Carbohydrates are the Cause of Most Diseases via Glycation

It Turns Out that Many Degenerative Diseases Are Caused by Carbohydrates: Are You Surprised?

Since 1987 and the release of the Glycation Theory of Aging, there are now many published papers that describe the damaging effects of glucose-derived glycation end products:

• diabetes
• obesity
• heart disease
• even osteoporosis
• neurological diseases including bi-polar disorder, alzheimer’s disease, and parkinsons and many others
• aging skin and all body proteins

Glycated Proteins: 5,000 Plus Medical Research Papers Published Since 1984

I Rarely Find Anyone, Lay Public, Medical Doctor, or Scientist Who Has Ever Heard About Glycated Proteins

Why? Because everyone is still stuck on fat and cholesterol.

My mission: to teach you about glycated proteins that arise when a glucose molecule attaches itself to your body’s structural proteins including your DNA and RNA.

Forget cholesterol, that’s old news.

Since the collective wisdom and thinking process ended when cholesterol got blamed for heart disease and other diseases, looking at other possibilities stopped.

Even though all these papers have been published, our policy wonks fail to look at the data.

Diabetes Free Mini-Course

I’ve Written a 4 Part Mini-Course About Diabetes and Include Content Never Before Available

The Medical Establishment has been unable to do anything about the epidemic rise in diabetes.

Projections suggest that 30 Million people will receive a diagnosis of diabetes by 2020. Read more

The Myth of the Glycemic Index and Its Child: “Good Carbs-Bad Carbs”

The Glycemic Index Has Befuddled Millions

The Glycemic Index (GI), first described by University of Toronto researchers, has been the basis of many major diet and weight control programs of the last decade, the South Beach Diet as an example.

It’s clear that the researchers themselves and the endless legions of doctors and pseudo-expert writers (comprised of journalists, fitness trainers, and other pundits) never really read the results of the published paper that first appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1981.

• the test of different carbohydrate foods was made using 50-gram portions of the investigated food, a fact that’s critical to know in our analysis
• the authors talked about the “great” differences in blood glucose responses existing between different foods
• they were right that there were differences, but they weren’t great

Even Though There Are Different Rates of Glucose Rise, This Has No Physiological Significance

So, if one food causes glucose to rise to a level of 200 milligrams per volume of blood and another only goes to 175, what does this mean?

The answer is: Nothing.

Here’s what happens:

1. blood glucose affects our metabolism in two main ways, it affects the release and burning of stored fat and,
2.  it affects fat storage

These are the key issues we must understand as glucose rises, we stop releasing and burning fat from the fat cell and we convert the glucose to body fat!

The carbs dictate the blood glucose level. It turns out that even the lowest GI carbs increase blood glucose enough to shut down fat release and maximize the conversion of carbs to fat in the fat cells! Is that what you want? If so, eat on the Glycemic Index.

This is where they’ve all gone wrong. It takes very little glucose to shut down fat burning and to store carbs as fat.

Fiber in Whole Grain Foods is a Big Part of the Glycemic Index Propaganda

One of the early thoughts (still strongly held today) is that fiber slows the digestion and release of glucose into the blood:

• to reiterate my point above, the rate of rise of glucose into the blood means nothing; it affects nothing
• Why? Glucose conversion to body fat and the inhibition of fat release from fat cells occurs at blood glucose levels well below the blood glucose level of the lowest glycemic index foods
• therefore, foods with higher GIs do not change fat release and the rate of glucose-to-fat conversion more so than lower GI foods
• fat release and carb-storage-to-fat is already maxed out by the lowest GI foods

Let’s see what the first research paper said about fiber:

• “Surprisingly, no significant relationship was seen between glycemic index and dietary fiber”
• “Furthermore, it does not appear that dietary fiber, either quantitatively or qualitatively, played an important role in the differences observed in the potato test meal”
• Fiber, even though it does not affect blood glucose, is the mantra of the South Beach Diet and all the other glycemic index diets

 So much for the dietary fiber “belief” system. Guys, I’m not making this stuff up. On this site and in my books, we deal with Facts.

The Glycemic Index Mantra Discusses the Idea of “Spikes” in Blood Sugar and Insulin

Spikes were the key argument supporting the notion of “Good Carbs” and “Bad Carbs,” leading to the idea of Net Carbs.

