The impossble values of Super Size me

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.

Are the cockroaches smarter than we?

I think I recal that during the cold war, did they say that in case of full scale nuclear war, would the cockroaches survive. Why they would, I do not know. But that was they said.

One thing is for sure, they are survivers as species. Anyone who have lived in places infested by them can testify that. Kill one, and 10 will show up for the funeral.

But are they smarter? As they according to an article at the bbc has learned to avoid the traps. It is the sugar they started to avoid. And even start to react at with disgust.

But do not worry, it is not that they are smarter than us, that makes them avoiding the poison. It is evolution.

As again, as long you live till you can reproduce yourself, will nature treat your nice. But if you die before, will your genes not be transfered to next generations. So those cockroaches that are repulsed by sugar, survive and pass their genes forward.

To read:
Cockroaches lose their ‘sweet tooth’ to evade traps

LCHF is not a new thing

The dietdoctor  has a note about the fact that LCHF is not newly invented diet.
Instead did a doctor already in 1797 report successful treatment of patient with changing the diet to low carb and high fat.

The article Diabetes Detectives  is definitely advisable to read. As it gives an insight of early medicine studies, and what have been known about diabetes over time.

Dr. John Rollo, a surgeon in the British Royal Artillery. With Dr. William Cruickshank—an artillery surgeon, chemist, and apothecary—Rollo undertook a longitudinal study of one Captain Meredith, who weighed 232 pounds and suffered from intense polyuria and dehydration. While adjusting Captain Meredith’s diet, the two doctors recorded the quantity and nature of the sugar in his urine and blood, relying in part on taste and in part on the degree of effervescence caused by the addition of yeast to his urine. Rollo showed that a diet rich in protein and fat (largely from animal sources) and low in carbohydrates—together with the administration of several medications, which are noted below—resulted in a substantial weight loss, the elimination of Meredith’s symptoms, and the reversal of both his glycosuria and hyperglycemia.

I think I got 2 things out of the article

  1. That diabetes though known, was very rare up to beginning of 20th century. So rare that the students did not even have any patients to study. Still they wrote thesis about it.
  2. Another thing is how problematic it must have been to be medic at those days when so little was known about the inner working of the body.

So what have changed with our diet during last 30-40 years or so? As  the medical student now have an abundant of patients to study. But they do not have to taste the urine to make a diagnose anymore.

A time where we gone from having fat in our food, to sugar. Well hello, we even call it the sugar sickness in Swedish.
Following image is taken from Lunds University (a prediction for 2025)
Diabetes in the world

Does starvation prolong life?

Is caloric restriction the way to live longer? Many seem to think so. At least now in Sweden since a while ago the documentary Eat, fast and live longer with Dr Michael Mosley was aired on the swedish television.
(The link should work if your in Sweden, until 12 of June. After that try YouTube or other)

As it been put to me as a truth that is certain, and that everybody knows that. Did it made me hitching to take closer look on why this is so. Or rather, is it right that by restricting your caloric intake, could you live longer?

List of my sources are as follows:
Swedish science magazine: Forskning och Framsteg #3- 2013 article on why they have so many 100 years olds on Okinawa.
Can extreme calorie counting make you live longer?
Proof mounts on restricted diet
Severe Diet Doesn’t Prolong Life, at Least in Monkeys
Calorie restriction doesn’t slow aging, monkey study suggests
Glasgow has lowest life expectancy in UK
Old CRONies: the diet they say will get you into your second century
How to live to 101 – BBC Horizon or Top documentary film

So what did I learn from listening and reading?
Well from the swedish science magazine that is not one of those common ”Illustrated” ones, instead I think it has a good reputation, could I read that longelivity on Okninawa depends on 4 things.

  1. They get high amounts of Flavonoids from their homegrown vegetables, less meat and more fatty fish. Eat slowly without being full. (article claim low saturated fat)
  2. Daily physical work, taking care of your garden. Those vegetables does not grow by themselves.
  3. Taking care of the their total health, physical, mental, social and spiritual.
  4. And social network
  5. And genes

Actually 5, as they also consider genetics important so I add that to the list.

From Eat fast and live longer with Dr Michael Mosley did I learn a new word, IGF-1, some kind of protein. So after all these different cholesterol types and whatever else. Should I now also keep on eye on this? As it seem to be linked with cancer. It should be low according to the scientist in the program. And one way to lower it is to eat less protein. But just less, you still need it on daily basis. Also important is lower blood sugar.
The documentary advocates either fasting (no food) for 4 days each month or the popular 5:2 eating plan. That is, eat anythiing for 5 days. And then eat only 500-600 cal a day for 2 days. Actually Michael Mosley his now selling a book on it.

