Celiac and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the possibility that intestinal damage due to gluten grains (primarily wheat) contributes to the diseases of civilization by inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If it were a contributing factor, we would expect to see a higher incidence of the common chronic diseases in newly-diagnosed celiac patients, who are often deficient in fat-soluble vitamins. We might also see a resolution of chronic disease in celiac patients who have been adhering faithfully to a long-term, gluten-free diet.

One thing that definitely associates with celiac disease is bone and tooth problems. Celiac patients often present with osteoporosis, osteopenia (thin bones), cavities or tooth enamel abnormalities (thanks Peter).

An Italian study showed that among 642 heart transplant candidates, 1.9% had anti-endomyosal antibodies (a feature of celiac), compared with 0.35% of controls. That's more than a 5-fold enrichment! The majority of those patients were presumably unaware of their celiac disease, so they were not eating a gluten-free diet.

Interestingly, celiac doesn't seem to cause obesity; to the contrary. That's one facet of modern health problems that it definitely does not cause.

The relationship between cancer and celiac disease is very interesting. The largest study I came across was conducted in Sweden using retrospective data from 12,000 celiac patients. They found that adult celiac patients have a higher overall risk of cancer, but that the extra risk disappears with age. The drop in cancer incidence may reflect dropping gluten following a celiac diagnosis. Here's another study showing that the elevated cancer risk occurs mostly in the first year after diagnosis, suggesting that eliminating gluten solves the problem. Interestingly, celiac patients have a greatly elevated risk of lymphoma, but a lower risk of breast cancer.

There's a very strong link between celiac and type I diabetes. In a large study, 1 in 8 type I diabetic children had celiac disease. This doesn't necessarily tell us much since celiac and type I diabetes are both autoimmune disorders.

One last study to add a nail to the coffin. Up to this point, all the studies I've mentioned have been purely observational, not able to establish a causal relationship. I came across a small study recently which examined the effect of a high-fiber diet on vitamin D metabolism in healthy (presumably non-celiac) adults. They broke the cohort up into two groups, and fed one group 20g of bran in addition to their normal diet. The other group got nothing extra. The bran-fed group had a vitamin D elimination half-life of 19.5 days, compared to 27.5 for the control group. In other words, for whatever reason, the group eating extra bran was burning through their vitamin D reserves 30% faster than the control group.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say what kind of bran it was, but it was probably wheat or oat (**Update- it's wheat bran**). This is important because it would determine if gluten was involved. Either way, it shows that something in grains can interfere with fat-soluble vitamin status, which is consistent with the staggering negative effect of wheat products on healthy non-industrialized cultures.

Add to this the possibility that most people may have some degree of gluten sensitivity, and you start to see a big problem. All together, the data are consistent with gluten grains interfering with fat-soluble vitamin status. As I discussed earlier, this could strongly contribute to the diseases of civilization. These data don't prove anything conclusively, but I do find them thought-provoking.

Thanks to Dudua for the CC photo

Celiac and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the possibility that intestinal damage due to gluten grains (primarily wheat) contributes to the diseases of civilization by inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If it were a contributing factor, we would expect to see a higher incidence of the common chronic diseases in newly-diagnosed celiac patients, who are often deficient in fat-soluble vitamins. We might also see a resolution of chronic disease in celiac patients who have been adhering faithfully to a long-term, gluten-free diet.

One thing that definitely associates with celiac disease is bone and tooth problems. Celiac patients often present with osteoporosis, osteopenia (thin bones), cavities or tooth enamel abnormalities (thanks Peter).

An Italian study showed that among 642 heart transplant candidates, 1.9% had anti-endomyosal antibodies (a feature of celiac), compared with 0.35% of controls. That's more than a 5-fold enrichment! The majority of those patients were presumably unaware of their celiac disease, so they were not eating a gluten-free diet.

Interestingly, celiac doesn't seem to cause obesity; to the contrary. That's one facet of modern health problems that it definitely does not cause.

The relationship between cancer and celiac disease is very interesting. The largest study I came across was conducted in Sweden using retrospective data from 12,000 celiac patients. They found that adult celiac patients have a higher overall risk of cancer, but that the extra risk disappears with age. The drop in cancer incidence may reflect dropping gluten following a celiac diagnosis. Here's another study showing that the elevated cancer risk occurs mostly in the first year after diagnosis, suggesting that eliminating gluten solves the problem. Interestingly, celiac patients have a greatly elevated risk of lymphoma, but a lower risk of breast cancer.

There's a very strong link between celiac and type I diabetes. In a large study, 1 in 8 type I diabetic children had celiac disease. This doesn't necessarily tell us much since celiac and type I diabetes are both autoimmune disorders.

One last study to add a nail to the coffin. Up to this point, all the studies I've mentioned have been purely observational, not able to establish a causal relationship. I came across a small study recently which examined the effect of a high-fiber diet on vitamin D metabolism in healthy (presumably non-celiac) adults. They broke the cohort up into two groups, and fed one group 20g of bran in addition to their normal diet. The other group got nothing extra. The bran-fed group had a vitamin D elimination half-life of 19.5 days, compared to 27.5 for the control group. In other words, for whatever reason, the group eating extra bran was burning through their vitamin D reserves 30% faster than the control group.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say what kind of bran it was, but it was probably wheat or oat (**Update- it's wheat bran**). This is important because it would determine if gluten was involved. Either way, it shows that something in grains can interfere with fat-soluble vitamin status, which is consistent with the staggering negative effect of wheat products on healthy non-industrialized cultures.

Add to this the possibility that most people may have some degree of gluten sensitivity, and you start to see a big problem. All together, the data are consistent with gluten grains interfering with fat-soluble vitamin status. As I discussed earlier, this could strongly contribute to the diseases of civilization. These data don't prove anything conclusively, but I do find them thought-provoking.

Thanks to Dudua for the CC photo

Had 3 meals today!

For breakfast I had half a pancake.

For lunch I had some Hungarian 'Gnoccedly' and 'Perkerd'. Y U M! I have absolutely NO idea how to spell these, so they are phonetic versions of what we were served up. Gnoccedly is a kind of homemade pasta put through a utensil that looks like a blunt cheese grater straight into boiling water. The result is a kind of pasta that looks like mini cumulus clouds... like the italian Gnocci but smaller and very tasty. This is then covered in this stuff called 'Perkerd'. Its chicken drumsticks cooked in an onion puree with pepper and paprika, tomato and sour cream sauce. Its wonderful. I managed a bowl of the pasta and a little of the sauce on it. I didn't even bother with the chicken.

For dinner I had a full Sunday Roast. 1 sprig of broccoli, 1 spoon carrots, 1/2 slice beef, 1/2 roast potato and a Yorkshire pudding smothered in gravy and horseradish served up on a tea plate. It was delish!

Two Things That Get on My Nerves, Part II

Confusing Correlation and Causation

Recently, a paper was published that examined the association between sleep duration and the risk of death. Ferrie et al. showed that in their study population, subjects who slept either more or less than 7 hours a night had an increased overall risk of death. Here's how it was reported in Medical News Today:

Too Little Or Too Much Sleep Increases Risk Of Death

And here's a gem of a quote from one of the study's authors (excerpt from the article above):

In terms of prevention, our findings indicate that consistently sleeping around 7 hours per night is optimal for health and a sustained reduction may predispose to ill-health.

