Lack of joy with soy

There is an increasing trend of putting soya in everything from bread and breakfast cereals to ice-cream and, of course, low-carb 'diet' products. High in protein, and very abundant and cheap, it looks like a good food to include in other foods. But, while fermented soya is okay, unfermented soya is not. And it is the unfermented soya that is used in these products today. Put bluntly, soya protein powders, soya flour, soya oil and soya milk, and foods containing them, should carry a health warning as cigarettes do. Here's why:

Read full article here: Second Opinions - Barry Groves PhD

LOW-CARB RIPOFFS

From Second Opinions

The overweight and obese have always provided a very lucrative and ready market for food companies to exploit with expensive, nutrient-poor, highly-processed, slimming 'foods' and diet products. Some of these, the liquid powders you made into a drink, were made largely from skim milk powder, with added chemicals and artificial flavours. The ingredients were very cheap for the manufacturers to buy (skim milk powder is almost given away), but were very expensive for the dieter to buy. Others included inert fillers which contained no food at all.

I had hoped that when the new low-carb way of eating caught on, these rip-off merchants would be unable to sell their products and go into liquidation.

How naïve I was!

The current low-carb 'fad' has allowed the food companies to widen their net to ensnare even more people with even more rip-offs, which are even more expensive. Here are some examples on sale to the 'low-carb diet' market (I have written comments in blue below each one):

Read the full article here: Second Opinions

STATINS: Saviours of Mankind, or Expensive Scam?

Introduction

Although there is not, and never has been, any convincing evidence that levels of serum cholesterol have any causal relationship with coronary heart disease, that hasn't stopped the cholesterol hypothesis being used as a basis for the sale of drugs to lower cholesterol.

Over the last half of the twentieth century a whole range of drugs were tried. All, without exception, were less than successful. And no evidence was produced that cholesterol-lowering, whether by diet or various older drugs such as clofibrate, gemfibrozil, cholestyramine, colestipol, or nicotinic acid, extends life or reduces overall mortality.

But the new type of cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins do appear to be successful. There is no doubt that in trials there has been a reduction in the numbers of deaths among those taking statins compared to control groups. For the first time cholesterol-lowering has shown significant improvement in mortality rates, from coronary mortality, stroke mortality and total mortality.

Statins are now the drugs of choice and aggressively marketed. As these cost around £400 per person per year, and they have to be taken for life, the drug companies can look forward to several years of very healthy profits until the patents run out.

So statins increase the health of drug companies' bank balances, but do they really increase the health of those who take them? And do they represent good value for money as far as a cash-strapped National Health Service is concerned?

Full article available here: Second Opinions - Barry Groves PhD

On The First Law of Thermodynamics

From the British Medical Journal

Author: Barry Groves, Independent Researcher OX7 6LP

Weight loss on a low-carb diet has two components:

1. Reducing carb (and protein if necessary) intake so that the body no longer has a ready supply of glucose.

2. Increasing fat intake to supply an alternative energy supply.

The aim is to get the body to burn fats -- and crucially for weight loss, this includes body fats. The body will only do this in two circumstances:

1. Starvation (including low-calorie dieting)

2. When glucose is restricted by other means and fats are the only fuel supply available (low-carb, high-fat diets).

But what about the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The laws of thermodynamics, so often quoted by 'experts' (I have another word for them: 'ignorants') in support of the 'calories in = calories out' hypothesis, is a complete red herring as it takes no account of the way the body deals with different nutrients.

One major flaw in their argument is that the body does not use all the food we eat to provide energy. The primary function of dietary proteins, for example, is body cell manufacture and repair: making skin, blood, hair, and finger- and toe-nails, enzymes, etc. The amount of protein needed for this purpose is generally accepted to be about one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. As meats contain approximately 23 grams of protein per 100 grams, a person weighing, say, 70 kg (154 lbs) needs to eat about 300 g (11 oz) of meat, or its equivalent, every day just to supply his basic protein needs. Even eating this volume of lean chicken would provide some 465 kcals. These calories are not used to supply energy, they contribute nothing to the body's calorie needs and so must be deducted if you are counting calories.

Much of the fat we eat is also used to provide materials used by the body in processes other than the production of energy: the manufacture of body cell membranes, bile acids, hormones, the essential fatty acids for the brain and nervous system, and so on. All these must be deducted as well. Thus trying to determine, from food intake and energy expenditure alone, how much excess energy your body will store as fat will give a completely wrong answer. However, these other factors cannot be measured. Calorie counting, which is the foundation of practically every modern slimming diet, is both totally misleading and a complete waste of time.

There are also other anomolies: A figure often used is that one kilogram of body fat represents about 3500 calories. But according to the United States Department Of Health, Education and Welfare:

'On a high-fat diet, 4703 to 8471 excess calories were required for each kilogram of added weight. On a low carbohydrate VLCD [very low calorie diet], replacing fat calories with 8g/day of equivalent carbohydrate calories reduced weight loss by 1.68kg, corresponding to 3300 calories of carbohydrate/kilogram, possibly 2500 calories per kilogram for carbohydrate alone.'(Department of HEW Publication: NIH 75-708, Government Printing Office, 165-86.)

