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

Healthy on the wrong way

Kostdoktorn/Dietdoktor had a post about a documentary, Healthy by wrong way, from Finland. Where a guy that got type 2 diabetes cured himself with LCHF. Something the medical establishment did not like.

If I understand right, did the doctor claim that his improved blood values was because he was happy. But it is hard to get everything. Because though even if the documentary was mainly in Swedish did they sometimes use Finnish.

But something that does not need much translation is the different blood values and I think that these tells the story well.


First column as I understand when he got diagnosed. The others after starting eating according to LCHF.
One funny comment from those they interview. One ”maybe” can eat like this for 2 years. And then go back to eating 45-60 % carbs. The guy whose values it is, just said. Why should I again start eat things that made me sick?

I think many should ask themself that question. And how many more anomalies is it out there?

One thing more I find interesting is how many came to the Kostdoktors talk and that he does do lots of booksigning.

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.

Proof Statins Save Your LIfe

I have not written anything for a very long time. Mostly because I’m lazy son of a b…. But one reason is that I been travelling a bit. And been busy.

During one of the trips did this headline catch my eye.

Daily Express 8 of April

Daily Express 8 of April

The purpose of the headlines on a newspapers front page, is to do what this made me to do. Make you want to buy the paper and read all about it. Which I did.

Some of the quotes from the article:
“lives could be saved by statins”….”dismissed fears over side-effects”…”led to a marked reduction in people suffering heart attacks”

So clearly statins is a wonder drug. The person first mentioned in the article is a guy named Dennis Ko. A search on the internet of “dr Dennis Ko statins” gives an array of hits.
A couple are:
Statin side-effects can often be overcome
Cholesterol-reducing statins’ ’benefits’ outweigh hazards of sid- effects
Statins ‘save lives’ despite side-effects

So is this a new study that proof without doubt, that statins rely do work for people that never had any previous heart problems. Because that what we are lead to believe aren’t we.

Well no, actually it is not even a study of the effectiveness of the drug to prevent any heart attacks. Let’s see what we can get out of the articles.

The main points seem to be:

  1. The drug, …, has already led to a marked reduction in people suffering heart attacks
  2. ..patients give up on the pills after suffering minor side-effects such as ­headaches, nosebleeds and digestive problems.
  3. “..­particularly for people with a history of heart problems, you should persist….”
  4. Statins are extremely effective at reducing cholesterol, the fatty substance which clogs arteries, triggering heart attack or stroke.
  5. People quit taking the drug because of the side-effects. But then they start again.

So lets take a look on them one by one.

1 The drug has already led to a marked reduction in people suffering heart attacks
Well if this was the case. Why do they not present a paper that shows it? Papers that shows that about 1 out of about 200 did not get an heart attack again(!) is to me not a reason to celebrate. Especially if they dying early of other reason instead.

2 Patients give up on the pills after suffering minor side effects such as headaches, nosebleeds and digestive problems.
Well they also mention that the are not so minor side-effects like: kidney problems, muscle wastage
Search on the internet: Gives following list:
Difficulty sleeping
Flushing of the skin
Muscle aches, tenderness, or weakness (myalgia)
Nausea and/or vomiting
Abdominal cramping and/or pain
Bloating and/or gas
If this list is right. Yeah very nice to have.
Maybe a visit to spacedoc could be interesting. His name come from the fact he used to be an astronaut.

3 Particularly for people with a history of heart problems, you should persist
Oh yes isn’t that the point. That is why they cannot show any paper on the “ marked reduction in people suffering heart attacks”. As supposedly the only ones that maybe do benefit from statins. Are just those that have had an heart problem. Usually 1 out of 200. And if you are a male. They avoiding to mentioning that.
Meaning if you do not have had a problem the drug is not worth a nickel for your body. But you still pays at least 40p a day. That is 146 £ a year. Remember this is the lowest cost. Another page state it can be up to 200 $ a month. For those who have not had any heart problem. It is just a waist of money. And for the few rest. They should look up if it is rely the cholesterol that is the problem.

Primary prevention (those with no prior heart problem)shows no increase of life expectancy
Secondary prevention (those who have had a problem) does according to some say you will only increase you life with 15 days.

4 Statins are extremely effective at reducing cholesterol, the fatty substance which clogs arteries, triggering heart attack or stroke.
Well the problem is that everybody nowadays seem to agree on at least one thing. Serum (finer word for total) has nothing to do with the risk of clogging of arteries. Higher levels have instead shown in studies to increase the length of your life. You maybe die of heart decease, but you live longer. It’s special types of cholesterol that is associated with heart problem. But only associated.

And statins does not only block cholesterol, it also block other building blocks you body need.

5 People quit taking the drug because of the side effects. But then they start again.
And this is the big new study that the articles are about. They made a study that shown, that most people who started taking statins, and quit because of the side-effects. Started again within a year.
So that is the reason for having the sub headline “New research shows benefits of wonder drug”. Again their words not mine.
I write this again. The new evidence is the fact that people who once started with statins will start taking it again.

I do not even try to find the scientific paper. It is worthless. But they made headlines that made me buy the newspaper.

Does chocolate give you spots?

Long time now since I wrote anything. Unfortunately I been a little busy.

I read an interesting article on BBC News (Does chocolate give you spots?) about acne. You know spots. The question is if it is a link between chocolate and spots. Some people think so and other do not. According to the article is the verdict still out there.

What fascinated me with the article was not so much if chocolate actually cause spots or not. But the discussion about scientific result. How can one be sure that the studies are correct and do not have flaws in them. When it comes to food is there so many different things that can and should be taken into account. So even the simple act of finding out the effect of chocolate, is hard.

One thing that is it says:

Until the 1960s, the view that chocolate exacerbated the problem was widely held in the scientific community. It was thought that acne sufferers had an impaired tolerance of glucose, the sugar which our bodies convert carbohydrates into for distribution in the bloodstream. Popular textbooks of the 1940s and 1950s counseled against sugary food and drink – including chocolate – as part of acne treatment.

I think I take my guess on old honest wisdom. Just as everybody knew that carbohydrate made you rounder. They also very likely had it right about this.

Will a cola kill you?

Of course will not a cola kill you. But according to an article in Time. Sugary Beverages Linked to 180,000 Deaths Worldwide Could a 12 oz can of soda a day be harmful for you.

The study does fall into the category, observational. And I would not count on to much on it. But it is nice that again I can hear the wind is changing.

Thinking of that it is not only  the sugary drinks that contains sugar. Today at lunch did we discuss weather the fish not only was coated with crushed almond but also if it contained  some sugar. We agreed that it was very tasty. So that meant it had to contain sugar.

Do you get smarter by eating egg?

Today did the Swedish paper SvD have an article about that one get smarter by eating eggs. Not that it was referring to any new study or so. It just stated that the short time memory is getting better with some of the nutrients it has.

Another thing mentioned, was that egg have gone from a cholesterol filled deadly bomb to something of the most cleverest to eat. Of course when one think off that an egg contains all necessary to create living being. Then one have to come to believe that eggs seems to be an hell of a smart thing to eat.

So even though it was not referring to any bad or good science. Do I think that something is changing in society. The wind do seem to change.