• Net Carbs was used by the food companies to sell carbohydrate foods to unsuspecting dieters
• spikes mean nothing as I pointed out above
• a carb is a carb is a carb, it all digests to glucose and it’s the daily TOTAL exposure to glucose that matters, not different rates of rise
• insulin was never a part of the Glycemic Index
• fructose (fruit sugar) messes everything up because it really converts rapidly to fat even though its GI is only 23, way lower than glucose

Glycemic Index: Tests 50-Gram Portions of Food

That’s the Test for the GI of a Food

The Gi is not a test of consuming multiple foods at the same time, or even meals. You can’t just add up the different GIs in a menu and arrive at the meal’s GI as many are doing. It’s not valid, it’s all made up.

All glucose molecules are the same and they all must be disposed of by the end of the day.

More Gobbledygook: The Development of Glycemic Load

Glycemic Load was developed by Dr. Walter Willet, the Harvard epidemiologist and card carrying member of the low-fat Establishment.

He agrees that the total amount of carbohydrate consumed is important. He calculates Glycemic Load, a measure of total carbs consumed multiplied by the carb’s GI.

Of course, since the GI is meaningless, multiplying zero by another number is still zero.

Now, for the final nail in the coffin: GI proponents have tried to get the GI recognized for more than 25 years by the American Diabetes Association to help diabetics control their sugar levels.

The Glycemic Index did not help diabetics control blood sugar and the ADA rejected it and refused to make it a part of a diabetes control program. This really irritated the Toronto doctors but, again, facts are facts, and real science will always trump beliefs, if you allow it.

There are many other details about why you shouldn’t use the Glycemic Index to manage your weight or health. I detail all of this in my book, Net Carb Scam and the Hazards of Carbohydrates. I cover GI on pages 124-163, a thorough analysis based on a detailed scrutiny of the scientific literature since the introduction of the GI in 1981.

Weight Gain is at Epidemic Proportions

With All the Endless Ideas and Opinions of “Experts” and Marketers, You’d Think the Weight Problem Was Solved By Now

There must be a solution — there has to be a solution, an answer?

But, maybe not.

Or, is it just that the 65% plus overweight (obese) population has no willpower, no personal resolve?

People just fail to take personal responsibility?

I just don’t buy that, I think it’s impossible that such a large percentage of people can’t do what has to be done.

We know people can lose weight — we see it all the time: on TV, on the cover of People Magazine.

But, we scientists also KNOW that 95% of these people regain all the weight they lost, plus even more.

The TV and magazine writers ask these “weight losers” what methods they used to lose the weight. Each often follows a different plan. We know that there are a lot of plans out there that, obviously, work because some people do lose weight.

But, a Question Arises that Needs an Answer:

Is There Some Common Denominator to All the Plans that Do Work?

Is there some underlying physiological factor that’s common to every person who loses weight? Now, if that’s the case, maybe, just maybe, we have the solution.

Is anyone looking for the common ground? I can’t see that many have done so. They never did it for me when I was fat — I just kept trying different plans.

Question #1: Is losing weight and keeping it off one of the most complex problems in the world — one that requires all of these different plans and methods for weight loss?

Or…

Question #2: Is losing weight and keeping it off one of the simplest things in the world — one that has only one solution that works for everyone?

I Needed to Solve this Problem for My Own Desperation

I got very fat at the age of twelve, very fat. My nickname in the eighth grade was “Fat Ass.” Not a good time psychologically to be tapped with a moniker like that!

I was desperate, I needed answers and I needed them fast.

At age eight I’d been introduced to muscle building by my Dad.

But, he was gone by age twelve, so I turned to the muscle magazines of the day.

I clinged to the written words contained within those magazines by what I perceived to be the experts.

Then I grew taller and the little Fat Ass was no more. And, since I was strong, because I lifted weights, I was a real good athlete.

My new model, however, was not one of “I don’t want to be 5 X 5,” but, I wanted to be lean and muscular. My initial goal was to have the veins in my arms show. OK, I achieved that goal.

Then, I just kept upping the ante — I wanted my abs to show. So, like everyone else, I tried all the plans. But, I never reached my goal. I figured the muscle magazine experts just didn’t know exactly HOW to do it even though many did do it. But, they really couldn’t teach someone else HOW to do it.

Now, I barely got through school, I was a jock and didn’t care for the books.

At age 23, I came up with what then (and even now) seemed like a preposterous idea: I’d go to graduate school with the plan of getting a doctorate. Would not be an easy task.

