The Writing Walls are Crumbling.

Tags

Biden, bipartisan, debate, discussion, left wing, moving forward, right wing, Trump, walls

I have had a very hard time blogging over the past four years. It wasn’t just Donny and his insane cabal but his many followers. I have unfriended many people during this reign, and I have blocked many of them. And I did try to listen. I tried to understand the divide, not just in America but in Canada and around the world . I have teased and ridiculed not only Donny but these followers. I knew converting the mindless was not possible, but they were never my target. I targeted the middle-of-the road centrists, the non-partisan voters who see truth above party politics. Unfortunately, these people tend to be more laissez-faire and vote less than the indoctrinated [on both sides]. Biden winning the vote feels like a victory but a tainted one. We are not in a good place.

Now that we have a change on the horizon, can I dump the farcical memes and get back to arguing with logic? I hope I can. I hope we all can. I would much rather see far-righters and far-lefties write out what they believe and openly discuss their arguments. I would hope we can all sit down quietly, read others’ stances on issues, and work to some consensus. It is this back and forth playing with ideas that moves us forward. It is how I move my writings forward. I don’t write knock-out stories in one go. It takes many tries of pushing that theme or pushing this character or pushing that conflict. All of my best writing has come from pushing into areas I never ended up in. The same is true, I believe, for moving forward in social and political discourse. Life is story, and those of us who write a lot of story can attest that what we think is best almost always is not.

I could not write much about life these past four years because so many have adopted views of life I do not agree with. And no, it is not just the righties. I am anti-government. When governments in my Canada want to implement new programs, I cringe, because I know my government’s debts will rise with no compensating benefit. Too many pay no service at all to our enormous debts.

What do I want to Write About?

The list is long, and I don’t claim to be qualified to write about much of it. But the following is a quick list.

• Socialism
  • what is it?
  • where should social policies fit in a capitalistic society?
  • what do Liberals really want?
  • what are Conservatives afraid of?
• Competition
  • I am for competition, when it makes sense
  • when does competition not make sense?
  • how do we manage non-competitive units so everyone is happy?
• Executive Accountability
  • this is currently a critical problem in not only America but in Canada and around the world
• Taxation
  • does the low-taxation-of-billionaires model make sense?
  • what is the logical management perspective on achieving good government?
  • of course, taxation of expatriates and management of tax fraud.
• Reading and Writing
  • I work at my writing every day. I have many ideas on making writing more interesting and relevant
  • reading is a forgotten skill. We have millions of experts who do not read anything more than Facebook posts or their favorite news headlines
  • how to correctly punctuate lists 😉
• Racial Injustice
  • unfortunately, the list is endless!
• My many other interests: books, fountain pens, inks, poetry, nutrition, diabetes, and more.

There is so much to write about and such little time to do it. I’ve been sitting on my hands for so long, I don’t really know if I can do this. Is Humpty Trumpty falling off the wall enough to get me back into this? But of course I have to write. The only way we’re going to move forward as a civilization is through discourse and debate. I remember when the Berlin Wall started to come down. It was the day my firstborn entered the world. I was so hopeful. The world really did seem to offer a brighter future. But of course we’ve erected replacement walls, and unfortunately we always will. I think the purpose of my writing and many other blogs has to be the dismantling of walls. These ideological walls need to crumble.

Cain, Abel, and Vegans

Tags

Able, bible, Cain, cognitive dissonance, humor, vegan, veganism

I post this entry with trepidation. Too often I see the Bible referred to as prescriptive — live like that and go to hell forever; live like this and live forever. For the literary soul in me, this is mythology at its finest. Samples of this extreme faith have abounded throughout history and continue today. I do not want to delve into that mess. I do not want to write about silly creationism, the biblical basis of America’s Manifest Destiny, modern Christian privilege, biblical arguments on homophobia, or anything else biblical, not seriously, not with the intent of stirring up hatred; for that’s all it will do. In my opinion most of these arguments and practices are simple defense mechanisms against cognitive dissonance — self justification because you have no rational means of figuring out how to resolve issues. This is a light hearted post. I believe it as much as I believe in Tarot cards or rabbits feet. Because this is a cognitive dissonance related topic, I expect many people will take this post in a way I won’t appreciate. Do not preach religion to me. If you have no problem preaching, I have no problem deleting.

I’ve seen many websites extoll the virtues of vegetarianism or veganism and try to use biblical passages to support their stance. I accuse this because I feel it is true. I do not think people wonder how to eat, decide to research the bible for guidance, and then choose. I believe people choose how they eat then use the bible to back up their claims. The easy defenses are to claim the bible is an irrelevant, outdated storybook and that the wheat today is not the wheat Jesus ate. Either way it then becomes a faith battle and neither side will win the other.

I won’t refer all of the hackneyed sites out there quoting passage after passage supporting vegetarian lifestyles — they are all hackneyed in my view — but I will link to Wikipedia. Most sites I’ve seen probably use this page as a reference. It contains a remarkable collection of biblical passages supporting vegetarianism. I argue the list is not complete. It omits the first and possibly most important biblical food story of all — Cain and Abel.

So let’s get to the beginning of it all — GENESIS. The Cain and Abel story. Most of us don’t remember its details. We know they were Adam’s sons and they fought. Why and who won, probably most Christians have to look up. The story runs like this,

Cain was a vegan and Abel an animal eater. God told Cain he was an idiot, so Cain got upset. He posted a website calling Abel an evil bastard, then he killed him. He and his kin have been pumping their misguided hatred ever since.

It’s the simplest and earliest explanation for today’s online vegan who regurgitates baseless fact, pseudo-science, and vitriolic accusations of animal murder at those not of their ilk. It completely explains their modern, misguided behavior. Vegans must have genetic, direct lineage to the dark Cain himself.

Later, as God was checking Facebook, he discovered Abel’s account was hacked.

