Since late 2016 we have entered the age of disclosures! Fasten your mental safety belt and enjoy the ride! Heretic

Thursday, January 1, 2009

I Wish Everybody Less Toxic Year or (at least) More Fun in 2009!


JC said...

"If it isn't fun stop doing it"....Seth

I hope you still find the diet debate board to be fun after all you were responsible for its creation.

Have a fun 2009.


Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi JC,

That's why I stopped! I got convinced that I was wasting my time there, when I saw that survey on the forum. I doubt if webmd proportions would be much different. You can see that there are only two or three people on Diet Debate that you can talk too (which BTW are very welcome to email me privately; I would be very happy to respond!). On only 10% of the respondents liked discussing and talking while the rest seemed to be very happy following their beloved "high priest" with no questions asked whatsoever. For the sake of those 10% I think it would be easier to get them here (or to guys like Peter, Stephan et al.) rather than letting myself waste my time batting on my own some diet-martyrs, committed animal activists or screwed-up cultist.

Besides, I had to cut down on that posting campain because it has taken too long without getting me really anywhere. I felt I was making no progress on the personal (karmic) level, or put it this way: I felt that my personal progress (and benefit) was inconsistent with the amount of work I was spending writing those posts. I am not sure if you know, but my first webmd post was 8 years ago, in April 2001. It hasn't changed much since, except I can now ask better questions.

Have fun too,
Best regards,

JC said...

Dr Davis may have drastically overstated the case fo vit took the extensive of statins and niacin to obtain the marginal results...lowering of CCS...holy smokes...another Ornish.

Stan (Heretic) said...

Has someone published it? Where?

Stan (Heretic) said...

My health has dramatically improved 10 years ago in more than one way, when I begun eating more animal fat and drastically cut on carbohydrates, eliminating grains and sugar.

Whether this was due to an increase in vitamins D3,K2,A etc or due to reduction in vitamin disruptors (lectins from grains and beans), I am not sure. I suspect that both factors are important, plus eating more fat.

I would not write Dr.Davis off just yet since D3 and K2 are very important, the fact that is supported by more than one source.


f1jim was suggesting on forum that I posted after I was banned. That is not true, my last post was on 30-Nov-2008 and found I was banned only on December 3-rd.

If he claims to see my posts dated after 12/3 it is not me. JC, please pass the following note from me to him on the forum, since I cannot:

"Hi f1jim! I am sure your low fat vegan diet does work for you as claimed, and I am sure it will continue working as long as you keep losing weight. You are on a de-facto high fat diet (like me) because your body burns your own body fat! That's why it does work - because of the fat your body burns instead of all those junk carbohydrates you used to consume. Dr. McDougall's theory is very wrong, you will find that out the moment you will lose all the excess weight and your body would stop losing any more fat. That's when the problems with the low fat vegan diets usually show up! You would have to up your starch intake to compensate, your blood sugar will go up and you will start experiencing vitamin deficiencies (K2,D3,A), bone and muscle loss and all sort of other problems. I recommend that you do not go that far; I am sure you will know what to do... Stan (Heretic)"

JC said...

Look at Dr Davis's latest article....niacin and statin use and marginal(my opinion)results.Prior to that he had indicated D3 was some kind of miracle worker all by itself...not that has no value...just that the case is overstated...disappointing since I respected his opinion...but I don't throw out everything he says.

JC said...

I just did a search on MCDougall and your last post was before you were as usual f1 is wrong.

Stan (Heretic) said...

You are right, the study report says, quote:

"After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5%..."

It does look marginal! Especially the fact that it worked only for half of the participants. At the same time some other quoted studies reported over two times increase in mortality for the lowest vitamin D3 sub group. That cannot be considered marginal.

I think, if we put those facts together, a possible interpretation of this discrepancy could be that the low vitamin D3 may be a marker of low animal fat and meat consumption, and of high intake of vitamin D3 disruptors such as grains. That would suggest a similar situation as with cholesterol. High cholesterol and/or low vitamin D3 being just the markers of a junk food diet rather than being the prime causes of the risk.

It would explain why does a direct D3 supplementation have such a small effect by itself, unless it is accompanied by the drastic dietary modifications as well.

That is by the way, the essence of Dr. Davis' treatment as I understand. I think he must be well aware of the fact that the vitamins alone might not be as effective, thus he is vigorously advocating cutting down on wheat, increasing fish etc.

Mind you, he hasn't warmed up yet fully to the high animal fat diet but with his scientific methodology it is only a matter of time when he finds out that it may work even better than his "track your plaque" program. We will see.

JC said...

What do you think of the study?...olive oil reduces inflammation and homocystine levels.

Stan (Heretic) said...

The study shows the facts but I have doubts about the interpretation.