From How to live to 101 – BBC Horizon can we learn that on Okinawa do they eat vegetables and eat less.

While in Ovodda on Sardinia also have long living population. Here is it because of the genes. Because they eat and drink as if it was no tomorrow. The longevity seem to be clustered to certain families.

Loma Linda in California is also is marked on world map as a blue zone. This time the reason for so many old people, seem to be spiritual and social life together with daily exercising.

I do not know what color the opposite of blue zone is. But Glasgow according to the documentary is the opposite. As also pointed out in the bbc article Glasgow has lowest life expectancy in UK. The reason is according the documentory due to overcrowding during the industrial revolution. And here population developed something called high inflammatory response. That protected you when you young from viruses and deceases so you could reach adult age and breed children before you die.
But then as you get older could an over acting immune system cause diabetes, heart decease. Which should be common in Glasgow.

Just to show that nature maybe not out to kill you after you stopped breeding. But just do not care for you anymore.

When I did meet people in the 80s who had visit Sweden, or maybe only Stockholm. Comments where that they never seen so many beautiful old people, and asked my why. I could only agree that mediterraneans usually looked older. I attributed mainly to the sun, that it dried out the skin.
Does tourists think the same today? Do I? No I do not think so. So what have changed for them that was born after 1900-1930? Do our charter trips make the sun dry our skin?

I do not think most things depends on only one thing. Or at least, usually something depends on more things then one. Some more important, and some less. But here, I will try to point my finger on something I think is an important factor.

Thought for many years that one secret to slow down aging, was to have a “no worry” attitude. As one person somewhere in one of documentaries said. You have to have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. And I think that most of us can imagine that has some truth to it and heard expressions like, “she died of broken heart” when for example losing a child.

And it have shown that stress and worries do cause inflammation in the arteries. And that is the begining that leads to heart problem. So don’t worry be happy, is a good slogan.
But what are the other causes for some people to look young and healthy, and maybe also is? Genes besides.

The idea, that lowering the calories is the answer, is to me a kind of case of simplifying the case. If you are one of those, and lets face it, most people does, who thinks a calorie is a calorie. Then of course, any improvements on your health is only because of lowering the caloric intake.

But I’m not. So I will look for what I want to find. And yes, I am well aware that it is biased.

Improvements on life expectancy with low caloric intake has been shown on for example rats, monkeys and yeast. But it has not been tested on human. As we cannot lock up a couple of hundreds, feed them different things and see how long they live. Still to me, when something seem to work for many difference species, then why not, it is plausible. If it was only one, no way.

In the Eat, fast and live longer documentary does a Cronie only eat the skin of an apple. As that is where 95% of the nutrients is. The rest is sugar, and throws it. Because he do not want the sugar. But for him, is the calories he want to avoid. So even though he fills him up on berries is it still low calorie. So it seems to me that maybe it is not much sugar in his food. Or at least protected with fibers.

In the Can extreme calorie counting make you live longer? Do they interview Dr Valter Longo. Same guy who advocate the 4 days of fasting in Eat, fast and live longer. He show experiments on yeast. And says they live longer if the are deprived of calories, that is amino acids and sugar.

By the way, the Cronie presented there does not look healthy at all to me.

In the Eat, fast and live longer. Does the Dr Valter Longo want us to lower the IGF-1 and blood sugar.
Guess what, I know a way to lower the blood sugar. Ditch the carbohydrates.
The reason for lowering the IGF-1 seem to because it will stop the body to make new cells. Instead will it encourage it to repair old ones.

It is clear that lack of IGF-1 seem to prohibit growth. As the genetically modified rats without it, are tiny. But hey, they live longer. And people with a decease which makes them lack the IGF-1 are stunt in their growth.

What is interesting with these people? The fact is that they seem to not get diabetes or cancer. Yes that is great. But nowhere does he or anyone claim that the lowering of IGF-1 will prolong the life. And I found the reason.
“Unlike dwarf mice, however, people with Laron syndrome do not seem to experience increased longevity. The effect on life span may have been obscured in this study by the unusually high number of accidents and alcohol-related deaths seen in the Laron subjects.“

And it is longevity we where looking for. Not if it says cancer or other thing on your death certificate.

