- What is the point in having a
mind if you never change it
- Your health and that of your family and
friends matters
- Our App can and has changed health outcomes
-
We have made FREE what other programmes charge for
- We
have merged what low carb Dr's use clinically
- Challenge what you have
been taught about food
- Did your Grand Parents eat like
that?
- What foods were eaten before the diabesity
crisis
- Were "we" slimmer in the early to mid
1900's?
- Is modern processed food better than
historical
- This site is an information portal and
FREE health
App
- Learn the health markers you should know - no
agenda
- No guesswork. Route 1 direction to what to
eat
- Enough science sprinkled with common sense
-
Do you know about glucose, insulin, leptin - you should
- Katie and
Moyle Baker want to share food truths
You've come to the right place. The foods we use for condition management reduces body fat as well. This is because we target insulin, the fat storage hormone. No need to calorie count as we just watch carbohydrates. Excess carbs turn to fat (triglycerides), our method negates this. Look at our meal samples below.
Do you have a medical condition where you take pills or drugs to alleviate the symptoms - have you noticed you never get cured. Diabetes can be officially reversed and or put into remission using a Low Carb Ketogenic or Carnivore diet, as can many other conditions. Low fat and high carb has been a disaster for 50 years - enough already.
Optionally put the icing on cake. Let us guide you through some beginner to intermediate workouts. Start with walking. Maybe take our beginner Karate training, featuring a World & European champion. We even have an ex-diabetic powering through a weights session.
Do you have a medical condition where you take pills or drugs to alleviate the symptoms - have you noticed you never get cured. Diabetes can be officially reversed and or put into remission using a Low Carb Ketogenic or Carnivore diet, as can many other conditions.
The original "classic" Ketogenic
diet was used to manage epilepsy since the 1920's, this means it is one the
longest known formalised diets. The UK's Epilepsy Society continue promote Ketogenic diets
for those who do not get on with AED's (anti epileptic drugs). 3-4 grams
of fat are set off against 1 gram of carboyhydrates and protein (87 - 90%
fat). It is not necessary to use these ratios for other conditions, such
as diabetes. All that is required is to produce measurable ketones, either
via weeing on a stick, breathing into a registering device, or pricking a finger
taking a drop of blood.
As mentioned above, there is no requirement to
stick to a dogma about the ratios. Our Ketogenic diet consists of a base
of meat, fish, eggs or shell fish, cooked in anyway, but absent of any vegetable
oil (where possible), animal fats such as lard, butter, tallow, duck fat are
fine as is coconut oil, and olive oil for light frying (watch the smoke point
with this oil). We then add low sugar vegetables and fruit. Diary is
used if tolerated. Our meals are not too dissimilar to traditional British
meat and two veg, with a modern twist. Here are some examples pulled pork greens &
squash, Thai chicken curry, Chinese style duck & vegetables, Greek
yogurt fruit & nuts. Things can be as simple as sausage /
bacon, tomato and eggs.
The objective of a ketogenic diet is to lower
glucose, which creates an additional fuel source called ketones. Ketones
are a cleaner fuel than glucose. Ketones are natural, babies are born in
ketosis. Modern industrialised high carb eating patterns do not allow
glucose to lower to the point of significant bouts of ketosis; liver and bacon,
meat and two veg, has been replaced by pasta, pizza, chips or breaded fried
chicken. Something sweet, cereal or bread based is eaten at each
opportunity up to 6 times a day and considered normal, when the previous was a
maximum of 3 (Jason Fung).
The rewards are unbelievable.
Truly. Everyone deserves to experience what "we" feel, words cannot
express the power of this natural intervention. Fat loss, increased
energy, clarity of thought, stable blood sugars, chronic condition potential
reversal or better results than drug treatments (without the side effects).
Animal based Ketogenic diets nourish the body completely meaning that food
satiety is reached quickly. This in turn is a gateway into fasting as an
option. Fasting speeds up fat loss and or resolution / relief of whatever
condition present, such as migranes or IBS. This translates to better work
performance, relationships, quality of life and mood.
Would you like to
turn fat into fuel, no calorie counting. Enjoy full plates of food.
Only exercise as an optional extra. Have no requirement to eat every 4
hours, the majority on a Ketogenic diet eat either one or 2 meals a day - yes
really, with no hunger and even if they are athletic. No requirement to try to
maintain weight with excessive exercise (exercise does however put the icing on
the cake). Naturally reverses being overweight and Type 2 diabetes. Is the
best way to manages Type 1 diabetes (flat glucose, minimal insulin). The
American Diabetes Association wrote a consensus report which
states:
"Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals
with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia
and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual
needs and preferences."
