The ABC Australia Pulls Catalyst Show On Cholesterol & Statins. So See It While You Still Can.

When I was alerted to this last week my reaction was "it's a good thing." It's always a good thing when the government (no typo) censors something they don't want you to see.

I make no meaningless distinctions between the State, Media, and Mega Business—particularly when it comes to the food and drug multinationals. One in the same, pretending to be different. Hell, there's isn't even investigative journalism, anymore. Whether right or wrong, deep investigative journalism into the affairs of State serves a good purpose. Witness that there are still some who see this. I give you Sheryl Attkisson and Michael Isikoff.

Here was the ABC's press release concerning their own shame.

Today, the ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs Unit has released its findings regarding a controversial Catalyst program on statins and heart disease.

The detailed investigation was prompted by a number of complaints into two Catalyst programs, collectively titled Heart Of The Matter, aired in October last year. The report of the investigation is available here.

While acknowledging the importance of public health issues relating to the efficacy of heart disease treatment and the contrasting opinions of highly-qualified scientists, the A&CA has concluded that the second episode breaches ABC standards on impartiality.

Because of the interlocked nature of the two programs, both will be removed from the ABC website. Information will be added to the program website and the ABC Corrections page to advise of the steps that have been taken.

Ah, isn't that sweet. Don't let people decide for themselves. Protect your advertising revenue coming from big drug and food companies under the guise of "protecting the public from reporting that 'breaches ABC standards on impartiality.'"

What an hlarious laf at pipsqueaks and clown whores for ad revenue. I'm talking to you, Mark Scott, whore.

But, in the end this is a good thing, because information can't be contained. These programs and transcripts probably exist in a number of places, but are actually still on The Way Back Machine.

So here's what I need you to do for planet earth today.

  1. Put on your hats of objectivity. Whether or not you agree with the message, realize that the shenanigans that gets a message banned that you disagree with is the same shenanigans that will get the message banned you agree with.
  2. Everyone gets to decide for themselves, and everyone has an opportunity to persuade or dissuade others. This is the nature of the Internet, of unfettered access to information anyone in the world who cares enough can upload or publish for everyone's consideration.
  3. Watch the programs and/or read the transcripts while you still can.
  4. Get this message out, that I've just written, to as many folks as you can.
  5. Admonish anyone you have contact with, who has the tech and tools, to preserve these programs and transcripts, forever. The Way Back Machine is pretty cooperative in removing stuff at the request of originators, so get on it.

With any luck, far more people will end up seeing these programs now, as a result of the ABC's shameful actions, than otherwise ever would have.

Update: I would be remiss to not shout out for Dr. Maryanne Demasi, the lovely peach who put this together. I can only imagine her disappointment at having it pulled. She'll win in the end.

Charles Richardson Smears a Reddish Tint of Orange on Your Face. A Resistant Starch N=1 With Bloodwork

Oh the hater howls last mid-February, here and everywhere. Gotcha!

See, I dared to publish Charles Richardson's facial before and after, because having seen many of the same over the years, I knew exactly what I was seeing; no shadow of a doubt, and in an instant. Visceral. Hugely reduced inflammation, and where that always seems most remarkable is in the face.

sidebyside 2014feb
Mr. Charles Richardson, 62. See the Original Post Here.

Instead of caving to the haters, who would never bother to look into Resistant Starch anyway—merely look for a gotcha—I doubled down and posted Michelle's similar facial recomposition.

me two times
 

Basically same hate around and about. Still obvious to me. To many others as well.

So anyway, the problem here is that Charles Richardson is no dummy. While I'm not certain of his background, he emails Tim and I full-text studies that aren't open full-text access. You speculate. Moreover, he's been on a low-carb and often ketogenic diet for about 40 years, he tells me. It was beginning to ruin him, he also tells me, and "Stupid Fucking Potato Starch" changed his life.

Sly as he is, he did before and after bloodwork, so let's check it out, shall we? The only thing he changed was adding RS via Potato Starch to his otherwise LC diet.

CRP (C-reactive protein - marker of general inflammation)

CRP
CRP

Triglycerides (fat in the blood)

TRIGS
TRIGS

Total Cholesterol to HDL Ratio (lower is better)

TOTAL HDL RATIO
TOTAL to HDL RATIO

Triglycerides to HDL Ratio (lower is better)

TRIG HDL RATIO
TRIGS to HDL RATIO

OK, so while not every single thing is optimal, most are, and he was otherwise moderate and high risk after 40 years on an LC and often Ketogenic diet. This will immediately be dismissed by 100% of LC Doctors, guaranteed. GUARANTEED! You see, most LC doctors operate on the premise that a chronic LC and/or ketogenic diet is the most optimal and healthy. Therefore, if bloodwork is "adverse," it's because there's something wrong—either the tests don't matter, there's no basis for them, or in some cases, bad is actually good (such as in high cholesterol driven by eating as much butter as you can).

