My Final Letter from [redacted]Coach Jen

"In June, 2011 you were given a final warning about giving members advice that goes against [redacted]People’s program recommendations.  Many of your posts link to non-research supported sites, and I know you’ve also been giving members unsolicited advice through [redacted]Mail when they post about something on the general Message Boards.  It’s great if you’ve found a style of eating that works for you, and it’s fine that you don’t agree with our recommendations.  But because we believe our guidelines are based on sound research and they are being applied to a wide range of people with a wide range of medical histories, we consider it dangerous to be giving advice outside of these guidelines.  Therefore, your account has been closed.

Best of luck in your healthy lifestyle journey, [redacted]

I suspected a set-up when I started getting unsolicited [redacted]mails from people, asking me for advice.  This is weird, since I don't give advice but only tell people to keep reading.  There have been a few people on the main message boards who have been saying that I have been giving advice and putting other words in my mouth, so I am not surprised at all.  I think the main message boards have become infested with some seriously mentally ill people who have been demanding compliance to their way of eating.

So, goodbye [redacted]peeps, and I hope you will come over here more often.

Here's the last "non-research supported" site that I posted.  I think some of y'all will find this very funny.

Battle for the Fat Old Ladies - Part 1

Yes, there is another battle going on, the battle for the hearts and souls of all the fat old ladies.

The paleo tribe isn't all that friendly to the ladies, especially the older kind.  Makes me kind of want to pelt the next guy who says that evolutionarily, I'm history, with a barrage of left-over tampons I no longer need.  About the only thing worse for an older lady who is beyond reproductive age and therefore useless is for them, besides being a vegetarian, to be a Dr. Oz-watcher.

Dr. Oz had a big zinger on a recent show, his own prehistoric diet.  I read the three pages of diet advice, and then the hundreds of comments made mostly by very angry paleo's who were outraged that he would steal their lifestyle and turn it into an evil, sickly vegan diet scheme.

"Paleo!"  they drum.  "We thought of it first!"  Well, OK, good luck with that.

And I am thinking, if you want someone to join your tribe, make them feel welcome, make them feel at home.  That means if you want to reach the fat old ladies, you have to quit making fun of them, quit making condescending and sexist comments, quit calling them fat, lazy and stupid.  The cave needs to be decked out with sparkly pens and scrabble, just like the tent in the Dr. Oz reality zoo.  Strong, brave women rearranging words out on the veranda, in between the rain showers.  Just like Martha Stewart and Bethenny Frankel.  Yes, Freud, this is what women want.

Now, Dr. Oz is very popular and influential.  There may be some truth to the idea that he doesn't want to annoy his sponsors.  I get that.  So does Dr. Feinman.  You really have to watch your step when you enter the diet and nutrition field.  Lots of turds all around, left for lots of people for you to step on if you are not careful.

If you aren't careful, maybe the ADA experts will go after you.  Then just when you think you are into safe territory at Paleohacks, you get Patrik threatening to drop the hammer on you.  "I'm gonna brekka yo face!"  Ooooooo, no scrabble there.  Paleohacks must have been named that because they like to hack each other to pieces over there.  Take a look at this fine piece of, um, "work".  And this is just for members of the tribe, not even for someone as evil as Dr. Oz.

I commend Dr. Oz for at least calling it what it is, a zoo.  Ya, there is that call to "freeing the animal", but if your inner animal is just a big pig, well that is what pens and bars were invented for.  Just sayin', I can understand why Dr. Oz wants to distance himself.  So, in honor of Dr. Oz actually being NICE to fat old ladies, and inviting them to his show where it is clear they are the stars and also having lots of fun, I have decided to do his version of the prehistoric diet.  (Notice he didn't call it the caveMAN diet.)  In order to do it, I will have to customize it a bit for my own local condition and preferences.

1.  Protein.  Dr. Oz recommends a low protein diet, full of beans, greens and seaweed.  I can do the greens and seaweed just fine, but I don't eat all that many beans, so I will be substituting most of the beans for grass-fed meat and fish.

2.  Calcium.  Dr. Oz recommends tofu and boxed soy and nut milk.  I don't eat much soy because it doesn't do well with me and I don't do things in three-layer aseptic boxes, so I will be substituting with sardines and even more greens.

3.  Fat.  Dr. Oz recommends olives, avocado, flax, hemp, chia and walnuts.  No problem there except I don't want any hemp seeds just in case I have to take a drug test or something.

4.  Carbs.  Dr. Oz recommends eating the rainbow, with all sorts of colorful foods like fruits and vegetables.  Unfortunately, he let some of the colors run together too much and got brown in his rainbow.  So, to get brown, we are supposed to eat whole wheat bread and pasta and quinoa.  Quinoa is really white, so I don't get the brown category, but then again, I am a stupid Dr. Oz-watcher, so I think it was expected that I would overlook that one little point.  However, since wheat makes me sick and starving, and quinoa makes me gag, I am substituting these "brown" foods with real colors, like more yellow squash, purple cabbage, red snapper and orange roughy.  And of course, red Argentine malbec.

I'll be setting up yet another account at [redacted]people.com, for those who want to follow along.  I'll post a link once it gets going, just look at the birdie.  Here's the site I set up for tracking food nutrients.

Declaring my Independence!!

...and, my recipe for successful fat loss.
1.  Eat real food
2.  Not too much
3.  Stay away from [redacted]people.com

Ok, I stole the first two from Michael Pollan.  And the third rule I never thought I would write.  In fact, I put off writing it as long as I could.  After all, I'm still on [redacted]kpeople, and I have lots of friends there, doing all kinds of eating plans.

