Long time since I wrote anything on this blog. Well any blog. But now I will start again
But with a big change. I started a new domain. grumpyoldlowcarber.com
Any reader are welcome there
Long time since I wrote anything on this blog. Well any blog. But now I will start again
But with a big change. I started a new domain. grumpyoldlowcarber.com
Any reader are welcome there
For the past 9 weeks have I been a good boy and exercise by running and building (hopefully) muscles at a gym. For how much and when, see My Training page
Each Saturday have I noted down what the scale been saying to me. As I have a scale that not only give me my weight but also have an opinion on my fat, muscle and water composition. Have I been keen to see any difference. Would I see any?
As can be seen, have it not been any large differences, but there is a trend of slow improvements. I think it started after 10th of August. When the length and time of my running did get as long as 17 km. It is something I have been experiencing earlier in life. It is only when my running been long, that it has been any effect on my body.
One thing I noticed when I started was that I tended to eat more. Something I always been warning others for. When people start training, the more they want to eat. It have been harder for me to listen to the body signals telling me I had enough.
To me, training shorter time than 1 hour at a time and not watching out for the “working up the apetite” signals, is just waste of time. If weight loss is the goal. But I have always considered that it is good to move the body around in moderation. This level of my exercise could be just above that. But as the preacher said, “do what I teach not what I am doing”.
One thing I wonder for those who think that the only reason for me not to lose weight in the beginning, and actually increasing. Is because I was building muscles. And that is correct as seen on my muscle %. But why did not my fat % decrease?
Another thing that is worth noticing is the increase of water in my body. I been a big tea drinker. About 12 cups daily. Always thinking that it could not be that healthy and I should cut down on it. But when not having any real medical reason for it. Why should I?
Then I read that to high coffee consumption could lead to magnesium deprivation. Right or wrong, I think that coffee and tea is very similar. It is only that tea is weaker than coffee. So as I sometimes ad magnesium to my diet. Could I not help thinking that, this seems stupid. Why add magnesium when the reason for the need could be that I drink to much tea.
So past 9 weeks have I also during my work days limit my tea to a maximum of 6 cups a day. Preferable only 5. My reward have been that during this time have the water % slowly increased, and finally since I bought the scale a couple of years ago, is it not complaining that I have to little water in my body. Even though I am just on the border.
I wonder how much difference in my water composition effects the other value. Have just a feeling that they seem to follow each other. But have no proof of anything.
One can find a interesting documentary from BBC on youtube. The Men Who Made Us Thin
I seen the first part and could agree to most in it. But the second part The Men Who Made Us Thin Ep 2 HD, definitely struck home.
The depressive thing is that it does exist a golden bullet out there for obesity. It is called fat.
Found on fat heads blog an interesting link to a site with a 6 top list of famous documentaries that are bad and not correct. 6 Famous Documentaries That Were Shockingly Full of Crap
I do not know how accurate the list is, but number 6 on it is Super Size me. A very famous and to many important documentary. But is it? The article point out that the Fat Head film shows that the maths does not ad up in it. That Spurlock is actually lying in the film.
On top of it do they refer to a very good article Only another 5,500 calories to go …
Where we find that:
A Swedish university has replicated Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me junk food binge under lab conditions. The early results are surprising…
Looking around do find a science paper Fast-food-based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects
The paper describes how liver values did go up during the 4 week trial.
Over eating is of course not good in the long run. But what one overeat with, definitely matters.There where 5 persons according to the video below that increased their weight by 15%. Spurlock did increase his by 13% so of course it is individual difference. But as we know, there is also a difference from where a calorie come from. As calorie is not the same everywhere.
The man behind the study was a guy called Fredrik Nyström, if anyone is interested in what he is doing currently can check at Linköping University
He is a professor, and among the low carb deniers someone who does not know and understand science.
He writes books about one should eat fat, drink coffee, nuts and drink wine.
But he also do talks in the media promoting high fat diet.
