most importantly, laughter itself is rarely measured in these experiments - researchers simply assume it has occurred.

The Low-Carb Roundtable (part I)

2006-07-07T09:11:00.000+10:00

Below is a copy of a "round table" discussion, hosted by T-Nation (the T stands for Testosterone). The guests are Charles Poliquin, Cassandra Forsythe, Dan John, David Barr, and Joel Marion.The discussion was moderated by Greg McGlone. It pastes as a 17 page word document, so I apologise now for the length of this post. There are links at the bottom to take you directly to the T-nation site.

Preface: Is Low-Carb Really Best for Body Re-Composition?
Introduction by Dr. Lonnie Lowery

Low-carbohydrate diets have certainly received their share of attention in recent years. While the popularity of Atkins, South Beach, and other low-carb diets peaked last year, it remains an interesting topic among physique athletes.
In the scientific community, research is continually published, whether low-carb popularity with the lay public wanes or not. A recent meta-analysis (study of other studies) suggested that lower-carb, higher protein diets are indeed best for body re-compositioning (Krieger, et al., Feb. 2006).

Of course, differences in opinion do occur regarding how to best derive the metabolic benefits of lower-carb (or even very-low-carb) diets. But, I think readers will agree that this collection of experts will echo at least some of their existing beliefs as far as how much carbohydrate is too much and how much is not enough.

So without further preface, let's take a look at this commentary that Greg has assembled for the benefit of your brains and your love handles.

— Dr. Lonnie Lowery
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
T-Nation: We have a big group here so let's jump right into it. How do you define the term "low-carb nutrition?"

Charles Poliquin: I consider low-carb to be when the daily carb intake is below 0.25 grams per pound of bodyweight. In other words, a 200-pound man ingests only 50 grams of carbs per day.

Dan John: Well, as simple as that question sounds, that's the big issue. I've talked with people who think switching brands of cereal is a "low-carb" decision.

Personally, I like to start with a simple proposition to most athletes: zero carbs. If we have to make body comp changes quickly, well, there are no carbs allowed. We know that there are also no "essential" carbs, so the first hurdle we have to deal with when it comes to the athlete is this: fat phobia.

When athletes hear "low-carb" or "zero-carb," they immediately try to figure in "no fat" too. Madness, I tell you. If you read Clarence Bass's original Ripped, he went no carb and no fat. That isn't the idea. One egg white a day and a twice-baked piece of chicken is not my idea of an athletic diet.

The first thing I encourage my athletes to do in the zero-carb approach is to think "feast." Eggs, cream in the coffee, and meat for breakfast followed up with a snack of ribs. Eat a lot. Drink a lot of water, too. Here's something I strongly recommend, but I can't get my athletes to do: sip on a little olive oil every so often. Yep, sip it, like a good Scotch.

Meat, fish, fowl, and eggs, that's the ticket. My athletes are amazed on day three when they get a good night's sleep, their joints are feeling good, and they notice an "ease of passage" in their daily movement.

So, that's zero carb basically, so what's low-carb? To some, anything under 95% of the day's calories from carbs is low-carb. Really, I like the strictness of the Atkins Diet and its copies: 40 grams a day. Others slide up to 100 carbs a day, but already we're getting into problems.

Like what? Low-carb cereal, low-carb bread, low-carb ice cream...you know the drill. Here you go: eat meat and veggies at first. Now, a hand from the back goes up: "What about fruit?" My challenge to Americans: get fat on fruit. I challenge you! Eat 300 plums a day for two weeks and get back to me. (For the idiots out there: I'm joking!)

Joel Marion: I think the issue arises when people fail to differentiate between the terms low-carb and ketogenic. The terms are often used interchangeably, especially within bodybuilding circles, but the latter is much more specific than the former.

The term "low-carb" really is an ambiguous, almost relative term. For example, you may consider a diet prescribing only 150 grams of carbs "low-carb" while to someone else such a "high" carbohydrate intake doesn't come close to qualifying for the title. You'll even see the term "lower-carb" used for a lot of these diets that restrict carbs while still being much less strict than something like Atkins. Then you have "very low-carb" and "no-carb," which further bring confusion to what exactly is meant by each one of these terms.

Now when you're talking "ketogenic," you're looking at much more specific parameters. You're not on a ketogenic diet unless you're in ketosis, so at least that gives dieters somewhat of an absolute to measure. While there are exceptions, the majority of people will have to stay under 50 grams of carbohydrates per day to reach and stay in ketosis, some an even lower threshold.

Also, if ketosis is the goal, protein intake should be set around .8 to 1 grams per pound of lean body mass, but not higher. Reason being, even if carbohydrate is severely restricted, a high protein intake may keep you from reaching ketosis due to gluconeogenesis, or the conversion of protein to glucose within the body.

T-Nation: So how do you know if you're really in ketosis?

Joel Marion: Well, you'll have to monitor the amount of ketones present in your urine with ketostiks.

That said, whether you reach ketosis or not isn't really going to matter from a fat loss standpoint. All else being equal (which it never is in the real world), you should expect similar fat loss from someone consuming 40 grams of carbs daily who's non-ketotic and someone consuming the same amount of carbs who indeed is in a state of ketosis. It's more a matter of energy balance, which has been said time and time again.

So what's "low-carb?" If by low-carb you mean "ketogenic," then we're probably looking at less than 50 grams of carbs daily. I think the terms "very low-carb" and ketogenic will leave you around about the same spot: less than 50 grams of carbs daily.

No-carb is pretty self explanatory, although not very realistic. Then you have "lower-carb" which could be anything significantly above 50 grams all the way up to a carb intake of one gram per pound of lean body mass. Anything higher than one gram per pound and we're entering "moderate carb" territory. (Oh look, another term!)

T-Nation: Okay, let's let Cassandra chime in. For those who don't know, Cassandra has a fitness/figure background, a Master of Science degree in nutrition, plus she's working toward her PhD, and she's barely into her mid-twenties! Take it away, Cass.

Cassandra Forsythe: While I've been working at UConn researching very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (VLCKDs) with Dr. Jeff Volek, I'd define a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) as one supplying less than 50 grams of carbohydrate per day, or providing less than 10-15% total energy from carbohydrate (i.e. a 3000kcal diet with 10% calories from carbohydrate would have 75 grams of carbohydrate).

To go a step further, I'd classify a VLCKD as one supplying less than 20 grams of carbohydrate per day from only non-starchy vegetables (leafy greens) and causing the body to produce ketones from dietary fat which are detected in the urine by reagent strips (those ketostiks that Joel mentioned).

Some people also define a LCD as one that provides less carbohydrate than recommended by our nutritional governing bodies (AHA, ADA etc.). This would mean that any intake with less than 55% total energy from carbohydrate is a low-carb approach.

I'd somewhat agree, but modify it to say that diets with less than 35-40% energy from complex carbs and vegetables (no Gatorade here) are a type of LCD. Zone and South Beach diet plans would thus be included in the definition of low-carb.

The foods eaten on a LCD can include low-carb products (bars, shakes), but should come mostly from whole-food sources like red meats, eggs, fish, poultry, cheese, leafy vegetables, oils, nuts, nut butters, avocados, and gelatin. Fruits are acceptable in small quantities and so are some beans and legumes.

On a VLCKD, carb restriction is more extreme (no fruit at all) and fat intake has to be high. Fat should provide at least 60% of total calories, and must come from animal fats, oils, creams, egg yolks, and fatty fish. Fat can't come in large quantities from any higher-carb fat sources like avocados, nuts, and seeds because these limit ketosis.

Low-carb products should be almost completely avoided. I've seen many subjects in our VLCKD studies become knocked out of ketosis just by eating a low-carb bar, shake, or candy. There seems to be more impact carbohydrate value from low-carb products than one assumes.

Protein can't be too high because of gluconeogenesis, but is important to preserve lean muscle during weight loss. Truthfully, a VLCKD is difficult for many people to follow for a very long period of time. But, the restriction is useful (and necessary) to initially kick-start fat metabolism by up-regulating fat pathways and enzymes. This "rapid ignition" seems to last for quite some time, even while reducing the strictness of the diet, just as long as carbs don't drift up too high.

The leaner you are, the more carbs you can eat. Also, a VLCKD isn't for everyone because of its food limitations, but a LCD is beneficial for most people. Ketosis isn't necessary to reap the rewards of decreasing carb intake.

Today's society is carb-crazy because we're surrounded by a plethora of carbohydrate-rich foods. It's just too easy and inexpensive to grab a carb-laden food versus something high-protein (beef jerky) or high-fat (nuts or cheese). Plus, some scientists have driven the "fat is bad" and "protein will ruin your kidneys" mentality so far down our throats that we have a hard time swallowing any other info.

No matter how you define a low-carb nutrition approach, cutting back on carbs in one form or another will have numerous positive effects for your health and your body composition.

T-Nation: Dave, lay your definition on us, then we'll move on.

Dave Barr: Define low-carb nutrition? How about I give the super scientific answer, you know, the one that's so esoteric no one understands (and therefore can't use)?

No, no, I'm getting sick of that. I'll give a simple pragmatic answer instead: a diet consisting of an insufficient quantity of carbohydrates to meet daily energy requirements, such that dietary and body fat must be used as the primary energy source. The concept is DiPasquale-esque because he's the pioneer in this field.

T-Nation: Okay, clearly, "low-carb" can mean a lot of different things to different people. Next question, what are some advantages and disadvantages to a low-carb nutrition plan? Danny?

Dan John: Well, it depends on the approach. Listen, if you take the whole "low-carb bread and cereal" approach, there are no advantages. You end up with the same issues. What issues? Well, if what I read is true, the bulk of Americans struggle with grains at some level, milk at some level, and sugar at a really "fat ass" level.

Shopping on a true low-carb diet becomes easy. Here you go:

Meat
Eggs
Fish
Olive oil
Veggies
In-season fruits

Not a bad shopping list.

The disadvantages of low-carb? Well, you have to skip the prepared food island usually, the fast food aisle, the breaded meats world (who came up with that, anyway?) and save a ton of time shopping. You never have to look at the side of a package to determine if a "serving size" is one scoop or half a can or whatever formula they use to come up with "low fat" versus "no fat."

Dining out can be a problem. It's become easier, but most places cater to people who think deeply breaded and deep fat fried onions to be a member of the food family.

The biggest advantage is ease of shopping and deciding on meal selection. The biggest disadvantage? You have to cook practically every meal, either in one big cooking day on Sunday or throughout the week.

The fat loss and the improvement in every other area of life doesn't seem to be as important as convenience. It sounds crazy on paper (or bytes on a screen), but I'm telling you, it's true.

Dave Barr: The longer I stay in the game, the more I come to understand the importance of psychology. It's in this area that low-carb diets have a major disadvantage. Having our muscles flatten out, the feeling of lethargy, and the lack of sweet tasting foods can all take their toll on someone who's unaccustomed to low-carb eating.

Drastically reduced food selection is probably the main disadvantage, and this has caused many people to abandon the diet in favor of a lower calorie, moderate carb version. Having said that, the feeling of carb-ups is an incredible reward for a week of strict eating. The way that noobs claim to get off on arginine supplements, you'd think they'd be all over a diet that provides an even more powerful feeling.

Another big plus is that you're more likely to add muscle while maintaining a state of fat loss. In other words, calories can be higher while still losing fat. Of course this doesn't compare to actual bulking and cutting cycles, but for those who feel the need to do both at once, low-carb is the best option.