There's only one small problem: the study indicated no such thing. What the study showed is that people who sleep more or less than 7 hours tend to die more often than people who don't, not that the lack or excess of sleep caused the increased mortality. Have you ever noticed that you sleep more when you're not feeling well? Have you ever noticed that you sleep less when you're stressed? Could the increased mortality and sleep disturbances both be caused by some other factor(s), rather than one causing the other? We don't know, because the nature of the study doesn't allow us to answer that question!

The message the public ends up hearing is that no matter what feels right for your body, 7 hours of sleep is the optimum for health. Even though you'll have to go to work with bags under your eyes, feeling like crap, it's healthy. Even though you have the flu, you'd better not sleep more because it might give you a heart attack. That paper is just another example of perfectly good data being misinterpreted, and leading to an absurd conclusion.

The only way we could say that 7 hours of sleep is the healthiest amount (for the "average" person), would be to do an "intervention study", in which the subjects are manipulated rather than simply observed. Here's how it would work: we would take a large group of people and randomly assign them to either 5, 7 or 9 hours of sleep a night. We would then look at mortality over the course of the next few years, and see who dies more.

Intervention studies are the only way to establish causality, rather than simple association! At the end of our study, we could rightfully say that X amount of sleep causes an increase or decrease in mortality. Obviously, these types of studies are challenging and expensive to conduct, so it's tempting to over-interpret epidemiological studies like the one I mentioned initially.

This has to be one of the gravest, most frequent mistakes in the realm of health research and reporting. So many of the health recommendations we get from the media, the government, and even so-called scientists are entirely based on associations! Things like fiber is healthy and saturated fat is unhealthy. Those are conclusions that were drawn from studies that could only determine associations, yet neither has been consistently supported by intervention trials!

Misinterpreted data is worse than no data at all. Just say no to bad science!

Two Things That Get on My Nerves, Part II

Confusing Correlation and Causation

Recently, a paper was published that examined the association between sleep duration and the risk of death. Ferrie et al. showed that in their study population, subjects who slept either more or less than 7 hours a night had an increased overall risk of death. Here's how it was reported in Medical News Today:

Too Little Or Too Much Sleep Increases Risk Of Death

And here's a gem of a quote from one of the study's authors (excerpt from the article above):

In terms of prevention, our findings indicate that consistently sleeping around 7 hours per night is optimal for health and a sustained reduction may predispose to ill-health.

There's only one small problem: the study indicated no such thing. What the study showed is that people who sleep more or less than 7 hours tend to die more often than people who don't, not that the lack or excess of sleep caused the increased mortality. Have you ever noticed that you sleep more when you're not feeling well? Have you ever noticed that you sleep less when you're stressed? Could the increased mortality and sleep disturbances both be caused by some other factor(s), rather than one causing the other? We don't know, because the nature of the study doesn't allow us to answer that question!

The message the public ends up hearing is that no matter what feels right for your body, 7 hours of sleep is the optimum for health. Even though you'll have to go to work with bags under your eyes, feeling like crap, it's healthy. Even though you have the flu, you'd better not sleep more because it might give you a heart attack. That paper is just another example of perfectly good data being misinterpreted, and leading to an absurd conclusion.

The only way we could say that 7 hours of sleep is the healthiest amount (for the "average" person), would be to do an "intervention study", in which the subjects are manipulated rather than simply observed. Here's how it would work: we would take a large group of people and randomly assign them to either 5, 7 or 9 hours of sleep a night. We would then look at mortality over the course of the next few years, and see who dies more.

Intervention studies are the only way to establish causality, rather than simple association! At the end of our study, we could rightfully say that X amount of sleep causes an increase or decrease in mortality. Obviously, these types of studies are challenging and expensive to conduct, so it's tempting to over-interpret epidemiological studies like the one I mentioned initially.

This has to be one of the gravest, most frequent mistakes in the realm of health research and reporting. So many of the health recommendations we get from the media, the government, and even so-called scientists are entirely based on associations! Things like fiber is healthy and saturated fat is unhealthy. Those are conclusions that were drawn from studies that could only determine associations, yet neither has been consistently supported by intervention trials!

Misinterpreted data is worse than no data at all. Just say no to bad science!

Two Things that Get on My Nerves, Part I

The "Thrifty Gene" Hypothesis

The thrifty gene hypothesis is the darling of many obesity researchers. It was proposed in 1962 by the geneticist James V. Neel to explain the high rates of obesity in modern populations, particularly modernizing American Indians. It states that our species evolved under conditions of frequent starvation, so we're designed to store every available calorie. In today's world of food abundance, our bodies continue to be thrifty and that's why we're fat.

Obesity researchers love it because it dovetails nicely with the equally dim "calories-in, calories-out hypothesis", whereby calories alone determine body composition. You practically can't read a paper on overweight without seeing an obligatory nod to the thrifty gene hypothesis. The only problem is, it's wrong.

The assumption that hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturalists lived under chronic calorie deprivation has been proven false. The anthropological evidence indicates that most hunter-gatherers had abundant food, most of the time. They did have fluctuations in energy balance, but the majority of the time they had access to more calories than they needed, just like us. Yet they were not fat.

The Kitavans are a good example. They are an agricultural society that eats virtually no grains or processed food. In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's studies, he has determined that overweight is virtually nonexistent among them, despite an abundant food supply.

The cause of obesity is not the availability of excess calories, it's the deregulation of the bodyweight homeostasis system. We have a very sophisticated set of feedback loops that "try" to maintain a healthy weight. It's composed of hormones (insulin, leptin, etc.), certain brain regions, and many other elements, known and unknown. These feedback loops influence what the body does with calories, as well as feeding behaviors. When you throw a wrench in the gears with a lifestyle that is unnatural to the human metabolism, you deregulate the system so that it no longer maintains an appropriate "set-point".

Here's what Neel had to say about his own theory in 1982 (excerpts from Good Calories, Bad Calories):

The data on which that (rather soft) hypothesis was based has now largely collapsed.

And what does he think causes overweight in American Indians now?

The composition of the diet, and more specifically the use of highly refined carbohydrates.

RIP, thrifty gene.


For more information on bodyweight regulation, see:

Insulin Controls Your Fat
Leptin and Lectins
Thoughts on Obesity Part I
Thoughts on Obesity Part II
Body Composition

Two Things that Get on My Nerves, Part I

The "Thrifty Gene" Hypothesis

The thrifty gene hypothesis is the darling of many obesity researchers. It was proposed in 1962 by the geneticist James V. Neel to explain the high rates of obesity in modern populations, particularly modernizing American Indians. It states that our species evolved under conditions of frequent starvation, so we're designed to store every available calorie. In today's world of food abundance, our bodies continue to be thrifty and that's why we're fat.

Obesity researchers love it because it dovetails nicely with the equally dim "calories-in, calories-out hypothesis", whereby calories alone determine body composition. You practically can't read a paper on overweight without seeing an obligatory nod to the thrifty gene hypothesis. The only problem is, it's wrong.

The assumption that hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturalists lived under chronic calorie deprivation has been proven false. The anthropological evidence indicates that most hunter-gatherers had abundant food, most of the time. They did have fluctuations in energy balance, but the majority of the time they had access to more calories than they needed, just like us. Yet they were not fat.

The Kitavans are a good example. They are an agricultural society that eats virtually no grains or processed food. In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's studies, he has determined that overweight is virtually nonexistent among them, despite an abundant food supply.

The cause of obesity is not the availability of excess calories, it's the deregulation of the bodyweight homeostasis system. We have a very sophisticated set of feedback loops that "try" to maintain a healthy weight. It's composed of hormones (insulin, leptin, etc.), certain brain regions, and many other elements, known and unknown. These feedback loops influence what the body does with calories, as well as feeding behaviors. When you throw a wrench in the gears with a lifestyle that is unnatural to the human metabolism, you deregulate the system so that it no longer maintains an appropriate "set-point".

