Friday, December 31, 2010

LA TImes on the Paleo Model

"As nutrition scientists try to find the ideal for the future, others look to history and evolution for answers. One way to put our diet in perspective is to imagine the face of a clock with 24 hours on it. Each hour represents 100,000 years that humans have been on the Earth.

"On this clock, the advent of agriculture and refined grains would have appeared at about 11:54 p.m. (23 hours and 54 minutes into the day). Before that, humans were hunters and gatherers, eating animals and plants off the land. Agriculture allowed for the mass production of crops such as wheat and corn, and refineries transformed whole grains into refined flour and created processed sugar.

"Some, like Phinney, would argue that we haven't evolved to adapt to a diet of refined foods and mass agriculture — and that maybe we shouldn't try.",0,5464425.story

Thursday, December 30, 2010

LA Times On Low Carb,0,6026869,print.story
Excerpts follow:

"Fat is not the problem," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "If Americans could eliminate sugary beverages, potatoes, white bread, pasta, white rice and sugary snacks, we would wipe out almost all the problems we have with weight and diabetes and other metabolic diseases."

"Americans, on average, eat 250 to 300 grams of carbs a day, accounting for about 55% of their caloric intake. The most conservative recommendations say they should eat half that amount. Consumption of carbohydrates has increased over the years with the help of a 30-year-old, government-mandated message to cut fat.

"And the nation's levels of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease have risen. "The country's big low-fat message backfired," says Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The overemphasis on reducing fat caused the consumption of carbohydrates and sugar in our diets to soar. That shift may be linked to the biggest health problems in America today."

"All carbohydrates (a category including sugars) convert to sugar in the blood, and the more refined the carbs are, the quicker the conversion goes. When you eat a glazed doughnut or a serving of mashed potatoes, it turns into blood sugar very quickly. To manage the blood sugar, the pancreas produces insulin, which moves sugar into cells, where it's stored as fuel in the form of glycogen.

"If you have a perfectly healthy metabolism, the system works beautifully, says Dr. Stephen Phinney, a nutritional biochemist and an emeritus professor of UC Davis who has studied carbohydrates for 30 years. "However, over time, as our bodies get tired of processing high loads of carbs, which evolution didn't prepare us for … how the body responds to insulin can change," he says.

When cells become more resistant to those insulin instructions, the pancreas needs to make more insulin to push the same amount of glucose into cells. As people become insulin resistant, carbs become a bigger challenge for the body. When the pancreas gets exhausted and can't produce enough insulin to keep up with the glucose in the blood, diabetes develops.

People are said to have (metabolic) syndrome when they have three or more of the following: high blood triglycerides (more than 150 mg); high blood pressure (over 135/85); central obesity (a waist circumference in men of more than 40 inches and in women, more than 35 inches); low HDL cholesterol (under 40 in men, under 50 in women); or elevated fasting glucose.

"Put these people on a low-carb diet and they'll not only lose weight, which always helps these conditions, but their blood levels will improve," Phinney says. In a 12-week study published in 2008, Phinney and his colleagues put 40 overweight or obese men and women with metabolic syndrome on a 1,500-calorie diet. Half went on a low-fat, high-carb diet. The others went on a low-carb, high-fat diet. The low-fat group consumed 12 grams of saturated fat a day out of a total of 40 grams of fat, while the low-carb group ate 36 grams of saturated fat a day — three times more — out of a total of 100 grams of fat.

"Despite all the extra saturated fat the low-carb group was getting, at the end of the 12 weeks, levels of triglycerides (which are risk factors for heart disease) had dropped by 50% in this group. Levels of good HDL cholesterol increased by 15%.

"In the low-fat, high-carb group, triglycerides dropped only 20% and there was no change in HDL.

"The good news," adds Willett, "is that based on what we know, almost everyone can avoid Type 2 diabetes. Avoiding unhealthy carbohydrates is an important part of that solution." For those who are newly diagnosed, he adds, a low-carb diet can take the load off the pancreas before it gets too damaged and improve the condition — reducing or averting the need for insulin or other diabetes meds.

"Carbohydrates are a metabolic bully," Phinney says. "They cut in front of fat as a fuel source and insist on being burned first. What isn't burned gets stored as fat, and doesn't come out of storage as long as carbs are available. And in the average American diet, they always are."

"When you cut carbs, your body first uses available glycogen as fuel. When that's gone, the body turns to fat and the pancreas gets a break. Blood sugar stabilizes, insulin levels drop, fat burns. That's why the diet works for diabetics and for weight loss.
Beyond the fat-burning effects of ketosis, people lose weight on low-carb diets because fat and protein increase satisfaction and reduce appetite.  "At my obesity clinic, my default diet for treating obesity, Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome is a low-carb diet," says Dr. Eric Westman, director of the Lifestyle Medicine Clinic at Duke University Medical Center, and co-author of the new Atkins book. "If you take carbohydrates away, all these things get better."

"Dr. Ronald Krauss, senior scientist at Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute and founder and past chair of the American Heart Assn.'s Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism, says those who eat too many calories tend to overconsume carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates and sugars. "It can be extremely valuable to limit carbohydrate intake and substitute protein and fat. I am glad to see so many people in the medical community getting on board. But in general I don't recommend extreme dietary measures for promoting health."

Note:  I agree with Dr. Krauss, an extreme, fad diet like one high in grains and sugars, and low in protein and fat, is a disaster for human health, mentally and physically.  

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Enough (D) is Enough

"A recent breakthrough study looking for changes of osteomalacia in bone biopsies helps us understand the disease beyond these late clinical findings. This study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in February 2010 and was misinterpreted when reviewed by the IOM. In this study, 675 iliac crest bone biopsies from autopsies of adult men and women from Northern Europe were studied and correlated with vitamin D levels from the biopsy subjects. In a biopsy the scientists can measure the ratio of non-mineralized bone volume to total bone volume. This ratio is increased above 1.2-2% when there is a mineralization defect, such as from vitamin D deficiency or osteomalacia. They did not find any increase in this ratio in subjects with vitamin D levels above 75 nmol/L or 30 ng/mL whether they chose 1.2% or a more conservative 2% cut off. This study avoids the delayed and subjective nature of disease symptoms and the late findings of x-ray studies and simply correlates bone pathology at the microscopic level with vitamin D levels. This study indisputably argues for an optimal vitamin D level of equal to or more than 30 ng/mL. This study ENDS the debate on defining vitamin D deficiency. The pathologic definition of vitamin D deficiency is a blood level <30 ng/mL."

