Polyunsaturated Fat Intake: Effects on the Heart and Brain

I'm revisiting the topic of the omega-6/omega-3 balance and total polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) intake because of some interesting studies I've gotten a hold of lately (thanks Robert). Two of the studies are in pigs, which I feel are a decent model organism for studying the effect of diet on health as it relates to humans. Pigs are omnivorous (although more slanted toward plant foods), have a similar digestive system to humans (although sturdier), are of similar size and fat composition to humans, and have been eating grains for about the same amount of time as humans.

In the last post on the omega-6/omega-3 balance, I came to the conclusion that a roughly balanced but relatively low intake of omega-6 and omega-3 fats is consistent with the diets of healthy non-industrial cultures. There were a few cultures that had a fairly high long-chain omega-3 intake from seafood (10% of calories), but none ate much omega-6.

The first study explores the effect of omega-6 and omega-3 fats on heart function. Dr. Sheila Innis and her group fed young male pigs three different diets:

1. An unbalanced, low PUFA diet. Pig chow with 1.2% linoleic acid (LA; the main omega-6 plant fat) and 0.06% alpha linolenic acid (ALA; the main omega-3 plant fat).
   
2. A balanced, low PUFA diet. Pig chow with 1.4% LA and 1.2% ALA.
3. An unbalanced, but better-than-average, "modern diet". Pig chow with 11.6% LA and 1.2% ALA.

After 30 days, they took a look at the pigs' hearts. Pigs from the first and third (unbalanced) groups contained more "pro-inflammatory" fats (arachidonic acid; AA) and less "anti-inflammatory" fats (EPA and DHA) than the second group. The first and third groups also experienced an excessive activation of "pro-inflammatory" proteins, such as COX-2, the enzyme inhibited by aspirin, ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.

The most striking finding of all was the difference in lipid peroxidation between groups. Lipid peroxidation is a measure of oxidative damage to cellular fats. In the balanced diet hearts, peroxidation was half the level found in the first group, and one-third the level found in the third group! This shows that omega-3 fats exert a powerful anti-oxidant effect that can be more than counteracted by excessive omega-6. Nitrosative stress, another type of damage, tracked with n-6 intake regardless of n-3, with the third group almost tripling the first two. I think this result is highly relevant to the long-term development of cardiac problems, and perhaps cardiovascular disease in general.

In another study with the same lead author Sanjoy Ghosh, rats fed a diet enriched in omega-6 from sunflower oil showed an increase in nitrosative damage, damage to mitochondrial DNA, and a decrease in maximum cardiac work capacity (i.e., their hearts were weaker). This is consistent with the previous study and shows that the mammalian heart does not like too much omega-6! The amount of sunflower oil these rats were eating (20% food by weight) is not far off from the amount of industrial oil the average American eats.

A third paper by Dr. Sheila Innis' group studied the effect of the omega-6 : omega-3 balance on the brain fat composition of pigs, and the development of neurons in vitro (in a culture dish). There were four diets, the first three similar to those in the first study:

1. Deficient. 1.2% LA and 0.05% ALA.
2. Contemporary. 10.7% LA and 1.1% ALA.
   
3. Evolutionary. 1.2% LA and 1.1% ALA.
4. Supplemented. The contemporary diet plus 0.3% AA and 0.3% DHA.

The first thing they looked at was the ability of the animals to convert ALA to DHA and concentrate it in the brain. DHA is critical for brain and eye development and maintenance. The evolutionary diet was most effective at putting DHA in the brain, with the supplemented diet a close second and the other three lagging behind. The evolutionary diet was the only one capable of elevating EPA, another important fatty acid derived from ALA. If typical fish oil rather than isolated DHA and AA had been given as the supplement, that may not have been the case. Overall, the fatty acid composition of the brain was quite different in the evolutionary group than the other three groups, which will certainly translate into a variety of effects on brain function.

The researchers then cultured neurons and showed that they require DHA to develop properly in culture, and that long-chain omega-6 fats are a poor substitute. Overall, the paper shows that the modern diet causes a major fatty acid imbalance in the brain, which is expected to lead to developmental problems and probably others as well. This can be partially corrected by supplementing with fish oil.

Together, these studies are a small glimpse of the countless effects we are having on every organ system, by eating fats that are unfamiliar to our pre-industrial bodies. In the next post, I'll put this information into the context of the modern human diet.

Polyunsaturated Fat Intake: Effects on the Heart and Brain

I'm revisiting the topic of the omega-6/omega-3 balance and total polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) intake because of some interesting studies I've gotten a hold of lately (thanks Robert). Two of the studies are in pigs, which I feel are a decent model organism for studying the effect of diet on health as it relates to humans. Pigs are omnivorous (although more slanted toward plant foods), have a similar digestive system to humans (although sturdier), are of similar size and fat composition to humans, and have been eating grains for about the same amount of time as humans.

In the last post on the omega-6/omega-3 balance, I came to the conclusion that a roughly balanced but relatively low intake of omega-6 and omega-3 fats is consistent with the diets of healthy non-industrial cultures. There were a few cultures that had a fairly high long-chain omega-3 intake from seafood (10% of calories), but none ate much omega-6.

The first study explores the effect of omega-6 and omega-3 fats on heart function. Dr. Sheila Innis and her group fed young male pigs three different diets:

1. An unbalanced, low PUFA diet. Pig chow with 1.2% linoleic acid (LA; the main omega-6 plant fat) and 0.06% alpha linolenic acid (ALA; the main omega-3 plant fat).
   
2. A balanced, low PUFA diet. Pig chow with 1.4% LA and 1.2% ALA.
3. An unbalanced, but better-than-average, "modern diet". Pig chow with 11.6% LA and 1.2% ALA.

After 30 days, they took a look at the pigs' hearts. Pigs from the first and third (unbalanced) groups contained more "pro-inflammatory" fats (arachidonic acid; AA) and less "anti-inflammatory" fats (EPA and DHA) than the second group. The first and third groups also experienced an excessive activation of "pro-inflammatory" proteins, such as COX-2, the enzyme inhibited by aspirin, ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.

The most striking finding of all was the difference in lipid peroxidation between groups. Lipid peroxidation is a measure of oxidative damage to cellular fats. In the balanced diet hearts, peroxidation was half the level found in the first group, and one-third the level found in the third group! This shows that omega-3 fats exert a powerful anti-oxidant effect that can be more than counteracted by excessive omega-6. Nitrosative stress, another type of damage, tracked with n-6 intake regardless of n-3, with the third group almost tripling the first two. I think this result is highly relevant to the long-term development of cardiac problems, and perhaps cardiovascular disease in general.

In another study with the same lead author Sanjoy Ghosh, rats fed a diet enriched in omega-6 from sunflower oil showed an increase in nitrosative damage, damage to mitochondrial DNA, and a decrease in maximum cardiac work capacity (i.e., their hearts were weaker). This is consistent with the previous study and shows that the mammalian heart does not like too much omega-6! The amount of sunflower oil these rats were eating (20% food by weight) is not far off from the amount of industrial oil the average American eats.