Charles Poliquin: There are many advantages to low-carb nutrition; that's why I tend to use it with about 75% of my clients. But it's not for everybody. Some genotypes do very poorly on it, and the extent of how badly they do on it is a function of the time they're on it.

Before you look at the advantages and disadvantages, as Jonny Bowden would say, you need to approach your fat loss system like you should approach relationships: daily attention. Nurturing, support, crisis management, intervention, focus, consciousness, and mindfulness... It requires good negotiation skills. All the things we don't tend to have when it comes to food.

Advantages to a low-carb approach: It promotes muscle gains while reducing fat stores.

I'm not a believer in the bulk-up/get lean approach in hypertrophy training. For 75% of the population, I strongly believe that if you want to gain lean body mass while losing fat, the low-carb approach will do it better than anything, especially if you're taking supplements that enhance insulin sensitivity. Because insulin sensitivity tends to improve on low-carb diets, fat loss is more sustained with this approach.

A low-carb diet is also very valuable in treating dyslipidemia. It's particularly effective at reducing triglycerides and VLDL. It has a significant effect also on reducing LDL. Its effects on raising the good forms of cholesterol aren't as drastic, but overall, a low-carb diet improves the HDL:LDL ratio in a manner that significantly reduces cardiovascular risk.

Though for somepeople cholesterol may go up on a low-carb diet higher in fat, research shows that when you look at the actual subdivisions of cholesterol, the better, less athrogenic fractions improve and the more athrogenic fractions decrease. For example, even within LDL ("bad" cholesterol) there are different types: LDLa and LDLb. The LDLb is the bad stuff, and this tends to diminish even if the overall LDL goes up a bit.

A low-carb diet can even reduce inflammation. Many patients will report reduced joint pain while following a low-carb diet. High insulin levels are correlated with inflammation markers. Since the insulin output is lower with low-carb diets, it makes sense that inflammation would decrease.

Though there have only been a couple of studies on this, the ones that have been done are very promising and do in fact show reduced inflammation. Anecdotally, many people on low-carb diets who have arthritis or joint pain report a decrease in symptoms. Another cardiovascular risk marker, Hs-CRP, goes down very quickly when a low-carb diet is followed.

Another advantage: improved glycemia and insulin levels. Blood sugar management is probably one of the biggest benefits of low-carb diets. About 68% of American are pre-diabetic. Insulin is the hormone of aging and inflammation. Managing insulin is one of the best ways to promote health and longevity.

Then there are the positive effects on blood pressure. Because low-carb diets reduce inflammation, improved blood pressure is a direct benefit of low-carb dieting. Remember, too, that insulin has other functions besides storing fat. One of them is to tell the kidneys to hold onto sodium, so it's no surprise that blood pressure frequently drops on a lower carb diet, sometimes faster than a porn star's panties on the set of a VIVID movie.

Finally, low-carb diets can provide greater energy. Now, before all the armchair experts lash out and rush out to burn Canadian embassies, hear me out. Greater energy is indeed a very common report of low-carb dieters.

Psychometric tests always report greater well being of the patient after this dietary approach. It probably has more to do with the better management of one's glycemia. As Robert Crayhon says, if you want more energy, take care of your mitochondria. Lower insulin levels help with mitochondria's energy producing capacities.

T-Nation: That's a pretty convincing list, Charles. Any disadvantages?

Charles Poliquin: Sure. Low-carb nutrition tends to be bland. However, there are plenty of resources (such as books like Living the Low-carb Life by Jonny Bowden) that provide you with a wealth of cooking tips.

Food prep time is greater too. Since the meat content is greater, more time is needed to prepare the food. As simple as cooking a steak is, it takes more time than making a sandwich. But again, there are solutions.

Constipation is often an issue too with low-carb dieters. That can be off-set by taking in a mixture of ground flax seed hulls and ground fenugreek seeds first thing in the morning. Besides providing the body with many forms of fibers, it detoxifies xenoestrogens and improves insulin sensitivity.

Finally, there's a possibility of developing certain nutrient deficiencies. Because one abstains from certain foods, I recommend to all my patients to take a quality broad nutrient multi-vitamin supplement. This goes along with a varied plan of antioxidants that changes every eight days. I basically change the nature of multi-antioxidant products. To make it simple, I change the color of the anti-oxidants.

For example, the first product may have five or six different flavonoids like limonene (so the base color is yellow); the next eight days we switch to purple so we use a formula that has grape seed extract, bilberry, etc.

T-Nation: Interesting stuff. Cassandra, what advantages and disadvantages do you see?

Cassandra Forsythe: As Charles mentioned, the primary advantage of the low-carb approach is that you improve insulin regulation. By having more stable insulin levels, you protect your body from developing insulin resistance. This protection occurs because you eliminate constant insulin stimulation in response to frequent carb consumption. By controlling insulin, you create a hormonal environment that favors fat oxidation, which has important implications for health, body composition, and athletic performance.

First, from a health perspective, when there are fewer swings in insulin, your body is better at processing fat, which reduces your risk factors for developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes. For heart disease reduction, controlling insulin helps shift the concentrations of fat-carrying lipoproteins in your blood to more beneficial lipoproteins (HDL) and less harmful ones (LDL). All of the research to-date investigating low-carb approaches have shown that even without weight loss, concentrations of HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol carriers) are increased, while concentrations of triglycerides (the harmful fat carriers) are decreased.

With respect to diabetes, a low-carb approach is shown to reduce fasting glucose, increase insulin sensitivity, reduce hemoglobin A1c (a long-term marker of diabetes) andimprove kidney function (seen by doctors who measure urine micro albumin levels. Surprise, surprise!)

Second, from a body composition perspective, the answer is clear: more fat oxidation will eventually lead to less total body fat! Third, from a performance perspective, both intramuscular triglyceride (fat stored in the muscle) and adipose fatty acids can be used as an energy source to support activity. But, they're only used sparingly when carb intake is high.

As someone adjusts to a low-carb nutrition approach, they increase the activity of enzymes that allow fat to be brought into the mitochondria of muscle cells so it can be broken down for energy. For athletic people (and even non-athletic people), this means that fat plays a more important role than normal, and performance activity is sustained.

T-Nation: And the disadvantages?

Cassandra Forsythe: It's hard for me to speculate the negative aspects of eating low-carb because there just so many positive benefits of adopting this type of nutritional pattern!

I think when people hear "low-carb" they automatically envision eating tubs of lard and plates of scrambled eggs. To the contrary, "low-carb" really means "controlled smart-carb." It means that our habitual comfort foods like pasta, cookies, muffins, bagels, cereals, and sweets must be avoided, which may be considered a disadvantage for some people.

Since we just talked about foods contained in a low-carb diet, I won't reiterate. Instead, I'll have to say that one of the main disadvantages of a low-carb nutrition approach is that until you really understand what "low-carb" means (basically that there's a lot of variations to low-carb and you can choose the one that suits your needs), you'll be skeptical of trying it. You'll believe all the negative comments made about this type of eating style and you'll have a hard time changing your negative misconceptions towards both fat and protein.

If only that dinner of marshmallows and Cheez-Its didn't taste so good, we might all be able to kick the idea that high-carb diets are healthy!

T-Nation: Okay, Cassandra makes me want to go low-carb year 'round! Joel, I think you have a different perspective though.

Joel Marion: With regards to advantages and disadvantages, the former are few and the latter many in my opinion. While very low-carb diets may have their place for very short periods of time, they aren't a solid long-term approach or even an ideal way to lose fat. Yeah, you'll see the scale shoot down rather quickly, but what's really happening? A lot of water and glycogen loss, some lean tissue loss, and very little fat loss.

For instance, you may have someone experience a 12 pound loss on the scale over a two and a half week period of very low-carb dieting, which is at least initially pretty impressive. But then consider that 7.5 pounds of that was water, one pound glycogen, another two pounds muscle, and the remaining 1.5 pounds fat. Only 13% of the weight lost was fat. Not exactly impressive.

Very low-carb dieting is quite good at giving individuals a false sense of results, especially early on in the diet, which is where the problem starts. They experience initially enticing results which causes them to want to continue on with a very mediocre approach to dieting.

False sense of results aside, there are other, bigger issues, a major one being the effect of low-carb dieting on leptin, a hormone in which circulating levels are highly associated with that of insulin. Leptin is a regulatory hormone that communicates with the hypothalamus and basically gives the body the "yea" or "nay" to utilize adipose tissue for energy. Under normal conditions, leptin is abundant and binds freely to its associated receptors. The receptors then send a message to the brain to assure it that things are in good shape.

Now, when dieting (especially with diets in which insulin levels are chronically low, i.e. very low-carb diets), leptin levels are low and consequently there isn't as much binding occurring. The receptors recognize this and inform the brain as to what's going on. From there, the brain begins to send out various regulatory signals to the rest of the body, causing a decrease in thyroid output and metabolic rate and an increase in the catabolic hormone cortisol, along with appetite.

Very low-carb diets (again, diets in which circulating insulin is low day in and day out) end up exacerbating all the metabolic adaptations that occur when restricting calories by further screwing with leptin levels. In the end, very low-carb diets are no more effective from a fat loss standpoint than their higher carb counterparts. This has been shown time and time again in the research.

That brings me to the last point I'll make here, and perhaps the biggest strike against the low-carb diet: the approach's extreme impracticality. In order to adhere to such a regimen, individuals must fight — on a daily basis — not only the general cravings associated with calorie restriction, but also intense carbohydrate cravings for foods that they should be allowed to eat.

To say that dieters aren't permitted to enjoy foods such as pasta, various potatoes, whole grains, many fruits and vegetables, legumes, etc., is both impractical and unnecessary. Practicality comes down to sacrifice (investment) vs. results (return), and unfortunately the low-carb diet is unable to produce the necessary results in order to counterbalance the immense sacrifice required. I could see if results were extreme, then to some it'd be worth it; however, results really are average at best, and better than average results are achievable with approaches that require much less sacrifice.

All that said, I do use the approach with clients, but only for very short durations. And by very short durations, I mean one or two day spurts at strategic points during a diet. Actually, that's not entirely true. I'll start most diets off with a week of very low-carb dieting because at that point I actually want to cause a quick crash in metabolism and hormone levels and there's no better way to do that than a very low-carb diet.

T-Nation: Okay, when most people throw the term low-carb around, they're usually in a fat loss phase. Seldom do you hear a low-carb approach discussed when someone is placing their primary focus on hypertrophy and strength. What are your thoughts on a long term, low-carb approach for a weight trainer whose primary objective is muscle gain and/or maximal strength development?

Dave Barr: To reiterate, there's no substitute for bulking and cutting cycles. Everyone wants to add muscle and lose fat simultaneously, without giving any thought to how our bodies work. It just doesn't make sense for the body to expend energy producing a tissue that's going to expend even more energy (i.e. muscle), while our actual energy intake is reduced. This contradicts every survival mechanism we have.

Having said that, I believe that we can slightly override this survival mechanism by keeping our carbs low. This will help us add muscle with a reduced chance of adding body fat.

As far as the best method for strictly adding muscle, I have a strong preference for a "see food" diet. Unless you're fat phobic or a FFB, there's not a great reason to limit yourself with regard to any nutrient when bulking.

Bottom Line: For people who add body fat easily, low carb diets are great. Otherwise, it's best not to limit yourself.

Dan John: This is where you start getting into even more trouble. Are we talking simply low-carb, or The Zone, or Paleo? Once I moved into the direction of Paleodiets, I found that a bunch of other good things began to happen.