Similar to the ADA in
America, the Western Australia government produced a report called the "Food
Fix", with a similar landmark recommendation of the ADA in America to endorse a
low carbohydate diet for Type 2
diabetics https://www.nutritioniq.com.au/post/the-food-fix (report)
That is 2 major authorites stating
that low carbohydrate diets can be used for diabetics. As up to 1 in 2
persons in the USA have either Type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes and up to 88%
have metabolic syndrome, common sense dictates that at least 50% of a major
population could use a low carbohydrate dietary lifestyle - common
sense?
The Ketogenic lifestyle supports the functions of the liver,
kidneys, pancreas, eyes, circulation, thyroid, brain, nerves, heart, bones and
muscles.
Some never measure anything.
Carbohydrates can be measured if optimising a condition is a requirement.
Some guidelines are that 100 grams of carbs a day is classified as a Low Carb
Higher Fat amount around 50 grams is perhaps an amount to initially aim for and
tune from there. 20 to 30 grams essentially guarantees getting into Ketosis. These three areas are where the
majority stay within. It is possible to go lower on carbs, with some
opting for zero. Whilst it is not possible to entirely have zero carbs as
trace amounts some persons either choose to or must do to resolve extremely
chronic conditions such as crohn's disease.
That's right. In the
mainstream, low carb is often defined as a minimum of 130 grams a day, which is
less than 25% of calories consumed. 50 grams of calories equates to less
than 10% of calories a day from carbohydrates.
Are these lower amounts
safe? Yes and No. Yes, In 2005 The National Academies of Sciences said that there are
essential fatty acids and proteins which must be consumed for human life, but
that there are no essential carbohydrates. This is a technical fact,
however "we" advocate low sugar carbohydrates. If fats and protein are
present within the diet, the body will convert these into the exact amounts
required for the brain, the rest of the body will use ketones - this is a
natural state that modern eating patterns prevent.
Yes to both. You can decide what works best for you. We are not robots, and we have different ancestral heritage, which does impact the ratios we can tolerate, in a similar manner to risks for Alzheimers or cancer. Women may in general do better with a higher fat ratio to sure up hormones, but this is not universal.
Our meals use whole foods of an animal origin such as all meats, fish and shell fish. In addition low sugar fruit, vegetables and salads. If diary is tolerated this is also included along with nuts and seeds. We remove modern food like products with multiple ingredient and additives, many of which cannot be pronounced.
Absolutely safe and delicious. We've eaten red meat for millennia. The longest living population are from Hong Kong and they eat the most meat. Doesn't this contradict the mainstream push? Yes, in order to sell an alternative, the narrative has to be true, otherwise "fake" foods would be consigned to history. What about the evidence? Review it, the tricks are to use anti-meat testers and studies that do not pass the scientific threshold to prove anything. The contributors to this site believed the mantra, and suffered IBS, fat and diabetes. Katie Baker was trained 3 times in the low fat, high carb, grain based methods as a fitness trainer, sports scientist and a physiotherapist - she would practically assign nutrition in real world scenarios, only to bin the indoctrination in favour of simple food that nature provides as a single ingredient.
Understandable. Here's a common
sense rationale. Indigenous populations such as the Inuit and Maasai eat mostly
meat and do not suffer the same non-communicative diseases of Western societies,
such as diabetes and hypertension. Here are some websites with real people and
their successes on mostly meat based diets:
- Meatrx
- Diabetes.co.uk
- Diet Doctor
- We have our own small successes, which we intend to grow.
Meat is at the heart of these successes at very close to 100% of the cases.
What about the weight of the evidence? There has never been a study that crosses
the scientific threshold of proof. IARC say eating bacon raises a risk of bowel
cancer to 18% or 51 in 100,000, the standard risk is
43 in 100,000. The statistical gymnastics to have a rise of 8
equate to 18%, is achieved by a method called relative risk. Whist relative risk
is a legitimate measurement "they" know it is misleading. The 8 increase was
gained by asking people what they ate via a food frequency
questionnaire.....enough said, revert back to the section above regarding the
longest lived and what they eat. On these questionnaires, pizza for example is
classed as meat.
When it comes to risk, take a fast food meal of burger and chips. They would
say the burger pattie increases risk, whilst hundreds of medical professionals
say the risk is in the rancid vegetable oil, the sugary burger bun and the high
carb fries - we are right, they are wrong.
