1. I have a 27 yr old daughter who has gastroparesis, inflammation of the stomach lining, a myriad of other immune disorders and metabolic syndrome. Her doctor told her she cannot have dietary fat because of the gastroparesis. I’m trying to convince her to do carnivore.
I am not here to second guess your daughter's doctor. I am not a doctor. He is the professional who examined, tested and diagnosed her. He knows best what’s going on with her and what her treatment should be. If you don't trust him and are questioning whether he is wrong, I suggest you get a second opinion and not from the internet but from another doctor.
This is a blog for the discussion of metabolic syndrome and its treatments. All other conditions are not discussed here. Your daughter is 27 years old. I don't know why you are trying to "convince her to do carnivore", which is a diet that might very well worsen her condition according to her own doctor. In fact, people with simple irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are told to not consume digestive enzymes because they cause a very rapid break down of protein which can in turn irritate the stomach further. Eating too much fat can cause excess bile production which can also affect the digestion of some people, particularly those with gall bladder disease. Protein is difficult to digest as well if your stomach is not producing enough acid due to certain conditions or acid reducing medications, etc. So your daughter has digestive issues that can affect her following this type of diet.
I recommend you stop trying to jump on the bandwagon of everything you read online and then try to drag others into it with you. Let your daughter find the right dietary protocol for herself, considering her current condition, which will ultimately affect what she can choose.
2. Is a "pro-metabolic" diet a good diet to follow?
**The pro metabolic diet proponent quoted and linked to below appears to have removed the content I am discussing on this post. It appears they have now moved on to something else, like they all eventually do. That didn't last long.**
To make it plain and simple, it’s nonsense. This is just another sham to add to the countless other shams that are out there. But I will go through some basic information about it just to humor myself and others. Here are a few snippets of what a pro-metabolic diet is, courtesy of one of its proponents, with all of its original typos:
"A pro-metabolic diet is a way of eating that supports metabolic function. It is getting nourishing our bodies with foods that support of our biology. If you understand basic human physiology, there is no question on whether or not these foods are metabolically supportive."
What the heck that means, is not known. No specifics are given. Like I have said before, human beings thrive on a multitude of diets. So if this person truly understood "basic human physiology", they would be fully aware of their BS.
"When we talk about pro-metabolic eating, it really is based off of human physiology. Maybe you have heard that carbohydrates are bad. That seems to be a common misconception. Well, when we look at human physiology it is crystal clear that our bodies run on glucose. That isn’t an opinion, that is fact."
That is not a fact. This statement in itself shows that this person does not understand basic biology but yet they are trying to advise you on what to do for your metabolic health. Go figure.
"Consuming a diet rich in bio-available foods is how we support our metabolism. Bio-available foods are easy to digest, nutrients are easily assimilated and absorbed, and they are easy for the body to use as energy. Our modern day world is so packed full of stress in every way. We are constantly exposed to stress. Environmental toxins, EMFs, pharmaceuticals all contribute to stress, let alone our day to day lifestyle stress. Our bodies are in a constant state of stress, and eating a metabolically supportive diet is the perfect way to combat stress hormones."
All food is bio-available. That's why it's called "food". "Easy to digest", "easily assimilated" and "easy for the body to use as energy" are all individualized and subjective. In other words, that is not dependent on what you eat but what your body does with what you eat. Of course, the person writing this knows they are talking BS so they already have an excuse as to why this BS recommendation won’t work. Their get out of jail free card is “stress, toxins, EMFs and pharmaceuticals”. After all, when they have no solutions for what they are blaming, blame something else that's more elusive.
"Well, foods like fruits, root vegetables, honey, maple syrup, grass fed and pasture raised meats, eggs, saturated fats like butter and coconut oil are all going to be very metabolically supportive. Notice how most of these foods have been demonized. These foods are getting back to our roots, before diet culture and big industry began to dictate how we eat."
