Is cholesterol echt zo gevaarlijk,
is insuline de sleutel naar gewichtsverlies ?
Author : Anthony Colpo
Ingezonden brief
Hi Anthony,
I just read your LDL Cholesterol:
"Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science? article and I am so moved, and really
appreciate all your work.
I have some questions that I am trying to
answer...if you could take a moment. I am trying to find the right "diet" that I
should be eating. I am one year out from gastric bypass [surgery]
and have now lost 115 pounds. Awesome - but, I have about 40 more to go and its so slow,
its driving me crazy.
For the past 4 weeks I've been trying a
high fat, low carbohydrate diet since one of my co-workers has explained to me that it's
the carbohydrates that raise your insulin level and
promote excess fat and cholesterol to form inside your body.
Thus, I am a little confused because all
the dieticians here in USA promote a diet which is low fat and low carbs and then I'm
always starving! Eating the fat in milk, nuts and cheeses
seem to help, but I am worried about my cholesterol levels. So, I will be taking a blood
test soon at my primary doctor's office.
Last year, I went to a heart doctor, he put
me on Lipitor (80 mg) and said to go on the South Beach Diet. Well, I did that and then I
went on a High Protein, Low Fat, NO Carb diet for 3
weeks and lost 30 pounds...but my cholesterol levels are still high (I think about 200 or
more) so I'm back on Lipitor (40 mg per day).
So, if I eat saturated fat, some dieticians
say it will cause my levels to go higher and other people say its not from what you eat
but its hereditary. So, I am totally confused. Do the
levels go higher when you eat fat, or not or is it just hereditary and there is nothing
you can do? Do carbohydrates cause the levels to go higher in the blood because of the
increase
of glucose and then insulin, and insulin resistance? I just don't understand how our
bodies work - can you suggest some reading material that will explain the truth?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Sincerely,
GK.
Anthony replies:
Hi GK,
I'm glad you enjoyed my LDL Cholesterol:
"Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science? article. You have asked for further reading
material that will explain the truth about how our bodies
work. Well, I've written 2 books [insert greatly overused cliche about shameless
self-promotion here] that should help you immensely: The Great Cholesterol Con and The Fat
Loss
Bible. The first demolishes the lipid (cholesterol) hypothesis of heart disease, the
second destroys so much of the nonsense that has been leading frustrated dieters astray
for
decades. The Fat Loss Bible will also help you design an effective weight loss strategy in
a logical step-by-step manner.
The Great Cholesterol Con is available
here:
http://www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/
The Fat Loss Bible is available here:
http://www.thefatlossbible.net/
Those who would prefer a hard copy version
of The Great Cholesterol Con can get it with free shipping at Amazon.
I'll recommend more valuable reading
material by other authors a little later, but after reading your email, there are two main
points I would first like to emphasize.
The first is that the cholesterol theory of
heart disease is a complete sham. Despite what health authorities claim:
* Dietary clinical trials have completely
failed to show any benefit for cholesterol-lowering low-fat and low-saturated fat diets.
Some of these trials actually showed worse outcomes
on the cholesterol-lowering diets.
* Autopsy studies and PET scans show no
correlation between level of cholesterol and degree of atherosclerosis. These studies have
shown that people with very low cholesterol
levels can have severely diseased arteries.
* The vast majority of population-based
studies show no link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease.
As for LDL, fish oil lowers heart disease
incidence and mortality but often raises LDL. Call me strange, but if I had to choose
between politically incorrect LDL levels or death, I'd go
with the former.
These are but a few of the many
contradictions inherent in the pseudo-scientific absurdity that constitutes the
cholesterol or lipid hypothesis of heart disease.
You mention that your doctor has placed you
on the cholesterol-lowering statin drug Lipitor. If I were you, I would ask my doctor why
he has prescribed one of the statins - a class of
drugs that have been documented to cause muscle and tendon disorders, liver toxicity,
memory loss, mood disorders, and sexual dysfunction - even though they have not been
shown to extend the life of females by a single day. This fact was published in one of the
world's most widely read medical journals five years ago:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/18/2243
I'm not sure what fanciful reply you'll get
from your doctor, but the truth is that health authority and drug company propaganda
exerts far more influence over most doctors' prescribing habits than actual scientific
data (when a doctor tried to push my Mum onto statins a few years ago, she offered to
print and give him a copy of the above study; he replied that if she did he would refuse
to read it! Evidently, he had already made up his mind on the topic and a little thing
like published peer reviewed research was not going to make him re-consider his erroneous
beliefs).
