Petition: Tell NIH Lowering Blood Sugar In Diabetics Does NOT Increase Death Risk

If you care about diabetes health, then sign this petition!

We all know how incompetent many of the government and leading health organizations are in the United States as it relates to providing information to the public about taking care of themselves to protect against disease and death. We've seen it with the failed low-fat, low-calorie diets they've been pushing on the American people for decades with no positive impact whatsoever and yet they continue to promote it as the only way to control obesity and health. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then I do believe we can officially describe those in charge of health policy in America as INSANE!

But that adjective doesn't even begin to describe something so utterly despicable that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has done in response to the results of the ACCORD study published in the June 12, 2008 issue of New England Journal of Medicine. Have you seen this so-called "study" that concludes there is a HIGHER death risk among those diabetics who attempt to control their blood sugar levels? This is NOT a joke--that's exactly what they're saying and this just goes beyond the pale.

Check out this ridiculous statement from the abstract of the ACCORD study:

"As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events," the authors conclude. "These findings identify a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes."

Okay, let's think about this logically for a moment. A diabetic who is attempting to control their disease through an "intensive therapy" (we'll assume this doesn't mean carbohydrate restriction, although it should) of controlling their blood sugars over a 3 1/2 year period of time had an INCREASED risk of death and NO REDUCTION in the risk of a heart attack? Is that what they're saying? So are we to believe through deductive reasoning that a diabetic who allows their blood sugar to stay out of whack indefinitely without any treatment is better off than those who do try to normalize glucose levels?

Am I missing something here? There is absolutely NO rationality in this conclusion by the NIH and this borderlines on criminal behavior on their part by perpetuating this notion that controlling blood sugars is somehow bringing harm to diabetes patients. This kind of fear tactics serves no good purpose and spreads misinformation to scared diabetics who become confused and dazed by what they hear from an official government health source.

That's why I am urging everyone who reads this to SIGN THIS PETITION telling the NIH to acknowledge the existing science behind why controlling blood sugar levels in diabetics is ESSENTIAL. This isn't something to be played around with--there are bigger health consequences involved with uncontrolled blood glucose levels in diabetics than with those who are controlling them. It doesn't appear that the NIH cares about these facts because they are instead seeking to put out their own twist on this ACCORD study to baffle Type 2 diabetics.

Oh, but they're saying otherwise on their Q&A web site about the ACCORD study. Check out message to Type 2 diabetics about how they shouldn't be worried at all about what they are saying.

"Patients with type 2 diabetes should not be alarmed by these findings of the ACCORD trial...This goal of less than 6 percent A1C is very hard to reach for most patients who have had diabetes for several years, often requiring multiple medications. Even the achieved level of A1C of about 6.4% is often difficult to achieve in such patients."

All I can say is WHAT?! First you tell diabetics that they "should not be alarmed," but then you follow that right up with the pessimistic view that getting A1C levels down below 6 percent is "very hard" and can only be accomplished through "multiple medications." It is too "difficult" to make this happen in patients, the NIH claims, so just throw your hands up in the air and give up. Is that what you're telling diabetic patients, NIH?!

Plus, keep in mind the definition of "intensive therapy" as noted in this study is never described, so we have NO IDEA what they're talking about. From that answer above, we can assume it includes lots of prescription drugs which may have been the culprit in the increased death risk rather than the "intensive therapy" as they stated. Instead of trying to figure out WHAT the cause was, they just ASSUMED (and you know what that means!) that lowering A1c levels were what created the jump in mortality rates.

This is like stating a firefighter has an increased mortality rate because he breathes oxygen since that's what he was doing when he died. It's not that he puts his life at risk trying to douse a raging ball of fire, oh that can't be it! It's must be that oxygen he's sucking in, so that's our story and we're sticking to it. Sound absurd? Well, it is! And so is this conclusion by the NIH. They should really be ashamed of themselves.

Their argument is not based on any kind of rational scientific reasoning or thought process at all. But who's gonna call the NIH's bluff? Doctors and medical researchers don't want to stick their neck out against this powerful government group in the fear that some much-needed research dollars are withheld from their future studies. It's a sickening place to be in at the mercy of such a group that can make or break your career.

But I and the thousands more who come to my blog each day are NOT tied to the NIH in any way. We are public citizens who care about the issue of diabetes and helping our mom, dad, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, son, daughter, and friend with this terrible condition find the hope they need to beat this disease once and for all.

And most of us realize that it is livin' la vida low-carb that has helped to bring the ill effects of diabetes under control, especially for those with Type 2 diabetes. This ACCORD study gave absolutely ZERO consideration for carbohydrate restriction which has been shown time and time again to be the most safe and effective method of improving glycemic control. Why is the NIH so silent about low-carb diets for diabetics? That's what this petition is all about and I hope you and your entire family will SIGN THIS PETITION to share what the healthy low-carb lifestyle has done for you.

Notable signatures appearing on this petition so far include Dr. Richard Feinman, Regina Wilshire, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Jackie Eberstein, Dr. Keith Berkowitz, Uffe Ravnskov, Fred Hahn, and many others! Christine and I have done our part to SIGN THIS PETITION and we invite you to do the same for the sake of providing accurate information for diabetics dealing with this terrible disease. Let's not make the problem worse by discouraging the goal of normalizing blood sugars.

I love what Dr. Bernstein, the most famous Type 1 diabetic in the world who has been using a low-carb dietary approach to control his disease since 1946, had to say in the comments beneath his signature on this petition.

"I've had type 1 diabetes for 64 years and have an HgbA1c of 4.6% thanks to a low carb diet. I have a coronary artery calcium score of '1' at age 74. My patients with similar A1c's enjoy similar cardiac health."

You tell 'em, Dr. Bernstein! The low-carb diet is indeed an effective "intensive therapy" that is helping CONTROL blood sugar levels without the use of the risky drug therapies. How about the NIH taking a closer look at the REAL studies that have come out in favor of using something like the Atkins diet to benefit diabetics? There PLENTY of evidence out there and I'm all too happy to share it anytime.

Make your voice heard and SIGN THIS PETITION!

Scores Of Low-Carb Stuff To Talk About (And Nary A Moment To Do It!)

Here I am sitting behind my computer yet again with more low-carb and health headlines than I can shake a stick at (what does that phrase mean anyways?) and I'm just covered up in busy-ness. I hate that because I really enjoy being able to crank out the blogs and go into greater detail about the subjects that make you think about why you are livin' la vida low-carb.

Nevertheless, life beckons and it's been a very busy week. My wife Christine and I have been working the audio/visual at our church's Vacation Bible School (VBS) this week for the "Outrigger Island" program. It's been a lot of fun, but has taken up about four hours a night of time I usually spend working on my blog. With that said, tonight is the final night of VBS and I'll be back on schedule again. But since I've fallen behind a bit on my blogging, here are scores of low-carb stuff to talk about (and nary a moment to do it!). ENJOY!

AN ENZYME COULD BRING WEIGHT GAIN ON LOW-CARB?

There's quite a debate going on right now within low-carb inner circles about how you can possibly get fatter while on a low-carb diet and it seems to center around the subject of calories. This is of specific interest to me since I'm low-carbing perfectly and having some trouble creating weight loss right now.

This topic of low-carb and calories picked up quite a bit of steam recently when Dr. Mike Eades blogged about it and there was a resulting explosion of commentary at my "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Discussion" forum about this making it the #1 most-read thread there. Do calories REALLY matter now on a low-carb, some are asking? I've never counted calories before, so why should I start doing so now?

Even the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins said you don't really need to worry about calories on low-carb because they are not as important as controlling carbohydrates (a notion strongly repeated and reiterated by Dr. James E. Carlson in my recent interview with him). That's why I find this a rather peculiar issue to be bantered about by low-carbers right now.

But I can appreciate the varying opinions about low-carb and calories, including the I saw from the Eugenization blog where he details how an enzyme called Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) may be responsible for weight gain even when you are livin' la vida low-carb. Guess what it all comes down to according to him? Calories, plain and simple. This adds even more fuel to a fire that's already burning white hot.

OH NO, THE ATKINS DIET WILL RAISE YOUR LDL!