A third paper by Dr. Sheila Innis' group studied the effect of the omega-6 : omega-3 balance on the brain fat composition of pigs, and the development of neurons in vitro (in a culture dish). There were four diets, the first three similar to those in the first study:

1. Deficient. 1.2% LA and 0.05% ALA.
2. Contemporary. 10.7% LA and 1.1% ALA.
   
3. Evolutionary. 1.2% LA and 1.1% ALA.
4. Supplemented. The contemporary diet plus 0.3% AA and 0.3% DHA.

The first thing they looked at was the ability of the animals to convert ALA to DHA and concentrate it in the brain. DHA is critical for brain and eye development and maintenance. The evolutionary diet was most effective at putting DHA in the brain, with the supplemented diet a close second and the other three lagging behind. The evolutionary diet was the only one capable of elevating EPA, another important fatty acid derived from ALA. If typical fish oil rather than isolated DHA and AA had been given as the supplement, that may not have been the case. Overall, the fatty acid composition of the brain was quite different in the evolutionary group than the other three groups, which will certainly translate into a variety of effects on brain function.

The researchers then cultured neurons and showed that they require DHA to develop properly in culture, and that long-chain omega-6 fats are a poor substitute. Overall, the paper shows that the modern diet causes a major fatty acid imbalance in the brain, which is expected to lead to developmental problems and probably others as well. This can be partially corrected by supplementing with fish oil.

Together, these studies are a small glimpse of the countless effects we are having on every organ system, by eating fats that are unfamiliar to our pre-industrial bodies. In the next post, I'll put this information into the context of the modern human diet.

What is Body Mass Index (BMI)

Body Mass Index Calculator
Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight. It is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters (BMI=kg/m2)

BMI = body weight in kilograms/height in meters squared


BMI
Normal: 18.5 - 24.9
Overweight: 25 - 29.9
Obese: 30 and over

A BMI of between 18.5 to 25 is considered normal.
A BMI of over 25 is considered overweight
A BMI of over 30 is considered obese.

This is not applicable for all circumstances. The exceptions to this rule are body builders(or someone with very muscular body ), trained athlete, pregnant women, and those with massive obesity.
NOTE : BMI is not particularly accurate measure because it does not differentiate muscle mass from fat mass.

Protein Weight Loss

A typical fat loss diet contains moderate amounts of fats, carbohydrates and large amounts of protein (see more on Weight Loss Diet). Protein helps to build and repair muscle, and it also helps to increase your metabolism and strenghten your immune system.To promote maximum muscle growth and repair, you should try to eat at least 1gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. Lean meats, egg whites, whey protein and soy protein isolate are some of the good sources of protein. Now I want to recommend you by starting with a diet that contains about 40% protein. Many of you here may worry that this amount of protein is too much or harmful. However, since everyone is different (size, weight, metabolism, physical stresses, lifestyle, etc.) it is almost impossible to have a standard number. I believe that any amount double (2x) your bodyweight is too much. But that's my opinion. If you don't agree to it, then better ask your physician or health care team about this. They can always give you the right strategy that can guide you throughout your journey for weight loss.
So Eat more protein, build more muscle and increase your metabolism and finally lose weight.

Health is Multi-Factorial

Thanks to commenter Brock for pointing me to this very interesting paper, "Effects of fish oil on hypertension, plasma lipids, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in rats with sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome". As we know, sugar gives rats metabolic syndrome when it's added to regular rat chow, probably the same thing it does to humans when added to a processed food diet.

One thing has always puzzled me about sugar. It doesn't appear to cause major metabolic problems when added to an otherwise healthy diet, yet it wreaks havoc in other contexts. One example of the former situation is the Kuna, who are part hunter-gatherer, part agricultural. They eat a lot of refined sugar, but in the context of chocolate, coconut, fish, plantains, root vegetables and limited grains and beans, they are relatively healthy. Perhaps not quite on the same level as hunter-gatherer groups, but healthier than the average modernized person from the point of view of the diseases of civilization.

This paper really sheds light on the matter. The researchers gave a large group of rats access to drinking water containing 30% sucrose, in addition to their normal rat chow, for 21 weeks. The rats drank 4/5 of their calories in the form of sugar water. There's no doubt that this is an extreme treatment. They subsequently developed metabolic syndrome, including abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure, elevated fasting insulin, elevated triglycerides, elevated total cholesterol and LDL, lowered HDL, greatly increased serum uric acid, greatly elevated liver enzymes suggestive of liver damage, and increased tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). TNF-alpha is a hormone secreted by visceral (abdominal) fat tissue that may play a role in promoting insulin resistance.

After this initial 12-week treatment, they divided the metabolic syndrome rats into two groups:

• One that continued the sugar treatment, along with a diet enriched in corn and canola oil (increased omega-6).
• A second that continued the sugar treatment, along with a diet enriched in fish oil (increased omega-3).

The two diets contained the same total amount of polyunsaturated fat (PUFA), but had very different omega-6 : omega-3 ratios. The first had a ratio of 9.3 (still better than the average American), while the second had a ratio of 0.02, with most of the omega-3 in the second group coming from EPA and DHA (long-chain, animal omega-3s). The second diet also contained four times as much saturated fat as the first, mostly in the form of palmitic acid.

Compared to the vegetable oil group, the fish oil group had lower fasting insulin, lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides, lower cholesterol, and lower LDL. As a matter of fact, the fish oil group looked as good or better on all these parameters than a non-sugar fed control group receiving the extra vegetable oil alone (although the control group isn't perfect because it inevitably ate more vegetable oil-containing chow to make up for the calories it wasn't consuming in sugar). The only things reducing vegetable oil and increasing fish oil didn't fix were the weight and the elevated TNF-alpha, although they didn't report the level of liver enzymes in these groups. The TNF-alpha finding is not surprising, since it's secreted by visceral fat, which did not decrease in the fish oil group.

I think this is a powerful result. It may have been done in rats, but the evidence is there for a similar mechanism in humans. The Kuna have a very favorable omega-6 : omega-3 ratio, with most of their fat coming from highly saturated coconut and cocoa. This may protect them from their high sugar intake. The Kitavans also have a very favorable omega-6 : omega-3 ratio, with most of their fat coming from coconuts and fish. They don't eat refined sugar, but they do eat a tremendous amount of starch and a generous amount of fruit.

The paper also suggests that the metabolic syndrome is largely reversible.

I believe that both excessive sugar and excessive omega-6 from modern vegetable oils are a problem individually. But if you want to have a much bigger problem, try combining them!

Health is Multi-Factorial

Thanks to commenter Brock for pointing me to this very interesting paper, "Effects of fish oil on hypertension, plasma lipids, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in rats with sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome". As we know, sugar gives rats metabolic syndrome when it's added to regular rat chow, probably the same thing it does to humans when added to a processed food diet.

One thing has always puzzled me about sugar. It doesn't appear to cause major metabolic problems when added to an otherwise healthy diet, yet it wreaks havoc in other contexts. One example of the former situation is the Kuna, who are part hunter-gatherer, part agricultural. They eat a lot of refined sugar, but in the context of chocolate, coconut, fish, plantains, root vegetables and limited grains and beans, they are relatively healthy. Perhaps not quite on the same level as hunter-gatherer groups, but healthier than the average modernized person from the point of view of the diseases of civilization.

This paper really sheds light on the matter. The researchers gave a large group of rats access to drinking water containing 30% sucrose, in addition to their normal rat chow, for 21 weeks. The rats drank 4/5 of their calories in the form of sugar water. There's no doubt that this is an extreme treatment. They subsequently developed metabolic syndrome, including abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure, elevated fasting insulin, elevated triglycerides, elevated total cholesterol and LDL, lowered HDL, greatly increased serum uric acid, greatly elevated liver enzymes suggestive of liver damage, and increased tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). TNF-alpha is a hormone secreted by visceral (abdominal) fat tissue that may play a role in promoting insulin resistance.