I read back in 1979 that 95% of Americans either had trouble with wheat or milk. I mentioned this to a "diet major" at Utah State and she said, "That's stupid; they even have wheat in milk shakes." I thought to myself, "What an odd argument. If something makes you sick, shouldn't you avoid it?"

So, if Dave is right and we need bulking cycles, but we bulk up with foods that are holding us back, then... I don't know here. I've rarely found that simply adding weight had much to do with performance. In fact, I find it has never made me throw farther or lift more (save the squat). So, if you're a lean, mean, fighting machine and improving performance on a low carb diet, why go off it to bulk up?

This is one of those questions that seems simple, but there are lots of people trying to figure it out. In performance sports, where you have a distance or weight or whatever, it's hard to unpack one factor, even one as important as eating, and figure out if it hurt or helped. So, it's exactly what I said about the "One Lift a Day" Program: it worked so well I stopped doing it.

If low-carbing makes you feel better, look better, and perform better, well then, drop it by all means and start eating as much wheat as you can stuff in your mouth! Or don't.

Charles Poliquin: Long term, the goal should be to improve insulin sensitivity so that you can eat more carbs without disrupting glycemia, lipid profiles, blood pressure, etc.

Insulin is the only hormone we have control over. By opposition, endogenous production of reproductive hormones is much more challenging, yet when controlled it can shred up a physique and pack on lean tissue.

My male clients will attest to this: it's rather simple (I did not say "easy") to stay at 6% body fat or less when you manage your insulin wisely. Again, it has to do with the genotype of the individual, but I strongly believe that after six months of a great diet and supplement program, carb intake can be increased progressively without any negative impact on health markers. The key is to choose your carbs wisely.

Most of the world population is carb intolerant. Only 25% of the population is carb sensitive. The most important type of carbs to eliminate for carb intolerant individuals are grains, particularly the ones containing gliadin. Our clients who are carb intolerant lose impressive amounts of body fat by adhering to a gluten-free diet. That means eliminating all wheat containing products, even soy sauce.

T-Nation: Cassandra, what are your thoughts on low-carbing when pursuing muscle gains?

Cassandra Forsythe: Hypertrophy and strength aren't hindered when carbohydrate intake is limited. That's a common thought, but is just not true, nor holds any substantial evidence. Hypertrophy and strength gains are staled when your energy intake is too low. You can eat a LCD and still excel in the weightroom just as long as you're eating enough food.

Like we said, people often use a low-carb approach to lose weight. This means that while they follow this eating pattern, they also restrict calories. When you don't eat enough food to support your normal daily activities, let alone weight training (as is often done in most weight loss diets), you obviously jeopardize muscle growth and function no matter what the macronutrient composition may be. Therefore, eating low-carb isn't a limiting factor for hypertrophy and strength.

Interestingly, as Dr. Lowery has pointed out several times in his explorations of protein, a higher than normal protein intake helps protect muscle tissue when energy balance is compromised (i.e. during heavy training weeks). So, it makes sense that a LCD providing enough energy to promote weight training and athletic goals is preferable over a low-fat, low-protein diet normally promoted as the ultimate diet that all athletes should follow.

Joel Marion: Again, the answer to this question is going to depend on exactly how you're defining "low-carb." You'll have some strength coaches touting the results they get with clients using a low-carb approach and then come to find out their clients are actually consuming quite a bit of carbs but only within the "post-workout window." The approach being used here is one of nutrient timing, not low-carb nutrition.

But assuming that we're all finally on the same page talking about the same thing here (very low-carb, ala Atkins), I'll address the question. Is low-carb dieting an optimal nutritional approach for gaining muscle mass? Not even close. The reason you don't hear many people touting "low-carb" as the dieting approach best suited for gaining muscle is the same reason you don't see anyone in the know recommending sets of 8-12 to increase max strength — it ain't gonna work.

Insulin is key to initiating an anabolic response to resistance training; this has been shown time and time again in workout nutrition research and anecdotally with individuals who've appropriately implemented a workout beverage such as Surge. The carbohydrate (CHO) only group does better than the water group, and the EAA (essential amino acids) + CHO group does even better. We've all seen the nifty graphs.

And while a fair amount of protein synthesis will occur with an EAA-only administration (no carbs), EAA + CHO still wins the prize. Point being, better results are always going to be obtained when inviting our friends carbohydrate and insulin to this potentially very anabolic party — the workout nutrition window.

And why would you not include carbs? Are you afraid about fat gain as a result of their ingestion during this time? If so, you're worrying about a non-issue. Insulin sensitivity is peaked and muscle tissue is hungry for carbohydrate during and after a resistance training session. Unless your training stimulus is inadequate (i.e. you just did a half-assed workout and are trying to get away with a truckload of carbs after) or you're going way overboard with the carbs and calories during this time, the probability of things spilling over to fat storage isn't very high.

And this increased insulin sensitivity doesn't all of a sudden terminate immediately following the uptake of the nutrients in your post-workout shake. We're talking a couple of hours here, so you have time for a couple of carb-containing meals in addition to your workout beverages.

Skipping out on the carbs around a resistance training session for fear of fat gain is just plain stupid. You have nothing to lose by including them, and much to gain. When nutrient timing is properly implemented, this whole carb intolerance thing is extremely overblown.

Stay tuned for Part II
Steve

The Modern Nutritional Diseases: and how to prevent them

2006-07-06T16:03:00.000+10:00

I have just purchased "The Modern Nutritional Diseases: And How to Prevent Them : Heart Disease, Stroke, Type-2 Diabetes, Obesity, Cancer" from Amazon. Once I've read it, I'll give a review here at against the Grain. Stay tuned....

Meanwhile, here is an Editorial review from an Amazon user:

Millions of people have been using the low-fat, low-cholesterol, high-carbohydrate diet that has been promoted for the last half-century in the mass media for prevention of heart disease and stroke. During this same period, the numbers of new cases of heart disease and stroke have not decreased as promised but increased, and type-2 diabetes and obesity, which were uncommon 50 years ago, have grown to become major epidemics.
In this book, heart disease, stroke, type-2 diabetes, obesity, and cancer are termed the modern nutritional diseases because scientific studies and biochemical facts clearly point to the modern American heart-healty diet as a major underlying cause of these diseases. This book describes the changes that have taken place in the American diet over the last 100 years and explains how these changes were accelerated after 1930 by advances in food technology. The book presents biochemical and other scientific evidence to show how these changes are implicated not only in the modern nutritional diseases but also in other growing disease problems such as Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, senile dementia, and depression.

This book shows how micro- and macronutrients relate to health and disease prevention. It also shows how faulty science has influenced national health policies and explains how the reader can sort truth from fiction. The final chapter outlines simple dietary and lifestyle changes that can significantly reduce the risk of the modern nutritional diseases and, at the same time, improve one's health and sense of well-being.

About the Authors
The authors are both public health scientists who, prior to retirement, had worked for many years investigating and preventing diseases in population groups. Over these years, they learned that diseases do not "just happen." Every disease has a cause and, once the cause is known, prevention is often a very reasonable and proper step.

M. Alice Ottoboni earned a BA in chemistry from the University of Texas, Austin, and a PhD in comparative biochemistry from the University of California, Davis. Her professional carreer focused on nutritional biochemistry and the toxicity of food contaminants and additives. She is the author of an earlier book, "The Dose Makes the Poison," a plain language guide to toxicology for lay people.

Fred Ottoboni earned a BS in chemical engineering from Stanford University and a Masters Degree in Public Health and a PhD in Environmental Health Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley. His primary professional interest was the prevention of diseases caused by toxic materials and harmful physical agents in the work environment. He is the author of a previous book, "Korea Between the Wars: A Soldier's Story," which describes his experiences as a soldier during the American occupation of South Korea in the period immediately after World War Two.

Steve

Recuperation from Surgery

2006-07-06T12:00:00.000+10:00

A fellow member of the emPower forums had this question to ask. I am curious to hear of case studies, personal experiences of people on a LC diet while recovering from surgery. As you can imagine, asking doctors/surgeons who have never LC'd may not be as informative as I would like.

I can imagine.

Whilst I have not had any personal experience recovering from surgery while on low carb, another member posted up some quotes from a couple of websites.

From the "go ask Alice" website, (a Q&A site hosted on the Columbia U server) came this response: Obtaining adequate calories and protein is vital. Protein is extremely important for recuperation because it's:

- required to form antibodies to fight infections
- vital for synthesizing collagen, which is necessary for scar formation
- utilized to rebuild damaged tissue
- the backbone for repair and maintenance of many crucial tissues in the body

In addition, plasma proteins, formed from dietary proteins, maintain fluid and electrolyte balance.

Other important nutrients specific to wound healing include:
Nutrient Good Sources
vitamin C citrus fruits, cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, dark green vegetables, cantaloupe, strawberries, peppers, lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, papayas, mangoes
zinc meat, fish, poultry, beans

Anyone with post-surgery complications or depleted nutrition stores needs more calories and protein than s/he did before the procedure, regardless of his or her weight. A higher caloric intake also increases the need for B-vitamins. Supplements usually are not necessary since these nutrients are found in a wide array of foods.

So apart from potatoes and some of the fruit, this seems to be quite low carb.

Also from the "the healthier life" website: Dr Spreen tells me that branched chain amino acids (BCAAs) are apparently the easiest form of protein for the body to use for repair, and that's why this nutrient is popular with many body builders. "BCAAs are readily available for incorporating into new proteins, both stuctural and enzymatic (and the enzymatic side may be even more important than the structural repair, if you can rank such things)."

The three BCAAs (leucine, valine, and isoleucine) are essential amino acids, which are also precursors of glutamine. Without BCCAs in our diets, we literally couldn't live.

About BCCAs, Dr Spreen says, "I've always felt that anything that makes it easier for the body to 'do its thing' is immunologically beneficial. If it has easy access to energy, readily available components for fixing whatever's damaged, and ways to move the body's biochemical processes around without having to worry about 'rationing' what's available, that HAS to make it easier to go out and eat invading organisms and fix whatever's broken."

BCAAs are available in supplement form, but are easily obtained from meat, whey protein, egg protein and other dairy products.

If you do a search on Mercola's website, (I refuse to link to that crackpot!) included in the top 10 responses to "surgery recovery" is an article titled "Optimism influences recovery from surgery" (top of the list!) and another article (number 6 on the list) titled "Prayer may speed recovery".

All that I can really say on the subject is that while I have been following the Paleolithic nutrition plan (to the best of my ability) I have never felt better or healthier. Colds are wiped out before they can establish themselves, minor injuries heal faster, I have more energy and skin problems (dryness, pimples - that sort of thing) clear up very quickly.

Steve

90# phone scam / pseudo virus

2006-07-06T01:01:00.000+10:00

Today, I recieved this e-mail from a mate. As I am in the Telecommunications Industry he asked me whether it was legit or not. Here's the e-mail:

Subject: Confirmed by Telstra and Police Dept - Australia

Please pass on. This has been confirmed by Telstra

DO NOT push 90# on your home phone

I got a call last night from an individual identifying himself as an AT&T Service technician who was conducting a test on our telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test I should touch nine(9), zero(0), hash(#) and then hang up.

Luckily, I was suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone company, I was informed that by pushing 90#, you give the requesting individual full access to your telephone line, which allows them to place long distance telephone calls billed to your home phone number.

I was further informed that this scam has been originating from many of the local gaols/prisons. DO NOT press 90# for ANYONE. PLEASE pass this on to your friends.

If you have mailing lists and/or newsletters from organisations you are connected with, I encourage you to pass this on.