Cain, you’re a little turd. I banish you to outback of Australia where you shall live with half naked beautiful women who never get fully naked, ever, where you will eat nothing but bananas and durian fruit, where you will be plagued for eternity by large, constant, fluffy, and stinky poop, and your accounts will be constantly hacked and bombarded by intellectual superiors. Good God, what was I thinking when I created you?

And there you have it, the modern descendant of God’s black sheep Cain, the modern vegan. It’s the only explanation that makes sense to me; therefore it must be true.

From Wikipedia, mostly:

Genesis narrative

Cain leadeth Abel to death, by James Tissot paired with an image depicting modern Vegan misinterpretation.

Hebrew Bible version:

¹Adam knew his wife Eve intimately, and she conceived and bore Cain. She said, “I have had a male child with the LORD‘s help.”^a[›]2Then she also gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. ³In the course of time Cain presented some of the land’s produce as an offering to the LORD. ⁴And Abel also presented [an offering]^b[›] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions.^c[›] The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, ⁵but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast.^[6]6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why are you downcast?^{[7] 7}If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if thou do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it.”⁸Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”^[8]And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

—Genesis 4:1-8 (HCSB)

After this, God said to Cain, “What hast you done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out to Me from the ground! So now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thou farm the ground, it shall not yield good crops to you! Thou shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth! (Genesis 4:10-4:12)

Harmonizing Guidelines for the Treatment of Chronic Illnesses – Diabetes

Premiers Forge Own Healthcare Path

Whoop! NOT!!

Recently Canada’s premiers [equivalent to American Governors] all got together for their regular talks. Don’t ask me when they meet. I’m an American and can’t vote for them, so I don’t usually pay attention to the details of such things. Actually I wouldn’t remember anyway; I focus on important topics. *har har*

I only want to talk about one statement in the article. I feel the impetus to discuss the entire realm of social medicine, but that would be going down a rat hole. The statement is harmonizing guidelines for the treatment of chronic illnesses.

Yes, I’m saying this is a bad objective. In fact, I’m saying it’s pure folly. It will kill even more people off early.

“Pretty dramatic statements there John.”
“Yup.”
“Can you explain what you mean by them?”
“Yup.”
…

But do you really want to listen? Do you really want to think? Let’s begin with a startling statistic:

In the United States alone, nearly 90% of adult diabetics — more than 16 million adults aged 35 and older — have blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol that are not treated effectively, meaning they do not meet widely accepted targets for healthy levels of blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol. In Mexico, 99% of adult diabetics are not meeting those targets. The study, “Management of diabetes and associated cardiovascular risk factors in seven countries: a comparison of data from national health examination surveys,” is published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization’s March edition.

We have a 90% failure rate to achieve our objectives. Nine out of every ten diabetics is headed to an early grave. That’s about 7% of the entire population, and in Canada that means about 2 million people are not effectively treated for their diabetes.

“That’s a double negative. You can’t use double negatives.”
“Why not?”
“Because it doesn’t work.”
“Exactly!”

The system is broken. Why do we want to strengthen a broken system?

“It’s not broken, John. Patients simply refuse to follow directions.”

Amazingly this is the same reason the USDA gives for the obesity epidemic.

“It’s not broken, John. People simply refuse to follow our guidelines.”

Let me tell you something. People are following orders, sorry, guidelines. I always did. But then, well, I stopped following them.

“Bad John!”
“But they weren’t working. Why should I do something that doesn’t work?”
“We can’t help you if you do not follow our directions.”
“I’ll try harder this time.”

Thirty two years later John is being wheeled into surgery, unable to see anything but the blood in his left eye. Sorry, I wish I followed directions a little better. Dang.

There is a group of people actually doing very well managing their diabetes. There are no statistics, but I estimate at least half are achieving the required objectives. It might even be as high as 90% success rate. Many blow these target numbers away. Mine do, usually:

Measure->Target->John’s Number
A1C<-6.5%<-6.4% (best 5.6%)
LDL<-2<-1.82
HDL->1.6->2.92
TG<-1.5<-.44
BP<-140/80<-130/71

What is this group and how do they do it? It is called the DOC or Diabetes Online Community. We discuss, debate, encourage, support, cheer, hold hands, love, and we help each other. If I have a question about anything, all I need to do is ask. I go to a forum, post the question and wait. Ten minutes later I have half a dozen experts giving me their opinions. Let’s be clear about my numbers. I set my own basal rates and I:C ratios. I basal tested intensively. I profiled my meals and titrated my doses. I adjusted my diet to a very high fat, low carb eating style to where my lipids look outstanding and my complications have halted, and I got my own blood pressure down to near normal. I tested tonight after exercise at 106/59. I’m almost 52 years old and have been diabetic for 37 years. Under doctors’ care I bested my A1C at 7.3%, ran high BP over 140/80, and my cholesterol sucked so bad I actually agreed to take a statin. I learned almost every technique I used from other diabetics, either directly or from a website such as a blog. My endo never heard of basal testing, doesn’t agree with high fat diets, and won’t even comment on my BP.

Actual conversation when I asked about better ways to set my basal rates:

Dr. John: “Linda [DE] has algorithms for setting basal rates.”
Linda:”Dr. John sets all basal rates.”

Later:

Spike: “Simply basal test. Basal rates should keep your basals flat without food, and the only way to do that is skip your meals and test.”
John: “That sounds too easy.”
Spike: “It’s very simple. I don’t understand why all doctors don’t do this.”

I know why; because they are resistant to change, stuck in their ways, and reliant on guidelines.

“These aren’t doctors. They don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s dangerous.”
“Yeah, I know.”
“Stay away from them.”
“Okay, so what do I do when I have a question?”
“Read our pamphlets.”
“What if it’s not in a pamphlet.”
“Call your diabetes educator.”
“What if it’s in the middle of the night?”
“It can wait until morning.”
“Can I call you?”
“I don’t take calls.”