Food choices have recently
been framed in the "plant based paradigm" which favours commercial products not
whole foods such as carrot or courgettes (always something packaged and mixed
with loads of ingredients). We prefer history to tell the truth about real
food. In Britain for example if you have relatives who are around 70 to 90
years old, ask them what they ate as a child. Review for yourself what
hunter gathers used to eat, and what those who still survive now eat (those not
influenced by Western foods, such as in the Amazon). The Maasi, Hadza,
Inuit are good examples. Most have in common a meat and or fish as the
primary must have base of their diets with berries and tubers for subsistence
(check this for yourself). Below is an example of what the Commanche
indians ate.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche):
The Comanche
were initially hunter-gatherers. When they lived in the Rocky Mountains, during
their migration to the Great Plains, both men and women shared the
responsibility of gathering and providing food. When the Comanche reached the
plains, hunting came to predominate. Hunting was considered a male activity and
was a principal source of prestige. For meat, the Comanche hunted buffalo, elk,
black bear, pronghorn, and deer. When game was scarce, the men
hunted wild mustangs, sometimes eating their own ponies. In later years the
Comanche raided Texas ranches and stole longhorn cattle. They did not eat fish
or fowl, unless starving, when they would eat virtually any creature they could
catch, including armadillos, skunks, rats, lizards, frogs, and grasshoppers.
Buffalo meat and other game was prepared and cooked by the women. The
women also gathered wild fruits, seeds, nuts, berries, roots, and
tubers — including plums, grapes, juniper berries, persimmons,
mulberries, acorns, pecans, wild onions, radishes, and the fruit of the prickly
pear cactus. The Comanche also acquired maize, dried pumpkin, and tobacco
through trade and raids. Most meats were roasted over a fire or boiled. To boil
fresh or dried meat and vegetables, women dug a pit in the ground, which they
lined with animal skins or buffalo stomach and filled with water to make a kind
of cooking pot. They placed heated stones in the water until it boiled and had
cooked their stew. After they came into contact with the Spanish, the Comanche
traded for copper pots and iron kettles, which made cooking easier.
Women used berries and nuts, as well as honey and tallow, to flavor buffalo
meat. They stored the tallow in intestine casings or rawhide pouches called
oyóotû¿. They especially liked to make a sweet mush of buffalo marrow mixed with
crushed mesquite beans.
The Comanches sometimes ate raw meat, especially raw liver flavored with
gall. They also drank the milk from the slashed udders of buffalo, deer,
and elk. Among their delicacies was the curdled milk from the
stomachs of suckling buffalo calves. They also enjoyed buffalo tripe, or
stomachs.
Comanche people generally had a light meal in the morning and a large
evening meal. During the day they ate whenever they were hungry or when it was
convenient. Like other Plains Indians, the Comanche were very hospitable people.
They prepared meals whenever a visitor arrived in camp, which led to outsiders'
belief that the Comanches ate at all hours of the day or night. Before calling a
public event, the chief took a morsel of food, held it to the sky, and then
buried it as a peace offering to the Great Spirit. Many families offered thanks
as they sat down to eat their meals in their tipis.
Comanche children ate pemmican, but this was primarily a tasty, high-energy
food reserved for war parties. Carried in a parfleche pouch, pemmican was eaten
only when the men did not have time to hunt. Similarly, in camp, people ate
pemmican only when other food was scarce. Traders ate pemmican sliced and dipped
in honey, which they called Indian bread.
This is just one example, far
away from the diets now routinely consumed with the 600,000 choices in modern
supermarkets
No and yes. No, because we have
modules that assist you with tracking and measuring progress. You can partner
with a buddie or contact a health care professional to monitor and work with
you. The meals have a shopping list and easy to follow recipe or video.
The "yes" is due to fast food, sweets, crisps, biscuits and the like being
so tempting and everywhere. It is essential to understand your why for adopting
the programme. Standard dietary lifestyles add fat and increase sickness.
Others around you may not support your choice accidentally; they will continue
to eat the tempting junk foods. The junk will still be in the cupboards,
at every fuel station, work. Your "why" has to be stronger than the
obstacles to success.
The best way to not do a life changing ketogenic diet is to mix in the foods and drinks which made you look to dieting in the first place. There are over 600,000 supermarket foods worldwide. Try to picture how many food items there were circa 150 years ago in every society. The modern foods have been designed to hit the "bliss point". Bad fats (vegetable or more accurately labeled seed oils) when mixed with flour and sugar create many of the treats in societies. These are toxic and correlate with many modern diseases.
Cholesterol is in every cell in your
body. Do you believe your body would be trying to harm you? In order for vitamin
D from sunlight to be synthesised, adequate cholesterol within the body is
required. Did you know that more persons die with so called normal cholesterol
than high - where does this fact leave the push to lower cholesterol.