From the "who really gives a rip" files comes a new study from the American Heart Association that put 18 people on the Atkins diet, South Beach diet and Ornish diet for a month to see what happens to their various health markers. The LDL of the Atkins dieters went up by 7 percent. OH MY GOD!!! These people are gonna die!!! OH MY GOD!!! Somebody call the wahhhhhmbulance already! What about their triglycerides? How about their HDL good cholesterol? I'd be willing to bet after just one month of livin' la vida low-carb they were GREATLY improved. But where was that in this story?

These people at the AHA would FREAK if they saw that my LDL cholesterol is 246 and I have no reason to go on a statin drug to artificially lower it. The fact is most of that LDL is protecting me from cardiovascular issues because it is comprised of mostly the large, fluffy particle size that you want to have plenty of.

For a supposedly respectable health group like the AHA to participate in such silly scaremongering about LDL resulting from being on the Atkins diet (described by their lead researcher as "the worst"), I can't imagine anyone taking them seriously anymore. When they resort to publishing a so-called "study" like this while spreading even more negative and hyperbolic innuendo about saturated fat with their preposterous Bad Fats Brothers propaganda, the irrelevance of the AHA is becoming more and more apparent each and every day.

EXCELLENT VIDEO EXPLAINING WHY LOW-CARB WORKS

I came across this YouTube video that succinctly explains the process behind how and why livin' la vida low-carb works in only about a minute. This is an excellent resource for you to point people to who are confused about low-carb. It reiterates this study I highlighted last year about a hormone called FGF21, the hormone responsible for the fat-burning that happens on a low-carb diet. Save the link to this video and forward it to anyone who is confused by all the negative things they have read about the low-carb lifestyle.

8 FOODS TO GET YOUR BRAIN GOING--NOT!

You wanna know why I like to blog so much? Stories like this one absolutely drive me bonkers because they are leading people down a path of destruction for their health. This little list of foods designed to make you "more alert, think more clearly, have more energy, even be more creative" is some of the most unbelievably irresponsible nutritional advice I've seen in a very long time.

This registered dietitian named Elizabeth Somer wants people to eat (this is NOT a joke!) a "spoonful of sugar," a whole wheat (oooo, that sure makes it healthy!) bagel, soy (OH YUMMY--WRONG!), and so much more to wake yourself up right in the morning. On what planet is this even remotely considered healthy eating?! Come on, lady! Get with the program. I'll be sticking with my eggs and sausage in the morning and I do just fine!

LOW-CARB DIET PERFECT FOR OVERWEIGHT DIABETICS

Well, imagine that! I never would have guessed livin' la vida low-carb would be the ideal diet for an overweight diabetic. But that exactly what this Reuters story says citing a study conducted by Dr. Jorgen Vesti Nielsen in Sweden. I told you about him in my recent podcast interview with Per Wikholm about the low-carb momentum happening in Sweden this year (I'll be posting another update about more recent events on the low-carb front in that country real soon!).

Limiting their carbohydrates to just 20 percent of their total caloric intake, these 16 obese diabetics have been following this diet for 44-months (read the study published in the Nutrition & Metabolism journal) and the comparison between their results and the high-carb, low-fat control group are absolutely remarkable. Blood glucose levels dropped almost immediately after starting the low-carb approach and have remained down ever since. Of course, we knew that would happen! :)

BRYANT STAMFORD BACK TO HIS ANTI-LOW-CARB WAYS AGAIN

This old man doesn't know when to shut his trap! Bryant Stamford from "The Body Shop" column recently penned a column entitled "Two things to avoid: saturated fat, simple sugar" where he gets it half right. He called us low-carb bloggers out by stating his column will produce "another outcry from the few Atkins, high-fat faithful still clinging to the belief that eating bacon cheeseburgers, sausage balls and prime rib is good for you." Well, actually, they are!

Don't forget, this isn't the first time I've had an issue with this goofy character. Stamford has been quite scornful of the Atkins diet despite saying that it works for people, but then he turns right around and exclaims that the Atkins diet has made America fatter. Say WHAT?! What a dopey statement to make from someone who claims to be writing about healthy living.

While I can appreciate his disdain for simple carbohydrates like sugar, Stamford's ignorance of the latest research on saturated fat is quite glaring. Perhaps you'd like to educate the good professor by e-mailing him at stamford@hanover.edu about your experiences eating saturated fat as part of your healthy low-carb lifestyle. I know he'd just LOVE to hear from you "silly anti-carb hyperbole" spreaders!

A "MIRACLE FRUIT" THAT CHANGES THE TASTE OF FOOD?

Have you heard about the "miracle fruit" berries that can make beer taste like chocolate and lemons like candy? It sounds sci-fi freakish, but apparently it is true. The West African "miracle fruit" effect can last about an hour and works by utilizing a protein called miraculin where it binds with the taste buds and acts as a sweetness inducer when it comes in contact with acids. FASCINATING!

There are even "flavor tripping parties" where this "miracle fruit" is served or you can order some for yourself by inquiring at supreme@flavortripping.com. This certainly sounds appealing to me since I don't consume sugar at all. It'd be a neat experiment to see what low-carb foods taste like under the intoxicating power of super-revved up sweetness! Could there be a new artificial sweetener in this? Who knows, but if the hype is true I'm sure somebody's working on it!

DR. BERNSTEIN PROVEN RIGHT AGAIN BY SPANISH STUDY

You gotta admire a low-carb legend like Dr. Richard Bernstein. The man has been around since Moses walked the Earth promoting a low-carb diet as a means for controlling diabetes. But it is only just now getting the recognition that it has long deserved as this Diabetes Health column points out.

A Spanish study published last year in The Internet Journal of Nutrition and Wellness entitled "Arguments in Favor of Ketogenic Diets" by Dr. Joaquín Pérez-Guisado, gives scientific evidence in favor of livin' la vida low-carb. Namely, this diet is most effective for weight loss, preserves muscles mass, controls appetite, promotes a healthy lipid profile, effectively reverses the effects of Type 2 diabetes, and has been widely deemed as safe.

This is old news to you and me, but a great introduction to those diabetics who have been fooled into thinking that low-fat, high-carb diet they were on was somehow helping their disease. The change in thinking is gaining momentum all the time and we must never grow tired of repeating why livin' la vida low-carb works so well. There will ALWAYS be people who are just beginning to understand and we must stand ready to share the details with them when they are ready.

READER'S DIGEST VERSION OF LOW-CARB NOT VERY ACCURATE

A reader sent me this column on the "Low-Carb Myths And Truths" that was published sometime in the Reader's Digest. Although I usually like what I see in that publication, this was just over the top for me because the conclusions you get left with about livin' la vida low-carb after reading it are that it's not for long-term weight maintenance, it will damage your heart, you'll eat too many calories, and eating low-carb requires a whole bunch of "junk" food. Ooooooookay, where do you start?

Long-term weight loss? Um, what about all those low-fat diets? How well do THEY work at long-term weight loss, hmmmm? The latest studies show NOT VERY WELL at all! So why is low-carb held to a higher standard than the holy grail of a so-called "healthy" diet? Just wondering.

Damaging to your heart? WRONG! This Harvard study put that notion to rest when they found there was no increase in heart health risks associated with low-carb diets over a 20-year period. It's just more ignorance by those who have an agenda against livin' la vida low-carb and I'm gonna call their bluff every single time I see it!

You'll eat too many calories? So what? Much of the discussion of calories within health circles these days centers on the QUALITY of those calories--in other words, how can you get a bigger nutritional bang for your buck. Well, it STARTS with eliminating all the culprit carbohydrates to control the insulin release. Once you do that, any increase in calories that happens as a result of eating more fat (which has 9 calories per gram compared with 4 calories per gram of protein or carbs) is passive as it relates to weight loss. That's the metabolic advantage we talk about so much with low-carb. So calories, schmaleries!

Finally, "junk" food? Yes, there are some garbage low-carb products out there that are low-carb impostors. But they're not all bad for you. Plus, keep in mind that livin' la vida low-carb can be done without the use of ANY products whatsoever if you choose to do it that way. Of course, these numskulls will probably say the saturated fat in the meats, cheeses, and nuts you consume are "junk," but that's another story. The bottom line is low-carb is healthy whole foods eating for the most part. :)

Countering this ignorance in major media publications like Reader's Digest is essential to reeducating people about why low-carb is right for them. I always stand ready to tell the truth in the midst of such outlandish and ridiculous journalism.

