Megan's jottings

Truth will out ... eventually!

2011-03-17T11:05:00.004Z

PLEASE NOTE: Since sending the below letter I have discovered an error in my original figures, so I am amending this post accordingly. I apologise for any misleading information I have given.

I have this morning responded to Michael Griffin of the Department of Health on the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report on red meat and cancer. I wrote as follows:

As the SACN/Government/WCRFUK health warnings on red meat tell the public that "eating red meat may cause cancer" rather than "eating red meat may cause cancer if you're a smoker or between the ages of 50 and 71, or taller than average, or have/don’t have a family history of cancer" I have also chosen to ignore variables in the 700 (approx.) studies referenced in the SACN report.

After filtering out all studies concerning iron deficiency, iron fortification in flour, iron supplementation in cereal, iron supplementation in babies' formula, iron overload, pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, rheumatic disease, tuberculosis, alcoholism, and other studies unrelated to either diet in general, or red meat in particular, and meta-analyses of detailed studies already included, I was left with fewer than sixty.

I then discarded those produced by NDNS (whose data are intrinsically flawed, in that they do not differentiate between fresh farm/butcher meat and that from unknown sources which has then been processed in a factory with numerous additives, then canned or frozen); those produced by WCRFUK (as their data are based wholly on NDNS); Department of Health (again based on NDNS); and SACN (based on NDNS and other unrelated studies).

One major problem with the studies is the Food Frequency Questionnaires used, which ranged from “a 24-hour food recall” through “during the last 12 months” to, in one case, an incredible “during the two years prior to being diagnosed”!

From personal experience of monitoring my own daily nutrition for extended periods (up to six months at a time) over the last four years, and from the accounts of colleagues attempting to do likewise, I believe it is impossible for anyone to accurately recall and estimate precise amounts of any food eaten even the previous day. The only accurate method is to weigh and record every item before it is eaten. This flaw is acknowledged in most studies, using terms such as “limitations”, “estimated”, etc.

This cull left just 21 studies, most of which (but not all) looked at cancer risks and red meat. However, there is one factor common to all the studies that is not taken into account - the fact that they all contained carbohydrates such as grains, starches, and many different sugars, and such ‘foods’ as chocolate bars.

The remaining studies fall into two general categories:

1) Those which showed no association, an inverse association, or were inconsistent in methodology or findings (12)

Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer in Japan: the Miyagi Cohort Study
We found no significant association between total meat consumption and the risk of sub-site of colorectal cancer. In conclusion, our data do not support the hypothesis that meat consumption is a risk factor for colorectal cancer.

Meat consumption in a varied diet marginally influences nonheme iron absorption in normal individuals
No mention of cancer of any type

Nutrition and dietary carcinogens
Relates only to cooking methods of meats

The relationship between the consumption of meat, fat, and coffee and the risk of colon cancer: a prospective study in Japan
Unable to locate full text, but abstract covers only processed meat and coffee

Comparison of risk factors for colon and rectal cancer
” our findings support the hypothesis that some risk factors, including family history, physical activity and possibly height, differ in their association with colon and rectal cancer.”

A cohort study of dietary iron and heme iron intake and risk of colorectal cancer in women
” ... heme iron intake, and iron intake from meat showed no association with colon cancer, rectal, or colorectal cancer”
”The present analysis showed no association between dietary intake of iron, heme iron, iron from meat sources, or non-heme iron and risk of cancer of the colon, rectum, or proximal or distal colon.

Effect of white versus red meat on endogenous N-nitrosation in the human colon and further evidence of a dose response
Conclusion: “Despite the consistent response to meat, there is substantial individual variation in the extent of response. This individual variation remains despite the highly controlled conditions under which studies are carried out.”

Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications
Unable to access full text but unlikely to associate red meat with cancer.

Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
Unable to access full text, but it appears to only be a meta-analysis of articles already covered.

Red meat, chicken, and fish consumption and risk of colorectal cancer
Data in Table 3 (hazard ratios) do not make sense. Those for fresh red meat do not show the increased risk with increased consumption in either colon or colorectal cancers which those for processed meats do. Interestingly, higher fish consumption shows an increased risk of colon cancer, but I’ve yet to read that Government health warning!

Haem, not protein or inorganic iron, is responsible for endogenous intestinal N-nitrosation arising from red meat
Studies involved 11 males and 17 females, but “Only male diets were analysed” for NOC and haem.

Iron and colorectal cancer risk in the lpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene cancer prevention study
” Comparing the highest to the lowest quartiles, there was an inverse association between serum ferritin and colorectal cancer risk and a suggestion of an inverse association between dietary iron and colorectal cancer risk. In addition, serum ferritin, serum iron and transferrin saturation were all inversely associated with colon cancer risk specifically whereas serum unsaturated iron binding capacity was positively associated with colon cancer risk. In summary, we found a significant inverse association between several serum iron indices and colon cancer risk.”
” We found no correlation between dietary iron (or intake of meat) and iron stores”

2) Those showing some association between meat and colorectal cancer (9)

Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer
Results: 1667 out of 148,610 participants (1.12%) developed colorectal cancer

Heme and chlorophyll intake and risk of colorectal cancer in the Netherlands cohort study
Results: 1535 out of 120,852 participants (1.27%) developed colorectal cancer

Red meat consumption and risk of cancers of the proximal colon, distal colon and rectum:
Result: 733 out of 61,433 participants (1.19%) developed colorectal cancer

Iron intake and the risk of colorectal cancer
Result: 156 out of 11,317 participants (1.34%) developed colorectal cancer

A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk
Result: 53,396 out of 494,036 participants (10.8%) developed a cancer of some type.

PLEASE NOTE: the section which follows has been amended as there was a mathematical error in the original.

Cancer incidence in British vegetarians.Conclusion: The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters.

Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition
There was no significant increased risk of colorectal cancer with high intake of red or processed meat in the presence of high intake or fish or fibre.

Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
Conclusions: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.

Red and processed meat causes cancer ... again???

2011-02-25T11:59:00.003Z

The Iron and Health report is now out, and it makes very interesting reading - very interesting indeed.

Table A47 [pp 348-351] lists all the 'red meat' in the survey - and remember, this is what the health warning is based on. Here are the entries for beef:

Beef burger and onion fried not 100% meat 60% beef
Beef burger and onion grilled 77% beef
Beef burger economy fried 60% beef
Beef burger economy grilled 60% beef
Beef burgers economy frozen raw 60% beef
Beef burgers in gravy canned 40% beef
Beef burgers low-fat fried 80% beef
Beef burgers with onion frozen raw 77% beef
Beef casserole ready meal in gravy and veg 22% beef
Beef chicken and pork satay 22% pork, 22% beef
Beef cobbler with baked beans and carrots retail 12% beef
Beef curry as served with rice retail 6% beef
Beef curry frozen/chilled ready meal no rice 24% beef
Beef curry no rice retail 11% beef
Beef curry with rice ready meal retail 12% beef
Beef enchilladas ready meal retail 21% beef
Beef hot pot with pots ready meal retail 24% beef
Beef in red wine sauce with mashed potato retail 22% beef
Beef minced in gravy canned 75% beef
Beef minced pie filling canned 75% beef
Beef minced reformed pie filling + onion canned 75% beef
Beef oriental with rice retail 10% beefBeef stew and dumplings frozen or chilled ready meal 10% beef
Beef stewed made w canned stewing steak + pulses 12% beef
Beef stewing reformed pie filling canned 75% beef
Beef wellington 31% beef

Can you see home-roast sirloin on the list? Or a nice, juicy rump steak? Or even a home-made burger?

No, neither can I! I was going to write at length, but frankly, my time is more valuable to me than wasting it on such rubbish.

However, I have asked the Department for Health why there's no REAL meat included in the survey. I won't be holding my breath, and I suggest you don't either.

I'm off to have myself a nice, juicy fillet steak with a small side salad!

Response from Dr Prentice's office...

2011-02-21T11:08:00.001Z

"Dr Prentice is not available for comment and I would have referred you to DH Press Office but I see that you have already cc'd them in."

Remind me again, who exactly is paying her and her Committee??

New red and processed meat warning??

2011-02-20T10:00:00.003Z

Today's headlines give a dire warning that Britons MUST eat only 70g of red and processed meat per day otherwise they MAY get stomach cancer.

Now why I am so sceptical that I have immediately written to Dr Anne Prentice of MRC [Dr Susan Jebb's boss!] who is Chairman of The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), the body issuing the warning.

"Dear Dr Prentice,

I would be most grateful if you would kindly provide me with a list of the studies upon which your committee has based the latest warning, headlined today.

In February 2009 I made the same request to the World Cancer Research Fund when the same warning was given. I was provided with a link to 1,028 studies, but I was unable to find any that were relevant.

I would also be very interested to know the reasons for combining, say, grass-fed beef with foods such as the beef in a typical fast-food curry. "

I'm sceptical because we heard almost identical warnings exactly two years ago, in February 2009 - only that time the headline was "Red meat causes cancer"!

This is what I did then, and these were my findings.

Then I discovered that red meat, particularly beef, is a healthy food.

This is why I'm so sceptical of the latest warning, and I can't wait to get a response to my email, because only if there is genuine research proving the direct correlation between the sort of red meat that I eat - grass-fed beef, Welsh lamb, Cheshire pork and Lancashire chicken - only then will I hold up my hands and say "Sorry, you're right - I'll become a vegetarian ... again ... even if it does make me fatter and sicker, and more likely to die earlier!"

Diet cards

2011-01-02T06:48:00.003Z

I've developed an idea mooted by a P2T member some time ago - sorry I don't remember who it was to credit them, though.

For my 2011 restart I have produced a set of 'diet cards' which is based on a low carb diet with added "safe starches" as defined by The Perfect Health Diet, as I need to watch my protein intake, and increase my carbs a little. This is what they look like:

I'm re-starting at 171.4lb with 2,000 calories, comprising:
200 calories (50g) carbs
280 calories (70g) protein
1520 calories (168g) fat

My daily breakfast is bacon and two eggs, fried in ghee, so for the other meals I will choose:
two protein cards
two safe starches cards (white rice, potatoes, tapioca)
two carbohydrate cards (green salad, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, etc.)

There will be about 50g fats included in most of the meats, so I need to choose as many of the fats cards as necessary to make up the right daily amount.

I've no idea how this will work, but I need something to get me back on track!

Data for the last six months

2010-03-17T21:44:00.004Z

On the Pig 2 Twig forum we have been 'hibernating' since September with a weekly weigh-in, so this is the data for this period.

Earlier today [below] I thought the stalling problems had been solved, but the correlation has vanished with these data!

The purple lines are identical and signify the weekly weights. The red lines correspond with the side labels.

Any comments or observations gratefully received.

Stalling?

2010-03-17T06:07:00.008Z

Yesterday I realised that I was the same weight as on 27 January this year. That's seven weeks with little change apart from an annoying 2lb up/down/up/down, which is guaranteed to depress.

Over that period I've tried all ways of cracking it - reducing calories, increasing fat, increasing protein, reducing protein, and in desperation decided I would embark on an anti-Candida diet - once I've got used to the idea of no dairy!

I've been keeping a daily record of my eating using Spark People, together with a record of my weight on the pig 2 twig forum but neither has produced any logical reasons for my virtual stall so far.

However, when I tried averages for the last four and a half months, a picture has begun to emerge which I thought I'd share. Remember though, this is totally unscientific, on a sample of one!

I have deliberately used large units to demonstrate quite small changes - for instance the weight range is only 10lb and the carbs are between 10g and 20g.

All nutrients and total calories with weight
It's obvious from this that food affects weight, but how? The 'experts' tell us that it's all to do with calories in v calories out.

total calories and weight
Hmmm... that's not very conclusive, is it? So, is it that evil stuff fat? After all, most of what I eat is saturated which in some eyes makes it the devil's food.

fat and weight

Again, it's not a perfect match. If it was so evil surely it would be more obvious?

protein and weight
It's claimed by some that too much protein is the culprit, but once again the graphs don't fit too well.

carbs and weight

The carbs graph is the nearest to a perfect match, but it's still hard to believe that 20g of carbs a day instead of 10g is to blame totally.

I find it quite surprising that the time between cause and effect on all the graphs is so long. We normally assume that what we eat today affects our weight tomorrow, but it just does not seem to be the case, which means that short-term trials of a few weeks or months aren't very accurate.

Thanks for reading this, and I'd be really interested in any comments or observations you may have.

Osteoporosis

2009-09-04T10:45:00.002+01:00

Osteoporosis has been in the news recently both here in the UK and in America, and the warnings are dire.

In a Daily Mail article we read:

Jeremy Miller is the last person you might expect to suffer from the bone disease osteoporosis. He is a sporty, youthful-looking 46-year-old male, so he hardly fits the stereotype for the condition.

Also known as brittle-bone disease, it is characterised by fragile bones prone to breakages and is widely perceived to primarily affect post-menopausal women, most famously the Duchess of Cornwall.

"Also known as brittle-bone disease ..." Really?? Since when?

Brittle-bone disease is osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), a rare genetic disorder usually resulting from abnormalities of the genes that control the production of a protein called collagen; which is the main protein in bone and essential for its strength.

Osteoporosis can develop throughout life, and while all sufferers of OI can have osteoporosis, those who develop osteoporosis cannot develop OI.

However, the Daily Mail article does conclude with some half-heartedly good advice:

According to Sarah Leyland, senior nurse for the National Osteoporosis Society, preventative measures include 'regular weight-bearing exercise, a reasonable amount of calcium in the diet and reasonable exposure to Vitamin D through sunlight.'

But in our northern climes - and especially in our dreadful summers - we cannot get enough Vitamin D from sunlight.

Meanwhile, in the States, lies, damned lies and statistics have been utilised to blame a claimed increase in osteoporosis on the sufferers themselves. This is covered in an excellent blog from Sandy Szwarc, over at Junk Food Science

So here in the UK how much Vitamin D do we need, and does it matter what type it is? Yes, it certainly matters, and Dr John Briffa has written several blog entries on that very topic. His latest details evidence showing that even ten times the current recommended dose of Vitamin D3 is still too low.

For the last few months I have been taking 6,000 IU of Vitamin D3 per day. It's difficult to know whether I'm healthier for doing so, but the proof will come when my family start bringing colds into the house. Normally I catch them within days, and they last for many weeks, turning to bronchitis.

If I manage to get through the coming autumn and winter without succombing, or with only minor sniffles, I will have a better idea of the efficacy of Vitamin D3.

At last the EU comes good!

2009-08-31T13:06:00.000+01:00

According to today's Times newspaper the EU is cracking down on the claims made by food manufacturers, and not before time.

The full article can be read on the Times online website, but one quote stands out, neatly summing up all the spurious claims:

Kellogg’s, which admits making a “five-figure” donation to Heart UK, accepts there is no published scientific evidence to show that eating a daily bowl of Optivita lowers cholesterol.

A spokesman said: “We do have evidence of our own to show it reduces cholesterol, but we have not published it as it is proprietary and confidential. All our claims are backed by good science.”

Well of course! We believe you ... honest injun!