You know, I make a half a dozen or so life and death decisions every day, and I don’t take days off. I have this ball and chain attached to me permanently, and I can’t live my life by carrying around a suitcase full of fucking pamphlets. Sorry, but I can’t. That fact is that under the current system, when things don’t work well people get frustrated and quit.

“You can’t quit. This is too serious.”
“Don’t you think if it’s so serious, you’d design a system of help where I could ask for assistance 24*7 where I could get advice relevant to me, where I could talk to someone matter-of-factly instead of being lectured to, where they would consider my own choices and not try to force me into a one-size-fits-all diet, insulin regimen, or exercise program?”
“We talk about those things at your annual check-up.”
“You talk about these things. I am only allowed to listen.”
“I can only spend 15 minutes with a patient.”

*Red Alert, John is about to go postal!*

We don’t need more pamphlets or courses or doctors visits or endo visits. What we need is 24×7 assistance whenever we need it, wherever we are, from someone who will accept our individual care plans, who will not berate us, cajole us, or lecture us but who will cheer us and make us feel good about what we are trying to do.

We are not getting this from our healthcare system, and anything that moves us further away from the support we need is a bad move, a very bad move.

Suck it up, healthcare policy makers and practitioners. Accept the fact that patients in the DOC do a far better job than you ever will. We are the true masters of this domain, and it’s time you listened to us! John’s recommendation? Prescribe a membership at a diabetes forum to every patient. Set an official target of 1,000 posts a year. Berate them if they fail!

An the answer to whether I will take a statin is still no!

Cholesterol Logic

Tags

asociation, carbohydrates, cholesterol, faith, food, insulin, LDL, nutrition, saturated fat, science, studies, sugar, sugar kills

Cholesterol is a hot and complicated topic. It’s not easy to wrap your head around it, especially when you consider that even the experts haven’t so far.

Here’s a bit of proof: The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute is in charge of cholesterol treatment policy. It tells the rest of the world what to do. Nevermind for now that Big Pharma tells the NHLBI what do do. The fact is the NHLBI does not know what causes atherosclerosis. They cannot say without reasonable doubt that cholesterol causes it. In fact, they say outright “The exact cause of atherosclerosis isn’t known.”

For the logically feeble readers: if you do not know what causes something, you cannot say what causes something.

“Bill, somebody egged our windows again.”
“It’s those damned Pentecostals, Martha.”
“How do you know it’s them and not the Catholics?”
“Because I see them driving up and down the street all the time in their bus!”

This is cholesterol logic. It’s thinking like this that has made the western world fat and sick. It’s this type of logic that has made it okay to drink Coke and Pepsi, to add sugar to 87% of the 600,000 food products in America *Dr. Lustig Rumor from #AHS12*, and to consider bread a household staple because it tastes good and is full of added vitamins which many think we only pee away.

The path to cholesterol policy has not been paved with good science. We fed excess cholesterol to rabbits, herbivores, and they developed atherosclerosis. Nobody asked why. Nobody speculated if that cholesterol was sitting in a box for three months that it might be somewhat rancid. Nobody asked whether feeding a foreign substance to a herbivore was valid. Nobody asked whether no dead rabbits was important.

“Eating cholesterol hardens arteries, and that’s all that matters.”

Apparently that’s not all that matters. Anything that raises or lowers cholesterol also matters. *palm-plant* Eating saturated fat raises cholesterol; therefore it’s bad for you. Oatmeal lowers cholesterol; therefore it’s good for you.

“But the Presbyterians also drive their bus up and down the street, Bill.”
“It can’t be them. We’re Presbyterians.”

Cholesterol logic.

There have been lots of studies about the associations between cholesterol and heart disease, and there have been many studies on associations between foods and cholesterol. By extension, either directly or implied, there are also associations between food consumption and death by cause. Which of these is most important?

The answer is none of them. All association studies do is raise questions. We cannot assign cause to associations. I don’t care how good your math is, statistics do not form physical links between two things. This has been written about time and again, and I’ve argued it with mathematical geniuses. But the fact remains: math can never explain a cause of anything. You always need to proceed with scientific experiments to validate the questions.

Scientific experiments have never proven cholesterol or saturated fat causes heart disease; therefore the NHLBI’s assertion that we do not know its causes is correct.

And we should, therefore, not be saying what is or isn’t dangerous based on such evidence. The Seven Countries Study, The China Study, the Nurses Health Study, The Farmingham Study, and countless others should only raise questions; they do not provide any answers. Anybody who makes a conclusion about cause based on an association study is either totally incompetent or biased, take your pick.

Let’s quickly take a look at a confounding study: Dr. Ronald Krause’s 2010 Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. This study basically says all the other food studies are wrong: they do not prove there’s an association between saturated fat consumption and heart disease.

“But it’s obvious that eating animal fats and meats raises cholesterol; therefore it must be bad.”
“I hope you don’t bet on the races much.”
“The races? They have nothing to do with this discussion.”
“Exactly!”

Cholesterol logic.

I won’t get into metabolism much; because I am not a biologist, but I do know enough to be a little dangerous. Please correct me if I’m wrong here.

Dr. Peter Attia states that LDL-P is the problem, not LDL-C. Let’s first look at the “science” of fat metabolism without getting into the details. Fats are packaged in our guts into chylomicrons which utilize an APO-B 48 protein. The liver packages available carbon energy into triglycerides utilizing the APO-B 100 protein. The 100 means it expresses 100% of an LDL particle. Fats do not contribute directly to LDL counts. Period. This simple gap should exclude all such discussion, but of course it doesn’t. We have to place our trust in more remote, black box effects like studies.

“These people ate more fat and their LDL-C went up. Therefore, fat cause cholesterol to rise.”
“Couldn’t something else cause it to rise?”
“What kind of stupid question is that? You get a C for your grade.”
“Sorry, I thought science programs encouraged stupid questions.”
“Only stupid questions that make us rich and famous.”

Cholesterol logic.