TIME MAGAZINE FEATURES CHILDHOOD OBESITY

The June 23, 2008 issue of Time magazine has a series of articles on the subject of childhood obesity, including this one which blames excessive calories for the weight gain, this one that examines all the other reasons besides genetics for kids getting fat, this one blaming school lunches and snack machines for the problem, this one lamenting the future health problems that await hefty children, this one tracking the eating habits of a typical teenager in America, this one looking at the family environment and its impact on weight, this one glorifying the ability to be "fit at any size," and this one with tips about how to get your kids to begin exercising.

Although childhood obesity has been ignored by government and health leaders before, they're paying attention to it now. But their answer to this problem is creating a kids Food Pyramid that once again advocates low-fat/low-calorie eating and exercise. Come on already! Can't we see that hasn't worked very well?! What we need is to advocate the use of low-carb as a healthy alternative for kids to use for weight and health management.

I don't think it's junk food ads that cause them to get fat, but we do need to provide better education so the parents and their children can make better choices. And exercise needs a solid nutritional approach in order to make the positive impact it needs to on the fitness of a child.

We've already seen how schools that go sugar-free reduce obesity and that should be a sign for these lawmakers on Capitol Hill to move in a low-carb, sugar-free direction with childhood obesity policy. We keep scratching our heads wondering why we can't lick this problem when the answer to it keeps staring us right in the face while the powers that be continue to ignore it. Sigh. Will we EVER learn?

JEFF VOLEK MAKING "THE CASE FOR LOW-CARB DIETING"

In stark contrast to that Reader's Digest column I highlighted above is this one in Muscle & Body Magazine penned by low-carb researcher Dr. Jeff Volek from The University of Connecticut. In a mock trial where low-carb diets is put to the truth test, Dr. Volek does quite a Perry Mason job of not just defending, but vindicating livin' la vida low-carb. YOU GOTTA SEE THIS!!!

MARK'S DAILY APPLE WITH MUST-READ COLUMNS

If you are not already a regular reader of Mark Sisson's "Daily Apple" blog, then you don't know what you're missing. His columns are top-quality caliber and spot-on for anyone who takes a vested interest in healthy low-carb living. Take a look-see at "Definitive Guide: The Primal Blueprint" and "What Happens To Your Body When You Carb Binge?" for two prime examples of why you need to bookmark this blog and access it often. ENJOY!

GARY TAUBES STILL CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

One of the amazing things that has happened since the September 2007 release of the blockbuster health and nutrition book entitled Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes is the open conversation of topics that were once considered taboo. Consider this column that discusses whether red meat is healthy or not. With all the anti-meat propaganda that tends to dominate most media accounts of diet and health, it's refreshing to see an open and civil discussion of the BENEFITS of consuming meat. With the paperback version of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health coming out September 23 2008 with some updated material, I expect to see even more of these kinds of columns--let's keep the conversation going!

WEIGHT GAIN MAY NOT BE TIED TO EATING

Stop the presses everyone because this story will likely turn everything you ever thought about weight gain on its head! A new study published in the June 4, 2008 edition of the scientific journal Cell Metabolism says the nervous system may have more to do with it than once thought. Of course, studies like this on roundworms aren't a perfect comparison to humans, but it does open the door for further research into this. The problem is they make the claim that a DRUG needs to be created to help with weight loss--ARGH!

LOW-CARB PRODUCES A "CHEMICAL IMBALANCE?"

An El Paso, TX-based trainer Ian Appling goes off on an anti-low-carb rant with this column and it's so insane considering the ridiculous headline they gave it--"Low-carb diets lead to chemical imbalances." Is this proclamation based on some new scientific research? Nope. It's just an opinion of someone who obviously doesn't like low-carb diets. What is laughable is that some of what he says is PRECISELY what livin' la vida low-carb is. These people are incredible in their lack of accurate data about this way of eating. That's irresponsible in this information age we live in.

ANYONE WANNA HAVE A VAGOTOMY? EEEEK!

Reading this Los Angeles Times column about a new weight loss surgery called a vagotomy, it makes me very glad to be livin' la vida low-carb. THANK GOD! :)

THE REALITY OF A FAST WEIGHT LOSS DIET SCAM

My friend and fellow low-carb blogger Christin Sherburne penned a fabulous post this week called "Turkish Delight" that tells a stark story of the reality of falling for a fast weight loss diet scam like the Kimkins diet. The brutal honesty of this dear woman who is still trying to find her way is such a change of pace from what you usually see. I've grown to know Christin quite a bit over the past year and there is no one more sincere and selfless than her. We cheer you on as you work through this difficult period in your life right now, Christine. Don't give up hope and rest assured you'll figure out what to do.

HAVE YOU EATEN ANY OF THESE LOW-CARB FAKE-OUT FOODS?

Amy Tenderich over at the uber-popular diabetes blog Diabetes Mine has an intriguing post entitled "Top 8 Low-Carb Fake-Outs." When I read this one, I just had to scratch my head a bit at these foods Amy describes as "low-carb." Ummmmm, I didn't know rice cakes, light Ranch dressing, and peanut butter, for example, are low-carb staple products. All of those are more for low-FAT diets. But she does make some great points that low-carbers should be reminded of.

10 GRAB N' GO CONVENIENCE STORE LOW-CARB SNACKS

Leave it to the trustworthy and reliable Laura Dolson at the About.com Low-Carb Diets blog to come up with a fabulous post featuring 10 perfect convenience store snacks for those of you who are traveling on vacation this summer. Whenever I stop at a convenience store, these are precisely the food items I look for. THANKS Laura!

HOW FAD DIETS ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE

Daniel Davies at the "Crooked Timber" blog offers up his theory that fad diets are allowed to continue primarily because of the personal experiences shared with others who feel a connection with the individual who lost weight. Not surprisingly, Daniel puts the Atkins diet in that category of "fad" diets saying it only works for controlling calories because it is "inconvenient and unpleasant" as a way to eat. Daniel, Daniel, Daniel--what are we gonna do with you? What do you think about this notion that enthusiasm for a diet that works for someone else perpetuates suspicious dietary approaches? It's good food for thought.

A VEGETARIAN GETS ON THE LOW-CARB BANDWAGON

Vegetarian blogger Mark Warren Reinhardt from the "On or Off the Mark" blog gets in his digs at those of us who are livin' la vida low-carb with this blog post mocking being a low-carb supporter. I'd say Mark is "off the mark" this time around because he hasn't got a clue why those of us who love low-carb living are so enthusiastic about this way of eating. It's great that he enjoys being a vegetarian, but disrespect for people who low-carb is so not cool.

JAPAN HAS MANDATORY WAISTLINE MEASURING

Can you imagine the next President of the United States--Barack Obama or John McCain--in January 2009 making a State of the Union address stating that beginning immediately there will be a requirement for all Americans to have their waistlines measured and if it is larger than a predetermined size you will be asked to lose weight within a few months or your employer will face financial penalties? Preposterous, you say? Well that's exactly what is going on in Japan right now. They have decided to take such an aggressive approach to treating obesity to try to get a handle on the rising health care costs. Would that fly in America where two-thirds of the population is currently overweight or obese by government definition? Whaddyasay?

STRESS RELIEF TIPS YOU CAN USE

Finally, it has been proposed that part of my recent weight gain this year may have to do with excessive stress which releases the fat-storing hormone known as cortisol. Yikes! It's possible that is part of it since my low-carb diet is about as good as it can be. So how do I reduce this stress that I don't necessarily feel? The tips on this web site were helpful, but I welcome any additional feedback for reducing stress. This could help a lot of people!

Is that enough low-carb news and updates for you? WHEW! There's so much going on and I'm happy to get you current on all that is happening. Send me any low-carb news and information anytime at livinlowcarbman@charter.net. THANKS so much for reading the "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blog!

Mississippi Lawmakers Discriminate Against 'Obese' Eating At Restaurants

Fat people no longer welcome dining out in Mississippi?

As someone with a Master of Arts degree in Public Policy and Government, I've come across quite a bit of dopey legislation on the local, state, and federal government level over my years of studying and examining many different proposed bills. But Mississippi House Bill No. 282 that was drafted by two Republicans and a Democrat and submitted to the Mississippi House of Representatives today might just take the cake for the most insane obesity-fighting legislation of all-time.