Stephen COOPER
Detective Senior Constable 29748
Victoria Police State Crime Squads
Level 12, 412 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne
*(03) 986n nnnn or 0414 nnn nnn
e-mail address deleted

* I have replaced the phone numbers with "n"'s because the numbers are actually for Detective Senior Constable Stephen Cooper. (His phone is now on voicemail)

Point 1: AT&T do not have a presence in Australia
Point 2: I have recieved this e-mail at least twice per year since 1998 or so.
Point 3: All that this e-mail represents is the most benign form of a "virus". My mate had it, now I've got it - again!

Check the snopes website. They're world famous for proving or disproving urban legends (which this is).

AT&T have their own page dedicated to this scam.

Here is an article from The Age newspaper in Melbourne about it. The title says it all: "Well-used email hoax back in circulation". The article is dated July 1, 2003 !

Needless to say, I returned the e-mail to my mate and told him to just delete it.

Steve

State of Origin - Game 3

2006-07-05T23:12:00.000+10:00

Woohoo! Queensland have done it! - finally.....

The Maroons ended up kicking butt tonight after some especially dubious descisions from the ref at the start of the second half. The final score was 16 - 14.

I'm glad the lads finally pulled it off. It's been too long.

Steve

16,500 calories in store for Nathan’s hot dog champ

2006-07-05T02:43:00.000+10:00

More than 16,500 calories and 1,000 grams of fat will be consumed on July 4 by any competitive eater in the 2006 Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest in New York who matches the current world record, according to an analysis by CalorieLab.

CalorieLab has created a Nutrition Facts label showing the nutrient value of Takeru “The Tsunami” Kobayashi’s 2004 world record of 53.5 Nathan’s Famous hot dogs, eaten in 12 minutes.

Susan McQuillan, author of "Breaking the bonds of Food addiction" and "Low-Calorie dieting for Dummies", a New York registered dietitian, recently took her daughter to Coney Island and bought her a Nathan’s Famous hot dog for lunch. Ms McQuillan thinks an occasional fast food treat is fine and has even been known to treat herself to some “sliders” from White Castle.

But Ms. McQuillan cannot recommend that the non-competitive eater try the meal that the Nathan’s competitors will be eating this Independence Day. “In twelve minutes, they will consume a week’s worth of calories, 5 times the recommended daily limit for cholesterol, 17 times the daily limit for total fat, 21 times the limit for saturated fat, and more than 2 weeks worth of sodium.”

But there is some good news: “At 69 grams, it’s a super high-fiber meal!” say Ms. McQuillan.

Using the nutritional data disclosed by Nathan’s Famous for their fast food menu items, CalorieLab determined the nutrient value for 53-1/2 hot dogs and computed the percentage of U.S. government recommended Daily Values represented by each nutrient.

According to CalorieLab, “The only fast food meal that exceeds Mr. Kobayashi’s 2004 record that we are aware of is the ‘100-by-100′ hamburger from West Coast chain In-n-Out Burger, which according to our calculations contains 19,300 calories and 1,409 grams of fat.”

The In-n-Out Burger 100-by-100, which contains a hundred beef patties and a hundred slices of cheese, is part of In-n-Out Burger’s “Secret Menu.” According to fast food lore, it has only been occasionally ordered as a stunt by college fraternity members. No single individual has been officially documented to have actually consumed an entire 100-by-100.

The World’s Unhealthiest Burger?

2006-07-05T01:26:00.000+10:00

This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen as a Paleolithic disciple!

I have liberated this with permission from Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low-Carb blog. After reading his post I just HAD to paste it here and comment as well.

With food insanity like a 19-pound cheeseburger entering the ever-changing world of Americana, you knew something like this CBS story was going to happen sooner or later.

A bacon cheeseburger without any bread is an excellent way to enjoy a quick meal on the go or when you are taking in a fun-filled minor league baseball game. But for fans of the Sauget, Illinois-based Gateway Grizzlies baseball team, the concession stand has taken this perfect low-carb meal and ruined it with the worst possible food you could eat on low-carb.

That's right, they put that perfectly good hamburger with cheese and bacon between two high-sugar, carb-loaded piping hot Krispy Kreme doughnuts! EWWWW! The author of the column describes this as "a heart attack waiting to happen," although if you remove the doughnut it would be perfectly fine.

If you are stupi..er, um, I mean, willing to put your health at risk to eat one of these gimmicky burgers, then be prepared to shell out $4.50 for one of these bad boys containing nearly 1,000 calories.

Do you want to know what is most pathetic about this donut bacon cheeseburger hoopla? Jeff O'Neill, a spokesman for the ballclub, said doing reckless marketing promotions like this is what they have to do to make money for the team.

“With minor league baseball we have to work extremely hard to get fans to come out here,” he said.

How about some quality baseball, Mr. O'Neill? Or a free T-shirt night? And you might even try any number of other interesting and innovative ways to drum up fan support. But making a bacon cheeseburger with two donuts as the bun?! That's borderline irreponsible in a county where two out of every three Americans are already overweight or obese because they are eating unhealthy!

Now I'm not suggesting you offer baseball fans salads or anything, but a normal cheeseburger, corn dog, popcorn and the rest of the typical fare you can get from a concession stand at the ballpark is bad enough for fans to eat. Why tempt people even more with such garbage?! This sorta reminds me of the whole deep-fried candy bar craze that has hit the past few years. YUCKY-POO!

Yucky-Poo! indeed Jimmy. Literally! I can't imagine anything more revolting (in taste and nutrition) than one of these burgers. The KK doughnuts have to die. Let's face it, it's us or them.

There is an interesting video here to watch. Try to use a bucket when you watch these people eat this abomination....

Milestone for Jimmy Moore and Livin' La Vida Low-Carb

2006-07-05T00:01:00.000+10:00

A big WELL DONE !!!! to Jimmy Moore at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb. He's reached the mammoth (sic) total of 1000 posts and is still going strong.

Keep up the good work and keep inspiring us. Your blog is a great read and I can only hope that my blog will get to 1000 one day.

Well done mate, you have obviously put in a huge amount of time and effort in creating and updating Livin' La Vida Low-Carb and I for one appreciate it. It's a great resource for low-carbers, no matter what plan they're on. Your site has also been the inspiration for a couple of articles here at Against the grain.
post 38

A lighthearted break

2006-07-04T05:09:00.000+10:00

After a couple of heavy(ish) articles, I thought I'd lighten up a little. Enjoy.

Role reversal

The caveman blogger

"Happy Valenti......."

Letter on corpulence to the public

2006-07-04T03:31:00.000+10:00

This is a copy of the now famous "Letter on corpulence to the public" by William Banting. It is the forth edition and was written in May of 1864 and is regarded by many as the start of the low-carb "movement".

It is to be noted that Banting was not a doctor, nor a nutritionist. He was a London undertaker who made the Duke of Wellington's coffin.

He was a prosperous, intelligent man, but terribly fat. In August, 1862, he was 66 years old and weighed 202 lb. He stood only 5 feet 5 inches in his socks. No pictures of him are available to-day, but he must have been nearly spherical.

He was so over-weight that he had to walk downstairs backwards to avoid jarring his knees and he was quite unable to do up his own shoe-laces. His obesity made him acutely miserable.

For many years he passed from one doctor to another in a vain attempt to get his weight off. Many of the doctors he saw were both eminent and sincere. They took his money but they failed to make him thinner.

He tried every kind of remedy for obesity: Turkish baths, violent exercise, spa treatment, drastic dieting; purgation; all to no purpose. Not only did he not lose weight, many of the treatments made him gain.

At length, because he thought he was going deaf, he went to an ear, nose and throat surgeon called William Harvey (no relation to the Harvey who discovered the circulation of the blood). This remarkable man saw at once that Banting's real trouble was obesity, not deafness, and put him on an entirely new kind of diet.

By Christmas, 1862, he was down to 184 lb. By the following August he weighed a mere 156 lb.—nearly right for his height and age.

In less than a year he had lost nearly 50 lb. and 12¼ inches off his waist-line. He could put his old suits on over the new ones he had to order from his tailor!

Naturally, Banting was delighted. He would gladly have gone through purgatory to reach his normal weight but, in fact, Mr. Harvey's diet was so liberal and pleasant that Banting fed as well while he was reducing as he had ever done before.

What was the diet which performed this miraculous reduction? We have Banting's own word for it, in his little book Letter on Corpulence addressed to the public, published in 1864.

++++++++++++++++++++

The Letter

Of all the parasites that affect humanity I do not know of, nor can I imagine, any more distressing than that of Obesity, and, having emerged from a very long probation in this affliction, I am desirous of circulating my humble knowledge and experience for the benefit of other sufferers, with an earnest hope that it may lead to the same comfort and happiness I now feel under the extraordinary change,—which might almost be termed miraculous had it not been accomplished by the most simple common-sense means.

Obesity seems to me to have been very little understood or properly appreciated by the faculty and the public generally, or the former would long ere this have hit upon the cause for so lamentable a disease, and applied effective remedies, whilst the latter would have spared their injudicious indulgence, in remarks and sneers, frequently painful in society, and which, even on the strongest mind, have an unhappy effect; but I sincerely trust this final humble effort at expo¬sition may lead to a still more perfect ventilation of the subject and a better feeling for the afflicted.

I had only my personal experience to offer as the stepping-stone to public investigation, and to proceed with my narrative of facts, earnestly hoping that the reader would patiently peruse and thoughtfully consider it, with forbearance for any fault of style or diction, and for any seeming presumption in publishing it, which I still entreat for this further edition.

I felt some difficulty in deciding on the proper and best course of action. At one time I thought the Editor of the Lancet would kindly publish a letter from me on the subject, but further reflection led me to doubt whether so insignificant an individual would be noticed without some special introduction. In the April number of the Cornhill Magazine, 1864, I read with much interest an article on the subject—defining tolerably well the effects, but offering no tangible remedy, or even positive solution of the problem —“What is the Cause of Obesity ~“ I was pleased with the article as a whole, but objected to some portions of it, and had prepared a letter to the Editor of that Maga¬zine offering my experience on the subject, but again it struck me that an unknown individual like myself would have but little prospect of notice; so I finally resolved to publish and circulate the Pamphlet, with no other reason, motive, or expectation than an earnest desire to help those who happened to be afflicted as I was, for that corpulence was remediable I was well convinced. The object I had in view impelled me to enter into minute particulars as well as general obser¬vations, and to revert to bygone years, in order to show that I had spared no pains nor expense to accomplish the great end of stopping and curing obesity.

Few men have led a more active life—bodily or mentally—from a constitutional anxiety for regularity, precision, and order, during fifty years’ business career, from which I had retired, so that my corpulence and subsequent obesity were not through neglect of neces¬sary bodily activity, nor from excessive eating, drink¬ing, or self indulgence of any kind, except that I par¬took of the simple aliments of bread, milk, butter, beer, sugar, and potatoes more freely than my age required, and hence, as I believe, the generation of the parasite, detrimental to comfort if not really to health.

I could not presume to descant on the bodily struc¬tural tissues, nor how they are supported and renovated, having no mind or power to enter into those questions, which properly belong to the wise heads of the faculty. None of my family on the side of either parent had any tendency to corpulence, and from my earliest years I had an inexpressible dread of such a calamity, so, when I was between thirty and forty years of age, finding a tendency to it creeping upon me, I consulted an eminent surgeon, now long deceased,—a kind personal friend,—who recommended increased bodily exer¬tion before my ordinary daily labours began, and who thought rowing an excellent plan. I had the command of a good, heavy, safe boat, lived near the river, and adopted it for a couple of hours in the early morning. It is true I gained muscular vigour, but with it a prodigious appetite, which I was compelled to indulge, and consequently increased in weight, until my kind old friend advised me to forsake the exercise.