Wonderful coconut oil

2009-08-20T19:30:00.003+01:00

Following my liver transplant I was seriously ill, and hospitalised for over two weeks, with CMV - cytomegalovirus - a member of the herpes family. As a consequence I have suffered from recurring episodes ever since, and this is usually controlled by acyclovir medication, but unfortunately I forgot to take these for a couple of weeks in July.

Two weeks ago I took ill with ulcers inside my mouth, on my tongue, with a red-raw throat, and I lost my voice completely. I had blood tests done but I was terrified of being hospitalised again because of CMV, so didn't wait for the results.

I began dosing myself with two tablespoons of coconut oil, four times a day, with the odd extra one thrown in for good measure. It took almost a week, but eventually the ulcers healed and I began to feel more human again.

Why did I use coconut oil? Because it is said to be anti-viral [and CMV is a virus] as well as being anti-bacterial.

Now, it could be that I would have got better without the coconut oil, but from my previous experience I don't believe CMV works like that.

I'll never be without coconut oil in the house in future.

"Skin cancer has quadrupled since the 1970s"

2009-06-19T08:50:00.002+01:00

That was the first item I saw on BBC News when I switched on my television this morning, and it set me thinking.

If the experts are to be believed, this is caused by spending too much time in the sun, or on sunbeds, without the protection of sunscreen.

According to scientists, humans have lived on earth for at least 276,000 years. For most of that period clothing was scant, limited to animal skins slung around the body at best, and solid housing was non-existant.

In the 1940s the first effective sunscreen was invented. However, sunscreens were not widely recommended - except for advertising - until the late 1960s. And most sunscreens block the UVB rays that promote Vitamin D3, but not the melanoma-causing UVA rays.

Stephan wrote a very instructive blog about this last year.

My parents' generation - born almost a century ago - spent many hours out of doors thoughout their lives, without sunscreen. They swam in the sea and lakes, walked in the countryside for miles, gardened [my dad was a professional gardener/groundsman], played tennis and cricket for hours on end, all without sunscreen. I don't know of a single one of their relatives/friends/acquaintances who developed skin cancer.

The sun is no hotter now, so what has changed since the 1970s?

Take food consumption:

Animal fats down dramatically
Lean poultry up
Fatty beef down
Full-cream milk down by about 75%
Butter down by more than 50%
Polyunsaturated vegetable oils more than doubled
Sugars almost doubled
Grain up by more than 50%

And all the time we have got fatter and sicker. We have more heart disease, more diabetes, more allergies, and more cancers.

Are we eating ourselves to death?

We will remember them ... 65 years on

2009-06-06T13:50:00.005+01:00

They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them.
'For the Fallen' by Laurence Binyon.

Fifteen years ago this morning I was in France with my dad. We needed to get to Caen for the 50th anniversary celebrations, but when we reached the motorway we found the access closed and guarded by a gendarme. He explained that the motorway was closed as the President and Prince Charles would be using it to reach Caen.

In my schoolgirl French I explained that was where we were going as my dad was part of the celebrations. The gendarme leaned into the car, saw my dad proudly wearing his Para beret, tie and medals, and saluted. He then said in French, "For you, sir, the motorway is open," and lifted the barrier and again saluted us on our way.

The previous day we had been shopping in Deauville, and when we got back to our car, complete with GB sticker, there were four youths lounging on a bench next to it. They looked just the sort to cause trouble here in Britain, so I braced myself as I opened the car doors.

One of the youths said, rather accusingly, "You English?"

I answered "Non, je suis Ecossaise!" (Scottish), which is usually a smart move in France!

Then he asked if we were there for the celebrations, so I explained my dad had been a Para, who was one of the first to jump into France just after midnight on D-Day.

At that the youths leapt to their feet and saluted my dad. They all shook him by the hand, and said that they would not have been there if it hadn't been for him.

It was such a moving contrast to the attitude of so many British people today.

One thing we found really interesting was that the veterans and families regarded the anniversary as a 'commemoration', while the French call it a 'celebration', and celebrate they did!

Every day - and we were there for five days - we were invited to a different village. Once there, the old Paras would parade behind either the Regimental band, or the band of the SNCF [the French railways], to the village or town's memorial.

At the memorial the mayor of the town would address everyone, thanking the Paras for the town's liberation, and remembering those killed, then on to a celebration.

These ranged from Kir and Calvados [LOTS of it] and dancing to the SNCF band in a farmer's barn that had been specially cleared for the occasion, to a full-scale banquet for the Paras and the whole town in a huge marqee, from where we watched the midnight fireworks at Pegasus bridge.

On a country lane near their DZ [Drop Zone] the Paras were paraded and presented with Normandy medals specially struck by the French Government, and I was very honoured to receive one on behalf of a batallion member who had become too ill to attend.

Another day we attended a very splendid ceremony in, I think, l'Abbaye aux Dames, in Caen, built by the wife of William the Conqueror. There my husband received a medal on behalf of his cousin, now living in Australia, who had been a glider pilot on D-Day.

And it was there that we ended up chatting to a charming American lady, and her son - who later turned out to be a CIA agent!

On another occasion we visited one country cemetery - not one of the massive war cemeteries that stretch across northern France. My dad wanted to find the grave of one of his batallion friends - a Jew - who had been shot and killed while he was still hanging from his parachute during landing. As we were about to leave the cemetery a large BMW with German plates drew up behind our car, and two men got out. They came into the small cemetery, and we all eyed each other suspiciously. Then my dad and one of the men stepped forward, and they shook hands. Nobody said a word, and we turned and left, leaving the Germans to find the grave of their compatriot.

Although my dad is no longer with us, the memories of that time we spent with him in Normandy, meeting his friends, seeing the Normandy countryside through his eyes, and understanding just how much we owe to people like him, will remain with me for ever.

Mendacious medics and devious doctors.

2009-03-25T09:21:00.005Z

This week I was told by a friend that I’m wasting my time eating a low-carb diet as “It’s been proven beyond any doubt that it’s calories that count.” When I asked for his source he pointed me to Volume 360:859-873 of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Here I found an impressive line-up of six MDs, eight PhDs, two MAs, and a BA who have published results of a two-year study involving 881 people. The Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies (otherwise known as POUNDS LOST) tested diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in dietary fibre.

Its stated aim was to “compare the effects of three principal dietary macronutrients”. and in order to do so the authors state that the diets were “low or high in fat, average or high in protein, or low or high in carbohydrates”.

Their conclusion?

“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize”.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what diet you follow, you will lose weight if you reduce your calories, and that was the message picked up by my friend.

However, the devil, as they say, is in the detail.

The study’s press release gives an indication of the extremely poor results:

“On average, participants lost 13 pounds at six months and maintained a 9 pound loss at two years.”

In our (admittedly very small and informal) group of forum members, those who had followed a low-carbohydrate diet for up to six months had lost an average of 31.5 lb, with the highest loss of 56 lb. Those who had been following it for one year had lost an average of 38 and 58 lb respectively. After eighteen months, it was 59 and 84 lb respectively.

Naturally I was especially interested in this study’s take on a low-carbohydrate diet, having reviewed the RISCK study. Once again I was disappointed to find that a group of so-called experts had embarked on a major study with no attempt to discover the truth about low-carb diets, despite that being a stated aim.

Incredibly, the sample 2000 calorie menu provides a massive 157g net of carbohydrates. That is eight times more than advised for weight loss and four times more than required for maintenance following weight loss.

Of the nineteen food items on the sample menu, ten – more than half – are unsuitable for a low-carb diet.

I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, though, as the lead researcher, Dr Frank Sacks, has long been a vocal opponent of the Atkins diet; obviously America's answer to Britain's Dr Susan Jebb.

So how long did your diet last?

2009-03-22T16:09:00.003Z

In 2006 Nimble bread was fifty years old, and to celebrate they commissioned a survey to discover how long people were able to stick to their diet. These were the results:

Scotland: nearly half of dieters surveyed give up dieting after three weeks, and 13% last only two days, and 6% are permanently dieting.

North West: around 65% give up after three weeks, 21% in two days, and 4% permanent.

North East: nearly 55% in three weeks; 20% in two days; nearly 10% permanent.

Yorkshire & The Humber: 50% give up within a week; 16% in two days; 16% permanent.

Wales: nearly 70% in three weeks; 20% two days, and 10% permanent.

West Midlands: 48% in three weeks; 8% two days; and 10% permanent.

East Midlands: 54% in three weeks; 19% in two days; 7% permanent.

East Anglia: 50% give up after a couple of days.

South West: more than 60% in three weeks; 23% in two days; 5% permanent.

South East: more than 55% in three weeks; 20% in two days; 15% permanent.

Northern Ireland: nearly 90% give up within three weeks.

In fact, 95 per cent of dieters have regained all the weight they lost after three years.

Six years ago a briefing at the Royal Institution was organised to express academic concern about the Atkins diet, prompted by studies that proved it was successful, but experts concluded that "high-protein low-carbohydrate fare does not work, any apparent success being all in the mind." This statement is an admirable demonstration of experts not bothering to actually study the diet before condemning it. As all low-carb diets know, Atkins is not a high-protein diet, but a high-fat diet.

At the meeting, Dr Susan Jebb said

"There is not a shred of evidence that Atkins works".

and

"At the moment it is not even a safe experiment, as nobody is following what is happening to the millions of people who are following the Atkins Diet. It is an unknown risk."

and

"To recommend this as a strategy, we need serious, long-term trials."

Unfortunately for Dr Jebb her recent RISCK study has proved that a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is healthier than the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet she is currently advocating.

Given the reluctance of Dr Jebb and her colleagues to do "serious, long-term trials" into low-carb dieting, it will have to be a DIY project. We have made a start with a Diet and Health Survey, and if you haven't already completed it, we'd be most grateful if you would do so.

I also asked for help on a low-carb forum in order to gather data on the length of time members have been low-carb dieting, and how much weight they have lost. The forum has only been in existence since January 2007, and a few of the respondents have reached goal weight and are maintaining.

These are the prelimary results.

Total number of participants: 62

Low-carbing for less than 13 weeks: 18
Average weight loss: 17 lb
Highest weight loss: 26 lb

Low-carbing for up to 26 weeks: 8
Average weight loss 31.5 lb
Highest weight loss: 56 lb

Low-carbing for up to 39 weeks: 13
Average weight loss: 50.7 lb
Highest weight loss: 99 lb

Low-carbing for up to 52 weeks: 7
Average weight loss: 39 lb
Highest weight loss: 58 lb

Low-carbing for 65 weeks: 11
Average weight loss: 42 lb
Highest weight loss: 79 lb

Low-carbing for 78 weeks: 2
Average weight loss: 59 lb
Highest weight loss: 84 lb

Low-carbing for 96 weeks: 1
Weight loss: 84 lb

Low-carbing for 113 weeks: 1
Weight loss: 80 lb

Is it all in the mind? Try telling that to the forum members! The diet which most of them follow is based on the Atkins diet. So here, Dr Jebb, is your evidence that low-carb diets, such as Atkins, work.

When the Diet and Health Survey is completed and analysed, we expect to have evidence that it is also healthier than that currently advised by you, Government, nutritionists and dietitians.

Have you ever been on a diet?

2009-03-22T09:44:00.003Z

In collaboration with Amanda from the Cake and Biscuit Diet website (she's doing all the hard work) we have produced a Diet and Health Survey, and would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire.

This information is totally confidential and will be used to evaluate the effects on health and weight of various types of weight-loss diet. Please fill in a separate questionnaire if you have made a serious attempt at more than one diet.

Don't be afraid of giving information about diets that weren't successful - we need to know which diets don't succeed, as well as diets that do, and we need to know WHY they don't succeed, so please be honest about your reasons for giving up on them.

Please help to make this the biggest online diet survey ever, by telling your friends, and posting this link on your favourite forums.

http://www.cake-and-biscuit-diet.com/Questionnaire.aspx

Thank you all.

"RISCK! RISCK anything!"

2009-03-19T11:25:00.009Z

As I mentioned in yesterday's blog, the results of the RISCK study were expected towards the end of 2007, although it wasn't scheduled to end before 2008. It's now a quarter of the way through 2009, and The British Nutrition Foundation says it is still awaiting those results, according to their paper entitled Saturated fatty acid consumption: outlining the scale of the problem and assessing the solutions, recently published in British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 34, 74–84.

One of the early papers states that "further details of the RISCK project and up-to-date results can be found on the RISCK website http://risck.org.uk", and here they are, so I'm not entirely sure what the British Nutrition Foundation is waiting for.

Some details have emerged, quietly, which is rather surprising when you consider that we, the British tax payers, footed the £2.7m bill for the study. So, what have these results shown so far?

The first is that almost a quarter (24%) of the participants gave up on the study. That left just 548 subjects, divided into four groups, so it was a pretty small study.

The second is far more important - the actual results - but I'll come to them shortly.

What was the study actually looking for? The impact of diet on glucose metabolism, and from this statement we know that saturated fat had already been cast in the role of villain:

People who eat food rich in saturated fat found in meat and dairy products, tend to be at greater risk of developing the Metabolic Syndrome ...

The four groups of participants first followed a 'run-in' diet (Diet A), which was supposed to be what the average British adult eats regularly; high in both saturated fat and carbohydrates.

For the next six months each group followed one of the following:

Diet B: high in both monosaturated fats and carbohydrates
Diet C: high in monosaturated fats and low in carbohydrates
Diet D: low in fat and high in carbohydrates
Diet E: low in both fats and carbohydrates

The British Nutrition Foundation recommends "At least half the energy in our diets should come from carbohydrate, mostly as starchy carbohydrates. "

Low-carb diets such as Atkins typically recommend no more than 20% of total calories as carbs.

However, during the first month of the RISCK study all participants ate either 63.5% or 64.6%, and those who were in the high-carb diet groups continued to consume 63.2% and 64.8%.

What about the low-carb diet groups? They had 55% and 56% per day.

So in reality there wasn't the significant difference between high- and low-carb as defined by nutritionists' recommendations and well-known weight-loss diets that the authors claim.

Approximately 56% of those carbohydrates were supplied to participants, and included breakfast cereals, breads, rice, pasta and potatoes

What about the actual results? According to the authors:

During the intervention differences in dietary fat and CHO were highly significant

And how!

Which diet came out worst on triglyceride levels?
Low-fat with high-carbohydrate.

Which came out worst on total cholesterol levels?
High-fat with high-carbohydrate.

Which came out worst on LDL cholesterol levels?
High-fat with high-carbohydrate.

Which diet came out best on triglyderides levels?
High-fat with low-carbohydrate

Which came out best on total cholesterol levels?
High-fat with low-carbohydrate

Which came out best on LDL cholesterol levels?
High-fat with low-carbohydrate

Is this the reason for the early cessation of the study, and the lack of publicity?

The authors concede:

A novel finding of the present study is evidence to suggest that reductions in the GI of the diet were associated with greater reductions in total cholesterol

However, the really interesting point is that the RISCK researchers' idea of a 'low-carb diet' wasn't even typical, and yet it still came out best! How much better would the results have been on a diet less than 20% carbohydrates?

Why is there no mention of the other figures which appear to show conclusively that a high-fat/low-carb diet is healthier? Will these results actually change Dr Jebb's advice to Government, the Food Standards Agency, and the public? I doubt it.