This is a great post, well worth reading in its entirety.

Dr. Davis, from Heartscanblog, chimes in with this quote from the same post:
"The IOM is focusing on deficiency when it should be focusing on optimal health values for vitamin D. The scientific community continues to argue about the lower limit of normal when we now have definitive pathologic data showing that an optimal vitamin D level is at or above 30 ng/mL. Moreover, if no credible toxicity has been reported for vitamin D levels below 200 ng/mL, why are we obsessing over whether our vitamin D level should be 20 ng/mL or 30 ng/mL?

"Yes, indeed. Have no doubts: Vitamin D deficiency is among the greatest public health problems of our age; correction of vitamin D (using the human form of vitamin D, i.e., D3 or cholecalciferol, not the invertebrate or plant form, D2 or ergocalciferol) is among the most powerful health solutions. "

Monday, December 27, 2010

Hero WOD, Bull, 27 Dec
WOD, Bull, which I did scaled to 2 rounds for time of: 100 double unders, 50 overhead squats at 95 pounds, 25 pullups, 800m run, 41 minutes 12 seconds

Nutrition Seminar at CrossFit Memphis
Take a look, if you are in the Memphis area, I've the honor of being guest speaker to this event; exciting!

Weights for Kids
"Somewhat improbably, from that scientific finding and other similar reports, as well as from anecdotes and accreting myth, many people came to believe “that children and adolescents should not” practice weight training, said Avery Faigenbaum, a professor of exercise science at the College of New Jersey."
"But a major new review just published in Pediatrics, together with a growing body of other scientific reports, suggest that, in fact, weight training can be not only safe for young people, it can also be beneficial, even essential."
The bottom line - their subjects benefitted from weightlifting.  The caveat - I did not consult the study to see what training they did, but I don't need to look.  I know what works for my kids, and what will work for your kids.  The same thing that works for Olympic athletes, scaled the ability and experience of your kids.

The article continues:  "Consequently, many experts say, by strength training, young athletes can reduce their risk of injury, not the reverse. “The scientific literature is quite clear that strength training is safe for young people, if it’s properly supervised,” Dr. Faigenbaum says."
When should they start?
“Any age is a good age. But there does seem to be something special about the time from about age 7 to 12. The nervous system is very plastic. The kids are very eager. It seems to be an ideal time to hard-wire strength gains and movement patterns.” And if you structure a program right, he added, “it can be so much fun that it never occurs to the kids that they’re getting quote-unquote ‘strength training’ at all.”"
This last quote is absolutely spot on, and is the basis of CrossFit Kids (

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Hero WOD, Randy, 25 Dec

Randy - story here:
75 pound Power snatch, 75 reps for time

5.53, PR by 18s.

Warm Feet, Better Sleep
If like me you believe that a lot of good quality sleep is essential for health, feeling good, and living well, this is worth a thought.  I've always known that cold feet kept me up - this is an interesting confirmation.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Angela - "CrossFit Works"

When I started a CrossFit group at Naval Support Activity Millington, one of the participants who showed the first morning was Angela.  She struggled mightily with pushups, but powered through and kept coming back - it was always a favorite moment for me when, during or after a WOD (workout of the day), she would say "that was terrible" with a big smile on her face.  

On the occasion of accepting a diploma she earned for completing a required military course, she travelled to the Navy War College.  The night before the diploma was presented, she put on her Dress Whites.  As she describes it, "I had only lost five pounds after starting CrossFit.  What I found was that I had traded pounds from my middle for pounds in my muscles!"  In other words, the uniform which had been carefully tailored when purchased was now just hanging off of her, so she had to pin up the arms, the waist, the everything, just to have a uniform she could wear to accept her diploma!

Angela continue to train - and she got stronger!  After her semi annual Navy fitness test, she commented on how easy the pushups were!  I was very proud of her success.  

Angela's family has been devastated by diabetes, and she feared this would be her fate also.  After retooling her eating habits to the low carb, high nutrition approach advocated daily on this blog, she's become very confident she can rescript her life and avoid the accelerated aging, diminished physical and mental capacities, and chronic medication that diabetes brings.

On about a week's notice, Angela took orders for an assignment to Afghanistan.  She's there now, and we (her team of CrossFitters) wish her a Merry Christmas!  She sent this note from her training a few months back, which she hastily scribbled on a time shared computer:  

"This is a true story. Got outfitted for my gear (MTV w/armor plates).
Supposed to wear it all on top of PT clothes.  Morning PT everyone is loaded down; full body gear; walking about 2 miles. Can you believe it?

"To get the vest on/off, I did all of that horrible Crossfit stuff:
-dead lift
-jumped the weight overhead
-slid it on
-to remove the vest I did the jerk (jumped up and lifted the weight right over my head).
I did really well, and felt really good (confident).  Had no problems carrying the weight (approx 65 lbs)!

It's one of the finest compliments a CrossFitter could deliver to a coach.  A couple of months later, she ran a 5K race and penned the following, showing how much she's learned about how to sustain a high level of fitness with minimal time and equipment:
"All,  My time was:  30:22!
"That was the absolute best I ever felt.  My time for 3 miles is usually 40 - 43 minutes.  The only thing I have been doing to stay in shape are squats and a Tabata (rowing machine). 
"Daily mortar attacks not so far off in the distance, but so far so good.  Please let everyone know I am safe. Keep me in your prayers!"

We do and are as eager for your safe return as we are thankful for the warm, determined enthusiasm you gave us so many mornings while working so hard through something 'terrible'!  We are also thankful to you for the professional job you will do 'downrange'.  I think it goes with out saying, but just in case, we're awfully proud of you Angela!

Friday, December 24, 2010

WOD, Whitten, 24 Dec

December 12 2010
Today was the first of ten or so 'make up' hero WODs, and I did "Whitten" (click on the link above to learn about Captain Dan Whitten.  The WOD was 5 rounds for time of 22 kettlebell swings (2 POOD), 22 24" box jumps, run 400m, 22 burpees (from a standing position, drop your body to the deck, then get up, jump and clap hands overhead), and 22 wall ball shots (20# ball to a 10' target).

I completed 3 rounds in 31 minutes.  Fair winds and following seas on your journey, warrior!

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Review: "Insanity"

BLUF:  Insanity ( is far better than nothing.  It will generate many of the benefits folks seek from a work out and requires no equipment, little space, and no movement coaching or skill.

