Carbohydrates Rather than Fat Are Harming Our Health

Today’s Leading Opinions Deal More in “Beliefs” Rather Than Scientific “Facts”

Eating carb-containing foods in large quantities is actually hazardous to your health. These scientific truths were uncovered in 1987 with the introduction of the Glycation Theory of Disease.

This was about 30 years after cholesterol and fat were blamed for heart disease and other diseases. That was a major blunder.

Here, in the 21st century, the dangers of this food becomes apparent:

• carbs digest and become glucose or blood sugar
• the outcome of glucose pouring into the blood is that the body rapidly converts glucose to body fat
• obesity continues to grow and is tied tightly to an ever-increasing intake of carbohydrates
• medical and health authorities shouted down Dr. Robert Atkins

Recent research since 2002 confirms the optimizing effects of the low-carb lifesyle:

• Dr. Atkins made many mistakes in his understanding of carbohydrate metabolism but knew they were bad
• the limited view that carbs were only implicated in weight control obscured many other dangers
• it’s only now that we’re learning that carbs increase cholesterol
• fat eating, in a carb-restricted diet, lowers cholesterol

We Need to Watch Our Carbohydrate Intake

Today, people talk about “good” carbs and “bad” carbs: refined vs. unrefined. All carbs are the same; they all digest to glucose and it’s the glucose that’s the bad actor because it binds to tissue proteins and becoming a glycated protein.

This is where the trouble begins as one glycated protein binds to another and your body’s tissues are glued together. All diseases of aging, all degenerative diseases arise from this glycation process.

Be very careful about your carbohydrate intake.

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.

Is Red Meat the Deadly Scourge It’s Said to Be?

A New Study Published in the Archives of Internal Medicine Once Again Claims the Dangers of Eating Red Meat

It says that over 10 years, eating the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger daily gave men a 22 percent higher RISK of dying of  cancer and a 27 percent higher RISK of dying of heart disease.

Red meat must be vilified. This is the way of the modern nutrition era where science/medicine and religion have joined to condemn what has been a staple of human nutrition for more than 2 million years.

Ten to fifteen thousand years ago, as the earth was running out of meat, the rulers wanted it for themselves. So, they enlisted religious leaders to tell the people to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables, writes Dr. Marvin Harris in his classic, Cows, Witches, and Pigs.

People were told that eating meat was sinful and damnation was the only outcome.

This attitude is like a damaged gene and when science, nay, medicine, joined the parade, we now had a double-team to tell us how bad meat was for our health.

No matter that all EXPERIMENTAL studies indicate no problems with meat, these endless EPIDEMIOLOGICAL studies continue to demonize our habits of daily living.

These studies are, in fact, designed to provide fame and fortune for the researchers, but they serve only to delude the public. The sad medical journals, who are clueless about statistical analysis, unwittingly publish this garbage.

The researchers have no idea that their results aren’t transparent because this is the way of all research today.

I wrote about this in a previous post, the story about RELATIVE RISK statistics vs. ABSOLUTE RATES or FREQUENCIES.

The authors do not provide ABSOLUTE numbers, but only describe RISK.

This is not RATES of disease and only RATES or FREQUENCIES allow transparent understanding.

So, let’s say that in the high red meat eaters, 1.25 out of a thousand died of heart disease during 10 years.

The RATE of death is 0.125% and that’s not even spreading it over the 10 years of the analysis. But, in the low-eating-red-meat group, let’s say 1 out of a thousand die of heart disease and that’s 0.1%.

We don’t know what the actual numbers are because papers no longer publish these numbers, if they did, the results would be transparent, and they don’t want that.

However, the difference between those RATES (0.1% and 0.125%), if we don’t include the denominator of 1,000 for each group and only compare the numerators, is a 25% difference, i.e. 0.125% is 25% greater than 0.1% and that’s what’s called RISK.

So, the actual RATE difference of 0.025% is magnified to a RISK difference of 25%, 1,000 times higher than it actually is!

That’s how it goes, that’s how the cover-up goes.

Of further interest is that another study was recently published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition USING THE SAME TYPE OF ANALYSIS. It found completely different results. Title: Consumption of red or processed meat does not predict risk factors for coronary heart disease: results from a cohort of British adults in 1989 and 1999.

Look, I live on red meat, it’s about all I eat. I’ve studied this subject for more than 40 years. I have every study ever done. We know that paleolithic man ate 99% of his calories as meat.

If meat is so deadly, why are any of us around?

Well, if you buy into this nonsense, then that justs leaves more meat for me and mine.

Fortunately, I’m an insider to all this and can analyze these studies simply because they cannot pull the wool over my eyes. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer descibes all this very clearly in his book Calculated Risks.

And 50 years ago a wonderful litte book, How to Lie with Statistics, came out describing the shenanigans used to keep people’s vision cloudy. Don’t be had.

I hope this insight helps you avoid being deluded. And worse than that, driving you toward becoming a vegan zealot.

I’ll have my rib-eye rare, thank you very much.

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.

Next Page »