The "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi: Mayhall, Read, and Shows

In an attempt to respond to the rising obesity crisis happening in the state of Mississippi right now where they earned the dubious distinction as the first state in the U.S. to surpass 30 percent obesity rates in 2007 (30.6 percent), state House of Representatives members W. T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, both Republicans, and Democrat Bobby Shows thought it would be prudent to LEGISLATIVELY require restaurant owners to discriminate against fat people wanting to eat at their establishment. I kid you not, that's what the bill says and they are DEAD SERIOUS (hat tip to Regina Wilshire for telling me about this one)!

The "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi, as I have dubbed Mayhall, Read, and Shows, go on to propose in their bill that the Mississippi Department of Health in conjunction with Mississippi's Council on Obesity would set the criteria for establishing what the weight limit will be for patrons wishing to dine at a restaurant anywhere within the state borders (ostensibly using the overused and irrelevant body mass index to determine whether someone is obese or not). Strict compliance with this law will be required of the restaurants or else the state "may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section." EEEEEK!

Have these state lawmakers completely lost their marbles?! Besides the obvious discrimination against the obese that is explicitly written into this legislation, this would also put restaurant employees in the sticky position of trying to determine if someone is too fat to be served or not. What are they gonna do, put a scale at the front door a la "The Biggest Loser" before you can walk through the dining room area to determine if you qualify to eat there or not?! Have the "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi thought through all of the unintended consequences that such a law would pose on restaurant owners and their employees? Can you say LAWSUIT CITY?!

Think about it for just a moment, though. What's gonna happen to obesity rates in Mississippi if fat people are not allowed to eat in public places anymore? Do the "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi think these people will go home and eat any better? HA! Not hardly with all the high-carb junk foods so easily accessible these days. Believe me, I know because that's how I ate when I was 410 pounds--Little Debbie snack cakes, Ramen noodles, Chef-Boyardee cans, potato chips, and soda, soda, soda! We can't lay the blame for obesity on restaurants. They're just serving a need.

How about all those restaurants which seem to keep growing as fast as the grass around my septic tank? If the demand wasn't there by people wanting to spend money to eat out, then they wouldn't be in business. But now you've got local lawmakers in Los Angeles who want a moratorium on new fast food restaurant development to deal with obesity. Punishing restaurants for making fat people is like pointing the finger of blame at schools for not teaching children (where is individual choice and accountability anymore, hmmm?).

According to House Bill No. 282, this law would be in effect for any food establishment, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, etc., within the state of Mississippi with at least 5 seats for customers to refuse service to "any person who is obese." The definition of that will be provided by the government in the form of "written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese." The restaurant management and staff will then need to "rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person."

If somehow this bill were to be passed and signed into law by Republican Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (I sincerely doubt it, but crazier things have happened!), then it would "take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008." And it would then set a very bad precedent for any future legislation in other states or on the national level that would turn democracy and freedom on its head in favor of Communist policies that have led to the eventual failure of nearly every other country that has ever implemented such tactics on their people. I don't say something like that lightly, but this is harmful to what we as a nation of free people believe in!

We've already seen the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services attempt on the federal level to get restaurants to cut their portions and calories and cities like New York banning trans fats in the restaurants there. But people over the age of 18 are adults and can make decisions about what to do for themselves without the government stepping in to act as their "supernanny." We don't need the government telling us what we can do with our lives, where we are allowed to eat, and what we are permitted to put inside of our mouths. That's OUR personal responsibility and it is absolutely reprehensible that Reps. Mayhall, Read, and Shows are that ignorant about liberty in a nation that was founded on such principles.

What would happen to a restaurant like Two Fat Ladies Glasgow if it were located in Mississippi? Would the owners have to steer clear of their own restaurants? And how about this: what about the obese servers, cooks, busboys, and even managers who work in Mississippi restaurants? Would they be allowed to work there if they are fat or would they be denied employment based on their weight (keep in mind most restaurant employees eat the food served by the restaurant on their break)? Have the "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi even bothered to think this through?

You know, according to BMI, I'm officially an "obese" person. Especially since I've been lifting weights, my BMI has actually gone up a little with the extra muscle mass so I would be refused service at a restaurant in Mississippi if I attempted to dine there. But anyone who looks at me wouldn't think I'm fat. And the same goes for Michael Jordan and other athletes who are "obese" according to BMI but far from it! It's precisely why legislation like this is not just ill-advised, but created by people who are just plain ignorant. With all due respect to these Mississippi lawmakers, the people who elected you demand much better than this kind of crap!

One final thought: This one act of legislation would totally obliterate the highly-competitive restaurant industry in Mississippi because you've taken away a very large (no pun intended!) portion of their customer base. Sure, leaner people and the slightly overweight will still frequent restaurants to give them people to feed, but will prices have to go up in order to make the necessary margins to remain profitable? These "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi don't have a clue about the restaurant business and should keep their meddling little hands out of it. It's not the government's job to tell ANY business who they can and can't serve.


Can we help the "Three Blind Mice" of Mississippi see the light?

Let's let W. T. Mayhall, Jr., John Read, and Bobby Shows know what we think about their insane bill to discriminate against "obese" people eating at restaurants. And ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIVE IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, you need to contact them as well as Gov. Haley Barbour to express your concerns about this well-intentioned, but poorly executed legislation. Here's how you can contact each of these men:

W. T. Mayhall--tmayhall@house.ms.gov
John Read--jread@house.ms.gov
Bobby Shows--bshows@house.ms.gov
Haley Barbour--Call toll free 1-877-405-0733

Be courteous, but firm that this kind of legislation is unacceptable in the United States of America and that you will not tolerate such trampling of the rights of citizens and businesses in a country that is the very symbol of freedom for the rest of the world. They need to hear from tens of thousands of Americans who care about what this country stands for so the message will come through loud and clear that this kind of thing does not happen in a nation of free people--fat or otherwise!

'Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show' Episode 107: Low-Carb Now Recommended In Sweden Thanks To Dr. Annika Dahlqvist

Low-carbers around the world should cheer Dr. Annika Dahlqvist

You know how much I like trying to stay on the cutting edge of information about livin' la vida low-carb. Well, today I have something to share with you that is so incredibly exciting that I can't wait for you to hear this for yourself! The news you are about to hear may very well be the beginning of a worldwide change of heart regarding the healthy low-carb lifestyle.

In Episode 107 of "The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore" I share with you the incredible developments happening down in Sweden right now where a key government group called the National Board of Health and Welfare (equivalent to our FDA, USDA, or Surgeon General's office) declared on January 16, 2008 that (CHECK THIS OUT!) a low-carb diet is "in accordance with science and well-tried experience for reducing obesity and Type 2 diabetes." WOW! Wanna know how all this came about? Listen to today's podcast for the details and a worldwide exclusive interview with the woman who made it happen--Dr. Annika Dahlqvist!

Click on the "LISTEN NOW" link below or download it to your iPod to hear today's podcast:

"The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore" Episode 107 [16:10m]: LISTEN NOW | Download

What a story! Dr. Dahlqvist was willing to put her entire medical career on the line to defend the low-carb nutritional approach in her home country of Sweden. Although the odds were stacked against her, she KNEW the science was on her side. In the end, she came out of this intense trial triumphant and strong as the Swedish government now promotes a low-carb diet alongside a low-fat one. Are you listening up there in Washington, DC all you health bureaucrats? I've been pushing the same thing here in America for years!

Wanna see the Dahlqvist diet that two dietitians in Sweden thought was so dangerous? Click here for a list of the foods her patients eat and then click here to read her explanation for using this approach. It's healthy low-carb living and Dr. Dahlqvist knew the science as well as her own personal experience would be found worthy in the end. And it was! Do you realize just how HUGE this is?

Always stay on the cutting edge of low-carb news and commentary by:

1. Listening at the official web site
2. Calling (818) 688-2763 to listen via Podlinez
3. Subscribing to the RSS feed
4. Going to iTunes--Click here to subscribe!

What do you think about what Dr. Annika Dahlqvist has done over in Sweden? Do you see it as an important first step in other countries following suit to begin recommending low-carb alongside low-fat diets as well? Provide feedback in the show notes section for Episode 107 and talk about it! Is this the kind of paradigm shifting development that we supporters of livin' la vida low-carb have been waiting for? Tell me what YOU think.

Although it is written in Swedish, I encourage you to check out Dr. Annika Dahlqvist's blog to get to know her even better. She's a hero in my book and I am very proud to know there are people like her willing to put it all on the line for what she knows is right. Send Dr. Dahlqvist your congratulatory THANKS for defending the low-carb lifestyle so courageously and selflessly by e-mailing her at annika.dahlqvist@telia.com.