The other notion I held strongly was that the PhDs in graduate school would have the answers I so desperately needed, and I know that the vast majority of people hold the same belief.

Why did I believe this? Because the muscle mag guys failed me and someone must have the answers.

Boy, was I wrong about thinking the PhDs had the answers too.

In my failed efforts to get answers, I finally figured out that I’d have to find the answers on my own. I began doing very advanced experiments on myself and when I asked questions of the PhDs (my own PhD professors) about the outcome of my experiments, they’d have no answers for me.

Turned out I was doing experiments that scientists hadn’t even looked at yet. I’d gotten that far ahead of my time. Gradually, I began to figure things out.

Well, I finally did get those abs, but couldn’t hold them.

That was the next learning ground: what did I have to do to keep them, or, if I lost them, how could I get them back?

Graduate school took fifteen years because I had to work.

And as I learned physiology and biochemistry, I’d get side-tracked and read research papers in an effort to get my answers.

I learned that what I wanted to know was not in a textbook and pieces were spread all over the place in an endless number of independent research papers.

An example: I found out, in contrast to what the majority of research scientists said, that to build more muscle, I’d need to eat more protein. It was also argued that if one ate too much protein that he’d ruin his liver and kidneys.

I had to chase down the answer to that. It wasn’t true, but they never bothered to actually research the facts and find the truth. I did because I needed to.

now, more protein equals more meat and that meant more fat and cholesterol

had to track that one down too

found out in 1980 that we’d been lied to on that issue ever since the story broke in 1953

even now, in 2008, it’s still believed by the mainstream that fat and cholesterol are health hazards

don’t believe me that they aren’t?

just search “cholesterol myths” and start doing your research, you’ll be stunned by what you’ll turn up!

I Know What I’m Talking About Here is “Contrarianism” to the Max, but Only the Facts Matter to Me and to You!

Alright, that gives you a small taste of what I went through to find out how to lose and control my weight.

For decades I ran through a gauntlet of misinformation, false ideas, dead-ends, and just plain lies.

It was no easy task.

It’s even harder today, particularly because of the Internet as more and more “annointed” experts and talking heads appear every day.

As I found out, the supposed experts (doctors and PhDs) are mostly clueless and what you don’t know, that I know, is that “weight-loss science” is largely based on belief systems and not facts.

I know because I’m part of the brotherhood. I describe all these details in my There’s No Fountain of Youth book.

The next major group that screws you up are the marketers: this group is made up of book writers, weight loss program companies, writers of articles for magazines, supplement sellers, and the muscle-head crowd such as personal trainers.

Can You Actually Lose 30 Pounds in 30 Days as the Marketers Claim?

You can only lose 30 pounds in 30 days if you don’t eat anything, and most of that loss will be water weight.

Quit being duped, learn how to do it the right way, the optimal way.

It’s time to answer some of the questions I posed above.

Weight loss is not complex, in fact, it’s one of the simplest things on the planet, it’s guided by one simple rule, the Law of Thermodynamics: Calories Rule.

There are many who want to argue this and I’ll talk more about the Calorie Theory on another page.

Now, that being undeniable, many things affect this rule and you’d better understand every one of them if you want to succeed. I do and I wrote them all down for you in the multiple books that you need to read if you want all the answers that took me 50 years to compile.

Here’s my answer to the question about failure to lose weight: people just don’t know HOW to succeed.

They’ve been bombarded with so much nonsense that there’s no chance to succeed. Marketers want to keep it going so they can keep turning a profit. Others who are sincere in trying to provide answers just don’t know enough.

It took me decades to learn this.

Why Did I Bother to Write Books on Weight Loss and Control?

It’s so competitive and the chance of getting through all the noise is slim.

The answer is that I just got to the point where I knew that I piled up all this valuable information and I knew that others had not because I’d looked at and had done everything out there. I knew where all the holes and flaws were.

So, as you read my work, you’ll learn how to do it, the facts and all the facts.

There is ONE and only ONE underlying principle and we are all beholden to it. But, there are many pitfalls to following the ONE rule and I’ll teach them all to you.

No matter what you want to do with your body: just lose your belly or get abs or improve sports performance, I teach you what you need to do.

I’ll put on a set of blinders for you so that you can’t be suckered by all the misinformation and lies that surround this topic.

Our bodies work by a set of rules, physiological and biochemical, that cannot be broken.

Learn the rules and you cannot fail, unless you learn them but don’t live by them.