There was an unforeseen risk in the RISCK study. It might just have proved the experts wrong again ...

"Care no more for the opinions of others ... Face the truth."

2009-03-18T10:56:00.010Z

“Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.”

Katherine Mansfield (1888-1923)

When considering the RISCK study, that is such an apt quotation that it could almost have been written for it.

The RISCK (Reading, Imperial, Surrey, Cambridge, Kings) study commenced in January 2004 and was due to run until January 2008.

However, according to Dr Susan Jebb, the lead researcher, writing in Nutrition Bulletin Volume 32 Issue 2, Pages 154 - 156, published online on 26 May 2007, results were expected towards the end of 2007.

In her introduction, she writes about the World Health Organization (WHO) Technical Report 916 (WHO 2003), and says:

Recommendations: to consume less saturated fat, less salt and more fruit and vegetables. However, beyond these headlines there is less certainty and precision, because the evidence base is neither complete nor perfect.

As Dr Jebb seems to rate the WHO report so highly, I decided to take a look at it for myself. In its preamble it states:

The recommendations contained in this report are based on the examination and analysis of the best available evidence and the collective judgement of a group of international experts, brought together by WHO and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The report makes the statement on saturated fat:

On the health side, increased consumption of animal products has led to higher intakes of saturated fats, which in conjunction with tobacco use, threatens to undermine the health gains made by reducing infectious diseases

It goes on:

In observational epidemiological studies, a high saturated fat intake has been associated with a higher risk of impaired glucose tolerance, and higher fasting glucose and insulin levels

And the reference for this assertion? Dietary factors determining diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. A 20-year follow-up of the Finnish and Dutch cohorts of the Seven Countries Study

And what precisely was the Seven Countries Study? None other than that flawed one by Ancel Keys back in the 1950s! The one where he chose the only seven countries that fitted his theory and discarded the fifteen that disproved it!

So the World Health Organisation is yet another influential organ that is perfectly happy to regurgitate 'facts' based on lies.

This blog was to have been about the RISCK study, but this discovery has rather taken me down another avenue, but I'll return to it very shortly, in order to question its early cessation and the results - such as they are.

"Our bodies are designed to eat meat ..."

2009-03-16T16:39:00.001Z

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the title of this entry, I was a little surprised at its source. In the same article I found this:

We evolved essentially as hunters, which means we need high nutrient food for energy and stamina. We have a short digestive throughput - we don't need to keep food in our bodies for a long time because we can extract a high proportion of nutrients from what we eat.

and this:

Animals designed to be vegetarians have a different system: think of the cow with all its stomachs geared to deal with cellulose. The cow may thrive on grass but it spends all its time eating and regurgitating. We don't.

and best of all, this:

Of course it's possible to survive without animal products but meat has an important part to play in a balanced diet. The recent attitude that red meat especially is inherently bad for you, and that you'll get cancer and heart disease and high cholesterol, worries me because it's just not true.

Of course it's not true! It's what many of us have been saying for a long time but we might just as well have been whistling in the wind.

So who made these radical statements? None other than a member of The Fat Panel, Dr Paul Stillman, in a Daily Mail debate on vegetarianism.

Oops! It looks as if he dropped a clanger there!

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

2009-03-14T16:26:00.006Z

There’s a new food-police force on the block, trying to stop us from eating real, healthy, natural food. Believe it or not, it’s called The Fat Panel. Here is ‘the clinical evidence’ against saturated fat, according to the website.

It's all right - I'll wait while you take a peek at it...

No, you’re not missing something – there is no evidence there. None at all. And so I asked for the evidence, and received a paper, entitled Saturated fatty acid consumption: outlining the scale of the problem and assessing the solutions, which, I was informed, is “copy write” (sic.) to the British Nutrition Foundation, although the paper’s authors are the eight Panel members

The Panel claims to be independent, but almost the first thing I noticed was the acknowledgement:

“The Fat Panel is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from the Margarine and Spreads Association.”**

Oh that’s all right, then – it’s sure to be a balanced, unbiased review... isn’t it?

Contradictions abound in the paper; contradictions between referenced studies, and between the report itself and current nutritional advice. For example:

Lauric, myristic, and palmitic acid raise serum cholesterol but stearic acid has no effect

The first three are found in coconut or palm oil, and in dairy products, but where do we find stearic acid? In meat fat, dairy products and chocolate ... but aren’t we told not to eat meat fat, and only this week Scottish doctors wanted to tax chocolate!

On page three I found precisely what I expected, under the heading of Saturated fatty acids in the UK diet:

Data from the 1997 and 2000–2001 National Diet and Nutrition Surveys (NDNS) show that adult males, females and children (4–18 years) derive 13.4%, 13.2% and 14.3% of their food energy from SFA, respectively.

Yes, once again those flawed food surveys are relied upon by people claiming to be experts – people who really should know better. But then we must remember who is paying the piper!

It goes on:

The main sources of SFA in the UK diet are milk and milk products, meat and meat products, cereal and cereal products and potatoes and savoury snacks

Now, unlike the authors, I’m no nutritionist, but I have been dieting for a good many years, and reading nutrition tables, and I know of no potatoes that contain fat – saturated or otherwise - and aren’t we now being exhorted to eat more grains?

If grains aren’t cereals, then what on earth are they?
Eventually we get to the supposed links between saturated fats and disease, beginning with some bold statements.

“The UK recommendations for intake of total fat and different fatty acids are based on the evaluation of the scientific evidence relating to risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).”

“It is well recognised that dietary SFA causes atherosclerosis in animals ...”
“... and that certain SFA raise blood cholesterol levels which are key risk factors for CVD”

Then comes a fascinating sentence,

“The evidence from intervention trials is less convincing but does indicate that replacing SFA with PUFA and cis-MUFA does reduce the risk of cardiovascular events“

“... and there is now convincing evidence that trans fatty acids increase risk of CVD.”

Hallelujah! At last a statement with which I can agree. However, weren’t we urged to eat trans fats just a few short years ago??

Coronary heart disease

Here we have our first inkling of the quality of some of the studies used in the review:

There is good evidence that SFA (C12–C16) increase serum cholesterol levels by raising both LDL- and HDL cholesterol concentrations (Keys 1957).

Good evidence? Good grief! Did you notice who the study was by? None other than Ancel Keys, who started the whole low-fat diet bonanza all on his own, by using just the data that fitted his hypothesis. The data was available for twenty countries, but Keys chose just the seven that ‘proved’ his theory, and the Western world has got fatter and sicker ever since.

SFA intake is positively related to an increase in ...mortality from CHD. (Hu et al. 2001a)

Hu's study opens with an astonishing admission:

It is now increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences.

followed by:

A higher intake of total and saturated fat is widely believed to contribute to the development of CHD.

And the source for that belief? Ancel Keys again!

Hu et al admit the low-fat campaign was based on little scientific evidence, and then cite that same ‘evidence’ to show how unhealthy saturated fats are!

But does the Hu study conclude that SFA intake is positively related to an increase in mortality from CHD? Nope – it’s a comparison between the various fats that could or should replace saturated fats in the diet.

The Panel's paper continues:

Although the replacement of SFA with carbohydrate reduces energy intake and total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations, it has a TAG-raising (Berglund et al. 2007) and HDL-lowering effect (Turley et al. 1998), both of which increase the risk of CHD.

So, replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates increases the risk of coronary heart disease?

Why the blazes is Dr Susan Jebb and her cronies telling us we should reduce saturated fat and increase whole grains [carbohydrate] in our diet? Ah yes! She's the wolegrain and Slimfast lobby, isn't she!

Next the review asserts:

... a reduction in the male population SFA intake from the current levels of 13.4% to the recommended level of 11% of food energy, by replacement of SFA with PUFA, would be expected to reduce LDL-cholesterol levels by 0.13 mmol/l (2.4 ¥ 0.052) (Sorkin et al. 1992)

However, the study that’s based on is Cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in elderly men so were its conclusions relevant?

Serum total cholesterol shows a positive association with CHD morbidity and mortality in men aged 65 years and above. This may, however, not hold true for persons aged 80 years and above.

And what sort of research was carried out by Sorkin et al?

A MEDLINE search of all published studies that evaluated the association between high cholesterol levels and CHD in persons aged 65 years and above

So the evidence that men should replace their saturated fat intake with polyunsaturates is based on a Medline search of published studies – good, bad, indifferent, or hopelessly biassed – which may, or may not have had something to do with PUFAs or men under pension age?

What great advice from our Government bodies!

Then the Panel gets to deciding which types of SFA are the best:

... lauric acid, myristic acid and palmitic acid are known to be the most hypercholesterolaemic SFA (Mensink et al. 2003)

It doesn’t sound good, does it? But hang on one minute. What were Mensink’s actual findings ?

... lauric acid decreased the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol. Myristic and palmitic acids had little effect on the ratio, and
stearic acid reduced the ratio slightly. Replacing fats with carbohydrates increased fasting triacylglycerol concentrations.

In other words, contrary to the Panel’s statement, myristic and palmatic acids had little effect, and carbohydrates made things worse.

... stearic acid appears to be neutral in relation to total cholesterol concentrations, but not in relation to the progression of atherosclerosis or risk of CHD (Hu et al. 1999).

Do the study’s conclusions support this statement? No!

A distinction between stearic acid and other saturated fats does not appear to be important in dietary advice to reduce CHD risk ...

And after all the verbiage about the effects of different types of fats that might or might not be good/bad for us, we have this statement from the Panel:

... the difficulty in sourcing highly enriched sources of individual SFA makes it difficult to conduct meaningful intervention trials to compare their individual impact on the blood lipid profile and CHD risk.

We have a situation where the Panel admits that meaningful trials to prove what they want proving would be difficult, so it has relied on extremely thin, misleading, and unrelated evidence from other sources instead!

Type 2 Diabetes mellitus

As summarised in recent reviews (Vessby 2000; Hu et al. 2001b), results from large epidemiological studies are inconsistent, with studies reporting both positive and negative associations between intake of SFA and risk of impaired glucose tolerance, type-2 diabetes and insulin
resistance.

Well, Vessby’s conclusions are negative:

... controlled dietary intervention studies in humans investigating the effects of different types of fatty acids on insulin sensitivity have so far been negative.

Hu’s 2001 studies must be very important as they have been cited 949 times. As Vessby’s was negative, Hu’s must be the positive one, right? So does this one show a positive association between SFA and diabetes? No it does not!

Nineteen epidemiological studies on dietary fat and carbohydrate in relation to hyperglycaemia and Type 2 diabetes are listed. There is no consistency whatsoever between the results. Some associate carbohydrates, some total fat, some saturated fat, some meat, while four of them show no associations at all.

As Hu says, "the findings are inconclusive" and struggles for possible reasons, ranging from methodology to false reporting by participants. He does, however, report:

“A purported benefit of a low-fat diet is weight loss. But the association between dietary fat and obesity is not clear and
long-term clinical trials have not provided convincing evidence that reducing dietary fat can lead to subsequent weight loss.”

and he concludes

“Although it is generally agreed that dietary modification is an important means of preventing Type II diabetes, there exists no general consensus about the role of dietary fat and carbohydrates.”

So it would seem that neither Vessby nor Hu bear out the Panel’s statement.

The Panel concludes that further evidence is needed and is awaiting the results of the RISCK and LIPGENE trials, both of which are very likely to be badly flawed, as they seem to be using the same food groupings as the NDNS 2000-20001, except that LIPGENE has removed the healthy fats and replaced them with polyunsaturates provided by Unilever Best fods UK Ltd.

Other diseases linked to SFA intake

... studies investigating the relationship between SFA intake and obesity have reported inconsistent results ...

Hmmm... now that’s interesting, isn’t it?

... increased intake of animal fat, particularly as meat products, may be related to increased risk of colorectal cancer (Gonzalez 2006) and breast cancer (Sieri et al. 2008); however, there is little evidence to suggest that different classes of fatty acids (i.e. SFA vs. MUFA vs. PUFA) are associated with differential effects on risk.

Both references are from the EPIC study data, and Barry Groves has cast sufficient doub on both to render them meaninglesshere and here.

A moderate intake of SFA was found to increase the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but this association was found only in those with the Apolipoprotein (Apo) E4 polymorphism (Laitinen et al. 2006)

In other studies, a high intake of SFA was associated with neither dementia (Engelhart et al. 2002) nor Parkinson’s disease (de Lau et al. 2005).

Then comes admission number two:

In epidemiological studies, it is difficult to distinguish between different fatty acids as all dietary fat consists of
mixtures of fatty acids and it is often not possible to adjust for intake of other fatty acids.

Saturated fatty acids and public health

The evidence linking SFA intake with increased risk of CHD and other diseases highlights the importance of implementing strategies to reduce population SFA intake in the UK and thereby associated morbidity, mortality and economic costs.

Pardon?! Remind me again - the evidence linking SFA with CHD and other diseases is what, exactly?

Let's see what we have gleaned from the studies referenced in the Panel's paper:

CHD? No evidence
Dementia? No evidence
Parkinson’s? No evidence
Breast cancer? No evidence
Obesity? Inconclusive evidence
Colorectal cancer? No evidence
High cholesterol? None – unless you count Ancel Keys
Alzheimer’s? Some, but only in a very specific group of people.

Do you know what really p*sses me off most about all of this? We’re paying for these so-called experts to sit around and produce papers that do not stand up to even amateur scrutiny.

** The Fat Panel comprises Unilever (Flora), Dairy Crest (Clover), and Kerry Group (Move Over Butter).

Scary stuff, eh?

2009-03-09T07:27:00.008Z

This image has been made available by Purdue University, with the official caption:

Researchers at Purdue have precisely measured the impact of a high-fat diet on the spread of cancer, finding that excessive dietary fat caused a 300 percent increase in metastasizing tumor cells in laboratory animals. Here, lipid-rich cancer cells (the two round objects) attach to collagen fibrils, simultaneously visualized using coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering and sum frequency generation imaging. Cancer cells attach to collagen before spreading to organs in the body. (Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University)

As I said, scary stuff. So a high-fat diet causes a 300% increase in metastasising tumour cells in mice? The official press release continues:

"These findings demonstrate that an increase in lipids leads directly to a rise in cancer metastasis." Ji-Xin Cheng of Purdue's Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Chemistry.

Then there's:

Results showed the increase in lipids had no impact on the original tumors implanted in the mice. However, the rate of metastasis rose a dramatic 300 percent in the mice fed a high-fat diet.

and:

The researches used the imaging and cell-counting tools to document that linoleic acid, which is predominant in polyunsaturated fats, caused increasing membrane phase separation, whereas oleic acid, found in monounsaturated fats, did not. Increased membrane phase separation could improve the opportunity of circulating tumor cells to adhere to blood vessel walls and escape to organs far from the original tumor site.

What's the truth behind the headlines and the scary graphic?

It's something that has been known for years.

Something that nutritionists and governments alike are not only ignoring, but actively encouraging the world to do.

What is it?

"The new findings support earlier evidence from other research that consuming high amounts of polyunsaturated fat may increase the risk of cancer spreading."