But, I finally decided that I just needed to go out and say it, and not pussy-foot around with stuff like, "don't hang around with de-motivating people who don't like you...." blah blah blah.  But, I do really feel that for anyone trying to lose weight, they do deserve a special warning about [redacted]people specifically.

When I first joined, hey it was fun.  I started sending around the emoticons and spinning the wheel every day.  I played some of the games in the evening to keep my mind off eating.  I was constantly hungry on the diet plan.  I was often one of the top scorers for monthly points and also for exercise points.  I joined lots of teams, even vegetarian teams, and became a leader for several of them.  Even though I wasn't losing weight, I kept plugging away, every day.

When I started to lose weight and eat lower carb, things were different.  I started blogging about it, and I was finding more comments on my blog made by people who were less than supportive of my food choices.

Soon I joined several low carb teams, and there I met others who were having difficulty with the increasingly hostile attitude towards low carb diets.  While many of the articles and sugary recipes started to get annoying, what really got my goat was an article by Coach [redacted] about a weight loss study.  She had, in my opinion, completely mis-read the study, and I found I just couldn't shut up about it anymore.  I wrote about it here. When I went to the original study, I found links to other studies, and I was shocked and disappointed to discover how badly they were designed, written and covered by the media.  I realized that Coach [redacted] had probably written her misleading article based on the media blurbs about the original studies, which I now believe are oftentimes written by editors and others with the intention to mislead readers.  The idea is to pull readers away from the actual content of the real study by pointing to an editorial with contradictory information.  Many media blurbs quote from the editorial, not from the original study.  I saw this over and over again, and it started to make me madder and madder.  It is just a symptom of the state of nutritional research, with so much of it ethically and scientifically bankrupt.

I knew that the lower carb diet worked for me, and yet every time I saw a clinical study with information pointing to the validity of such a diet, I found an accompanying article from some other researcher or registered dietitian saying the opposite.  So, I started blogging about it. (I still haven't posted all of those earlier blog posts on this here blog.)

Eventually, I started posting on the main [redacted]people message boards.  Every time a poster would ask a question about a low carb diet, a handful of anti-low-carb regulars would swoop down and criticize the diet and anyone who chose to follow it.  Stuff like, oh it'll kill you, it's a fad, you'll get kidney failure, you'll gain all the weight back. Then Coach [redacted] would get into the act, and make a post to re-assert her authority.  When low-carb advocates posted anything, they would get attacked.

Before I saw this myself, I thought the [redacted] coaches were so nice.  In fact, I made that comment to another low-carb friend who was having much difficulty with Coach [redacted] that I thought it was just a one-time deal, and had settled down, but my friend said that this was the typical pattern.  And, unfortunately for people trying to lose weight, my friend was right.  So, this is how it goes down:

1.  Someone asks a low-carb question
2.  They get attacked
3.  Coach [redacted] makes a post to re-assert her authority
4.  Others defend the original poster
5.  Coach [redacted] does an end-run by sending threating e-mails to people who disagree with Coach [redacted].  (You can read them here, here, here  here and here.)
6.  These people eventually leave or get kicked out and all the other readers don't know this is going on.

Coach [redacted] messages on and on about gobs and gobs of gold-standard clinical research and how we must stick to the science, meanwhile her bouncer is taking a baseball bat to the knees of anyone who disagrees with her, even if they are quoting "gold-standard clinical studies form the top journals".  This isn't science.  This is thuggery and censorship and dishonesty.

Recently, a poster asked the question about different rules on one of the main message boards.  The [redacted]people moderators have been silent, but several others have said that the original poster must be mistaken, that people would be censored only when they do something wrong.  They implied that my e-mail was blocked because it was a link to a commercial site, or provided unscientific information.  Well, I don't think that could be anything further than the truth in my case.

If you join one of these sites, and eventually you decide to try a low carb approach, here's what is in store for you.  Your diet choices will be ridiculed by plenty of people.  They will tell you that you are stupid, that it is dangerous, that it is disastrous, that it is unscientific, that you are crazy, that you will be bored, that you will gain all the weight back and then some.  Yes, you will hear this from the coaches!  If you speak up, they will take down your blog posts and your links.  They will follow you around the internet and find reasons to censor you.  You will be held to a different set of rules than the people who follow a high-carb diet.  You will not be allowed to suggest to anyone that they might benefit from a low carb diet, you will only be allowed to share your own personal experience only if you do not encourage others to do it.  Others can say all sorts of crazy stuff (as some moderators like [redacted] often do) as long as the diet doesn't disagree with what Coach [redacted] recommends.  If you continue to be vocal about a low carb diet that is working for you, you might be kicked out.  They'll tell others that it was for some sort of violation, but you know that is not true.

You will read rants about the low-carb advocates that are "trying to scam a buck" off you, when really the only people making any money off this website are "[redacted]Guy and team" and their advertisers.  You'll read that they regularly accuse people like Dr. Mercola of "quack" writings and trying to make money off his website, while at the same time, large banner ads for Skinny Cow and Kashi will fill your screen on a daily basis.

Eventually, if you are lucky, you will find a site that offers support for your eating choices without all the nastiness and redactorship.  You'll find other sites that have food, fellowship and tracking, and a place to post your success.  Better to find those sites now than to get on [redacted]people at all.  Enjoy your journey.

Don't these people have anything better to do?

I got another letter from a coach on a weight-loss website today.  Seems it was too scary to have my e-mail address posted on my page.  You can read about it here:
" Hello

Telling people how to contact you to get access to your outside blog is like someone who is told they can't advertise on our site and that's there way around it. I can't allow you to do that, so I removed that info from your [redacted]Page.