I advance the bizarre notion that while there is nothing in the world wrong with natural fats in plants and animals, that the optimal way to get at them is to eat the food they come in, and to not go overboard processing them to extract the fat portion, eating them supplementally while beating your chest. Crazy, I know. And, I'll still dress my salads in EVOO.

So I've come a little full circle. Love all the natural fats. I try to minimize added fat, above the fat that's in the foods I eat.

There's one more chart, and this is a test I knew zero about. I love to learn new things, so those who know, please do elaborate in comments.

Monocytes (middle is better)

MONOCYTES
MONOCYTES

Wikipedia says:

Monocytes are a type of white blood cells (leukocytes). They are the largest of all leukocytes. They are part of the innate immune system of vertebrates including all mammals (humans included), birds, reptiles, and fish. They are amoeboid in shape, having clear cytoplasm. Monocytes have bean-shaped nuclei that are unilobar, which makes them one of the types of mononuclear leukocytes (agranulocytes). Monocytes constitute 2% to 10% of all leukocytes in the human body. They play multiple roles in immune function. Such roles include: (1) replenishing resident macrophages under normal states, and (2) in response to inflammation signals, monocytes can move quickly (approx. 8–12 hours) to sites of infection in the tissues and divide/differentiate into macrophages and dendritic cells to elicit an immune response. Half of them are stored in the spleen[1] (except in people who have undergone splenectomy). Monocytes are usually identified in stained smears by their large kidney shaped or notched nucleus. These change into macrophages after entering into the tissue spaces.

So pretty cool, eh? There's a comment somewhere I just saw where after significant time on Resistant Starch, the guy's cholesterol shifted from pattern B to pattern A. Chris Kresser:

Researchers working in this area have defined what they call Pattern A and Pattern B. Pattern A is when small, dense LDL is low, large, buoyant LDL is high, and HDL is high. Pattern B is when small, dense LDL is high, HDL is low, and triglycerides are high. Pattern B is strongly associated with increased risk of heart disease, whereas Pattern A is not.

And on the other side, someone I saw in comments had a higher particle number of cholesterol after some months.

For me, Charles' numbers suggest an hypothesis that 1) LC diets might be metabolically great for human cells, but they starve the other 90% of cells in your body, leading to adverse outcomes; and 2) that the gut biome is of such tremendous importance (recall, the only thing he changed, and he's a 4-decade-long practitioner of LC) that we're only beginning to scratch the surface.

A few closing notes:

  1. I keep getting these emails and other confirmation bias messages, where a chronic LCer uses potato starch, gains a couple of pounds, and says Ha! Dealt with. "Now I can speak with AUTHORITY!" You should gain weight: in biomass (lean), in colon wall width (lean), and also in your own lean tissue (lean): Resistant starch and energy balance: impact on weight loss and maintenance. So laughably, the LC Shiites are doing what the LC Shiites always do: operate from the premise that anything counter just has to be wrong a-priori, and all they have to do is figure out a way to show it.
  2. If you're new to all this: A Gut Microbiome, Soil-Based Probiotic, and Resistant Starch Primer For Newbies.
  3. The soil based probiotics are critically important. This mimics what you might have received living in the dirt as Paleoman: Probiotics: The Genetic Component of Obesity. The idea here is rather one of a unification. Perhaps obesity is genetic—but the genes in your gut microbiome outnumber those of your human cells by over 100 times. Think about that. And think of the brain-gut connection, and all the synthesized chemicals they give off that influence your desires, urges, hungers and in-turn, behaviors.

In terms of the SBOs in #3, they are pricey. What I suggest is to pound them for a couple of weeks, then back off to 1 pill, once per day, of one of the brands, rotating through. So, each bottle should last you almost 6 months, but you're getting the widest range possible.

People have asked, "well, once the microbial population is established, can't you just stop, but continue to feed via Resistant Starch?" Maybe, but we know that ancient man got a regular supply of dirt via his environment and on the food he was eating, particularly in dug-up roots. So, it'll always be a part of my regime, but I think one pill every three days or so—and periodically going with no supplementation at all—is what's currently on the table for me.

...The book is going crazy. we're aiming to get it to the publisher in time for a Holiday release. We'll see. Lots and lots to do still. Sitting at about 400 pages, over 2,000 references, with a substantial number of references having been published in 2013 and 2014.

Thanks for always staying tuned. If you like the post and/or the work, you can always say so by hitting this link when you shop Amazon, no matter what you care to buy. Costs you nothing, I get about 8.5% of your cart from Amazon. Win and win. Thanks, and always feel free to feed-back in comments.