None of those foods, except for the honey, maple syrup and eggs, is going back to anyone's "roots". They simply weren’t around until industry came. “Fruits and root vegetables” are all hybrids of their inedible wild cousins. “Pasture raised” meats are still farmed meats, not wild game. Saturated fats like butter and coconut oil are the result of agriculture. Our bodies are able to metabolize these foods but they don’t “support our metabolism”. Also, nobody has "demonized" those foods. Nobody has dictated how you should eat either. It was your choice to have pancakes smothered in Aunt Jemima instead of steak and broccoli.
"I know often times people want a set list of foods they can and cannot eat. That’s diet culture stepping in. There are no rules. This isn’t a diet, it’s learning how to best fuel your body. A simple way to test how a certain food works for you is by getting familiar with your temperatures and pulses. You can learn all about that here."
Wrong. What she is writing is the epitome of "diet culture". Diet culture has no set rules. It’s just vague recommendations that no one can detail. That's every dietary recommendation you will ever come across from your doctor to the American Diabetes Association (ADA). "Temperatures and pulses" are a waste of time. They are completely useless. This is actually a little slight of hand she pulled on you as leptin increases energy expenditure so it increases your temperature and pulse. So she is actually measuring leptin in a crude manner, whether inadvertently or not. Unfortunately, none of it does a thing to make leptin expression better so it’s a waste of time. What you need to keep track of is your blood glucose and body fat.
As you can see for yourself, this is all word salad BS. This is the type of nonsense that will have you side tracked and unfocused on what's truly important. While you're wasting time with this nonsense, the condition continues to progress right under your watch. If these are the so called experts, giving us advice, then you can see why obesity is on a rampage.
3. My blood sugar refuses to go under 100 mg/dL and my HbA1C has remained at 6. All my doctors say this is okay. I have been strict “keto” for 17 months. I fast for 18 hours a day. I do yoga 4 times a week and I sleep well. I am under no stress. I have stalled at my last 10 lbs. for 10 months. I'm a 73 year old female.
I hate to break this to you but the median life expectancy in the United States is 78 years old. There are very few centenarians out there and the ones who are, really need to worry every night they go to sleep. Sleep for them is no longer rest but a gamble with their life. This means that at your age, your blood glucose and HbA1C is not necessarily normal but you will most likely die of something else before you die of whatever pathologies may occur from that metabolic profile. This is why your doctors are telling you that "it’s okay".
To put it in perspective, full blown diabetics on medications usually have an HbA1C of around 9 and run much higher blood glucose. They can remain this way for decades before they even begin to have pathologies like mild neuropathy, etc. Being 10 pounds "overweight" is not overweight/obesity so this is not a “stall”. It is simply the body saying it doesn't feel comfortable losing anymore body fat and at your age, it makes sense that it would refuse to go lower.
Diet is already a palliative treatment for metabolic disorders for younger individuals so the affect it would have at your age is minimal. You say you are under "no stress" but I beg to differ. Your body is under "advanced age stress" and this effects blood glucose. This is why the elderly run higher blood glucose and higher lipids than younger people. The body is simply not using energy as well as it used to because all of its systems are slowing down. The good thing is that diabetes is not a disease of high blood glucose so it doesn't much matter. What matters is insulin function and, like I said above, it takes decades for that to deteriorate significantly enough to become clinically noticeable. The fact that you have reached 73, are still active, are only 10 pounds “overweight” and have a blood glucose of only 100 mg/dL means you have not lost significant insulin function.
This is why I target my advice to younger individuals, who can get the most out of their treatment plan. After all, the sacrifice that has to be made should be worth it. Someone in their 40's has a serious problem if they are running an HBA1C of 6 as they will either be in very poor health or most likely dead by the time they reach your age. Someone in their 70's, not so much. Especially someone who is still doing Yoga at that age. I suggest you stop concerning yourself over this and simply continue with a healthy and active lifestyle for as long as you can.
4. Statin drugs, which lower LDL, are worthless! A new Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study proves this.
JAMA has published several studies on the effects of statins on cardiovascular health. Nothing new has come up. In fact their latest study on this topic states the following:
"Findings: In this meta-analysis of 21 randomized clinical trials in primary and secondary prevention that examined the efficacy of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, there was significant heterogeneity but also reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% for all-cause mortality, 1.3% for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins compared with control, with relative risk reductions of 9%, 29%, and 14%, respectively. A meta-regression was inconclusive regarding the association between the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.