Thanks,

Jen"

My Latest Letter from a Weight Loss Coach

So, it looks like I am being held to a different set of rules than the other posters who include links on their blogs, or promote their viewpoints.  I am not really clear on this warning.  It sounds like I am also not allowed to promote any of these dangerous viewpoints in addition to posting a link.  What do you think?

This letter, although firm, seems a bit nicer than the others.  They have probably figured out that I'll just post it anyway.  Is it me, or is this starting to sound a bit more cultish?

"Hi [redacted]

I saw your blog for today. We can't allow you to post a link to an outside blog that discusses our experts in such a negative way. Of course you're entitled to your opinions, but you can't use your SP blog to promote those viewpoints.

I know that we're conservative when it comes to what we recommend to our members. But because we're such a mainstream site we need to be very careful about what we recommend and discuss. At some point, we could even bring on more integrative experts to give differing points of view on these topics. But that's not where we are for now.

Please do not link your SP blog to your outside blog any more.

Thank you,

Jen"

More Oily Humor - Quack diets

Since I am not allowed to post controversial topics on that other site anymore, and since I am no longer allowed to include links to outside sites on my [redacted] blog anymore, I thought I would try it the other way around for awhile.
Here's a funny and revealing post about Quack diets:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/messageboard.asp?imboard=7&imparent=24498598
Since controversial posts tend to be removed quickly, I thought I would add some quotes here too.  You can post your controversial remarks here.  But, keep it clean people!  (No used motor oil allowed.)

"One universal truth about "quack" diets, supplements, etc. is that they have no valid scientific results with which their claims can be supported. Now, by valid, I mean a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. That means that the effects of the therapy in question are compared directly to patients receiving a placebo and that neither the patients themselves nor (and this is important) the researchers know whether the patient is getting the real thing or a placebo during the study.

Frequently, quack medical sites or ads will include a line like this: "Mainstream medical professionals have expressed skepticism over the effectiveness of the Kumquat and Motor Oil diet, but hundreds of individuals have reported dramatic results." This usually segues into some kind of testimonial from those same "individuals" about how the Kumquat and Motor Oil diet has changed their life, reduced their cholesterol, restored their hair, etc. etc.
If you see something like that, run away. Far away. Here's why: the reason for placebo-controlled, double-blind studies is that studies of therapies which aren't placebo-controlled and double-blind don't work. THe need for a placebo is obvious. The double-blind is needed because if the researchers or the subjects know they're getting the therapy they _will_ report improvement. The researchers have expectations and it's impossible to keep those expectations out of the patient interviews. The patients have hopes and expectations which are similarly impossible to quash. Quack diets and quack supplements rely on this. You can't trust anecdotal evidence. You can trust statistics."

 "Where can I find info on the motor oil diet? sounds like the right diet plan for me."

"They've actually replaced it with the new Quince and DOT 20 Brake Fluid Diet. :)"


 "Sounds delicious, too expensive for me though."

" :)
Good info....applies to diets, supplements and other food items...such as health claims made about acai berry, coconut oil, protein powders, etc.
dietitian Becky"

My Final Warning

I guess providing data about coconut oil was too over-the-top.  Here's a nice bitchy folksy letter from a "coach" on a weight loss website.  This message is a bit more stern than the last one. Before, I was admonished for my "dangerous" posts and was told that I couldn't post like that anymore. (Read the first letter here .) Now I'll be kicked off if I tell one other person that it is OK to make popcorn with artercloggingsaturatedfat-laden coconut oil.

"Hi [redacted]

I know we've talked about this before, and I'm sure you can also guess why I'm writing you a note. It seems like with some recent posts lately (such as the thread about coconut oil), you are constantly butting heads with [redacted], our Registered Dietitian, and challenging the advice she gives.

You don't have to agree with the dietary guidelines we promote, but we don't allow members to promote a style of eating that does not agree with our guidelines. You are welcome to share experiences, but not post messages that make it seem like our advice is wrong. We feel that our recommendations are based on sound research- again, you don't have to agree- but you do have to respect that if you'd like to remain a member of [redacted] and participate in our Community.

Please consider this to be your final warning on the subject. If you have questions, let me know.

Thanks,

Jen"

My answer - Part 2. Want diet compliance? Ply them with Alcohol

[Note:  This post is the second part of a multi-part response to a particularly annoying and misleading article written by a registered dietitian on a weight loss website.  My responses appeared on the weight loss website in February, but have been removed from there due to censorship issues.  Here's the link to My Answer, part 1: here  ]
OK, OK, maybe that title was a bit over-dramatic, but you DID click, didn't you? Good! Now, where were we? 

Oh, yes, that first experiment, where non-obese, non-dieters went on a 30:20:50 diet for a bit and then were told to eat whatever they wanted to. 
Surprise? They ate less, 441 calories a day less on average, without much hunger. That's quite a dramatic shift. 

And the problem with that is?? There were some problems. First, to entice the participants to continue with the program, they added one "free" meal per week. Now it wasn't really free, the participants presumably kept track of what they ate at that meal, and reported it accurately. They were also allowed up to two drinks per week. They were also allowed to make substitutions for local, seasonal produce. (Out with the yukky canned fruit that was listed on the menu page!) 
 
It was reported that the participants had reduced their calories spontaneously during the final 12-week period, and they continued to lose weight without feeling too hungry. But what I thought was odd is that they went through all this trouble to capture baseline data, and then left the first weight data point off the chart. Why would they do this? It's probably because they were losing so much weight in the first few days, and the data probably wouldn't look all that good if the bulk of the weight lost during the entire study was during the first two weeks of stabilization. I'll bet they lost alot, based on their reports of really high hunger at that time, and because, like many of us, who doesn't lose about 4 pounds in the first days of practically ANY diet? 
 