Don’t Worry About Cholesterol

A comment by Dr. Charlie, biochemist.

~~~

Sorry for delay in getting back to you re TC/ apoB and Gabriella’s concern over a patient who had a blip in her LDL readings. In a way I’m glad that I did because just by chance I watched again the Wisdom of Clouds speech by Tom Naughton and the lecture by Prof Tim Noakes on YouTube, entitled “The Great Diet Controversy: UCT taught me to Challenge Beliefs”.

Although we could discuss the size and shape of the cholesterol bearing particles and whether it’s the number or total quantity that should be considered, I think that it is more important to consider whether the whole concept of the cholesterol hypothesis is correct. In the early days of the hypothesis many trials attempted but failed to establish a clear link between cholesterol and CHD – yet the medical profession were eventually persuaded that there was a very positive relationship.

I would agree with Noakes’ response to a question concerning cholesterol levels and say that women should not pay any attention to them – no work has shown any link for them and for men over 50, high cholesterol levels have been shown to be protective. For example, many studies, including the famous Framingham study begun in 1948, have shown that in people over 50/60, higher levels of cholesterol are protective (ie the death rate comes down with higher cholesterol). I just happen to have to hand the results of a recent Scandinavian study. This study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Health Care [I think that's the one - Ed] looked at the levels of cholesterol and risk of death in almost 120,000 adults living in Denmark.

The researchers found that having higher than recommended levels of total cholesterol was associated with a reduced risk of death. So they looked at the death rates amongst men who had a total cholesterol level of less than 5 mmol/l and compared that figure with the death rates of men who had total cholesterol levels between 5 and 5.99, and those between 6 and 7.99, and those with levels of 8 and above.

  • They found that in men aged 60-70 when compared to those who had a total cholesterol level of less than 5...
  • those with levels of 5.00-5.99 had a 32% reduced risk of death; and
  • those with levels 6.0-7.99 had a 33% reduced risk of death.

Even in individuals with levels of 8.00 mmol/l and above, the risk of death was no higher than it was for those with levels less than 5.0 mmol/l.

The results were similar for women too. In women aged 60-70, levels of 5.0-5.99 and 6.0-7.99 were associated with a 43 and 41 per cent reduced risk of death respectively.

In individuals aged 70 and over, the results were similar, except here, levels of total cholesterol of 8.00 mmol/l or more were associated with a reduced risk of death too (in both men and women).

Together, these findings suggest that the current total cholesterol recommended by medics and other health professionals are way off beam. And the authors of this study suggested –rather meekly that - these associations indicate that high lipoprotein levels do not seem to be harmful to the general population.

So I hope you appreciate that for me the minutiae of particles may be of academic interest but not of medical interest – apart from the fact that higher levels are protective!

~~~

It has been 2007 since I have blogged on this topic, saying essentially the same thing, and nothing seems to change.

Thanks, Dr. Charlie!

Saturated Fat & Cholesterol Worries are so 2009

I love evolution, but particularly in thinking. It's not an issue of right vs. wrong but a process hallmarked by honesty. Evolution happens in large swaths of time, such that discrete changes at any point in time are hard to identify short of outright re-evolution. Then one day, you realize that everything has changed. To my mind, the job of historical scholarship is to relate those seeming gulfs, such that people laf at the way they think today, realizing it's likely fleeting.

Going back to 2007/8 when I first jumped on this bandwagon, perhaps the most helpful thing was to dismiss the dogma of limiting saturated fat and its cholesterol, or cholesterol changing properties. I still remember being part of the whole gig, as blogging about saturated fat and cholesterol in those first few years was an everyday staple. I touted HDL test results as high as 133 mg/DL. Even the Wife Unit got up to 93. No idea what either of us test, today. I'm not interested in such tests anymore.

Around 2010 I developed a nagging nag that I'd gone from unnatural in one direction to unnatural in the other. Saturated fat from animals and some plant oils (coconut & palm) may not be deleterious in the slightest, but why process, concentrate and chow down so much? Moreover, while fats in general are a bunch of lipids, that's about all they are. Check it out.

I got too sick of—and especially low carbers—postings and Tweetings about eating spoonfuls of [processed and concentrated] "nutritious" fats as though it's a superfood (no such thing except offal). Why? That's just going too far in a benign dietary direction to prove IT'S THE RIGHT DIRECTION!

Alas, that's the one thing I've learned from this path: Everyone has to be right, such that everyone else is wrong.

Meat. Fish. Fowl. Vegetables. Fruits. Nuts, perhaps. Get 'em yourself. Cook 'em yourself. And you don't need to essentially deep fry everything—where it's OK, 'cause you're using a skillet! I still have a few ounces left of a 1-lb tub of leaf lard I got almost 3 months ago.

All that said, it does serve to review from time to time. Dr. Greg Venning, always looking out for me, shot me a video the other day. It's an Aussie production, and has as its mainstay authorities Dr. Michael Eades, Dr. Jonny Bowden and Gary Taubes, amongst a couple of others I'm not as familiar with.