I walked into a class to watch a couple folks doing "Insanity" and this was almost the first thing I heard (at least, words this effect):  "Aerobics is the best thing you can do to change your body".  I think you can walk into any aerobics class and satisfy yourself as to whether or not that is true.  I didn't write the line, but I believe it - "you cannot out train a bad diet."  If you want to change your body, you must eat the right food.  Exercise can certainly add muscle, make you feel better, make you healthier, reduce your rate of aging, reduce chronic pain, and make your body more capable of living a life like you want to live ... but there's very little evidence that exercise alone will "change your body."  Most exercise results in increased hunger, to one degree or another, and that's a good thing - else every lumber jack would have died of starvation.

Insanity looks like aerobics.  It may differ from aerobics in that it claims to be based on intervals, in which, presumably, activity becomes intense enough to work the anaerobic energy system.  Watching the video, I saw folks working very, very hard.  The participants in the room were also working hard.  The question is - to what end?

In terms of what physical capacities they were developing:
They were not developing speed.  They were not developing power.  They were perhaps improving range of motion for those who were ROM limited, to some degree.  They were developing cardiovascular endurance, and stamina (the ability to get oxygen and fuel to working muscles).  There was a minor strength component, depending upon how prescisely you define 'strength' (some say it's only 'strength' development if one is working with a weight they can use for ten reps or less).  There were some elements of coordination, agility (ability to change direction), balance and accuracy, but to an unmeasurable degree (no way to determine improvement objectively since there was no objective outcome of their movement).

In terms of what work capacities they were developing:
They were not developing the ability to pull things to them, or to climb (for example as pullups would).  They were not developing the ability to powerfully open the hip (as for example the clean, or squat would).  They were developing the ability to stabilize the spine under load to a minimal degree (pushups and planks), relative to loaded cleans, jerks, squats or deadlifts (as examples of some but not all of the modalities which might have this effect).  They were developing some ability to push, and to open the hip with minimal loads and range of motion, but with sub-maximal power and/or strength.

Primarily, Insanity looks like a lot of moving around.  It will make a participant sweat.  It will result in the psychological benefits of hard physical labor.  Doing Insanity will be infinitely better than doing nothing.  It has the benefit of requiring little equipment, and of allowing many participants in a small space, and it would be possible to get a reasonably high percentage of the possible benefits with absolutly no skill or coaching in how to move.  It lacks what I would like to see in measurably objective outcomes, but it will no doubt increase a person's ability to sustain an elevated work output over a period of time. 

Athletes need to develop above all else the ability to powerfully open the hip, in combination with the ability to stabilize the spine under a load (so that the spine may serve as a transmitter for the forces generated by the opening of the hip).  These two capacities underlie virtually all athletic activity - running, jumping, throwing, punching, kicking, or swinging a stick (sword, staff, bat or club).  From this perspective, I would not recommend Insanity as a strength and conditioning program for athletes, warriors or first responders - unless, the choice is Insanity or nothing.  Additionally, if all one does for strength and conditioning is jogging or some other aerobic activity, and there's no motivation to get real strength and conditioning equipment or coaching, Insanity would be a great addition.

Lastly, if you want to lose body fat, don't even think of Insanity as a solution.  For that result, you will have to re-educate yourself on how to eat.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

A Million Plus Years of Survival of the Fittest Yields Amazing Capability

This is a summary of this postwhich I also referenced here.
Low carb, or starvation metabolism, is the 'normal' metabolism.  Low carb intake, or starvation, presents the opposite challenge than what we neolithic humans usually face (how to dispose of excess blood sugar before it damages our nervous system), in that it has to generate enough glucose to feed glucose dependent tissues (primarily, the brain!).
A quote from the article:  "the metabolism of carb restriction = the metabolism of starvation. I would maintain, however, based on my study of the Paleolithic diet, that starvation and carb restriction are simply the polar ends of a continuum, and that carb restriction was the norm for most of our existence as upright walking beings on this planet, making the metabolism of what biochemistry textbook authors call starvation the ‘normal’ metabolism."
Where does the body come up with glucose when you are either starving or restricting carb intake?  First, from muscle tissue, protein from which is broken down in the liver to create glucose.  However, this isn't an ideal solution for the long term, for the obvious reason that you'll live better with more muscle, especially if you need to hunt and kill some food.  So keeping mind, as Dr. Eades reports that "normal blood sugar represents only about a teaspoon of sugar dissolved in the entire blood volume", you might assume that an "average person requires about 200 grams of sugar per day to meet all the needs of the glucose-dependent tissues".  So, how can a starving human spare glucose?  Easy, ketones, which are a fabulous glucose substitute, and are a by product of the break down of fats in the liver which is part of gluconeogenesis.  That's right - the machine is so incredibly efficient that it converts protein to sugar, a process powered by the body's really big energy storage tissue, fat, the by product of which (ketones) reduces the amount of gluconeogenesis required.
"Although ketones can’t totally replace all the sugar required by the brain, they can replace a pretty good chunk of it. By reducing the body’s need for sugar, less protein is required, allowing the muscle mass (the protein reservoir) to last a lot longer before it is depleted. And ketones are the preferred fuel for the heart, making that organ operate at about 28 percent greater efficiency."
As the Dr. says, "Fat is the perfect fuel."  This process is beautiful, man, just beautiful.  At least, it is if you are a *geek like me.*
Dr. Eades again:  "If, instead of starving, you’re following a low-carb diet, it gets even better. The protein you eat is converted to glucose instead of the protein in your muscles. If you keep the carbs low enough so that the liver still has to make some sugar, then you will be in fat-burning mode while maintaining your muscle mass, the best of all worlds. How low is low enough? Well, when the ketosis process is humming along nicely and the brain and other tissues have converted to ketones for fuel, the requirement for glucose drops to about 120-130 gm per day. If you keep your carbs below that at, say, 60 grams per day, you’re liver will have to produce at least 60-70 grams of glucose to make up the deficit, so you will generate ketones that entire time."
In the mean time, while you are making your own sugar and ketones from stored fat and ingested fat and protein, your body's systems are not fully engaged transforming and packing excess sugars into fat cells.  When not tied down by that emergency, your body will clean up AGEs (advanced glycation end products), amyloid plaques and such, while sustaining a low blood sugar level, meaning these things are not regenerated in as great a volume.  
Low blood sugar, fewer AGEs and decreased amyloid plaques is likely an all win scenario - unless you would like the challenge of rapid aging with atherosclerotic disease, loss of internal tissue pliability, loss of memory and cognition, and the other not-so-delicious results of metabolic syndrome. 
Edited 10 March, 2011

Monday, December 20, 2010

LA Times on Low Carb,0,6026869,print.story
The rare glimpse of this view of metabolic function in the mass media - rare but encouraging.  I'll post more fully on this soon.  In the mean time, I recommend this discussion of the "potato diet."