Yes, polyunsaturated fats - those 'healthy' vegetable oils - may help the spread of cancer through the body. The researchers fed the mice on linoleic acid - Omega-6 - a PUFA.

Don't believe me? Read the study here.

How long will it be before Dr Susan Jebb, the Food Standards Agency, and the World Cancer Resarch Fund et al start citing this study as proof positive that we must never, ever, ever, eat saturated fats?

Let's just see, shall we?

More than a grain of truth

2009-03-05T18:53:00.012Z

Searching through Inuit studies, while preparing this blog entry, I came across this:

Recommendations for the American population

The data summarized here suggests that there is value in the definition of MetS [Metabolic Syndrome] and that a nutritional strategy based on CHO [carbohydrate] restriction might sensibly be the "default" diet, the first to be tried, for patients with MetS. In the case of normal weight individuals with MetS, CHO restriction may be the only effective non-pharmacological approach for treating the diversity of symptoms.

The five symptoms of Metabolic Syndrome listed are: obesity (high body weight, BMI and/or waist circumference), high glucose and insulin levels, low HDL, high TAG [triglycerides] and high blood pressure.

Now, that was published 16 November 2005 - over THREE YEARS ago. So why has this advice not been given to the American people, and, for that matter, the rest of the world?

BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY TO BE MADE IN PEOPLE
EATING NATURAL FOOD, THAT'S WHY!

Archaeology keeps pushing back the date for the emergence of humans on planet Earth, and the most recent report suggest there is evidence of the earliest homo sapiens at Gademotta in Ethiopia at least 276,000 years ago.

A change of diet
It wasn't until 5,000 BC that cattle, sheep and pigs, reached the British Isles, to alter the diet that had pertained for around 275,500 years. Our ancestors lived mainly on a diet of fish, shellfish, meat from wild animals and birds, eggs, berries and nuts - all raw. When the domesticated animals became established, marine foods seem to have almost disappeared from the diet, for some reason.

Hot pots!
Cooking was discovered sometime before Neanderthal man appeared, and by 2300 BC a huge variety of foods were available, although rice and corn had not been discovered, and the grains that were available were unrefined, with coarse and unleavened flat bread often made from barley.

The English revolutions
In the British Isles, farming continued at a subsistence level, until the century between 1750 and 1850, when there was an agricultural revolution in England, matching the Industrial Revolution. Low-yield rye was replaced by wheat and barley; arable land replace pasture; and new cattle fodder such as clover and turnips was introduced.

Towards the end of this period the yield from cereal crops had increased by about fifty percent, as farmers became more aware of the benefits of nitrogenous fertilizers, both from cow manure and growing clover, pea and bean crops.

Scotland
Things were quite different in Scotland, where it was too damp for wheat to grow successfully, and oats had long been used by the Celts together with fish and shellfish, wild game and birds, and meat and meat products, such as milk and cheese.

Although the origins of the cattle of the north-east, later bred with others to become the Aberdeen Angus breed, are unknown, representations appear on cave drawings in both Aberdeenshire and Angus, and to the west, Highland cattle have remained a more distinctive, separate breed in the islands and Highlands. The Scottish diet was further influenced by Scandinavian traditions such as the salting and smoking of fish and meats, including pork and mutton.

In England the yield of cereal crops increased with the growing population.

Is it only a coincidence that in the late 1700s there was also an expansion in waistlines, with writers commenting on the obesity that had previously been a rarity?

By 1829 the problem of weight gain in Europe was reflected in the United States, where it had become the subject of preachings by Rev Sylvester Graham of New Jersey, who advocated vegetarianism and wholegrains.

And all the while the production of cereal crops was increasing in leaps and bounds. Sir John Lawes patented the first chemical fertiliser in 1842, and so arable farming began to move from sustainable, organic methods to those of the industrial age.

No bread, thank you.
William Banting had tried every slimming remedy suggested by the medical profession, including low-calorie and starvation diets, but lost only six pounds. Fortunately he consuled Dr William Harvey, who advised him to cut out starches and sugars - it worked. The outcome was the first recorded low-carbohydrate diet, which Banting published, and distributed free, as Letters of Corpulence, in 1862.

Then, as now, the public found it worked, but in a pre-echo of what was to come for Dr Robert Atkins, he was ridiculed by the medical establishment; after all, Banting was only an undertaker - he wasn't 'one of them'!

And so a German doctor, Felix Niemeyer, adapted Banting's diet, to make it more acceptable to the establishment, and it became a high protein diet with both carbohydrate and fat restricted.

Accurate records were not kept at the time, but in the late 19th century deaths from infectious and contagious diseases occurred in both England and Scotland, but England also saw increased health problems caused by obesity, and insurance companies linking it with morbidity and mortality.

Coeliac disease.
In the late 1940s, a Dutch paediatrician, Willem Dicke, made the link between coeliac disease and bread, although it had previously been noted by many that bread aggravated the symptoms. Dicke had noticed that during the Second World War, when supplies of wheat were scarce, children with coeliac disease had improved, and when wheat was returned to the diet after the war's end, the symptoms returned.

More than twenty years later, it was realised that people who suffered with dermatitis herpetiformis responded well to the removal of wheat from the diet. It is estimated that about 1% of the population suffers from dermatitis herpetiformis or coeliac disease.

Up to this point I have taken a variety of sources that support my belief that consuming grains is the primary cause of modern Western diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.

What about more up-to-date studies into the last
population of any size to add grain to its diet, the Inuit.
In 1934, FS Fellows published a study entitled "Mortality in the Native Races of the Territory of Alaska, With Special Reference to Tuberculosis". In it, a table of deaths from cancer in four Alaskan regions, is very revealing. Those in Region 1 ate the most 'Western' foods - wheat flour, sugar, canned goods and vegetable oil - while those in Region 4 ate the least.

This quotation is from the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress 2003 refers to Inuit who ate a totally traditional diet:

"In spite of being obese and sedentary, and having high levels of mercury in their own blood and hair, all 117 Inuit living in the town of Salluit had very healthy cholesterol levels, says Belanger, who adds that mortality from heart
disease among the Inuit is 50% less than the overall rate for uebec. "

And one from Ahmet Selçuk Can, of the Department of Medicine, Istanbul Science University, Turkey, referring to the Genetics of Coronary Artery Disease in Alaska Natives (GOCADAN) Study:

"recent accumulating evidence indicates that dietary carbohydrate restriction with or without weight loss has salutary effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia, the lipid component of the metabolic syndrome. Higher carbohydrate intake over the years was also associated with increasing dental caries in Eskimos. As Eskimos spontaneously consume a lower carbohydrate diet, rather than a physician prescribed diet, and as they are a homogenous conserved population, the requested information will be important to the scientific community."

Researchers seem to keep searching for a magic bullet in the Inuit gene pool that protects them from cardiovascular disease, while most ignore the fact that those who are protected are the ones who don't eat grain!

To misquote James Carville, IT'S THE GRAINS, STUPID!!

5090 days!

2009-03-04T17:03:00.004Z

Today my consultant told me that it's 5,090 days since I received my new liver! Almost fourteen years, and I feel great. I will always be grateful to the relatives of the young man who allowed his organs to be used to help others live.

The selflessness and generosity of that family is in sharp contrast to today's business world, where companies that only make hundreds of millions of pounds profit, are 'forced' to make staff redundant. What a very odd world we live in.

Please carry a donor card, and make sure your loved ones know of your wishes. Thank you.

Mixed grill

2009-03-02T18:15:00.005Z

Today I took my friend to our new butchers. She said she had a fridge and freezer full of meat ... but she was so impressed she bought chicken pieces and Cumberland sausages! I bought thick Cumberland sausages and beautiful back bacon, which we had in a mixed grill with a piece of the ribeye steak I bought last Saturday.

Everything was excellent; the bacon didn't ooze gunge into the pan; the big, fat, juicy sausages were succelent, despite being mainly meat; and the steak just melted in the mouth. I forgot to photograph it before tucking in, so the raw ingredients will have to do!

Anyone for foie gras?

2009-03-02T08:50:00.009Z

Do you know what foie gras means and how it's produced? It means 'fatty liver' in French, and this is how it's produced:

This is what we are doing to ourselves and our children by following the nutritional advice currently being forced down our throats. The result of a diet high in grains is exactly the same as in the production of foie gras, only in humans it's called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and cancer.

In the nineteenth century it was noted that the spread
of cancers across the world matched the spread of grains.

Stanislaw Tanchou showed that the more grains consumed in a population, the higher the cancer rates. He claimed that cancer would never be found in hunter-gatherer populations, and it never was - until they adopted"civilized" diets, high in grains. Allthough some researchers (Mann [1962] and Dunn [1968]) stated that both heart disease and cancers could be found in hunter-gatherers, their research was based on populations which had trading links with the outside world, and their diets were not consistent with true hunter-gatherers, as they were cultivating crops and adding salt.

Today, in the twenty-first century, instead of learning from that evidence, we are being exhorted to eat more whole grains. According to BBC News ,

Dr. Susan Jebb, of the Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research Centre, said: “The evidence is compelling that a diet rich in whole grain foods has a protective effect against several forms of cancer and heart disease.”

Dr Jebb, who I have mentioned before in these pages, is also quoted as saying,

"There is a growing body of evidence that a diet rich in whole grain can help maintain a healthy heart"

Where can this 'growing body of evidence' that Dr Jebb speaks of be found? In those flawed National Dietary and Nutritional Surveys - of course! And what exactly do these surveys class as 'whole grains'? Breakfast cereals! Hmmm ... that's certainly not my idea of whole grains.

And then there's Dr Jebbs's own report, Tackling the Weight of the Nation - Obesity in the UK, A report commissioned by the Flour Advisory Bureau and Grain Information Service

Obesity in Britain: gluttony or sloth? by Prentice and Jebb, demonstrates the totally closed mind of the authors.

It is certain that obesity develops only when there is a sustained imbalance between the amount of energy consumed by a person and the amount used up in everyday life.

They blame watching TV, claiming the rise in viewing between 1980 and 1991 correlates to increased obesity, but completely ignore the simultaneous rise of low-fat, polyunsaturated and soybean-based foods.

The problem is that they truly believe that calories in must be fewer than calories out to lose weight, so that is the mantra preached to Government, the Food Standards Agency, and any other important body that then tells us what to eat and what not to eat.

BUT THEY ARE SO WRONG!!!

I know they are wrong from my personal experience, but let me introduce you to Dave Mills and his Carbwiser low-carb diet. His story is not too dissimilar to that of many low-carb dieters who lose four, six, eight, or even more stone by consuming huge numbers of calories while not exercising. The difference is that his progress to losing eight stone is well-documented on the internet.

Dave's Dinners are an inspiration to low-carb dieters. This is his menu for 29th October 2001

Breakfast
half of a Ryvita dark rye crispbread thickly spread with butter, and sprinkled with lo-salt
cold chicken breast

Lunch
180g tin of pink salmon
grated Chedder cheese
loads of lettuce
small handful of peanuts
big dollop of mayo
sprinkling of bacon bits

Dinner
2 sirloin steaks (I do have a 3000 cal target remember)
3 fried eggs
small portion of runner beans

Evening Snack
chicken breast
large handful of peanuts

Drinks
2 cups of de-caf tea with milk
6 cups of de-caf coffee black
1 pot of green tea
3 litres of water

The following day his lunch was two chicken breasts, Chedder cheese, lettuce, peanuts and a big dollop of mayo with a sprinkling of bacon bits, and dinner was three pork steaks, with an evening snack of another two chicken breasts and peanuts!

And he lost eight stone on 3,000 calories a day, where a dietitian would have recommended something like 2,200 calories. It's enough to give Dr Jebb a heart attack!

Let me remind you - Dr Susan Jebb has recently been appointed "saturated fat tsar" by the UK Government; she advocates ultra-low calorie diets, and Slimfast meal replacements.

In these days of rewarding failure it comes as no surprise to learn that Dr Susan Jebb was awarded the OBE "for services to public health"!

Super Saturday!

2009-02-28T12:44:00.007Z

I'm so excited! In fact, I'm so excited I'd be turning cartwheels if I could! Why? Because there's a new shop in town, opened yesterday, selling the most wonderful selection of British meats.

Longton Hall Farm is based in Preston, Lancashire, but all meats are sourced as close as possible to their shops in Bootle and the Wirral. This morning I saw meats from St Asaph and Anglesey, just over the border in Wales.

Rib-eye steak
Because the beef is grass-fed it is beautifully marbled with creamy fat which is solid to the touch, unlike the squishy, polyunsaturates-laden stuff I've become used to from the supermarkets.

The staff are both helpful and knowledgeable - something else that's so lacking in the supermarkets.

And, joy of joys, everything is priced per pound! Good luck to them - I'll not be buying meat from anywhere else while they're in town.

Red meat is a healthy food - particularly beef!

2009-02-28T12:43:00.011Z

Over the last few days I've written about the dire health warnings from the World Cancer Research Fund UK and others about the dangers of 'red meat' in our diet. Despite another eight or so hours of trawling through their 1,082 references I'm still unable to find a single study that shows that red meat - real red meat - is any danger whatsoever.

As I discovered with NDNS 2000-2003 'red meat' in nutritionists' terms includes lasagne, curries, sweet and sour, meat spreads and pastes, pies, and cheeseburgers, complete with buns!

I think it's high time we all looked at what red meat in general, and beef in particular, really can do for us. As I said above, I've not been able to find any research that shows red meat is bad for us, so would I have any more luck in finding evidence that proves the reverse - that it's actually good for us? Just take a look!

************
C A N C ER
Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anticarcinogen from animal fat sources. C, Scimeca JA, Thompson HJ. Cancer. 1994 Aug 1;74(3 Suppl):1050-4.
Conjugated linoleic acid is unique because it is present in food from animal sources, and its anticancer efficacy is expressed at concentrations close to human consumption levels. The efficacy of conjugated linoleic acid in mammary cancer prevention is independent of the level or type of fat in the diet.
Conjugated linoleic acid in animal fat can prevent cancer.

Stability of conjugated linoleic acid isomers in egg yolk lipids during frying. Food Chemistry. Volume 86, Issue 4, August 2004, Pages 531-535
The eggs, containing 4.0% CLA per gramme of egg yolk, were stored in a refrigerator at 0–4 °C for 6 months, while the egg yolks were fried in a pan at 160–180 °C for 40 s. Either storage for 6 months or frying for 40 s did not significantly change the composition of CLA in egg yolk.
Egg yolks are a good source of conjugated linoleic acid.

Role of diet on conjugated linoleic acid content of milk and meat. T. R. Dhiman*1, 1Department ofAnimal, Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, Utah State University, UT 84322-4815
Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) occurs naturally in many foods. However, the principal dietary sources are meat, dairy products and other foods derived from ruminants. Research studies with animal models suggest that CLA reduces the risk of cancers at several sites (mammary tissue, prostrate, gastrointestinal tract, lung, and skin), reduces body fat and enhances growth of lean body mass. Fat from milk and beef contains an average 4.0 and 3.5mg CLA/g of fat, respectively.
Cows grazing on pasture had 500% more CLA content in milk compared with cows fed typical dairy cow diets containing conserved forage and grain in a 50:50 ratio. Raising beef cattle on forages and pasture with no grain supplementation can enhance the CLA content of beef.
Meat and dairy products from grass-fed cattle are high in conjugated linoleic acid, which can reduce the risk of cancers, reduce body fat, and produce a lean body.