Possible explanations: Eating high sugar degrades LDL quality. The resulting particles are smaller, and since the Friedwald Calculation is based on volume, the LDL-C looks lower. And when sugars [fuel for TG production] are eliminated, the rise in LDL-C is due to large, fluffy, benign particles. We are pretty sure that high triglyceride production results in low LDL particle size, but I do acknowledge that this is an association as is small LDL particle size with increased risk of atherosclerosis. But if you want to trade association punches, I submit that mine are stronger than yours. Let’s go! Actually, the smallness theory lives in somewhat of a doubtful house. The whole retention-response theory holds very little attraction due to scarce and conflicting evidence. Still, it seems likely that whatever causes small particles may also cause heart disease, just like whatever causes obesity also causes diabetes [not all type 2 diabetics are obese].

“That makes perfect sense John, but your LDL-C is still higher than I want. Take this statin.”
John sits in stunned silence for a few moments. “No.”

Cholesterol logic.

Here’s an interesting study on Iranian women. These women had very low levels of triglycerides and when their LDL-P was measured, it was discovered the value was far lower than their LDL-C values. It even prompted a proposed new calculation of LDL-C when triglycerides are very low. By the way, if triglycerides are very high, LDL-C isn’t performed because the calculation isn’t reliable. Just sayin’.

Another interesting study shows glycation [attack by sugar] directly decreasing cholesterol size and quality making it atherogenic. To me this is very damning evidence against sugar.

What does John know? Well, his cholesterol numbers are outstanding on a high saturated fat diet, so all of you saturated fat causes cholesterol causes heart disease good can bugger off. John’s eye-artery issues have gone away with his diet. We might say they’ve gone away with his lower blood sugar levels, that’s still a possibility, but it’s more sure with his diet. Zero signs of eye disease in last four years of LCHF. My good BGs have lasted six years. Those first two years were hell. And of course less sugar consumed equals fewer blood sugar problems. Back to logic. If fat was a cause of arterial issues, wouldn’t John’s eyes be getting worse? There’s been zero new blood vessel growth, zero bleeding, zero background retinopathy, and zero artherosclerosis seen in his eyes in four years of LCHF eating. And when I say high fat, I do mean high fat. 60-70 percent of my calories come from fat. I drink a quarter to a half litre of whipping cream every day and use two to six tablespoons of coconut oil plus fatty meat, butter, high fat cheese, olive oil, and more.

Examination of the small blood vessels (arterioles) in the retina of the eye with an ophthalmoscope is valuable for diagnosis. Atherosclerotic arterioles reflect light (emitted by the ophthalmoscope), giving them a “silver wire” appearance.

I am living my life on faith. I am following an ancestral style of eating and dispensing with modern man’s conclusions of what a healthy diet is. I do this largely because what man has said doesn’t add up but also because the results of my forays have been spectacular. I’ll be honest here: I don’t trust humans. They are biased, corrupt, and stupid. I raised my kids by telling them that 80% of people were idiots. “Be in that top 20%,” I said. They said I was wrong. It’s more like 90% are idiots. The biggest fault I see is the populations’ lack of sound logic. They think with Cholesterol Logic.

Rat Holes and Bunny Trails

Behind the home where my parents used to live there was a wood of, oh, maybe 500 acres. It was heavily treed, very rocky, but littered with little open areas called fields. Connecting the fields and lakes and rocky outcrops were these obvious man-made features called paths. These pastoral havens were idyllic getaways in the midst of a city, and many people used them: drug dealers, teenager binge drinkers, young children on hikes, and moi.

When my wife and I were dating, we’d sometimes walk through this wood, during the daytimes of course, when it was safer. It was a getaway for us. Young lovers need getaways.

As we’d walk along the trails, we’d find side trails or splits. Should we continue the main path or head down that side trail? Of course we explored the little paths. Some would lead to nice places and some to not so nice places. Still others would bend back and rejoin the main trail. Usually somewhere along these trails were obvious resting areas, say a circle of logs surrounding a dead fire, a litter of empty beer cans, a few condoms, and a bra. Sometimes we’d find an open rocky area where we could see all around for hundreds of feet. We could even look down on the forested main path, even see the tops of the trees lining it. We could view other explorers while remaining hidden. Still other times these paths would lead to small, open meadows filled with wildflower, sunshine, and wild porcupines. I’ve been chased by more porcupines … We discovered the main path led to a lake, and along the lake was a rocky stage, a larger area of rocks perfect for hosting bonfires, beer bottles, and even lawn chairs under a setting of open sky and power lines.

Bunny trails and rat holes.

Bunny trails are trails breaking off the main paths that don’t lead anywhere meaningful. They are nice sidelines, might present a nice little diversion, but they don’t get you to your destination. Have you ever been to a class at school where you expected a deep lecture, say on the seven networking transport layers, and the professor decided his wife’s sister’s wedding fiasco was much more interesting and important? Light, interesting, fun, but completely off topic. Bunny trail.

Rat holes are dark and dirty dead ends. A former coworker named Peter used this term in meetings. When discussion starting heading into a rhetorical argument, one that couldn’t be solved then and there, he’d say “we’re heading down a rat hole.” Everybody knew what he meant and would stop and nod. Yes, he used the term effectively to keep meetings on track.

In my recent blog about high fat diets and cholesterol, a responder raised a concern about endotoxins. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210577 Basically when you feed a type 2 diabetic a bunch of fat, they have negative responses. They get filled with inflammation. I don’t dispute the results of this study, but I question whether it’s the final destination, the final say in the matter, or is it a bunny trail or a rat hole.

Inflammation seems to be a commonly accepted cause of disease, especially heart disease; though when you listen to the more knowledgeable talking heads — the Chris Masterjohns of the world — you get the idea that oxidised LDL is the real culprit. Are they related? Perhaps. It’s not for me to decide, but lets say they are. Let’s say inflammation is the culprit.