Eades: Tips and Tricks for Starting Low Carb

"The symptoms you report – dizziness and leg cramps – are probably the two most common symptoms people experience when they switch from high-carb to low-carb diets. Insulin drives the kidneys to retain fluid – when insulin levels drop quickly, as they do on low-carb diets, the kidney releases fluid. This is a good thing because most people on higher carb diets tend to retain fluids; but it can also be an annoying thing because the fluid that goes out takes potassium with it. Lowered levels of potassium often cause leg cramps and feelings of fatigue. Plus, losing a lot of fluid quickly can lead to a lowered blood pressure, especially when going from sitting to standing, and feelings of dizziness. I ALWAYS put my own patients on a potassium supplement when they start the program to replace the potassium I’m sure they are going to lose. I give them a prescription supplement that contains about five times more potassium than they can get from over-the-counter potassium supplements, which max out at 99 mg. Five of these OTC potassium supplements will work as well as the prescription dose. Also, I recommend that my patients starting low-carb diets increase their salt intake so that they don’t lose so much fluid and don’t experience the dizziness. They can do this by eating a dill pickle a couple of times per day, consuming some bouillon a time or two a day or even by drinking some pickle juice. The potassium supplementation and increasing salt intake eliminate probably 90 percent of symptoms people experience when starting low-carb diets." (Note - look for this comment on 11 Dec 2010)

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Dr. Eades: Starving, It's a Good Thing

This is a magnificent post from Dr. Mike Eades which describes the mechanisms of your metabolic system when under stress from lack of adequate food intake.  They highly evolved symphony of responses is just magnificent to consider *if you are a geek like me.*
So read the whole post from Dr. Mike's blog, and subscribe to his updates, and go read all the incredible posts he's contributed over the years, it'll likely be an education in the interplay between fats, protein, ketones and glucose and why your body does so well when you fast from time to time, minimize the carb intake, and get the majority of your nutrition through nature's most perfect fuel - FAT!
It's an incredible tribute to our nation that a farmer's kid could grow up and change the world in a fine style as he did, and does.

If you don't have time to read the whole post, as you should, excerpts follow, and I'll have a summary posted in a couple of days.
"... and functioning. As long as we’ve got plenty of food, the metabolic systems busies itself with allocating it to the right places and storing what’s left over. In a society such as ours, there is usually too much food so the metabolic system has to deal with it in amounts and configurations that it wasn’t really designed to handle, leading to all kinds of problems."

"If you read any medical school biochemistry textbook, you’ll find a section devoted to what happens metabolically during starvation. If you read these sections with a knowing eye, you’ll realize that everything discussed as happening during starvation happens during carbohydrate restriction as well. There have been a few papers published recently showing the same thing: the metabolism of carb restriction = the metabolism of starvation. I would maintain, however, based on my study of the Paleolithic diet, that starvation and carb restriction are simply the polar ends of a continuum, and that carb restriction was the norm for most of our existence as upright walking beings on this planet, making the metabolism of what biochemistry textbook authors call starvation the ‘normal’ metabolism."

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Fight the Power!

Dr. Davis tells you what you can do to fight the market distorting forces that result in our government paying unsustainable amounts for medicare and medicaid.  
BLUF:  Don't eat yourself sick, and don't fall for the scam RXs.
"Never accept a prescription for fish oil, i.e., Lovaza. Just buy far less costly over-the-counter fish oil. I treat complex hyperlipidemias, including familial hypertriglyceridemia, ever day. I NEVER use prescription fish oil. A typical 4 capsule per day Lovaza prescription adds around $280 to $520 per month to overall health costs (though your direct out-of-pocket costs may be less, since you shove the costs onto others in your plan).
"Never accept a prescription for vitamin D. Prescription vitamin D is the mushroom or invertebrate form anyway. Just buy the human (cholecalciferol, D3) form from your health food store or "big box" store. They yield consistent increases in 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, superior to the prescription form. And they're wonderfully inexpensive.
"Eliminate wheat from your diet. If there is a dietary strategy that yields unexpected and outsized benefits across a wide spectrum of health, it's elimination of this thing we're sold called "wheat," you know, the genetically-transformed, high-yield dwarf mutant that now represents 99% of all wheat sold. Blood sugar drops, pre-diabetics become non-prediabetics, diabetics reduce need for medication or become non-diabetic, cholesterol values plummet, arthritis improves, acid reflux and irritable bowel symptoms improve or disappear, just to mention a few. Wheat elimination alone, I believe, would result in incalculable savings in both healthcare costs and lives saved.
"Be sure to obtain iodine. In the fuss to cut salt use, everyone forgot about iodine. Lack of iodine leads to thyroid disease, usually hypothyroidism, that, in turn, causes cholesterol values to increase, weight to increase, and heart disease risk to double, triple, or quadruple. Iodine supplementation is easy and wonderfully inexpensive. "

Friday, December 17, 2010

Technique or 'Form'?

The fitness world is full of reverent references to 'form'.  I don't know what the origin of the term is, but I associate the term to bodybuilding.  Body builders are hardworking athletes and I don't view their chosen sport as being more or less worthy than any other, but as an approach to fitness, body building is inferior to many other approaches.  Body building provides a type of stimulus that increases muscle mass at the expense of strength, speed, and therefore power.  "Form" to a body builder means "holding your body in such a way that your body cannot work together as a unit, for the purpose of isolating a chosen muscle group to make that group larger."  "Form" is an artificial concept of how the body should be positioned to accomplish dubious ends.
Technique, on the other hand, is the means to an end.  A successful squat with a maximal load demands good technique, just like a good pitcher uses good technique and a good puncher uses good technique.  This is true with pullups, Olympic weightlifting, running, jumping, climbing and any other good training modality.  An athlete that best applies technique will produce the greatest work output for his or her ability. In fact, good technique is defined by outcomes.  Given a set range of motion, the technique that produces the largest load moved in the shortest amount of time is the 'best' technique.
Note: injury implies and defines 'bad' technique.
Note 2:  there is no perfect technique.  Perfection is a conceptual matter which is beyond the human ability to perceive, much less to apply in life, sport or combat.  We can approximate our conception, therefore by definition arbitrary, of perfect technique, but even with slow motion cameras we cannot definitively measure our approximation of perfection.  Look at the greatest lifters, runners or gymnasts in the world - are they truly perfect?  Is every jump to perfect height?  Every lift the same maximal weight?  Perfection can be pursued as a concept, but its a fool's game to pretend that one ever achieves it.  It's a double fool's game then to say "we only accept perfect technique."  Hearing that, one knows the one who spoke is kidding themselves.
"Better technique is better" but perfect technique is mythical.  Better technique can be discerned when you are moving more weight with greater speed and less effort.  You want to improve your technique in every movement of every workout.  You want to train yourself to never say 'form' when referring to your workouts.  Never despair that your movements are not perfect - no one's movements are perfect.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