He soon afterwards died, and, as the tendency to corpulence remained, I consulted other high orthodox authorities (never any inferior adviser), but all in vain. I have tried sea air and bathing in various localities, with much walking exercise; taken gallons of physic and liquor potassæ, advisedly and abundantly; adopted riding on horseback; the waters and climate of. Leam¬ington many times, as well as those of Cheltenham and Harrogate frequently; have lived upon sixpence a-day, so to speak, and earned it, if bodily labour may be so construed; and have spared no trouble nor expense in consultations with the best authorities in the land, giving each and all a fair time for experiment, without any permanent remedy, as the evil still gradually increased.

I am under obligations to most of those advisers for the pains and interest they took in my case; but only to one for an effectual remedy.

When a corpulent man eats, drinks, and sleeps well, has no pain to complain of’ and no particular organic disease, the judgment of able men seems paralyzed,— for I have been generally informed that corpulence is one of the natural results of increasing years; indeed, one of the ablest authorities in the land as a physician told me he had gained 1 lb. in weight every year since he attained manhood, and was not surprised at my con¬dition, but advised more bodily exercise—vapour-baths and shampooing, in addition to the medicine given. Yet the evil still increased, and, like the parasite of barnacles on a ship, if it did not destroy the structure, it obstructed its fair, comfortable progress in the path of life.

I have been in dock, perhaps twenty times in as many years, for the reduction of this disease, and with little good effect—none lasting. Any one so afflicted is often subject to public remark, and though in con¬science he may care little about it, I am confident no man labouring under obesity can be quite insensible to the sneers and remarks of the cruel and injudicious in public assemblies, public vehicles, or the ordinary street traffic; nor to the annoyance of finding no adequate space in a public assembly if he should seek amusement or need refreshment, and therefore he naturally keeps away as much as possible from places where he is likely to be made the object of the taunts and remarks of others. I am as regardless of public remark as most men, but I have felt these difficulties and therefore avoided such circumscribed accommodation and notice, and by that means have been deprived of many advan¬tages to health and comfort.

Although no very great. size or weight, still I could not stoop to tic my shoe, so to speak, nor attend to the little offices humanity requires without considerable pain and difficulty, which only the corpulent can understand; I have been compelled to go down stairs slowly backwards, to save the jar of increased weight upon the ancle and knee joints, and been obliged to puff and blow with every slight exertion, particularly that of going up stairs. I have spared no pains to remedy this by low living (moderation and light food was generally prescribed, but I had no direct bill of fare to know what was really intended), and that, con¬sequently, brought the system into a low impoverished state, without decreasing corpulence, caused many obnoxious boils to appear, and two rather formidable carbuncles, for which I was ably operated upon and fed into increased obesity.

At this juncture (about nine years back) Turkish baths became the fashion, and I was advised to adopt them as a remedy. With the first few I found immense benefit in power and elasticity for walking exercise; so, believing that I had discovered the “philo¬sopher’s stone,” I pursued them three times a-week till I bad taken fifty, then less frequently (as I began to fancy, with some reason, that so many weakened my consti¬tution) till I had taken ninety, but never succeeded in losing more than 6 lbs. weight during the whole course, and I gave up the plan as worthless; though I have full belief in their cleansing properties, and their value in colds, rheumatism, and many other ailments.

I then fancied increasing obesity materially affected a slight umbilical rupture, if it did not cause it, and that another bodily ailment to which I had been subject was also augmented. This led me to other medical advisers, to whom I am also indebted for much kind consideration, though, unfortunately, they failed in relieving me. At last finding my sight failing and my hearing greatly impaired, in August, 1862, I con¬sulted an eminent aural surgeon, who made light of the case, looked into my ears, sponged them internally, and blistered the outside, without, the slightest benefit, neither inquiring into any of my bodily ailments, which he probably thought unnecessary, nor affording me even time to name them.

I was not at all satisfied, but, on the contrary, was in a worse plight than when J went to him; however, he soon after left town for his annual holiday, which proved the greatest possible blessing to me, because it compelled me to seek other assistance, and, happily, I found the right man, who unhesitatingly said he believed my ailments were caused principally by corpulence, and prescribed a certain diet,—no medicine beyond a morning cordial as a corrective,—with immense effect and advantage both to my hearing and the decrease of my corpulency.

For the sake of argument and illustration I will presume that certain articles of ordinary diet, however beneficial in youth, are prejudicial in advanced life, like beans to a horse, whose common ordinary food is hay and corn. It may be useful food occasionally, under peculiar circumstances, but detrimental as a constancy. I will, therefore, adopt the analogy, and call such food human beans. The items from which I was advised to abstain as much as possible were :-

Bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer, and potatoes, which had been the main (and, I thought, innocent) elements of my subsistence, or at all events they had for many years been adopted freely.

These, said my excellent adviser, contain starch and saccharine matter, tending to create fat, and should be avoided altogether. At the first blush it seemed to me that I had little left to live upon, but my kind friend soon showed me there was ample. I was only too happy to give the plan a fair trial, and, within a very few days, found immense benefit from it. It may better elucidate the dietary plan if I describe generally what I have sanction to take, and that man must be an extraordinary person who would desire a better table.

For breakfast, at 9 A.M., I take five to six ounces of either beef mutton, kidneys, broiled fish, bacon, or cold meat of any kind except pork or veal; a large cup of tea or coffee (without milk or sugar), a little biscuit, or one ounce of dry toast; making together six ounces solid, nine liquid.

For dinner, at 2 P.M., Five or six ounces of any fish except salmon, herrings, or eels, any meat except pork or veal, any vegetable except potato, parsnip, beetroot, turnip, or carrot, one ounce of dry toast, fruit out of a pudding not sweetened any kind of poultry or game, and two or three glasses of good claret, sherry, or Madeira— Champagne, port, and beer forbidden; making together ten to twelve ounces solid, and ten liquid.

For tea, at 6 P.M., Two or three ounces of cooked fruit, a rusk or two, and a cup of tea without milk or sugar; making two to four ounces solid, nine liquid.

For supper, at 9.0 P.M. Three or four ounces of meat or fish, similar to dinner, with a glass or two of claret or sherry and water; making four ounces solid and seven liquid.

For nightcap, if required, A tumbler of grog—(gin, whisky, or brandy, without sugar)—or a glass or two of claret or sherry.

This plan leads to an excellent night’s rest, with from six to eight hours’ sound sleep.

With the dry toast or rusk at breakfast and~ tea, I generally take a table spoonful of spirit to soften it, which may prove acceptable to others. Perhaps I do not wholly escape starchy or saccharine matter, but scrupulously avoid those beans, such as milk, sugar, beer, butter, &c., which are known to contain them.

On rising in the morning I did take a table spoonful of a special alkaline corrective cordial, in a wine-glass of water, a grateful draught, as it seemed to carry away all the dregs of acidity left in the stomach after digestion, which, after the first year’s practice I left off gradually, and seldom now use.

Experience has taught me to believe that, these human beans are the most insidious enemies man, with a tendency to corpulence in advanced life, can possess, though eminently friendly to youth. He may very prudently mount guard against such an enemy if he is not a fool to himself, and I fervently hope this truthful unvarnished tale may lead him to make a trial of the plan, which I sincerely recommend to public notice,— not with any ambitious motive, but in sincere good faith, to help my fellow-creatures to acquire the mar¬vellous blessings I obtained within the short period of a few months.

I do not recommend every corpulent man to rush headlong into such a change of diet (certainly not), but to act advisedly and after full consultation with a physician.
My former dietary table was bread and milk for breakfast, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk, sugar, and buttered toast; meat, beer, much bread (of which I was always very fond) and pastry for dinner, the meal of tea similar to that of breakfast, and generally a fruit tart or bread and milk for supper. I had little comfort and far less sound sleep.

It certainly appears to me that my present dietary table is far superior to the former—more luxurious and liberal, independent of its blessed effect—but when it is proved to be more healthful, comparisons are simply ridiculous, and I can hardly imagine that any man, even in sound health, would choose the former, even if it were not an enemy; but, when it is shown to be, as in my case, inimical both to health and comfort, I can hardly conceive there is any man who would not willingly avoid it.

I can conscientiously assert that I never lived so well as under the new plan of dietary, which I should have formerly thought a dangerous extravagant trespass upon health ; I am very much better, bodily and mentally, pleased to believe that I hold the reins of health and comfort in my own hands, and, though at seventy-two years of age, I cannot expect to remain free from some coming natural infirmity that all flesh is heir to, I cannot at the present time complain of any, although six years older than when I wrote my first edition. It is simply miraculous, and I am thank¬ful to Almighty Providence for directing me, through an extraordinary chance, to the care of a man who could work such a change in so short a time.

Oh! that the faculty would look deeper into, and make themselves better acquainted with, the crying evil of obesity—that dreadful tormenting parasite on health and comfort. Their fellow-men might not then descend into premature graves, as I believe many do, from what is termed apoplexy, and certainly would not, during their sojourn on earth, endure so much bodily and consequently mental infirmity.

Corpulence, though giving no actual pain (as it appears to me), must naturally press with undue violence upon the bodily viscera, driving one part upon another, and stopping the free action of all. I am sure it did in my particular case, and the result of my experience is briefly as follows I have not felt better in health than now for the last twenty-six years.

Have suffered no inconvenience whatever in the probational remedy or since.

Am reduced nearly 13 inches in bulk, and 50 lbs. in weight.

Can perform every necessary office for myself.

The umbilical rupture is cured.

My sight and hearing are suprising at my age.

My other bodily ailments have become mere matters of history.

I placed a thank-offering of £50 in the hands of my kind medical adviser for distribution amongst his favourite hospitals, after gladly paying his usual fees, and still remain under obligations for his care and attention, which I can never hope to repay.

I am most thankful to Almighty Providence for mercies received, and determined still to press the case into public notice as a token of gratitude.

I am fully persuaded that thousands of our fellow-men might profit equally by a similar course to mine; but, constitutions not being all alike, a different course of treatment may be advisable for the removal of so tormenting an affliction.

My kind and valued medical adviser is not a doctor for obesity, but stands on the pinnacle of fame in the treatment of another malady, which, as he well knows, is frequently induced by the disease of which I am speaking, and I most sincerely trust my corpulent friends (and there are thousands of corpulent people whom I dare not so rank) may be led into my tramroad.

My diminished girth, in tailor phraseology, was hardly conceivable even by my own friends, or my respected medical adviser, until I put on my former clothing, over what I now wear, which is a thoroughly convincing proof of the remarkable change. These important desiderata have been attained by the most easy and comfortable means, with but little medicine, and almost entirely by a system of diet, which formerly I should have thought dangerously generous. I am told by all who know me that my personal appearance greatly improved, and that I seem to bear the stamp of good health; this may be a matter of opinion or friendly remark, but I can honestly assert that I feel restored in health, “bodily and mentally,” appear to have more muscular power and vigour, eat and drink with a good appetite, and sleep well.

All symptoms of acidity, indigestion, and heartburn (with which I was frequently tormented) have vanished. I have left off using boot-hooks, and other such aids, which were indispensable, but being now able to stoop with ease and freedom, are unnecessary. I have lost the feeling of occasional faintness, and what I think a remarkable blessing and comfort is, that I have been able safely to leave off knee-bandages, which I had worn necessarily for many years, and given up the umbilical truss.