Cholesterol is required for male and female sex hormones. Cholesterol repairs
the body and is required for a strong immune response. Your brain has 25%
of the cholesterol in your body, is it wise to tamper with our evolutionary
workings on the hypothesis that is still an hypothesis, where the author has
been proved to misrepresented facts.
The "Diet Heart Hypothesis" was developed in the 1950's by Ancel Keys, this
blamed fat and cholesterol for heart attacks and strokes; whilst there is a
consensus among many in favour of the theory, there is no definitive proof that
cholesterol is a bad actor. Would we say someone should be drained of blood if
they contracted blood cancer? There are tests which can see heart disease
such as a coronary artery calcium (cac) scan rather than a guess (framingham)
which is current standard of care. When the standard of care equation is
compared to cac results in the same individuals it is embarassing the
difference; we cannot keep giving our populations statins on this
basis.
Advocates of the diet heart hypothesis cannot reconcile that post
menopausal women show significant benefit to having high cholesterol. Everyone,
especially women would do well to read or listen to the "Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz,
and review the YouTube works of Dave Feldman and David Diamond.
Further reading /
viewing:
Tamara Willner
Dr Jeffrey Gerber
Dr Malcolm Kendrick
Dr Paul
Mason
You have most likely been eating in
a carbohydrate heavy manner for decades. Your body expects meals to be
sugary either in the mouth, and or when broken down by digestion.
Switching to a low carb or ketogenic diet requires the body to build up
mechanisms for digestion.
Eating cereals, fast foods usually with a bread
wrapper, juices and the like are talked of as being "normal" eating. This
type of diet is the worst as it is designed by men and women is white gowns
whose raison d'être is to tickle the food senses (bliss point), and ensure you
are enticed to buy more.
Our ketodoit programme retrains your taste buds
to an ancestral level. This reset enables a renewed appreciation of
foods.
Most people take 2 weeks to go from their current eating pattern
to a healthy ketodoit whole food animal based dietary method. This is a
remarkably short period of time in comparison to years of mixed
eating.
Absolutely safe and delicious. We've eaten red meat for millennia. The longest living population are from Hong Kong and they eat the most meat. Doesn't this contradict the mainstream push? Yes, in order to sell an alternative, the narrative has to be true, otherwise "fake" foods would be consigned to history. What about the evidence? Review it, the tricks are to use anti-meat testers and studies that do not pass the scientific threshold to prove anything. The contributors to this site believed the mantra, and suffered IBS, fat and diabetes. Katie Baker was trained 3 times in the low fat, high carb, grain based methods as a fitness trainer, sports scientist and a physiotherapist - she would practically assign nutrition in real world scenarios, only to bin the indoctrination in favour of simple food that nature provides as a single ingredient.
Understandable. Here's a common
sense rationale. Indigenous populations such as the Inuit and Maasai eat mostly
meat and do not suffer the same non-communicative diseases of Western societies,
such as diabetes and hypertension. Here are some websites with real people and
their successes on mostly meat based diets:
- Meatrx
- Diabetes.co.uk
- Diet Doctor
- We have our own small successes, which we intend to grow.
Meat is at the heart of these successes at very close to 100% of the cases.
What about the weight of the evidence? There has never been a study that crosses
the scientific threshold of proof. IARC say eating bacon raises a risk of bowel
cancer to 18% or 51 in 100,000, the standard risk is
43 in 100,000. The statistical gymnastics to have a rise of 8
equate to 18%, is achieved by a method called relative risk. Whist relative risk
is a legitimate measurement "they" know it is misleading. The 8 increase was
gained by asking people what they ate via a food frequency
questionnaire.....enough said, revert back to the section above regarding the
longest lived and what they eat. On these questionnaires, pizza for example is
classed as meat.
When it comes to risk, take a fast food meal of burger and chips. They would
say the burger pattie increases risk, whilst hundreds of medical professionals
say the risk is in the rancid vegetable oil, the sugary burger bun and the high
carb fries - we are right, they are wrong.