We Get Our Paleo The Old Fashioned Way
Fabulous bit from Mike Eades about learning to slaughter a pig, and why you might want a Mangalitsa pig vice what you think of as pig now.
"Mangalitsa were developed via selective breeding in Austria/Hungary in the early 1800s and have been around since, but dwindling in numbers because they are extreme lard-type hogs instead of meat hogs. (Heath Putnam, who met the Weisners in Austria several years ago brought the breed to the US.) Whereas meat-type hogs produce lean meat, lard-type hogs produce much fattier meat, well marbled, juicy and flavorful.  But with the tendency in the last few decades to move away from fat and toward leanness in hogs, the Mangalitsa fell out of favor.  Remember, pork has been advertised as the other white meat.  Hogs have been bread to be leaner and leaner over the past twenty or so years, and the taste of pork reflects that intent.  Tasting a bite of Mangalitsa pork, which is advertised as the other red meat – is a world different than the dry, tasteless pork most of us are used to.  Take a look at these Mangalitsa chops ..."

"Low Grain" Science
"More recent evaluations of early man's nutritional patterns by Dr. Loren Cordain, estimate that as much as 65 percent of his calories were derived from animal products. Granted, early man was not eating corn fed Angus beef from Jewel, but he was eating the meat, the organs and the bones of his prey. Essentially, a high protein/fat diet. It was a mere 10,000 years ago (or less) that man began exploiting an agricultural niche.
This transition was made due to decreasing population of large game prey and an increasing population of humans. While undeniable good has transcended this dietary shift, i.e., growth of the human population, establishment of permanent settlements, the inception of civilization itself - man's health may have suffered in the transition.
"Generally, in most parts of the world, whenever cereal-based diets were first adopted as a staple food replacing the primarily animal-based diets of hunter-gatherers, there was a characteristic reduction in stature, a reduction in life span, an increase in infant mortality, an increased incidence of infectious disease, an increase in diseases of nutritional deficiencies (i.e., iron deficiency, pellagra), and an increase in the number of dental caries and enamel defects.
"In a review of 51 references examining human populations from around the earth and from differing chronologies, as they transitioned from hunter-gathers to farmers, one investigator concluded that there was an overall decline in both the quality and quantity of life.
"There is now substantial empirical and clinical evidence to indicate that many of these deleterious changes are directly related to the predominately cereal-based diets of these early farmers. Since 99.99% of our genes were formed before the development of agriculture, from a biological perspective, we are still hunter-gathers.
"Thus, our diet should reflect the sensibilities of this nutritional niche: lean meats; fish; seafood; low glycemic vegetables and fruit, (modern agriculture has significantly increased the sugar and starch content of vegetables and fruits over their Paleolithic counterparts), nuts and seeds - the evolutionary diet."
All that said, there are cultures which thrived on a diet of mostly rye bread (prepared in traditional ways - if you want to replicate that diet, be prepared to soak and process your own bread), grass fed (unpasteurized) cow's milk and butter, with meat not more than weekly.  IOW, there are many ways to get around the paleolithic model and still thrive.  The caveat is that one would have to prepare the bread in traditional ways, and eat the same quantities of the fat soluble vitamins (A, D, and K) which are found in that rich, full fat grass fed cow's milk!  One would also have to give up juice, sugars, and the other toxic foods those cultures thrived by avoiding. 
Dr. Weston Price's masterpiece, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" does a supreme job of documenting these facts.  
Many of us in this 'food camp' call it the 'paleolithic model' because it provides a template by which to analyze which foods may be perilous and which should  work - but it's not nor should it become the 'paleolithic obsession'.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Squat Stands, Safety Spotting Stands, 2 for 1
This is an amazing piece of gear for any garage gym aspirant. 

Any one interested in a set of used Iron Mind Vulcan racks?

Government, Food, and Illness

"Dairy Management teamed up with Domino’s to create new pizzas with 40% more cheese and devised (and paid for) a 12 million dollar marketing campaign for the new creation. People loved the stuff, and sales soared, “by double digits”, according to the NY Times.
"So what’s the problem?
"Well, Dairy Management is actually not a wholly independent consulting firm. It’s part of the US Department of Agriculture."

Interesting when you look to find out how closely tied the government is to those who do the DoA's business.  Strange that the DoA pushes so many products which defy its "dietary recommendations."

One of the the many confounders of dietary research is that "dairy" isn't always "dairy", "fish" isn't always "fish", and "meat" isn't always "meat".

Are we talking about grass fed cow dairy, or grain fed?  Pasteurized or non-Pasteurized?  Grass or grain fed beef/chicken/pork?  Pen raised, grain fed salmon or wild caught?  Most of the nutritional criticisms of any of these products is either valid or invalid based on the answers to the above questions - but I'll guarantee you that virtually none of the epidemiological studies have taken into account the differences in the above - thus, the insignificance of those kinds of studies.  In the mean time, your government continues to spend our money to manipulate markets while pushing scientifically invalid dietary recommendations.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Colpo on The Grain Debate
This is a classic Colpo combo of rant and right - does a nice job dissecting more grain based pseudo science, which means he's at least useful in that regard!  While he makes mountains out of molehills, this is still an informative read.

"...let’s take a look at cancer. In the FeAST trial, patients who underwent phlebotomy to reduce their iron stores were 35% less likely to develop cancer. Among the study participants who did develop cancer, those in the iron reduction group had 61% lower cancer-specific and 51% lower all-cause mortality, respectively[1]. And that was with a woefully inadequate reduction of serum ferritin to only 80 mcg/dl (it was supposed to have been reduced to near-deficiency levels).