Here's what Neel had to say about his own theory in 1982 (excerpts from Good Calories, Bad Calories):

The data on which that (rather soft) hypothesis was based has now largely collapsed.

And what does he think causes overweight in American Indians now?

The composition of the diet, and more specifically the use of highly refined carbohydrates.

RIP, thrifty gene.


For more information on bodyweight regulation, see:

Insulin Controls Your Fat
Leptin and Lectins
Thoughts on Obesity Part I
Thoughts on Obesity Part II
Body Composition

Wow, how tight am I?

Rather a loaded title, but you guys know what I mean!

had a couple of depressing food days.
Where are we... Thursday? Ok... well I will start with Tuesday then. It was really random and I must admit that I had a few thoughts about band slippage because it was so weird...

I don't think I ate anything all morning, and at lunch I had a couple of salami slices and half a slice of bread and butter. At about 3:30 I went off to work, and I was feeling mighty dodgy. I was sick at my pupils house... this was induced sickness rather than spontaneous. I am going to have to invent some word for this. Its not a pb. I hate that phrase too. I don't get pb's in the true sense of what they mean - productive burps. I get an elephant standing on my chest and have to induce vomiting. Then I feel better.

Ok... I am gonna call it HMS - as in Had to Make myself Sick

So, I HMS, and came home feeling a bit woozy. I really needed sugar ad I had that whole tremor thing going on. So I bought chocolate. 3 bars for £1 (bargain). Ate a couple of squares of Dairy Milk and then had to be sick at the side of my car in the village High Street. Nice. Then I went home. I felt terrible. It felt like I had swallowed a golf ball... but it was UNDER my band. It was like there was some massive thing I needed to throw up that was stuck under my band. It was voice changing, mucus producing, sweat beading-ly horrible. I was belching and grunting over the bathroom sink and spitting foam whilst DS phoned to cancel my pupils (which made me feel even better after having just been off for 2 weeks holiday!) But after about half an hour the belches subsided and I was exhausted. I went to lie down and slept until 7pm. I got up then and showed a new lodger around the room and decided that I was feeling remarkably well. How strange. I was still all shaky, so I drank some milk and then sucked the milky bar I had bought earlier. No problem. Then I cooked the dinner for everyone and laid the table and sat down to chilli con carne. There was NO way I could eat that in a million years. I had a few mouthfuls but knew immediately I had to HMS. I should have just not bothered, but I was hungry man! So I thought stuff food, and just drank juice. Later in the evening I had some of the left over bread and butter pudding that I had also made for the brood. This was nice because it was soggy and gooey and slipped down a treat. The shakes subsided and that brought Tuesday to an end. So Tuesdays food consisted of a bit of bread, a slice of salami, 1 chocolate bar and a serving of bread and butter pudding. Crap.

Yesterday? Well it was not too different to be honest, but at least I didn't have the whole "I am gonna chuck my band up through its own stoma" problem.

I got up and decided to have a banana. However, the band decided that this was SO not going to happen, and I managed 1 bite. I waited 30 minutes and then was able to drink a couple of sips of coffee. I was dying of thirst, but I just could do it. We went into town and booked a hall for my concert on the 5th July, and then it was only after maybe 2 or so hours had passed since the banana mystery that I finally drank my cold coffee and a bottle of water to boot. I have a habit of taking my coffee with me in the car because this kind of thing often happens, so it was dutifully waiting for me on our return from the shops.

Lunch ended up being the browning banana I had intended to eat for brekkie, as I wasn't that hungry and couldn't be bothered to do anything else. Then I cooked Puttanesca sauce ready for when I got home from work. and off I toddled. I did a full schedule of lessons and drank 1 cup of tea all afternoon, and when I got home I was starving. I fired up the burners under the pasta and then gathered the masses to feeding time. I managed the most POXY portion. It was about 6 quills of pasta and sauce and then a quick HMS and a 30 minute wait followed by 1 more quill and an olive. Rubbish. But I was satiated which is always the oddest thing to get my head around. It just doesn't seem real to be able to get so full on so little food. I MUST get used to this as this is I think the crux of any weightloss problems I have post banding.

So that was dinner and then about 10pm, I was peckish and I had a few slices of salami whilst playing Sims 2. I took a pint of orange juice to bed with me, and that was yesterday. Banana, pasta, Salami and juice.

Today I am feeling tight too. I knew when I rolled out of bed. I swallowed the last of the orange juice that I took to bed with me, and could 'feel' it. That's always a sure sign that there is absolutely No point whatsoever in bothering with breakfast as its a fight that I will not win.

So, shall update later, but that's it right now. Feeling in need of food big time. It seems a long time since I had a full meal, and I really really miss it. Its the swallowing part I miss most. To swallow a big mouthful just once more, would be really nice.

** The Update**

I am a little bit concerned to be fair... I have been able to eat nothing today. I didn't bother with breakfast as I said, and lunch came and went without me noticing it. Then I made a quiche for tonight's dinner, and went off to work. I was at my pupils house where they always give me food and today they had laid on 2 MASSIVE chunks of french bread with butter and jam and a chocolate bar from Thorntons! Phew. So I took a nice bite and as she left, and as soon as my pupils back was turned, I wrapped one of the slabs of bread and jam in the napkin and stuffed it in my bag. All was ok until I tried at the end of the lesson to quickly down the tea she had made and I knew I wasn't going to make it. I got out of the house and into the car, drove a little way down the road and HMS'd on the road.

Then I did another lesson and then went to the meeting and on the way to the meeting started eating the chocolate bar figuring that it wa nearly 7pm and I haven't eaten all day. Soon as I got to the meeting I HMS'd in the toilet. I am now at home, HMS'ing into the sink after having one of DS's crisps.

I know that all the stuff I am managing to eat is junk. This is half the reason I am trying to eat it, because I actually thought it would go down considering it always has before. I also know there is absolutely no point this side of tomorrow that I could eat anything approaching vegetable or meat based in solid form.

So, here ends yet another day of shit eating, shit eating habits and shitty vomiting and feeling... Shit.

Frankly I don't know what to do. shall I go on liquids for a couple of days or should I just persevere with food? I can at least drink, so I am making sure that I do. I have also been taking my berroca religiously because of this rubbish.

Anyone else ever had this problem? Am I too tight? - and if so... how is that possible since my last fill was ages ago?

Wow, I just don't know what to do. I feel like crying to be honest. I cant console myself in anything that will comfort me. I cant even eat goddamn chocolate!

The Seat of Power

Have you ever wondered why the buttocks is one of the most attractive parts of the body on both sexes? Here's the most common explanation I've heard mindlessly repeated: it's attractive because a man with a nice posterior will be better at thrusting during sex. I've also heard that it's purely aesthetic and nonfunctional, like a baboon's. Neither of these make any sense.

The shape of the buttocks comes mostly from the gluteal muscles (maximus and medius), superimposed by a layer of fat. The 'glutes' are some of the strongest muscles in the body, due to their large size and efficient leverage. Thrusting doesn't even come close to tapping into the glutes' tremendous power. What does? Heavy lifting. Sprints. Jumps. In short, some of the most functional full-body movements we perform as humans.

In any full-body movement, the hips are the central source of power. The strongest muscles surround the hips, and muscle strength diminishes progressively as you move further from them. A shapely buttocks is typically a strong buttocks, and a strong buttocks generally means a strong person. So if you want to decide at a glance whether a person is capable of sprinting and jumping after large prey, and then carrying it home, the buttocks is a good place to look.

