Sugars Attack!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-kc082108.php
Killer carbs -- Monash scientist finds the key to overeating as we age
A Monash University scientist has discovered key appetite control cells in the human brain degenerate over time, causing increased hunger and potentially weight-gain as we grow older.
The research by Dr Zane Andrews, a neuroendocrinologist with Monash University's Department of Physiology, has been published in Nature.
Dr Andrews found that appetite-suppressing cells are attacked by free radicals after eating and said the degeneration is more significant following meals rich in carbohydrates and sugars.
"The more carbs and sugars you eat, the more your appetite-control cells are damaged, and potentially you consume more," Dr Andrews said.
Dr Andrews said the attack on appetite suppressing cells creates a cellular imbalance between our need to eat and the message to the brain to stop eating.
"People in the age group of 25 to 50 are most at risk. The neurons that tell people in the crucial age range not to over-eat are being killed-off.
"When the stomach is empty, it triggers the ghrelin hormone that notifies the brain that we are hungry. When we are full, a set of neurons known as POMC's kick in.
"However, free radicals created naturally in the body attack the POMC neurons. This process causes the neurons to degenerate overtime, affecting our judgement as to when our hunger is satisfied," Dr Andrews said.
The free radicals also try to attack the hunger neurons, but these are protected by the uncoupling protein 2 (UCP2).
Dr Andrews said the reduction in the appetite-suppressing cells could be one explanation for the complex condition of adult-onset obesity.
"A diet rich in carbohydrate and sugar that has become more and more prevalent in modern societies over the last 20-30 years has placed so much strain on our bodies that it's leading to premature cell deterioration," Dr Andrews said.

Dr Andrews' next research project will focus on finding if a diet rich in carbohydrates and sugars has other impacts on the brain, such as the increased incidences of neurological conditions like Parkinson's disease.

Masterjohn w Moore

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/1326/chris-masterjohn-on-cholesterol-episode-314/
Chris Masterjohn weighs in on Jimmy's great podcast, and provides a model for oxidation that is "scientifically valid and accessible to the common man."  His model - oxidation breaks molecules, so a human with oxidative damage has an excess of broken molecules infused in the cells/bloodstream.  The oxidized, broken cells are like broken glass on a kitchen floor, and cause damage to surrounding tissues, and require cleanup.  The result is a hyperactive immune system, which is so busy cleaning up damaged cells, it cannot take care of regular business as it should, AND may be causing unintended damage to normal tissues through chronic inflammatory response.  So, imagine that you are consuming a lot of easily oxidized poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs - seed oils and worse, hydrogenated oils), and your system becomes saturated with all that oxidized junk - it just can't be good, and the evidence indicates it is not, which is why efforts to move people to PUFAs vice saturated fats have not proved to be an effected measure to reduce CVD.
Chris also does a good job of clarifying the difference between the diet/heart hypothesis and the lipid hypothesis.  The diet/heart hypothesis is that eating saturated fats and cholesterol results in higher serum levels of cholesterol and therefore contribute to CVD.   The lipid hypothesis proposes a connection between plasma cholesterol level and the development of coronary heart disease. 
In summary, this is another good session with Jimmy Moore.  More of Chris' writing can be found on the Weston A. Price Foundation web site - http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/blogger/CMASTERJO/ - this dude's got a big brain.

For a great survey of aging, oxidation and low carb diets, see this very detailed post by Dr. Mike Eades - http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/low-carb-diets-reduce-oxidative-stress/  

Metabolism of Low Carb

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-diet-trumps-low-fat-diet-yet-again/

