I thought that over the next few weeks I’d address a number of Ketogenic Lifestyle Rules that I have adopted. These seem to help and bring a little clarity to one following a Ketogenic Lifestyle or someone on the road to becoming a true “Ketonian.”
The first of these rules is that there should ALWAYS be bacon in the fridge!
We address this rule and some interesting facts around having bacon in the fridge in this evening’s Persicope below. We also address the benefits of journaling, how to help stop binge eating, what are your real protein needs, and red-meat fear-mongering. We even discuss whether or not pigs like bacon. Enjoy!
(Just a note: I love Katch.me’s service; however, due to the contract language allowing Katch.me to have unlimited rights to my Periscope Videos, I have withdrawn from Katch and my videos are no longer available on this medium until the contract usage can be modified.)
Diseases seem to arrive in three’s each day in my office. Today I had three different patients with cholesterol concerns who were notably confused about what actually makes the cholesterol worse, and what causes weight gain. Each of them, like many patients that I see, were stuck in a state of confusion between low fat and low carbohydrate lifestyle change. My hope is to give my patients and anyone reading this blog a little more clarity regarding what cholesterol is, how it is influenced and how it affect our individual health.
First, the standard cholesterol profile does not give us a true picture of what is occurring at a cellular level. The standard cholesterol panel includes: total cholesterol (all the forms of cholesterol), HDL (the good stuff), LDL-C (the “bad” stuff) and triglycerides. It is important to recognize that the “-C” in these measurements stands for “a calculation” usually completed by the lab, and not an actual measurement. Total cholesterol, HDL-C and triglycerides are usually measured and LDL-C is calculated using the Friedewald equation [LDL = total cholesterol – HDL – (triglycerides/5)]. (No, there won’t be a quiz on this at the end . . . so relax.)
However, an ever increasing body evidence reveals that the concentration and size of the LDL particles correlates much more powerfully to the degree of atherosclerosis progression (arterial blockage) than the calculated LDL concentration or weight (1, 2, 3).
There are three sub-types of LDL that we each need to be aware of: Large “fluffy” LDL particles (type I), medium LDL particles (type II & III), and small dense LDL particles (type IV).
Weight & Size of VLDL, LDL & HDL
Why LDL-C is misleading: Identical LDL-C of 130 mg/dL can have a low risk (Pattern A) with a few “big fluffy LDL particles or high risk (Pattern B) with many small dense LDL particles.
Second, it is important to realize that HDL and LDL types are actually transport molecules for triglyceride – they are essentially buses for the triglycerides (the passengers). HDL can be simplistically thought of as taking triglycerides to the fat cells and LDL can be thought of as taking triglycerides from the fat cells to the muscles and other organs for use as fuel.
Third, it is the small dense LDL particles that are more easily oxidized and because of their size, are more likely to cause damage to the lining of the blood vessel leading to damage and blockage. The large boyant LDL (“big fluffy LDL particles”) contain more Vitamin E and are much less susceptible to oxidation and vascular wall damage.
Eating more fat or cholesterol DOES NOT raise small dense LDL particle number. Eating eggs, bacon and cheese does not raise your cholesterol! What increases small dense LDL particles then? It is the presence of higher levels of insulin. Insulin is increased because of carbohydrate (sugars, starches or fruits) ingestion. It is the bread or the oatmeal you eat with the bacon that is the culprit. The bread or starch stimulates and insulin response. Insulin stimulates the production of triglycerides and “calls out more small buses” to transport the increased triglyceride to the fat cells (4, 5, 6, 7).
Fourth, following a very low carbohydrate diet or ketogenic diet has been demonstrated to decreased small dense LDL particle number and correlates with a regression in vascular blockage (8, 9). So, what does this really mean to you and me? It means that the low-fat diet dogma that that has been touted from the rooftops and plastered across the cover of every magazine and health journal for the last 50 years is wrong. . . absolutely wrong.
I talk about this and answers questions on today’s Periscope. You can see the recording on Katch.me with the comments in real time here:
Superko HR, Gadesam RR. Is it LDL particle size or number that correlates with risk for cardiovascular disease? Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2008 Oct;10(5):377-85. PMID: 18706278
Rizzo M, Berneis K. Low-density lipoprotein size and cardiovascular risk assessment. QJM. 2006 Jan;99(1):1-14. PMID: 16371404
Rizzo M, Berneis K, Corrado E, Novo S. The significance of low-density-lipoproteins size in vascular diseases. Int Angiol. 2006 Mar;25(1):4-9. PMID:16520717
Howard BV, Wylie-Rosett J. Sugar and cardiovascular disease: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Nutrition of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002 Jul 23;106(4):523-7. PMID: 12135957
Elkeles RS. Blood glucose and coronary heart disease. European Heart Journal (2000) 21, 1735–1737 doi:10.1053/euhj.2000.2331
Stanhope KL, Bremer AA, Medici V, et al. Consumption of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Increase Postprandial Triglycerides, LDL-Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein-B in Young Men and Women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2011;96(10):E1596-E1605.