If You Support Low-Carb, There's Only One Choice For President

Dr. Michael Eades gets my vote for President of the United States

We've been hearing from all sorts of people over the past year or so who would like to become the next President of the United States of America and all of it has led to this fateful first day of voting set to take place in the great state of Iowa today as they caucus. People like Barack Obama, Rudy Guiliani, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson have literally poured millions upon millions of dollars into campaign ads in early voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other key states to tell us why they are most qualified to lead this great nation for at least the next four years (and if I get one more stinkin' recorded phone call from this dude named Ron Paul, I think I'm gonna scream!).

But I'm here to tell you that NONE of these mainstream party politics candidates even come close to matching the kind of qualities I am looking for in someone who can not just talk the talk about the critical issues, but also will walk the walk. While most of the people running pontificate over issues like illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, Social Security, and the economy (no doubt, all very important issues), no candidate has even come close to being a leader who understands the severity of one of the most critical issues of our day that could quite possibly lead to our downfall someday soon if we don't do something about it.

What is this pressing issue? I'm talking about our HEALTH. Obesity, diabetes, and the continuing struggle to take on preventable disease is taking a toll on this nation economically and socially like nothing else we've ever dealt with before. And now more than ever we need proven, tested, and ready-to-serve-from-day-one leadership from an individual who would bring about great changes in the midst of this socioeconomic crisis.

Today, I nominate Dr. Michael R. Eades, MD for president.

As the unequivocal leader of the newly formed and growing by leaps and bounds Low-carblican High-Fatocrat Party, Dr. Michael Eades is sorely needed to restore sanity into what has become an insane world up there in our nation's capital of Washington, D.C. He is the right leader at the right time for seeing us through this make-or-break period in our nation's history and our future health literally depends on it.

Just think about what an Eades administration would look like:

- No more low-fat diet monopoly from the FDA or USDA
- Follow the lead of the ADA promoting low-carb, too
- New food pyramid will put fat at the bottom and sugar on top
- Stop approving OTC drugs like Alli for weight loss
- No more federal protection for the sugar and grain industry
- Universal gym memberships with Slow-Burn trainers
- School lunches will consist of high-fat, low-carb meals
- Require welfare recipients to choose healthy low-carb foods
- Implement the "No Child Left With A Behind" Act
- Obesity no longer a "disease," it's personality responsibility
- Tax credits given to people who embark on a low-carb program
- Forget about funding ridiculous obesity studies
- Drug companies will have truth in advertising standards
- End FDA control of the vitamin industry
- Regular "State Of Our Weight" addresses from the Oval Office
- Weekly online nutrition education classes from the president
- Government subsidies given to the beef and egg industry
- Medicare dollars spent on PSAs for low-carb living
- Aggressive NIH funding for low-carb research
- AND SO MUCH MORE!!!

And this is just in the first 100 days President Eades is in office! The immediate improvements he would bring about from there would continue through the next four years and possibly beyond once Americans start living healthier than they ever thought they could following a controlled-carbohydrate approach. This is a dream candidacy that could very well become reality if you make the only choice for president for people who support livin' la vida low-carb.

You and I both know even if Dr. Eades was enthusiastically interested in this position (I would assume not), he wouldn't ever have a chance of actually winning. But it should make us think about the people we DO nominate and eventually elect into office. And not just for president, but also the U.S. Senate, Congress, state government officials, as well as on your local level.

Are these people representing YOU and your beliefs regarding health? Well they should and I encourage you to bring this issue to the forefront as you consider your options. Ask the candidates what they think about livin' la vida low-carb and if they'd be willing to look at all the latest scientific data regarding low-carb diets to make policy changes regarding diet and health.

We can keep ignoring the evidence, but the problem will not go away. But if our government leaders can keep an open mind and be willing to listen to the REAL experts like Dr. Eades, Dr. Jonny Bowden, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Mary C. Vernon, Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Richard Feinman, Dr. Larry McCleary, and Dr. Stephen Phinney, then perhaps we'll have some hope for the future of the greatest country in the world.

Low-Carb Stuff That's Caught My Eye Lately

Sometimes there's just so much "stuff" out there about livin' la vida low-carb that I want to tell you about, it's hard to get it all into individual blog posts. That's why on occasion I will compile all these little tidbits of information for you together in one big blog post because they're all worthy of being mentioned since I haven't had time to get to them yet. WELL NOW I'M MAKING TIME! :D

So, here goes on the low-carb stuff that's caught my eye lately:

GROCERY STUDY SHOWS HIGH-CARB FOOD SALES SHRINKING

One of my readers who works at a trade association that serves the supermarket industry shared a very interesting tidbit of information with me from a September 2007 Grocery SuperStudy from Willard Bishop. And it's quite interesting news for those of us who have dedicated ourselves to low-carb living: while "low-carb" (as a marketing label) is for all intents and purposes dead within the mainstream food industry right now (not surprising since most of the crap they put out a few years back as "low-carb" was anything but), there's another new victim that nobody is talking about--the "center store" foods.

You know what that is--high-carb, packaged, processed foods that appear in the center aisles. In other words, everywhere that people who are livin' la vida low-carb DON'T shop! HA! How about that?! According to this survey, this area of supermarkets is shrinking rapidly which makes the hottest new trend in grocery markets for 2008 the up-and-coming Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market stores which don't have hardly anything in their center store. Although they are based mainly in the Southwest, they have created the template for the next wave in grocery shopping for healthy living.

Here's an interesting quote from the Willard Bishop analysis:

"Center store generates 72% of total store sales and all of the true profit contribution (because the perimeter nets out at a loss). But, 29% of the center store categories lose money today (retailer activity-based costs are greater than gross profits collected including trade spending). And, 58% of the SKUs in the center store generate 95% of the sales.

This means that the final 5% of sales comes from 42% of the 60,000-plus SKUs. More than 40% of center store SKUs sell fewer than three units per store per week. Even though food retailers are challenged to earn a positive true profit contribution on the perimeter, it's an area of the store that they'll continue to focus on to differentiate and elevate their overall value proposition."

Did you get all that? The take-home message is that the vast majority of that stuff you see in the center aisles AIN'T SELLING more than 3 units a week. So if there are 48 packages of some favorite high-carb junk food sitting there the next time you go grocery shopping, keep in mind it may take FOUR MONTHS for that to sell through. Now you know why the food manufacturers load all that stuff up with preservatives. EWWW!

FEDERAL LAWMAKERS WANT TO BAN JUNK FOOD IN SCHOOLS

What we see in this New York Times column where members of the United States Senate are proposing a national ban on selling candy, sugary soda and other junk foods in schools is nothing new. Last year I blogged about former President Bill Clinton and the American Heart Association suggesting schools voluntarily implement such bans and this study show that sugar-free schools can actually reduce obesity rates. But why am I opposed to such measures that would make school lunches "healthier?" Two things.

First, what is gonna be the definition of the word "healthy?" If by healthy they mean they're gonna cut out the excess sugar, starchy carbohydrates and other such junk foods and replace them with fresh low-glycemic fruits and green leafy vegetables instead, then I'm all for it. But likely these meals will be low in fat and sodium while still including lots of sugar (which is fat-free!) and other such carbs which for all intents and purposes will defeat the purpose of banning the junk food.

Second, what business is it of the federal government to dictate to local school districts what they should be serving children for lunches? While too often national lawmakers just like to throw our money at a problem and hope it goes away, the real solutions are never even considered. If the school lunches at a local school are horrendous, then the parents of the kids attending that school should complain to the school and/or school board to demand better choices. And the worst case scenario, parents should pack their children a healthy lunch if the school refuses to offer better choices.

This is not an area where the federal government has any busy sticking its nose into. However, I do see it as rather hypocritical of these lawmakers to still allow the sale of Girl Scout cookies in schools even if this ban were to go into effect. And we wonder why our kids keep getting fatter and fatter while getting confused about what is good for them? Sheeeez!

FRED THOMPSON: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR NUTRITIONIST

Speaking of government, I couldn't help but notice this CNN.com article about something one of the presidential candidates said while he was here in my hometown of Spartanburg, South Carolina recently. Although I still don't have ANY idea whatsoever about who I am going to vote for in next month's primary election, it was quite refreshing to hear that former Sen. Fred Thompson wants good nutrition and healthy living to happen within the family unit and not from the government.