After this initial 12-week treatment, they divided the metabolic syndrome rats into two groups:

• One that continued the sugar treatment, along with a diet enriched in corn and canola oil (increased omega-6).
• A second that continued the sugar treatment, along with a diet enriched in fish oil (increased omega-3).

The two diets contained the same total amount of polyunsaturated fat (PUFA), but had very different omega-6 : omega-3 ratios. The first had a ratio of 9.3 (still better than the average American), while the second had a ratio of 0.02, with most of the omega-3 in the second group coming from EPA and DHA (long-chain, animal omega-3s). The second diet also contained four times as much saturated fat as the first, mostly in the form of palmitic acid.

Compared to the vegetable oil group, the fish oil group had lower fasting insulin, lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides, lower cholesterol, and lower LDL. As a matter of fact, the fish oil group looked as good or better on all these parameters than a non-sugar fed control group receiving the extra vegetable oil alone (although the control group isn't perfect because it inevitably ate more vegetable oil-containing chow to make up for the calories it wasn't consuming in sugar). The only things reducing vegetable oil and increasing fish oil didn't fix were the weight and the elevated TNF-alpha, although they didn't report the level of liver enzymes in these groups. The TNF-alpha finding is not surprising, since it's secreted by visceral fat, which did not decrease in the fish oil group.

I think this is a powerful result. It may have been done in rats, but the evidence is there for a similar mechanism in humans. The Kuna have a very favorable omega-6 : omega-3 ratio, with most of their fat coming from highly saturated coconut and cocoa. This may protect them from their high sugar intake. The Kitavans also have a very favorable omega-6 : omega-3 ratio, with most of their fat coming from coconuts and fish. They don't eat refined sugar, but they do eat a tremendous amount of starch and a generous amount of fruit.

The paper also suggests that the metabolic syndrome is largely reversible.

I believe that both excessive sugar and excessive omega-6 from modern vegetable oils are a problem individually. But if you want to have a much bigger problem, try combining them!

Real Food X: Roasted Marrow Bones

Bone marrow is a food that has been prized throughout history-- from hunter-gatherer tribes to haute cuisine chefs. It's not hard to understand why, once you've tasted it. It's delicate, meaty and fatty. It's also rich in fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamins K1 and K2, although this will depend on what the animal has eaten.

Roasted marrow bones make a simple appetizer. Beef bones are the best because of their size. Select wide bones that are cut about three inches long. They should be from the femur or the humerus, called the "shank bones". These are sometimes available in the frozen meats section of a grocery store, otherwise a butcher can procure them. If you have access to a farmer's market that sells meats, vendors will typically have bones cut for you if you request it.

Recipe

1. Preheat oven to 450 F (230 C).
2. Place bones, cut side up, in a baking dish or oven-proof skillet.
3. Bake for about 15 minutes, until the marrow begins to separate from the bone, but not much longer because it will turn to mush.
4. Scoop out and eat the marrow by itself, on sourdough rye toast or however you please.
5. Make soup stock from the leftover bones.

Real Food X: Roasted Marrow Bones

Bone marrow is a food that has been prized throughout history-- from hunter-gatherer tribes to haute cuisine chefs. It's not hard to understand why, once you've tasted it. It's delicate, meaty and fatty. It's also rich in fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamins K1 and K2, although this will depend on what the animal has eaten.

Roasted marrow bones make a simple appetizer. Beef bones are the best because of their size. Select wide bones that are cut about three inches long. They should be from the femur or the humerus, called the "shank bones". These are sometimes available in the frozen meats section of a grocery store, otherwise a butcher can procure them. If you have access to a farmer's market that sells meats, vendors will typically have bones cut for you if you request it.

Recipe

1. Preheat oven to 450 F (230 C).
2. Place bones, cut side up, in a baking dish or oven-proof skillet.
3. Bake for about 15 minutes, until the marrow begins to separate from the bone, but not much longer because it will turn to mush.
4. Scoop out and eat the marrow by itself, on sourdough rye toast or however you please.
5. Make soup stock from the leftover bones.

Best Fat Burning Pill

Do you what are the best fat burning pill? Every magazine around the world nowadays talks about the next best thing in weight loss, where ever you look you will find someone trying to sell you a diet pill but in reality what are they?

One thing is for sure the best safest way to lose weight is to eat right and to exercise with discipline. This is where the problem comes in… Nobody wants to do either! As a result people start looking for the best fat burner pills, best weight loss pills, and green fat burning pills. This can be very dangerous and risky as most of these pills sold online can be very dangerous. Some pills are proven to help people lose weight e.g. Alli. This is one of the few FDA approved medicines out there which actually helps people lose weight but how does it do that? Well as most of you know and as has been discussed extensively it odes this by blocking fat absorption. This results in reduced caloric absorption and hence aids in weight loss. Notice the term used here helps in weight loss not cause it.

Another prescription pill gaining popularity is Sibutramine. This is an SSRI and is again one of the few FDA approved pills used in weight loss. Sibutramine is a drug which helps people fight hunger. It therefore reduces hunger pangs and increase satiety early. Again it helps people lose weight and is no miracle weight loss pill. Both these above mentioned medicines are pretty safe to use and hence are approved by FDA for long term use of weight loss. So are these the best fat burner pills in the market today?

You will come across number of other medications including lipozene, hoodia, hydroxycut, clen and so on and so forth. I have one advice for you… Whatever you decide to do make sure you read up on it and try to find out what the ingredients are.. As for me I would ask you to stay away.

In the end you have to decide on what is best for you?

Vitamin K2 in Marrow

I'm always on the lookout for foods rich in vitamin K2 MK-4, because it's so important and so rare in the modern food system. I heard some internet rumors that marrow might be rich in fat-soluble vitamins. Google let me down, so I decided to look through the rat studies on K2 MK-4 in which they looked at its tissue distribution.

I found one that looked at the K2 MK-4 content in different tissues of rats fed vitamin K1. Marrow was rich in K2, along with testes. It contains 10-20 times more MK-4 than liver by weight, and more than any of the other organs they tested (serum, liver, spleen, kidney, heart, testes, marrow, brain) except testes. They didn't include values for salivary gland and pancreas, the two richest sources.

If we assume beef marrow has the same amount of MK-4 as rat marrow per weight (I have no idea if this is really the case, but it's probably in the ballpark), two ounces of beef marrow would contain about 10 micrograms MK-4. Not a huge source, but significant nevertheless.

Bone marrow was a prized food in many hunter-gatherer societies. Let's see what Dr. Weston Price has to say about it (from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration):

For the Indians living inside the Rocky Mountain Range in the far North of Canada, the successful nutrition for nine months of the year was largely limited to wild game, chiefly moose and caribou. During the summer months the Indians were able to use growing plants. During the winter some use was made of bark and buds of trees. I found the Indians putting great emphasis upon the eating of the organs of the animals, including the wall of parts of the digestive tract. Much of the muscle meat of the animals was fed to the dogs. It is important that skeletons are rarely found where large game animals have been slaughtered by the Indians of the North. The skeletal remains are found as piles of finely broken bone chips or splinters that have been cracked up to obtain as much as possible of the marrow and nutritive qualities of the bones. These Indians obtain their fat-soluble vitamins and also most of their minerals from the organs of the animals. An important part of the nutrition of the children consisted in various preparations of bone marrow, both as a substitute for milk and as a special dietary ration.