************

C A N C E R...and...V I S I O N

Role of fatty acids in malignancy and visual impairment: epidemiological evidence and experimental studies. Tsubura A, Yuri T, Yoshizawa K, Uehara N, Takada H. Histol Histopathol. 2009 Feb;24(2):223-34.
SFAs such as palmitic acid and stearic acid show little or no tumor promoting effect, and the action of oleic acid, a MUFA, is inconclusive. SFAs such as palmitic acid and stearic acid show little or no tumor promoting effect, and the action of oleic acid, a MUFA, is inconclusive.
In addition to regulation of abnormal cell growth seen in cancers, fatty acids also control cell loss seen in degenerative eye diseases, such as degeneration of lens material in cataract and degeneration of photoreceptor cells in retinitis pigmentosa. Experiments suggest that n-6 PUFAs cause deleterious effects, while n-3 PUFAs result in beneficial effects on the lens and retina. In particular, docosahexaenoic acid is known to be effective in rescuing photoreceptor cells from damage.
Saturated fats [SFAs] do not help cancers to grow, and can control degenerative eye diseases. Polyunsaturates from vegetable sources [PUFAS] injure the eyes.

************

C H O L E S T E R O L

Reducing the serum cholesterol level with a diet high in animal fat. Newbold HL. South Med J. 1988 Jan;81(1):61
Multiple food allergies required a group of seven patients with elevated serum cholesterol levels to follow a diet in which most of the calories came from beef fat. Their diets contained no sucrose, milk, or grains. They were given nutritional supplements. This is the only group of people in recent times to follow such a diet.
During the study, the patients' triglyceride levels decreased from an average of 113 mg/dl to an average of 74 mg/dl; at the same time, their serum cholesterol levels fell from an average of 263 mg/dl [6.8 mmol/l] to an average of 189 mg/dl [4.89 mmol/l].
At the beginning of the study, six of the patients had an average high-density lipoprotein percentage of 21%. At the end of the study, the average had risen to 32%.
These findings raise an interesting question: are elevated serum cholesterol levels caused in part not by eating animal fat (an extremely "old food"), but by some factor in grains, sucrose, or milk ("new foods") that interferes with cholesterol metabolism?
Yes, "most of the calories came from beef fat" and blood cholesterol levels were reduced. This research has been around for over twenty years now, so why do today's nutritionists ignore it?
Could it be that there's no profit in beef fat for the diet industry or the pharmaceutical companies?

************

B L O O D ...G L U C O S E

An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in persons with type 2 diabetes.Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, Jordan K, Hoover H. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Oct;78(4):671-2.
Total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol concentrations were essentially unchanged with the high-protein diet. However, the fasting triacylglycerol concentration decreased by 20% after 5 wk of the high-protein diet.
This is interesting, as very lean beef was used in this study, unlike the previous one with coeliacs. I'm no expert, but logic suggests that had beef with its normal fat been used, cholesterol may well have dropped as well, as in the coeliac study.

And if you live in Australia and don't have any cattle close by, kangaroo will do nicely.

Kangaroo meat - health secret revealed. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2004 April 23.
CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) is found in dairy products, beef and lamb. CLA is produced in the stomach and tissues of ruminant animals such as sheep and cattle during the digestion process.
In trials, CLA has been shown to possess potential anti-carcinogenic and anti-diabetes properties, in addition to reducing obesity and atherosclerosis (high blood pressure).
The meat of Australia's bush kangaroo may be the highest known source of the healthy fat. Dairy milk was previously the highest known source of CLAs, followed by the fat of beef and lamb.
Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) are polyunsaturated fatty acids. one study in humans detected an inverse (reduced) relationship between milk consumption and breast cancer risk. Many other foods contain CLA, including vegetable oils, eggs, seafood, poultry and pork but at very low levels.
Drinking milk containing conjugated linoleic acid reduced the risk of breast cancer. Although CLA is a polyunsaturate it is different to the PUFAs which are derived from vegetables.

I find it appalling that 'expert nutritionists' are forcing misleading information onto the population, when so much evidence showing the health-giving properties of beef has been steam-rollered into the ground, presumably by the powerful vegetable oils lobby, aided and abetted by the pharmaceutical companies. I have no doubt that is where the blame lies, and if you think I'm exaggerating their power, take a look at Mary Enig's articles, such as this one on coconuts.

I found no research to back up the claims that eating red meat, together with its fat, gives us cancer, high cholesterol, or high blood glucose (diabetes), but plenty to demonstrate that it actually protects us from these diseases.

I shall continue eating beef and beef fat, because I want to stay healthy.

Friday and the promised email.

2009-02-27T09:01:00.018Z

Yes, the email promised by World Cancer Research Fund UK arrived, with the explanation that the science team "has taken into account many different sources as the aim was always to be as evidence-based as possible".

The link provided led me to the actual report, together with a list of 1,028 references.

My first reaction was amazement that there were so many studies on the relationship between red meat and cancer, but I quickly discovered my mistake. The titles of the studies contained in the 1,028 references told quite a different tale. These are just some of them chosen at random:

Taxing snack foods
Effectiveness of physical activity programs at worksites with respect to work-related outcomes
Why don't you grow your own?
Does returning to work after childbirth affect breastfeeding practices?
Government perspective: food labeling
Major factors influencing breastfeeding rates: mother’s perception of father’s attitude and milk supply.
Estimation of food demand patterns in South Africa based on a survey of households.

So I searched for "red meat", and came up with these results:

Tzoulaki I, Brown IJ, Chan Q, et al. Relation of iron and red meat intake to blood pressure: cross sectional epidemiological study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 2008;337:a258.
Conclusions: Haem iron showed direct weak associations with blood pressure. Haem iron is found mainly in red meat, poultry, and seafood; it is a major component of total iron intake in Western diets.e
Does this show that red meat causes cancer? Nope! Does it even show that red meat raises blood pressure to a dangerous level? Nope!

van den Brandt PA, Botterweck AAM, Goldbohm RA. Salt intake, cured meat consumption, refrigerator use and stomach cancer incidence: a prospective cohort study (Netherlands). Cancer
Causes Control 2003;14:427-38.
CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest that intake of dietary salt and several types of cured meat were weakly positively associated with stomach cancer risk.
So, does this one show that red meat causes cancer? Nope!

That's it, folks - just two studies with 'red meat' in the title.

So I tried "meat" on its own, and fared rather better! The first 'meat' only study is this one. Its findings are very interesting:

Cordain L, Eaton SB,Miller JB, et al. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56 Suppl 1:S42-52.
CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to inhibit the development of CVD.
So, a high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate, low-polyunsaturated fats diet "inhibits the development" of cardiovascular disease! Yes, but what about cancer? Sorry - no mention of red meat causing cancer!

Next was this, with very interesting conclusions:
CrawfordMA,WoodfordMH, Casped NM. Comparative studies on fatty acid composition of wild and domestic meats. Int J Biochem 1970;1:295-305.
Conclusions: Literature comparisons showed tissue lipids of North American and African ruminants were similar to pasture-fed cattle, but dissimilar to grain-fed cattle. The lipid composition of wild ruminant tissues may serve as a model for dietary lipid recommendations in treating and preventing chronic disease.
Grass-fed cattle should be recommended to treat and prevent chronic disease, but not grain-fed cattle. Why? Because cattle are now being fed soy to make their meat more 'healthy' for humans! This means that what we think of as 'saturated animal fat' is more like plant polyunsaturates.

Then came:

Lazaridis P. Household meat demand in Greece: a demand systems approach
using microdata agribusiness. Agribusiness 2003;19:43-59.
Nothing to do with cancer.

Mata RG, VillalonMFV, Salazar JAG, et al. Econometric model for determining the
factors affecting the swine meat market inMexico. Interciencia 2004;29:214-420.
Hsu L. Gradual structural changes of meat consumption in Taiwan. J Int Food Agribus Mark 2000;11:33-50.
Nothing to do with cancer.

Hsu L. Gradual structural changes of meat consumption in Taiwan. J Int Food Agribus Mark 2000;11:33-50.
Nothing to do with cancer.

Mata RG, VillalonMFV, Salazar JAG, et al. Econometric model for determining the factors affecting the swine meat market inMexico. Interciencia 2004;29:214-420.
Nothing to do with cancer.

By this time I was more than a third of the way through the references, so decided to start searching the document itself for specific references. And can you guess what I found?

"Using the UK NDNS dietary data for 19–64 year olds, exposures for individual red meats (beef, pork, etc.) were aggregated into a single variable (red meat)."

Yes, it's our old friend NDNS 2000-2001 with it's flawed surveys once again! So on what else is the warning based? I've no idea as I've not been able to find anything else, except for confirmation that: "‘Red meat’ refers to beef, pork, lamb, and goat from domesticated animals including that contained in processed foods" (p 382), and the bald, unsupported statement:

Evidence
The evidence that red meat, and particularly processed meat, is a cause of colorectal cancer is stronger now than it was in the mid-1990s.

Much of the report centres on the economy of agricultures, and I encountered such phrases as "All food items (except other red meat) had an inelastic own-price elasticity of demand over the study period.". One such area studied in some depth is the former Soviet Union. That particular section concludes:

"No definite conclusions can be drawn since none of the studies explicitly measured the impact of agricultural policies on dietary outcomes."

Quite!

Tomorrow I intend looking at the other side of the coin - the good that grass-fed red meat does for us, including how it actually protects us from cancer.

Footnote: I'm now told by the WCRF press officer that the "advice on red meat comes from the companion report to this report, whichwas published in 2007" which is on this link. I've yet to find it, but if I do I'll post it!

Red meat and cancer

2009-02-26T13:35:00.001Z

My son told me that IRN had carried an item in its 11am news this morning to the effec that red meat causes cancer.

I found nothing online beyond the usual scare stories, so rang IRN, who told me that they had received the information from the World Cancer Research Fund, and he read the report to me.

So I spoke to someone in the press office of the World Cancer Research Fund, and asked for details of the studies on which this report is based.

After a bit of stammering I was told it wasn't a study but "a policy document".

"So, it's not based on a study, then?" I asked.

"Well, it's based on lots of studies," came the reply

"Could you tell me which ones were specifically on red meat, please?" I persisted.

The upshot is I've been promised that the information will be emailed to me. Watch this space!

Wednesday

2009-02-25T10:53:00.003Z

I never quite know what to eat with burgers at lunchtime - they seem to belong in buns, so the problem had me stumped. Today I served one with Megan's Sort-a-Salsa - and I really enjoyed it.

I bought a Vidalia Chop Wizard last week and set to work with it. I used the fine dicer on some sticks of celery, a couple of really tiny vine tomatoes, about quarter of a courgette (zucchini) and a slice of red onion. I mixed them all in a bowl with a couple of teaspoons of creme fraiche, a teaspoon of French dressing, and divided into two servings. Next time I'll make it a little more colourful, but it's certainly a success so far.

Morning weigh-in: 'Stall-weight' -4lb
Ketostix: negative
Exercise: 2 x 2 minute Gazelle walking

Tuesday - new inspiration

2009-02-24T19:04:00.005Z

I bore easily - and I was getting very bored entering everything into my SparkPeople menu and then transferring the data across, not to mention the time it was taking each day, so when I came across a website about the late Professor John Yudkin I sat up. I remember that back in the 1960s, Professor Judkin's book This Slimming Business sat on my bookshelf next to Calories Don't Count by Herman Taller.

If only I hadn't believed all the 'experts' of the 1970s with their claims about low-fat diets. I'm sure I wouln't have experienced forty years of miserable dieting which only succeeded in making me five stone heavier.

The webmaster of the site I found has written an e-Book based on Professor Yudkin's unit system, together with 50 recipes to choose from. This is just what I need to keep me on the straight and narrow. Here is my first week's menus. Let's see what happens.

Click to enlarge

Morning weigh-in: 'Stall-weight' -4lb
Ketostix: negative
Exercise: 2 x 2 minute Gazelle walking

Monday - and back to the menu!

2009-02-23T15:22:00.006Z

After a week of ranting - and not planning or recording my meals - I climbed on the scales this morning and discovered I'm now only 2lb below stall-weight! I've kept my carbs really low, but haven't bothered too much about other things, so it's back to the menu and planning for me!

Despite being assured by the hospital that I am not allergic to anything after a lifetime of believing I am, I suddenly started with a - well, I suppose it's a hypersensitivity if not an allergy - last Saturday! I have been eating cashew nuts for the last few weeks, and I may have had a few too many, because my lips suddenly swelled, and I've now got some sore patches in my mouth. I can't even drink tea at the moment! The doc told me to come off everything that I had always been told I was allergic to - which includes nuts! - and see what happens. Oh, and to take antihistamine tablets as well. So, my diet has become rather more restricted again!

If you would like to read more of this post, please click here.

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" +/-
Ketostix: STILL negative!

Breakfast - Cals: 322; Fat: 24g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 23g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 315; Fat: 22g; Net Carbs: 2xg; Protein: 24g
100g chicken breast, fried in butter, small salad, 30g creme fraiche

Dinner - Cals: 524; Fat: 43g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 26g
100g pork shoulder, 50g cauliflower, 50g Brussels sprouts.
25g raspberries, 50g double cream

Snacks - Cals: 191; Fat: 8g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 28g
100g chicken breast, 20g Cheddar cheese

Daily totals: Cals: 1351; Fat: 97; Net Carbs:7; Protein: 102g

Exercise: 2 x 2 minutes Gazelle walking

Lies, damned lies and surveys

2009-02-22T15:49:00.016Z

If you watch the current TV ad on saturated fat from the Food Standards Agency, eight seconds in the source details appear on screen. It reads "NDNS 2000/1", and probably means nothing to most people. It meant nothing to me until a few days ago when I was writing about The National Diet & Nutrition Survey: adults aged 19 to 64 years - 2000-2001. Yes, the TV ad's information comes from the flawed survey I mentioned in my blog.

So, how was the information collected for the survey/s? OK, I'm simplifying it a bit, but this is the general idea.

Individual foods were weighed in a comprehensive, and complicated, way by participants, and entered into a food diary. For instance, ordering steak and kidney pudding and chips, with mushy peas, in a small café would necessitate splitting everything into their constituent parts, in reality or statistically. The weight of the two meats, the ingredients of the suet pastry, the ingredients of the gravy, the quantity of peas and size of the chips would all have to be estimated and entered. This was then coded by the field worker in charge of that sector.

Once everything is coded and churned through a computer a few times, out pops a warning to the people of the United Kingdom. It’s unlikely to be

“Steak and kidney pudding, chips and mushy peas isn't a good choice for dinner every day”.

Oh no, given the level of advice trumpeted so far it’s much more likely to be

"WARNING! RED MEAT CAUSES CANCER!"

“STOP! SATURATED FAT IS A KILLER”

It doesn’t matter how much the scientists break down the constituent parts of foods, then analyse the results, the advice is going to be totally meaningless, unless they do proper trials and specifically include participants who eat real food, and are careful about their carbohydrate intake.