OK, time for a re-cap. The researchers say they doubled the protein percentage from the baseline, but, since it's ISOCALORIC, they also had to take the fat down by 40%. You might think by reading just the title and the abstract of the paper that all these good results were because they upped the protein, but the researchers concluded that the good results were because of the lowered fat! (They probably put this in as a nod to the "experts" who insist that eating a low-fat diet helps with weight loss, totally ignoring the satiety issue in the process.) 
 
What's the "REAL" reason that the diet worked? It's hard to tell, because they changed so much stuff, but here are some potential reasons: 
1. They increased the protein percentage 
2. They decreased the fat percentage 
3. They allowed alcohol so partying it up with red wine will get you thin
4. They allowed a free meal, so being in control of your choices and having a social life will get you thin. 
5. They allowed seasonal produce so being a locavore/macrobiotic will get you thin (this is my fave reason). 
6. And there is another reason. But first.... 
 
In the abstract, they also added something that totally dumbfounded me. They actually said that the reason that the so-called "low-carb" diet works is because of the satiating effect of the extra protein. Call me simple, but I would think that a possible reason a low-carb diet might work is because it is low-carb. But since that is nutritional heresy, they didn't even discuss it directly, although they danced around the issue in the discussion section. 
 
But I'm wanting to get back to reason 6. There's something else going on here. In this experiment, researchers said that they increased protein, decreased fat, and kept carbs constant. But that's not what really happened. When they left people to their own devices, they decreased their calorie intake, which resulted in the relative reductions in ALL the macronutrients. Using a hypothetical 2000-calorie stabilized participant, when they ate whatever, they were averaging only 1559 calories, which works out to 117 grams protein, 35 grams fat and 195 grams carb. Compared to the baseline, that's an increase of only 45 grams protein, a decrease of 43 grams of fat and a DECREASE of 55 grams carb. Here's reason number 6 in a line all by itself. 
 
6. They decreased the amount of actual carbs by 22%. 
 
Which reason is it? Can't tell. Yet the researchers came up with reason 1. 
 
Next: Going back to the first "sister" study. 

Nuts about Coconut

Wow, somebody didn't take their happy pills this weekend!

There was a crazy coconut thread posted on a weight loss website recently.  Since I am not into sending them any more traffic, I'll copy some of the posts here.  As you read through the posts, keep in mind the dangerous nature of most of them, and why it is so important for guardians of the truth to remain eternally vigilant.
I am so glad that the Registered Dietitian cleared it up about what research is and I hope statements like these will encourage others to do a little of their own research about coconut oil.  'Cause after all, "one needs to be reading RESEARCH"!

 OP:  " I am confused about coconut oil. For years, I thought that I was told that coconut oil was an unhealthful oil, not heart friendly. But recently, I have been hearing more and more virtues of coconut oil extolled. I had a jar of it here and after hearing one more benefit of it today, decided to break it open to make fried rice for dinner. The coconut oil I have is solid; but I read online of people drinking it, like it would be a liquid.
I'm confused about what is best, and even whether or not it is a healthful oil."

Here's a non-random sample of the comments:

"The kind you have is good for you. The people that are drinking it are probably melting it first. Not something I would do, yuck!
I do use coconut oil on a very regular basis to cook with. I also use coconut milk in place of cream for a lot of things.
My HDL cholesterol is awesome as a result :)"

[redacted] registered dietitian [redacted]:  "Coconut oil is very highly saturated. SO for years it was a no-no. Now days, PRELIMINARY research is indicating that it may have some health benefits---but more research is needed for evidence. SO for now, you can use it in your special cooking to add that wonderful taste and texture...BUT do not go overboard and feel that it will bring about great health benefits or weight loss. AND drinking it is not justified by the research...MODERATION is STILL the key."

"I've heard nothing but good things about coconut oil from my holistic health practioner."

 "I agree with [redacted] on this, in moderation all vegetable oils are useable especially if cold pressed.. Moderation is a hard man to dance with for some food cultures- this is where the real problem is.."

 "Coconut oil is great stuff, Im out of it right now and I miss it for making things like my pancakes."

 "I just bought some, and am using it in moderation, as with the extra virgin olive oil and the canola oil I also use. It is a solid, but I understand in the heat of summer it will liquify. (I'm certainly not going to drink it!)"

"I use it for frying. Things get so golden brown and never burn because CO maintains it's structure at high temperatures.
Some people eat hunks of it though that's just over the top. Too much of a good thing, yk?"

[redacted] registered dietitian [redacted]:  "One needs to be reading RESEARCH to get valid, reliable information on this topic."

"I make lotion out of 50% coconut oil, 50% olive oil infused with calendula, nettle and red clover then I add some beeswax and honey and let me tell you my skin feels amazing after using my lotion."

[redacted] registered dietitian [redacted]:  "As I said in my original post...PRELIMINARY research is showing some health benefits. BUT more evidence is needed to make generalized recommendations for consumption regarding ones lipid profile and weight with the usage of MCT oil/coconut oil.
This gives a good overview:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18223605
Yes there are small studies showing positive results. Some studies are showing nothing....larger trials are needed. This is how research works. You do NOT make general nutrition recommendation for the public based on one study that had 40 subjects. It takes time and it can be frustrating."

"I believe saturated fats are better for you than hydrogenated oils....There is increasing bad information coming out about hydrogenation. We use Coconut and olive oil the most here but we do it to avoid hydrogenated oils, we still don't use it excessively, especially not drinking it! Coconut oil is high in lauric acid also which is suppose to be good for things. I use coconut oil on our eczema problems in our family and it also works great!"

"Despite what [redacted] and other people who tout "conventional wisdom", saturated fat isn't really bad for you. Much better than margarine, corn or other highly processed vegetable oils."