Dr. Eades might be too smart for his own good, but I've learned a ton from his blog.  This is a really simple way to better understand why low carb consumption is good for you - plain and simple, it is because of blood sugar control.
"Finally, I can't understand why the instructions to the low-carb group were to increase carbs to 120 grams per day after the initial two month induction. We don't know how many carbs the subjects in this study were actually consuming because the data shows carbohydrate intake only as the percent of total energy intake, but without showing what total energy intake is. If we assume that the subjects were eating about 120 grams per day, we know that they were right on the cusp of having any advantage from the low-carbohydrate diet other than the spontaneous caloric restriction it brings about. Our bodies need about 200 grams of glucose per day for all the tissues requiring sugar for proper function. Under conditions of zero carb intake, the body replaces about 70 grams of this glucose with ketone bodies, leaving about 130 grams that the liver must produce, which it does via the process called gluconeogenesis. Consuming zero carbs puts the body into the metabolic status that drives gluconeogenesis. If we are consuming 120 grams per day of carb, as the subjects in this study apparently were, then we are riding on the edge in terms of driving gluconeogenesis. We probably are making a little sugar to bridge the gap, but probably aren't in the metabolic status most of the day that gives the low-carb diet its real advantage. It's interesting to note that the data from this study show that only about 8 percent of those in the low-carb diet arm were spilling ketones in their urine, which leads me to believe that most were probably not gaining the full metabolic advantage that a low-carb diet offers.
Despite the instruction to increase carbs to 120 grams per day, I believe these subjects had a long-term benefit from the two months of rigid low-carb dieting (20 grams per day) with which they started the study. Why do I believe that? There is a terrific study in Nutrition & Metabolism showing that subjects with diabetes who underwent a strictly supervised low-carb diet for six months, and who lost weight, improved blood sugar control and lipid parameters, were still showing the positive effects of this intervention 44 months later. These impressive findings seem to indicate that there is some sort of rejuvenation that takes place in people after they have spent a period of time on an honest-to-God low-carb diet that carries over for several years. Maybe this is the phenomenon we're seeing in the subjects in this NEJM study. The two months of rigid low-carb carries over for the rest of the study despite the subjects cranking their carbs up to non-low-carb levels.
It's really too bad that the researchers didn't check all the lab parameters and measure weight loss after the two month induction period. And it's too bad they made the silly recommendation to go vegetarian low-carb. And it's too bad they encouraged the subjects in the low-carb arm to increase their carbs to 120 grams per day. But despite all these missteps, the low-carb dieters were still triumphant over the other diets. It just goes to show what a powerful metabolic strategy restricting carbs is."

Lasting Benefit

Dr. Eades commenting on the Israeli study:
"Despite the instruction to increase carbs to 120 grams per day, I believe these subjects had a long-term benefit from the two months of rigid low-carb dieting (20 grams per day) with which they started the study. Why do I believe that? There is a terrific study in Nutrition & Metabolism showing that subjects with diabetes who underwent a strictly supervised low-carb diet for six months, and who lost weight, improved blood sugar control and lipid parameters, were still showing the positive effects of this intervention 44 months later. These impressive findings seem to indicate that there is some sort of rejuvenation that takes place in people after they have spent a period of time on an honest-to-God low-carb diet that carries over for several years. Maybe this is the phenomenon we're seeing in the subjects in this NEJM study. The two months of rigid low-carb carries over for the rest of the study despite the subjects cranking their carbs up to non-low-carb levels."