I think everybody agrees that it’s not the fat in these cases that causes the inflammation. All seem to agree, even the vegans, that it’s the bacterial response in the gut. The bacteria see the consumed fat as foreign and attacks it which produce these nasty endotoxins. Sounds very plausible, and the science seems well thought out and demonstrable. By the way, it’s important that we are able to demonstrate science. It’s great to do a study that A is associated with B, but we have no right saying A causes B unless we can demonstrate it. Too many people say cholesterol causes heart disease because it’s associated with it. Nevermind nobody has ever been able to demonstrate how it happens. It’s associated, so it must be the cause. Such thinkers should be strung up by their ankles and whipped with bacon.

Sorry, I ran down a bunny trail, back on the main path now.

So is this endotoxin story the end of the path? Have we explored the whole wood? Are you ready for you and your partner to do what you came in here to do? Is this the field you will lay the blanket down in, open that bottle of wine you packed, and strip all your clothes off in?

Ask any established high fat eater to get their inflammation tested. I had a H-CRP test last year, and it was 1.0 which is low, not the lowest, but it’s very low and not considered an indication of risk. Other’s I’ve followed have also been low. There may also be other similar tests for inflammation, but I really don’t want to explore that trail at the moment. Let’s assume there are, and that all high fat eaters test negative for inflammation. It’s what we claim. What’s going on?

Herbivores can’t eat meat, and carnivores can’t eat plants, not as primary sources anyway. What’s going on? The answer seems simple. It’s the bacteria. We rely on bacteria to break down our food. There are many types of food breaking down bacteria, but lets divide them up into two groups: carnivore and herbivore. One group is great at breaking down plants and the other group is great at breaking down animals. If you throw animal matter into plant bacteria, you’ll get a negative reaction, whatever that means. If you throw plant matter into animal bacteria, you’ll get a negative reaction.

Humans are omnivores. We have bacteria for both types of food. But it also makes sense that our gut bacteria will adjust to our diet. If we eat all plant food, we’ll nurture plant bacteria. If we eat all animal food, we’ll nurture animal bacteria. The modern, western type 2 diabetic eats mostly a plant diet. Sorry PETA people but they do generally follow the food guidelines which say to limit saturated fats to 7% of the diet. Arguably as much as 93% of the diet is designed to nurture plant bacteria. Now throw a huge meal of animal fat into the pot. What do you expect to happen?

Let’s take another bunny trail. It’s very common to read in HF threads that “I just can’t eat high carb meals, and I can’t eat gluten at all.” Why? “It makes me sick.” It’s true in my experiences. I tried three gluten-based meals this spring and winter. I can’t even remember what the were except for one. For a meal at Valentines Day I ate a dozen sugar cookies. Yup, John splurged big time. And while you could argue that this meal would make anybody feel sick, believe me when I say I felt miserable for three days. I felt like puking but not like puking. My head pounded and my body ached. It took three full days for the symptoms to go away.

I used to eat high carb like I was taught. I never felt this way before. I and others shake our heads in wonder at these experiences. We assumed we were just not in tune with our bodies. The more I think about it and the more I experience reactions — I ate some low carb black bean chocolate cake last night. It tasted fine, but I feel sick today — the more I suspect it’s our gut bacteria at work here.

John’s subjective conclusion: feed a vegan animal food, they will get sick. Feed an animal eater some plant food, they will get sick.

Before I finish, I want to mention that endotoxins ar by no means the only sources of inflammation. Sugars, especially fructose are known to oxidize tissue through glycation, AGEs and RAGEs. But these can also be made through burning meat. And then there’s fat. Did you know that if that bottle of canola oil wasn’t deodorized, you wouldn’t be able to go near it because of the odor? PUFAs are extremely oxidized when you buy them. Why do we refine wheat? We don’t refine it for better taste. We refine it to remove the fat content. Wheat contain PUFAs, and if it is stone ground, it goes bad very quickly. Industry developed grain rollers to remove the natural fats so that wheat wouldn’t go bad. The whiteness was a bi-product.

We do not know where the trail leads, and if you don’t admit that, don’t even bother commenting here. We do not yet understand the mechanisms behind modern diseases, and we need to know. Perhaps both Vegans and Paleos are right. Perhaps it is the mixture that kills, the mixed, balanced diet our governments push on us as healthy.

Won’t That High Fat Diet Raise Your Cholesterol?

Tags

carbohydrates, cholesterol, fat, lipids friedwald

I’ll try to stay focused today. I need to write some serious fiction tonight.

Background:

I
– am a type 1 diabetic in my 37th year of battle.
– am 51 years old.
– ‘ve worn an insulin pump since 2006
– have battled diabetic proliferative retinopathy since 1994
– have received 4,000 plus lasers that kill the peripheral regions of my eyes
– experienced major bleeds in 2006 resulting in blindness and surgery (vitrectomy)
– suffered subsequent bleeds for two years
– decided I needed to risk a major change, so I tried a high fat low carb style of eating in 2008
– have been 911’d nine times while sleeping
– have experienced over 100 major hypoglycemic events [I’m thick headed]
– I’ve fought HBP at 145/80

Current Status:

I’m still at it and doing very well. I now run an A1C hovering 6%, my optho hasn’t seen any signs of damage since I started this way of eating, I’m down 20 pounds, I have much more energy, and I feel great, my BP is normal now with no meds.

I now have hope I’ll live until my senior years and actually be able to enjoy some of them.

Cholesterol:

But this post isn’t about all of these changes. This diet I follow centers around animals as food, and not just the red, stringy muscle but the fat too. In fact, the more fat the better. My breakfast is usually a cup of two of coffee with coconut oil (a saturated fat) and heavy whipping cream, no sugah. My dinner tonight was a package of bologna, some cheddar cheese, and some raw pineapple. My lunch was a bag of garden kale.

I eat the diet everybody says is supposed to kill me. Well, that’s what they say. The curious part, though, is when you ask them to explain it, they backtrack a bit:

“We know that cholesterol causes heart disease, and your diet raises cholesterol.”