Shai I et al. Cirulation. 2010; 121:1200-1208
Krauss RM, et al. Prevalence of LDL subclass pattern B as a function of dietary carbohydrate content for each experimental diet before and after weight loss and stabilization with the diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2006; 83:1025-1031
Gentile M, Panico S, et al., Clinica Chimica Acta, 2013, Association between small dense LDL and early atherosclerosis in a sample of menopausal women, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University “Federico II” Medical School, Naples, Italy Division of Cardiology, Moscati Hospital, Aversa, Italy A. Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy
I’ve been hearing it all day. Almost every patient asked me the question: Is red meat really as bad as the World Health Organization is claiming? Multiple articles can be found today in the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and even in Money Magazine today. (Money Magazine . . . really?!)
The World Health Organization (WHO) is claiming that processed meats are cancer causing or carcinogenic on the same level as alcohol and asbestos. They also are claiming that red meat is “probably” carcinogenic. “Probably.” That’s a pretty big hedge for a claim of cancer after years of research was reviewed in meta-analysis. Probably is defined by Merriam-Webster to mean: “as far as one can tell.” Well, I can tell you, as far as I can tell, this is bad science being reported as fact to sway the lay mind in following an agenda.
The real story here is NOT that red meat is bad. The real story, that absolutely no one has mentioned, is the veiled agenda cloaked as blame placed on a source of food. This is the WHO’s first step in advancing the Global Warming Agenda.
“Oh, no, Dr. Nally. Here you go talking all that crazy conspiracy stuff!”
No, let me spell it out in the actual words of the World Health Organization.
First, the WHO Director General has published a Six Point Agenda, this year, specifically outlining her vision for high priority issues. The first point on this list of six is to “drive the global agenda . . . in the context of accelerating progress to the Millennium Development Goals.” (1) What in the world are Millennium Development Goals you may ask?
The Millennium Development Goals were first identified in 2000 at the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Conference and reconfirmed this year. These goals specifically outline a transformational vision of the world. The World Health Organization has taken these 16 goals as their “call to arms.” Goals #12 and #13 specifically discuss “ensuring sustainable food consumption patterns throughout the world” by “doubling agricultural growth” and restricting food production that worsens the “carbon footprint.” (2)
Over the last ten years, multiple progressive groups and sites have made the claim that the greatest threat to Climate Change is the cattle industry. They link cattle, livestock and our consumption of red meats to global warming and have been preaching the politics of nutrition. They claim that the only real way to stop climate change and global warming is to “eat less red meat and dairy products.” (3)
The claim is that if we each reduce the red meat in our diet, it will reduce the number of livestock around the world and decrease methane production . . . that causes global warming. I can personally attest to you, that if you eat a more vegetarian diet including cauliflower, broccoli, eggplant and legumes, you alone will increase the methane production in the atmosphere!
In fact, the Lancet, a well recognized medical journal, has published a series of articles yearly, starting in 2008, calling for the reduction in red meat, pork and livestock to control climate change. (Wait a minute? I thought the Lancet was a journal dedicated to diabetes?) All of their climate change/red meat research is based in meta-analysis consisting of “reported” meals by subjects from memory over a 5 year period. Who can remember what they ate last week? These authors then make claims of conjecture, stating that sources of meat “could be,” “may be,” or “probably are” harmful and “have the potential to” reduce climate change (4).
Second, links to cancer using processed meats are very, very small, . . . like a 0.04% chance of colon cancer if you eat processed meats. You have the same chance of getting hit by lightening in your lifetime – 0.04% chance (5). To liken this level of risk in the main stream media to that of smoking or asbestos exposure is immoral and unethical.
Urea Cycle
The concern for many regarding processed meats is the nitrate contents from nitrogen byproducts. About 5% of nitrates are converted into nitrites in the gut, and these can affect the oxidation within the colon an the blood stream. However, most of us handle these nitrites and nitrates through the urea cycle without any problem. Third, spinach, lettuce, cabbage, bok choy and carrots have two to five times higher nitrate concentrations than bacon and hot dogs (6). (Hmmm . . . wonder why the WHO didn’t classify spinach and lettuce as carcinogenic?) Fish produce nitrites in their waste and plants absorb the nitrites in the ponds and lakes and bodies of water they live in. (Look up aquaponics). Most of us have the ability to block the conversion and clear any nitrites out of our systems. The problem arises when we ingest foods that are high in nitrates in conjunction with high fructose corn syrup or “sugar,” to be simplistic. The hepatic (liver) metabolism of fructose in the presence of glucose (that’s what happens when we ingest sugar) inhibits endothelial nitric oxide synthase, increases insulin and suppresses the uric acid cycle allowing for build up of nitrites in the system. It’s the decreased nitric oxide and the high insulin response most of us get from eating the bread or juice with the bacon or the sausage that inhibits our ability to block the conversion leading to carcinogenic levels. (It ain’t the meat . . . its the sugar and the insuiln!!)
As for me, “pass the pastrami, I’m going to sit on the porch and watch a really amazing lightening storm.”
References:
WHO Director General Six Point Agenda, Publications. http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/6point_agenda_en.pdf, October 27, 2015.
United Nations – Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld, October 27, 2015
Time For Change. Are cows to blame for global warming? Are cattle the true cause for climate change? http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2. October 27, 2015.
Demaio, Alessandro R et al. The Lancet. Human and planetary health: towards a common language. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61044-3/fulltext#back-bib10. October 27, 2015.
National Geographic. Flash Facts about Lightening. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_lightningfacts.html
NG Hord et. al. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential health benefits. July 2009, Vol 90, 1-10.http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/1.full#cited-by. October 27, 2015.