Here's a bit more about these same groups, also from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration:

The condition of the teeth, and the shape of the dental arches and the facial form, were superb. Indeed, in several groups examined not a single tooth was found that had ever been attacked by tooth decay. In an examination of eighty-seven individuals having 2,464 teeth only four teeth were found that had ever been attacked by dental caries. This is equivalent to 0.16 per cent. As we came back to civilization and studied, successively, different groups with increasing amounts of contact with modern civilization, we found dental caries increased progressively, reaching 25.5 per cent of all of the teeth examined at Telegraph Creek, the point of contact with the white man's foods. As we came down the Stikine River to the Alaskan frontier towns, the dental caries problem increased to 40 per cent of all of the teeth.

Evidently, the traditionally-living groups were doing something right.

Vitamin K2 in Marrow

I'm always on the lookout for foods rich in vitamin K2 MK-4, because it's so important and so rare in the modern food system. I heard some internet rumors that marrow might be rich in fat-soluble vitamins. Google let me down, so I decided to look through the rat studies on K2 MK-4 in which they looked at its tissue distribution.

I found one that looked at the K2 MK-4 content in different tissues of rats fed vitamin K1. Marrow was rich in K2, along with testes. It contains 10-20 times more MK-4 than liver by weight, and more than any of the other organs they tested (serum, liver, spleen, kidney, heart, testes, marrow, brain) except testes. They didn't include values for salivary gland and pancreas, the two richest sources.

If we assume beef marrow has the same amount of MK-4 as rat marrow per weight (I have no idea if this is really the case, but it's probably in the ballpark), two ounces of beef marrow would contain about 10 micrograms MK-4. Not a huge source, but significant nevertheless.

Bone marrow was a prized food in many hunter-gatherer societies. Let's see what Dr. Weston Price has to say about it (from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration):

For the Indians living inside the Rocky Mountain Range in the far North of Canada, the successful nutrition for nine months of the year was largely limited to wild game, chiefly moose and caribou. During the summer months the Indians were able to use growing plants. During the winter some use was made of bark and buds of trees. I found the Indians putting great emphasis upon the eating of the organs of the animals, including the wall of parts of the digestive tract. Much of the muscle meat of the animals was fed to the dogs. It is important that skeletons are rarely found where large game animals have been slaughtered by the Indians of the North. The skeletal remains are found as piles of finely broken bone chips or splinters that have been cracked up to obtain as much as possible of the marrow and nutritive qualities of the bones. These Indians obtain their fat-soluble vitamins and also most of their minerals from the organs of the animals. An important part of the nutrition of the children consisted in various preparations of bone marrow, both as a substitute for milk and as a special dietary ration.

Here's a bit more about these same groups, also from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration:

The condition of the teeth, and the shape of the dental arches and the facial form, were superb. Indeed, in several groups examined not a single tooth was found that had ever been attacked by tooth decay. In an examination of eighty-seven individuals having 2,464 teeth only four teeth were found that had ever been attacked by dental caries. This is equivalent to 0.16 per cent. As we came back to civilization and studied, successively, different groups with increasing amounts of contact with modern civilization, we found dental caries increased progressively, reaching 25.5 per cent of all of the teeth examined at Telegraph Creek, the point of contact with the white man's foods. As we came down the Stikine River to the Alaskan frontier towns, the dental caries problem increased to 40 per cent of all of the teeth.

Evidently, the traditionally-living groups were doing something right.

HAPPY FUN FRIDAY NEIGHBORS! Today is the day we play our favorite Neighborhood Quiz game and have the chance to win fabulous prizes and learn something about your Neighbors! Our ever charming hostess SongBirdDiane presents this week's challenging question: Two Truths & a Lie. That question was penned by our favorite pre-op writer PapaJohn. And our South Dakota friend, Florabelle has promised

The Fructose Index is the New Glycemic Index

I stumbled upon an interesting editorial recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition from Dr. Richard Johnson's group, entitled "How Safe is Fructose for Persons With or Without Diabetes?" It was a response to a meta-analysis in the same journal pronouncing fructose safe up to 90 grams per day. That's the amount in eight apples or four cans of soda. Not quite what our hunter-gatherer ancestors were eating! The editorial outlined the case against excessive fructose, which I feel is quite strong. That led me to another, more comprehensive paper from Dr. Johnson's group, which argues that the amount of fructose found in a food, which they call the "fructose index", is more relevant to health than the food's glycemic index.

The glycemic index is a measure of the blood sugar response to a fixed amount of carbohydrate from a particular food. For example, white bread has a high glycemic index because it raises blood sugar more than another food containing the same amount of carbohydrate, say, lentils. Since chronically elevated blood sugar and its natural partner, insulin resistance, are part of the metabolic syndrome, it made sense that the glycemic index would be a good predictor of the metabolic effect of a food. I believed this myself for a long time.

My faith in the concept began to erode when I learned more about the diets of healthy traditional cultures. For example, the Kitavans get 69% of their calories from high-glycemic index carbohydrates (mostly starchy root vegetables), with little added fat-- that's a lot of fast-digesting carbohydrate! Overweight, elevated insulin and other symptoms of the metabolic syndrome are essentially nonexistent. Throughout Africa, healthy cultures make dishes from grains or starchy tubers that are soaked, pounded, fermented and then cooked. The result is a pile of mush that is very easily absorbed by the digestive tract, which is exactly the point of going through all the trouble.

The more I thought about the glycemic index and its relationship to insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome, the more I realized there is a disconnect in the logic: elevated post-meal glucose and insulin do not necessarily lead to chronically elevated glucose and insulin. Here's what Dr. Mark Segal from Dr. Johnson's group had to say:

We suggest that the [glycemic index] is better aimed at identifying foods that stimulate insulin secretion rather than foods that stimulate insulin resistance. The underlying concept is based on the principle that it is the ingestion of foods that induce insulin resistance that carries the increased risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease and not eating foods that stimulate insulin secretion.

Well said! I decided to take a look through the literature to see if there had been any trials on the relationship between a diet's glycemic index and its ability to cause satiety (fullness) and affect weight. I found a meta-analysis from 2007. Two things are clear from the paper: 1) in the short term, given an equal amount of carbohydrate, a diet with a low glycemic index is more satiating (filling) than one with a high glycemic index, leading to a lower intake of calories. 2) this effect disappears in the long-term, and the three trials (1, 2, 3) lasting 10 weeks or longer found no consistent effect on caloric intake or weight*. As a matter of fact, the only statistically significant (p less than 0.001) weight difference was a greater weight loss in one of the high-glycemic index groups!

As I've said many times, the body has mechanisms for maintaining weight and caloric intake where they should be in the long term. As long as those mechanisms are working properly, weight and caloric intake will be appropriate. The big question is, how does the modern lifestyle derail those mechanisms?

Dr. Johnson believes fructose is a major contributor. Table sugar, fruit, high-fructose corn syrup and honey are all roughly 50% fructose by calories. Total fructose consumption has increased about 19% in the U.S. since 1970, currently accounting for almost one eighth of our total calorie intake (total sugars account for one quarter!). That's the average, so many people actually consume more.

Fructose, but not starch or its component sugar glucose, causes insulin resistance, elevated serum uric acid (think gout and kidney stones), poorer blood glucose control, increased triglycerides and LDL cholesterol in animal studies and controlled human trials. All of these effects relate to the liver, which clearly does not like excessive fructose (or omega-6 oils). Some of these trials were conducted using doses that are near the average U.S. intake. The effect seems to compound over time both in humans and animals. The overweight, the elderly and the physically unfit are particularly vulnerable. I find this pretty damning.