It's pretty remarkable how the Doktors in the interview, those from the Australian Heart Whores for the Statin Drug Industry (AHWSDI), appear as dear in headlights.

The video is about a half hour and I enjoyed it a lot. (Good job, Gentleman Mike!)

Heart of the Matter Part 1 Dietary Villains from Michael Eades on Vimeo.

This is a good time to pimp for Tom Naughton, again. Fat Head Director's Cut is to me the go-to in this realm, and it's all done in a sometimes serious, sometimes comedic presentation that begins by debunking The Queen of Fear Porn, Morgan Spurlock, who still won't release his actual food journals from Super Size Me (because he lied his ass off).

So go get Fat Head and watch for a screen clip of this blog in the Director's Cut....

OMG: Paleolithic Diet is Associated With Unfavorable Changes to Blood Lipids in Healthy Subjects

Yep. Read it and weep, you idjit Paleos; you, so erroneously self-assured as to dismiss the dietary diktats of your superior masters and their grain and drug peddling bedfellow financiers.

The abstract of the "study," courtesy of all-around fuckwit, Eric Trexler.

Background: The Paleolithic (Paleo) diet is one modeled after the perceived food consumption of early human ancestors of the Paleolithic Era, consisting of mainly meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, eggs, and nuts. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a Paleo diet on blood lipids, including high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), non-HDL cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), and the ratio between TC and HDL (TC/HDL) in a healthy population. [emphasis added]

There's your premise: 'we're going to evaluate your results according to our standards—not yours.' Of course, their "standards" are based on a chronically unhealthy grains, sugar, and machinery lubricant (processed food makeup) munching, highly overweight and obese society that subsists primarily on some manner or other of processed crap in boxes and fast food cheaply produced and engineered by global food conglomerates, combined with increasingly uniform and tight "standards" in terms of biomarkers—such that the global drug conglomerates and their distribution network of pushers (i.e., doctors and grant whore researchers) can sell you pills to ameliorate the problems caused by the former.

It all has zero bearing on a healthy diet, Paleoish or, The Old Grandma Diet.

Methods: Subjects of both genders (23 males, 20 females) with no history of diabetes, heart disease, dyslipidemia, or other metabolic disease were asked to eat an ad libitum Paleo diet for 10 weeks. Throughout the intervention, subjects participated in a CrossFit-based, high-intensity circuit training exercise program. Prior to the intervention, body weight, body fat percentage (BF%), maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), TC, TG, HDL, and LDL were measured. These measurements were repeated following 10 weeks of a Paleo diet.

Wowzers! 10 whole weeks? Well, can't allow those people to go without all those "cholesterol lowering" crap-in-a-box cereals for very long (in favor of meat, fish, fowl, vegetables, fruits and nuts) now, can you? You might run into problems with the "ethics" committee. Or, hell, perhaps The Ohio State University might put in jeopardy some of that nice research funding. Here's the Fed portion of their total $934 million (about 50% of all).

OSU Federal Funding
OSU Federal Research Funding

Notice how the National Institues of Health (cholesterol is BAD) and Department of Agriculture (grains are hearthealthywholegrains = GOOD) make up about half of the Fed portion, so 25% of the whole. Then there's Industry Funding, 11% of the total, $101 million.

Don't suppose that has any bearing on things. It's all just about Teh Data.

Results: As a whole, there was a significant increase in non-HDL (107.1 ± 6.0 mg/dL to 120.2 ± 6.5 mg/dL; P < 0.01), LDL (93.1 ± 5.4 mg/dL to 105.6 ± 6.1 mg/dL; P < 0.01), TC/HDL (3.0 ± 0.2 to 3.3 ± 0.2; P < 0.05), and TC (168.8 ± 5.4 mg/dL to 178.9 ± 6.6 mg/dL; P < 0.05) in healthy subjects following a Paleo diet. When stratified into groups based on initial blood lipid levels, deleterious changes were found in those with optimal HDL (82.1 ± 3.2 mg/dL to 68.6 ± 4.8 mg/dL; P < 0.05), non-HDL (86.6 ± 3.9 mg/dL to 101.4 ± 4.8 mg/dL; P < 0.01), TC (157.2 ± 0.7 to 168.2 ± 0.9 mg/dL; P < 0.05), TC/HDL (2.5 ± 0.1 to 2.7 ± 0.1; P < 0.05), and LDL (69.1 ± 3.1 mg/dL to 83.5 ± 4.1 mg/dL; P < 0.01), whereas those within sub-optimal stratifications showed no significant changes.

"[D]eleterious changes were found." OMG! Change your whole diet and workout regime and over 10 weeks (!!!) your lipids wiggle around a bit +/-. "Deleterious" simply refers to the completely unestablished premise that cholesterol levels mean much of anything for individuals one way or the other. It couldn't possibly be anything like, dropping sugar water and sugar laden crap in a box for 10 weeks begins to clear up subclinical fatty livers with a concomitant rise in LDL, Trigs & such, ya think?