The buttocks is also a storage area for fat. Humans tend to store a disproportionate amount of fat near their center of gravity: in the abdominal cavity, on the hips and on the buttocks. The right amount of fat indicates a healthy individual. A shapely buttocks is typically attached to someone who is strong and well-nourished. It's not so hard to imagine why we find it attractive.

The Seat of Power

Have you ever wondered why the buttocks is one of the most attractive parts of the body on both sexes? Here's the most common explanation I've heard mindlessly repeated: it's attractive because a man with a nice posterior will be better at thrusting during sex. I've also heard that it's purely aesthetic and nonfunctional, like a baboon's. Neither of these make any sense.

The shape of the buttocks comes mostly from the gluteal muscles (maximus and medius), superimposed by a layer of fat. The 'glutes' are some of the strongest muscles in the body, due to their large size and efficient leverage. Thrusting doesn't even come close to tapping into the glutes' tremendous power. What does? Heavy lifting. Sprints. Jumps. In short, some of the most functional full-body movements we perform as humans.

In any full-body movement, the hips are the central source of power. The strongest muscles surround the hips, and muscle strength diminishes progressively as you move further from them. A shapely buttocks is typically a strong buttocks, and a strong buttocks generally means a strong person. So if you want to decide at a glance whether a person is capable of sprinting and jumping after large prey, and then carrying it home, the buttocks is a good place to look.

The buttocks is also a storage area for fat. Humans tend to store a disproportionate amount of fat near their center of gravity: in the abdominal cavity, on the hips and on the buttocks. The right amount of fat indicates a healthy individual. A shapely buttocks is typically attached to someone who is strong and well-nourished. It's not so hard to imagine why we find it attractive.

Real Food VIII: Ghee

All this talk about butter is making me hungry. Richard mentioned in the comments that he bought some ghee recently and has been enjoying it, so I thought I'd post a recipe. Ghee is the Hindi word for clarified butter. It's butter that has had everything removed but the fat. Rich in fat-soluble vitamins and lacking the sometimes problematic lactose and casein, ghee has rightfully been considered a health food in India since ancient times.

Another advantage of ghee is its high smoke point, which is higher than butter because it doesn't contain any protein or sugars. Consequently, food sauteed in ghee has a clean, rich taste.

The recipe is simple but touchy. I recommend using the best butter you can get your hands on. 100% grass-fed, unsalted cultured butter is the best.

Ingredient and materials

• Butter (1 lb minimum)
• Wide-mouth glass jars
• Cheesecloth
• Rubber bands
  

Recipe

1. Place the butter in a saucepan and turn the heat to medium until it's melted.
   
2. Once it begins to boil, turn the heat down to low. It's very important to calibrate the heat correctly. Typically, you will want the burner on its lowest setting. The idea is to evaporate the water without burning the oil. It should boil, but slowly.
3. The melted butter starts out cloudy but gradually clears up as the water evaporates. At the same time, a crust will form on the surface of the ghee and the bottom of the pan. Keep the heat very low.
   
4. Push a portion of the top crust to the side with a spoon to see inside of the saucepan. When the butter looks clear and bubbles only rise from the bottom every few seconds, it's done. You have to be very careful because once the water has evaporated, the fat heats up quickly and burns the crust. This gives the ghee an acrid flavor and color. Make sure to handle the pot cautiously, because hot oil can give severe burns.
   
5. Allow the ghee to cool until it's warm but not hot. Place a piece of cheesecloth over the lid of your jar. Secure it with a rubber band. Pour the ghee through the cheesecloth, into the jar.
   
6. Store ghee in the refrigerator or at room temperature. It keeps much longer than butter.

The picture above is of my last batch of ghee.

Real Food VIII: Ghee

All this talk about butter is making me hungry. Richard mentioned in the comments that he bought some ghee recently and has been enjoying it, so I thought I'd post a recipe. Ghee is the Hindi word for clarified butter. It's butter that has had everything removed but the fat. Rich in fat-soluble vitamins and lacking the sometimes problematic lactose and casein, ghee has rightfully been considered a health food in India since ancient times.

Another advantage of ghee is its high smoke point, which is higher than butter because it doesn't contain any protein or sugars. Consequently, food sauteed in ghee has a clean, rich taste.

The recipe is simple but touchy. I recommend using the best butter you can get your hands on. 100% grass-fed, unsalted cultured butter is the best.

Ingredient and materials

• Butter (1 lb minimum)
• Wide-mouth glass jars
• Cheesecloth
• Rubber bands
  

Recipe

1. Place the butter in a saucepan and turn the heat to medium until it's melted.
   
2. Once it begins to boil, turn the heat down to low. It's very important to calibrate the heat correctly. Typically, you will want the burner on its lowest setting. The idea is to evaporate the water without burning the oil. It should boil, but slowly.
3. The melted butter starts out cloudy but gradually clears up as the water evaporates. At the same time, a crust will form on the surface of the ghee and the bottom of the pan. Keep the heat very low.
   
4. Push a portion of the top crust to the side with a spoon to see inside of the saucepan. When the butter looks clear and bubbles only rise from the bottom every few seconds, it's done. You have to be very careful because once the water has evaporated, the fat heats up quickly and burns the crust. This gives the ghee an acrid flavor and color. Make sure to handle the pot cautiously, because hot oil can give severe burns.
   
5. Allow the ghee to cool until it's warm but not hot. Place a piece of cheesecloth over the lid of your jar. Secure it with a rubber band. Pour the ghee through the cheesecloth, into the jar.
   
6. Store ghee in the refrigerator or at room temperature. It keeps much longer than butter.

The picture above is of my last batch of ghee.

Flattering Clothes for a Larger Waist

Here's a video with Katie Stiles showing off five inexpensive summer tops that help hide a very slight post-pregnancy belly. They're all available at Eddie Bauer online for under $40.

More Fat-Soluble Vitamin Musing

If vitamin A, D and K2 deficiency are important contributors to the characteristic pattern of chronic disease in modern societies (the 'disease of civilization'), we should see certain associations. We would expect to find a lower fat-soluble vitamin status along with the most prevalent chronic diseases: cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, tooth decay, etc. We would also expect that improving vitamin status could reduce the incidence or recurrence of these diseases, which would be more convincing than a simple association.

Let's start with cancer. This one is like shooting fish in a barrel. There are consistent associations between low vitamin D status and numerous cancers, most notably breast and colon. And it doesn't just stop at associations. Here's a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showing a 60% reduction of internal cancers in 1,179 American women taking 1,100 IU of D3 (and calcium) per day for 4 years. I won't go through the rest of the mountain of data linking low vitamin D to cancer, but if you want to see more science go here.

Vitamin K2 has been less well studied in this respect, but preliminary evidence is promising. Cancer patients are often vitamin K deficient. Supplementation with menatetrenone (K2 isoform MK-4) may reduce the recurrence of liver cancer. There's a strong inverse association between K2 intake and advanced prostate cancer, with the effect coming mostly from dairy.

In my post on K2 last week, I mentioned a study in which investigators found a strong inverse association between K2 consumption and cardiovascular as well as all-cause mortality. Patients with severe arterial calcifications tend to be K2 deficient, and K2 deficiency can induce arterial calcification in rodents. Marcoumar, a drug that interferes with K2 status, also causes calcification in humans. There's a mechanism behind K2's effect on CVD. There are several K2-dependent proteins that may protect the arteries from calcification, lipid accumulation and damage: matrix Gla protein, gas6, and protein S.