Then is it a video, unfortunately in Swedish where he describes the study mentioned above. (I had to use Internet Explorer to see it)
Some guys where eating 7000 kcal a day. Much as possible in hamburgers. So one have to understand that even if he talks a lot of fat. Is it of course an increase of calories of everything, also protein and carbohydrate and loads of sugar. As what they was supposed to do was to go hamburger places and eat there. He got an image of 14 Big mac as normal daily intake. Does anyone think they only ate that? Sodas and French fries was also large as possible I assume.
I find it funny that people had problem with stomach ache. I can easily understand that when you increase your sugar intake. But it seemed as they could get around it by having a milkshake. Mix it with cream and drink that. Would give 2000 kcal and no stomach ache.
They tried to study what people ate and what happened with their blood values. Among those that ate mostly saturated fat did their HDL increase most. And that seem to be a good thing. If you know anything about cholesterol.
Also the more carbohydrates the subject had in their diet. The worse liver values did you get.
Then he presents another study where they randomized 25 people into 2 groups. Where they had to eat 20kcal/day/bodyweight in kg extra for 2 weeks. That is, if the person weight was 80 kg did they have to eat 20*80 = 1600 kcal a day. Besides what they normally ate
One of the group had to eat those extra kcal with candy. The other by eating peanuts.
Result? Those who ate candy did increase the LDL, insulin and bodyweight. All of is a bad thing to have. But among those who ate peanuts did they not see any difference. They on other hand started to increase their BMR
The last thing about BMR correlates with what happen in the previous study.
Does not anyone see a pattern here?
I have always loved peanut butter. And if I can get it sugar free will I definitely eat it.
He also goes on describing how tests that is used by the medical industry on fat cells, to test different substance against diabetes. They where showing that that palm oil and saturated fat was giving the best protection against diabetes. Fish oil did hardly anything. Among fats that is.
There is something about the guy. I think he been involved in web blog with opinion that I do not have.
But if that is that case, do I like to point out that I do in the case of nutrition do I think he has something important to say.
Dietdoctor.com had this very good link to an article written by an Icelandic doctor. A article one should read.
This week have been interesting. It started with debate article in one of the largest newspaper. Well actually I think it is the largest. But that is besides the point, so I should not mention that. But for anyone to who like to read some swedish here it is:
”De populära fettdieterna är ett hot mot folkhälsan”
Then one of the tabloid papers. Papers not worth to be named newspaper, had big headlines like “LCHF-war divides Sweden”.
The debate article was signed by 5 Swedish professors/doctors and the gist was that high diet fads are killing swedes. This makes me think of the excellent blog of Deinse Minger. She do not seem to write anything any more on that blog, but she should come out with a book later this year. ”Death by the food pyramid” But her latest blog post written a year ago is well worth to take a look on: Are Low-Carb Diets Killing Sweden?
But back to the debate article. We swedes live longer nowadays because Coronary heart disease (CHD) has fallen. Different reason for this is put forward. They are changes in diet and lowering of cholesterol values (40 %), less smoking and lowering blood pressure (55 %) and finally improvements in medicine and treatment (35 %). Mmm.. this is 130 %.
But of course a person who quit smoking and get medicine. What made him not part of the negative statistic? This is the first problem. As no trial have been taken place where they randomized people in different groups. Telling some to quit smoking, some to change diet and others to get different improved treatment and so on. So any claims on why CHD have been going down in in Sweden is purely built on observation. Anyone who like to learn the difference between observational and clinical studies should listen to Tom Naughton’s Science For Smart People
He is very funny also.
In short, you can with different parameter and values, hypothesis about any reasons you like. But only with testing can you prove them. Something not have been done.
By the way, they point out that CHD have gone down while at the same time we been getting fatter and rounder. During the same time we been cutting down on the fat. Does anyone see a connection there?
Now it been a shift in the country. Couple of Swedish doctors, and others without medical background are telling people to eat butter, fat and so on. Hey they mention me, I am one of the people without medical background. Wow I am in the newspaper.
One thing I can do is to actually read, I also do trust people with the right education who refer to proper scientific work and not just claiming things without presenting where the proof comes from.
One thing I wonder, why do they not mention all professors and doctors and other specialist around the world that is promoting a LCHF diet?