Food choices have recently
been framed in the "plant based paradigm" which favours commercial products not
whole foods such as carrot or courgettes (always something packaged and mixed
with loads of ingredients). We prefer history to tell the truth about real
food. In Britain for example if you have relatives who are around 70 to 90
years old, ask them what they ate as a child. Review for yourself what
hunter gathers used to eat, and what those who still survive now eat (those not
influenced by Western foods, such as in the Amazon). The Maasi, Hadza,
Inuit are good examples. Most have in common a meat and or fish as the
primary must have base of their diets with berries and tubers for subsistence
(check this for yourself). Below is an example of what the Commanche
indians ate.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche):
The Comanche
were initially hunter-gatherers. When they lived in the Rocky Mountains, during
their migration to the Great Plains, both men and women shared the
responsibility of gathering and providing food. When the Comanche reached the
plains, hunting came to predominate. Hunting was considered a male activity and
was a principal source of prestige. For meat, the Comanche hunted buffalo, elk,
black bear, pronghorn, and deer. When game was scarce, the men
hunted wild mustangs, sometimes eating their own ponies. In later years the
Comanche raided Texas ranches and stole longhorn cattle. They did not eat fish
or fowl, unless starving, when they would eat virtually any creature they could
catch, including armadillos, skunks, rats, lizards, frogs, and grasshoppers.
Buffalo meat and other game was prepared and cooked by the women. The
women also gathered wild fruits, seeds, nuts, berries, roots, and
tubers — including plums, grapes, juniper berries, persimmons,
mulberries, acorns, pecans, wild onions, radishes, and the fruit of the prickly
pear cactus. The Comanche also acquired maize, dried pumpkin, and tobacco
through trade and raids. Most meats were roasted over a fire or boiled. To boil
fresh or dried meat and vegetables, women dug a pit in the ground, which they
lined with animal skins or buffalo stomach and filled with water to make a kind
of cooking pot. They placed heated stones in the water until it boiled and had
cooked their stew. After they came into contact with the Spanish, the Comanche
traded for copper pots and iron kettles, which made cooking easier.
Women used berries and nuts, as well as honey and tallow, to flavor buffalo
meat. They stored the tallow in intestine casings or rawhide pouches called
oyóotû¿. They especially liked to make a sweet mush of buffalo marrow mixed with
crushed mesquite beans.
The Comanches sometimes ate raw meat, especially raw liver flavored with
gall. They also drank the milk from the slashed udders of buffalo, deer,
and elk. Among their delicacies was the curdled milk from the
stomachs of suckling buffalo calves. They also enjoyed buffalo tripe, or
stomachs.
Comanche people generally had a light meal in the morning and a large
evening meal. During the day they ate whenever they were hungry or when it was
convenient. Like other Plains Indians, the Comanche were very hospitable people.
They prepared meals whenever a visitor arrived in camp, which led to outsiders'
belief that the Comanches ate at all hours of the day or night. Before calling a
public event, the chief took a morsel of food, held it to the sky, and then
buried it as a peace offering to the Great Spirit. Many families offered thanks
as they sat down to eat their meals in their tipis.
Comanche children ate pemmican, but this was primarily a tasty, high-energy
food reserved for war parties. Carried in a parfleche pouch, pemmican was eaten
only when the men did not have time to hunt. Similarly, in camp, people ate
pemmican only when other food was scarce. Traders ate pemmican sliced and dipped
in honey, which they called Indian bread.
This is just one example, far
away from the diets now routinely consumed with the 600,000 choices in modern
supermarkets
No and yes. No, because we have
modules that assist you with tracking and measuring progress. You can partner
with a buddie or contact a health care professional to monitor and work with
you. The meals have a shopping list and easy to follow recipe or video.
The "yes" is due to fast food, sweets, crisps, biscuits and the like being
so tempting and everywhere. It is essential to understand your why for adopting
the programme. Standard dietary lifestyles add fat and increase sickness.
Others around you may not support your choice accidentally; they will continue
to eat the tempting junk foods. The junk will still be in the cupboards,
at every fuel station, work. Your "why" has to be stronger than the
obstacles to success.
The best way to not do a life changing ketogenic diet is to mix in the foods and drinks which made you look to dieting in the first place. There are over 600,000 supermarket foods worldwide. Try to picture how many food items there were circa 150 years ago in every society. The modern foods have been designed to hit the "bliss point". Bad fats (vegetable or more accurately labeled seed oils) when mixed with flour and sugar create many of the treats in societies. These are toxic and correlate with many modern diseases.
Cholesterol is in every cell in your
body. Do you believe your body would be trying to harm you? In order for vitamin
D from sunlight to be synthesised, adequate cholesterol within the body is
required. Did you know that more persons die with so called normal cholesterol
than high - where does this fact leave the push to lower cholesterol.
Cholesterol is required for male and female sex hormones. Cholesterol repairs
the body and is required for a strong immune response. Your brain has 25%
of the cholesterol in your body, is it wise to tamper with our evolutionary
workings on the hypothesis that is still an hypothesis, where the author has
been proved to misrepresented facts.