"So we know that blood withdrawal does lower iron and that it reduces the risk of cancer. There is a paucity of data examining the effect of IP-6 on cancer prevention or treatment in humans. However, in rodent studies, purified IP-6 dramatically reduces tumor incidence, whereas high cereal fiber diets providing a similar amount of IP-6 do not[2-4]. In human trials, increased wheat fiber intake has failed miserably to protect against colon cancer or adenomatous polyp formation[5].
"As a disease prevention strategy, the consumption of whole-grains fails miserably. Yeah, I know, you can cite a million-and-one epidemiological studies showing that whole-grains are associated with lower rates of every known ailment under the sun. However, a fundamental rule of science (that many PhDs evidently forget the minute they graduate) is that association is not the same as causation. Due to their uncontrolled nature, epidemiological studies are hopelessly prone to confounding from a vast array of variables. Controlled clinical trials, a far more reliable form of evidence, routinely show whole-grains to do a whole lot of nothing when it comes to disease prevention and amelioration.
"As for your absurd claim that whole-grains contain enough minerals to negate the “so-called toxins”…crikey, where do I begin? First of all, your dismissive description of “so-called toxins”indicates an unwillingness to acknowledge the very real and well-documented anti-nutrient content of grains and legumes. I strongly suggest you read up on the existence and effects of phytate, lectins, enzyme inhibitors, and the vitamin-blocking glucosides that exist in these foodstuffs."

Monday, December 13, 2010

Mercola/Rosedale, Part 6

"Full article available here:

(Part 1 is here:  
"Aging is a Disease
"If there is a single marker for lifespan, as they are finding in the centenarian studies, it is insulin, specifically insulin sensitivity.  How sensitive are your cells to insulin? When they are not sensitive, the insulin levels go up. Who has heard of the term insulin resistance?  Insulin resistance is the basis of all of the chronic diseases of aging, because the disease itself is actually aging.
"We know now that aging is a disease. The other case studies that I mentioned, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, all the so-called chronic diseases of aging and auto-immune diseases, those are symptoms.
"Now, the medical profession is continually segregating more and more symptoms into diseases--they call the symptoms diseases. Using ENT for example, a patient will walk out of the office with a diagnosis of Rhinitis, which is inflammation of the nose. Is there a reason why that patient has inflammation of the nose? I think so. Wouldn‘t that underlying cause be the disease as opposed to the descriptive term of Rhinitis or Pharyngitis?
"Someone can have the same virus and have Rhinitis, Pharyngitis or Sinusitis. They can have all sorts of "itis‘s," which is a descriptive term for inflammation. That is what the code will be, and that is what the disease will be. So they treat what they think is the disease, but which actually is just a symptom.
"The same thing happens with cholesterol. If you have high cholesterol it is called hypercholesterolemia. Hypercholesterolemia has become the code for the disease when it is only the symptom.  What you have to do if you are going to treat any disease is get to the root of the disease. If you keep pulling a dandelion out by its leaves, you are not going to get very far."

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Mercola/Rosedale Part 5, Insulin

More from this jewell:
(Part 1 is here:"Humans tend to have an average life span of 76 years, and the maximum lifespan was this French lady at 122 years. In humans we feel this length of time is relatively fixed, but in lower forms of life it is very plastic. Lifespan is strictly a variable depending on the environment. Other species can live two weeks, two years or sometimes 20 years depending on what they want themselves to do, which depends very much on the environment.
"If there is a lot of food around they are going to reproduce quickly and die quickly, if not they will just bide their time until conditions are better. We know now that the variability in lifespan is regulated by insulin.
"Often it is thought that insulin’s role is strictly to lower blood sugar. I once had a patient list off about eight drugs she was on and not even mention insulin. Insulin is not treated as a drug. In fact, in some places you don‘t even need a prescription, you can just get it over the counter, it‘s treated like candy.
"Insulin is found in even single-celled organisms and has been around for several billion years. Its purpose, in some organisms, is to regulate lifespan. The way genetics works is that genes are not replaced, they are built upon. We have the same genes as everything that came before us--we just have more of them.
"We have added books to our genetic library, but our base is the same. What we are finding is that we can use insulin to regulate lifespan too."

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Mercola/Rosedale Case Studies, Part 3

This is part 3 of this series (part 1 is here:  Dr. Rosedale continues with his illustrative case studies, all of which seem unrelated.  He brings these stray threads together after describing these next two cases.
"Claudication, that is, severe angina of the leg when you walk, is characterized by pain in the legs after walking a certain distance.
"My stepfather had extremely severe claudication. It was a typical case; he would walk about fifty yards and then get severe, crampy pain in his legs. He was going to see the best doctors in Chicago, but they couldn‘t figure out what was wrong with him initially.  For example, he went to a neurologist who thought it might be neurological pain or back pain. Finally, he went to a vascular surgeon who thought it was vascular disease, so they did an arthrogram--sure enough he had severe vascular disease. They wanted to do the by-pass surgery that is typically done for this, and he was considering it because he had a trip planned to Europe in two weeks, and he wanted to be able to walk around.
"Ten years prior he‘d had an angioplasty for heart disease. At the time I’d told him to change his diet, but of course he didn‘t. This time, however, he listened. I said that if he did exactly as I told him, he could avoid the by-pass and be walking just fine in two weeks. Modulating this one aspect of his disease--I have never seen it fail--works very quickly to open up the artery."

"(regarding a patient with a family history of cancer) This patient had a mother and sister who had both died of breast cancer. I put her on the exact same treatment as the other cases I just mentioned, because they all had the same thing wrong with them."
"What would be the typical treatment of cardiovascular disease? First they check the cholesterol. To treat high cholesterol (over 200) they put you on cholesterol lowering drugs, which shut off your CoQ10. What does CoQ10 do? It is involved in the energy production and protection of little energy furnaces in every cell, so energy production goes way down.
"A common side effect of people who are on all these HMG co-enzyme reductase inhibitors is that their arms feel heavy. Well, the heart is a muscle too, and it‘s going to feel heavy too.
"One of the best treatments for a weak heart is CoQ10 (for congestive heart failure). But doctors have no trouble shutting CoQ10 production off so that they can treat a number (editor's note:  in other words, they are happy to give statins, including their side effect of shutting down CoQ10 production, to lower the LDL measurement, which is meaningless).
"The common therapy for osteoporosis is drugs, and the common therapy for calaudication is surgery. For cancer reduction there is nothing.
"But all of these have a common cause--the same cause as three major avenues of research in aging, one of which is called caloric restriction."