They claim in the article that because of our good work, we who promote LCHF, we now see an increase in CHD among young people, men and women. Mostly among uneducated. Their source is a report of the health of the population for 2013 Folkhälsan i Sverige. Page 27 shows following graph:
Some explanation. Left do you have young women aged 35-44 and to the right the men, same age group. They are first timers for getting CHD, As long they did not get CHD within last 7 years. What you also can see is that lower education gives a higher probability for CHD. A more solid line and less dashed, indicate lower education.
So they claim is that CHD increase among the young people. I would call that a direct lie. You can say that among uneducated young women do we see an increase. And maybe a very, but very slight increase among high educated men.
So this is their proof that they have. We have an increase among uneducated young woman and maybe among highly educated men. A strange difference, is it young uneducated women that listen to people like me, and the very very few men listening to doctors/professors? Or is vice versa? I am not sure what I prefer.
So how long have the LCHF been going on? It could be around December 2005. With the case of Annika Dahlqvist. For anyone to learn about her in english listen to: Livin la vida low carb show podcast 107.
But it took till January 2008 when she so to say got acquitted, when I suppose it rely took of. People learned that if they could not prove that what she suggested was dangerous. Then it was no problem to eat it.
I suggest that below graph of butter consumption in Sweden from one of the dietdoctor.com talks tells part of the story.
So compare the graph earlier about uneducated women and the butter. You find a correlation? Well maybe, 2006 did butter sale go start to go up, while CHD for uneducated women also started increasing. But why do we not see same with uneducated men or anyone else? I have myself gotten the idea that LCHF is not that popular among women. But of course I could be wrong.
Most of all do I like to say that I do not believe that changes in diet show changes that quickly for such a large group of people. It takes years for anything to take effect. So the reason for the increase happened years before the bad effect would bee seen. More about this below.
What other proof do they write about? They mention about the Norsjö and Västerbotten project, Sollentuna program and Habo model.
So what are they?
I have added a page about
The Norsjö and Västerbotten Intervention Programme (VIP)
Where I describe it and try to say what is wrong with it.
In short it does not prove that fat is dangerous.
The Habo model is more or less same I think. Also an intervention where they make people to do large lifestyle changes like start moving around, lose weight, quit smoking and try to relax more. So of course according to the debate article. It’s all about eating less fat.
I found no information about anything called Sollentuna program.
Alternative explanation for the increase of CHD among young women
It is something that did change in Sweden in the 80’s. Girls started to smoke much more. And when I say girls I mean those in the age of 15.
It is a well known fact that the majority of smokers in Sweden since several years are women. Long time earlier was young girls in majority among same age groups.
It has gone so far that I have for many year joked whenever I talk to guy who smokes, that it is girlish thing to do.
So what have this do to with anything? It is also considered that smoking causes CHD. And here does it take long time. Not as long time as carbohydrates take to do bad things with our bodies. Here we are talking about a 20 years lag.
15 years when starting to smoke. The effect is seen when they get 34-44. Is anyone rely surprised?
Lets take a look on some graphs from the excellent talk by David Diamond Bad Science Created the Obesity Epidemic You find his talk at the bottom of the page in the link.
Then a graph that shows we got about 20 years lag between cancer and CHD rates
Of course this as usal does not prove any causation. But to me they are more striking.
In this post do I want to take up a couple of things. Like, is saturated fat and cholesterol bad for you or can you train and be on ketongenic diet? Together with, what is cholesterol and ketosis?
The wonderful thing about it, is that I do not need to write anything. I only have to refer to The Eating Academy. blog by Peter Attia. He has knowledge, and a obsession for real data and numbers. Together with a personal story makes his pages a gold mine for anyone interested in nutrition.
The background, nothing about LCHF
Listening and reading his various talk and blog posts, tells a story of a highly gifted nerd/jock with knowledge that is close to a passion for the subject. For some, that is a contradiction. How could it be that someone is both athletic and number cruncher? The answer could be in his pages under his My Personal Nutrition Journey.
But I think the best place to start, is to read his post in remembrance of his teacher Woody, whom influenced him to give up a career as a kick boxer and instead give mathematics a fighting chance.
His post Thank you, Woody tells you how his life changed into a completely new direction , and therefore a place I recommend anyone to start of with.