I am not sure if the demonstrated reduction in the inflammation was due to addressing of the of the primary cause of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis (if these were deficiency diseases), or it may have worked through a suppression of the immune system itself, like for example with steroids. I suspect it is the latter, like with resveratrol and coronary disease.

mark said...

Chris Masterjohn, in his article on Weston Price Foundation talks about the need for vitamin A with vitamin D supplementation. He says it's useful and provides some refs and his rationale.

Dr. Davis, I think, is not particular about Vitamin A supplementation or inclusion in diet. I found this on Davis' blog:

"5) Vitamin A--Is vitamin A with vitamin D good or bad? This one I do not have an answer to. Reading the literature Dr. Cannell cites didn't help much. (Dr. BG--Any comments? Dr. BG is a vitamin A advocate.)"

I searched "vitamin A" and that was the most recent post, from June 2008, so I believe he hasn't looked much into Vitamin A since.

So perhaps the results the Davis study produced was affected by the Vitamin A intakes of the participants?

I agree, it was a modest benefit for some. And moderately bad for some. So nothing spectacular. I guess another way of thinking about it is what was the acceleration of the calcium formation prior to intervention, and how was the acceleration altered. So maybe in those who did increase calcium scores, the acceleration was decreased?

I'm trying to get the full text of the Davis article, but my damn browser is stalling.

I reply a bit on hyperlipid, btw, so I'm the same mark as there.


mark said...

Some more thoughts, got the full text going. 34 month intervention trial, so people would have gotten three years older. So Davis wouldn't have been particular about Vitamin A given the time at which this intervention was started.

Diet-wise, was:
"All patients were counseled
to consume a high-fiber, low saturated fat, and
low glycemic index diet, consistent with the National
Cholesterol Education Program Therapeutic Lifestyle
Change recommendations."

From the data table, my favourite part of any study:

The TC in men went from 179 (+- 35.5) to 133.8 (+- 30.4).

Women went from 200 +-35.5 to 160.8 +- 41.0.

Rather low TC.

Calcium scores went up.

Males was 835, became 856 after the treatment. Yowza.

Female 333 became 329.

Oh yeah, average 25OHD concentration was 49.5 in men and a little lower in women at final, so not well above the 50 in the abstract, but just at (on average).

No mention of vitamin A.

But damn, that TC went low.


Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi Mark,


What particular study were you referring to?

The fact that the cholesterol lowering was accompanied by more arteriosclerotic progression is quite typical for that type of studies. It seems to be the rule rather than an exception. J-LIT springs to my mind, for example.

That's probably why they are avoiding the usage of modern diagnostic techniques such as high speed tomographic calcium score (Dr.Agatston's technique), relying instead on event statistics which gives one more scope for data dredging and some creative statistics out of marginal data.

OTOH I shouldn't be criticizing that kind of methodology, since that's exactly what I have done: a statistical outcome-event based test with N=1. 8-:)

The fact that I survived my high animal fat low carb nutrition, alive and in perfect health "proves" to me that Dr. Kwasniewski is right and _they_ are wrong!


mark said...

Hey Stan.

Was referring to the Davis study,

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.
Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M. Amer J Ther 2008 (Dec 15).

I realize thay my comments might not make sense without knowing what study I was referring to lol. My comments were referring to the full text. If you like, I can mail it to you.

I think what made things confusing was the duration. The full text says the duration of the study was 34 months. The abstract mentions 18.

So funny duddy there.

Yeah, I haven't gotten a Calcium scan done of any kind, and won't until I am better off financially,, but I have learned the lesson of low carbing very well, when I would reintroduce carbs into my diet sporadically and found I have an aversion to them. They really bum my mood. Initially, ingesting them is OK with me. Afterwards, I hate em and their effects on cognition, mood, attention span, etc. Life is better without.


Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi Mark,

Yes please email the full Davis' study: stanb (at)

I also used to hate carbs and eat them only sporadically in the beginning but I learned that it is not good. It is better to eat some carbs every day, even as little as 20g helps. Otherwise some problems might appear. I found that it may trigger hypoglycemic episode with runaway adrenal avalanche, in some people whose liver is not able to manufacture glucose at short notice. You have to be careful, one of the symptoms is rapid heart beat for a few hours caused in my opinion (guess) by hypoglycemia stimulating glucogenesis through increased adrenal hormones. That's why hypoglycemia is often accompanied by some stress-like symptoms. In turn, adrenal hormones stimilate glucogenesis and at the same time stimulate thyroid hormones - that's where the real danger may be. If the whole system is inefficient you get a run-away hormonal secretion due to a positive feedback loop situation. Over-stimulation of thyroid can be life-threatening due to it's effect on heart function (arrhythmia, tachycardia etc).

Best thing is to eat a piece of chocolate or ice cream a day even if you hate it. I know it may require some sacrifice but for the sake of health...

JC said...

Can you comment on the article I just posted on web md debate?

JC said...

this is the article