Drs. Johnson and Segal recommend limiting fructose to 15-40 grams per day, which is the equivalent of about two apples or one soda (choose the apples!). They also recommend temporarily eliminating fructose for two weeks, to allow the body to recover from the negative long-term metabolic adaptation that can persist even when intake is low. I think this makes good sense.

The glycemic index may still be a useful tool for people with poor glucose control, like type II diabetics, but I'm not sure how much it adds to simply restricting carbohydrate. Reducing fructose may be a more effective way to address insulin resistance than eating a low glycemic index diet.


*Here was the author's way of putting it in the abstract: "Because of the increasing number of confounding variables in the available long-term studies, it is not possible to conclude that low-glycaemic diets mediate a health benefit based on body weight regulation. The difficulty of demonstrating the long-term health benefit of a satietogenic food or diet may constitute an obstacle to the recognition of associated claims." In other words, the data not supporting our favorite hypothesis is an obstacle to its recognition. You don't say?

The Fructose Index is the New Glycemic Index

I stumbled upon an interesting editorial recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition from Dr. Richard Johnson's group, entitled "How Safe is Fructose for Persons With or Without Diabetes?" It was a response to a meta-analysis in the same journal pronouncing fructose safe up to 90 grams per day. That's the amount in eight apples or four cans of soda. Not quite what our hunter-gatherer ancestors were eating! The editorial outlined the case against excessive fructose, which I feel is quite strong. That led me to another, more comprehensive paper from Dr. Johnson's group, which argues that the amount of fructose found in a food, which they call the "fructose index", is more relevant to health than the food's glycemic index.

The glycemic index is a measure of the blood sugar response to a fixed amount of carbohydrate from a particular food. For example, white bread has a high glycemic index because it raises blood sugar more than another food containing the same amount of carbohydrate, say, lentils. Since chronically elevated blood sugar and its natural partner, insulin resistance, are part of the metabolic syndrome, it made sense that the glycemic index would be a good predictor of the metabolic effect of a food. I believed this myself for a long time.

My faith in the concept began to erode when I learned more about the diets of healthy traditional cultures. For example, the Kitavans get 69% of their calories from high-glycemic index carbohydrates (mostly starchy root vegetables), with little added fat-- that's a lot of fast-digesting carbohydrate! Overweight, elevated insulin and other symptoms of the metabolic syndrome are essentially nonexistent. Throughout Africa, healthy cultures make dishes from grains or starchy tubers that are soaked, pounded, fermented and then cooked. The result is a pile of mush that is very easily absorbed by the digestive tract, which is exactly the point of going through all the trouble.

The more I thought about the glycemic index and its relationship to insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome, the more I realized there is a disconnect in the logic: elevated post-meal glucose and insulin do not necessarily lead to chronically elevated glucose and insulin. Here's what Dr. Mark Segal from Dr. Johnson's group had to say:

We suggest that the [glycemic index] is better aimed at identifying foods that stimulate insulin secretion rather than foods that stimulate insulin resistance. The underlying concept is based on the principle that it is the ingestion of foods that induce insulin resistance that carries the increased risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease and not eating foods that stimulate insulin secretion.

Well said! I decided to take a look through the literature to see if there had been any trials on the relationship between a diet's glycemic index and its ability to cause satiety (fullness) and affect weight. I found a meta-analysis from 2007. Two things are clear from the paper: 1) in the short term, given an equal amount of carbohydrate, a diet with a low glycemic index is more satiating (filling) than one with a high glycemic index, leading to a lower intake of calories. 2) this effect disappears in the long-term, and the three trials (1, 2, 3) lasting 10 weeks or longer found no consistent effect on caloric intake or weight*. As a matter of fact, the only statistically significant (p less than 0.001) weight difference was a greater weight loss in one of the high-glycemic index groups!

As I've said many times, the body has mechanisms for maintaining weight and caloric intake where they should be in the long term. As long as those mechanisms are working properly, weight and caloric intake will be appropriate. The big question is, how does the modern lifestyle derail those mechanisms?

Dr. Johnson believes fructose is a major contributor. Table sugar, fruit, high-fructose corn syrup and honey are all roughly 50% fructose by calories. Total fructose consumption has increased about 19% in the U.S. since 1970, currently accounting for almost one eighth of our total calorie intake (total sugars account for one quarter!). That's the average, so many people actually consume more.

Fructose, but not starch or its component sugar glucose, causes insulin resistance, elevated serum uric acid (think gout and kidney stones), poorer blood glucose control, increased triglycerides and LDL cholesterol in animal studies and controlled human trials. All of these effects relate to the liver, which clearly does not like excessive fructose (or omega-6 oils). Some of these trials were conducted using doses that are near the average U.S. intake. The effect seems to compound over time both in humans and animals. The overweight, the elderly and the physically unfit are particularly vulnerable. I find this pretty damning.

Drs. Johnson and Segal recommend limiting fructose to 15-40 grams per day, which is the equivalent of about two apples or one soda (choose the apples!). They also recommend temporarily eliminating fructose for two weeks, to allow the body to recover from the negative long-term metabolic adaptation that can persist even when intake is low. I think this makes good sense.

The glycemic index may still be a useful tool for people with poor glucose control, like type II diabetics, but I'm not sure how much it adds to simply restricting carbohydrate. Reducing fructose may be a more effective way to address insulin resistance than eating a low glycemic index diet.


*Here was the author's way of putting it in the abstract: "Because of the increasing number of confounding variables in the available long-term studies, it is not possible to conclude that low-glycaemic diets mediate a health benefit based on body weight regulation. The difficulty of demonstrating the long-term health benefit of a satietogenic food or diet may constitute an obstacle to the recognition of associated claims." In other words, the data not supporting our favorite hypothesis is an obstacle to its recognition. You don't say?

Vertical Banded Gastroplasty

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), also known as stomach stapling, is a restrictive operation for weight control. Both a band and staples are used to create a small stomach pouch. In the bottom of the pouch is an approximately one-centimeter hole through which the pouch contents can flow into the remainder of the stomach and thence onto the remainder of the gastrointestinal tract.
Stomach stapling is a restrictive technique for managing obesity. The pouch limits the amount of food a patient can eat at one time and slows passage of the food. Stomach stapling is more effective when combined with a malabsorptive technique, in which part of the digestive tract is bypassed, reducing the absorption of calories and nutrients. Combined restrictive and malabsorptive techniques are called gastric bypass techniques, of which Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RGB) (see more on Gastric Bypass) is the most common. In this technique, staples are used to form a pouch that is connected to the small intestine, bypassing the lower stomach, the duodenum, and the first portion of the jejunum.This type of weight loss surgery is losing favor as more doctors begin using the adjustable gastric band. The newer adjustable band does not require cutting into the stomach and does not use any staple lines, thus making it a much safer alternative. VBG is known in the medical community as a very serious and dangerous procedure. It has been classified by the AMA as a "severely dangerous" operation.

Is Vitamin A Toxicity a Concern?

Several commenters have asked for my opinion on recent statements by prominent health researchers that many Americans are suffering from unrecognized vitamin A toxicity. Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council is perhaps the most familiar of them. Dr. Cannell's mission is to convey the benefits of vitamin D to the public. The Vitamin D Council's website is a great resource.

Vitamin A is a very important nutrient. Like vitamin D, it has its own nuclear receptors which alter the transcription of a number of genes in a wide variety of tissues. Thus, it is a very fundamental nutrient to health. It's necessary for proper development, vision, mineral metabolism, bone health, immune function, the integrity of skin and mucous membranes, and many other things. Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin, and as such, it is possible to overdose. So far, everyone is in agreement.