Nope.

Subjects also decreased body weight (177.6 ± 5.8 lbs to 170.6 ± 5.3 lbs; P < 0.001) and BF% (24.3 ± 1.2% to 20.7 ± 1.2%; P < 0.05), while increasing VO2max (3.18 ± 0.14 L/min to 3.46 ± 0.15 L/min; P < 0.001).

Say WHAAAT? Oh, cool: seven pounds average weight loss (2/3 pound per week), 3.5% loss in body fat (so the "weight loss" was fat loss), and athletic performance increased. Then let's take a look at the conclusions.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that an ad libitum Paleo diet intervention is associated with deleterious changes to blood lipids in healthy subjects, despite concurrent improvements in body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness. Future research should focus on determining recommendations that embrace the positive aspects of the Paleo diet, while minimizing any deleterious impact on blood lipids in a healthy population.

Turns out that Dr. Adel Andro of SuppVersity mentioned this study a few days back and did up a nice chart (click for full size).

a
 

He also wrote:

If you take a closer look at the abstract and the actual "side effects" (figure 2), the 10-weeks of paleo dieting + CrossFit-based, high-intensity circuit training exercise program had on the body composition and fitness levels, I personally cannot but ask the following question:

"What is the significance of the elevations in LDL and minor reductions in HDL in a scenario that produces exactly what has just been shown to be at the heart of the 'Obesity Paradox' and lipid values that are still within the ever-narrowing 'normal' or 'optimal' range?"

I'll leave it up to you to answer this question and decide whether it can really be so bad to rid yourself of all modern, processed foods including any form of processed sugar, soft drinks, and coffees, while fueling your life and workout related energy by increasing your consumption of lean meat, fish, eggs, nuts, fruit, and vegetables.

Now, let's take a look at the title of the study, again:

Paleolithic Diet is Associated With Unfavorable Changes to Blood Lipids in Healthy Subjects

That's manipulative dishonesty, folks, and plain as day. By smuggling in an unsubstantiated premise (that cholesterol really means much of anything causal for individuals) and using it to imply that "Healthy Subjects" were transformed into less healthy, as a direct result of a Paleo diet of whole foods and intense exercise Eric Trexler renders himself unfit for employment in any trusted position anywhere.

Personally, I wouldn't trust that dishonest, lying fuckwit to fetch my mail or take out the trash.

Now then, I have just rendered richly deserved justice.

Deciding For Yourself: 13 Pretty Good Low Carb Resources

To say that I've grown weary of endless debates and criticisms of various approaches within a whole, real food approach to diet is an understatement. I've always been about promoting anything that's "Pretty Good," and not about slamming everything that may have errors, some "bad science," too much marketing—you name it. The problem with the latter is that it becomes only and exclusively about tearing down the work and accomplishments of others—which really helps no one when such accomplishments do tend to help people.

...It becomes an exercise in discounting the real health improvements others have achieved and makes it less likely that still others will find similar benefits because the resource now operates under a cloud of distrust or derision.

If you're one who likes to promote and celebrate the life saving work of others, sure, do check things out, verify it's helping people, and make sure there's enough good going on to say: "check it out." If, on the other hand, you want to make it about tearing down the work of others, that's easy as shit. Click on any link, find something to disagree with, tear into them. Wash, rinse & repeat. The few dozen or hundred folks who go for that sort of thing exclusively will thank you.

For the record, I'm not anti low-carb, though I do believe calories count and also, it's probably going to be hard to reach your goals by ladling added fat on everything you eat. In my own experience, going natural on the fat (reasonable amounts to cook with, no adding fat—or very little), more modest protein portions—usually but not always—and more starches—sometimes but not always—is working. But this isn't about me. On average, I'd say I'm still LC-to-MC if you averaged out my carbs over a week, but some days might be virtual ZC, and some days, HC. I believe in mixing things up.

So in the same spirit as my PGP post (Pretty Good Paleo), trusting YOU to decide what works and not assuming you're a dumbass who needs a post every few days about what's wrong with everyone else in the world, I give you 13 low-carb resources to check out and see which one(s) might give you an insight or tidbit here and there to manage your own health and weight loss.

So please, check each one out, scan through, take in a post or two or three, and see which ones you might want to revisit regularly or from time to time. Above all, relax, and...BREATHE.