I'm no expert, but I'm not the only one who thinks that the methodology that has been used in these surveys is, well, crap!

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which advises the Department of Health, wrote the following in The Nutritional Wellbeing of the British Population 2008.

“Consumption figures include non-meat components of meat-based dishes, so
figures for consumption of redand processed meat and meat-based dishes are not
directly comparable with recommendations for red andprocessed meat. Detailed
recipe analysis of composite processed products would be required to
calculatered and processed meat content alone. “

Exactly! Why did nobody notice that before now?

However, the committe's concerns about the methodology doesn't prevent it from making the following claim:

"Mean intake of red and processed meat and meat based dishes has decreased since 1986/7 "
1986/7 - men 155g/d : women 96g/day
2000/1- men 138g/day : women 79g/day

Great! Well, we are told that red meat and its products cause bowel cancer, and our intake of red meat and its products has decreased, so that must mean that bowel cancer figures are down as well then.

Unfortunately the answer is no.

"In Great Britain male bowel cancer incidence rates rose slowly by an average of
1% each year between 1979 and 1999, since when there has been a slight decrease. Over the same period the female rates have changed very little."

As if the surveys were not flawed enough already, the Nutritional Wellbeing of the British Population decided that the latest survey pobably contained under-reporting by as much as 25% on some food types ... although they don’t know exactly which ones ... or by how much.

Nor do they know if there had been under-reporting in the 1967/8 survey either... but it doesn’t stop them using it as a basis for the LIPGENE project all across Europe!

Ah yes, the LIPGENE project!

This Europe-wide study sets out to test, “in controlled human intervention trials”, a hypothesis that dietary fat causes the metabolic syndrome that affects 10-20% of the population. The syndrome is thought to increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus 2.8 to 8-fold and cardiovascular disease 1.5 to 6-fold.

The idea was to devise four diets that could be used in eight countries across Europe, as follows:

Diet A: 16% saturated fats; 12% mono-unsaturated fats and 6% polyunsaturates –38% of total calories
Diet B: 8% saturated fats, 20% mono-unsaturated fats and 6% polyunsaturates – 38% of total calories
Diets C & D: 8% saturated fats, 11% mono-unsaturated fats and 6% polyunsaturates – 28% of total calories
Diet D supplemented with a 1.24g polyunsaturated fatty acid capsule, with a placebo for Diet C .

Now, this is all very laudable, but ... and it’s a very big but!

The basic model diet removed the "added fats" from “the average UK diet” – "spreads and oils, milk, cheese, biscuits, cakes, buns and pastries". So it removes the good fat - saturated animal fat - along with the junk food!

These were then replaced by "spreads, cooking oils, mayonnaise, baking fats and biscuits" provided by Unilever Bestfoods (Netherlands), (now Unilever Bestfoods UK Ltd).

Unilever produces delicacies such as Flora spread and Stork margarine, both made from vegetable oils, and Hellman’s Mayonnaise which, despite being labelled ‘Real’ is actually made from soybean oil...

No mention is made of a replacement for milk, but as Unilever now make a Flora Pro.Activ semi-skimmed milk drink, it would be a fair assumption that this was used in the diets.

So what’s wrong with all this? Let’s look first at the “the average UK diet”. This is none other than our old friend the National Diet and Nurition Survey of UK adults from 2000-1, with just 1724 participants – 833 men and 891 women – a smaller sample than the previous one by about a third.

Just 1724 people out of a total population of approximately 60 million - less than the population of the UK's smallest city, St David's. That’s one two-hundredth of one percent of the UK population - who had to be house-owners, incidentally - and that is the basis for all the Government’s nutritional campaigns, and for the European LIPGENE project!

We could do with a lot more common sense and far fewer 'experts', but it's unlikely to happen. I'll just keep on eating what I know to be a healthy, low-carb diet, complete with saturated fat, thank you.

Scientific Basis of Nutrition Education?

2009-02-21T16:01:00.004Z

Much of the dietary advice pushed upon us at every turn appears to originate in the Health Education Authority document, Scientific Basis of Nutrition Education, written by Caroline Hurren, and updated by Dr Margaret Ashwell, OBE.

It is based on the Report of the Panel on Dietary Reference Values, Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA), Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom.

In the diagram below, ‘Actual intake’ is derived from The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults (Gregory et al., 1990) - for foods eaten outside the home! (More details of the food surveys and their impact will be coming up in future blogs.)

In the later survey,

"the ‘Eating Out’ diary was intended to be used only when it was not possible to weigh the food items. In such cases, respondents were asked to write down as much information as possible about each food item consumed, particularly the
portion size and an estimate of the amount of any left over."

How scientific is that? And the recommendation that accompanies the diagram?

“In terms of foods, the UK population needs to increase its consumption of fibre-rich starchy foods such as bread, potatoes, rice and pasta, as well as
fruit and vegetables, by at least half as much again”.

Yeah, right! I know what happened when I tried just that - I put on five stone!

One of the real gems I discovered in Scientific Basis of Nutrition Education was this:

Energy intakes have been declining over a number of years and are currently below the EAR (Estimated Average Requirements). Despite this, the number of men and women respectively who are overweight or obese has increased from39% and 32% in 1980 to 45% and 36% in 1987 (Gregory et al., 1990) and to 57% and 48% in 1993 (Bennet et al., 1995). This increase in an indication of a growing public health problem, and one which can only be tackled by further restricting energy intake or preferably increasing physical activity – or a combination of the two

So let’s recap on that; the number of people who are obese/overweight goes up at the same time as calorie intake goes down. And the experts’ solution is to reduced calories further?? HUH? It almost beggars belief!

Another nugget I discovered among its pages concerns saturated fat. Current Government guidelines say that 11% of total calorie intake should be saturated fat, but that on average consumption is 20% higher. By my reckoning that's 13.2% current consumption, right?

According to Scientific Basis of Nutrition Education, MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food) gave the average consumption of saturated fat in 1995 as 16%, and falling slowly.

So, saturated fat consumption is falling, yet more of the population is becoming obese.

Does it really look as if sat-fat is the problem??

Dr Susan Jebb & Co. - an update

2009-02-20T13:21:00.003Z

Not only does Dr Susan Jebb dismiss the idea that controlling carbohydrates is an effective method of weight-loss as "nonsense", she actually recommends very-low-calorie diets, and replacement meals such as Lighter Life with its 500 calories per day sachets of four replacements for meals per day.

Conclusion: VLEDs are a proven success in achieving significant short-term reductions in body weight. A subset of patients achieve long-term weight loss. There is evidence to suggest that meal replacements may make a contribution to the maintenance of weight loss in some individuals. Evaluation of integrated programmes using these methods for weight loss and long-term weight control is required.

and

Dr Susan Jebb, head of nutrition and health research at the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Unit, Cambridge, will tell delegates that the new foods have their place. "In theory, any low-fat,
low-calorie diet will lead to weight loss. But this is not always easy to
sustain. Functional foods, such as low calorie meal replacements, low fat or reduced calorie meals, are a useful option both to reduce weight and to keep it off. "

Dr Jebb even endorses SlimFast

There is clear evidence from formal clinical trials that people consuming SlimFast products do lose more weight than those following a conventional diet, and keep the weight off for longer if they continue to use the product. For some people, a SlimFast drink can be a convenient calorie-controlled meal, giving just 200 calories, perhaps instead of a 400-calorie lunchtime sandwich. The rate of weight loss will depend entirely on the total caloric intake for the day, so to be effective, this must be used sensibly as part of an overall dietary programme.

So would you like to know what goodies are in Chocolate-flavoured SlimFast?

Skimmed Milk Powder
Sugar
Maltodextrin
Lactose
Vegetable Oil
Inulin
Thickeners (Gum Arabic, Xanthan Gum, Guar Gum)
Milk Proteins
Stabilisers (Sodium, Carboxy Methyl Cellulose)
Dipotassium Phosphate * [see below]
Cocoa Powder (10%)
Emulsifier (Soya Lecithin)
Vitamins and Minerals
Flavourings
Antioxidant (Tocopherol-rich Extract, Sodium Ascorbate)
Modified Maize Starch

* Dipotassium phosphate is NOT approved for pesticidal use on food or feed crops. Therefore, plants and crops intended for food/feed use are not allowed to be treated for pests with products containing dipotassium phosphate as the active ingredient.

... or would you rather have a couple of hard-boiled eggs, a slice or two of ham and a big, leafy salad, with a spoonful of dressing on the side? Me too!

Dr Susan Jebb & Co.

2009-02-19T12:21:00.000Z

The Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research is headed by Dr Susan Jebb, notorious among low-carb dieters for her outspoken criticism of the Atkins' diet, where she displayed all the ignorance of a babe in arms - complete with its lack of comprehension.

Speaking at a briefing at the Royal Institution, London in August 2003, Dr. Jebb said that the diet is a fad and based on pseudo-science. She rejects as fundamentally unhealthy any diet which cuts out an entire food group (carbohydrates in this case). She says that the Atkin Diet could pose serious health problems and that it would be negligent to recommend the Atkins diet to anyone who was overweight.

As we all know, Dr Robert Atkins never suggested that anyone should completely cut out all carbohydrates for ever, but obviously Dr Jebb believed the anti-Atkins propoganda without checking the facts for herself.

Has she actually done a study on low-carb, high-fat diets? Of course not - it's much easier to stick to the dogma! She was involved in one with children - Energy-dense, low-fiber, high-fat dietary pattern is associated with increased fatness in childhood, and I'm willing to bet that 'energy-dense' included lots of lovely carbohydrates! Unfortunately I can't afford to buy this piece of research, so I'll never know for sure.

By the way, she doesn't think much of a Glycaemic Index (GI) diet, either!

Dr Jebb's reputation took a bit of a hammering when it was discovered, just weeks after her diatribe against low-carb diets, that she was engaged in research funded by the Flour Advisory Bureau and the Grain Information Service.

Dr Jebb trained as a State Registered dietitian at Surrey University, and studied for her doctorate at the Medical Research Council (MRC). Unfortunately her influence spreads far and wide, as the following shows:

Cross-government - 2007- Chair, Expert Advisory Group on Obesity
Cabinet Office Strategy Unit - 2007- Expert Advisor to the Review on Food
Department of Health - 2006 - Chair, Expert Group developing the Healthy Living Social Marketing Programme
Department of Health/Food Standards Agency - 2004-2005 - Expert Working Group on Nutrient Profiling
Government Office for Science - 2006-2007 - Science Advisor, Foresight Project 'Tackling Obesities: Future Choices'

Dr Jebb was quick to describe the Atkins diet as 'pseudo-science', yet she seems quite happy that the two national surveys on which all the official 'advice' is based have major flaws. Next time I will try to trace some of the ways in which those surveys are still affecting all our lives.

It's all a matter of G.I.G.O!

2009-02-19T09:22:00.002Z

D'you know the old saying, "garbage in, garbage out"? In-putting garbage is precisely what has created this garbage that's flooding onto our television screens and newspapers.

Because of the relentless rubbish being spouted at me by so-called 'experts', I‘ve been reading a lot of research published online, and found some of it contradictory and confusing. I’m neither a scientist nor a statistician, but I decided – just for my own interest – to go back to some basic data and look at it my way. I wouldn't dream of making any claims for the accuracy of my conclusions, but I though it might be an interesting exercise.

I started by downloading the data from the most recent (ha!) UK survey on the diet and nutrition of adults between the ages of 19 and 64.* Unfortunately, the raw data is not available, and what is available has been “weighted to compensate for the differential probabilities of selection and non-response”!

As I rather naively believed the nutritionists of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Office of National Statistics would be careful and meticulous scientists, I was in for a very rude awakening!

For a start this survey was carried out in the year between July 2000 and June 2001 – getting on for a decade ago – with only 1724 participants, yet it seems important decisions regarding what we should (and should not) eat are still being based on it. One of these is the LIPGENE European-wide study that appears to have led to the recent Food Standards Agency onslaught on saturated fats.

The previous MAFF survey, of 2,197 adults, was undertaken between October 1986 and August 1987, and I intended to compare those results to show the changes in our diet over the years.

An annoying omission – for me at least – is that no soy-based oils or foods are detailed in the surveys; they have been subsumed into ‘other milks’, ‘yoghurt’, and ‘other vegetables’ categories, for goodness sakes! All soups are lumped together with a total disregard for ingredients or cooking methods.

Then there’s meat! To those of us who eat a low-carb diet, meat means meat. Perversely, the surveys use the following groupings:

Beef, veal and dishes – includes lasagne and cottage pie.
Lamb and dishes – includes Irish stew and lamb curries
Pork and dishes – includes sweet and sour pork and spare ribs
Chicken and turkey dishes – includes chow mein, tandoori, in sauce and spread
Burgers and kebabs – includes cheeseburgers, (with or without roll), doner/shish/kofte kebabs (with or without pitta bread

and ... wait for it ...

Cream - includes imitation cream, dream (sic) topping, Tip Top, and creme fraiche
All this, of course, begs the question of how these data can possibly be utilised to reach any sensible, informed conclusion. So what do they do with this unusable data? They publish it under the title "The Truth about the Nation's Diet " then preach their poison to the four corners of Britain.

We will never have a healthy diet, or a healthier populations, until nutritionists learn to distinguish between real dairy cream that comes from cows, and Dream Topping!

It would be so easy to underestimate the wide-reaching influence that these flawed surveys have on our everyday lives. The trail I'm currently following seems to be leading me in a very worrying direction, and I will write a sequel, updating the information as soon as possible.

I wanted to look at consumption in three specific groups of food:- grains; animal products; and low-fat products including polyunsaturates, then compare the findings with UK mortality rates, but it seems that may not be possible from the data available.

Back to the drawing board ...

* The National Diet & Nutrition Survey: adults aged 19 to 64 years
Funded by:
Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research (see my next blog entry HERE for details)
Food Standards Agency (creators of the misleading and scare-mongering adverts)
Department of Health
Office for National Statistics

Monday

2009-02-16T18:39:00.003Z

Summary of weekly averages:
week 1: Cals: 2,118; Fat: 144g; Net Carbs: 17.7g; Protein: 118g
week 2: Cals: 1,698; Fat: 138.4g; Net Carbs: 8.7g; Protein: 102g
week 3: Cals: 1,684; Fat: 136; Net Carbs: 5.9; Protein: 94g
week 4: Cals: 1,729; Fat: 145; Net Carbs: 5.4; Protein: 93g
week 5: Cals: 1,786; Fat: 140; Net Carbs: 5.6; Protein: 99g

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 3lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 322; Fat: 24g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 23g
bacon and eggs fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 373; Fat: 25g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 32g
100g brisket, 100g mushrooms, fried in butter with 30g double cream to finish

Dinner - Cals: 471; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 24g
2 roast lamb chops, 100g cauliflower, 20g Cheddar cheese

Snacks - Cals: 282; Fat: 17g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 29g
100g fried chicken breast, 30g creme fraiche, 20g Cheddar cheese

Daily totals: Cals: 1,447; Fat: 107g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 109g

Exercise: 3 x 50 Gazelle 'paces'

Soybean oil and Hellman's 'Real' mayonnaise

2009-02-15T18:47:00.003Z

Today I was asked why I had got into such a panic yesterday when I discovered that Hellman's mayonnaise is 22% polyunsaturates, and I had been eating it in copious amounts. I was assured that polyunsaturates are good for you, so I went in search of further proof.