Are they are saying that it takes 4,703 to 8,471 excess calories of fat to add a kilogram of weight, yet it takes only 2,500 to 3,300 calories of carbohydrate to add the same amount? If so 'a calorie is a calorie is a calorie' is not so meaningful after all: a carbohydrate calorie is obviously much more fattening than a fat calorie. So do calories count? Well, perhaps -- but some don't count half as much as others.

Actually, excess fats aren't stored in the body. Any unused fat calories are excreted in urine and faeces. (Endocrinology 1962; 70: 579. Experientia 1963; 19: 319. Metabolism 1964; 13: 87-97. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1964; 115:424. Nature 1964; 201: 924)

There is an emerging scientific consensus that weight control is a highly complex topic and the old ideas that overweight people are lazy gluttons are now realised to be as absurd and insulting as the overweight have always thought they were.

By the way, ketones are derived from fats in food which has been bought and paid for. They are a valuable source of energy for cells that usually use glucose. It makes no sense to create in the body a situation where they are flushed down the lavatory.

Source: British Medical Journal

Be Slim Without Dieting - Barry Groves Video out!

Your Perfect Weight Plan is a complete video guide to your slimmer, happier you. A 1 hour programme, packed with information and sample dishes to help you achieve Your Perfect Weight.

More information/order here: theperfectweight.com

The Mediterranean Paradoxes

The 'French Paradox' has been well documented over the years. This paradox describes the low levels of heart disease enjoyed by the French, despite the fact that they eat an 'unhealthy' high-fat diet. This is, of course, seen as a 'paradox' because conventional wisdom has it that such a diet should increase heart disease rates...

Read full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Carnivore/Herbivore

The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today

In The Naive Vegetarian, I talked about Man's evolution and the sorts of food which the fossil record suggests we should eat and what modern primitives, untouched by civilisation eat. This all points to our being a carnivorous species. The third aspect of the evidence confirms this hypothesis by looking at our digestive system and comparing it with those of animals whose diet is known beyond doubt.

There are basically two types of animals in Nature:

1. Herbivores: animals that eat vegetation. They are able to digest and use as food the cellulose which forms the cell walls of all plants.
2. Carnivores: animals that eat herbivores. The carnivore's digestion is unable break down vegetable cell walls.

Read the full article here: second-opinions.co.uk

Climb down from the bran wagon

In years to come, the past couple of decades of the twentieth century may well come to be known as 'The Bran Age'; a time when it seemed that most of the diseases of Western civilisation were being blamed on a lack of fibre in the diet, and we were all being exhorted to eat as much as possible to cure or prevent those diseases. Diseases blamed on a lack of dietary fibre include: intestinal diseases such as cancer of the colon, appendicitis, constipation and irritable bowel syndrome as well as coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, deep vein thrombosis, varicose veins, hiatus hernia and gallstones.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today

In The Naive Vegetarian, I talked about Man's evolution and the sorts of food which the fossil record suggests we should eat and what modern primitives, untouched by civilisation eat. This all points to our being a carnivorous species. The third aspect of the evidence confirms this hypothesis by looking at our digestive system and comparing it with those of animals whose diet is known beyond doubt.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Carbohydrates and Immune Function

"Based on these studies, any person who eats largely carbohydrate-based meals, particularly those containing sugars, and snacks with small carbohydrate-based meals spread throughout the day -- as the latest advice suggests we should -- could lose up to half their immunity to disease for much of the waking day. "

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Begin at the Beginning

Diet for Children

"...it must be self-evident that it is far better not to become overweight in the first place. And this relies on correct nutrition from the start: that is from a child's conception, for our nutritional status at our beginning has a profound effect on our health throughout life. During the time the unborn child is forming, it requires an adequate supply of the right nutrients. If these are not supplied in the right quantity and at the right time, a damaged baby is the inevitable result."

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Nonsense Slimming Diets

This century more than any other has seen a proliferation of slimming ideas. Most diets are based on cutting energy intake, others have made slimming claims for specific items of food. Classic examples are grapefruit, pineapple or fibre. We have had inert fillers, low-calorie this, low-fat that, diet pills and sweaty, plastic clothing. There were Low-Calorie Diets and Very Low Calorie Diets. There were even diets for diet haters. People lost weight and put it on again. Many were harmed, some died.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

The Naive Vegetarian

There is at present a growing trend towards vegetarianism. One of the results of the 'healthy' diet's recommendation to eat less red meat has been an increasing numbers of people who are becoming vegetarians. Polls carried out in 1988 and 1989 indicated that some three percent of British subjects called themselves vegetarian or vegan -- a slight increase on figures obtained during the previous four years -- but a number that has grown still further since. Motivations given included disapproval of intensive animal farming methods, rejection of animal slaughter, dislike of the taste or texture of meat, and about half of those polled mentioned health concerns.

This paper looks at our evolution using data from archaeological and anthropological studies of bones and fossils spanning some four million years to show that there is no doubt that, as a species, we have evolved to eat a mainly carnivorous diet.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Why is 5.2 (200) a 'healthy' cholesterol level?