Here's what he said:

"We shouldn’t be looking at the federal government in Washington first and working our way down, it ought to be just the other way around. With that, or whether you're talking about education, there's some things the federal government can't do."

Amen to that, brother! With our government telling us through the USDA and FDA over the past few decades that fat and cholesterol is gonna kill us while we should eat a diet consisting primarily of carbohydrates to be healthy, it's about time somebody on the national level is saying enough is enough. It is each the responsibility of each of us to take care of our own families and to get the government out of our refrigerators!

DR. JOHN BRIFFA CALLS OUT RESEARCHERS ON CHOLESTEROL

Three months ago, I had the privilege of interviewing a bona fide health expert from the UK named Dr. John Briffa. As an unapologetic supporter of solid nutritional science, Dr. Briffa has been disappointed by the obvious omission of data supporting livin' la vida low-carb over the past few years by researchers. And he let them know it in this blog post about the very latest studies showing the cholesterol hypothesis is a load of crap!

There's so much common sense in what Dr. Briffa wrote in this piece that I urge you to read it for yourself. He makes some excellent points about statin drugs, why cholesterol-lowering drug treatments work to possibly produce a lowered risk of a cardiac event, who the researchers are conducting these so-called studies, and what role the pharmaceutical industry plays in disease treatment. DON'T MISS THIS COLUMN!

EATING SATURATED FAT WILL GIVE YOU DIABETES?

One of the more preposterous statements I have seen in the nearly three years I have been blogging about diet and health has got to be what I read in this Diet Detective column by my fellow contributing writer Dr. Judith Wurtman, PhD, author of The Serotonin Power Diet (which I will be reviewing here soon). She claims that a study published in the October 2007 issue of Nature Medicine found that eating too much fat causes it to store in the liver which then creates a chemical that causes insulin resistance--a precursor to diabetes.

I looked for this study Dr. Wurtman cited and couldn't find it, so I wrote to her asking for the link. She responded back that she would locate it for me, but I never heard from her again. The whole concept that the consumption of saturated fat could even remotely lead to insulin resistance and then diabetes doesn't even make sense to me. Excessive carbohydrate consumption is documented to be most responsible for the development of insulin resistance, not saturated fat.

Since I had my doubts and wanted to see what some medical professionals had to say about this theory put forth by Dr. Wurtman, I sent a link of this column to several of my low-carb research friends for assistance. All of them were perplexed by what she had written and had never heard of any such research supporting this. But Dr. Mary C. Vernon summarized what she thought about this in her typical fashion:

This is actually a fairly widespread misunderstanding, that is, many people believe the data says that fat causes insulin resistance. Three thoughts come to mind:

1) This mis-interpretation occurs, I think, because the research is misleading in that carbohydrate is rarely analyzed or decreased enough.

2) Because the close relationship between available fuel sources (fats, carbohydrate and amino acids) makes it difficult to define a starting point. In modern-day vernacular--which came first, the chicken or the egg?

3) Clearly, each individual is born with a certain level of "insulin resistance." Some of this may actually be influenced by the intrauterine environment as well as by the gene set. I think one can actually see this, in a simplistic way, as the amount of insuln secretion generated by a carbohydrate load.

Add the long-term outcome of high insulin spikes to fat accumulation and "bulked up" fat cells, and insulin resistance increases. The dietary carbohydrate pushes the insulin levels up, but the fat cells' semipermeable membrane now has increased intracellular fat content and "leaks." (Dr. Sam Kline says fat cells don't like to be bigger than one micron).

Now the fat stores have entered the metabolic conversation and the blood sugar swings (pre and post prandially) get wider and wider. With high insulin levels chronically, fat transports into the mitochondria is damped down (via malonyl CoA's feedback on CPT) and fat burning decreases. All of this is interpreted clinically as "increasing insulin resistance."

IF YOU DON"T DROP THE INSULIN LEVELS LOW ENOUGH BY HOLDING DIETARY CARBOHYDRATE DOWN, THEN YOU WILL NEVER SEE THE PROCESS STOP. Even though this is a logarithmic relationship, it behaves in patients as if it were an off-on switch. Even as few as 5 grams of carbohydrate can change some individuals with vigorous insulin response from fat-burning to fat storing.

As always, Dr. Vernon delivers wisdom that puts things back into the proper perspective. I'm sure Dr. Wurtman means well with her conclusions, but it seems there's a lot of assuming it is the saturated fat that is the culprit and not the carbohydrates. This is a DAILY battle within the realm of low-carb and science.

JONNY BOWDEN LETS THE BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION HAVE IT

Leave it to Dr. Jonny Bowden to cut right to the heart of the matter in a letter to the American Beverage Association who had responded to a column he wrote about sodas and obesity. You'll see a brilliant response on his blog to the claims made by the Senior Vice-President of Science Policy for that group named Maureen L. Storey, PhD. Dr. Storey states there is no link between soda consumption and heart disease and that sugar substitutes like aspartame are completely safe and acceptable for human consumption.

Dr. Bowden took great pleasure in answering each of the points made by Dr. Storey by exposing the error in her analysis of the points she made. There were four major points he made backed up by evidence to prove each one, but I absolutely loved the way Dr. Bowden ended his letter to Dr. Storey:

"I understand your need to put a favorable spin on this, just as the sugar industry puts a favorable spin on sugar. But might I remind you of the words of Upton Sinclair: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, if his salary depends upon him not understanding it.'"

OUCH! That quote could certainly zing a lot of people involved in the diet and health industry, wouldn't it? :D

MICHIGAN MAN FOLLOWS ATKINS, DOESN'T COUNT CALORIES

I just about flipped when I saw this Grand Rapids Press story about a man named Steve Cormier. It seems 52-year old man was able to lose weight and get healthy by livin' la vida low-carb. And he's STILL doing it to this day by paying attention to his carbohydrate intake and being ever mindful of what he's putting in his mouth. My favorite quote was this:

"I don't care about calories at all."

Now THAT is the sign of someone who is on the Atkins diet by the book. If you are working the plan as the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins outlined in Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, then you don't have to count calories. I'm coming up on four years of eating this way and I have yet to count the first calorie I put in my mouth. Instead, I keep my carbs reduced to the level I need to keep my weight in check and the calories manage themselves. WAY TO GO, Steve! Keep it up, my friend!

A QUICK & EASY LOW-CARB CHEESECAKE RECIPE

You know how much I enjoy recipes, so I couldn't resist sharing this one from Quad-Cities Online with you. Submitted by Laura Carson from Moline, Illinois, this is a rather simple-to-make low-carb cheesecake that could be an awesome addition to your holiday festivities. Here are the ingredients you will need to make this recipe:

3 packages (8 ounces each) cream cheese
1 cup sour cream
2/3 cup Splenda
1 teaspoon vanilla
3 eggs
Non-stick cooking spray (Pam)

CLICK HERE for the instructions about how to make this cheesecake--livin' la vida low-carb styled, baby!

YOUTUBE VIEWER THINKING TOO MUCH ABOUT WEIGHT LOSS

I've really enjoyed expanding the horizons of the "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" brand to other places on the Internet, not the least of which is YouTube. The "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb On YouTube" segments I do with my wife Christine are a load of fun and it is something we look forward to doing each and every week. One neat thing is it has attracted a new audience of people looking for answers to their dieting questions.

Here's an example of one I recently received:

I know you probably get thousands of messages daily. I always said that I was going to write you asking you some questions that I'm curious about.

The first question is, knowing that fat is equivalent to 9 calories per gram, many of the low carb foods are loaded with calories. That said, I am 6'3" 340lbs (Was 385), and with approximately 30 minutes of working out on a cardio machine, I lose 462 calories. How much of that is 'fat' being burned?

I know that with certain heart rate percentages, you burn fat/carbs, but I'm assuming I'm burning 100% fat, since I probably have very little to no carbs at all.

So if I'm losing 462 calories and 1 gram of fat is 9 calories and 1 pound of fat is 453 grams it would take (9*453 calories) to burn 1 pound of fat. This seems impossible to do. Assuming my BMR is around 4500 calories a day...I probably eat less than that...but still...it just doesn't seem right...Can I get some input?

Hopefully you understand this.