“But have you studied whether this diet really results in heart disease? I mean, that’s one big assumption you’re making here.”

Silence.

The standard response to this question is silence. Everybody believes so much in it that they feel there’s no need to support it to us radicals. The world is simply better off if we continued our suicidal paths — an estimated 10 million people worldwide have bought in to this plan.

The truth seems to be there’s no scientific evidence to support this belief that consuming fat and cholesterol kill. I could throw study after study after study at you, but honestly, I can’t even find a hint of science that supports it. Well, there is some.  I’ve pretty much convinced myself after my own reviews of the evidence, and I do ask supporters of the lipid hypothesis for their evidence, that this hypothesis actually has no sound basis. So far, nothing.

I’ll throw one little meta analysis at you. Dr. Ronald Krause has shown that there is in fact no association between saturated fat intake and heart disease. These are the studies this lipid hypothesis is based on, and they don’t even link to heart disease.

So back to cholesterol. Do I really care if fat makes my cholesterol rise if it doesn’t cause heart disease? Does fat even raise choelsterol? Studies used to arrive at this conclusion have also been debated, but I won’t get into those. Let’s assume studies show it’s true. I’m more curious about what it does to me. My records below go back four years, and when I started keeping track, I was taking a statin. This magic pill was supposed to produce magical cholesterol values, numbers I’d be able to write mom about if she were still alive. Numbers my endocrinologist was very happy with. Note that yellows are not on target — their targets. My ratios have all been optimal: they couldn’t get any better, yet he wanted me back on a statin because my LDL was not where a diabetic’s should be, never mind lowering it risks many things such as mental degradation and muscle [including the heart] damage.

Summary of targets: HDL should be high, LDL should be low, and Triglycerides (TG) should be below 150.

Debate: The low carb community wants TGs below 0.8 which indicates LDL particle size is large and fluffy and benign, the only measurement that really matters. I tend to agree. Low TGs will naturally increase LDL because of size increase: The Friedwald is a volume measurement, and particle size increases volume. As a test, throw ten grains of sand in a full glass of water. Then set ten larger pebbles or stones in it. That’s basically how the Friedwald test works to measure cholesterol.

So please, explain how my lipid profile has evolved into something that looks like I made it up it looks so good? I found a comment that said the highest HDL value ever seen was 117, and mine’s 112. Explain how this diet that is supposed to kill me does that? And now my LDL is lower than when I was on a statin. I’ll repeat that. My LDL, the value my doctor gets all worked up about, is as low as it was while I took his statin. Am I a freak of nature? Hopefully at a future appointment I’ll ask for my pre-2008 values. I’d really like to see what my numbers were before all this hoopla.

The bottom line: saturated fat is supposed to be deadly because it messes up cholesterol numbers. Right. You run with that people.

Chol History

Cardiovascular Risk:

John is a type 1 so falls into the high risk category. His LDL-C should be below 70 and his Non-HDL-C should be below 100.
http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/articles/communique/2011/11.html

	Goal (mg/dL)
Risk category	LDL-C	Non-HDL-C
Very high riska	<100 (optional <70)	<130 (optional <100)
High risk: CHDb or CHD risk equivalentc	<100	<300
Moderately high risk: ≥2 risk factorsd (10-y risk, 10% to 20%)	<130 (optional <100)	160 (optional <130)
Moderate risk: ≥2 risk factorsd (10-y risk <10%)	130	160
Lower risk	160	190

 

Term: Cognitive Dissonance

Tags

alzheimers, cognitive dissonance, conflict, depression, diabetes, diet, food, heart disease, Literary, multiple sclerosis, nutrition, psychology, story, technique, tension, western disease

Definitions:

Wikipedia – a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Dictionary.com – an uncomfortable mental state resulting from conflicting cognitions; usually resolved by changing some of the cognitions

Discussion:

If you do not understand what this term means, skip ahead to my later reference sections then come back here. This is not a complete discussion by any means. This is an introduction to the concept and hopefully a collection of meaningful resources.

This term is fairly new to me. I’ve written, discussed, and debated much about diabetes, nutrition, and science over the past six years, and I’ve seen this phenomenon regularly. I’ve seen how it impedes logical thinking and created barriers and conflict in people. As a new creative writer, I think it’s an important concept to understand: our character’s actions may seem completely off the wall, but if based in a fundamental dissonance (idea, belief, value, or emotion) and we show [not tell] the situation correctly, then these actions and conflicts and tensions can become wholely believable and authentic.

One of the areas I see it readily displayed is when areguing the lipid and cholesterol theories. You probably fall into this category too, so feel the tension as I write: Saturated fat and dietary cholesterol is not bad for us. There is no demonstrated science showing they are. In fact, there is much demonstration showing they are vital to good health. The real science says carbohydrates are what’s killing us early: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancers, brain and nervous system diseases [Alzheimers, MS, Depression, etc].

Can you feel the tension? Every researcher knows I’m wrong. Every doctor agrees with you. The government agrees with you. You agree with you. But the facts all say you are wrong. Since American Food Guidelines were first implemented in 1977 directing [The World!] we eat their way, we’ve only gone downhill, and now it’s catching up with us.

That Worked

So either you believe me or you don’t. There are two reasons: the first is I’m wrong, and the second is you don’t want to believe me or cognitive dissonance. Another fact is tens of millions around the world are now discarding their entrenched beliefs and ignoring their doctors’ and dietitians’ advice, and they are becoming healthier. Your still doubting me. You still think I’m crazy. You don’t believe I eat a 70% fat diet with almost none of the so-called “healthy fats.” I eat real butter, grass-fed meats, and low carb veggies. I eat real cheese and very little fruit. Blah, blah, blah.

You can feel your disbelief. You can hear yourself saying I’m a quack. But you can’t completely throw away what I’m saying: “what if he’s right?” There’s tension in the air and it’s called cognitive dissonance. *I can ovewhelm you with science, but I won’t.