After publishing my Pamphlet, I felt constrained to send a copy of it to my former medical advisers, to ascertain their opinions on the subject. They did not dispute or question the propriety of the system, but either dared not venture its practice upon a man of my age, or thought it too great a sacrifice of personal comfort to be necessary advised or adopted, and none of them appeared to feel the fact of the misery of cor¬pulence. One eminent physician, as I before stated, assured me that increasing weight was a necessary result of advancing years; another equally eminent to whom I had been directed by a very friendly third, who had most kindly but ineffectually failed in a remedy, added to my weight in a few weeks instead of abating the evil. These facts led me to believe the question was not sufficiently observed or even regarded.

The great charm and comfort of the system is, that its affects are palpable within a week of trial, which creates a natural stimulus to persevere for few weeks more, when the fact becomes established beyond question.

I only entreat all persons suffering from corpulence to make a fair trial for just one clear month, as I am well convinced, they will afterwards pursue a course which yields such extraordinary benefit, till entirely and effectually relieved, and be it remembered, by the sacrifice merely of simple, for the advantage of more generous and comforting food. The simple dietary evidently adds fuel to corpulent fire, whereas the superior and liberal seems to extinguish it.

Many are practising the diet after consultation with their own medical advisers; some few have gone to mine, and others are practising upon their own convictions of the advantages detailed in the Pamphlet, though I recommend all to act advisedly, in ease their constitutions should differ from mine.

I am now in that happy comfortable state that I do not hesitate to indulge in any fancy in regard to diet, but watch the consequences, and do not continue any course which adds to weight or bulk and consequent discomfort.

Is not the system suggestive to artists and men of sedentary employment who cannot spare time for exercise, consequently become corpulent, and clog the little muscular action with a superabundance of fat, thus easily avoided?

Pure genuine bread may be the staff of life as it is termed. It is so, particularly in youth, but I feel certain it is more wholesome in advanced life if thoroughly toasted, as I take it. My impression is, that any starchy or saccharine matter tends to the disease of corpulence in advanced life, and whether it be swallowed in a direct form or produced in the stomach by combination, that all things tending to these ele¬ments should be avoided, of course always under sound medical authority.

On a general view of the question, I think it may be conceded that a frame of low stature was hardly intended to bear very heavy weight. Judging from this tabular statement I ought to be lighter than I am; I shall not, however, covet or aim at such a result, nor, on the other hand, feel alarmed if I decrease a little more in weight and bulk.

I am certainly more sensitive to cold since I have lost the superabundant fat, but this is remediable by another garment, far more agreeable and satisfactory. Many of my friends said, as I progressed, “Oh! you have done well so far, but take care you don’t go too far.” I fancy such a circumstance, with such a dietary, very unlikely, if not impossible, and I now say this after six years’ experience ; but feeling that I have nearly attained the right standard of bulk and weight proportional to my stature and age, I should not hesi¬tate to partake of a fattening dietary occasionally, to preserve that happy standard, if necessary; but I shall always keep a careful watch upon myself to discover the effect, and act accordingly, so that, if I choose to spend a day or two with Dives, so to speak, I must not forget to devote the next to Lazarus.

Little do the faculty imagine the misery and bitter¬ness to life through the parasite of corpulence or obesity.

The approach of corpulence is so gradual that, until it is far advanced, persons rarely become objects of attention. Many may have even congratulated them¬selves on their comely appearance, and refrained from seeking advice or a remedy for that which they did not consider an evil, but an evil I can say most truly it is, when in much excess, and, in my opinion, it must arrive at that point, unless obviated by proper means.

Some, I believe, would willingly submit to even a violent remedy, so that an immediate benefit could be produced; this is not the object of the treatment, as it cannot but be dangerous (in my humble opinion) to reduce a disease of this nature suddenly; they are probably then too prone to despair of success, and consider it as unalterably connected with their con¬stitution. Many under this feeling doubtless return to their former habits, encouraged so to act by the ill-judged advice of friends who, I am persuaded (from the correspondence I have had on this most interesting subject), become unthinking accomplices in the misery of those whom they regard and esteem.

It has also been remarked that such a dietary as mine was too good and expensive for a poor man, and that I had wholly lost sight of that class; but a very poor corpulent man is not so frequently met with, inasmuch as the poor cannot afford to procure the means for creating fat; but when the tendency does exist in that class, I have no doubt it can be remedied by abstinence from the forbidden articles, and a moderate indulgence in such cheap stimulants as may be recommended by a medical adviser, whom they have ample opportunities of consulting gratuitously.
I have a very strong feeling that gout (another terrible parasite upon humanity) might be greatly relieved, if not cured, by this proper natural dietary, but not without advice.

The word “parasite” has been much commented upon, as inappropriate to any but a living creeping thing (of course I use the word in a figurative sense, as a burden to the flesh), but if fat is not an insidious creeping enemy, I do not know what is. I should have equally applied the word to gout, rheumatism, dropsy, and many other diseases.

One material point I should be glad to impress on my corpulent readers—it is, to get accurately weighed at starting upon the fresh system, and continue to do so weekly or monthly, for the change will be so truly palpable by this course of examination, that it will arm them with perfect confidence in the merit and ultimate success of the plan. I deeply regret not having secured a photographic portrait of my original figure in 1862, to place in juxta-position with one of my present form. It might have amused some, but certainly would have been very convincing to others, and astonishing to all, that such an effect should have been so readily and speedily produced by the simple method of exchanging a meagre for a generous dietary under proper advice.

I shall ever esteem it a great favour if persons relieved and cured, as I have been, will kindly let me know of it; the information will be truly gratifying to my mind. That the system is a great success, I have not a shadow of doubt from the numerous and grateful reports sent to me.

Some doubts have been expressed in regard to the vanishing point of such a descending scale, but it is a remarkable fact that the great and most palpable diminution in weight and bulk occurs within the first forty-eight hours, the descent is then more gradual. My own experience, and that of others, assures me that if medical authority be first consulted as to the com¬plaint, and such slight extraneous aid obtained as medicine can afford, nature will do her duty, and only her duty first, by relieving herself of immediate pressure she will be enabled to move more freely in her own beautiful way; and secondly (the same course being pursued by the patient), to work speedy ameliora¬tion and final cure. The vanishing point is only when the disease is stopped and the parasite annihilated.

In my humble judgment, the dietary is the principal point in the treatment of Corpulence, and it appears to me, moreover, that if properly regulated it becomes in a certain sense a medicine. The system seems to me to attack only the superfluous deposit of fat, and, as my medical friend informs me, purges the blood, rendering it more pure and healthy, strengthens the muscles and bodily viscera, and, I feel quite convinced, sweetens life, if it does not prolong it.

As I find there are more Mr. Harveys than one concerned in the question of the cure for Corpulence, and as I have been much troubled by correspondents on the subject, I am glad of this opportunity to repeat that the medical adviser to whom I am so much in¬debted, is Mr. WILLIAM HARVEY, F.R.C.S., of No. 2, Soho Square, London, W.
I have now finished my task, and trust my humble efforts may prove to be good seed well sown, that will fructify and produce a large harvest of benefit4o my fellow-creatures. I also hope the faculty generally may be led more extensively to ventilate this question of corpulence or obesity, so that instead of a few able practitioners, there may be hundreds distributed in the various parts of the United Kingdom. In such case, I am persuaded that these diseases will be very rare.

WILLIAM BANTING.
Formerly of 27, St. James’s Street, Piccadilly,
Now of No. 4, The Terrace, Kensington

Iratagenic causes; 3rd leading cause of death in US

2006-07-03T15:51:00.000+10:00

Iatrogenesis literally means "brought forth by a healer" (iatros means healer in Greek); as such, it can refer to good or bad effects, but it is almost exclusively used to refer to the causation of a state of ill health or adverse effect or complication caused by or resulting from medical treatment.

This excerpt of a JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article illuminates the failure of the U.S. medical system in providing decent medical care for Americans.

In spite of the rising health care costs that provide the illusion of improving health care, the American people do not enjoy good health, compared with their counterparts in the industrialised nations. Among thirteen countries including Japan, Sweden, France and Canada, the U.S. was ranked 12th, based on the measurement of 16 health indicators such as life expectancy, low-birth-weight averages and infant mortality. In another comparison reported by the World Health Organisation that used a different set of health indicators, the U.S. also fared poorly with a ranking of 15 among 25 industrialised nations.

Although many people attribute poor health to the bad habits of the American public, the article points out that the Americans do not lead an unhealthy lifestyle compared to their counterparts. For example, only 28 percent of the male population in the U.S. smoked, thus making it the third best nation in the category of smoking among the 13 industrialised nations. The U.S. population also achieved a high ranking (5th best) for alcohol consumption. In the category of men aged 50 to 70 years, the U.S. had the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among 13 industrialised nations. Therefore, the perception that the American public’s poor health is a result of their negative health habits is false.

Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans. According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments.

(These include:

• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery.
• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals.
• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals.
• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals.
• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs.

Therefore, America's healthcare system induced deaths, are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer. If you include the Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and other government agencies that promote bad eating habits, the U.S. government is the number one killer of American citizens.

According to the CDC, the 10 leading causes of death in the United States in 2002 were:

*696,447 Heart disease
*557,197 Malignant Neoplasms (i.e. cancer)
*162,555 Cerebrovascular disease (i.e. stroke)
*124,777 Chronic respiratory disease
105,796 Unintentional injury
*73,248 Diabetes mellitus
65,418 Influenza & pneumonia
*58,866 Alzheimer's disease
*40,801 Nephritis (i.e. is inflammation of the kidney)
*33,569 Septicemia (i.e. an immune dysfunction to bacteria in the bloodstream)
(out of a total population of 283,974,000 people in the U.S. at least 1 year old)
* Directly or indirectly associated with the Western diet high in manufactured goods and refined cabohydrates and low in whole foods.

Fizzy Blondes

2006-07-02T16:14:00.000+10:00

Brewers may make beer for women - but they don't pitch it that way.

You can't help thinking Pure Blonde is aimed primarily at female beer drinkers. The give-away to me is the combination of the words "health and lifestyle conscious" and "low-carb diet" in the product hype.

Whether women drinkers are the target or not, it's hardly surprising that our major brewers run for cover when such a suggestion is made. The last Australian beer brand pitched directly at female drinkers - Swan Gold in the late 1980s - was a spectacular marketing flop. The short-lived Bond Breweries empire repackaged an existing mid-strength brand and women ignored it in droves.

When women choose to drink beer it appears they want to do it on an equal footing with males. "Flavour is often not the issue with women," says Lion Nathan's chief brewer, Bill Taylor, and telling them to drink a particular type of beer is clearly a mistake.

Pure Blonde is the latest attempt by Carlton & United Beverages to crack a perceived market niche for a full-strength beer that promises somehow to keep you slimmer. Time will tell whether there is a viable market gap for such a specialised brew.

"The product has already exceeded our expectations several times over," says CUB beverage ambassador Dermot O'Donnell, claiming the brewer has been "caught short" by demand since Pure Blonde was launched. He calls it a "refreshment product" aimed at "young, unisex, health-conscious people who want to look good".

In the United States, O'Donnell says, "the low-carb market has exploded". In particular, Budweiser's Bud Ultra has garnered impressive market share. He says Australia's "one million diabetics" may benefit from the lower sugars levels in the likes of Pure Blonde.