Is your head spinning too? Mine sure did after I read this e-mail about ten times in a row. Finally, I just stepped back, took several deep breaths, and realized EXACTLY what this person needed to hear. This was my response:

Hey there and thanks so much for writing. I'd be delighted to answer your questions:

Just so you know, I don't count calories. Never have since I started livin' la vida low-carb. You don't have to worry about fat having more calories than carbs and protein because it's not about the calories. Your body functions differently when you reduce the carbohydrate in your diet because you are using dietary fat as well as stored fat as fuel for your body.

So, when you workout for 30 minutes and burn 462 calories, it depends on whether you are burning carbs (a low-fat diet) or fat (a low-carb diet) for fuel. It takes about 20 minutes of exercise to burn off all the excess carb stores when you are eating a high-carb, low-fat diet, but you start shedding STORED FAT right away on a high-fat, low-carb diet. WOO HOO! Isn't that cool?

There are obvious benefits to the amount of intensity of your workouts, so having small spurts of all-out, give-it-everything-you-got effort to burn even more calories and, thus, stored fat.

Don't obsess over the calories you put IN your mouth when you are eating low-carb. When I started at 410 pounds, I was eating about 3,000-4,000 calories a day while keeping my carbs down to around 20-30g carbs during my ongoing weight loss. Today, I STILL eat about 2,500-3,000 calories and maintain my weight just fine.

It's unproductive to think about this too much...just eat your fat for fuel, keep carbs to a minimum, ENJOY the foods you get to eat, and simply live your life confident you will shed the pounds and get healthier than you ever have before. It's NOT impossible because I did it. And so can you!

Sometimes we can think so much about all of this that it can frustrate you into overeating carbs to reduce the stress! UGH! I don't waste any brain cells on needless over-analyzing my diet like that. NEVERMORE!

Have you seen something about low-carb in the news that you feel is worthy of my attention? Feel free to e-mail me a link to the story anytime at livinlowcarbman@charter.net. I do a lot of research, but that doesn't mean I see everything. THANKS for your support for the work I do here and keep on livin' la vida low-carb!

FDA Is Strongarming The Vitamin Industry

If you are like me and enjoy taking supplements as part of your low-carb lifestyle, then you will definitely want to read this World Net Daily story about something the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is currently proposing that could directly impact your life. This may sound like a very sick joke, but it is DEAD SERIOUS!

According to FDA Docket No. 2006D-0480, aka the "Draft Guidance for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration," the government agency would take over regulation of all vitamins, supplements, and any other natural health remedies. What would this mean? Well, any natural remedy items, even bottled water, would then be considered "drugs" coming under the strongarm authority of the FDA.

In fact, pretty much anything and everything that can be used to treat disease would fall under FDA control. Here's the language they use in this draft proposal:

Biologically based products include, but not limited to botanicals, animal-derived extracts, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids, proteins, prebiotics and probiotics, whole diets and “functional foods.” A botanical product intended for use in treating a disease would be generally regulated as a drug. “Functional foods” may be subject to FDA regulation as foods dietary supplements, or drugs under the Act.

If the manipulative and body-based practices involve the use of equipment (such as massage devices) or the application of a product (such as lotion, cream, or oil) to the skin or other parts of the body, those products may be subject to regulation under the ACT.

Does all this sound preposterous? Think again. Imagine this:

Do you own a home gym for medical purposes? It would need FDA approval for use or commerce. How about heading down to your local drugstore to find your favorite vitamins? Good luck because the FDA would need to give their go-ahead. In fact, any store caught selling vitamins without the FDA's magic stamp could be prosecuted for "practicing medicine." Yikes!

FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach has put this draft guidance on the fast-track for implementation, but they are soliciting feedback from concerned citizens through May 29, 2007. The original date was set for Monday, April 30, 2007, but they decided to extend it for an additional month since there has been such an outcry from the public. You can send your concerned comments and reaction to the FDA about this by using their feedback form.

With one out of every three Americans using nondrug treatments for their health at an estimated cost of $5 billion annually, it appears the FDA is watching out for their buddies in the pharmaceutical industry. The medical establishment doesn't like the fact that people are getting healthy without the use of their overpriced medications. Sure, there are SOME drugs that do some fantastic work, but a lot of people find equally effective relief from all-natural homeopathic remedies.

Ever since I've been taking supplements like so many do on a daily basis as part of my low-carb lifestyle, I have not had to see the doctor because I haven't been sick. That's a fact that apparently doesn't sit too well with the medical profession. It's not all of them, but the people in powerful positions are none too happy that they're losing out on "business" from people who are supposed to be sick. Twisted, ain't it?

We've already seen severe restrictions to vitamins in our neighboring countries Mexico and Canada as well as in Europe where you even need a prescription from a doctor to have access to them. EEEEK! Don't you know the FDA would love to bring this policy to the good ole United States of America. They've been working on it for a while now.

I've previously blogged about the concerted effort to outlaw vitamins in this country before, but the FDA has stepped it up. What makes this bad is the outright corruption that already exists in that government entity and it's well-documented. Can you say Vioxx? Or their approval of the wheat gluten imported from China that was responsible for the pet food contamination that killed thousands of beloved pets? Shall I continue?

From allowing spray-on viruses for luncheon meats to their controversial approval of a risky over-the-counter weight loss drug, the FDA is no friend of the natural health community. Why else would they describe livin' la vida low-carb as "sheer nonsense?" Oh yeah, that's right, eating this healthy is a threat to the drug companies, too!

If you care about this issue as much as I do, then leave your feedback for the FDA TODAY! You have until May 29, 2007 to voice your concerns about this important issue. Let Commissioner von Eschenbach hear from us all!

FDA: The Low-Carb Diet Is 'Sheer Nonsense'

The FDA is overstepping its authority on what a healthy diet is

It's time to state the obvious--The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is chock full of a bunch of blithering idiots! There, I said it. And now that I have, I really don't feel a bit of remorse about making such a bold statement after learning about something they recently did to a low-carb company I'm gonna share with you today.

I suppose for background purposes, you might want to read the "How To Lose And Manage Weight" page at the FDA web site to understand their philosophy about diet and health. Of course, it is based on the archaic and failed ideals of the low-fat, low-calorie, portion control diet in combination with regular exercise.

Hey geniuses at the FDA! If those work so well, then why do we still have a bunch of fat people running around our country? Isn't that the same message we've heard for most of the past three decades and yet obesity and health problems are at an all-time high? Sounds like we need to change the game plan just a wee bit, don't ya think?

And if those diets don't work for you, then certainly you can always take a risky diet drug like orlistat or even get your insides cut open for LAP-BAND surgery. Is the FDA serious about that? You bet they are...go check out the site for yourself and you'll see these listed among the options for people dealing with a weight problem (what about livin' la vida low-carb? NOPE!).

Sheez! Is it any wonder why obesity has skyrocketed so much in America? With a government agency like the FDA going around spouting off all this nutritional nonsense about a low-fat, low-calorie diet, it's enough to make you physically sick to your stomach to even think about. But, unfortunately, they have a lot of power over diet and health policy in the United States and they have made it abundantly known to a low-carb company what they think about their product.

The identity of this company will remain anonymous in this post for obvious reasons, but you would recognize it if I told you. The FDA confiscated this company's products during a recent shipment and sent it to their lab for testing as well as examining the nutritional label with a fine-toothed comb. The result was a heavy-handed reprimand about the how unhealthy the product was because of "all that fat" which they claim would make it impossible for people to lose weight.

Come on, FDA! It's not the fat in foods that makes you fat, it's the SUGAR and other refined carbohydrates that are the root cause of obesity. Haven't you learned ANYTHING from the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins about the dangers of excessive carbs on weight and health? That's one thing the Atkins diet has done for our culture is educate our society about overconsuming carbs and demonstrating that it has consequences.

But don't tell that to the FDA, though!

Regarding claims that sugar spikes your insulin levels which then leads to obesity, the FDA said to this low-carb company that claim is simply "not proven" and that the low-carb diet for all intents and purposes amounts to "sheer nonsense." In other words, our good old FDA thinks sugar is just as healthy as it can be for people to consume with no consequences to their health. Puh-leez! People who are livin' la vida low-carb know better and the FDA should be ashamed of themselves for pretending sugar has no connection to obesity.