  1. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt - http://www.dietdoctor.com
  2. Tom Naughton - http://www.fathead-movie.com
  3. Dr. John Briffa - http://www.drbriffa.com
  4. Dr. Jonny Bowden - http://jonnybowdenblog.com
  5. Jimmy Moore - http://www.livinlavidalowcarb.com
  6. Laura Dolson - http://lowcarbdiets.about.com
  7. CarbSmart - http://www.carbsmart.com
  8. Jamie Van Eaton - http://yourlighterside.com
  9. Dr. Peter Attia - http://eatingacademy.com
  10. Danny Albers - http://primalnorth.blogspot.com
  11. Dr. Colin Champ - http://www.cavemandoctor.com
  12. Dr. Jay Wortman - http://www.drjaywortman.com
  13. Dr. Jeffry Gerber - http://denversdietdoctor.com

Who couldn't find something to disagree with at each of those links? And how many of them couldn't find something to disagree with here? However:

  1. I don't assume you're a moron, ignorant, or especially in need of blindness by science ad nausium.
  2. I do assume that you're none of those things (you're here, not out loading a supermarket cart full of crap), generally competent to not take anything as paleo or LC gospel, try stuff, adjust.
  3. I believe that all of those people have a sincere desire to help you and others and in that endeavor, evolve their thinking and approaches over time so as to increase the good accurate stuff while decreasing the errors and bad stuff.
  4. I believe that for whatever errors or inaccurate information, the good and accurate information far outweighs, and that as such, in my judgment, they are net benefactors of the overweight, obese and health challenged. Conversely, those who add nothing but to tear down others are net liabilities; net disvalues to everyone. That is, were they to not exist at all, most people would be better off.
  5. Building and creating values is never ultimately done by tearing down. Tearing down is just tearing down; it's value destruction, an easy fake for the actual hard work involved in creating values for others and society. Values are not created by tearing down a few errors, destroying the good along with it—you're left with errors still, less values, less potential for good. Errors are corrected by honestly evaluating the good and continuously improving it over time, leaving less and less room for error.

Keep up  and improve the good, best parts of your work, laddies & gentleman. You are a life saving and enhancing value to many out there—doubtless many hundreds and thousands you don't even know about.

I’m Deleting More and More Comments on a Whim. Why? Success, That’s Why.

I don't give a fuck about a lot of commenters on this blog. Those I care a lot about? Lots. Why? They understand their place, as I understand mine. They know who they are. ...And Sean called me butthurt, once, so my love is still begrudged.

I don't have it nearly as bad as so many who are not much more than troll bait, because everyone knows I'm happy to tell you to go fuck yourself in comments; here; just as anywhere else. Face-to-face, too...as I recently relayed in a comment. You want to meet face to face over a dispute? Ask. I'll be there: Los Gatos / San Jose. I recently gave out my home address and cell number to a bunch of morons on r/paleo on Reddit (ask them). I put up. Proven. ...I actually got a call within minutes and it ended very cool. I mean no one real harm, at all, or ever—quite the contrary—and it's uproariously funny how that plays out in an actual face-face or phone call. I'm just not a little man pussy, like so many clamor to be.

...All the anonymous sock puppets, showing up here and there in increasing frequency? I just adore clicking "Delete." Not banning them. In fact, I hope they post again, because then I get to sit there in my liesure and click (or, really, just touch on the iPad) "Delete."

Laf.

I mine minds. Yes. I'm a sometimes Paleo blogger, food blogger, health blogger, social commentarial and everything I ever want to be doing in any moment, without fear or trepidation about what some fucking moron—or their collective of morons—is going to think about it. As I say: been at this for a long time. "Suck on it" (1st time I think I said that; overrated).

There are only a few million, maybe a few tens of millions of truly smart people in the entire world of billions. There are only a few thousand who have done the basic science and engineering—and overcome the billions of morons working against them—to give all the morons lots of shiny toys to be placated with, and to shut the fuck up so the smart people can go onto the next thing. Moron is the norm, perpetually relatively.

It's what I'm all about. It's all—and only—what I'm all about.

Then, there's this: Someone willing to show his stuff, and who has never even been in comments, here.

Hi Richard,

Ive been lurking on your site since the beginning of the year (2012) after finding it linked from Martin Berkhan's site after I found his Lean Gains site.  I switched to real food and cut out all the processed crap and figured out the gas, bloating and explosive movements Ive had my entire life ceased.  Then I had some of those damn rolls at a steak house and before we left I made a visit and spackled their porcelain for them.  I guess at that point we had it figured out pretty well that I have a wheat allergy. Anyway I wound up on your site due to cholesterol research since my parents are both on drugs for high cholesterol.  I finally went to a doctor at my mother in-law's urging to get checked out a few months after changing my eating habits and all my numbers and my wife's numbers came back great. The stories on your site have helped me feel better, and implementing eating real food has given a side effect of losing ~78 lbs over 10 months.