The question of optimal intake is where opinions begin to diverge. Hunter-gatherers and healthy non-industrial cultures, who almost invariably had excellent dental and skeletal development and health, often had a very high intake of vitamin A (according to Dr. Weston Price and others). This is not surprising, considering their fondness for organ meats. A meager 2 ounces of beef liver contains about 9,500 IU, or almost 200% of your U.S. and Canadian recommended daily allowance (RDA). Kidney and eye are rich in vitamin A, as are many of the marine oils consumed by the Inuit and other arctic groups.

If we can extrapolate from historical hunter-gatherers, our ancestors didn't waste organs. In fact, in times of plenty, some groups discarded the muscle tissue and ate the organs and fat. Carnivorous animals often eat the organs first, because they know exactly where the nutrients are. Zookeepers know that if you feed a lion nothing but muscle, it does not thrive.

This is the background against which we must consider the question of vitamin A toxicity. Claims of toxicity must be reconciled with the fact that healthy cultures often consumed large amounts of vitamin A without any ill effects. Well, you might be surprised to hear me say that I do believe some Americans and Europeans suffer from what you might call vitamin A toxicity. There is a fairly consistent association between vitamin A intake and bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. It holds true across cultures and sources of vitamin A. Chris Masterjohn reviewed the epidemiology here. I recommend reading his very thorough article if you want more detail. The optimum intake in some studies is 2-3,000 IU, corresponding to about 50% of the RDA. People who eat more or less than this amount tend to suffer from poorer bone health. This is where Dr. Cannell and others are coming from when they say vitamin A toxicity is common.

The only problem is, this position ignores the interactions between fat-soluble vitamins. Vitamin D strongly protects agains vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. As a matter of fact, "vitamin A toxicity" is almost certainly a relative deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is also tightly correlated with low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. A high vitamin A intake requires vitamin D to balance it. The epidemiological studies showing an association between high-normal vitamin A intake and reduced bone health all sported populations that were moderately to severely vitamin D deficient on average. At optimal vitamin D levels, 40-70 ng/mL 25(OH)D, it would take a whopping dose of vitamin A to induce toxicity. You might get there if you eat nothing but beef liver for a week or two.

The experiment hasn't been done under controlled conditions in humans, but if you believe the animal studies, the optimal intake for bone mineral density is a high intake of both vitamins A and D. And guess what? A high intake of vitamins A and D also increases the need for vitamin K2. That's because they work together. For example, vitamin D3 increases the secretion of matrix Gla protein and vitamin K2 activates it. Is it any surprise that the optimal proportions of A, D and K occur effortlessly in a lifestyle that includes outdoor activity and whole, natural animal foods? This is the blind spot of the researchers who have warned of vitamin A toxicity: uncontrolled reductionism. Vitamins do not act in a vacuum; they interact with one another. If your theory doesn't agree with empirical observations from healthy cultures, it's back to the drawing board.

High-vitamin cod liver oil is an excellent source of vitamins A and D because it contains a balanced amount of both. Unfortunately, many brands use processing methods that reduce the amount of one or more vitamins. See the Weston Price foundation's recommendations for the highest quality cod liver oils. They also happen to be the cheapest per dose. I order Green Pasture high-vitamin cod liver oil through Live Superfoods (it's cheaper than ordering directly).

So is vitamin A toxicity a concern? Not really; the concern is vitamin D deficiency.

Is Vitamin A Toxicity a Concern?

Several commenters have asked for my opinion on recent statements by prominent health researchers that many Americans are suffering from unrecognized vitamin A toxicity. Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council is perhaps the most familiar of them. Dr. Cannell's mission is to convey the benefits of vitamin D to the public. The Vitamin D Council's website is a great resource.

Vitamin A is a very important nutrient. Like vitamin D, it has its own nuclear receptors which alter the transcription of a number of genes in a wide variety of tissues. Thus, it is a very fundamental nutrient to health. It's necessary for proper development, vision, mineral metabolism, bone health, immune function, the integrity of skin and mucous membranes, and many other things. Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin, and as such, it is possible to overdose. So far, everyone is in agreement.

The question of optimal intake is where opinions begin to diverge. Hunter-gatherers and healthy non-industrial cultures, who almost invariably had excellent dental and skeletal development and health, often had a very high intake of vitamin A (according to Dr. Weston Price and others). This is not surprising, considering their fondness for organ meats. A meager 2 ounces of beef liver contains about 9,500 IU, or almost 200% of your U.S. and Canadian recommended daily allowance (RDA). Kidney and eye are rich in vitamin A, as are many of the marine oils consumed by the Inuit and other arctic groups.

If we can extrapolate from historical hunter-gatherers, our ancestors didn't waste organs. In fact, in times of plenty, some groups discarded the muscle tissue and ate the organs and fat. Carnivorous animals often eat the organs first, because they know exactly where the nutrients are. Zookeepers know that if you feed a lion nothing but muscle, it does not thrive.

This is the background against which we must consider the question of vitamin A toxicity. Claims of toxicity must be reconciled with the fact that healthy cultures often consumed large amounts of vitamin A without any ill effects. Well, you might be surprised to hear me say that I do believe some Americans and Europeans suffer from what you might call vitamin A toxicity. There is a fairly consistent association between vitamin A intake and bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. It holds true across cultures and sources of vitamin A. Chris Masterjohn reviewed the epidemiology here. I recommend reading his very thorough article if you want more detail. The optimum intake in some studies is 2-3,000 IU, corresponding to about 50% of the RDA. People who eat more or less than this amount tend to suffer from poorer bone health. This is where Dr. Cannell and others are coming from when they say vitamin A toxicity is common.

The only problem is, this position ignores the interactions between fat-soluble vitamins. Vitamin D strongly protects agains vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. As a matter of fact, "vitamin A toxicity" is almost certainly a relative deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is also tightly correlated with low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. A high vitamin A intake requires vitamin D to balance it. The epidemiological studies showing an association between high-normal vitamin A intake and reduced bone health all sported populations that were moderately to severely vitamin D deficient on average. At optimal vitamin D levels, 40-70 ng/mL 25(OH)D, it would take a whopping dose of vitamin A to induce toxicity. You might get there if you eat nothing but beef liver for a week or two.

The experiment hasn't been done under controlled conditions in humans, but if you believe the animal studies, the optimal intake for bone mineral density is a high intake of both vitamins A and D. And guess what? A high intake of vitamins A and D also increases the need for vitamin K2. That's because they work together. For example, vitamin D3 increases the secretion of matrix Gla protein and vitamin K2 activates it. Is it any surprise that the optimal proportions of A, D and K occur effortlessly in a lifestyle that includes outdoor activity and whole, natural animal foods? This is the blind spot of the researchers who have warned of vitamin A toxicity: uncontrolled reductionism. Vitamins do not act in a vacuum; they interact with one another. If your theory doesn't agree with empirical observations from healthy cultures, it's back to the drawing board.

High-vitamin cod liver oil is an excellent source of vitamins A and D because it contains a balanced amount of both. Unfortunately, many brands use processing methods that reduce the amount of one or more vitamins. See the Weston Price foundation's recommendations for the highest quality cod liver oils. They also happen to be the cheapest per dose. I order Green Pasture high-vitamin cod liver oil through Live Superfoods (it's cheaper than ordering directly).

So is vitamin A toxicity a concern? Not really; the concern is vitamin D deficiency.