As second place to go to is post about his experience of his participation at 2013 TEDMED. His post TEDMED 2013…now I get it tells you some on what is happening in the background leading up to the conference, and during it.
He gives some reference to various other speakers, but unfortunately no links to their talks. This is because he wrote the post shortly after the event, and they still had not been posted on the net. I checked some of them out, and they where very good.
He also refer to an old talk by Ric Elias. And do as he writes. “Seriously. STOP READING THIS NOW AND WATCH IT.” The talk Ric Elias had at an TED event 2011: 3 things I learned while my plane crashed is a something to stop reading this for a while and listen to instead.
Finally something about LCHF
So far, have no reading or videos I been recommending anything to do with LCHF or nutrition. Ok I did mention his Nutrition Journey. But I did not recommend it, not yet at least.
But before doing that, do I want to recommend you to listen to his own 2013 TEDMED talk. The Peter Attia: What if we’re wrong about diabetes? do show his passion for the problem and a reflection of what he thought before and what he think now about cause and effect. But also point out, that today do we do not know definitely what the answer is. And that we have to be open to throw our prejudice and ideas out the window.
Also before I recommend the pages, is it something that need to be mention. Like all other pages out there in the internet does it seem as it is again only about losing weight and keeping it under control. This is as I tried to say before, something of a problem, as high weight is only one of possible symptoms for methabolic syndrom, To be more clear, one does not be fat or little round to have methabolic syndrom or get diabetes.
And this fixation with weight leads some people away for the issue that is important. What are the underlying markers and what to they tell us?
With that in mind can you read is journey
Is saturated fat and cholesterol bad for you
The blog post How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?
Is a very good explanation to why everybody nowadays believes that “saturated fat is blood clogging”, while showing that this belief is actually built on very shaky ground. Reading and listening to his talk further down in the text is very informative.
Can you train and be on ketongenic diet?
Since I started with LCHF have I trained very little. My page My Training
tries to tell how much I have done. A couple of weeks ago did I restart with jogging and something I never done before, muscle building. I will describe it more on the page and try to keep it up to date in the future.
But one of the myths that exists, is that training and carbohydrates goes hand in hand. That you cannot exercise unless you also eat load of carbohydrates. This is something I want to debunk with my training page.
He already done that in his talk My Quantified Self, Part I
Again listen to his lecture further down the text: Peter Attia – An Advantaged Metabolic State: Human Performance, Resilience that is his personal story how he used to train 3-4 hours a day for competitions and still got problem. To how his body now reacts to his exercising.
He have the luck of being tested in some of the top facilities that exists for measuring performance.
Also, just as important, it tells us where our bodies take energy from, depending on type of exercise, and how much we have of it. And what is happening when you use up all the glucose your body have.
Point is, if they been wrong about that glucose is the only thing the body burn when exercising, very likely they been wrong with other things.
What is cholesterol?
Now we getting into some heavy stuff.
And so on for about 9 parts. I have not read everything and I believe I need to reread each of them several times before understand all of it.
Some of the topics are:
And as I said it is 9 parts
What is Ketosis?
More heavy stuff that requires some repeated reading and slow digesting of information.
Ketosis – advantaged or misunderstood state? (Part I)
So this is the blog I started saying I would not need to write much. But if you read everything on this page and want to listen to what Peter has to say in his talks and recommended listening. Be prepared, it will take more than couple hours.
A while ago did I found this article at dietdoctor.com : Dietary Fats and Health: Dietary Recommendations in the Context of Scientific Evidence
Found it to be of very interesting reading and I had all intentions to write something. But then I found out that the Fat Head already written a piece on it.
It seemed to me that I could save some of my precious time and just link it to it. So if you think it is to long to read the article yourself. Here you have his comments with extracts:
Review Article Exonerates Saturated Fat
While ago did I write a post about longevity. It was a good one I think, about yeast, monkeys and other species. Now I found a new one, worms.
What we can put the blame on? Yes, it is all about the sugar again.