My wife and I escape to New Hampshire over the hot Florida summers, and it's the best place I have ever been to eat natural whole food in my life. Every intersection of the state seems to have a farm stand, and there is local made sausage, vegetables and raw dairy within 20 minutes of our camp. We found the raw dairy just a couple of weeks ago, and holy shit if its not the best fucking milk I've ever had.  We drive by the cow barn on the way to the house to pick the milk and yogurt up, and the only thing we have seen going in is hay.  The rest of the farm is grass. They milk their 22 cows twice a day. Now I have to try and find this stuff down in florida, where raw milk will kill you and is for pet consumption only.

Attached is a shot of me in New Hampshire last year, and another shot from the same place a couple days ago.  I was ~285 last year in that shot, 220 in the shot from this year.

Thanks for the site and getting information out there for me to find. Without your site, Dr. Davis' site and Berkhan's site I'd probably still be 310 lbs like at the end of last year, feeling like shit and getting yelled at for noxious fumes emitted from my rear by my wife.

yearLater
One lesser year later

But this is impossible. I don't have abs. Who in the world could possibly identify with my way of doing things?

Book Update: Here’s the Cover. Live Soon

 Updates to follow.

Screen Shot 2011 12 21 at 1 30 39 PM
 

One guy on Twitter, when I uploaded this earlier, tweeted: "it's not pretty, but I'll buy your book anyway." Yea, these things are subjective to the max.

All I really hope for is that it's ultimately judged in context of the intention:

  1. That it's actually read. Non-fiction books are notorious for being purchased but not read. I've heard this over and over, from marketers of how-to books. It seems that the purchase scratches the itch.
  2. That it's recognized as a total beginner's primer. Yea, I'll leave the deep science and whatnot to those with the credentials and whatnot. That said, I do touch on a lot of science stuff from the saturated fat and cholesterol dual cons, vitamin D epidemiology, to Weston Price's K2, AKA, Activator X. But I do so in a hopefully light and conversational way, trying not to seem too pretentious for a non-scientist with zero credentials.

I think it would have been silly to try to put a book together for those already familiar with and getting results from Paleo/Primal. It's just my sense, but I reasoned that what they might really want is something to give to friends & family that stands a good chance of actually being read.

It'll take about 3 hours; more if one chases rabbits.

Weekend Links & Quick Hits: Gary Taubes, Art De Vany, Denise Minger, The China Study, Chris Masterjohn and Real Results

~ Gary Taubes finally has a blog. Of course, you would have to have had been asleep under a rock not to already know that by now. His first and as of yet, only post -- The Inanity of Overeating -- has racked up 250 comments so far. And his new book, Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It debuts on December 28.

~ Speaking of new books, Art De Vany's The New Evolution Diet: What Our Paleolithic Ancestors Can Teach Us about Weight Loss, Fitness, and Aging is out December 21st. I'm part way into it on my iPad (The Kindle version is already available) and will endeavor to have a review up by the time the print version comes out. Here's the video trailer for the book featuring Art himself.

~ Reports of The China Study basher extraordinaire, Denise Minger's demise have apparently been greatly exaggerated. And does she ever have some interesting plans in the works, including a possible peer reviewed publication thingy.

Top Secret China-Study-Related Mystery Thing: I’d love to spill the beans on this one, but they’re not done soaking and I’d hate to flood you guys with lectins. So for now, I’ll just say that I’m working on a thing with a person, and the person and I have the goal of getting the thing published in a well-known other thing, and if all goes as planned, the published thing should help combat the “but the China Study re-analysis isn’t peer reviewed!” argument. As soon as I can say more about the thing, you’ll be the first to know.

~ And speaking of China Study Bashers, Chris Masterjohn has a must-read on High Cholesterol on a Natural, Real Food Diet.

Lots of people find that eating a WAP-friendly traditional diet has no effect on their blood lipids or improves them, by a conventional standard. But I've had a number of people ask me, "why is my cholesterol so high on this diet?"

Or, "why are my triglycerides so high on this diet?"

There are a number of factors that affect blood lipids, and in the future I'll present a more comprehensive view of this issue. For now, I'd like to explore the possibility that many people might experience a temporary increase in triglycerides or cholesterol when they switch to a traditional diet because they are actually curing themselves of fatty liver disease.

Chis, buddy, thank you so much for that. While indeed, most people report improved lipid profiles (whatever that really means anyway), I must get an email at least every couple of months from someone who has super elevated cholesterol, and here's an example from the past. Lately I have stopped trying to involve myself in this issue simply because one, I don't know and two, I don't want to lead anyone astray. Now I can simply give them a link to your post and they can take it from there.

~ And speaking of cholesterol and fatty livers, I received an email from a reader the other day.

Here are some results from a reader of your blog. I want to THANK YOU for all the time you put into this. Please be aware (I am sure you are already) that lot of people are benefitting from your blog.

Results

Are you noticing the Trigs and Liver enzymes? He continues.