[redacted] registered dietitian [redacted]:   "ONCE again there is preliminary research investigating coconut oil---THERE IS NOT PROOF that it is a healthy oil to use. It is highly saturated. THERE is research to support the use of vegetable oils, canola oil, olive oil, nut oils---which all contain a higher amount of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat--and can benefit heart health."

 "Case in point...
I'll just leave these links here for anyone interested in reading more about what's in the different oils and what effects they might have on you.
Omega-3s: [redacted]
Omega-6s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid#N
egative_health_effects
Different oils: www.marksdailyapple.com/healthy-oils/
"
"Dr. Mary Newport writes about ketone bodies, an alternative fuel for your brain which your body makes when digesting coconut oil, and how coconut oil may offer profound benefits in the fight against Alzheimer's disease.
If her theory is accurate, this could be one of the greatest natural health discoveries in a long time. Backing up her claims is the remarkable recovery of her own husband."

 [poster used text from this website:] www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/c
oconut-oil.htm

[poster used text from this website:] http://www.hypothyroidismdietinfo.com/hypothyroidism-diet/hypothyroidism-diet-foods-virgin-coconut-oil.php

"I'm not taking dietary advice from agencies that said margarine was better for us than butter anymore. Where was the 'more research needed'?"

 "If people go and read the actual research, not only will they find plenty, but they will notice the great disconnect between the actual research and what is currently recommended by the so-called "experts". Newer research shows that not only is sat fat not bad for people, the short-chain fatty acids in butter and coconut oil are easier for people to burn."

 " I love making popcorn with it."

 "I've been reading Nourishing Traditions and coconut oil is supposed to be very healthy. I add a spoonful to my smoothies."

[redacted] registered dietitian [redacted]:  "I do not want any of our [redacted] members reading this thread to be misinformed or mislead about coconut oil (but that is what many of the posts on this thread are doing). I just checked again on the Natural Medicinces Comprehensive Database and there is currently insufficient reliable evidence to support statements that coconut oil is healthy and a good oil---that it can help with heart disease and obesity. The research is NOT there to make such statements."

 "I wouldn't like it if people were misinformed either. Here's some information:
www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/
4397-pulling-the-curtains-on-another-c
spi-scare-campaign
"
"Here's more: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?itool
=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_R
esultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2
"

"I use coconut oil daily, it has not caused me personally any ill effects and has improved many issues for me"

"Glad it is working for you! And luckily, our government classifies coconut oil as a food, not a medication, so we don't need a prescription or a referral from anyone to enjoy it if we choose."

I'm a free Radical (AND, what's UP with all these CAPS???)

http://www.gnolls.org/2199/you-are-a-radical-and-so-am-i-paleo-reaches-the-ominous-stage-3/
Is stage 3 the same as a stage 3 tornado?  Seems like it, as I surely got smacked down by the nutritional "experts" today.
I think I am beginning to notice when the American Dietetic Association sends out a new list of talking points, and their footsoldiers prepare for battle.  What is so scary about Paleo, anyway?  This is how some of the fight is going down, the Clif notes:
1.  Brush off a legitimate question about the Paleo diet by saying that there is no data and everything should be in moderation.
2.  When somebody shows some data, continue to emphasize YOUR point by using LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS so they'll KNOW you are serious and they'll KNOW you are right.
3.  If that doesn't work (and somebody shows more data), silence the person who brought the other data to the table.  Here are the ways to do this:
     a.  ban the person who shows more data
     b.  turn a discussion about food into a discussion about food as medicine and then declare that YOU are the only one authorized to comment on nutritional therapy.
4.  Emphasize to those who are left standing of the importance of the scientific process.  Use the words "evidence-based" (even though you have removed any evidence) and "medicine" to re-establish and maintain your authority.
5.  Repeat as necessary.

Well Looky here!

This looks interesting. I am looking forward to reading the entire paper when the final version comes out.

Here's the cliff notes:

1. We looked at other studies comparing a HPLC diet with a conventional/recommended high-carb diet. (The HPLC diets won!)

2. We didn't like how much protein they were eating on the HPLC diet

3. So, we decided to test a more moderate-protein/lower-carb diet against the conventional diet.

4. We also didn't like the fact that people on the conventional diets were eating lots of junk.  So, to stack the deck, we made the conventional diet "more healthy" by limiting refined grains and sugar.

5. The conventional diet still flunked. Women on the zone diet lost more weight, more fat weight and had better blood pressure.


Basically, this study a comparison of a 40:30:30 Zone diet with a high-fiber 50:20:30 diet. (That's Carb:Protein:Fat) This study attempts to address the problems people found with earlier studies. In this study, the 50:20:30 diet included "healthier" high-fiber carbs and a reduction in sugar. (This higher-carb diet is similar in macronutrient composition to the diet featured on a weight loss website.)

The beginning of the provisional abstract has a few weasel words, like this:


"Studies have suggested that moderately high protein diets may be more appropriate than conventional low-fat high carbohydrate diets for individuals at risk of developing the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes"


What many studies have actually shown is that low-carbohydrate diets work better than high carbohydrate diets. But these researchers (or their peer-reviewing overlords) just couldn't bring themselves to the point of actually saying that. Nor did they say that about the "winning" diet in this latest diet contest. A quick look at the composition of the two diets shows that not only was the winnning diet higher in protein, it was also lower in carbohydrate.


Interesting. The people on the lower-carb Zone diet lost significantly more weight and significantly more body fat than the higher-carb diet, even after they tried to make the high-carb diet more "healthy". Diastolic blood pressure is also more reduced on the lower-carb plan.  No matter how much they try to "shore up" the healthiness of the conventional diet, it still flunks.