Meaning: The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy."
Nothing in there indicates that statins are "worthless". What’s new about these findings? Nothing. We have already known that the LDL lowering effects of statins do not appear to be the reason why they are beneficial in people with current heart disease.
I know that low carb advocates post this crap every so often, duping people into thinking it’s "late breaking news!" but it’s not. They are just recycling garbage to get your attention and you were duped.
The only thing you can do with this JAMA paper, besides wiping your behind, is mentioning it to your doctor if they want you to use statins solely for lowering your LDL, while having no current heart disease or a diagnoses of what specific type of hypercholesterolemia you have (benign or malignant). If you have a family history of early onset heart disease, they should have ordered this testing for you already.
5. Butter is part of a hunter/gatherer diet because butter is "gathered".
First, hunter/gatherers do not eat one diet so there is no "hunter/gatherer diet" as their diets differ vastly depending on region. There are hunter/gatherers who eat a diet of 100% animals, particularly in the arctic, and there are hunter/gatherers who have diets composed of up to 80% plant foods and then there is everything in between. And there is a lot in between. Like I have said before, humans adapt to a vast array of diets and thrive on them. Unfortunately none of those diets include Ding Dongs.
Hunter/gatherers who are carnivore, do not use dairy or added fat in their meals so their diet would differ from the modern iteration of carnivore. This doesn't mean that these hunter/gatherers do not take advantage of lactating animals or their fat reserves. It just means they do not have a method of accessing either of these things, on a regular basis, as it would be random depending on what animal they were able to hunt and kill at a specific time of year and region. For the vast majority of hunter/gatherers, the animals they hunt are very lean as they would be wild game. There are no hunter/gatherers lurking around the perimeter of the Black Angus farm or the Wagyu ranch. So the type of carnivore diet that hunter/gatherers would follow is different from yours.
Modern/industrialized carnivore simply means that you are eating an animal based diet so any product that is derived from an animal is acceptable. For this reason, carnivore is not a "hunter/gatherer diet" but an ancestral diet, if you are following it correctly. If your carnivore diet is full of hot dogs and Slim Jim's then it would not be ancestral either. It would be a fad.
You do not "gather" butter. You churn butter. Hunter/gatherers did not have cows. Cows, and other similar ruminants, are a domesticated animal that herders and other agricultural based societies and tribes have. That's the difference between hunter/gatherers and ancestral. Ancestral takes into consideration herder societies/tribes of which there are many. This is why the Paleo diet does not include dairy. Paleo leans much more towards hunter/gatherers. Humans did not "invent" foods like grains and dairy until after the paleolithic era so they had no butter to gather.
So I don't know where you are getting this information from but please open your browser and do some googling.
6. Hunter/gatherers who mostly ate animals had high rates of atherosclerosis.
Atherosclerosis is considered a "disease" in modern society because it tends to become pathological in us but atherosclerosis is actually a normal part of the body’s healing process. It is the way our large arteries maintain themselves healthy and properly working. Atherosclerosis are plaques which repair these arteries and keep them functioning as they are under a lot of stress and become damaged with time. Atherosclerosis becomes problematic when these plaques become unstable and break off, which they are not suppose to do, causing a heart attack/stroke. Excess aggregation of lipids around this plaques become blockages, which is also not suppose to occur.
The hunter/gatherers who were autopsied and found to have atherosclerosis did not die from it, even when advanced. They died of other causes. No one knows why modern humans tend to develop pathological atherosclerosis. It could be a genetic issue with some people and the way their bodies handle lipids. The reason we are able to witness this is because we live longer and there are many more of us than there are hunter/gatherers making it more common to come across a genetic anomaly. It could also be very well related to the fats we eat and how we eat them. It could be because of being sedentary. In other words, many factors are involved in the development of cardiovascular disease. Either way, the current consensus for tackling this is by trying to avoid atherosclerosis all together, which you cannot. We all have and will continue to develop atherosclerotic plaque as it’s a normal process.
The best indicator of whether you are at risk for heart disease is family history.
No comments:
Post a Comment