Mercola/Rosedale Part 4, Causes

Dr. R moves from the case studies to the 'why' - why did they get sick, why his method helps them heal.
"Researchers have tested caloric restriction on several dozen species, and the results are uniform throughout. They are doing it on primates now, and it seems to working with primates, though we won‘t know for sure for about another 10 years.
"Why do centenarians become centenarians? Why are they so lucky? Is it because they have low cholesterol, exercise a lot and live a healthy, clean life?  Well, the oldest person ever recorded was Jean Calumet of France who died last year at 122 years of age. She smoked all of her life and drank.  What researchers are finding from these major centenarian studies is that there is hardly anything in common among these people. They have high cholesterol and low cholesterol, some exercise and some don‘t, some smoke, some don‘t. Some are nasty as can be, some nice and calm and some are ornery.
"But, they all have relatively low sugar for their age, and they all have low triglycerides for their age.
"And, they all have relatively low insulin.
"Insulin is the common denominator in everything I‘ve just talked about. They way to treat cardiovascular disease and the way I treated my stepfather, the way I treated the high risk cancer patient, and the osteoporosis and high blood pressure. The way to treat virtually all of the so-called chronic diseases of aging is to treat insulin itself."

Monday, December 6, 2010

Eat Your Way to Better Teeth
Absolutely fascinating site!  Heard this guy's interview on the Living La Vida Low Carb show (  He's a very soft selling gent, but the idea just fascinates me - worth a read/listen.

BLUF:  eat your essential fats (A, D, and K), this cues your teeth to remineralize.  

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Mercola Grain Truth

Like many Mercola articles, this one's a bit long, but a good read.  BLUF:  you may be adapted to eat the grains we started eating 10,000 years ago, but you ain't adapted to all the modern mutant dwarf wheat fertilized by oil that you are eating now.
"Approximately 17 plants species provides 90 percent of the world's food supply. The top 10 are: wheat, maize, rice, barley, soybean, cane sugar, sorghum, potato, oats, and cassava. Without these plants there is no way that the world could support the existing 6 billion people and the anticipated 12 to 15 billion people expected during the next century. If agriculture gave us anything, it was an easily grown mass diet that was calorically dense that could be stored, shipped, and processed in hundreds of different ways.
"Around 20,000 to 10,000 years ago there was a mass extinction of large mammals throughout Europe, North America, and Asia. The environment was exploited until other forms of hunting and gathering was demanded. Birds and waterfowl appeared more frequently in the fossil record, and for the first time grindstones and crude mortars appeared in the archaeological record in the near east. This was the beginning of humanity's use of cereal grains for food.  "Hunters and gatherers derived most of their calories from about 100-200 different species of wild animal fruits and vegetables. But with the advent of agriculture man became dependent upon a few staple cereal foods, 3-5 domesticated meat species, and 15-20 other plant foods. Many populations got up to 80 percent of their calories from a single cereal staple."