Also interesting to note that these plans were both called relatively low fat. This fat content (kept constant at 30%) is much higher than what is currently recommended by the the so-called "experts" in the U.S. Maybe that is lower fat than the norm for New Zealand, or maybe it is a nod to the healthyheartexperts who demand that a diet be low fat before it can even be considered or published in most journals.

Gotta have those healthywholegrains!! Sure did lots of good for the people on that diet, didn't it?

Comparison of high protein and high fiber weight-loss diets in women with risk factors for the metabolic syndrome: a randomized trial

Lisa A Te Morenga, Megan T Levers, Sheila M Williams, Rachel C Brown and Jim Mann

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/40/abstract

Eliminating entire food groups!

(Note:  I changed my original link to the original story since I no longer advocate reading that other guy.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sc-health-0420-palos-diet-20110420,0,7758445.story
It looks like the dietitians are all working off the same sheet of talking points.  This topic was covered on another weight loss website recently, with pretty much the same old boring arguments that the dietitians dished out for this article.

Someone also asked a question about starchy vegetables, and the usual ones were suggested:  beets, corn, potatoes.  Then this was corrected by a dietitian (so glad we have a policeman to OK everything that goes into our mouths.)  I clicked on the provided link.  Lo and behold, the USDA has been working overtime complicating our food landscape by attempting to simplify it, and again, changed the food groups.
I provide the link here:  http://www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/vegetables.html

Science can be so dumb sometimes.  I remember struggling with second semester biology, that class where you have to memorize all sorts of junk, like a shark isn't a fish.  I couldn't believe that people actually spent their days fighting with each other about classifying animals and plants, or if something was really a "planimal".  Not only did we have to memorize lots of it, but we actually had to read through the whole history why slime mold was classified one way and then another.  Why memorize something well when they are just going to change the classification in the next edition?

That's when I also learned that green algae isn't always green, and brown algae isn't always brown.  Nice to know, I guess, if you are making miso soup medley and don't want the colors to run.  But for the rest of us, who really cares?  (My biology book was basic, and so they didn't get into the REAL reason the miso ingredients are differently classified.  That might have made it more interesting to me, but really, who cares????)

So, back to the what the USDA is telling us to do.  I noticed that they have different categories.  I guess since the government tore down the hilarious terror alert system, they decided to reuse/recycle the color scheme and use it to hilariously color-code our food.

Notice that beets are not in the starchy foods category.  (Hmmm, that may be because beets have sugar instead of starch.  Not a totally bad move, but most low-carbers and dieters don't care, because they view sugar and starch as pretty much the same thing, and has the same effect on their metabolism.)  But, green peas are not green, they are starchy.  And look at all those orange vegetables!  Sweet potatoes aren't starchy anymore, they are orange.  And carrots are orange, too.  But what about the yellow carrots I grow in my garden?  Should they be in the orange category or the starchy category??  Purple carrots?  Should they be be in the orange category or the other category? It looks like the white foods are lumped into the Other category.  Where, oh where, do I put my home-grown yellow peppers?  With the green peppers in the Other category, or with yellow corn?  And what about the beet medley that graced my table this weekend.  Purple beets and orange beets and yellow beets and white beets and striped beets. Oh, my head hurts and I think I need to schedule an appointment with a registered dietitian in my area.

And, I don't even want to think about my light-green mature chayote squash.  Why isn't it in the fruit group?!!!!  Why isn't it in the "large-seeded green fruit category with avocado and olive where it belongs?  The USDA, in a nod to California agriculture of course, put avocado and olive in the oil category.  That's the category that also includes corn oil, even though corn is a grain and corn is a starchy vegetable.  Oh, there I go, thinking about it again......

Notice that these groups are the groups that the dietitians want to defend.  The information contained in the USDA website is all that fine and correct and unwavering?  Oh, we can't get rid of an arbitrarily-defined food group!!  We're probably going to die (unloved and in the gutter- as one poster put it) if we give up an entire group!  But it is quite OK to say fine, go ahead and get rid of all the meat, because meat is not a group.  Protein is a group, and meat is only a part of it.  And beans and peas are a great part of that group, I guess, when they are not in the vegetable group.

The folic acid comment in the above blog post warrants an entire post by me, coming soon.
(Disclosure:  I have actually done nutrition research using multivariate analysis.  Many analyses are flawed if they do not properly take into account the water content.)

My Answer - Part 1

[This was originally posted on a weight loss website on Feb 17.]  
I saw an article by a nutritionist on a weight loss website that I found perplexing (OK, annoying). Maybe you have read it, too. Here's the link: 
www.sparkpeople.com/reso
urce/nutrition_articles.as
p?id=492 
To get a clearer picture of what this is all about, I went to the original study. I remembered this one, because it was featured in a link on another member's blog several months ago. It was by DS Weigle and others. I promised you all I'd get back to that study, so here I am! 

The nutritionist mentioned that the study compared 3 different diets, but that is not really the case. In this experiment, participants served as their own controls. This is sort of a weird way to do a study, especially one involving hormonal issues that probably take more than two weeks to settle out. I think I understand why they did this, but my point is that this move brings up other problems (and they did discuss these problems at the end of the study.) I actually think this is a pretty good study compared to earlier ones, just really concerned about how it is being interpreted and mis-interpreted by the media and by others. 

Usually, researchers get two groups of people, and give one group a special diet and the other group serves as a control. In this experiment, the participants started with a baseline diet. They went for two weeks on an "isocaloric" 15:35:50 diet. (That's 15% protein, 35% fat and 50% carb.) Then they switched to a 30:20:50 diet for two weeks (more like the Zone diet). Then they went for 12 weeks on the 30:20:50 diet, but were told they could eat all they wanted. And, they were compared with their own baseline. The baseline diet wasn't really a treatment, but it was sort of like when you catch snails and then feed them a special diet for a few weeks before you eat them. 