Lemon: The Healthy Healing Fruit

Hello Neighbors!Today in the 5 Day Pouch Test Bulletin I presented a recipe for Lemon-Ginger Healing Tonic. This is a warm cleansing beverage to be enjoyed first thing in the morning as part of the 5 Day Pouch Test. The tonic works because lemon is an astringent that helps remove toxins from our bodies and we soon feel energy and we feel clean. This can be said of most citrus fruit. I think

Lose Weight With Fruits and Vegetables

If you want to achieve ideal weight then all you need to do is eat as much fruit and vegetables as you can every day. The more fruit you eat, the more you lose weight. It's as simple as that!!!. Besides you can also enjoy some other health benefits from fruits and vegetables.
According to some Researchers of Pennsylvania State University, the excess weight can be knock out by focussing on lower calorie foods instead of cutting the overall calories. According to them, fruits and vegetables have low energy density because of their heavy weight but low calorie levels. When you take a low calorie food your metabolism rises and you can lose weight (see more on Increasing your metabolism). Also since fruits and vegetables are highly rich in fiber, our stomach can get filled quickly and thus preventing us from overeating (see more on Fiber Weight Loss).
Vegetables and fruits contain a lot of minerals and vitamins. So we can get a good supply of nutrients by eating plenty of vegetables and fruits. This also aids in making our body more energetic and active. And by being more energetic and active we can burn more calories(energy) everyday and stay fit and healthy forever.
So which one will you prefer: a pizza for lunch or lots and lots of fresh fruit salads and vegetables?

Fiber Weight Loss

Fiber are plant-based foods that our bodies can't digest. It easily passes through our digestive tract without providing any nutrition and calories(energy), but yet it has got some significance in weight loss and other health benefits too.

Fiber helps to keep our bowel movements regular and prevent us from certain diseases. Fibers make our digestive tract clean and free from some cancer causing agents(Carcinogens) as well. Fiber can bind carcinogens in our intestines and move through our colon more rapidly than they otherwise would, thus reducing our risk for colon cancer. Fiber can also reduce our risk for heart disease to some extent as it transport cholesterol out of our body.
On a survey done by some researchers, People eating larger amounts of fiber-rich foods were generally healthier than those who did not.
Fiber can make us feel full sooner as it can stay in our stomach longer than other substances we eat, slowing down our rate of digestion and also avoiding us from overeating. Fiber also moves fat through our digestive system faster so that less of it is absorbed.

Meat and dairy products contain no fiber, and refined grains have had most of their fiber removed. So how can you increase your intake of fiber?
The answer is by eating more natural foods, and fewer processed foods. Here are some examples of good fiber-rich foods:
-Legumes (lentils, dry beans and peas)
-Green vegetables
-Fruits (should be fresh)
-Brown rice
-Whole grains (wheat, oats, barley)
Refined grains like white rice and those used to make white bread and sugary breakfast cereals have had most of their fiber content removed. They turn into glucose(blood sugar) very fast thus causing spike in our insulin level. So our body stops burning fat and starts storing it as plenty of energy is already available to our body. This is not a good sign for those looking forward to lose weight as burning fat is a must for weight loss (see more on Weight Loss).

Further, the insulin spike is followed by a drop in insulin level which leaves us feeling tired, depressed and hungry and wanting to eat more. Unfortunately, it'll make us to eat something else with a high sugar content. When we do, we start the cycle all over again.So we should eat foods rich in fiber which not only helps in losing weight but also helps to keep our blood sugar at a more consistent level.

Now we can conclude that more intake of fiber, more will be the weight loss. But be sure to drink plenty of water or any fluids when eating fiber-riched foods as it can cause constipation and gas problem without adequate fluids (see more on Water Weight Loss).

Water Weight Loss

Water (like oxygen) is one of the vital components for our survival. Without water one can't imagine the life on earth.
Why is it important to drink water, especially for losing weight?
Of the several reasons, the main ones are listed below:

1. Initial weight loss is mainly due to loss of water.

2. Weight loss is the process of burning more calories than taking in (see more on Weight Loss). For this, an adequate supply of water is a must in order to function efficiently; dehydration(lack of water in your body) can slow down this fat-burning process.

3. Burning calories(energy) releases harmful toxins, similar like the exhaust coming out of your car, and water plays an important role in flushing them out of your body.

4. Weight loss diet includes a good amount of fiber. But while fiber is normally helpful to our digestive system, at the same time it can cause constipation and gas problems without adequate fluids (see more on Fiber Weight Loss). So water is necessary for us.

5. Dehydration lowers blood volume in our body due to which there will be less supply of oxygen to our muscles and a reduction in the supply of oxygen to our muscles can make us feel lousy and tired which can result in weight gain.

6. Muscles have the ability to contract. Water can assist this ability and can help in mantaining the proper muscle tone. Water can also reduce muscle and joint soreness when you are exercising.

7. Drinking water with a meal can make you feel full sooner and therefore can prevent us from overeating. But drinking water alone may not have this effect. At first our body should feel satiated (not hungry). That means we should be full of calories and nutrients.

Now question arises "How Much Water Should I Drink?"
You must have heard that you should drink at least eight 8 glasses of water a day. But there is no any hard and fast rule governing how much water an individual must drink in order to be fit. The specific amount of water that you should drink actually depends on several factors like your age, gender, weight, level of activity, and even the temperature and humidity of your environment, and your diet as well. Your diet could also make difference (see more on Weight Loss Diet). As for say, if you eat plenty of fluid-rich or say water dense foods like fruits and vegetables your need for drinking water will get lowered.
For me a good way to keep myself hydrated throughout the day is by drinking one glass of water with each meal and one between each meal.

Hypnosis for Weight Loss

What is hypnosis?
Hypnosis is a natural state, enhanced by mental and physical relaxation, where a person's subconscious (creative) mind can be accessed or say our subconscious mind is able to communicate with our conscious mind. Since this is where a person's memories, emotions, beliefs, and habits are stored, having access to them means that they can also be modified for the person's benefit. Recently, hypnosis is being used as an alternative treatment in different medical institutions to manage everything from pain to smoking to weight loss. Yeah don't be amazed at all because hypnosis can be as helpful as exercise for weight loss.

How does hypnosis help weight loss?
You can lose weight more effectively with hypnosis and maintain that weight loss. Hypnosis uses your subconscious (creative) mind to change your beliefs, habits and your attitudes toward food. Your subconscious mind can deal directly with the self-sabotaging part of you to help you eliminate poor, unhealthy eating patterns and replace them with fresh, positive, powerful patterns that help you lose weight and keep it off. Your subconscious mind has the power to end your struggles with food and weight loss and can help you learn to be in control of your cravings.
Further, hypnosis for weight loss is very effective when ovreating is the reason for your overweight.
The best hypnosis weight loss programs are those that are comprehensive in nature. These programs can help you deal with emotional eating patterns that many of us have but are unaware of (see more on Weight Loss Program). A good hypnosis weight loss program in conjunction with a good diet (see more on Weight Loss Diet) and exercise program (see more on Weight Loss Exercise) can certainly give you a great opportunity to lose weight and keep it off.