I invite you to read: Why One Anti-Aging Researcher Stopped Eating Sugar
If you wonder who the scientist is: Cynthia Kenyon
The story (Kosten kan påverka prostatacancer), is about prostate cancer. As usual is it not hard to find any English articles a: Men With Prostate Cancer Should Eat Healthy Vegetable Fats
Unfortunately does the paper not exist as full text version and only as an abstract. But it gives some information.
So what is it about and why do I mention it? Because it mostly support what I have now understood for a year. Removing carbohydrates from your diet and increase the fat intake could decrease the risk for cancer. Mind you, I using the word could.
Reading it did I feel a little split. I felt that I was cherry picking parts of it. Increase fat, and decrease carbs. I am all for it. But then does the observational study find that saturated fat is bad. Guess what, I do not agree. But the big problem, it is only a observational study no more. As one commentary was:
Using data from food frequency questionnaires completed every four years during follow-up, they found that men who consumed more vegetable fat had a lower risk of prostate cancer death.”
”Thus, in the absence of randomized trial data, it is impossible to use these data as ‘proof’ that vegetable intake lowers prostate cancer risk, and the authors have carefully avoided such statements,” Freedland continues.
”When counseling patients, I remind them that obesity is the only known modifiable risk factor linked with prostate cancer mortality to date. Thus, avoiding obesity is essential. Exactly how this should be done remains unclear, although the data by Richman et al suggest that substituting healthy foods (i.e. vegetable fats) for unhealthy foods (i.e. carbohydrates) may have a benefit. Determining whether this benefit is due to reduced consumption of carbohydrates or greater intake of vegetables will require future prospective randomized trials,”
But even though I can be accused for cherry picking, do I take this as another small piece of the puzzle on what is healthy food. Less carbohydrates, and more fat, and yes even saturated.
The reason besides the feeling of bias in the articles I found, animal fat is unhealthy and vegetable oil are good, are the questioners. It took me some time to find them. But they are here. They ask people every 4th year about what they eat. Since 1986, so they are persistent.
Have in earlier post, pointed out how strange it is to believe you will get the truth out of these. People lies, most of all to themselves. Especially if they believe certain foods are bad for you health and they are health conscious. People over or underestimate all the time. Most you can hope for is that over time they will do it consistently. As long they do not change opinion about what one should, or not should eat. But the hope that people as a group will lie consistently is futile. Because each one tries to hide different things depending on how they try to eat and live otherwise.
So what does the questioners say that makes me think that their assessment (because that is all what it is) of what the subjects rely is eating and in this specific case, in regards to how much animal fat they get. Or rather in combination with what. Screws up the data.
Take a look on one part of it.
So if you eat sausages that contains all kind of preservatives, hamburgers with sweet bread, sandwiches or pasta together with meat of different kinds then you eating animal fat. I.e. saturated fat. And if you then get an health problem, it is blamed on saturated fat.
This problem that we always mix our diet with combination with different food items, will screw up things. Especially in questioners like these that enhance the problem.
And this kind of data is precisely what each and every news paper headline that warn or advice us what to eat, is built of.
I remember studying economic for a semester. They taught us how to make predictions, or outcome of different scenarios. And the teacher then said. You will go out in the world and use these methods. They will be presented to the executives, who will say “now we finally have numbers, and can make decision on what to do”. All the while, you know how these numbers was created.
In short shit in, shit out.
I was on the Tom Naughton blog today and found a post Interesting Overeating Experiment
He links to guy who did a test on himself. Eating about 5800 calories a day, for 21 days. To see what would happened. Day 21 of The 21 Day 5,000 Calorie Challenge
When Spurlock in the Supers size me ate 5000 a day in a month did he gain about 11 kg.
This guy only gained 1,3 kg Of course he followed a low carb diet. His tummy on the same time shrank 3 cm !!
As Tom says in his movie Fat Head (today did I finally add that and others, under Video) Someone has some explaining to do. Because according to the calorie in and calorie out theory, should he have gained over 7 kg.
If I understand right will he repeat the experiment with carbohydrates in September, to see if the reason he did not put on anything is because he belongs to the lucky who cannot put on weight. And not the lack of carbs, As some of the comments been.
I am myself inclined to test myself in similar manner.
Above been edited.
Changed the amount of kg Spurlock gained.