I won't spend any more time commenting on
the cholesterol fraud, I have already written at length on the topic in The Great
Cholesterol Con. If you're not convinced the lipid hypothes
is nonsense after reading that then there's likely nothing more I can say to convince you.
I'll simply reiterate here that cholesterol
reduction is a bad joke that benefits no-one but drug companies, certain segments of the
food industry, pathology companies, and health
organizations that receive funding from drug companies and food manufacturers. As such, it
would not factor into any of my dietary strategies, and that includes body fat reduction.
People obsess over their cholesterol levels, succumbing to toxic drugs and all sorts of
idiotic diets in an attempt to pound them down, when they should be spending their time
and
effort on far more important and effective strategies: namely, keeping their bodily iron
levels low (but not deficient), achieving good glycemic control, avoiding or minimizing
stress,
taking clinically proven nutritional supplements, and consuming an antioxidant- and
nutrient-rich diet.
The second main point I would like to
convey is that the ultimate determinant of successful weight loss is not insulin or
carbohydrates. Nor for the record, is it "eating right for your
body or blood type", eating alleged metabolism-boosting "wonder foods" such
as coconut oil or red chilli, food combining, emulating the alleged eating habits of
certain ethnicities, or
any other such nonsense. As I explain in The Fat Loss Bible, the ultimate determinant of
fat derived weight loss is "calories in versus calories out".
No calorie deficit, no fat-derived weight
loss. Period. This has been shown time and time again in tightly controlled metabolic ward
studies dating back as far as the 1930s.
Thanks to the hyperbolic writings of
popular low-carb gurus, many people now erronously believe that carbohydrates and insulin
are the prime movers of fat loss and gain. Sure, short
term studies have shown that insulin can result in transient impairments of fat oxidation,
but it's a big leap to claim that this therefore results in longer term impairment of
actual body
fat loss. When subject to scientific scrutiny, the insulin theory of fat loss does not
hold up. Researchers have found that:
* Differences in insulin resistance do not
predict weight loss in response to calorie restricted diets in obese women[1].
* Differences in glycemic status do not
predict weight loss in response to calorie restricted diets in obese subjects[2].
* Inhibition of insulin secretion by
diazoxide had no effect on weight loss in hyperinsulinaemic obese subjects during an
8-week weight-loss diet[3].
Most important of all, actual clinical
trials conducted under ward conditions - rather than notoriously unreliable free-living
conditions - have shown that low-carb and zero-carb diets
offer no fat loss advantage over isocaloric (equal calorie) higher-carb diets. This
finding has been observed at very low-calorie intakes, moderately calorie restricted
diets, and in
eucaloric (weight maintaining) diets. It has been observed in metabolic wards around the
world, in both non-diabetic and type 2 diabetic subjects, and has been consistently
reported
in published papers dating as far back as 1935.
Nonetheless, this finding is routinely
ignored by authors of popular low-carb diet books, who have made a fortune telling people
that their diets offer a magical "metabolic advantage".
Not only have I completely debunked metabolic advantage dogma (MAD) in The Fat Loss Bible,
I've also written a highly popular free ebook on the subject:
They're All MAD!
http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf
This is not to say that low-carb diets are
without value. It has been shown in clinical trials that low-carb diets often exert
appetite-suppressing effects that lead to unintentional
reductions in caloric intake. It is this reduction in caloric intake, not some
highly-hyped but non-existent "metabolic advantage", that is responsible for any
subsequent fat-derived
weight loss. However, if a low-carb diet is employed but does not produce a calorie
deficit, then no fat-derived weight loss will occur. I only recommend low-carb diets with
certain
caveats, the main one being to avoid very-low-carb (ketogenic diets) at all costs. This
means eating a bare minimum of 60 grams of carbohydrate per day, and much more if you are
highly active.
For an easy-to-comprehend and highly
effective fat loss strategy, I strongly recommend you consult The Fat Loss Bible. It
explains how to sensibly establish a calorie deficit, and how
to maintain a calorie deficit until you reach your weight goals. You mention that you lost
a significant amount of weight, but that your progress has since diminished to a
frustratingly
slow pace. Most diet authors either have no clue how to deal with this, or recommend
largely ineffective strategies such as further reducing carbohydrate intake in the vain
hope that
this will somehow re-ignite fat loss.