Sounds like a prescription for eating more protein, but is it? 

The first issue is that even though the abstract said it was isocaloric in the first stages, it wasn't. During the first 2 weeks, the researchers tweaked the diet so that the participants wouldn't lose too much weight. Participants lost weight quickly, and as they were brought into the clinic, measured and weighed, the diet was tweaked. The first 2 weeks was just sort of like a boot-camp, to flush out some of the issues and figure out everyone's individual calorie level. It was never intended to be a treatment level. After this 2-week period, the real fun began. 

This study wasn't about comparing a low-protein diet with a high-protein diet at all. It wasn't even about weight loss. It was not done with participants who were trying to lose weight. It was conducted to dispel concerns about an earlier similar study done by the same researcher and to measure hormone levels as they relate to feelings of hunger. The first study had some big concerns. Though it was touted as a study to determine the effects of a low-fat diet on hormones and satiety, the researchers replaced the reduced fat with extra carbs, while keeping protein at a constant 20%. In the second experiment, the researchers replaced the reduced fat with extra protein and kept the carbs constant at 50%. 

But OK, I'm getting ahead of myself. Back to THIS study. The real problem? Some readers responded to the nutritionist's article concerned about the sample size. I am not as concerned about the number of participants as I am about who they are. 

Participants were mostly women, but were specifically excluded from the study if their BMI's were over 30. In fact, the BMI range was from around 22 to 30, with an average BMI of around 26! Potential participants were also excluded if they did more than 30 minutes of exercise 3 times a week, or if they smoked, or if they had been either an Ornish-type diet or an Atkins-type diet, or if they had any chronic disease like diabetes, etc., or if they had more than 2 drinks a week, or if they were "unhealthy", or if they were preggo. 

Now I don't know what this sounds like to you, but to me, it pretty much excludes everybody on the weight loss website, except a few of the younger women trying to get into prime shape before their wedding. (And, wedding planners, not to discount your journey AT ALL, but if you think it's hard now, wait till you have had a couple of kids or go through menopause!!) Gosh, we sure do exercise more than that at least, and a quick look of the intro member pages shows we have all sorts of chronic diseases and many of us start out as obese. 

Why is this study being used as a benchmark for recommendations for obese people with chronic illnesses? Many of the participants weren't even considered overweight. Do I really care how hungry they were on different diets? People who weren't dieting, weren't that fat to begin with? Oh come on, how would or should this study apply to the rest of us? 
Just sayin' 

Stay tuned for more info on this study. (It gets even better!) After that, I'll compare this author's two studies, tell y'all what study they really should have done along with these two, and then show you a third study that you might REALLY want to pay attention to, that you probably won't find cited in an article here on that particular weight loss website, but should! 

Here's the study that the nutritionist referred to: 
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub
med/16002798 
And here's a member's original blog: www.sparkpeople.com/mypa
ge_public_journal_individu
al.asp?blog_id=3953136 
And my earlier response to the member's blog: http://exceptionallybrash.blogspot.com/2011/03/refueling-protein-debate-and.html

Trashing the Experts

This message was recently posted by a coach on a weight loss website:
"Hi everyone
I've been getting reports about a few of your threads here recently because they tend to trash our experts. Here's the deal: You are welcome to follow whatever program you'd like, and to share your experiences. But we have certain recommendations and guidelines we follow on this site, based on years of sound research. You don't have to agree with it, but it really creates a negative situation when a member asks a simple question about pizza dough and gets a lecture about why low carb is the way to go. As you can see from her response, that wasn't anything close to the information she was looking for.
We won't allow members to constantly challenge or talk negatively about our experts. If you can't just share an experience or talk about our staff in a respectful way, then you'll be asked to leave the site.
Any questions, let me know.

Coach Jen"


When I first saw the post on the low carb team, as I started to post a response, I decided to stop.  I'll post my controversial and dangerous thoughts here instead.
This post is still a work-in-progress, but I just wanted to be sure that people had access to it in case it is erased or modified.  This e-mail from the coach was not a message to a particular person who may or may not have crossed the line on a particular thread.  It was a great shot across the bow, and was posted to and meant to be read by an entire low-carb team.  If there was a problem with a post, a message should have been sent to that poster, not to almost 4000 other low carb fans who had nothing to do with it.  Apparently, thousands of other people needed to hear this important warning.
The coach's message was clear.  "If you disagree with our gold-standard recommendations based on years of peer-reviewed data in the gold-standard publications that have been carefully reviewed by our designated experts, we will go after you and kick you out."  While it has always been their policy to ban attack posts, now it is being made very clear that any challenges to their authority on the carbohydrate topic will be considered an attack and will not be tolerated, regardless of whether that challenge has merit based on the data.
Here's my original response:

"I think that the difficulty that some are having is that when some person goes on that board and asks a simple question about low carb, there are some regular "troll" posters who are all over it, telling people they are crazy, that they can't follow it, etc. It can be really discouraging. As far as I know, the [redacted] moderators aren't going over to their [redacted]teams leaving them warnings. And, it is kind of hard to track some of those posters down since they don't have pages and they haven't been on long. (Kind of a dead giveaway that they are trolls.)
Then again, I can certainly see the [redacted] experts' point. It's their site, and they call the shots. If people don't like that then they can go somewhere else."

