My doctor just drains away all my bad humors. Or keeps them in balance anyway.
Posted on 03/04/2014 10:40:22 PM PST by Olog-hai
Eating too much protein could be as dangerous as smoking for middle-aged people, a scientific study has found.
Research which tracked thousands of adults for nearly 20 years found that people who eat a diet rich in animal protein are four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low protein diet.
The risk is nearly as high as the danger of developing cancer by smoking 20 cigarettes each day. […]
The US study found that people with a high protein diet were 74 percent more likely to die of any cause within the study period than their low-protein counterparts. They were also several times more likely to die of diabetes. But this trend appeared to reverse for those aged over 65, researchers found. …
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
IMHO, balance of good natural animals fats is fantastic, also, some fish fats.
Even with small portions, good meats make you feel satisfied for many hours, and snacking on carbs in between meals is then easily avoided.
Pearl Cantrell just passed away on February 13, at the age of 105, bless her heart.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/bacon-key-long-life-105-year-old-article-1.1338403
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/reporternews/obituary.aspx?n=pearl-cantrell&pid=169805680
I notice after the good green leafys like kale, wow, I feel great.
Thanks for that information! I’ve been thinking about lyme disease, and recently read up on candida. I was thinking about pill form probiotics, but I’ll investigate plain yogurt.
“Align” probiotic no good, for example. I was given some for free, found titanium dioxide in it.
Hmmm. I read up.
It’s a coloring ?????? I want to eat titanium dioxide so my pills have a nice color ???
No thanks Proctor & Gamble.
Dr. Mercola is supposed to have a good probiotic but I’ve never had it.
From what I read, pasteurization kills everything in dairy products. The heat can’t pick and choose what to kill.
Turns out, dairy naturally has good little beasties that go into our intestines and live there and work wonders for us.
Been working for thousands of years.
This is why breastfeeding children is so important, as babies are born without gut flora.
Raw milk is from what I read very good for you.
WF in NJ used to carry raw milk, cream, etc., but NJ outlawed it, WF dropped it.
Plain natural yogurt does have some beasties in it still.
Some folks they say have so little gut flora (digestive problems and all sorts of other chain-reaction problems as “bad” gut flora overpopulate and penetrate the intestine and run rampant in the body, causing the immune system to try to kill the “foreign bodies”) that they can shock their system by drinking a lot of raw milk quickly. Should start a little at a time.
Raw milk cheeses are fantastic.
Grass fed animals are 100% the thing to have, apparently, for good milk. It’s how their stomachs work in the normal way.
Got it.
>> Grass fed animals are 100% the thing to have
Noted.
Various companies pride themselves on the purity of their products. If I find anything interesting, I’ll pass it along.
>> Dr. Mercola
Is he the guy promoting krill? I recall a fascinating article concerning fatty acids and chain structure.
Too many people are figuring out how to get healthy. This has to stop.
Next up, looking both ways before crossing the street is harmful to children.
The following is an article by Karl Denninger, who, for the record, lives the protein - fat - veggie diet plus jogging lifestyle.
http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228822
*****************************************************
Let The Debate On Diet Begin (But Don’t Lie)
This was sent “over the transom” to me a few days ago; I suppose it deserves some digital ink, mostly due to what is either raw ignorance or worse, intentional misdirection.
According to Dr T Colin Campbell’s new book The Low-Carb Fraud, giving up grains can mean putting yourself at a higher risk for heart disease, cancer and other regenerative diseases.
He says that not only are low-carb diets lacking in nutritional value, but they’re actually even worse than the standard American diet.
Oh really?
The problem, says Dr Campbell, who has 40 years’ experience in nutrition science, is that people who cut out carbs tend to load up on animal protein and fat, which heightens cholesterol levels, sometimes leading to disease.
Except..... that doesn’t happen in most people. Never mind that there’s this odd shift that happens when people want to malign a low-carb lifetyle — they intentionally twist the other two sources of energy around (note the “high protein”, which isn’t part of what I practice.)
And that’s the problem, in a nutshell, with this so-called “analysis.” It also forms the backdrop for those who argue for various sorts of things like this when it comes to “what to eat” which always seems to end in the same place — the pill bottle.
Let’s take the typical example. You go to the doctor and he doesn’t like your cholesterol levels. The “answer”, according to him, is for you to restrict animal fats and increase non-fat consumption. You do this, come back, and your numbers are either stable or worse. He now wants you to take a statin — forever.