The Theme of this Site and My Work is that There is Only One Way to Lose Weight

You Must Eat Fewer Calories than You Burn

There can be many different ways to try to create a calorie imbalance between energy input (eating) and energy output (calorie burning), but creating the imbalance is the only thing that works for everyone. We are all the same.

There are, however, many ways to up-end the apple cart and failure to create the imbalance is the result.

This is exactly what I’m going to teach you:

everything that blocks or impedes the creation of a calorie imbalance

how to optimize the process of creating the imbalance

how to overcome blockages to creating the imbalance

how to overcome hurdles during the process

how to get rid of all the false belief systems people hold in their heads about why what they’re doing to lose weight isn’t working — and this may be the biggest reason for failure

This unearthing of the Solution is what makes this site and my work unique — this is not yet another diet plan — the endless introduction of one plan after the other because there’s so much weight loss failure.

We don’t need any more plans, we need to understand the answer — HOW it works.

Then, we finally become Empowered.

Glycation: the Cause of Most Degenerative Diseases

Glycation is a Major Killer

Harman’s Free Radical Theory of Aging was the early belief as to the causes of aging.

But the newest theory presented in the mid-1980’s was Dr. Anthony Cerami’s Theory on Glycated Proteins and their effect on aging.

Diabetes is a model of rapid aging. The normal aging process that occurs in non-diabetics accelerates when a person is diabetic. Dr. Cerami focused his initial work on this disease.

Few People Have Heard Anything About Gycation

Dr. Cerami wrote:

“As people age, their cells and tissues change in ways that lead to the body’s decline and death. The cells become less efficient and less able to replace damaged materials.

At the same time, tissues stiffen. For example, the lungs and the heart muscle expand less successfully, the blood vessels become increasingly rigid and the ligaments and tendons tighten.

Older people are more likely to develop cataracts, atherosclerosis, and cancer, among other disorders.

Few investigators would attribute such diverse effects to a single cause.”

It’s Only Recently that the Hazardous Biological Effects of Glycation Have Been Understood

Food chemists from 100 years ago understood the process by which glucose binds to proteins, but biologists were unaware of this process and how it would contribute to disease development.

The chemical reaction was known as the Maillard or browning reaction, the same way meat browns when cooked.

• glycated proteins cause the vast majority of degenerative diseases
• glucose or blood sugar is the offending agent
• diets high in carbohydrates are dangerous
• glucose from carbohydrates binds to tissue proteins, gluing them together
• glucose binds non-enzymatically in a hap-hazard way
• one glycated protein binds to the one next to it and a chain reaction forms

Glucose Also Binds to RNA/DNA, Your Organs, and Blood Vessels

We are all made of proteins that provide our structure and glucose attacks all of them: brain, skin, eyes, organs; everything.

The Medical Establishment is hardly aware of this condition. Patients are encouraged to eat carbohydrates that yield glucose upon digestion. Talk about a dangerous way to eat. Eat fat and reduce carbohydrates.

The focus is still on fat. Fat was never the problem, it was always carbohydrates.

Now, the degenerative diseases are increasing exponentially with the rise in carbohydrate intake.

• arthritis
• heart disease
• genetic problems
• diabetes
• heart and blood vessels
• repair and maintenance mechanisms wear and tear
• eyes become damaged
• skin loses its elasticity
• brain tissue deteriorates
• the list of problems caused by glycation is very long and scary

You Can Avoid Glycation by Consuming a Low- or Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet

Thousands of studies prove that glucose isn’t the inert, non-reactive, non-dangerous substance that most biologists believed it was for the last century.

We consume lots of glucose and we’re constantly building the deadly, irreversible glycated protiens driving us to premature disease and death.
This data shows that glucose and glucose-derived glycated proteins are involved in and speed-up the aging process in all individuals.

Glycation is the main reason that I advocate a low- or restricted-carbohydrate diet.

It Makes NO Difference if the Carbs are Processed, Such as White Flour, or Unprocessed Foods Such as Whole Grains

All carbs digest to glucose and fructose, or fruit sugar, is more dangerous than glucose.
You should reduce your carbohydrate intake to maintain good health and slow the aging process.

My books describe glycation in detail and outline the hazards of carbohydrates. They also show how to correctly follow a low-carb diet. The popular Atkins’s program is full of flaws — learn how to eat healthy, stay away from dietetic and medical advice about what to eat. They’ll still living as if it’s the early twentieth century.

Next Page »