In Belgium, paler beers are often referred to as "blonde", for example Leffe Blonde. Locally, the name now covers a wide range of styles: Belgian white beer (Grand Ridge), wheat-based ale (the St Peters and Bondi), wheat-based lager (Cascade), low-carb lager (Pure) and "continental pale ale" (3 Ravens).

Low-carb beers are hardly new in Australia. We have seen the likes of CUB Diamond Draft, Carlton LJ (low-joule), Hahn Long Brew and Toohey's Maxim. "They've never really taken off," Taylor says. Maxim has been "moderately successful" since it was launched a few years ago, aimed at people who "like to have a beer but are watching their weight".

"You see a lot of women drinking strong beers in Belgian beer cafes," he says. Taste is not the issue - "it's about the whole beer experience" - but calories and carbs still can influence their choice of drink. "Women are often very surprised to learn that beer is no more fattening than wine."

Realbeer review.
Foster's nutrition. (Pure Blonde is 39th on the alphabetical list. Alc% - 4.6, Carb (g) / 100g - 0.9, kj/100ml - 126,Cal/100ml - 30.)
Consumer's comments.

Released October 2004

Cholesterol and Saturated Fats - The Myths Exposed!

2006-07-02T15:21:00.000+10:00

Below is a copy of an e-mailed newsletter from the now (mostly) extinct omnivore site.

For the first time in Australia - world famous cholesterol expert, Dr Uffe Ravnskov!

Widely published research scientist, physician, founder of THINCS, and author of The Cholesterol Myths, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, is coming to Australia and will be giving a public lecture on Saturday, August 5. This is a rare opportunity to hear this world authority speak about the misguided war on cholesterol!

Dr. Ravnskov will explain why there is no evidence to support the claim that high cholesterol or saturated fat causes heart disease.

Evidence will be presented to show that:

- Cholesterol is a molecule involved in many vital processes in the body and that interfering with its natural production can have serious unintended consequences;

- The indiscriminate, aggressive reduction of cholesterol levels is not beneficial and in fact poses numerous health risks - many of which are not fully appreciated by medical practitioners or the public;

- Not only is high cholesterol not a risk factor for heart disease in the elderly, but it is associated with longer and healthier life;

- Many traditional cultures eating high fat diets have been shown to exhibit outstanding health.

Also appearing:

Frank Cooper - author of Cholesterol and the French Paradox.

France is a nation of 62 million people who have been eating foods high in saturated fats and cholesterol for a long time, and yet they enjoy very low levels of heart disease. Frank Cooper will explain how the French eat much more saturated fat and cholesterol than Americans yet have 1/3 the deaths from heart attacks!

Dr. Ravnskov, Frank Cooper and some Australian members of THINCS will answer questions after the presentations.

When: Saturday 5th August 2pm
Where: Guthrie Theatre, UTS, 702 Harris St, Ultimo, Sydney
Cost: $20
Bookings: Call 02 9557 6200 or email info@otacnet.com.au

Bookings are essential!

The ultimate snack food - NOT!!!

2006-07-01T20:14:00.000+10:00

Melbourne scientists have developed the ultimate tasty, healthy snack food to boost the brain, heart and immunity, and reduce inflammation in the body.

Ooooo, I know, it's eggs isn't it? Natures perfect food. I like 'em done any way, but especially fried. Mmmmmm runny yolks, a pinch of salt 'n' pepper. Delicious! Let's keep reading.....

The parmesan cheese cracker topped with organic mashed potato contains a natural appetite suppressant and a natural compound to increase liking for it.

WHAT?!?!?! Parmesan cheese crackers? (57.5% carbs - and none of them good!) topped with mashed potatoes? (17% carbs and none of them good either!) What a crock!

Look at chicken's eggs. Here is a sample of a 60g fried chicken's egg (how I like 'em):
Out of the 60g,
12.6 is fat - 19% of Daily Value
304 mg of cholesterol - 101% of Daily Value
88mg of sodium - 4% of Daily Value
0.3g of Carbohydrate - 0% of Daily Value
9.6 g of protein - (Daily values depend on age, sex and body composition etc.)

Its creator, Dr Russell Keast from Deakin University, said the palm-sized snack might not be natural Duh! but it conformed to three lasting consumer trends: healthy food that is convenient and organic.

"This snack has natural additives ... to improve brain and heart function, boost male virility and improve immunity," Dr Keast said.

Primarily it's a vehicle for these health compounds but it must also be flavoursome, he said.

*********************
How about we all e-mail Dr. Keast and let him know how "healthy, convenient and organic this creation really is?

1. Healthy? Personally, I don't believe this is healthy at all. And if you are reading this, chances are, you don't believe so either. Crackers and potatoes? I guess to make it even more healthy, we could melt some chocolate over it?

2. Convenient? I think not. Peeling, boiling then mashing potatoes. Wasn't that punishment in the armed forces way back when? It's a lot more convenient to boil, or even fry, an egg.

3. Organic? Cheese crackers are organic? Okaaaaaaaaayyyyy.........

Now here's a healthy, convenient, organic snack...

Women slimmer than they think?

2006-07-01T19:40:00.000+10:00

In a classic case of society deceiving itself, Australian women are actually slimmer than they think they are but men commonly overstate their muscular bulk.

This is the conclusion drawn by psychologists at Deakin University who spent the past four years studying how men and women feel about their bodies.

Using computer images of distorted body parts, 100 women and 80 men of all shapes were asked to adjust the silhouettes to match their own.

Deakin's head of psychology, Marita McCabe, said women felt they were larger than their actual size while men over-estimated their muscle mass.

Participants also were asked to adjust the body images to an ideal size, with men choosing a female body shape larger than the "perfect" figures depicted in the media.

Mupersan..........

2006-06-30T19:30:00.000+10:00

What do Malkolm Alburquenque, Kirk Alyn, Dean Cain, Stephan Bender, Gerard Christopher, Bud Collyer, Timothy Daly, Danny Dark, Tim Dutton, Jeff East, Paul Hasenyager, Bob Hastings, Ralph Hodges, Emmanuel Jacomy, Yuri Lowenthal, Jason Marsden, George Newbern, John Newton, Michael O'Hearn, Sam Parker, Christopher Reeve, George Reeves, Johnny Rockwell, Brandon Routh, Aaron Smolinski, Beau Weaver, Blayne Weaver, Tom Welling, Chris Wilson and David Wilson have in common? That's right they have all played Clark Kent\Superman.

I've been a huge fan ever since I was a boy and I'm really looking forward to the new movie coming out; Superman Returns.

The press seem to be trying to create some controversy though. Have a read of this article from the Melbourne age .....

Up in the sky, it was a superhero straying to fey. Studio bosses hope director Bryan Singer has stopped the rot in the latest outing.

WHEN the first big-screen Superman, Kirk Alyn, hit the mean streets of Metropolis in 1948's Superman, a man in a uniform still got respect; even if the uniform comprised a red cape, a tight blue body suit, calf-high red boots and a pair of Jantzen-style swim trunks with faux belt.

Despite Superman Mark I's showy get-up back in 1948, no one drew on its silliness to speculate about the Man of Steel's sexuality or even workday fashion sense. The obvious rhetorical question was, "What was he thinking when he put that outfit together?" The Cold War was on and Superman fought for "truth, justice and the American way". The fact that he could fly made people think, in the iconography of the day, more of Pan Am than Peter Pan; more of steel-bodied jet than boy who wouldn't grow up."

But then all the gay stuff started cropping up on the internet and then ... The LA Times ran a long piece," says Bryan Singer, the man behind Superman's latest and most expensive big-screen outing. "I actually think Superman is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made. I suspect the reaction is more a judgement about me and some of the themes I pursued in X-Men, and Superman is an innocent bystander."

What Singer is talking about is that, on the eve of the release of Superman Returns, Singer's $US260 million ($A355 million) relaunch of the clean-cut crime fighter and mildmannered reporter, there's a very 21st-century media frenzy playing out. It boils down to this.

Doesn't Superman seem a little, well, gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say, but in both his incarnations, crime fighter and reporter, he also seems a bit closeted. The Las Vegas chorus-boy clothes, the lame excuses about why he couldn't ever marry, the Jimmy Olsen thing (whatever that was). It's hardly an unusual area of speculation in Hollywood, although it usually centres on reallife action stars rather than comic book superheroes.

Fearful that the emphasis on the Man of Steel's softer, sensitive side might turn off the legion of hard-core fans who want to see Lex Luthor brought low, the Superman PR machine has been in overdrive to straighten out his image before the film's debut."

When I made the first two X-Men movies," Singer says, "I did actually throw in a few metaphors about the mutants facing the same lack of understanding. I had this coming-out scene in X-2 where the mother says to the kid, 'Have you ever thought about not being a mutant?' So I suppose it put the issue in people's minds. But we're trying here to revive the oldest superhero franchise, so I was pretty focused on the Superman-Lois romantic dynamic."

It's partly to do with the fact that Singer resisted studio pressure to go with a well-known actor for his leading man, as Christopher Nolan did in casting Christian Bale for his Gotham City crime fighter in Batman Begins last year.

Instead, Singer opted for an unknown, the very boyish Brandon Routh, 26, and stuck with his choice despite a stand-off with studio honchos. The execs preferred someone better known but would have settled for anyone with a macho swagger. But first the gay news magazine, The Advocate, went with a cover story last month that posed the question: "How Gay Is Superman?" And suddenly it was out there.

The latest pantheon of superheroes and their studio handlers don't make it easy for themselves. The rather theatrical outfits they get around in - the capes, the tights, the stylised bat and and, in Superman's case, the muscular "S" logo and a penchant for garish colours - definitely have a flamboyant quality.

And then there's the fact they're either loners (Daredevil, the Ben Affleck character who brings to mind the 1980s New York subway vigilante, Bernard Goetz) or have close mentoring connections with younger males (Superman's Jimmy Olsen or Batman's Robin).

When the openly gay director, Joel Schumacher, did his second Caped Crusader foray, Batman and Robin (1987), he went all-out on the swish factor: George Clooney, as another celebrity Caped Crusader (following Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer), had prominent nipples and he and Robin, Chris O'Donnell, got around Wayne Manor like a pair of dilettantes. The franchise went into limbo and Singer might be smart to steer clear of celebrity casting.

Superman Returns cost $US260 million. This film is serious business. It would have to do even better than last year's Batman Begins, which made $US370 million worldwide, to be judged a success because Batman Begins cost less.

Before Singer dug a steel trench around his boy, Routh, almost as many names had floated in and out of contention for Superman as later swirled around James Bond.

Brendan Fraser, Josh Lucas, Scott Speedman, Jude Law, and Martin Henderson were among them. Tom Welling, of the Superman TV spinoff Smallville, was also a contender. But the guy the studio wanted was actor Jim Caviezel, Mel Gibson's Jesus Christ in The Passion of the Christ, and there was quite a standoff between studio and director.

Singer resisted and his ambivalence is understandable. After all, they're both messianic types with distinctive sartorial styles on the job - Kal-El, the ethnic Kryptonese name Superman changed to a WASPy Clark Kent, had a better haircut - who both use a superlative in their stage names. But Superman isn't Superstar and each brings way too much baggage for a neat fit: overlay a Christian cross over the man of steel's S and the result looks like a dollar sign.

That's not a good box-office look; not for a $US200million sci-fi extravaganza that requires clear, uncomplicated narrative lines. Suddenly, any number of action scenes could ignite a full-scale theological debate.