Here's what happened in a nutshell: when
you first began the South Beach Diet, you were consuming a calorie deficit. As you lost
weight, this calorie deficit disappeared. Weight loss
reduces your daily calorie burn by 2 main mechanisms:
1. Both lean and fat tissue consumes
calories (the most voracious calorie consumers of all are organs such as the heart, brain,
kidneys, liver, etc). As your weight drops, and you
lose fat and lean tissue, so too does your resting metabolic rate.
2. If you keep your physical activity level
constant as you lose weight, then your daily calorie burn will also be reduced due to the
fact that you are now having to push around less
weight with every step you take. Can you imagine what would happen to your daily calorie
burn if you spent every waking moment wearing a weight vest containing 115 pounds?
That's right - it would increase markedly!
The Fat Loss Bible explains exactly what
you need to do about all this, but here's a few key points when setting up a weight loss
plan:
* Eat a diet built upon healthy,
nutrient-dense foods. Your diet should deliver the greatest possible quantity of nutrients
per calorie. Eating low-fat diets comprised of supposedly
cholesterol-lowering pseudo-foods is hardly compatible with this goal, nor is the
consumption of mineral-depleting ketogenic diets. Nor is he use of statin drugs, which are
well
documented to deplete your body of co-enzyme Q10, the critically important nutrient
required by every cell in your body (I'm betting your doctor never told you about that,
either...).
* Avoid diets that place inordinate
emphasis on and/or the avoidance of one particular macronutrient. In other words, avoid
very low-fat and very low-carb diets like the plague.
Extremely low-fat diets have been shown to be deficient in essential fatty acids and to
reduce absorption of important fat-soluble nutrients. Furthermore, the promoters of these
diets typically recommend that whole grain cereal grains form the bulk of your food
intake. Despite what mainstream dietitians would have you believe, whole grains are a very
poor food
choice; they are laden with anti-nutrients such as phytates, enzyme inhibitors and
lectins. If you try and avoid these by eating refined grains (anti-nutrients are mostly
found in the outer
husk of grains and seeds) you may then run into the glycemic control problems so common on
diets high in fiber-poor refined carbohydrates.
At the other end of the dietary spectrum,
very low-carb ketogenic diets have been shown to increase markers of lean tissue loss,
reduce levels of the thyroid hormone
triiodothyronine (T3), and typically lead to substandard intakes of phytonutrient-rich
plant foods. Magnesium and potassium intakes are often inadequate on these diets, and
anecdotal reports of cramping, lethargy, shakiness and heart rhythm disturbances are
common on these diets. There has been at least one case report of fatal ventricular
fibrillation
after commencement of a very low carbohydrate diet; upon autopsy, toxicological findings
were normal but the victim exhbited very low levels of serum potassium and calcium
(commencement of a ketogenic diet is well known to cause potassium losses)[4]. In another
clinical trial comparing ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets, a participant in the ketogenic
group had to be removed a week into the study after suffering cardiac arrhythmias[5]. To
add insult to injury, ketogenic diets often cause the breath and body odor of their
followers to
smell like unwashed feet. Thanks, but no thanks!
* Avoid extremely low-calorie intakes. If
you want to lose weight safely and in a relatively hassle-free manner, you must avoid the
temptation to 'speed things along' by dropping your
caloric intake to absurdly low levels. If this kind of drastic calorie restriction is
continued long enough and often enough, you can actually induce a metabolic state where
weight loss
becomes inordinately difficult. Don't go there.
* Unless you are so morbidly obese or have
musculoskeletal issues that severely restrict your ability to perform physical activity,
do not base your fat loss strategy solely upon
calorie restriction. Exercise is extremely important; increasing your daily calorie burn
from physical activity helps prevent you falling into the trap of reducing your caloric
intake to
miniscule levels in order to maintain a calorie deficit.
* Take periodic breaks from dieting.
Prolonged caloric restriction can exert detrimental physical and mental effects, so
occasionally revert back to periods where you consume a
maintenance calorie intake.
Obviously, there's a bit more to the fat
loss process, but these are the main points. Bottom line, your fat loss strategy has to be
effective, safe and sustainable - qualities often missing
from the flavour-of-the-month fad diets that tend to dominate the popular
"health" media.
OK, back to some more recommended reading
material. Obviously when recommending my own books, I'm going to be open to accusations of
bias. All I can say is that, despite
repeated attempts, no-one has ever been able to debunk the main precepts of my books, they
have been highly praised by a wide variety of commentators, and the ebook versions
come with a full 8-week money back guarantee. If after reading the ebooks you're not
thoroughly convinced that they will be of great benefit to you, return them for a full
no-questions-asked
refund.