Later in the documentary do they look on rats that develop Alzheimer’s. Those of them that go on intermittent fasting will increase life expectancy and develop the Alzheimer’s later.

So what does the fasting entail? I do not know for sure. But it seems to me that they are giving the mice that is not fasting “Fast food” or something similar to taking them to McDonalds. More specific they give them fat and water with fructose in it. Actually it is a little unclear.

The scientist, Mark Mattson, make equality between fat and sugar. But mainly points to the sugar put in their food and saying:
“high fat diet exactly we put fructose in their drinking water and that has a dramatic effect.. earlier onset of memory and learning problem”

If I am right, this guy who supposedly is a well known scientist is doing the cardinal sin. Not changing one parameter.
Then they show that the rats on no sugary water but fasting is creating new brain cells. But wait a minute. Was it not important to lower the IGF-1, and you did that by fasting. To stop the body to create new cells?

It is something very strange here.

So now we go to the studies on monkeys.
First thing that strikes me is that we have 2 different studies. And they give different result. At least when it comes to life expectancy. No cause for any subjectivity. Your where born at a certain date and died another.
You can always be someone who say “oh that is easy, it is a difference because the experiments that presents findings that oppose my opinion are bad done”. Or you can look for what they did differently.
They write on some places that even though it was same type of monkeys was their origin different. Good point. As we know gene could matter. But we talk about 2 different groups and the effect of fasting inside them. Not sure I make my point there.

But what I sure about is how on one article I read about the studies, just happen to mention that it also was a difference in what kind of food they ate. And again sugar pops up its sweet and deadly head again.
for example, 28.5% of the diet of the Wisconsin monkeys was made from sucrose, whereas the sugar only made up 3.9% of the NIA diet.

Wisconsin’s control monkeys were allowed to eat as much as they wanted and were fatter than those in the aging institute’s study, which were fed in amounts that were considered enough to maintain a healthy weight but were not unlimited.

I do like this:
That suggests the longevity diet didn’t really extend lifespan in the Wisconsin monkeys: It only seemed to because the control monkeys ate themselves into an early grave.

We all know what happens when we add sugar to the diet. At least if you beleive Dr Lustig We get hungrier and eat more. Just like those poor monkeys.


Yes I pointing my finger here to one thing. But I do accept that it is more to it than just sugar.

To live a life without stress is to me also important.
My life is in the hands of any rascal who chooses to annoy or tease me .
Supposedly said by Joseph Hunter. Whom likewise supposedly died 2 weeks afterward when someone did make him lose temper.

And if you think intermittent fasting is right. Then the good thing with LCHF, and most people doing it, agree on it. You start intermittent fasting automatically. Not because you decide to starve yourself and think feeling hunger is healthy, instead you do it because your are just not hungry.

Hey! what about the Okinawa cases?
It seem to have been done many studies on how bad health the second generation of Japanese immigrant to the US have, compared to those in the old home country. Indicating gene has nothing to do with it.

I know I should not, but I find just a little funny how the camera in the How to live to 101 – BBC Horizon zoom in on a japanese/american family celebrating a 101 year birthday. While the speaker says that his children, will not live as long as he has. And all the time are they eating a sugary cake.

Sugar that supposedly the Japanese did not get much in old time. And I do think the old people of Okinawa is not eating much of it either.

Long term effect on my taste buds

Couple of weeks ago was I in a smaller town of Sweden, and found myself not have eating anything late in the evening. So I decided to go and have a quick small fix one. An hamburger from one of those small kiosk places. That is not a Mc Donald, Burger King or any other similar chain. Still for at least for Sweden a well known brand.

I been eating burgers at least a couple of times the last year since I started living according to LCHF. But I have then removed the bread while eating. Not hard to do, and highly recommended. Of course, the other ingredients do contain sugar. If not the processed meat, then for example the ketchup. But I had at least lessen the amount by eating around (or rather between) the bread.

This time I was tired and just wanted to get back and sleep. So I decided to eat whole.

Well I am not sure that I ever will do that again. The taste of sugar was immense. I actually could imagine that, what I was eating, was kind of desert. I cannot remember to have eating anything as sweet, that was supposed to be some kind of normal food. Only comparable I remember, is many years ago, when I tried some different ready made tomato pasta sauces. Finding them so sweet with a feeling of eating sugar, did I quickly stop using them. Instead I did my own. Cheaper and better.

Of course everybody knows that the hamburger bread always been sweetened, so it was not only the wheat that gave the sweet flavor.