The logical person would look at these results and stop the doctor right there, because he gave you a prescription, you followed it, and you didn’t get the results he wanted to see. Instead of asking “why not?” and expecting an answer before you go further his answer is for you to take a second prescription, this one a drug.
Unfortunately the standard 3-panel test doesn’t tell you what you need to know. In other words, it’s not diagnostic, but it’s sold and used that way. Specifically there are four types of LDL; one is benign at worst while the other three are of decreasing size and increasing danger.
Here’s the problem — eating low-fat, high-carbohydrate foods tends to be associated with shifts in LDL counts toward the small, dense and dangerous forms while eating saturated fats tends to shift the balance toward the large, fluffy form of LDL which is benign at worst and may even be protective.
The problem with the standard test is that it can’t differentiate between these four forms and what’s worse is that it doesn’t even accurately measure LDL to begin with unless your triglyceride level is within certain boundaries. If not then it’s inaccurate.
Then there’s another problem that arises with the “drug” recommendation — statins are not discriminatory. They interfere with the production and use of all cholesterol. That sounds good if you want to lower your gross cholesterol level, but that’s not what you want. The only form of cholesterol you want to lower is the small, dense LDL subtypes; the rest is not only ok for you it’s necessary for all sorts of biological processes in your body, including most-particularly brain function.
We also need to draw a distinction here with the word “diet.” A diet is something you do because you want to obtain a particular result, and then you change it when you’re done. A choice of lifestyle is something you do because you believe it will lead to a good result and you intend to keep it forever.
And by the way, contrary to Campbell’s and others assertions those of us (like myself) who are into the low-carb thing neither see this as a “diet” nor do we completely eschew carbohydrates. I eat all the green vegetables I want, as just one example, yet those contain carbohydrates. A nice big bowl of microwaved spinach cooked with butter or a bunch of broccoli often comprises my lunch.
The interesting part of changing what you eat as a lifestyle choice is that your body knows how to regulate its caloric intake and expresses that in hunger. “Highly-available” carbohydrates including sugars and starches, along with processed oils (that would be nearly all of them that don’t come from animals) appear to tamper with that regulatory mechanism; that is, they make you hungry long before you would otherwise be. That’s not good as having to fight what your body is telling you to do all the time is a recipe for failure.
What I’ve found is that when I changed what I eat not only did I lose the excess weight as my body approached a natural mass the loss of weight slowed and then stopped. But I didn’t change how or what I eat during that time, nor have I since. In addition as my exercise level varied wildly my body mass did not change; this winter, for example, it has been kinda nasty in this part of the country and so I have run much less than usual — yet I haven’t gained so much as one pound. It certainly appears from the empirical evidence in this sample size of one that my body knows how to regulate its food intake all on its own — provided that what I put down the pie hole doesn’t screw up that regulatory mechanism.
So here’s the challenge, in a nutshell. The only way you’re going to know whether you’re actually at risk from your cholesterol levels is to have the entire profile run — not the standard three-panel LDL/HDL/Trig test. That profile is quite a bit more expensive as a test, and you might have trouble getting your health “insurance” to cover it. If you let your doctor run the other one, however, you are polluting your medical records with “information” that is not predictive of your risk of coronary disease and strokes yet it WILL be used in the future to claim you are at such risk and thus lead to recommendations that may do nothing or even harm you.
The salient question becomes if you cut out all the processed carbs and, while eating liberally from selections like green vegetables while the bulk of your caloric intake is from fats and then protein (in other words, from a caloric perspective your intake looks like fats->protein->carbohydrates) what change occurs in that full cholesterol profile? The fact that your LDL number from the three-panel test goes up or down is meaningless unless you know the sub-type breakdown, and since we know that carbohydrates tend to promote the bad form of LDL while suppressing the good, and vice-versa when you take in saturated fats, the gross number alone is not only meaningless it may be exactly backward.
The other problem that is often overlooked is that systemic inflammation appears to be far more-important than cholesterol in any form when it comes to heart disease. That is rarely tested for directly, but it should be. The issue with testing for inflammation is that if you find a problem there (e.g. c-Reactive Protein is elevated) it doesn’t tell you where the inflammation is or why it’s happening. But IMHO that should be the start of any such inquiry as the body’s reaction to inflammation is to try to isolate and attack it; we all see how our body reacts to insults of this sort when we get a splinter in our finger. If the locale of the inflammation includes your arteries you have a problem!