I think it’s important to understand the fictional literary significance.

We can create some very powerful characters and siutations using this concpet. Harry Potter is a prime example. He’s a mild, meek, peace loving kid who just wants to get along, yet he’s expected to be the savior of the magical world. He’s always encountering evil and violence, yet he wants none of it. He’s being thrown out of his “comfort zone” and lives in perpetual cognitive dissonace. Do you empathize with him?

This same struggle is even more apparent with Bilbo Baggins who is the professional thief yet wants only to sit in his hole and eat and drink all day. He goes on to perform fantastical deeds all the while fretting over his insignificant self.

In Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code,” we want to believe in this secret society and in this outlandish story of Jesus, and I suppose many do, yet we can’t pull our way from our belief in both tradition and science. Brown maintains this tension with dissonance to the very end.

This is a very powerful concept. It requires you fully understand the source of tension in your work and apply it consistently. It’s not until resolution that these above stories release the tension. These stories are founded on it.

Now that you understand it, you can recognize it, build on it and around it, and write that best selling story.

Go for it!

Explanations:

Wikipedia – In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.^[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.^[1] An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short term benefits. A general view of cognitive dissonance is when one is biased towards a certain decision even though other factors favour an alternative.

About – People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.

Examples:

About –

Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual’s behavior conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity. For example, consider a situation in which a woman who values financial security is in a relationship with a man who is financially irresponsible.

  The conflict:

• It is important for her to be financially secure.
• She is dating a man who is financially unstable.

In order to reduce this dissonance between belief and behavior, she can either leave the relationship or reduce her emphasis on financial security. In the case of the second option, dissonance could be further minimized by emphasizing the positive qualities of her significant other rather than focusing on his perceived flaws.

Links:

Wikipedia
Dictionary
About
*OnlyAGame
*Examples
*Skepdic
*Amazon – Films

Word: Homeostasis

Tags

creativity, drivers, fat, Gary Taubes, gates, homeostasis, hormones, locks, stress, sugar, words, Writing

This is not a commentary on the homophobic nature of certain political parties and religious groups. Homeostasis is the property of a system that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a stable, constant condition of properties such as temperature or pH.

Sentences:

Our blood sugars are controlled by the homeostatic mechanisms insulin and glucagon.
Our blood sugar homeostasis is controlled by negative feedback which triggers insulin and glucagon release.
Insulin and glucagon homeostatically control blood sugars.

Think of homeostasis as a boat lock between two lakes. There are gates at either end. One can let water in, and the other can let water out. If we want more water to come in, we open the gate to the high lake. If we want to let water out, we open the gate to the low lake. Sounds simple enough.

In a boat lock we are allowing passage of a vessel by controlling levels of water.  In our bodies we maintain a level of something to maintain health. Other facets of life also exhibit homeostatic tendencies. Stress for example has been suggested as homeostatic, and it resists changing levels. To change levels of any homeostatically controlled substance, one needs to modify the homeostatic forces. Sounds simple enough.

There are reasons for wanting to modify homeostatic conditions. Perhaps someone has stored too much adipose tissue — fat. Maybe your blood sugars are too high. Maybe you have lots of pent up creativity that needs to be released. “Everybody has a novel in them.” It’s really only a matter of releasing the gates to enable it to flow out.

The big problem is that what controls substances is not always easy to identify or is easily misunderstood. There can be layered effects which mask the root triggers of gates. It sounds so simple that blood sugar is controlled by insulin and glucagon. We can give insulin injections easy enough. I’ve given myself many tens of thousands over the years. But how does one control glucagon, and does one need to control it? This is one of the hidden, nefarious deficiencies in type 1 diabetics: we cannot control our glucagon like a normal person.

Huh?

Yup, most of us are runaway sugar-making factories. The sugar-making gates are wide open. And it’s due to our lack of amylin. This hormone is made in our pancreatic beta cells just like insulin, and it’s released when we eat food. It’s job is to control glucagon. No amylin means runaway glucagon, and of course every type 1 is different. I release a lot of glucagon when I eat. In fact, eating meat or salad is not very different than eating bread for me. I still need to inject copius amounts of insulin.

Fat is the easy one. If we eat too much food we get fat, and if we don’t burn enough we get fat. All we need to do is control these two gates. And it really does work; which is why 97% of all diets fail. Hello? Yup, we’ve not correctly understood the homeostatic forces of fat accumulation. There is a third force or group of forces called hormones.  Fat is stored and released from cells via lipases. This is science, and it shouldn’t be debateable. We don’t accept it publicly or in the science and medical communities, but these are the fat storage homeostatic forces. To change fat storage, we change the forces on these lipases, and counterintuitively, insulin is the major force on these lipases. When insulin is high, we will store more fat. When insulin is low, we will burn more fat. Energy expenditure doesn’t open these gates, and if the gates won’t open, energy can’t be expended. The body will search for more energy instead. Hence, gluttony and sloth can be clearly seen as symptoms of obesity, not causes.

Can we translate these ideas to our creativity? Can we become better writers by tearing down the homeostatic forces trapping our creativity? One of the enablers I’ve found is technical writing knowledge. One can’t easily write if one doesn’t really know how to. So learn your five sentence structures. Learn how to use commas and colons and dashes. Learn when it’s okay not to. Learn your words. Learn advanced grammar concepts. Learn story writing techniques. Learn!

Read. Reading opens the mind and feeds the muse. It starts our brain on working with ideas, and ideas lead to ideas. Let’s try a simple example. Let’s say I wanted to take a photograph of a homeostatic condition. Let’s begin by taking two random words, then taking more words triggered from those words, and so on until we come up with an idea for a photograph:

1. race car  2. turtle
fast and slow
highway driving
traffic jam

Okay, let’s find a nice overpass and take a picture of a traffic jam. But homeostasis suggests a cause. Let’s add a construction project. Voila: homeostasis. All we need to do is finish the construction, and traffic will flow better. 