The cited study is here:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
Abstract:  Low-carbohydrate diets, due to their potent antihyperglycemic effect, are an intuitively attractive approach to the management of obese patients with type 2 diabetes. We previously reported that a 20% carbohydrate diet was significantly superior to a 55–60% carbohydrate diet with regard to bodyweight and glycemic control in 2 groups of obese diabetes patients observed closely over 6 months (intervention group, n = 16; controls, n = 15) and we reported maintenance of these gains after 22 months. The present study documents the degree to which these changes were preserved in the low-carbohydrate group after 44 months observation time, without close follow-up. In addition, we assessed the performance of the two thirds of control patients from the high-carbohydrate diet group that had changed to a low-carbohydrate diet after the initial 6 month observation period. We report cardiovascular outcome for the low-carbohydrate group as well as the control patients who did not change to a low-carbohydrate diet.
Method
Retrospective follow-up of previously studied subjects on a low carbohydrate diet.
Results
The mean bodyweight at the start of the initial study was 100.6 ± 14.7 kg. At six months it was 89.2 ± 14.3 kg. From 6 to 22 months, mean bodyweight had increased by 2.7 ± 4.2 kg to an average of 92.0 ± 14.0 kg. At 44 months average weight has increased from baseline g to 93.1 ± 14.5 kg. Of the sixteen patients, five have retained or reduced bodyweight since the 22 month point and all but one have lower weight at 44 months than at start. The initial mean HbA1c was 8.0 ± 1.5%. After 6, 12 and 22 months, HbA1c was 6.1 ± 1.0%, 7.0 ± 1.3% and 6.9 ± 1.1% respectively. After 44 months mean HbA1c is 6.8 ± 1.3%.
Of the 23 patients who have used a low-carbohydrate diet and for whom we have long-term data, two have suffered a cardiovascular event while four of the six controls who never changed diet have suffered several cardiovascular events.
Conclusion
Advice to obese patients with type 2 diabetes to follow a 20% carbohydrate diet with some caloric restriction has lasting effects on bodyweight and glycemic control.

Notes to the Crusader

Crusader - lawyer, Vandy MBA, Guardsman, comic, drummer, practical joker, father of 3, Mensa member, hitchhiking adventurer, fellow hunter, and friend since 1982 (and a bunch of other stuff too, some which I could not mention here), asked me about Collin T Campbell's assertion in a newspaper article that a plant based diet is known to be useful to prevent all cancers.  This is my response:


This guy is the author of a book by the name of the study he worked on
called the "China Study." He's reported to be a very affable guy.  The book and the study report a bunch of correllations on the populations they studied - chinese peasants as I recall - and their health results. It's perhaps the largest and most expensive observational study ever done, and just as worthless as all the other observational studies for proving causation (
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study
/).  In the end, the correlations were noteworthy because they showed a
perspective that T Collin has long advocated - the meat diet causes cancers
and other bad news for humans.
Several folks have picked his work apart - Chris Masterjohn (http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/blogger/CMASTERJO/) and Anthony Colpo
(http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=129) being two folks who's work is available for free on the web - but the latest
really dissects it. It's a young woman who's seemingly brilliant and crazy.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/  Based on
her work, it appears that the tables in the study were "inaccurate".
Dr. Campbell's lab work revolved around giving rats enough protein powder that they got cancer.  Since rats aren't humans, and protein powder is a human created product of the industrial food chain, I don't give his results much credence as regards what would happen to you or to me if we eat a relatively high protein diet.  Bottom line - there's no model for a plant based diet preventing disease, and practitioners of such a diet who look, feel and perform well are few and far between.
My own experience is that basing the diet around proteins that had a soul, a mother and a face allows me to look, feel and perform like I want to, with well regulated blood sugar (measured on a glucose monitor and via A1c), good lipid profile and 13% body fat with very little hunger.
I think it may be possible to get the same outcome with a plant based diet, except for the difficulty of getting enough quality protein. You have to go to dairy/eggs, and my experience with dairy was not positive  (I have not been able to try raw dairy). I also think most folks doing 'plant based' eat grains and other non-sustainable foods; Pollyface Farms (Pastured Poultry: The Polyface Farm Model) is proving that between animals and other farm products, animals are far, far more sustainable.  For more on this, see The Vegetarian Myth (The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability).  20 year vegan true believer Lierre Keith pulls apart more than one of the vegetarian myths.
I can describe a model for how high carb/grain based diets cause cancer, diabetes, CVD, stroke, gout, HBP, etc., but I don't know of one that explains these phenomenon without high blood sugar cycles.
Lastly, most of us have eaten so many carbs that we've damaged our systems and have become mal-adapted. We cannot tolerate carbs as we were perhaps designed to do before one could get 150 pounds of sugar per year (as the average american now consumes, not to mention grains, potatoes, rice, etc which are essentially just more sugar).  There are some paleo cultures that thrive on plant based diets (kitavans getting much press of late), meaning it must be possible to do so - although even kitavans get sick once eating grains.
However, without the industrial farming of annual monocrops (IOW grains and soy beans), it's nearly impossible to get enough calories via plants. Without meat, it is impossible to get enough nutrients to keep a paleo culture alive - we can supplement the missing B vitamins in a supplement rich neo culture, but no paleo culture could have.  Likewise, absent coconut oil, most paleo cultures wouldn't have had access to enough fat to be healthy.  The vast majority of known paleo groups ate predominantly animal food, and thrived - no cancer, CVD, diabetes, gout, stroke, obesity, etc.
In short, I'm not even tempted by Dr. Campbell's narrative.