In one, Superman loses his footing, takes a deep sea plunge, fails to walk on water, gets a lungful, then has a sort of baptism: enough competing scriptural kryptonite to blow the scene. And then there's Lois Lane. In this film she's a mum and, while engaged to a rich newsroom executive at The Daily Planet, has never married. So after 60 years of honest newspaper journalism, and a little judicious flirting, is she now Mary Magdalene?

"I felt that our Superman needed to look like he came out of a certain evolutionary process and fit a certain look that we're familiar with, but that it just doesn't work if we see him and immediately think of actor X or Y," says Singer."

We're trying to reinvent the Superman franchise, 20 years after the last Christopher Reeves film (Superman IV: Quest for Peace), so we're not going to hitch our fate to someone's celebrity."

For Christ's sake, it's only a film!!! Sit down, shut up, and enjoy it.....

A history of Diabetes (timeline)

2006-06-29T12:31:00.000+10:00

Antiquity through Renaisssance

1552 BC
Ebers papyrus written in Egypt. First document referring to something that could be diabetes.

late 3rd century BC
Apollonius of Memphis describes a condition with the terms "without retention" (of urine) and "without delay" (of urination).

late 2nd century BC
First known use of the word diabetes, by Demetrios of Apameia.

1st century AD
Celsus writes an encyclopedia on medicine that includes a description of a condition likely to be diabetes, calls it "excessive pouring out of urine" and causing "emaciation and danger.".

2nd century
Aretaeus writes first clinical description of diabetes, says it is infrequent.

ca 160
Galen, considered the most influential physician of Roman period, writes short description that emphasizes thirst, says he has seen only two cases and that it is a kidney disorder.

ca 500
Date very approximate, quite likely earlier. Diabetes recognized in Hindu medicine during what is called the Brahman period. First descriptions of sugar in the urine and occurrence in obese individuals (type 2).

980-1037
Avicenna, most prominent of the Arab physicians (although he was Persian), describes diabetes based on Galen's work, adds details such as the presence of carbuncles.

1425
The word diabetes first appears in an English book, though it is in Middle English - diabete.

1493-1541
Paracelsus, major Renaissance physician and author, refers to diabetes at least five times in his works.

ca 1550
Geronimo Cardona (a physician but better known as a mathematician) finds that the volume of urine is less than the fluids consumed by a person with diabetes. The idea that urine is greater had been introduced by Galen 14 centuries previously, and persisted into the 19th century.

1500-1670
Over 100 authors mention or write about diabetes.

Seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
1674
Thomas Willis (England) states that the urine of diabetics is sweet, a fact not recognized since the time of early Hindu medicine. Also associates diabetes with "good fellowship and guzzling down of ... wine." His observations initiate a new era of diabetes research in England.

1776
Matthew Dobson (England) evaporates diabetic urine and finds substance like brown sugar in appearance and taste. Also finds a sweetish taste of sugar in the blood of diabetics. Observes that diabetes is fatal in less than five weeks in some, and is a chronic condition in others - type 1 and type 2.

1797
John Rollo (England) successfully treats a patient with a high fat and protein diet after observing that sugar in the urine increases after eating starchy food. Considered the first significant approach to the treatment of diabetes. <----Hello? Diabetes Association? 1797!!!
Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

1848
Claude Bernard discovers that sugar is formed by the liver (glycogen), and this is the same sugar found in the urine of diabetics.

1869
Paul Langerhans, while a medical student in Berlin, describes islands of cells in the pancreas. These were later found to be the source of insulin, and were called the "islets of Langerhans."

1889
Minkowski and von Mering (University of Strasbourg) find that removing the pancreas from dogs results in diabetes.

1903
Oatmeal diet ("cure") introduced by Von Noorden. Daily allowance is approximately eight ounces of oatmeal mixed with eight ounces of butter, prepared as a gruel, eaten every two hours.

1908
George Ludwig Zuelzer extracts a pancreatic substance that he then injects into five patients. Sugar is reduced or disappears but the patients experience unacceptable side-effects.

1909
Jean de Meyer (Belgium) proposes the name "insulin" (Latin: insula, island) for the unknown substance in the pancreas.

1911
S.R. Benedict devises new method to measure urine sugar (Benedict's Solution).

1915
Frederick Allen introduces "starvation treatment," or "starvation diet."

1921 - 1979

1921
Nicolae (Nicolus, Nicolai, NC) Paulescu (Paulesco), a distinguished Romanian scientist, publishes article describing his successful isolation of insulin, calling it "pancreine." Publication is several months before Banting and Best publish their results. Obtains patent for it in 1922. Achievement not recognized until 50 years later.

1921
Frederick Banting and his student assistant Charles Best successfully isolate insulin (initially called "iletin) from dog pancreases at the University of Toronto (using facilities and resources provided by MacLeod). James Collip works on purifying it. Findings are published in early 1922.

1922
In Toronto, Leonard Thompson, age 14 and 65 pounds, (143kg) is the first human treated with insulin. Initial attempt (January 11) not satisfactory. Collip further purifies it, and the second injection succeeds (January 23).

1923
Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis) start commercial production of insulin. Although the Toronto group had by now decided to call the substance "insulin," Ely Lilly names their product "Isletin Insulin."

1923
Banting and MacLeod awarded the Nobel Prize, share proceeds with Best and Collip.

ca 1925
Home testing for sugar in the urine. Procedure is to mix in a test tube 8 drops urine with 6 cc (1 tsp=5 cc) of a solution provided by the doctor (Benedict's solution). The tube is then put into boiling water for five minutes. If sugar is present, the liquid is greenish (light), yellow (moderate) or red/orange (heavy).

1927
An oral medication called "horment" or "glukohorment" developed in Europe by a commercial firm. Originally claimed to be a replacement for insulin, but (as with earlier non-commercial efforts), side-effects were unacceptable.

1934
First national diabetes association formed: the Diabetic Association (UK). Founders were HG Wells (the writer) and Dr RD Lawrence. Both had diabetes.

1936
In a series of research papers published from 1936 to 1939, Himsworth (UK) finds that diabetics fall into two types based on "insulin sensitivity."

1944
August Loubatières (France), while evaluating an anti-bacterial drug for the treatment of typhoid fever finds that some patients died of prolonged low blood sugar. He discusses this with a colleague and research starts that ultimately results in the development of the first acceptable oral medication for type 2 diabetes in the mid-50's.

1950
Food exchange system introduced. (The American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service.)

1951
Lawrence and Bornstein (UK) are able to measure the amount of insulin in the blood of a group of ten diabetics, and find that those who are young have no insulin, and those who are older and obese show insulin.

1959-1960
Yallow and Berson develop radioimmunological assay (RIA), a procedure that can be used to measure insulin with much greater precision than earlier techniques. Yallow awarded Nobel prize in 1977.

1964
First strips for testing blood glucose (Ames).

1970
First blood glucose meter (Ames).

1979
Type 1 and Type 2 formally recognized by the American Diabetes Association. (Err this was worked out in 1776!! Does the American Diabetes Association always work this fast? Sheesh!) Type 1 was also called Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (IDDM), and Type 2 was called Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM). These names were dropped in 2003.

Since 1979
Insufficient time has passed for a historical perspective to develop about key events since 1979. The only one that almost certainly will be regarded as a milestone is the the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), which confirmed a relationship between blood sugar levels and the development of complications.

Principal sources:

American Diabetes Association. Milestones in Diabetes Treatment. Diabetes Forecast 1998;61:76-80.

David Mendosa. Meter Memories (http://www.mendosa.com/memories.htm), and History of Blood Glucose Meters (http://www.mendosa.com/history.htm).

Notelovitz, MB. Milestones in the History of diabetes - A brief survey. South African Medical Journal 1970;44;40; 1158-61. Verlag; 1989.

Papaspyros NS. The history of diabetes mellitus (second edition). Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 1989.

Sanders, LJ. The philatelic history of diabetes:In search of a cure. Alexandria, Virginia: American Diabetes Association.

von Engelgardt, Dietrich (ed). 1989. Diabetes:Its medical and cultural history. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

A couple of funnies

2006-06-25T13:46:00.000+10:00

Q: Ever wonder about people who pay $2 for a bottle of Evian water?
A: Just spell "Evian" backwards!
--------------------------------------
From "the Late Show with David Letterman"

Top ten ways to annoy your waiter

10. Eight hour lunch, two dollar tip.
9. Ask, "Excuse me, are you a really bad singer, or a really bad actor?"
8. After he describes each special, you shout, "Garbage!"
7. Whenever he walks by, cough and mutter, "Minimum wage".
6. Every few seconds, yell, "More waffles, Cuomo!"
5. Insist that before ordering, you be allowed to touch the London broil.
4. Tie tablecloth around neck and say, "You wouldn't charge Superman for dinner, would you?"
3. Every time you eat or drink, cough really hard.
2. As he walks by to the kitchen, scream, "He's gonna spit in the chowder!"
1. Three words: eat the check.

Against the Grain

You really are what you eat

Appendix explained

Sweetness and lies - dirty tricks in the breakfast food aisle

The circle of life

Thermodynamics and weight loss

History rewritten by skulls

Meat back on menu

Child obesity rate is 'likely to double'

Chimp "Stone Age" finds are earliest nonhuman ape tools

The Paleo Diet Newsletter

Fat Men Can't Hunt

Dog's breakfast - so what's a dog really meant to eat?

Eat A Tasty Animal for PETA Day (EATAPETA)

McHealthy meals win National Heart tick

Mars bars not to be marketed to under-12s

Parents blind to fat children

Monday, September 04, 2006

Soft-drink makers pledge to lift game

Disease on the march

A big night out ......

Caveman Cuisine

Fat obscures scans

Monday mixed Grill - August 21st 2006

Crackdown on danger food

Obesity experts call for cheaper fruit and vegetables

Curry's qualities are food for thought

Professor pushes for fat tax

What kind -vore am I?

$2 worth of mixed Veg please...

Monday mixed Grill - August 14th 2006

The new square meal.

"Crazy" John takes up the fight.

School fast food ban...

Bigger and beefier

Monday mixed Grill - August 7th 2006

Pre Paleo checkup

Folic acid and DNA?

The secret of a successful diet?

Body Dysmorphic Disorder (or when the mirror lies)

Monday mixed Grill - July 31st 2006

Sam Neill is at it again

Ministers push for junk food ad ban

Have you heard of Little Becky?

Popular diets linked to heart risks

Jedi 'religion' grows in Australia

Increase in Lipitor memory loss claims

Monday mixed Grill - July 24th 2006

Food alone not to blame for fatter kids

The 7 myths about low carb diets

Kids to be measured in obesity survey

Health risk fears as fortified flour faces acid test

Monday mixed Grill - July 17th 2006

Folic acid may be added to bread

Against the Grain…

Aussies love to meat and greet

Fuelling Evolution

Monday mixed Grill - July 10th 2006

How's Your Body Image?

Stella sheds 62.5kg to be a winner

Death risk rises in obese women

The Low-Carb Roundtable, Part II

Humour's a sweet pill...

The Low-Carb Roundtable (part I)

The Modern Nutritional Diseases: and how to prevent them

Recuperation from Surgery

90# phone scam / pseudo virus

State of Origin - Game 3

16,500 calories in store for Nathan’s hot dog champ

The World’s Unhealthiest Burger?

Milestone for Jimmy Moore and Livin' La Vida Low-Carb

A lighthearted break

Letter on corpulence to the public

Iratagenic causes; 3rd leading cause of death in US

Fizzy Blondes

Cholesterol and Saturated Fats - The Myths Exposed!

The ultimate snack food - NOT!!!

Women slimmer than they think?

Mupersan..........

A history of Diabetes (timeline)