Yeah, right.

So read!

Stress and distractions impede our creative writing. Shut the television off. Kick the kids out of the house. Send the spouse away for a weekend. Turn off Facebook and your blog, seriously. Make some quiet time. I like to get up at 4AM, make a pot of coffee, and write in quiet darkness before it’s time to do the daily battles. My mind is blank and free and not filled with the day’s stresses.

Homeostasis. It’s balance. Learn to identify and affect balance points. Realize you may be wrong. Adjust!

Mayor Bloomberg and Coke – an opinion

Tags

"general mills", ATP, bloomberg, cargill, cholesteroil, coke, conflict, corporate, fat, influence, monsanto, NHLBI, pepsi, politics, sugar, USDA

If you haven’t heard about Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on large-sized sodas, go find the news and come back. I’m not repeating it here.

My initial reaction was “great!” That reaction faded quickly and was replaced by “how dare he tread on my rights!” When I thought about it after reading many articles and blogs, I think I welcome the motion, but I won’t support it.

Many commentators agree: it’s good to raise awareness of the badness of sugar but don’t restrict rights. It’s better to educate people.

I most definately think sugar is our big killer. Everything I’ve found, and I’ve looked daily for the evidence of what’s causing our demise as a western civilization, is that sugar and refined foods are causing much harm. Simply put, sugar kills. In a nutshell, sugar causes
– heart disease
– peripheral arterial disease and stroke
– endocrine cancers (not cause, but makes them grow uncontrolled)
– Alzheimers, MS, Parkinsons, depression, and most mental disorders
– Diabetes
– a host of autoimmune diseases such as forms of arthritis, lupus, celiac, IBS and related diseases

Basically the whole suite of western diseases is due to refined sugars and possibly other foods.

The cure is obviously simple: adopt a real food diet. But this is where it gets tricky. Our official health care providers and government all say refined, fortified grains are real foods. Sugars, eaten in moderation are real foods. Refined vegetable oils are real foods. But real foods such as any animal product aren’t really real foods; they will kill you if you eat too much of them. They say, basically, that “you dear blog reader are not following our recommendations. You have brought on your illness by straying, by not bringing reasonable willpower to the table, and by not heading our warnings!”

*Question: if everybody is fat and sick, is it more likely everybody’s breaking the rules, or is it more likely that the rules are wrong?

If you’re like most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetics, you will say “wait a minute. I was eating better than your suggestions. In fact, when I started following yours, my blood sugars went even higher!”

“Well, blog reader, it’s obvious from what you told me that you were not eating enough grains and fruit, and that read meat and cheese you ate instead, well, that’s the cause of all your maladies.”

“But why did my blood sugars go up when I cut back on them?”

“That’s the way it works when you break your pancreas. Here, take some more medications and maybe some insulin. An make sure you eat those whole grains three times a day now.”

We’ve done something very simple here folks. We’ve screwed up our relationship with food, and we’ve rationalized the new, broken relationship. We’ve entrenched this wrong way of eating into our culture with government advisories, corporate research, corporate advertising, media bandwagoning, and corporate subterfuge of our health care systems.

This is why the educate people argument is a complete and utter failure. We’ve already followed that paradigm. We’ve been educating people for the last 25 years. But we’ve been educating them in the wrong things. This “new” education won’t be any better. Everybody will have their say in what should be taught. Coke and Pepsi will have mounds of research at the table supporting the neutrality at worst of their products. Big Sugah, teh General Mills, Monsantos, and Cargills of the world will be at the table with their huge stockpiles of our money, and the poor cattlemen will be cowering behind, again, wondering if they’ll be allowed to talk this time. No, it won’t be any different, and it won’t be any better. Sugar, whether it’s in sodas, bread, potatoes, or fruit still kills, and nobody wants to believe it.

I say go after the science. Forget public policy. Attack the root of the problem: our foundational science.

When I trace through food and health guidelines, and it is possible to trace such things; because every guideline covers its ass by referencing basic science down a list of other groups covering their asses in its reference sections. Of course you need a science degree and a staff of eight to make any headway in tracking them down.

I’ve traced all food guidelines back to one primary source: the National Heart Lung and Blod Institute’s Adult Treatment Panel or ATP. The ATP sets guidelines for treating cholesterol.

…

Sorry, I had to snort some coffee. It burns my butt to even think about this. We have a comittee of eminent researchers dedicated to devising ways of treating cholesterol, yet the NHLBI even admits “The exact cause of atherosclerosis isn’t known.” They don’t know the cause but they have a committee to treat it. Does that speak of prejudice or what? That’s actually a pretty clear representation of current understanding: everybody knows cholesterol is evil, but not one person can explain why.

This ATP is the committee which recommends we all take statins. We don’t know what causes atherosclerosis, but we all need statins. Do you think there’s any bias hiding somewhere?

Endocrinologists rely on the ATP. The USDA relies on it too when drafting food guidelines. The diabetes associations around the world rely on it when drafting their own guidelines which aslo include nutrition advice. The professional dietitians of the world rely on it. These guidelines haven’t changed and they won’t change, not as long as the Bloombergs of the world keep chasing minnows.

Bloomberg will fail. The Soda companies will rally around the support of all of their official backers which I’ve mentioned already. They will say it’s not sugar that kills people, it’s the fat. We all agree on it, so let’s not stray from the target.
They might even say if you want to ban something, ban meat. Ban natural foods; because they don’t make us money, we can’t put colorful labels on them, and we can’t build a brand. Coke is it!

Bloomberg should fail. I don’t want anybody telling me what I can’t eat, and that especially includes any government. We lose our right to chose food, what’s next? I think it’s time we went after the big fish. I think it’s time we tear down these food and cholesterol treatment guidelines masquerading as science. It’s time to attack the root of our problem: corporate infiltration of our government and scientific research.

And you say “yeah, but saturated fat really is bad for us!”

And John says “show me the science!”