The "Diet Heart Hypothesis" was developed in the 1950's by Ancel Keys, this
blamed fat and cholesterol for heart attacks and strokes; whilst there is a
consensus among many in favour of the theory, there is no definitive proof that
cholesterol is a bad actor. Would we say someone should be drained of blood if
they contracted blood cancer? There are tests which can see heart disease
such as a coronary artery calcium (cac) scan rather than a guess (framingham)
which is current standard of care. When the standard of care equation is
compared to cac results in the same individuals it is embarassing the
difference; we cannot keep giving our populations statins on this
basis.
Advocates of the diet heart hypothesis cannot reconcile that post
menopausal women show significant benefit to having high cholesterol. Everyone,
especially women would do well to read or listen to the "Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz,
and review the YouTube works of Dave Feldman and David Diamond.
Further reading /
viewing:
Tamara Willner
Dr Jeffrey Gerber
Dr Malcolm Kendrick
Dr Paul
Mason
Dr Paul Mason
Dr Zoe Harcombe
Dr Assem Malhotra
Dr David Diamond
In 1958 he launched the Seven Countries Study, researching the relationship between
dietary patterns and the prevalence of coronary heart disease in countries such as
Greece, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Japan, and Finland. This flawed study was to have
the most profound impact on dietary guidelines to this day. Keys had
concluded that saturated fats as found in milk and meat have adverse effects, while
unsaturated fats found in vegetable oils had beneficial effects, largely by the
hypothesis that all dietary fats cause obesity and cancer.
Keys missed
out 14 countries which inconvenienced his findings, such as Germany and
France.
This hypothesis morphed from total cholesterol being an
issue to "LDL-c", and fat in general to "Saturated Fat". This led to the billion
dollar statins industry, the demonisation of red meat and dairy to the benefit of low
fat, high carb food-like items.
Read more..
Is a senior software engineer and
entrepreneur.
Began a Low Carb, High Fat diet in April 2015 due to pre-diabetes. His
cholesterol lipid numbers spiked substantially after going on the diet. Dave spotted a
pattern in the lipid system that’s very similar to distributed objects in
networks.
Dave has been able to show that by manipulating his diet
(for 3 days) he can make a mockery of the foundations
of the Diet Heart Hypothesis "Feldman Protocol".
Dave has also downloaded the
largest publicly available Nhanes dataset, with detailed information collated by the
Americans in most aspects of cholesterol. The takeaway is that more people die
with so called lower normal cholesterol (LDL-c)
. Read more..
An advanced problem solving leader.
Similar to Dave Feldman, Ivor had some
metabolic issues to address after health tests. Ivor used his engineering logic to
root cause and fix the issues his doctor was struggling with in the context of the
current dogmas.
Ivor's mentor David Bobbet, a millionaire Irish businessman, had
aced most health tests including those for diabetes. It transpired that David had
excessive plaques within his arteries, not picked up by the regular cholesterol
tests. A Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) scan looks within the arteries and saw the
disease, compared to the standard used (Framingham equation, which assists in dishing
out statins).
He has additionally highlighted the risk factors that were present
in a univariate and multivariate study of
second heart attacks following persons for years after the first attack. The
results were Univariate Risk Ratio:
- Hypertension history
1.9x (Highly significant)
- Diastolic BP > 80 )mm Hg) 1.6x (Highly
significant)
Total Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl 1.5x (borderline significant)
LDL
> 130 mg/dl 1.4x (non-significant)
Multivariate Risk
Ratio:
Total Cholesterol ~1x (non-significant)
LDL
~1x (non-significant)
Insulin 6.7x (Highly
significant)
Read more..
Abstract
Objective It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a
risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with
increasing age, but as little is known as to whether low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol (LDL-C), one component of total cholesterol, is associated with
mortality in the elderly, we decided to investigate this issue.
Setting, participants and outcome measures We sought PubMed for cohort
studies, where LDL-C had been investigated as a risk factor for all-cause and/or
CV mortality in individuals ≥60 years from the general population.
Results We identified 19 cohort studies including 30 cohorts with a total of
68 094 elderly people, where all-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts and
CV mortality in 9 cohorts. Inverse association between all-cause mortality and
LDL-C was seen in 16 cohorts (in 14 with statistical significance) representing
92% of the number of participants, where this association was recorded. In the
rest, no association was found. In two cohorts, CV mortality was highest in the
lowest LDL-C quartile and with statistical significance; in seven cohorts, no
association was found.
Conclusions High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people
over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie,
that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly
people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our
analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis.
Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines
recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of
cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.
"We have categorized statins for
low-risk patients as red, or not recommended, based on certain value judgments.
Statin studies, mostly industry sponsored, used methods such as run-out phases,
and the raw trial data continue to be withheld by manufacturers despite many
requests by independent groups. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the
reported benefits represent a best-case, whereas harms are most likely
underestimated. In addition, although statin-induced muscle symptoms are at
least five times more likely than any benefit, this is typically reversible. The
decision not to categorize statins for low-risk patients as black, or harms
greater than benefits, is based on value judgments about this compared with
cardiovascular events. This decision becomes trickier when considering the
additional burden of statin-induced diabetes. One large, high-quality trial did
not find an increase in diabetes risk. However, originally unpublished results
from the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels trial
failed to disclose that the NNH for new-onset diabetes was just 38 in patients
treated with atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, compared with placebo."
"...unless LDL levels are very high (7.8 mmol/L or higher), they have no value, in isolation, in predicting those individuals at risks of CHD"
They don't measure LDL-c. They tend to review Cholesterol/HDL ratio, where cholesterol is the total number. E.g. https://qrisk.org/three/
This trial was meant to show that
reducing Saturated Fat, Cholesterol amongst other areas would reduce Coronary
Heart Disease (CHD) - it did'nt show the intended results.
(https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/multiple-risk-factor-intervention-trial-risk-factor-changes-and-mortality-results)
MRFIT, published in 1982, randomized 12,866 high-risk men (men who smoked or
had high cholesterol or blood pressure, but who had not previously had a heart
attack) to a complex intervention or control. The “special intervention” for the
former group included (1) cessation of cigarette smoking, (2) weight loss, (3)
hypertensive medication, and (4) nutritional counseling, with a focus on
reducing saturated fat and cholesterol intake. Controls were given no special
treatment. Subjects were followed for an average of seven years.
The intervention was successful in achieving its targets. The special
intervention (SI) group saw greater decreases in blood pressure, serum
cholesterol, and smoking rates over the course of six annual visits, compared to
usual care (UC) controls. The groups were well-matched at baseline, and by year
six, the SI group’s mean DBP was 3 mm Hg lower, serum cholesterol 5 mg/dL lower
(entirely accounted for by an LDL decrease), and smoking rates 13% lower (32% vs
45%).
The primary outcome, however, was CHD mortality, and here the trial failed
to show an impact. Over six years, there were 92 CHD deaths in the SI group (out
of 6,428 initial participants) and 104 in the UC group (from 6,438
participants)—an improvement in mortality that did not reach statistical
significance. The difference in all-cause mortality was even smaller, with 265
deaths in the SI group and 260 in the UC. It may be worth noting that the single
largest difference between the groups in terms of mortality by a specific cause
was related to deaths due to cancer, which numbered 81 in the SI group and 69 in
UC.
Overall, this trial failed to demonstrate that lowering cholesterol (via
reduction in cholesterol and saturated fat intake), ceasing smoking, and
normalizing blood pressure together significantly decreases heart disease risk
in high-risk men, and the combinatorial therapy makes it impossible to discern
the positive (or even negative, as in the case of drug-based blood pressure
lowering) impact of each treatment element individually.
The low fat aspect of the diet
showed again that lowering cholesterol had no impact on heart disease:
(https://thebms.org.uk/2006/04/womens-health-initiative-the-final-outcome/):
A low fat diet was hypothesized to reduce the risk of breast and colorectal
cancer and cardiovascular disease [5,6,7]. 19, 541 women were assigned to a diet
with reduced total fat intake (20% total energy) and increased intakes of
vegetables, fruits, and grains. The comparison group of 29, 294 women did not
have any dietary changes. Mean follow-up was 8.1 years. The dietary intervention
did not significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke,
cardiovascular disease, breast or colorectal cancer.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Health_Initiative):
Dietary modification
The dietary modification (DM) trial was conducted with the purpose of
identifying the effects of a low-fat eating pattern; the primary outcome
measures were the incidence of invasive breast and colorectal cancers, fatal and
nonfatal coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and overall cardiovascular
disease (CVD), calculated as a composite of CHD and stroke.
Women in the trial were randomly assigned to the dietary intervention group
(40%; n = 19541) or the control group (60%; n = 29294). In addition to the
global exclusion criteria, component-specific exclusion criteria included prior
breast cancer, colorectal cancer, other cancers excluding nonmelanoma skin
cancer in the past 10 years, adherence or retention concerns (e.g., a substance
abuse history or dementia), or a baseline diet that included a fat intake
accounting for less than 32% of total energy intake.