Friday, December 3, 2010

Dr. Eades on Anti Oxidants

Long excerpt follows, but the BLUF is anti-oxidants are at best of unproven benefit, and at worst, not good for you.  This post gives a magnificent frame of reference for why.
"Most people think of free radicals as these little electrons dashing around the body dinging the cells here and there and bringing about all the consequences of aging. If only we could quench (everyone always uses the word 'quench' when speaking of eliminating with free radicals) the little buggers, we could live forever.
"That much is obviously false because a large number of researchers have given zillions of subjects huge quantities of various antioxidants without any real change in longevity. Antioxidants have been studied enough to show that they aren't the magic bullet to significantly delay aging. Which seems strange, given what we know.
"We know that free radicals cause damage, we know that the accumulation of free-radical damage is one of the major causes of aging, we know that in a test tube antioxidants neutralize free radicals, so why don't we live longer when we take antioxidants?
"First, when we take antioxidant supplements they go into our blood. Most of the free radicals and free radical damage isn't in the blood. It's deep within the mitochondria, the little sausage shaped organelles that are the power-generators within the cells. The supplements we take don't make it into the mitochondria, so they're not really effective in protecting them. If mitochondria get severely enough damaged, they die. If cells lose their mitochondria, they lose their power source, and they die. When enough cells die, we die.
"Before we can understand how free radicals are created, we need to understand what happens to the food we eat. We know that food provides us with the energy we need to live, but most people don't really understand how we use the food we eat. When we eat a steak, how do we use the energy contained in the steak to power ourselves? We use it to convert ADP into ATP. ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the energy currency of the body. It is a molecule with high-energy phosphate bonds that when cleaved release the energy required to operate all of the body's functions. ADP (adenosine diphosphate) is converted to ATP in the mitochondria. Energy is required for this process, and that energy comes from food.
"Various metabolic pathways break down the food we eat and reduce it to high-energy electrons that end up in the mitochondria. These electrons are passed along from one complicated molecular structure to another along the inner mitochondrial membrane until they are finally handed off to oxygen, the ultimate electron receptor. (I'm really simplifying this process; entire books are written about it. I'm just giving you the most basic gist.) As these electrons are handed off from one complex to another, the energy they release during the transfer moves protons (hydrogen ions: H+) across this inner mitochondrial membrane. An electrochemical gradient is created when these hydrogen ions stack up on one side of the membrane. The electrochemical gradient is the force driving the production of ATP from ADP. Energy from food creates the electrochemical gradient, the electrochemical gradient drives the production of ATP, so, thusly, energy from food is converted into ATP.
"As the high-energy electrons are passed along down the inner mitochondrial membrane they occasionally break free. When they break free, they become free radicals. These rogue free radicals can then attack other molecules and damage them. Because these free radicals are loosed within the mitochondria, the closest molecules for them to attack are the fats in the mitochondrial membranes. If enough of these fats are damaged, the membrane ceases to work properly. If enough of the membrane doesn't work, the entire mitochodrium is compromised and ceases functioning. If enough mitochondria bite the dust, the cell doesn't work and undergoes apoptosis, a kind of cellular suicide. This chronic damage and loss of cells is the basic definition of aging.
"So, if free radicals cause this damage, why can't we stop it with antioxidants? We do. But not the antioxidants that we take in supplement form-those don't make their way into the interior of the mitochondria where the damage takes place. Nature has endowed us with our own antioxidant system located within the mitochondria where, so to speak, the rubber meets the road in terms of free radical damage. The antioxidants produced require sulfur, which comes from the sulfur-containing amino acids, i.e. methionine. There are certain substances contained in particular foods that stimulate the enzymatic machinery that increases the production of these intramitochondrial antioxidants. Sulforaphane, for instance, a substance found in broccoli sprouts greatly stimulates a particular enzymatic pathway within the mitochondria, resulting in an increased production of antioxidants where they need to be. Sulforaphane has been shown to prevent cancer, vascular damage, and a host of other disorders thought to result from excess free radical damage.
"Our defense against free radicals, then, really comes in two forms. First, the production of antioxidants within the mitochondria, and, second, by making the fats in the mitochondrial membrane less prone to damage. How can we do that? By making them more saturated.
"Saturated fats aren't prone to free radical attack-only unsaturated fats can be damaged by free radicals. Fats that have double carbon-carbon bonds, i.e. unsaturated fats, are the only fats susceptible to free radical damage. If the fats in the mitochondrial membrane are more saturated, then the membrane is less prone to free radical damage.
"Do we know this will work or are we guessing? We're pretty sure this is the case for a couple of reasons. First, when animals are calorically restricted (so far the only sure-fire way to increase lifespan), their membranes become more saturated. It was first thought that caloric restriction would reduce the production of free radicals, but it turns out that it doesn't. Calorically-restricted animals keep firing off free radicals at about the same rate as their non-calorically-restricted mates, but the fats in their membranes become more saturated, presumably providing protection against assault by free radicals, allowing the animals to live longer. Second, we can graph the degree of saturation of membranes against longevity, and when we do, we find that animals that live longer have more saturated membranes. Take a bat, for example, compared to a mouse. Both weigh about the same, but the bat lives for about 20 years, the mouse for three or four. The bat's membranes are much more highly saturated than are a mouse's.
"How can we increase the saturation of our membranes? By eating more saturated fat. In papers I've read, authors have cautioned against this approach (not wanting to appear 'nutritionally incorrect' of course), then have gone ahead and written about how they created a group of study animals with greater membrane saturation by feeding them more saturated fat.
"Another way we can increase the saturation of the fats in the membrane is by keeping insulin levels low. There are enzymes in the cells that both increase the length of fatty acid chains (called elongase enzymes) and those that desaturate (called desaturase enzymes) the fats. The desaturase enzymes can make fats less saturated. Insulin appears to activate these enzymes, so chronically elevated insulin levels would tend to keep the fats in the membranes less saturated and more susceptible to free radical attack. I would venture that this is one of the reasons that hyperinsulinemia shortens life. One of the constant findings in studies of centenarians is a low level of fasting insulin, which would make sense given the ability of excess insulin to make the membranes more prone to free radical damage.
"Many people seem to think that the cellular membranes won't function well if they contain more saturated fat. They believe that a more rigid membrane creates problems for the proper operation of all the receptors and other large protein structures that reside in the membrane. They are right in a way, since a certain degree of fluidity is necessary, but where I think they are wrong is in their belief that the degree of rigidity or fluidity of the membrane is determined by the degree of saturation of the fats in the membrane. It's determined by methylation, as was discussed in the previous post.
"When you put the whole puzzle together, it's pretty easy to see why a whole-food low-carbohydrate diet works to maintain health and longevity.
"It provides plenty of good quality saturated fat to help protect the cellular membranes from free radical attack. It provides plenty of methionine, which is both a source of sulfur for the antioxidants in the mitochondria and a source of methyl groups for methylation of the fats in the cellular membrane thereby keeping them more fluid while at the same time more saturated. And it keeps insulin levels low so that the fats are not desaturated more than necessary, once again keeping the membranes less prone to free radical damage.
"I believe the first and most effective defense against free radical attack is a good diet. Second is moderate exercise. (The effects of exercise on free radicals could be another long post, but for now, take my word for it: exercise reduces the production of free radicals) Third is the addition of a few supplements. CoQ10 and lipoic acid both act as antioxidants, but more importantly, they serve to regenerate the bodies own antioxidants. And a good vitamin supplement without massive doses of specific antioxidants isn't a bad idea.
"I take krill oil, fish oil, and curcumin daily without fail. I also take a vitamin E daily to stabilize the fats in the fish and krill oil. I take CoQ10 and lipoic acid several times per week. I take a multivitamin every now and then. And I take vitamin D3 in large doses throughout the winter. From time to time I take this or that other supplement depending upon what's going on with my health, i.e. do I feel like I'm getting a cold?
"I'm not a big fan of large doses of specific antioxidants because we weren't evolved to take them. Plants live in the sun and produce oxygen as their way of life. Both the sun and oxygen are harmful if not controlled. Plants have evolved a complicated antioxidant system to protect themselves from sun and oxygen damage. "We consume these antioxidants when we consume plants. We get tiny amounts of a zillion different kinds of antioxidants, not massive amounts of single antioxidants. And we get all the raw materials for the production of our own antioxidants from meat. (This post has gone on long enough, so if you want to read more about my view on antioxidants, read Chapter 5 in the Protein Power LifePlan.)
"In my view, this is how nature intended us to get our antioxidants, and, with the exceptions mentioned above, this is the way I intend to get mine.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Rosedale/Mercola, Part 2

Dr. Rosedale continues (Part 1 is at, discussing his next two case studies (which seem unconnected, but he will tie their causality together):
"Patient B is a 42-year-old man who was referred by patient A. He had a triglyceride level of 2200, a cholesterol level of 950 and was on maximum doses of all his medications. He was not fat at all; he was fairly thin.
"This man was told that he had familial hyperlipidema and that he had better get his affairs in order, because if that was what his lipids were despite the best medications with the highest doses, he was in trouble.
"Whenever I see a patient on any of those medications, they‘re off the very first visit. They have no place in medicine. He was taken off the medications and in six weeks his lipid levels, both his triglycerides and his cholesterol, were hovering around 220. After six more weeks, they were both under 200, off of the medications. As I said earlier, they have no place in medicine.
"I should mention that this patient had a CPK that was quite elevated. It was circled on the lab report that he had brought in initially with a question mark by it because they didn‘t know why. The reason why was because he was eating off his muscles--if you take (gemfibrozole) and any of the HMG co-enzyme reductase inhibitors together, this is a common side effect, which is in the PDR; they shouldn‘t be given together.
"So, he was chewing up his muscles, including his heart, which they were trying to treat. If indeed he were going to die, it would be that treatment that would kill him."

Severe Osteoporosis

"Let‘s go to something totally different--a lady with severe osteoporosis. This fairly young woman was almost three standard deviations below the norm in both the hip femeral neck and the cervical vertebrae and was very worried about getting a fracture. She was put on a high-carbohydrate diet and told that this would be of benefit. She was also placed on estrogen, which is a fairly typical treatment.
"They wanted to put her on some other medicines, but she wanted to know if there was an alternative. Although we didn‘t have as dramatic a turn around in this case, we did take her off the estrogen she was on and got her to one standard deviation below the norm in a year."