There is also a compelling association between vitamin D status and cardiovascular disease. Here's a quote from one study that struck me:

The adjusted prevalence of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.30), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.98), obesity (OR, 2.29), and high serum triglyceride levels (OR, 1.47) was significantly higher in the first than in the fourth quartile of serum 25(OH)D levels (P<.001 for all).

In other words, the 25% of people with the lowest D status are more likely to have hypertension and high triglycerides, and much more likely to be obese and/or have diabetes than the 25% with the highest D status. Keep in mind it's just an association, but that is nevertheless an impressive list of problems that are linked to low D status. Here's a large study that looked specifically at the association of vitamin D status and heart attack risk, and found a strong association even for people who are only mildly deficient. Supplementing elderly women with a modest amount of D3 improves hypertension.

The link between fat-soluble vitamins and bone/dental health is very strong. Vitamins D and K2 are required for proper formation and mineralization of the bones and teeth, and proper development of the cranium and face (this is exactly what Weston Price saw). K2 supplementation has a major protective effect on osteoporosis and fractures, according to several controlled trials. The salivary glands have the highest concentration of K2 MK-4 of any organ, and they secrete it into saliva along with K2-dependent proteins. Weston Price documented the dramatic protective effect of cod liver oil (A and D) and butter oil (A and K2) against tooth decay.

I couldn't find any consistent associations between vitamin A status and chronic disease. This may be because, as opposed to D and K2, few people in the US or Europe are deficient. It's interesting to note that grain-fed dairy is still a good source of vitamin A, while it loses most of the vitamin D and K2 that's found in grass-fed dairy.

Osteoporosis and arterial calcification are not due to a lack or an excess of calcium. In fact, the two problems often come hand-in-hand. Calcium supplements are unnecessary at best. The Japanese, who eat far less calcium than the average American, have a lower risk of osteoporosis and fracture. The problem with both osteoporosis and arterial calcification is that the body is not using its calcium effectively. The studies mentioned above show that the fat-soluble vitamins are critical for proper calcium use by the body, among other things.

I hope you can see that a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins could well be a major contributor to the characteristic pattern of diseases that afflict industrialized nations. There are two more facts that we need to complete the picture. First of all, most Americans are vitamin D deficient and nearly all of us are K2 deficient. A, D and K are synergistic. A and D have their own nuclear receptors that alter the transcription of hundreds of genes, while K activates many of these genes once they are translated into proteins. Thus, you'd expect that giving them together would have a much larger effect that giving them alone. This suggests that the studies using single vitamins may be falling far short of the protection afforded by optimal status of all three.

More Fat-Soluble Vitamin Musing

If vitamin A, D and K2 deficiency are important contributors to the characteristic pattern of chronic disease in modern societies (the 'disease of civilization'), we should see certain associations. We would expect to find a lower fat-soluble vitamin status along with the most prevalent chronic diseases: cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, tooth decay, etc. We would also expect that improving vitamin status could reduce the incidence or recurrence of these diseases, which would be more convincing than a simple association.

Let's start with cancer. This one is like shooting fish in a barrel. There are consistent associations between low vitamin D status and numerous cancers, most notably breast and colon. And it doesn't just stop at associations. Here's a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showing a 60% reduction of internal cancers in 1,179 American women taking 1,100 IU of D3 (and calcium) per day for 4 years. I won't go through the rest of the mountain of data linking low vitamin D to cancer, but if you want to see more science go here.

Vitamin K2 has been less well studied in this respect, but preliminary evidence is promising. Cancer patients are often vitamin K deficient. Supplementation with menatetrenone (K2 isoform MK-4) may reduce the recurrence of liver cancer. There's a strong inverse association between K2 intake and advanced prostate cancer, with the effect coming mostly from dairy.

In my post on K2 last week, I mentioned a study in which investigators found a strong inverse association between K2 consumption and cardiovascular as well as all-cause mortality. Patients with severe arterial calcifications tend to be K2 deficient, and K2 deficiency can induce arterial calcification in rodents. Marcoumar, a drug that interferes with K2 status, also causes calcification in humans. There's a mechanism behind K2's effect on CVD. There are several K2-dependent proteins that may protect the arteries from calcification, lipid accumulation and damage: matrix Gla protein, gas6, and protein S.

There is also a compelling association between vitamin D status and cardiovascular disease. Here's a quote from one study that struck me:

The adjusted prevalence of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.30), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.98), obesity (OR, 2.29), and high serum triglyceride levels (OR, 1.47) was significantly higher in the first than in the fourth quartile of serum 25(OH)D levels (P<.001 for all).

In other words, the 25% of people with the lowest D status are more likely to have hypertension and high triglycerides, and much more likely to be obese and/or have diabetes than the 25% with the highest D status. Keep in mind it's just an association, but that is nevertheless an impressive list of problems that are linked to low D status. Here's a large study that looked specifically at the association of vitamin D status and heart attack risk, and found a strong association even for people who are only mildly deficient. Supplementing elderly women with a modest amount of D3 improves hypertension.

The link between fat-soluble vitamins and bone/dental health is very strong. Vitamins D and K2 are required for proper formation and mineralization of the bones and teeth, and proper development of the cranium and face (this is exactly what Weston Price saw). K2 supplementation has a major protective effect on osteoporosis and fractures, according to several controlled trials. The salivary glands have the highest concentration of K2 MK-4 of any organ, and they secrete it into saliva along with K2-dependent proteins. Weston Price documented the dramatic protective effect of cod liver oil (A and D) and butter oil (A and K2) against tooth decay.

I couldn't find any consistent associations between vitamin A status and chronic disease. This may be because, as opposed to D and K2, few people in the US or Europe are deficient. It's interesting to note that grain-fed dairy is still a good source of vitamin A, while it loses most of the vitamin D and K2 that's found in grass-fed dairy.

Osteoporosis and arterial calcification are not due to a lack or an excess of calcium. In fact, the two problems often come hand-in-hand. Calcium supplements are unnecessary at best. The Japanese, who eat far less calcium than the average American, have a lower risk of osteoporosis and fracture. The problem with both osteoporosis and arterial calcification is that the body is not using its calcium effectively. The studies mentioned above show that the fat-soluble vitamins are critical for proper calcium use by the body, among other things.

I hope you can see that a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins could well be a major contributor to the characteristic pattern of diseases that afflict industrialized nations. There are two more facts that we need to complete the picture. First of all, most Americans are vitamin D deficient and nearly all of us are K2 deficient. A, D and K are synergistic. A and D have their own nuclear receptors that alter the transcription of hundreds of genes, while K activates many of these genes once they are translated into proteins. Thus, you'd expect that giving them together would have a much larger effect that giving them alone. This suggests that the studies using single vitamins may be falling far short of the protection afforded by optimal status of all three.

having a seriously tight day... just when I dont want to

I really want to eat.

Really really really badly!

I went to fat fighters this morning and surveyed the damage I did to my holiday weight gain... 15 stone 9 pounds. Excellent. That's 2 pounds of the gain down the bog.

I took a banana for me and TB to eat after the weigh in, but I managed 1 bite and had to chuck the rest. Half way home I had to stop mid-roadway and puke it up.

Lunch - grabbed some of last nights risotto and some smoked salmon I had in the fridge. Had 2 mouthfuls when Lotse announced that lunch was ready. Gulp. I was already full and about to be sick. I had seen the ominous cauldron bubbling on the stove, but assumed that it was a massive stew for his gigantic appetite and his wife to share. Wrong. His wife made us traditional Hungarian Goulash (pronounced Goo-yash) which we HAD to eat. Double Gulp.