Furthermore, I'm hardly the only one
speaking out against the anti-cholesterol and anti-calorie nonsense. Uffe Ravnskov's The
Cholesterol Myths is also a very convincing critique of the lipid hypothesis, as is
Russell Smith's The Cholesterol Conspiracy
When it comes to weight loss, in addition
to my book, I'd highly recommend the writings of Lyle McDonald. I've not read Tom Venuto's
ebook in its entirety, so can't comment on that,
but I find myself agreeing with most of what he has published on the Internet, so I'm
happy to recommend his web site. Dr Greg Ellis has also highlighted the absurdity of MAD
in his
Ultimate Diet Secrets, although the book is a bit lengthy - you'll find The Fat Loss Bible
covers the topic in far more detail over far less pages.
For general dietary and health knowledge, I
highly recommend the following:
Exposing the Hidden Dangers of Iron by
Garrison and Weinberg - quite possibly the most important health book I've ever read.
Excess bodily iron is a major cause of illness and
death but remains largely overlooked by the medical community. Ignore this book at your
own peril.
Knowledge and Nonsense: The Science of
Nutrition and Exercise by Jamie Hale. A terrific book that debunks many common diet,
training and health fallacies.
Malignant Medical Myths by Joel Kauffman.
Another excellent book that destroys many false but widely accepted health and medical
beliefs.
The Garden Of Eating by Rachel and Don
Matesz. Human beings did not evolve on a diet of whole grains, low-fat cookies, and
sterol-enhanced margarines. They evolved on a diet
of fresh meats and non-grain, non-leguminous plant foods. I strongly recommend that you
base your diet upon a Paleolithic approach to nutrition, but without becoming a fanatical
dietary Luddite, as often happens to "Paleo" diet fanatics. The Matesz's book
strikes a good balance between eating in an evolutionary correct fashion whilst living in
the 21st
century. And unlike other books in the genre, the authors are not cholesterol-phobic
revisionists who attempt to re-write human history by claiming humans evolved on only lean
meats.You can get it Amazon or at the authors' website .
You've probably never heard of any of the
above books. In my experience, when it comes to popular format books, the most useful and
factual information usually comes from little
known titles. In contrast, the flavour-of-the-month diet books that dominate the best
seller lists are typically full of half-truths, pseudoscience, and outright lies. But as
long as such fad
books rake in the dollars, most publisher's couldn't give a hoot. Even the male co-author
of the best-selling anti-carb tome Protein Power, who has little reason to complain about
the
publishing industry, unwittingly acknowledged in an email to me that:
"The sad truth about the publishing
business (a truth that has taken me a long time to learn) is that to publishers the
content of the book doesn't matter a whit. Sad but true. What
publishers look for is someone whom they can promote. And to publishers, the more merit
badges one has the easier to promote."
Notoriety, gimmick appeal, capitalizing on
a hot trend, or a string of fancy initials after an author's name are far more important
to publishers than scientifically valid information.
Factual information based on solid science might be crushingly boring to a publisher
desperately searching for "the next big thing", but as an individual seeking
successful weight
loss and good health, it's extremely important, so be discerning about your choice of
reading material.
By the way, I do not stand to benefit
financially in any way by recommending any of these authors' books or sites. I recommend
them simply because I believe they contain quality
information.
You have already lost 115 pounds, an
achievement you should be proud of. The key now is to continue on to a truly lean
bodyweight as efficiently as possible. Look upon this second
phase of your weight loss journey as a new challenge that, armed with the right knowledge
and some good old fashioned stubbornness and drive, you will conquer in a most decisive
fashion.
Good luck!
Anthony.
References:
McLaughlin T, et al. Differences in insulin
resistance do not predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in healthy obese
women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism, 1999; 84 (2): 578-581.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/84/2/578
Differences in glycaemic status do not
predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in obese patients. Clinical
Nutrition, Feb 2006; 25 (1): 117-122.
Due A, et al. No effect of inhibition of
insulin secretion by diazoxide on weight loss in hyperinsulinaemic obese subjects during
an 8-week weight-loss diet. Diabetes, Obesity and
Metabolism, Jul 2007; 9 (4): 566-574.
Stevens A, et al. Sudden cardiac death of
an adolescent during dieting. Southern Meedical Journal, Sep 2002; 95 (9): 1047-1049.
Johnston S, et al. Ketogenic
low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate
diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May 2006; 8
(5): 1055-1061.