The label doesn't say what type of vegetable oil it contains, which is rather naughty of them. OK, maybe they don't have to state it on the label, but if they had done so I wouldn't have touched it with a proverbial barge-pole!

It is made of soybean oil. So what's wrong with that, you might ask.

Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, a toxicologist in New Zealand, runs the Soy Online Service where there are many articles and details of research, together with an excellent page of Myths and Truths about soy

Dr Fitzpatrick is particularly worried about the effects of soy baby formula, and made a submission to the UK Government's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food.

Sunday

2009-02-15T10:08:00.002Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 3 lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 325; Fat: 24g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 23g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter, 15g tomato

Lunch - Cals: 347; Fat: 43g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 17g
100g lamb chops, small green salad, 30g creme fraiche

Dinner - Cals: 448; Fat: 30g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 39g
100g pot roast brisket, 100g cauliflower, 30g creme fraiche, 20g Cheddar

Snacks - Cals: 297; Fat: 18g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 30g
100g chicken breast, 1 M&S chipolata sausage, 30g creme fraiche

Daily totals: Cals: 1,526; Fat: 115g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 110g

Exercise: 3 x 50 Gazelle 'paces'

Saturday - and oh what a quandary!

2009-02-14T13:54:00.004Z

Yesterday afternoon I discovered, to my horror, that the Hellman's mayonnaise I have been slapping liberally onto my food is 22% polyunsaturates, made mainly with soybean oil!

I thought the olive oil version should be lower, so I rang Unilver, only to discover that it's 24% polyunsaturates! When I asked how that was possible, considering olive oil contains virtually no polyunsaturates and was presumably replacing soybean oil which is high in them, I was told "Oh, it's all right - polyunsaturates are the GOOD fats!"

As I had just finished reading Barry Groves' latest article, UK Food Standards Agency shows its ignorance, which goes into great detail on that very subject, I spent some time trying to explain just how dangerous they are, but I was met with disbelief.

Anyway, it has thrown me and my eating plan into utter confusion. How do I get my fats up as high without mayonnaise? I attempted my own version of a high-fat dressing this morning, but it was an awful failure! This is a problem that requires a little more research, so today's eating is rather a stop-gap while I pore through my recipe books.

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 1.2 lb. Worrying - I'm on the way back up ...
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 297; Fat: 7g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 15g
50g boiled ham, 2 egg whites, small green salad, 50g cream cheese

Dinner - Cals: 576; Fat: 40g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 24g
2 poached eggs in a butter, cream cheese and Cheddar sauce

Snacks - Cals: 297; Fat: 7g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 15g
as lunch

I also had 2 x 40g whipped double cream with a touch of cocoa powder, making:
Daily totals: Cals: 1,985; Fat: 126g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 86g

Exercise: 3 x 50 Gazelle paces

Cancer and a high-fat low-carb diet.

2009-02-13T14:27:00.001Z

In yesterday's blog I mentioned cancer, and on further researching the subject today I discovered several trials of high-fat low-carb diets being used to treat cancer patients which provide very interesting reading.

In September 2007 Time Magazine published an article entitled Can a High-Fat Diet Beat Cancer? by Richard Friebe. It tells of a trial conducted by Dr. Melanie Schmidt and biologist Ulrike Kämmerer of the Wurzburg Hospital in Germany, based on the work of Otto Warburg, a German Nobel laureate.

More than eighty years ago, Otto Warburg observed that in fast-growing tumors appeared to grow and divide by feeding on blood sugars from carbohydrates and sugars in the body. He believed that by removing these sugars from the body the cancer would be starved. He also realised that the normal cells throughout the body were able to generate sufficient energy from ketones, which is the main source of energy in a high-fat diet.

The researchers in Wurzburg have only been allowed to recruit those patients who have already run out of all other options! All are known to have a high glucose metabolism. Four of the patients were already so ill that they died within the first week of the trial, but five who continued on the diet for three months either stabilised or improved. However, for two patients who stuck to the diet, it didn't work and they left the study.

The part of the story that stunned me is that some of the patients left the trial "because they were unable or unwilling to renounce soft drinks, chocolate and so on"! It doesn't say what happened to them, unfortunately.

This is not the first time a ketogenic diet has been reported to have help in the battle against cancer. Two children were treated with a ketogenic diet in Ohio in 1995.

There are also articles to be found on the protective values of diets rich in saturated fats in cancer patients.

Intake of macronutrients and risk of breast cancer. Italy, 1996
This case-controls study shows that unsaturated fatty acids protect against breast cancer, possibly because intake of these nutrients is closely correlated with a high intake of raw vegetables. The findings also suggest a possible risk in southern European populations, of reliance on a diet largely based on starch.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the Canadian anthropologist and explorer, published a book in 1960 entitled Cancer Disease of Civilization. In it he wrote:

"Stanislaw Tanchou .... gave the first formula for predicting cancer risk. It was based on grain consumption and was found to accurately calculate cancer rates in major European cities. The more grain consumed, the greater the rate of cancer."

Tanchou made the claim in 1843, to the Paris Medical Society. He also postulated that cancer would likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a search among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and explorers. This search continued until WWII when the last wild humans were"civilized" in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever found within these populations, although after they adopted the diet
of civilization, it became common."

At least two studies are currently under way in Europe into the use of a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of cancer. I'll be watching with interest for the results.

Friday

2009-02-13T11:13:00.001Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 1.5
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat:41; Net Carbs: 2xg; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 316; Fat: 27g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 18g
100g pork loin meat, 100g creamed mushrooms

Dinner - Cals: 610 Fat: 38g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 37g
Megan's fish pie for fish haters.

Snacks - Cals: 357; Fat: 29g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 0g
100g home-boiled gammon, 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,786; Fat: 134g; Net Carbs: 5g; Protein: 107g

Exercise: 3 x 50 Gazelle paces

Why should we reduce cholesterol?

2009-02-12T14:55:00.002Z

That's an excellent question, and I suppose you expect me to say it's because high cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and makes us healthier in general?

Wrong! That's what the government's propoganda - ahem, I mean advice - would have us believe. The message is being drip-fed to us every time there's an ad break on the television. But is it true? Let's examin the evidence.

Cardiovascular disease
This is a cover-all term for over fifty different conditions, including high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, strokes, angina, atherosclerosis, etc.

So high cholesterol levels cause cardiovascular disease?
Erm ... no. Let Dr Malcolm Kendrick demonstrate, using World Health Organisation statistics from the MONICA trials.

The data shoes that the lowest cholesterol levels give the highest rate of CVD, and the highest cholesterol levels give the lowest rate of CVD. Hmmm...

Cancer

OK, so high cholesterol causes cancer, then?
Well, there may be some research evidence out there that indicates that, but as yet I've not found it. However, as far as foods are concerned, it has been known for many years that polyunsaturated oils and fats - yes, those oh-so-healthy-sounding products such as sunflower, safflower and rapeseed oils - increase the risk of cancer.

But it would do no harm to get my cholesterol as low as possible, would it?
Erm ... yes! There are now many studies that show pretty conclusively that a low LDL level increases the risk of cancer.

"We found that there is indeed an association, that the lower the LDL
cholesterol, the higher the risk of cancer" - Dr Richard Karas, of Tufts
University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

Diabetes

Riiiight ... but high cholesterol does cause diabetes ... doesn't it?
Erm ... no! Type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. Usually, enough insulin is made in the pancreas, but when there is a shortage, blood sugar levels rise.

So why exactly are we being told to reduce cholesterol then?
I have no idea, and if you discover the reason, please tell me!

Thursday

2009-02-12T10:10:00.002Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 3.5
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 505; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter, 15g tomato

Lunch - Cals: 335; Fat: 27g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 21g
100g home-boiled gammon, 30g mayonnaise, small green salad

Dinner - Cals: 545; Fat: 50g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 24g
150g pork loin chop, 30g mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 357; Fat: 29g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 22g
100g home-boiled gammon, 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,742; Fat: 146g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 98g

Exercise: 3 x 50 Gazelle power double strides

Just one problem ...

2009-02-11T14:40:00.004Z

There's just one problem which the experts appear to overlooked. Take a look at this list of foods which contain the highest amounts of dietary cholesterol as tested by USDA.

Cholesterol content in mg/ 100 g

Egg, yolk, raw, fresh 1234.9

Chicken, liver, all classes, cooked, simmered 561.2

Egg, whole, cooked, fried 456.5
Chicken, broilers or fryers, giblets, cooked, simmered 442.1
Egg, whole, cooked, hard-boiled 424.0
Egg, whole, raw, fresh 424.0
Egg, whole, cooked, poached 422.0

Beef, variety meats and by-products, liver, cooked, pan-fried 381.2
Egg, whole, cooked, scrambled 352.5

Turkey, all classes, giblets, cooked, simmered, some giblet fat 289.0
Crustaceans, shrimp, mixed species, canned 251.6

Braunschweiger (a liver sausage), pork 179.9
Crustaceans, shrimp, mixed species, cooked, breaded and fried 177.8
Crustaceans, shrimp, mixed species, cooked, breaded and fried 176.5
Fast foods, hush puppies 173.1
Fast foods, english muffin, with egg, cheese, and canadian bacon 170.8
Cake, sponge, prepared from recipe 169.8
Fast Foods, biscuit, with egg and sausage 167.8
Fast foods, croissant, with egg, cheese, and bacon 166.7
Crustaceans, crab, blue, crab cakes 150.0
Veal, leg (top round), separable lean and fat, cooked, braised 134.1
Eclairs, custard-filled with chocolate glaze, prepared from recipe 127.0
Fast foods, shrimp, breaded and fried 122.0
Turkey, all classes, neck, meat only, cooked, simmered 121.7
Pork, fresh, spareribs, separable lean and fat, cooked, braised 121.2
Spinach souffle 117.6
Pork, fresh, backribs, separable lean and fat, cooked, roasted 117.6
Pork, fresh, shoulder, arm picnic, separable lean only, cooked, braised 114.1
Danish pastry, fruit, enriched (includes apple, cinnamon, raisin, lemon, raspberry, strawberry) 114.1
Veal, rib, separable lean and fat, cooked, roasted 110.6
Pork, fresh, shoulder, arm picnic, separable lean and fat, cooked, braised 109.4
Poultry food products, ground turkey, cooked 102.4
Crustaceans, crab, blue, cooked, moist heat 100.0

Fish, pollock, walleye, cooked, dry heat 96.5
Chicken, broilers or fryers, dark meat, meat only, cooked, fried 96.4
Pork, fresh, leg (ham), whole, separable lean only, cooked, roasted 94.1
Pork, fresh, leg (ham), whole, separable lean and fat, cooked, roasted 94.1
Chicken, broilers or fryers, thigh, meat and skin, cooked, fried, batter 93.0
Pork, fresh, loin, center loin (chops), bone-in, separable lean and fat, cooked, pan-fried 91.8
Pork, fresh, loin, center loin (chops), bone-in, separable lean only, cooked, pan-fried 91.8
Ice creams, french vanilla, soft-serve 90.7
Beef, ground, 80% lean meat / 20% fat, patty, cooked, broiled 90.6
Beef, ground, 85% lean meat / 15% fat, patty, cooked, broiled 90.6
Chicken, broilers or fryers, light meat, meat only, cooked, fried 90.5
Beef, ground, 75% lean meat / 25% fat, patty, cooked, broiled 89.4
Duck, domesticated, meat only, cooked, roasted 89.1
Crustaceans, crab, blue, canned 88.9
Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat and skin, cooked, fried, flour 88.8
Fish, salmon, sockeye, cooked, dry heat 87.1
Pie, pecan, prepared from recipe 86.9
Breakfast items, french toast with butter 85.9
Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat and skin, cooked, fried, batter 85.0
Chicken, stewing, meat only, cooked, stewed 82.9
Turkey, all classes, meat only, cooked, roasted 75.7
Fast foods, clams, breaded and fried 75.7
Fish, haddock, cooked, dry heat 74.0
Fast foods, cheeseburger, regular, double patty, plain 71.0
Potato salad, home-prepared 68.0
Fish, flatfish (flounder and sole species), cooked, dry heat 67.7
Chicken, canned, meat only, with broth 62.0
Eggnog 59.1
Sandwiches and burgers, cheeseburger, large, single meat patty, with bacon and condiments 56.9
Fast foods, chili con carne 53.0
Cheese, ricotta, whole milk 50.8
Fast foods, cheeseburger, regular, double patty and bun, plain 50.0
Fast foods, hamburger, regular, double patty, with condiments 47.9
Fast foods, salad, vegetable, tossed, without dressing, with cheese 45.2
Fast foods, hotdog, with corn flour coating (corndog) 45.1
Fast foods, cheeseburger, large, single patty, with condiments and vegetables 40.2
Sandwiches and burgers, hamburger, large, single meat patty, with condiments and vegetables 39.9
Cheese sauce, prepared from recipe 37.9
Milk, canned, condensed, sweetened 34.0
Fast foods, taco 33.1
Cheese, ricotta, part skim milk 30.9
Shake, fast food, vanilla 23.1

Oils, Butter, Fat (1 cup or as mentioned)

Goose fat, 100g 91mg
Duck fat, 100g 91mg
Chicken fat, 100g 77mg
Beef fat, 100g 97mg
Margarine (all vegetable), 100g 0-5mg
Clairified Butter (Ghee), salted, 100g 200mg
Butter, salted, 100g 95mg
Dripping, beef, 100g 95mg
Lard, 100g 95mg
Vegetable oils such as canola oil, corn oil, peanut oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, soybean oil, etc.), 100g 0-5mg
Almond oil, 1 tablepoon 0mg

So, if eggs, which are way, way out on their own at the top of the list, are safe to eat because their cholesterol doesn't affect the body's serum cholesterol, then how on earth is it different from the much tinier amounts in any of the other foods? Is it 'the wrong sort of cholestero', like British Rail's 'wrong sort of snow'?

And does anyone seriously expect us to believe that large cheeseburgers, or sweetened condensed milk, is better for us than eggs or chicken?

Methinks the writing is on the wall for the 'Cholesterol is Evil' lobby; that can't come too soon for the health of the Western world.

Eggs and cholesterol

2009-02-11T09:57:00.007Z

What a surprise! Eggs are good for us again!

Yes, scientists are slow, but at last they're beginning to catch on to what we low-carbers have known for years.

The latest gem to come from the University of Surrey is that eggs are good for us. They now confirm that eggs do not raise blood cholesterol, even though they contain over 500mg per 100g.
So why doesn't the cholesterol in eggs raise our blood cholesterol? Put simply, it's because dietary cholesterol from any source has little effect on blood cholesterol.