DH said "Quick... go throw that up so you can get a bowl of this down you" and as it would happen that is what I was going to have to do anyway, Goulash or not. so I threw up my 2 spoons of risotto and it had such an air pocket behind it where I must have gulped it down or something, that it actually Hit the sink at the speed of light and pebble-dashed the wall. Great.

My goodness, no wonder I felt as if I had a stone down my gullet. I have never had that before, but it was like a big bubble of air trapped behind a bolus of food. Proper horrid anyway.

So, I sat down to (thankfully) some goulash which I could eat as the soup is very thin and I just left the veg in the bowl. I got away with it thankfully.

I went to work, and have not had any dinner yet... I am just debating what it will be. I had a couple of DS's Jelly beans that my sister gave to him for dreaming up her new website name. They are sitting in there right now, so although I want to stuff my face with chocolates and stuff because I am having PMT from hell and back, I cant.

Meditation

Meditation is the single most effective tool I've ever found for cultivating calmness, positivity and self-acceptance. It's an ancient technique that's simple and free. In fact, it's so simple, I'm about to teach it to you in five minutes over the internet. I personally practice Zen meditation
several times a week, by myself and with a sitting group. Meditation is not fundamentally a religious practice, although it has been used by spiritual people in every major religion. Don't think you're patient enough for meditation? That's exactly why you should be doing it!

Let's start with posture. The main purpose of the meditation posture is to allow you to remain still for long periods of time without discomfort. I'll discuss two postures: cross-legged and kneeling. Before you elevate your mind though, you have to elevate your backside. Find something you can sit on- a firm cushion or a folded blanket will work well. Your pelvis should be at least four inches above the ground. Now cross your legs. Your knees should be lower than your pelvis. Adjust your posture until you can maintain a straight back without any muscle tension. You'll have to rotate the top of your pelvis forward slightly, curving your lower back in toward your stomach.

Now put your hands together so that your left fingers rest on top of your right ones, just above your lap. Your palms should face up. Now touch your thumbs lightly together. That's it! You are now sitting in a very nice meditation posture. It will get more comfortable over time as you adjust to it.

The kneeling posture is the same except you kneel and put the support under your pelvis, between your legs. Wooden 'seiza' benches work well for this, but are not necessary. Your pelvis should be at least six inches off the ground so that you don't hurt your knees. This is my preferred posture, but I'm admittedly in the minority.

Now that you know the posture, face a blank wall three or four feet away. You can also look at the floor (while keeping your head and neck straight) or anything else that isn't likely to capture your interest.

Try breathing 'into your stomach'. To do this, breathe using only your diaphragm, in such a way that it makes your stomach rise and fall rather than your chest. Breathe slowly and deliberatley, pausing after each exhale. Bring your full attention to the rise and fall of your stomach. That's it, you're meditating! Really. Don't get fancy: it's counterproductive to try to actively relax yourself or achieve some different mental state.

In Zen, we call meditation 'sitting'. We use such a simple word because that's all it is: paying full attention to the moment, while you sit. Just bring your attention to your breath. If your mind drifts, gently bring it back. Don't try to stifle your thoughts, just acknowledge them and come back to your breath. If you can't focus, that's normal.

Try this for 15 minutes at first. Every day is best, but do what you can. When you're more comfortable with the technique, increase your time to 30 minutes. Meditation is a practice that changes and ripens with time.

Meditation

Meditation is the single most effective tool I've ever found for cultivating calmness, positivity and self-acceptance. It's an ancient technique that's simple and free. In fact, it's so simple, I'm about to teach it to you in five minutes over the internet. I personally practice Zen meditation
several times a week, by myself and with a sitting group. Meditation is not fundamentally a religious practice, although it has been used by spiritual people in every major religion. Don't think you're patient enough for meditation? That's exactly why you should be doing it!

Let's start with posture. The main purpose of the meditation posture is to allow you to remain still for long periods of time without discomfort. I'll discuss two postures: cross-legged and kneeling. Before you elevate your mind though, you have to elevate your backside. Find something you can sit on- a firm cushion or a folded blanket will work well. Your pelvis should be at least four inches above the ground. Now cross your legs. Your knees should be lower than your pelvis. Adjust your posture until you can maintain a straight back without any muscle tension. You'll have to rotate the top of your pelvis forward slightly, curving your lower back in toward your stomach.

Now put your hands together so that your left fingers rest on top of your right ones, just above your lap. Your palms should face up. Now touch your thumbs lightly together. That's it! You are now sitting in a very nice meditation posture. It will get more comfortable over time as you adjust to it.

The kneeling posture is the same except you kneel and put the support under your pelvis, between your legs. Wooden 'seiza' benches work well for this, but are not necessary. Your pelvis should be at least six inches off the ground so that you don't hurt your knees. This is my preferred posture, but I'm admittedly in the minority.

Now that you know the posture, face a blank wall three or four feet away. You can also look at the floor (while keeping your head and neck straight) or anything else that isn't likely to capture your interest.

Try breathing 'into your stomach'. To do this, breathe using only your diaphragm, in such a way that it makes your stomach rise and fall rather than your chest. Breathe slowly and deliberatley, pausing after each exhale. Bring your full attention to the rise and fall of your stomach. That's it, you're meditating! Really. Don't get fancy: it's counterproductive to try to actively relax yourself or achieve some different mental state.

In Zen, we call meditation 'sitting'. We use such a simple word because that's all it is: paying full attention to the moment, while you sit. Just bring your attention to your breath. If your mind drifts, gently bring it back. Don't try to stifle your thoughts, just acknowledge them and come back to your breath. If you can't focus, that's normal.

Try this for 15 minutes at first. Every day is best, but do what you can. When you're more comfortable with the technique, increase your time to 30 minutes. Meditation is a practice that changes and ripens with time.

The Dhamma Brothers

I saw a movie a few nights ago called 'The Dhamma Brothers'. It's about a meditation program at Donaldson correctional facility in Alabama, one of the most violent prisons in the country. Two Bhuddist teachers of Vipassana meditation led a 10-day silent retreat for a volunteer group of inmates. They got up at dawn and meditated for several hours each day. Some of the inmates went through an amazing transformation.

They were forced to confront and accept the horrible crimes they had committed. When you aren't allowed to talk for 10 days, and all you have are your thoughts to keep you company, it's hard to ignore your feelings. Many of them had breakdowns as they felt the full force of their own suffering for the first time.

At first, the warden was skeptical that the prisoners were just acting to get parole; "fake it 'til you make it". Then he started noticing major changes in the inmates' behavior. They became less violent and easier to deal with. Some of them left their gangs. Even after the program was discontinued thanks to an overzealous chaplain, many of the "Dhamma brothers" continued meditating on their own.

It's hard to doubt a grown man's sincerity when you see tears running down his cheeks. These men were hardened criminals, most of them serving life sentences for murder, who rediscovered perspective and humanity simply by spending focused time with themselves.

Meditation is a powerful tool. There are two types of knowledge: intellectual and visceral. You can read books until you're cross-eyed and you will never connect with the fundamental, animal, visceral side of living. We like to think of ourselves as rational, conscious beings. It's reassuring to us. We're in control of our minds and therefore our lives. But that's more illusion than reality.

Neuroscience and meditation have shown us that the human mind is like a monkey riding an elephant. The monkey is our conscious and the elephant is our subconscious. The monkey can tell the elephant where to go, but ultimately the elephant is going to do what it wants. The monkey likes to be in charge however, so it retroactively decides it was the one that chose the direction.