Finally there is an matter of individual variation in metabolic process. No two of us are exactly alike and we don’t respond the same way. There are multiple drugs for various conditions for exactly this reason; one drug will work well in one person but not in another, and often doctors don’t know why (and neither does anyone else.) If they could predict otherwise accurately they wouldn’t have to try various things; we’d always get it right on the first shot.
So if you’re being challenged by your body mass or cholesterol numbers first get enough information to know whether you actually have a problem — and that you cannot learn from the “standard” 3-panel cholesterol test. If the issue is body mass consider what works for a lot of people, which is high saturated fat, moderate protein and low carbohydrate as a choice for nutrition. If you’re concerned that this will trash your cholesterol numbers (and there are plenty of people who will claim it does) get the full particle assay (NOT the standard three-panel test) of your cholesterol along with a check of your CRP level and A1C first, make the change in what you eat, wait three months and then re-test. If your small, dense LDL numbers go the wrong way and CRP and/or A1c rises then that’s not the right pathway for you.
In short there’s little argument among the medical profession that it is the small, dense LDL that’s a problem and that large, fluffy LDL is fine. In addition there’s little argument that elevated CRP levels are always bad. Finally, when it comes to blood glucose the gold standard is the A1c test which measures your average blood sugar control over time; 4-5.6% (some sources say under 6%) is normal; over that is bad and most sources agree that a reading over 6.4% indicates diabetes.
Any doctor that tells you that you shouldn’t eat a high-fat, moderate-protein and low-carbohydrate diet when he or she sees a positive change in those three markers as a consequence of doing so needs to be directly challenged on whether their recommendation has a scientific backing or whether their recommendations are driven by something else. Never mind that if you drop 20lbs at the same time I suspect that will also get their attention.
After all, the reason they started down this line of inquiry in the first place was that they didn’t like those cholesterol numbers and your body mass — right?
Arctic explorers and early western pioneers lived successfully for months on a high fat/high protein diet. In the Arctic, it would be something like seal meat, in the west pemmican (buffalo meat + fat).
So I’m calling this “study” bogus.
I think I know what I did. I had my arm out the window of my car. When the auto lock function kicked in it pinched the bottom of my arm and I jerked my are up. Felt a twink in my shoulder. Since then, when I flex my shoulder muscles, a deep pain builds and becomes real bad. It's deep in my shoulder and lasts for about ten to twenty seconds. At least I think it's a rotator cuff injury.
Same age and I start with a cup of coffee and about a finger of good whisky in it.
In a related study, scientists have also discovered that those who consistently breathed oxygen had a 100% mortality rate!
I simply don’t believe “studies” anymore. They rarely account for significant variables, and almost always support the preconceived notion of the Lefty “scientist”.
The Problem is these clowns go on to use this data to suggest NO PROTEIN!!!
I wonder how many people in this study exercised regularly and intensely. At 55 I still engage in hard core weight training regularly along with intense cardio interval trainig and try to consume 1 1/2 grams of protein for every pound of body weight per day. I eat my share of grains in the form of oatmeal and whole grain products by try to keep the carbs to a minimum without eliminating them completely. Plenty of fruits and veggies.
I call bullcr*p.
These people are the same Liberals who have caused the obesity problem in the world.
We now know that
GMO is bad
margarine is bad
Whole milk, butter and cream contain the enzymes and hormones needed to metabolize the milk fats, i.e., skim milk will make you fat.
and the list goes on.
Chocolate and coffee are good for you.
I would wager that many in the studies were eating lots of carbs especially grains, wheat, rice corn and has lots of corn syrup in their diets.
People who eat “Paleo” diets are very healthy and don’t have the problems associated with our ‘modern’ government approved diets.
My doctor just drains away all my bad humors. Or keeps them in balance anyway.
Hi Gene Eric,
Your statement that you have no idea why your condition is as such, and that you have been thinking about Lyme’s and other possibilities for you pain/movement impairment would indicate that you have no diagnostic image (X-Ray/MRI) verification of a Rotator Cuff injury.
If that is true, it’s possible that you have Adhesive Capsulitis (Frozen Shoulder).
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=a00071
It’s worth investigating in any event.
“diet rich in animal protein”
There’s the tell. Now you know that everything that came
after it is BS.
And the cinch.
“risk is nearly as high as the danger of developing cancer by smoking 20 cigarettes each day”
The culprit.
University of Southern California
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.