Here's what else I had to say.  We all have choices.  This weight loss site is free, and we are also free to come and go as we please.  No one is holding a gun to our heads.  While it may be true that our doctor, our family, our society may be holding a gun to our heads with regard to weight loss, there are other sites and tools we can use to get to our goals.  
Honestly, I do not understand why a website that depends on people visiting and clicking on their ads would deliberately try to piss off over 20 percent of their users, so I am going to assume that it is unintentional.  If it is intentional, then it is ill-advised.  Their own poll shows that over 20 percent of the responders prefer low carb over low fat.  If they want to base their business model on attracting visitors who are interested in reaching their goals based a high carb diet, then they can fight with other sites like Weight Watchers or Dr. Oz for their share of that market.  Meanwhile, an ever-increasing group of low carb fans will gravitate towards the low carb and Paleo blogs and sites, click on their ads and buy their books instead.  If I were this weight-loss website's marketing director, I would insist that a good portion of these "expert" blogs, recipes and articles be revised so as to be more welcoming to people who have found a different way of eating to be more suitable.  From a marketing perspective, the only disastrous and dangerous aspect of the low carb diet is that the more people who succeed with it, the less interest people will have in their website.
I started this here blog a while before I started posting on it.  After I received my first letter from the coach (http://exceptionallybrash.blogspot.com/2011/03/message-from-spark-coach.html ), I was concerned that I would get kicked off the site, so I started moving my posts over here more quickly.  After this incident, I am even more comfortable in my decision to wean myself off any of the trackers so I am not beholden to ANY website.  I have already moved my diet tracking onto the Dr. Oz site, and am working on trying to get rid of computer tracking altogether.
I did post information on one message board, which I removed after receiving a warning letter.  I did not post on the cited pizza thread, preferring instead to respond directly to the original poster.  (Yes, I would freeze the pizza dough!)  I trash bogus research studies, researchers and poorly-done studies, not nutritionists.  If they continue to stand behind their data, they may get knocked down from time to time as the avalanche of newer data pushes everything aside.

I Did This and I Did That

I know, it sounds egotistical. But, many who read my blogs regularly know that sometimes if people post something that goes against the accepted nutritional "gold standard recommendations based on years of evidence-based medicine by peer-reviewed professionals who are licensed and registered to know more about it than you do", they can get into trouble. But, it is OK if they post their personal experience.

I'd like to tell you about my own personal experience with potassium.

It is in all their books, and the Eades' say that a good way to get more potassium is in salt substitute. The other day I was in the garden, and it was very hot, the first really hot day, and I got dizzy. Remembering the Eades' recommendation, I decided to try some salt substitute. I bought a container of Morton salt substitute and just put one shake on some food. (1/4 teaspoon has 17% of the RDA.) I felt better immediately. Now when I come inside from some heavy-duty exercise in the heat, I have a bit of the potassium in a glass of water.

The Eades recommend it along with a low-carb diet. Here's Dr. Mary Eades take on it:

www.proteinpower.com/drmd_blog/uncategorized/potassium-good-for-the-heart-vindication-good-for-the-soul/

Dr. Eades also has a great post about pumpkin. She does comment on our usual solution, which is to run to the high-carb banana for potassium and why pumpkin is better for people concerned about their carb intake.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd_blog/recipes/waiting-for-the-great-pumpkin-soup-that-is/

It turns out that most of the potassium I eat comes from jerusalem artichoke, avocado, fish, winter squash, turnips, kale and swiss chard.

Here's a link to a page with potassium content of foods:

http://www.pamf.org/patients/pdf/potassium_count.pdf

I am not as fond of this list because it shows many of my favorite selections cooked or boiled, and this doesn't include the water. I always save and use my cooking water, and it contains lots of the potassium that was contained in the food. I am kind of fond of this list also:

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/food/potassium-foods.htm

Just as a reminder to all that a certain weight-loss website dietitian says the low carb diet is "disastrous, dangerous and above all-- boring!" and she also does not recommend potassium supplements. I would not recommend such practices anywhere on the Internets, but I hope you enjoyed my anecdote. Just take everything I say with a grain of, um, salt. (Well, I guess that sounded like a recommendation, but it's not.  If you want advice about potassium please see your doctor.)

Message from a weight-Loss website Coach

I found this in an e-mail sent to me just yesterday.  I find it troubling for a couple of reasons.  First, I didn't think I was giving any advice to anyone.  I quote studies, tell people what has worked for me and encourage them to read some of the diet doctors like the Drs. Eades, Schwarzbein, and Rosedale.
Secondly, I find it troubling that they believe that it is alright for me to have a different opinion, but as soon as I voice it, it is seen as a danger.  I didn't find anything all that dangerous in my statement.  It was pretty much just information obtained from the Ellenberg & Rifkin Diabetes Mellitus book.  In the book, the writers project an increase in the need for insulin injections, due to a variety of types of failures in disease management and current treatment options for Type 2 diabetes.
I think the real danger here is that one or two people got their feathers ruffled when their authority was called into question.  Then they decided to squelch dissent by threatening to cut off access to their site.
I took the sentence off my post, and will continue to self-censor on their site.  So here's the only diet advice I'll give to diabetics.  Read all you can read, from lots of different places.  Pay attention to the data as much as you pay attention to the experts.


Here's the letter:
"Hello 

I've seen some of your recent posts regarding a low carb diet. I understand that you subscribe to a different way of eating than our program recommends, and that's fine. But when you start to contradict the advice of our dietitian (in one thread in particiular related to diabetes, you said "[dangerous statement redacted]") that can become dangerous. We give advice that is based on proven research. Like I said, it's fine if you don't agree with it and want to share your own experiences. But when your posts start to come across as fact and challenge our experts, that's when we have to intervene. I have to ask that you stop posting like this if you'd like to continue posting on our site. Please let me know if you have questions about it. 

Thanks in advance for your cooperation, 

Jen "