To illustrate the point, imagine doing a simple algebra problem. Do you have to go over everything you ever learned about algebra in your head to solve that problem? No, your subconscious navigates the strata of accumulated knowledge and practically hands you the answer. What happens when you decide on an entree at a restaurant? Do you make a pro/con list for each item and weigh them accordingly? Or do you decide based on a feeling? Where does that feeling come from?

Meditation is plugging back into the vastness of human experience. It's acknowledging that your conscious, declarative mind is only a small slice of the pie.

The Dhamma Brothers

I saw a movie a few nights ago called 'The Dhamma Brothers'. It's about a meditation program at Donaldson correctional facility in Alabama, one of the most violent prisons in the country. Two Bhuddist teachers of Vipassana meditation led a 10-day silent retreat for a volunteer group of inmates. They got up at dawn and meditated for several hours each day. Some of the inmates went through an amazing transformation.

They were forced to confront and accept the horrible crimes they had committed. When you aren't allowed to talk for 10 days, and all you have are your thoughts to keep you company, it's hard to ignore your feelings. Many of them had breakdowns as they felt the full force of their own suffering for the first time.

At first, the warden was skeptical that the prisoners were just acting to get parole; "fake it 'til you make it". Then he started noticing major changes in the inmates' behavior. They became less violent and easier to deal with. Some of them left their gangs. Even after the program was discontinued thanks to an overzealous chaplain, many of the "Dhamma brothers" continued meditating on their own.

It's hard to doubt a grown man's sincerity when you see tears running down his cheeks. These men were hardened criminals, most of them serving life sentences for murder, who rediscovered perspective and humanity simply by spending focused time with themselves.

Meditation is a powerful tool. There are two types of knowledge: intellectual and visceral. You can read books until you're cross-eyed and you will never connect with the fundamental, animal, visceral side of living. We like to think of ourselves as rational, conscious beings. It's reassuring to us. We're in control of our minds and therefore our lives. But that's more illusion than reality.

Neuroscience and meditation have shown us that the human mind is like a monkey riding an elephant. The monkey is our conscious and the elephant is our subconscious. The monkey can tell the elephant where to go, but ultimately the elephant is going to do what it wants. The monkey likes to be in charge however, so it retroactively decides it was the one that chose the direction.

To illustrate the point, imagine doing a simple algebra problem. Do you have to go over everything you ever learned about algebra in your head to solve that problem? No, your subconscious navigates the strata of accumulated knowledge and practically hands you the answer. What happens when you decide on an entree at a restaurant? Do you make a pro/con list for each item and weigh them accordingly? Or do you decide based on a feeling? Where does that feeling come from?

Meditation is plugging back into the vastness of human experience. It's acknowledging that your conscious, declarative mind is only a small slice of the pie.

I am back

and I came home with a little bit more of me that what I went with!

I had an ace time in Malta. It was really lovely and relaxing. Even though we only got home yesterday evening it seems like we have never been away... except for the washing and the size of the kittens! They are massive now. they are also weaned and using the litter tray I think... I haven't seen any evidence of them using the tray, but there is no other evidence if you know what I mean!! HA HA.

So I now weigh 15 stone 11 pounds this morning. I am SO pleased that I didn't get back to 16 stone. I would have died if I had been out of the 15 stones and back up into the 16's. that would have made me eat some serious chocolate!

So back to normal without 15 vodka and lemonades, crisps, burgers and all kinds of ice cream sweets and crap... hopefully I will lose a few this week.

5 pounds is a bit of a brutal amount to put on, but I am not surprised. It was down to drink and ice cream because I didn't eat all that much. I didn't have too many pukes and no bad chokes at all. The first few days in Malta were difficult as the band was SUPER TIGHT. Honestly, it was like an over enthusiastic straitjacket, and I managed to eat barely nothing, so I made sure I drank plenty. All the lemonade was 'full fat' and I let it go nice and flat and drank that, orange juice, which in fact was more like sunny delight... so I guess really sugar loaded, wine, vodka and lots of cappuccino and of course bottle water too. I hate flat coke, so the only diet drink that I could have had I don't like and refuse to drink.

Whilst there I found an excellent breakfast was (in this order):

2 small glasses of orange juice (Sunny D style)

2 espresso's with cold milk (I use espresso in the loosest possible terms!)

1 slice of nimble style bread and butter with

3 slices of salami (Danish style).

Lunch:
anywhere between 2 bites and a whole burger

or a packet of crisps

Dinner:

anything from 3 calamari to a whole plate of ratatouille

if its wet I can eat it... ratatouille or veg with gravy or mash potato with gravy etc.

if its dry I can eat a bit - palm of the hand size.

Meat seems to be a bit of a no no unless I eat it with some kind of vegetable in the same mouthful. A mouthful now-a-days is about the size of a prawn or 6 peas.

So there we go. All terribly interesting I am sure!

I will take a new photo when I get a bit lower and post it on. Meanwhile you can check out this claim to fame photo of me and DS with Glynn from Big Brother 2006. He was staying in our hotel with his Mum and Dad. Lovely lad.

Vitamin Deficiency

I'm going to do some speculating today. More than usual. What are some of the deficiency symptoms of A, D and K2? Another way of putting the question is, what problems can you prevent or cure by giving people the right fat-soluble vitamins? If you read my last post, you know that cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis (and resulting fractures) and tooth decay are all strongly linked to fat-soluble vitamin status, probably in a causal way. There's also a strong suggestion that they could be involved in diabetes, kidney stones, resistance to infection and cancer. Well, we've just about covered all the major modern health problems, haven't we?

What if the 'disease of civilization' is simply a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins? What if the only reason we haven't realized it yet is because we haven't understood the critical importance of K2 MK-4, and its synergy with A and D? I'm not totally convinced it's true, but it does make sense. I'm interested to hear other peoples' opinions on this.

There are two mechanisms that could cause deficiency. The first is the obvious: reduced intake. In general, we have a lower intake of A, D (from sunlight) and especially K2 than non-industrial populations past and present that did not suffer from the disease of civilization. Most Westerners fall short of optimal serum vitamin D, and K2 deficiency is nearly ubiquitous.

Reading Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, as well as other accounts of non-industrial groups transitioning from their traditional diets to a more Westernized one, it struck me how badly these people were being affected. Even when they were still eating some nutrient-dense traditional foods, their development and health suffered tremendously. I asked myself this question: could the Western food they were eating have actively interfered with their vitamin status, and could it be doing the same to us?

The most common foods that replaced traditional diets in Weston Price's studies were white wheat flour and sugar. Wheat contains a lot of gluten, which in some people causes celiac disease. Celiac is an immune response to gluten that causes the degeneration of the intestinal lining, which is responsible for absorbing nutrients, among other things. Celiac patients are often deficient in many nutrients, including fat-soluble vitamins. So there's clearly a link between gluten damage and fat-soluble vitamin status.

The interesting thing about celiac is it may actually be a spectrum, with nearly everyone showing some degree of gluten damage, but only severe cases being diagnosed. The diagnosis involves looking for antibodies against gluten, but there is evidence that some people may mount an immune response without producing antibodies (through the innate immune system). Peter pointed this out a while back.

So the hypothesis goes: the disease of civilization is caused by a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins, due to both a lower intake and inefficient absorption through a damaged intestinal lining. Comments?