The enclosed three paragraphs, which I wrote last week for the Weston A Price Foundation website to add to the "Oiling of America" article tells how the 200 mg/dl cutoff for serum cholesterol was decided back in 1984.
Mary Enig, PhD

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

The Cholesterol Myth

If the hypothesis that a fatty diet causes heart disease is true, why has over fifty years of trials and studies has failed to confirm it? It's certainly not for want of trying.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Dietary Fats and Heart Disease
Part 3: The Bran Wagon
Part 4: The Dangers of Low Blood Cholesterol
Part 5: Cholesterol Lowering Drugs
Part 6: Has Anyone Gained?
Part 7: So Where Does That Leave Heart Disease?
Part 8: A Question of Ethics
Part 9: The Dangers of a "Healthy" Diet

Read all of the above here (highly recommended): Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

BBC Diet Trials Results

Official site: BBC Diet Trials Results

Quote Barry Groves, PhD - Second Opinions:

+

These snippets from Low-Carb in the UK with permission from the author Barry Groves, PhD, Author of "Eat Fat, Get Thin!" and Second Opinions.

Banting, The Father of the Low-Carbohydrate Diet

The following article was awarded the Sophie Coe Prize at the 2002 Oxford Symposium on Food History (aka the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cooking). The Symposium was held at St Antony's College, Oxford, over the weekend 7 and 8 September 2002.

The Prize, in memory of Sophie Coe, the distinguished food historian who died in 1994, is awarded annually under the auspices of the Oxford Symposium for an essay or article on some aspect of food history, embodying new research or providing new insights.

WILLIAM BANTING (1796-1878):
The Father of the Low-Carbohydrate Diet

Summary
For two decades 'healthy eating' propaganda has influenced the way we eat. Over the same period there has been a consequent dramatic rise in obesity and associated conditions. This has led to a backlash which has seen a rash of diet books advocating high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets described as 'new' and 'revolutionary'.

But in reality, they are not. The first low-carbohydrate diet book was written in 1863 by William Banting as a service to his fellow Man. His name passed into the language as the verb 'to bant'.

That the 'Banting diet' works has been attested to by 140 years of epidemiological studies and clinical trials.

For the sake of our health, it is time we started 'banting' again.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

The correct way to treat diabetes

The numbers of people contracting diabetes is increasing rapidly all over the industrialised world. Children are now getting Type-2 diabetes, which normally only affects people over the age of forty. Something has gone drastically wrong. This series of papers looks at the reasons for this phenomenon, shows how conventional medicine is making the situation worse, and presents practical advice for both the treatment and prevention of diabetes.

The introduction and Parts 1 to 6 are mainly concerned with adult onset or Type-2 diabetes. Most of the advice and, certainly, the general principles are common to both types of diabetes. But as there are significant differences with between Type-2 and Type-1, Part 7 looks at other factors that affect those with Type-1.

Full articles: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

The Correct Diet for Athletic Performance

Full Article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Alcohol and weight loss

How alcohol affects weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet.

Full Article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Eat Fat, Get Thin!

Synopsis
Explains that the diet on which it is most difficult to lose weight is a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Barry Groves took up full-time research into the relationship between dietary constituents and modern diseases.

From the author:
Eat Fat, Get Thin -- the natural way to a healthy slim body

Fact: No animal in its natural habitat gets fat. Fact: Obesity is also noticeably absent in primitive human cultures. Fact: The only animals to become overweight on this planet are 'civilised' Man -- and his pets.

This is highly significant.

We do not get fat because we eat too much (although many do). If that were the cause, other species with an ample food supply would also get fat -- yet they don't. In fact, the only animals in their natural environment who are genetically disposed to put on fat are those whose food supply is not guaranteed.

Surely everyone who has lost weight by starving (which is what low-calorie dieting is) only to put it back on again, must know that 'dieting' does not work.

It doesn't work because it is unnatural.

Many animals, including us, have evolved the ability to store energy as fat in case of times when food is scarce. If we do not eat enough the body fights to retain fat. For this reason low-fat, low-calorie dieting forces our bodies to conserve energy -- it is a recipe for weight gain.

The way to lose weight is firstly to eat as much energy as your body needs, and secondly to eat foods that we, as a species, have evolved and are genetically programmed to eat.

Eat Fat, Get Thin! Looks at our evolution; it tells how the body works and why low-fat, low-calorie diets ultimately lead to weight gain; and, lastly it guides the reader on the correct way to eat so that the body's own energy-regulating mechanisms work correctly. Because, if you let it, your body can count calories far more accurately than you can.

At age 62 my wife, Monica, is fit and healthy, eating as much as she wants. She is 5 ft 6 ins tall and weighs just 124 lbs. When a friend, who has been on and off diets for most of her life, found that we lived the way I write about in Eat Fat, Get Thin! she said to Monica: "do you mean you have been dieting for thirty-six years?"

Monica's answer was, "No, we have been eating normally for thirty-six years!"

Direct Amazon UK link: Eat Fat, Get Thin!

Fatty Acids Requirements

This snippet from Low-Carb in the UK with permission from the author Barry Groves, PhD, Author of "Eat Fat, Get Thin!" and Second Opinions.