Bariatric Weight Loss Surgery

Is Bariatric Surgery An Easy Solution for Weight Loss?
Simply saying, No. According to the American Society For Bariatric Surgery, gastric reduction surgery is not an easy option for people suffering from obesity. It is a drastic step, and carries the usual pain and risks of any major gastrointestinal surgical operation.
Does Bariatric Surgery Typically Lead to Major Weight Loss?
Yes and No. Some patients who undergo bariatric gastrointestinal surgery lose more than 100 pounds in weight - some lose as much as 200 pounds weight. Typically, patients who undergo adjustable gastric banding procedures, such as Lap-Band (laparoscopic adjustable gastric band) lose less weight than those who have gastric bypass like Biliopancreatic Diversion (BPD) or Duodenal Switch (BPD-DS). Some patients reach a normal weight, while others remain overweight, although less overweight than before. However, in order to maintain this type of weight reduction, patients must follow carefully the post-operative guidelines relating to diet and exercise. Better ask your surgeon about this!!!

5DPT Owner's Manual: Good & Bad News

Hello Neighbors! Just a quick update on my forthcoming book, "5 Day Pouch Test Owner's Manual" that I have been telling you about for several weeks. First, the BAD NEWS: We have experienced a minor production delay and the books will not be available for shipment until December 1. I am so sorry - I am told these things happen in publishing. If I could turn the wheel of the printing

Participant Request: Your Personal WLS Experience

Hello Neighbors!I am appealing to you for help with a book being developed by Tricia Greaves, owner/president of "Be Totally Free". She is the founder of a program to address issues of weight control, weight loss and eating disorders. Her work is very good and very much aligned with our LivingAfterWLS Empowerment Philosophy. As part of her growing body of work and support network she is

Google Flu Trends

I just discovered a wonderful new tool from Google.org, Google Flu Trends. Google.org is the philanthropic branch of Google. Flu Trends gives you real-time data on flu incidence in your U.S. state, as well as for the country as a whole. Here's how it works:

We've found that certain search terms are good indicators of flu activity. Google Flu Trends uses aggregated Google search data to estimate flu activity in your state up to two weeks faster than traditional flu surveillance systems.

Each week, millions of users around the world search for online health information. As you might expect, there are more flu-related searches during flu season, more allergy-related searches during allergy season, and more sunburn-related searches during the summer.

Google's data match up well with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data on flu incidence, but are available 1-2 weeks before CDC data. Here's a comparison of Flu Trends and CDC data for previous years. Plus, Google makes the information easily accessible and user-friendly.

I think this a fantastic use of the massive amount of raw information on the internet. It's amazing what a person can do with a brain and an internet connection these days.

Google Flu Trends

I just discovered a wonderful new tool from Google.org, Google Flu Trends. Google.org is the philanthropic branch of Google. Flu Trends gives you real-time data on flu incidence in your U.S. state, as well as for the country as a whole. Here's how it works:

We've found that certain search terms are good indicators of flu activity. Google Flu Trends uses aggregated Google search data to estimate flu activity in your state up to two weeks faster than traditional flu surveillance systems.

Each week, millions of users around the world search for online health information. As you might expect, there are more flu-related searches during flu season, more allergy-related searches during allergy season, and more sunburn-related searches during the summer.

Google's data match up well with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data on flu incidence, but are available 1-2 weeks before CDC data. Here's a comparison of Flu Trends and CDC data for previous years. Plus, Google makes the information easily accessible and user-friendly.

I think this a fantastic use of the massive amount of raw information on the internet. It's amazing what a person can do with a brain and an internet connection these days.

Can Vitamin K2 Reverse Arterial Calcification?

It certainly can in rats. In April 2007, Dr. Cees Vermeer and his group published a paper on the effect of vitamin K on arterial calcification (the accumulation of calcium in the arteries). As I mentioned two posts ago, arterial calcification is tightly associated with the risk of heart attack and death. Warfarin-treated rats are an established model of arterial calcification. Warfarin also causes calcification in humans. The drug is a "blood thinner" that inhibits vitamin K recycling, and inhibits the conversion of vitamin K1 (phylloquinone) to K2 MK-4 (menaquinone-4). This latter property turns out to be the critical one in the calcification process.

Rats are able to convert vitamin K1 to K2 MK-4, whereas humans don't seem to convert well. Conversion efficiency varies between species. Dr. Vermeer's group treated rats with warfarin for 6 weeks, during which they developed extensive arterial calcification. They also received vitamin K1 to keep their blood clotting properly. At 6 weeks, the warfarin-treated rats were broken up into several groups:

• One continued on the warfarin and K1 diet
• One was placed on a diet containing a normal amount of K1 (no warfarin)
  
• One was placed on a high K1 diet (no warfarin)
• The last was placed on a high K2 MK-4 diet (no warfarin)
  

After 6 more weeks, the first two groups developed even more calcification, while the third and fourth groups lost about 40% of their arterial calcium. The high vitamin K groups also saw a decrease in cell death in the artery wall, a decrease in uncarboxylated (inactive) MGP, and an increase in arterial elasticity. They also measured the vitamin K content of aortas from each group. The group that received the 12-week warfarin treatment had a huge amount of K1 accumulation in the aorta, but no K2 MK-4. This is expected because warfarin inhibits the conversion of K1 to K2 MK-4. It's notable that when conversion to K2 was blocked, K1 alone was totally ineffective at activating MGP and preventing calcification.

In the group fed high K1 but no warfarin, there was about three times more K2 MK-4 in the aortas than K1, suggesting that they had converted it effectively and that vascular tissue selectively accumulates K2 MK-4. A high K1 intake was required for this effect, however, since the normal K1 diet did not reverse calcification. The rats fed high K2 MK-4 had only K2 MK-4 in their aortas, as expected.

What does this mean for us? K2 MK-4 appears to be the form of vitamin K that arteries prefer (although not enough is known about the longer menaquinones, such as MK-7, to rule out a possible effect). Humans don't seem to be very good at making the conversion from K1 to K2 MK-4 (at normal intakes; there are suggestions that at artificially large doses we can do it). That means we need to ensure an adequate K2 MK-4 intake to prevent or reverse arterial calcification; eating K1-rich greens won't cut it. It's worth noting that the amounts of K1 and K2 used in the paper were very large, far beyond what is obtainable through food. But the regression took only 6 weeks, so it's possible that a smaller amount of K2 MK-4 over a longer period could have the same effect in humans.

K2 MK-4 (and perhaps other menaquinones like MK-7) may turn out to be an effective treatment for arterial calcification and cardiovascular disease in general. It's extremely effective at preventing osteoporosis-related fractures in humans. That's a highly significant fact. Osteoporosis and arterial calcification often come hand-in-hand. Thus, they are not a result of insufficient or excessive calcium, but of a failure to use the available calcium effectively. In the warfarin-treated rats described above, the serum (blood) calcium concentration was the same in all groups. Osteoporosis and arterial calcification are two sides of the same coin, and the fact that one can be addressed with K2 MK-4 means that the other may be as well.

Both osteoporosis and arterial calcification may turn out to be symptoms of vitamin K2 deficiency, resulting from the modern fear of animal fats and organs, and the deterioration of traditional animal husbandry practices. So eat your pastured dairy, organs, fish roe and shellfish! And if you have arterial calcification, as judged by a heart scan, you may want to consider supplementing with additional K2 MK-4 (also called menaquinone-4 and menatetrenone).

The osteoporosis studies were done with 45 milligrams per day, which was well tolerated but seems excessive to me. Smaller doses were not tested. From the limited information available on the K2 content of foods, 1 milligram of K2 MK-4 per day seems like the upper limit of what you can get from food. That's about 40 times more than the average person eats. Anything more and you're outside your body's operating parameters. Make sure you're getting adequate vitamin D3 and A if you supplement with K2. Vitamin D3 in particular increases the secretion of MGP, so the two work in concert.