Participants in the intervention group underwent a regimen of trainings,
group meetings, and consultations which encouraged low-fat eating habits,
targeted to 20% of daily caloric intake, along with increasing the consumption
of fruits, vegetables, and grains. Those assigned to the control group were not
asked to adopt any specific dietary changes.
DM component findings
The mean follow-up for the DM intervention was 8.1 years. At study years 1
and 6, the dietary fat intake levels for the intervention group were 10.7% and
8.2% less than those of the control group, respectively. The results indicated
that, despite some reduction in CVD risk factors (e.g., blood lipids and
diastolic blood pressure), there was no significant reduction in the risk of
CHD, stroke, or CVD, indicating that a more focused combination of diet and
lifestyle interventions may be required to further improve CVD risk factors and
reduce overall risk. In addition, no statistically significant reduction in
breast cancer risk was identified, although the results approached significance
and indicated that longer-term follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison.
The trial also did not identify a reduction in colorectal cancer risk
attributable to a low-fat dietary pattern.
Other Assessments
(https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/d1vdrx/lowfat_dietary_pattern_among_postmenopausal_women/):
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
showed no benefits for a low-fat diet. Women assigned to this eating strategy
did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or
cardiovascular disease. And after eight years, their weights were generally the
same as those of women following their usual diets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232?dopt=Citation
a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant
reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up
period.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467233?dopt=Citation
In this study, a low-fat dietary pattern intervention did not reduce the
risk of colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women during 8.1 years of follow-up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467234?dopt=Citation
a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes
of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD,
stroke, or CVD
BBC
Dr Zyrowski
Brian Sanders
Please watch and see if this makes sense. You already know
through your life experience, maybe politics or work, that the truth sometimes doesn't
matter. Did you know for example that most Type 2 diabetics who put their condition into
remission are meat eaters, well over 90%. How does this sit with the claims from the plant
based pushers that meat causes diabetes? For each plant based film, such as what the
health or cow spiracy, fact check these by searching YouTube with the word "debunk".
Do you remember the diesel fuel debacle or how about tabacco or what is live right now,
sugar. What these all have in common is that the "anointed" authorities have tried
to make these problems seem like there is nothing to see
here.
There is an element within the climate change movement
that has sneakily bolted onto this great agenda a notion that cows are bad for the
environment. "We" have proof that cows raised in a holistic manner can and do become not
just carbon neutral, but that they positively sequester carbon. Keywords for your
research are the Savory Institute, White Oak Pastures (they have verification of
positive carbon sequestration), Joel Salitin, Frank Mitloehner to be starting
with. Once you hear and see this side you the lie will be
uncovered.
Soil health is superior with holistic management
using animals. For Type 2 Diabetics who cannot tolerate carbs, meat, fish and
diary lower blood sugars into the "normal" range; this saves limbs, eyesight, strokes,
heart attacks, cancers etc. Should they be denied up to 10 years of life due to
misinformation, politics and ideology?
Watch Game Changers on Netflix or Amazon. Then watch the alternative - someone telling
porkies.
Further opinion Zoe Harcombe
We respect peoples right to choose the dietary pattern they wish to live by. We have
concerns for the children who do not have a choice. The concern comes out of no Vegan
societies ever existing in the past or current, that we can reference tor health
outcomes. Veganism is around 70 years old. Also some quick YouTube research
shows the condition of some Vegans who are "not doing it right". For a small minority
who can tolerate the sugar and carb load of a Vegan diet good for them; on American
statistics 88% of the population are metabolically ill with 50% diabetic or pre-diabetic -
not a good match for a high carb Vegan diet. The prominent Peta activist and Vegan, Dr
Neal Barnard's diabetes results (a randomised clincal trial, which is the gold standard)
produces results inferior to every Dr who practices low carb / ketogenic medicine, by a
sizable margin. How can you fix a sugar intolerance condition with a diet that is high
in sugar (carbs)?
When Moyle
Baker was reversing his Type 2, he was able to just get into the diabetes remission
numbers (HbA1c of 41) when eating a plant based diet with lots of roasted vegetables, green
smoothies and reducing meat with stacks of exercise. No matter how much exercise he
did 41 was the lowest possible. Switching to more meat, fish and dairy yielded HbA1c's
of between 35 and 38 (original 143), strength and muscle improvements beyond Moyle's
expectations. Similar diabetes results are seen with low carbers / ketogentic and or
carnivore advocates.
I am here to help and assist with your fat loss and or condition
Technical support and have had my diabetes reversed by Katie
Create a website - Get now