Again Faster - Fixing the Squat

http://www.againfaster.com/the-micd-instructor/2008/4/19/fixing-the-squat.html

Two of CrossFit's best showing how it's done.  You'll never know too much about the squat.

What PACE Is

Here's the claim:
"You don't have to do cardio, lift weights, or go to aerobics classes to get the body you want. You don't even need a gym membership.
You can build a lean, effortlessly energetic body with a bulletproof heart, robust lungs, and muscles as strong as steel. without wasting your time.
It takes Terri an average of 12 minutes a day."
http://content.eaglepub.com/?laKap4YH7OPeIHLnREs3UjMlsHhsASgRl
The author is Dr. Al Sears, whom I think of as a low carb hero after his appearance in "Fat Head the Movie" - but the claims, do they seem too good to be true?
I would say, "yes and no." I'm sure you appreciate the certainty. I've attached the parts of Dr. Sears' program below that I like - the claims he makes below are true from my perspective, with one exception. I think he's wrong about the impact of exercise on fat loss. I think exercise is essential for physical and mental health, not to mention having the option of enjoying old age, but there is no scientific evidence to validate the assertion that exercise will contribute to long term body composition management. As I've written before, if exercise was good for fat loss, all lumberjacks would have died of starvation.
What I really mean by that is this - the body has a complex feedback system which regulates appetite based on a large number of inputs. About the only way to throw this system off is to ingest a fairly large amount of non-food - stuff like grains, legumes, sugars and processed dairy. If your plan is to eat a bunch of non-food that the body will learn to partition into fat stores, then spend a bunch of hours 'burning off' the fat stores ... good luck. This is a plan that wastes time, compromises health and won't create much fitness (but it IS better than doing nothing!).
The better plan is to eat the right food, and let your body's exquisitely well engineered systems tell you how much to eat based on your appetite. More on this topic, by Mike Eades, is here: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/metabolic-efficiency/
That said - if you eat real food, and exercise like Dr. Sears describes, you will in fact lose body fat and gain muscle. Most of the claims he makes are cornerstones of CrossFit programming - short intense workouts do provide the best benefits. They will increase strength and muscle mass, improve your fasting lipid profile, stabilize your blood sugar and minimize oxidative stress when compared with long, slow distance training.
So, if you want to read on for more information about why high intensity interval based training is far superior to aerobics or long distance run/bike/swim/row ing, read on. If you already CrossFit and eat Paleo, you should know most of what follows. Is Dr. Sears' program worth the price? I would say yes if you would like a guide to effective training with minimal equipment. It's not CrossFit, but it will work, and in many respects I would rate this program as better than P90X, due to the shorter, more time effective programming.
Dr. Sears' comments follow:
Here's why I tell my patients aerobics and cardio are not the way to exercise:
They won't make you lean!
They won't protect you from heart disease!
They won't even boost your energy!
Even worse, aerobic and cardio training - the kind most doctors and even the federal government promote as the path to good health - can actually wreck your body. Do enough, and it will make you sick, tired, and old before your time.
This Harvard Health Professionals Study backs me up on this. Researchers followed over 7,000 people. They found that the key to protect your heart is exactly the opposite of "cardio." It's not endurance. It's intensity. In fact, they proved that the more intense the exertion, the lower their risk of heart disease.1
And that's not all. Another Harvard study compared vigorous and light exercise.2
Those who performed exercise that is more vigorous had a lower risk of death than those who performed less vigorous exercise.
Aerobics and cardio are low-intensity, long-duration exercises. This Harvard study clearly shows that this kind of exercise increases your risk of heart disease and death.