I am Indian by ethnic origin but residing in Singapore for many years now. My lifestyle is sedentary desk job but I do high intensity weight training on a regular basis. I appear fairly fit to everyone externally – and all the fat I have had was always around my stomach – which I can conceal with my t-shirts or shirts well enough (read as – I am definitely NOT obese) [...]

I did some routine blood tests on 3 Mar 2010 and as you can see from the results I had elevated liver enzymes and elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and uric acid. The doctor advised me to quit smoking, stay off alcohol and advised me a low fat, more vegetables, lean meat, whole grains, more fruits diet. The diet & smoking part I took seriously .My diet was mainly high carb. I religiously avoided “high fat” / “saturated fat “–. Ate lot of vegetables and fruits every day. Atleast two apples! I l thought fruit juice was healthy – so that was there as well. Whole wheat bread and whole grain cereals – the works.

He complied with the advice.

My next test was 22 Sep 2010. As the results show – nothing got better. Instead triglycerides went up further. Liver seemed to be in a worse shape – all enzymes highly elevated. I was following the doctors advise on diet but had no understanding of what was actually happening. I was diagnosed with a fatty liver (Ultrasound test). I had put on weight (10 Lbs) since I was a eating a lot more after quitting smoking. [...]

I said “thank you, doctor”. I do my own thing now. I religiously studied all the information I could find from 22 Sep onwards! I came across PaNu first – which had a lot of fantastic information that made sense. That blog led me to yours – and this is immensely helpful as well. The fact that you regularly post keeps it “live” and so I got hooked on to Free the Animal. Now I am subscribed to and reading almost all the work that you guys have put up there .. Yours, PaNu, Hyperlipid, Stephans, Dailyapple etc – the “regulars”. [...]

From 9 Oct 2010 to 9 Dec 2010 – I followed the Paleo lifestyle as strictly as I could. [...]

Also: NO WHEAT. NO RICE. NO SUGARY SWEETS. NO BEER. (extremist – remember ? J - and yes – still NOT smoking – its 9 months as of today and counting ) I did not have a single can of beer in two months. I had social drinks 4 times in the last two months – a glass of whiskey or a glass of wine or so. That’s it. And guess what my favorite “cheat” is - handful of raisins and cashew nuts. My sweet tooth had subsided after the first month or so. [...]

I COMPLETELY REVERSED my fatty liver in 2 months by cutting carbs and eliminating sugar!!! A plug here for Stephan’s blog as well – his posts on Fatty Liver reversal were motivating and informative. My TG levels are now less than HALF of what they were. Blood Pressure came down from 140/90 to 120/80.

I lost 16 POUNDS of FAT in two months and my strength level is actually higher. I DID ZERO cardio. My workouts are mainly high intensity WEIGHT training which I do about only one day a week for about 6-8 minutes ONLY. In the last two months – I have been in the gym only 6 times totaling to about 30 minutes of training time in two months! cardio for weight loss? Another piece of rubbish.

I plan to continue this diet and retest results after 6 months. From reading all the information I know now that cholesterol numbers are rubbish – but atleast I would like to get my HDL higher since I think that is a “nice to have”. I also want to lower the TGs further. But I guess since the liver seems to be ok now – this should fall into place in some time as well. I achieved more than I had aimed for in the last two months ! Thank you Richard and also Kurt Harris, Stephan and all you guys who keep this “movement” alive!

~ And speaking of awesome results, check out Matt Madeiro at Three New Leaves. Great progress, with photos.

Lipid Panel

Following up from this, I don't see how you could have a better lipid panel than this, which is a clip right off my Med record on Kaiser's website, results obtained yesterday:

Lipid panel

Total Cholesterol is really a bullshit number, because observe that I could get to an "ideal" <200 by making my HDL worse, like say 50. Triglycerides way low, just like you want, and HDLs stratospheric, also, just like you want. LDL is only 4 points off "above optimal" figure of <100.

The ratios are as follows:

  • Total/HDL = 2.1 (average is 4-6 and ideal is 2-3; I'm on the extreme end of ideal)
  • HDL/LDL = 1 (average is .3-.4 and ideal is above .4; again extreme end of ideal)
  • Triglyceride/HDL = .4 (optimal is <2, so again, extreme end of ideal)

While my fasting glucose seems high at 109, free insulin was only 6 (standard being 4-29, lower the better) and Glycohemoglobin (HGBA1C %) comes in at 4.8 (standard range 4.6 -  6 with the lower range being optimal). Glycohemoglobin is the percent of hemoglobin with sugar bound to it and doesn't change very rapidly over time, while a blood glucose test is sugar levels at that moment, so the HGBA1C % is a far more reliable method of checking whether you're borderline Type II.

All in all, not bad for being on such an unhealthy diet and eating things like this and this and this.

So, any of you low-fat-grain-eaters want to go up against those numbers?

Update 3/19/2009: Here's my latest lipid panel.