Then couple of days ago did I finally start to jog for the season. At least I hope it is a start and I will continue. I thought I could for one time sake have couple of beers afterward, together with some french fries. If one is to break, then do it all the way.

The french fries was a tad over cooked. But not to bad, and I think that I did not feel to bad eating them. But the beer felt strangely sweet. Not sugary as coke or something similar. But still, it was definitely a much sweeter touch in the flavor. I could not finish the second beer, it did not have a good flavor at all. And these used to be one of my favorites.

My only conclusion is that even though I in the old time was sensitive to sugar in food. Have I by avoiding bread and pasta and similar things, gotten more sensitive. So very small amounts, is enough to taste it.

And that is good I think. Because then when I want something sweet, does it not need to contain so much sugar for me to get the “kick”.

Still Believe ‘A Calorie Is a Calorie’?

Dr Lustig have written an article called Still Believe ‘A Calorie Is a Calorie’? Where he begins with giving 4 reason for why all calories are not created equal. Or rather is not handled by our bodies in the same way. They are as follows:

  1. Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
  2. Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
  3. Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
  4. Sugar. This is the ”big kahuna” of the ”big lie.” Sugar is not one chemical. It’s two. Glucose is the energy of life. Every cell in every organism on the planet can burn glucose for energy. Glucose is mildly sweet, but not very interesting (think molasses). Fructose is an entirely different animal. Fructose is very sweet, the molecule we seek. Both burn at four calories per gram. If fructose were just like glucose, then sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would be just like starch. But fructose is not glucose.Because a calorie is not a calorie.

To this I like also to add the problem of what if one ate 20 kcal to much each day. That is not a hard to do, thinking we should consume about 2000 kcal each day. So it is maybe not even an half mouthful of food to much
So we would do it everyday for 10 years. 20*365*10=73000 kcal. According to what I found is one kg fat about 7000-9000 kcal. To make it easy I just assume it is 7300. So it means that the person would weigh about 10 kg more. How come we are all not either anorexic or grossly overweight? Because a calorie is not a calorie.
To make things worse, studies shows that average American consume 300 kcal more each day compared what they ate in the late 70′s. Of course that explain the higher averal weight. But 300*365=109500. That is 15kg a year. If it all was about calories, should they weigh tons of kg.

Those who know dr Lustig, knows that for him is it all about the sugar. And in the article does he make the case that:
“Bottom line — only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide; nothing else mattered. “

He refers the paper he and others have done The relationship of sugar to population-level diabetes prevalence: an econometric analysis of repeated cross-sectional data
It is an observation study made by someone who thinks sugar is poison. So of course is not conclusive. But for me is it another indication that sugar is one of the driving forces behind the metabolic syndrom.

Diabetes Showing how diabetes increase with increased or decreased sugar consumption over time.

How much sugar is it in pasta?

That our body turns carbohydrate into sugar in our bloodstream. Leading the body  to react with increased insulin level. And that in turn puts the fat in the fat cells, and keeps it there. Seem to be what is happening.

But how much sugar is it in pasta?

A while ago did I find a calculation:

(Carbohydrates  – Fiber) / 5 = number of teaspoons of sugar.

The amount should be i grams.

According to one site (, does boiled pasta contain:

Carbohydrates : 25,90 g, Fibre 1,10 g per 100 g.

Lets say my normal portion was 300 g . That would be:
(77,7 – 3,3 ) / 5 = 14,88

So one portion,, not counting anything else. Would be 14 teaspoons of sugar. And I read somewhere that at any given point does hour body contain 1 to 1 and half of teaspoons.

What about other foods. Put white bread in your mouth and hold it there. You will start to feel the sweetnes. And we all know that fruits contain fibres. So it protects us from the carbs. But is it enough fibre in them?

I do not know what a right level should or could be. But my thoughts are, that if you consume more sugar than your body contain normally, during one just one meal . Then it is bit to much. And even though our bodies have why to handle it. Can it not be good in the very long run.




Sugar decay the rich tooth

I looked on a Time Team special on you tube.
Time Team Special 43 (2010) – Nelsons Hospital
They pointed out when they looking on the skull of unknown 18 century burials. That they very likely where poor people.

One reason for this assumption was that the teeth was in good condition. Poor could not afford sugar. And if you where well off at that time. Would you have strong teeth decay.

I think this tells us something of sugar. And also correlate with what Weston Price studied and found.

I have added an very short article about Weston Price under LCHF-Science