Vitamin Deficiency

I'm going to do some speculating today. More than usual. What are some of the deficiency symptoms of A, D and K2? Another way of putting the question is, what problems can you prevent or cure by giving people the right fat-soluble vitamins? If you read my last post, you know that cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis (and resulting fractures) and tooth decay are all strongly linked to fat-soluble vitamin status, probably in a causal way. There's also a strong suggestion that they could be involved in diabetes, kidney stones, resistance to infection and cancer. Well, we've just about covered all the major modern health problems, haven't we?

What if the 'disease of civilization' is simply a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins? What if the only reason we haven't realized it yet is because we haven't understood the critical importance of K2 MK-4, and its synergy with A and D? I'm not totally convinced it's true, but it does make sense. I'm interested to hear other peoples' opinions on this.

There are two mechanisms that could cause deficiency. The first is the obvious: reduced intake. In general, we have a lower intake of A, D (from sunlight) and especially K2 than non-industrial populations past and present that did not suffer from the disease of civilization. Most Westerners fall short of optimal serum vitamin D, and K2 deficiency is nearly ubiquitous.

Reading Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, as well as other accounts of non-industrial groups transitioning from their traditional diets to a more Westernized one, it struck me how badly these people were being affected. Even when they were still eating some nutrient-dense traditional foods, their development and health suffered tremendously. I asked myself this question: could the Western food they were eating have actively interfered with their vitamin status, and could it be doing the same to us?

The most common foods that replaced traditional diets in Weston Price's studies were white wheat flour and sugar. Wheat contains a lot of gluten, which in some people causes celiac disease. Celiac is an immune response to gluten that causes the degeneration of the intestinal lining, which is responsible for absorbing nutrients, among other things. Celiac patients are often deficient in many nutrients, including fat-soluble vitamins. So there's clearly a link between gluten damage and fat-soluble vitamin status.

The interesting thing about celiac is it may actually be a spectrum, with nearly everyone showing some degree of gluten damage, but only severe cases being diagnosed. The diagnosis involves looking for antibodies against gluten, but there is evidence that some people may mount an immune response without producing antibodies (through the innate immune system). Peter pointed this out a while back.

So the hypothesis goes: the disease of civilization is caused by a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins, due to both a lower intake and inefficient absorption through a damaged intestinal lining. Comments?

Coddled Eggs

I have joined the highly esteemed group of Neighborhood Coddlers thanks to Celadon & Lynn - Look! Celadon taught Lynn and I how to coddle eggs while we at our Director's Meeting. They are so delicious and soft on the tummy. I am thrilled to join the Coddlers. These two are Royal Worcester made in England. The pattern is perfect: berries and blossoms. What an honor to receive such a thoughtful

Vitamin K2, menatetrenone (MK-4)

Weston Price established the importance of the MK-4 isoform of vitamin K2 (hereafter, K2) with a series of interesting experiments. He showed in chickens that blood levels of calcium and phosphorus depended both on vitamin A and K2, and that the two had synergistic effects on mineral absorption. He also showed that chickens preferred eating butter that was rich in K2 over butter low in K2, even when the investigators couldn't distinguish between them. Young turkeys fed K2-containing butter oil along with cod liver oil (A and D) also grew at a much faster rate than turkeys fed cod liver oil alone.

He hypothesized that vitamin A, vitamin D and vitamin K2 were synergistic and essential for proper growth and subsequent health. He particularly felt that the combination was important for proper mineral absorption and metabolism. He used a combination of high-vitamin cod liver oil and high-vitamin butter oil to heal cavities, reduce oral bacteria counts, and cure numerous other afflictions in his patients. He also showed that the healthy non-industrial groups he studied had a much higher intake of these fat-soluble, animal-derived vitamins than more modern cultures.

Price found an inverse correlation between the levels of K2 in butter and mortality from cardiovascular disease and pneumonia in a number of different regions. A recent study examined the relationship between K2 (MK-4 through 10) consumption and heart attack risk in 4,600 Dutch men. They found a strong inverse association between K2 consumption and heart attack mortality risk. Men with the highest K2 consumption had a whopping 51% lower risk of heart attack mortality and a 26% lower risk of death from all causes compared to men eating the least K2! Their sources of K2 MK-4 were eggs, meats and dairy. They obtained MK-5 through MK-10 from fermented foods and fish. The investigators found no association with K1, the form found in plants.

Perigord, France is the world's capital of foie gras, or fatty goose liver. Good news for the bon vivants: foie gras turns out to be the richest known source of K2. Perigord also has the lowest rate of cardiovascular mortality in France, a country already noted for its low CVD mortality.

Rats fed warfarin, a drug that inhibits K2 recycling, develop arterial calcification. Feeding the rats K2 completely inhibits this effect. Mice lacking matrix Gla protein (MGP), a vitamin K-dependent protein that guards against arterial calcification, develop heavily calcified aortas and die prematurely. So the link between K2 and cardiovascular disease is a very strong one.

Mammals can synthesize K2 MK-4 from K1, but humans seem to be bad at it since most of us are K2 deficient despite eating ample K1. This suggests that through evolution, we lost the ability to synthesize K2 in sufficient amounts because we always obtained it abundantly in our diets from nutrient-dense animal tissues.

The synergism Weston Price observed between vitamins A, D and K2 now has a solid mechanism. In a nutshell, vitamins A and D signal the production of some very important proteins, and K2 is required to activate them once they are made. Many of these proteins are involved in mineral metabolism, thus the effects Price saw in his experiments and observations in non-industrialized cultures. For example, osteocalcin is a protein that organizes calcium and phosphorus deposition in the bones and teeth. It's produced by cells in response to vitamins A and D, but requires K2 to perform its function. This suggests that the effects of vitamin D on bone health could be amplified greatly if it were administered along with K2. By itself, K2 is already highly protective against fractures in the elderly. It works out perfectly, since K2 also protects against vitamin D toxicity.

I'm not going to go through all the other data on K2 in detail, but suffice it to say it's very very important. I believe that K2 is a 'missing link' that explains many of our modern ills, just as Weston Price wrote. Here are a few more tidbits to whet your appetite: K2 may affect glucose control and insulin release (1, 2). It's concentrated in the brain, serving an as yet unknown function.

Hunter-gatherers didn't have multivitamins, they had nutrient-dense food. As long as you eat a natural diet containing some vegetables and some animal products, and lay off the processed grains, sugar and vegetable oil, the micronutrients will take care of themselves.

Vitamin K2, MK-4 is only found in animal products. The best sources known are grass-fed butter from cows eating rapidly growing grass, and foie gras. K2 tends to associate with beta-carotene in butter, so the darker the color, the more K2 it contains (also, the better it tastes). Fish eggs, other grass-fed dairy, shellfish, insects and other organ meats are also good sources. Chris Masterjohn compiled a list of food sources in his excellent article on the Weston Price foundation website. I highly recommend reading it if you want more detail. K2 MK-7 is found abundantly in natto, a type of fermented soybean, and seems to have some of the same effects as MK-4 on bone health in clinical trials. However, it is not the from of K2 that mammals synthesize for themselves so I'm not convinced it's the real thing.

Finally, you can also buy K2 supplements. The best one is butter oil, the very same stuff Price used to treat his patients. I have used this one personally, and I noticed positive effects on my skin overnight. Thorne research makes a synthetic liquid K2 MK-4 supplement that is easy to dose drop-wise to get natural amounts of it. Other K2 MK-4 supplements are much more concentrated than what you could get from food so I recommend avoiding them. I am generally against supplements, but I've ordered the Thorne product for a little self-experimentation. I want to see if it has the same effect on my skin as the butter oil (update- it does).