For our ancient ancestors this was natural. They didn't run marathons or jump around for an hour at a time without a break. They exerted themselves in brief bursts, then rest. It was a matter of survival.
The metabolism you have right now is a result of this lifestyle. Millions of years of evolution have crafted the heart that's beating in your chest at this very moment. This pattern of brief intensity, followed by rest, is hardwired in your genes.
Your genes define the kind of movement and exertion you need to survive and stay fit. Your muscles, bones, and organ systems are reflections of this genetic design. And the way they work together with the challenges of your environment is the formula for strength, vitality, and long life.
Long duration exercise like aerobics and cardio burn fat during your workout. Sounds good, right? Not at all. This sends a message to your body that you need a reserve of fat available for the next time you do long-duration exercise.
This self-defeating cycle ensures that your body makes more fat every time you finish exercising.
That's why you may have such a hard time losing fat at the gym. Every time you burn fat during exercise, you body reacts by making more.
PACE sessions can be as short as 12 minutes. And they never last more than 20 minutes. That means your body never has a chance to burn fat during exercise. During PACE, your body burns carbs from muscle tissue.
This triggers your "afterburner." After you finish your PACE session, your body will burn fat to replace the carbs it just used. In fact, your body continues to burn fat for up to 24 hours after you finish. even while you sleep.
After a while, your body stops making fat. It simply doesn't need it. This after burn is the key to getting rid of excess body fat, not long hours of boring exercise.
To illustrate just how powerful the effects of this after burn are, take a look at this: Researchers in Quebec's Laval University divided exercisers into two groups: long-duration and repeated short-duration.3
They had the long-duration group cycle 45 minutes without interruption. The short-duration group cycled in multiple short bursts of 15 to 90 seconds, with rests in between.
The long-duration group burned twice as many calories, so you would assume they would burn more fat. However, when the researchers recorded their body composition measurements, the short-burst group showed the most fat loss.
In fact, the short-burst group lost 9 times more fat than the endurance group for every calorie burned!
Raise Your Levels of Human Growth Hormone: This is your body's "anti-aging" hormone. It's been shown to build muscle, melt fat, improve bone density, raise your "good" cholesterol, and reverse the negative effects of aging. Blood levels of this hormone rise dramatically during and immediately after PACE-type exercise. (Traditional aerobic exercise has no effect.)
Burn More Calories: PACE turbo-charges your metabolism. After intense bursts of exercise, your body needs to burn extra calories to repair muscles, replenish energy, and bring your body back to its "normal" state. This process takes anywhere from a few hours up to a whole day - meaning you'll burn calories long after your workout is over.
Get More Strength and Greater Fitness in Less Time: After a few weeks of a "cardio" routine, you stop making progress and hit a "plateau." PACE helps you break through those dead spots and keeps you moving forward. Within just a few months of PACE, you'll be able to pump more blood and deliver more oxygen to your muscles - raising your energy levels like never before.
Build a More Powerful Heart: The PACE program gives your heart a boost you'll never get from traditional aerobic exercise. Because PACE demands more oxygen, your heart adapts by increasing both its heart rate and stroke volume (the amount of blood your heart can pump in one beat). This increased pumping power makes your heart stronger - and last longer.
1 Lee I, et al. Relative intensity of physical activity and risk of coronary heart disease. Circulation. 2003 Mar 4;107(8):1110-6.
2 Lee I, et al. Exercise intensity and longevity in men. The Harvard Alumni Health Study. JAMA. 1995 Apr 19;273(15):1179-84.
3 Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 1994;43(7): 814-818.
See also: http://www.pacerevolution.com/pace/articles/