As for this "sheer nonsense" bull-funky, all I have to say is this way of eating absolutely saved my life, FDA! You and all your ivory tower minions in Washington, DC oughta try living out in the real world for a change with people like me who used to weigh over 400 pounds and was able to attain great weight loss and weight maintenance success because of that "sheer nonsense" diet you seethe over.

Get with the times, FDA! All the latest research is pointing to livin' la vida low-carb as EQUAL to low-fat! It really makes you stop and wonder if ANYONE at the FDA has ever lost weight! Me thinks they're just a bunch of clueless mind-numbed robots who couldn't help an obese person lose weight if they tried.

Come live in my world for just two seconds, FDA! You wouldn't survive!

When the FDA can threaten an innocent low-carb company like this one just because they disagree with what solid nutritional science is showing, it's time for the citizens to demand better from their government. We don't need to have the FDA hold our hand about the fat content of the foods we eat.

If they truly cared about our health, then they would sound the alarm against the excessive sugar and high-fructose corn syrup that is in EVERYTHING we eat these days. Now there's the real danger to weight and health the FDA can jump on.

Do you see what we are up against in this battle for the hearts and minds of overweight and obese people. The FDA is slamming the door in our face about livin' la vida low-carb while doing all it can to protect the interests of the low-fat proponents and their buddies in the sugar and corn industries. Where's the objectivity, FDA?! How about looking out for the average American citizen's best interest for a change?

Big brother is watching and he ain't on OUR side.

Report: Obesity Rise Not Tied To Government Welfare Programs

Kennedy says welfare programs are not increasing obesity

This Medical News Today column looks at a new report debunking a popular myth that poverty is actually leading to an increase in the rates of obesity in the United States. I addressed this issue somewhat back in September 2006 in this blog post which may be worth revisiting in light of this new report.

The lead author of the report is Eileen T. Kennedy, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science at the Boston, MA-based Tufts University, who looked at data regarding the participants in such government-funded programs as Food Stamps and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (aka WIC) which come directly from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). With doubling obesity rates resulting in a tripling in the costs of Medicare, this is a poignant topic for serious discussion.

It's interesting to note that Kennedy worked at the USDA for seven years prior to her tenure at Tufts University which may give her a more optimistic view of the work they are doing there since she was a part of it for so long. Nevertheless, she says the government has made great progress at helping underprivileged families get adequate nutrition to feed their families well enough despite their lack of income.

We've discussed the issue of affordability of healthy food for the poor before and whether obesity should be confronted as a society or if it is the personal responsiblity of the individual. The bottom line on obesity-fighting efforts is that they be reasonably realistic to actually work, especially among the poor.

But the lingering school of thought that still exists out there about low-income families has been that the nutritionally poor food options that are available to them on such programs is actually leading participants to gain weight. That was the purpose of creating the report entitled "Creating Healthy States: Building Healthier Nutrition Programs" (download the PDF file) which was presented with input from both Democrats and Republicans through the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

In that report, Kennedy and her co-authors proposed specific public policy changes in the Food Stamp and WIC programs to zero in on the underlying issues that are impacting the health and weight of the participants. But she was quick to point out you cannot lay the onus for obesity at the feet of the people receiving government assistance.

"The population as a whole is struggling with overweight and obesity, not just those who are enrolled in federally-funded nutrition programs," she said.

Her research into this specific issue bears out that assertion because both programs improved the nutritional value of the foods the participants ate prior to going on welfare. In fact, the only group of WIC partipants who ate more calories than before were ones who were pregnant, which is desirable for the sake of the weight and health of the newborn babies.

The authors of the study note an interesting statistic over a 25+ year period regarding people getting Food Stamps.

"Data indicate that from 1976 to 2002, the probability of a woman being overweight grew the least among food stamp recipients," the report explained.

Recognizing that improvements in the diet of those people who are benefitting from Food Stamps and WIC are still sorely needed, Kennedy knows there is very inadequate education about healthy living that is simply perpetuating the problem even further.

"Many low-income households face what is known as the 'double burden of disease' meaning that those who are food-insecure are often overweight or obese," Kennedy remarked. "This creates an opportunity for federally-funded nutrition programs to restructure goals to address obesity, which is now a more prevalent problem for low-income households than under-nutrition."

But there is a problem that comes into play when you start talking about conducting "federally-funded nutrition programs." Guess who the federal government is? No, it's not those politicians in Washington on Capitol Hill pretending they have these big stacks of free money to spend at will and it's not even the President of the United States of America. It's YOU and ME! WE pay the bill for any such programs, so shouldn't WE have a say in what makes up those progams?

Try as they may (and they do try), the government will not find an answer to obesity. We can turn the tide of obesity when we stop doing the same failed approach to weight loss over and over again (isn't that the definition of INSANITY?!) and start taking a serious look at other nutritional approaches that REALLY work--like livin' la vida low-carb, maybe? :) Then we'll start making progress in the obesity debate.

So, what does the USDA need to do to bring this problem under control according to Kennedy and her fellow nutrition experts? They propose the federal government empower the leaders of each state with both funding and education to promote healthy living principles to their citizens and to coordinate these efforts for a consistent message about diet, nutrition, fitness, and health in an organized manner. If low-carb is taught alongside low-fat, then I have no problem with that.

Additionally, Kennedy and her team want the USDA to convert to a multi-year renewal from an annual plan for approving Food Stamps to provide more sustainability of benefits rather than the constant disruptions. At the same time, a greater role should be played in providing these assistance participants not just with monetary, but also educational support about what foods are the best options for them in their area. I'm not a big fan of government handout programs, but there could be some benefit if the information provided is not monopolized by the low-fat dogma.

It's a sad fact that many poor families receiving this assistance don't have easy access to grocery stores in their area where healthy foods are as readily available to them. Kennedy believes states should offer supermarket chains tax breaks and special financing to attract these businesses to the low-income neighborhoods. This is an EXCELLENT idea that is already used by states to attract businesses to build new facilities, so why not in poor areas?

They also suggest in the report that states need to offer assistance to farmers' markets to sell their products at a reduced price to low-income families with the government footing the bill for the remainder of the costs. Plus, any unsold produce that would usually be discarded as waste at the local farmers' market should be donated to the poor, Kennedy stated. Food stamps are usually wasted on high-carb garbage junk food, so why not allow them to shop at the farmers' market and get a discount, too? This one makes so much sense.

Calling for more accountability with the taxpayer dollars being spent on Food Stamps and WIC, the authors of the report note that we should be "increasing the purchasing power of WIC and food stamp dollars that are spent on fruits and vegetables or whole-grain items, while decreasing the purchasing power of dollars spent on less-healthy options."

I agree healthy foods should be the focus, although the definition of such should be made explicit. Potatoes are NOT health foods. Sugary fruits and starchy veggies are better than candy and potato chips, but not by much. These foods should be limited as well.

Above everything, Kennedy concluded, is the need to educate the participants in these government programs about the importance of looking for nutrient-dense foods that provide the healthiest ingredients with the lowest number of calories.

"Choosing nutrient-dense foods is challenging for everyone, but it can be especially difficult for families on a budget," she admitted. "However, despite the fact that many people believe that healthful diets cost more money, research has shown that there can be great variability among the price of foods with similar nutrient density."

That's why education is the key because it will enable the government to "to influence their food choices [which] could result in a more nutritious diet for less money." By the way, the most nutrient-dense nutritional approach available today is low-carb living. :)

Kennedy believes forward-thinking is needed among nutrition leaders to help ward off the continuing rise in obesity rates among the participants in the Food Stamp and WIC programs. She is confident that "these programs can play an integral role in preventing obesity."

"There are some exciting activities taking place in many states across the nation," Kennedy exclaimed. "We need to build on these existing initiatives and determine how we can leverage the existing Food Stamp and WIC programs to promote healthier lifestyles."

I can certainly appreciate the efforts that individual states are making to take on this issue of obesity, especially among the poor. But we must come to grips with the reality that low-fat doesn't work for everyone and that low-carb is a viable and healthy option for people to use for weight loss as well.

This is something my home state of South Carolina have ignored. They are not alone, though. Can we simply provide all the information to people and just let them make an educated choice about what is best for them? Am I being unreasonable with my request? If not, then when can we expect to move forward with my proposal to teach low-carb alongside low-fat, hmmm? Now there's a proposal that can make a REAL difference, Ms. Kennedy.

You can e-mail Eileen Kennedy about her report at eileen.kennedy@tufts.edu.