To quote The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D.,

In the early 1950's the Framingham study included dietary analyses. Almost one thousand individuals were questioned in detail about their eating habits. No connection was found between the composition of the food and the cholesterol level of the blood. Wrote Drs. William Kannel and Tavia Gordon, authors of the report: ”These findings suggest a cautionary note with respect to hypotheses relating diet to serum cholesterol levels. There is a considerable range of serum cholesterol levels within the Framingham Study Group. Something explains this inter-individual variation, but it is not diet.” For unknown reasons, their results were never published. The manuscript is still lying in a basement in Washington.

So where does our blood cholesterol come from? We make 75% of our total requirements in our liver. The other 25% we have to eat. Why? If we don't eat it the liver has to work harder to produce more, which puts a strain on liver function.

The article on eggs [above] contains a quote from Victoria Taylor of the British Heart Foundation. She says " it is more important that you cut down on the amount of saturated fat from foods like fatty meat, full fat dairy products and cakes, biscuits and pastries."

I would certainly agree with Ms Taylor regarding the cakes, biscuits and pastries as they all contain high quantities of carbohydrates along with the fat. However, I take great issue with her assertion that we should cut down on the natural fat on meats and dairy products.

Saturated fat containing real cholesterol helps to regulate insulin levels and trigger the enzymes that convert food into energy. Without sufficient cholesterol in our diet, our bodies divert it from our endocrine system to use for brain function and repair. Major hormones are also made from cholesterol: estrogen, progesterone, cortisol, DHEA, and testosterone.

Enjoy your eggs and saturated fat, and get healthy.

Wednesday

2009-02-11T09:38:00.003Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 4 lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 320; Fat: 16g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 40g
120g home-boiled gammon, 2 eggs fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 314; Fat: 28g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 14g
Bird's Eye beefburger [yes, it was Bird's Eye this week!], 30g mayonnaise, 100g mushrooms, 20g double cream

Dinner - Cals: 640; Fat: 56g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 33g
200g pork loin chop, small green salad, 30g mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 451; Fat: 29g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 45g
100g chicken breast,
100g boiled ham with 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,725; Fat: 129g; Net Carbs: 5g; Protein: 131g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

A pause for thought.

2009-02-10T19:38:00.001Z

This morning I realised that anybody happening on this blog would have no inkling of the story behind it, so now's the time to remedy that.

I am a recovering carboholic. You think there's no such thing? Well, scientist have at last proved there is, but I, along with many others, have experienced it for years. In the same way that an alcoholic should never be offered a drink, a carboholic should not be pushed into "just one slice of cake". At last my family understands, but it's been difficult for them to comprehend.

The British Government would have us believe that it's unhealthy - nay, dangerous - to eat the foods that humans have thrived on for millennia. Unhealthy? Last week I had an hg1Ac blood glucose test which came back as 5.2. Absolutely normal, despite all the toxic medication I need to take following transplant surgery fifteen years ago.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, Americans reduced - yes, reduced - their intake of total fat between 1970 and 1990, but have become obese in the process. Why? Because they now eat more carbohydrates with the fat.

Contrary to general opinion, and misleading 'expert opinion', a low-carb diet is not a high-protein one, but it is high in fat - saturated fats for preference - something else that has the 'expert nutritionists' in a spin.

The same nutritionists claim that the effects of long-term low-carb dieting are unknown, making it dangerous. Not so. The first low-carb diet book was published in 1863 by William Banting, and when I was young the accepted way of losing weight was to cut out potatoes, bread, sugar, sweets, pastry, cakes and biscuits. In effect it was a low-carb diet!

Conversely, low-fat/low-calorie diets have only been around since the 1970s - and look at the damage they've done! I know to my cost how dangerous low-fat diets are, as over forty years following the advice of slimming clubs I slowly, and relentlessly, gained five stone. I believe that low-fat dieting has also damaged my eyesight beyond repair; damage which seems to have been halted by rigorous low-carb. Who knows how many more of my medical problems have been caused by following such advice.

So why not read the science and decide for yourself.

Tuesday

2009-02-10T13:29:00.002Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 4 lb !!
Ketostix: still negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 502; Fat: 46g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 22g
100g pork shoulder and sausage mixed, 30g mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 489; Fat: 47g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 16g
roast chicken leg, salad, 30g mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 344; Fat: 28g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 21g
chicken leg, 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,837; Fat: 161g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 89g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Monday - it's confirmed!

2009-02-08T10:34:00.010Z

Summary of weekly averages:
week 1: Cals: 2,118; Fat: 144g; Net Carbs: 17.7g; Protein: 118g
week 2: Cals: 1,698; Fat: 138.4g; Net Carbs: 8.7g; Protein: 102g
week 3: Cals: 1,684; Fat: 136; Net Carbs: 5.9; Protein: 94g
week 4: Cals: 1,729; Fat: 145; Net Carbs: 5.4; Protein: 93g

weight loss over 4 weeks: 3 lb

I've only just realised that as of today's weigh-in I've lost two stone since I started again seriously a year last October! The three-month stall seems to be at an end ...

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 3lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 463; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 15g
50g lamb shoulder, 30g mayonnaise
25g Cheddar cheese

Dinner - Cals: 496; Fat: 45g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 22g
100g slow-cooked pork shoulder, 30g mayonnaise, small salad

Snacks - Cals: 394; Fat: 28g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 33g
100g chicken breast, 30g mayonnaise

Daily totals: Cals: 1,856; Fat: 154g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 107g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Sunday

2009-02-08T10:18:00.003Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 2.2 lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 325; Fat: 24g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 23g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, 15g tomato, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 287; Fat: 25g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 13g
50g boiled ham, small salad, 30g mayonnaise,

Dinner - Cals: 365; Fat: 30g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 23g
100g slow-cooked pork shoulder, 50g buttered savoy cabbage

Snacks - Cals: 363; Fat: 33g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 15g
50g lamb shoulder, 30g mayonnaise

Daily totals: Cals: 1,339; Fat: 112g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 74g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Saturday

2009-02-07T11:21:00.000Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 1.6 lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 574; Fat: 49g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
bacon and eggs fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 276; Fat: 25g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 11g
50g boiled ham, 30g mayonnaise, salad

Dinner - Cals: 493; Fat: 46g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 18g
Cheese omelette

Snacks - Cals: 286; Fat: 29g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 4g
30g mayonnaise, 10g Cheddar, with 100g celery sticks for dipping
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,630; Fat: 148g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 63g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Friday - good news day!

2009-02-06T10:56:00.002Z

Blood results - hg1Ac = 5.2 mmol/l, which is excellent news!

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 1.5 lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 2 eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 442; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 16g
100g pork loin, salad, 30g mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 403; Fat: 15g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 37g
Fish pie for fish haters! [recipe as last week]

Snacks - Cals: 349; Fat: 27g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 24g
100g chicken breast, 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,696; Fat: 124g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 108g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Thursday

2009-02-05T10:22:00.000Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 2.4 lb
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 647; Fat: 53g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 38g
75g bacon, 2 eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 380; Fat: 32g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 21g
100g chicken breast with 30g mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 490; Fat: 45g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 19g
200g pork loin, small salad, 30g mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 350; Fat: 27g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 24xg
100g chicken breast, 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1866; Fat: 157g; Net Carbs: 5g; Protein: 102g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Wednesday - still going down ...

2009-02-04T11:16:00.005Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 2.5lb !
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 611; Fat: 49g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 38g
75g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 289; Fat: 27g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 10g
beefburger, salad, mayonnaise - unfortunately I was given the wrong burger which raised my carbs by 3g. NOT a happy bunny!

Dinner - Cals: 653; Fat: 57g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 34g
200g pork loin chop, 100g mushrooms, salad and mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 323; Fat: 24g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 24g
100g chicken breast, mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,875; Fat: 157g; Net Carbs: 8g; Protein: 106g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Tuesday - a real breakthrough!

2009-02-03T09:34:00.003Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" -1.5 lb At last this looks as though I'm on the way down again!
Ketostix: still negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 518; Fat: 43g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 30g
100g lamb meatballs, 30g mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 489; Fat: 47g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 16g
roast chicken leg, salad, 30g mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 344; Fat: 28g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 21g
chicken leg, 30g mayonnaise
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,853; Fat: 158g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 97g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walking

Monday

2009-02-02T11:47:00.000Z

Summary of weekly averages:
week 1: Cals: 2,118; Fat: 144g; Net Carbs: 17.7g; Protein: 118g
week 2: Cals: 1,698; Fat: 138.4g; Net Carbs: 8.7g; Protein: 102g
week 3: Cals: 1,684; Fat: 136; Net Carbs: 5.9; Protein: 94g

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" -1lb! It's official - after two weeks of lower carbs I've lost a pound!!!! Hmmm...
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 431; Fat: 37g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 25g
100g corned beef with mayo

Dinner - Cals: 442; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 17g
100g pork chop, salad and mayo

Snacks - Cals: 471; Fat: 40g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 27g
100g corned beef, mayo, Cheddar cheese

Daily totals: Cals: 1845; Fat: 158g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 99g

Sunday

2009-02-01T11:08:00.002Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" -0.5 lb. Still below - is this the turning point?
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 289; Fat: 20g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 23g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, 15g tomato

Lunch - Cals: 489; Fat: 42g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 25g
59g boiled ham, 50g Cheddar cheese, 30g mayonnaise, salad

Dinner - Cals: 259; Fat: 4g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 10g
170g M&S chicken coated with cheese, 100g cauliflower

Snacks - Cals: 618; Fat: 53g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 31g
60g egg with 30g mayonnaise
100g chicken breast with 30g mayonnaise.

Daily totals: Cals: 1,654; Fat: 120g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 89g

Saturday

2009-01-31T08:14:00.002Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 0.5. Still below, but only just!
Ketostix: negative!

Breakfast - Cals: 574; Fat: 49g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
bacon and eggs fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 281; Fat: 25g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 12g
54g boiled ham with mayo and salad

Dinner - Cals: 532; Fat: 50g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 18g
cheese omelette

Snacks - Cals: 345; Fat: 27g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 25g
100g chicken breast with mayo, cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,732; Fat: 150g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 85g

Exercise: 3 x 1 minute Gazelle walk

Friday

2009-01-30T08:06:00.003Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 1.4lb. Wow - three days below.
Ketostix: negative

Breakfast - Cals: 458; Fat: 42g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 17g
1 M&S sausage, 1 hardboiled egg, mayonnaise

Lunch - Cals: 5680; Fat: 52g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 26g
160g pork chop, salad, mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 403; Fat: 15g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 37g
100g pollock, 100g cauliflower, baked in Cheddar and cream cheese sauce

Snacks - Cals: 400; Fat: 38g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 11g
cashew nuts, 1 M&S sausage, mayo.

Daily totals: Cals: 1,828; Fat: 147g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 91g

Thursday - and the scales have moved!

2009-01-29T14:09:00.002Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" -1.5lb.
Ketostix: still negative

I'm not going to shout too loudly about the little loss, just in case I put 2lb on tomorrow, but it's certainly given me some hope!

Breakfast - Cals: 289; Fat: 20g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 23g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, 15g tomato, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 334; Fat: 29g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 17g
celery soup, chicken pieces and mayo

Dinner - Cals: 423; Fat: 36g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 22g
50g chicken breast and 1 M&S sausage in mayo, with crisp salad

Snacks - Cals: 569; Fat: 52g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 22g
1 M&S sausage, 50g Cheddar, mayo

Daily totals: Cals: 1,614; Fat: 138g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 84g

Wednesday

2009-01-28T09:21:00.000Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" - 0.5lb. Still below, but only just.
Ketostix: negative!

On paper today's menu would seem to fit my nutritional goals perfectly.

Breakfast - Cals: 467; Fat: 37g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon with 120g eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 302; Fat: 28g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 12g
Bird's Eye 100% beef burger topped with 1 tablespoon mayonnaise, 100g mushrooms creamed with 20g cream.

Dinner - Cals: 640; Fat: 56g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 33g
200g pork loin chop, half a crispy leaf salad, with 2 tablespoons mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 373; Fat: 33g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 17g
6 cashew nuts
25g Cheddar cheese
50g chicken
2 tbs mayo

Daily totals: Cals: 1781; Fat: 153g; Net Carbs: 5g; Protein: 92g

Daily goals: Cals: 1800; Fat: 155g; Net Carbs: <10g; Protein 90g

Tuesday

2009-01-27T11:22:00.003Z

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight" -0.4lb. At least it's under stall-weight, but is it a temporary blip?
Ketostix: negative.

Breakfast - Cals: 512; Fat: 40g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 36g
100g boiled ham, 120g eggs, and 30g butter made into omelette

Lunch - Cals: 497; Fat: 40g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 30g
100g lamb meatballs with mayo

Dinner - Cals: 391; Fat: 33g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 22g
1 chicken leg with crispy leaf salad tossed in 25g butter

Snacks - Cals: 301 Fat: 23g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 22g
1 chicken leg with mayo
25g Cheddar cheese made into crisps
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,676; Fat: 136g; Net Carbs: 5g; Protein: 105g

I decided to weigh one tablespoon of mayonnaise at lunchtime - and found it was actually TWO tablespoons so my figures prior to today have been slightly out.

Monday

2009-01-26T10:28:00.004Z

Summary of weekly averages:
week 1: Cals: 2118; Fat: 144g; Net Carbs: 17.7g; Protein: 118g
week 2: Cals: 1698; Fat: 138.4g; Net Carbs: 8.7g; Protein: 102g

Having reduced my calories by over 400 per day, and my net carbohydrates by half, what difference has the last week made to my weight. NONE! Let's see what happens this week ...

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight" + 0.3lb.
Ketostix negative.

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 41g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 2 eggs, fried in butter

Lunch - Cals: 237; Fat: 16g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 23g
100g chicken fried in butter, with mayo

Dinner - Cals: 474; Fat: 38g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 26g
100g roast pork loin with cauliflower cheese

Snacks - Cals: 269; Fat: 18g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 24g
100g chicken breast with mayo
cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1482; Fat: 112g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 103g

Sunday

2009-01-24T18:08:00.001Z

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight". Right back where I was two months ago! I'm currently investigating the effects of my meds on insulin, and will be having a chat with my consultant in April.

Ketostix this morning registered +/- [a trace] whereas last night it was negative, so I don't seem to be in ketosis at the moment.

Breakfast - Cals: 189; Fat: 20g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 23g
bacon, eggs and tomato

Lunch - Cals: 266; Fat: 29g; Net Carbs: 9g; Protein: 22g
boiled ham rolls filled with chicken breast and mayo

Dinner - Cals: 393; Fat: 34g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 18g
100g roast pork loin, 100g cabbage in butter

Snacks - Cals: 470; Fat:35; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 32g
1 scoop vanilla whey protein powder, 10g cocoa powder, 30g double cream
cashew nuts
Cheddar crisps

Daily totals: Cals: 1,418; Fat: 109g; Net Carbs: 12g; Protein: 95g

Cheerful robin

2009-01-24T12:18:00.000Z

During this very dull and miserable winter it's cheering to hear a bird sing again and know that somewhere in the garden there's a little robin collecting its brunch as I sort my menu for today.

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight" + 0.2lb. Saturday's a difficult day to cater for, so today's menu isn't the best of the week, but I suppose it could be worse. It's a bit high in protein, but low in carbs, at least.

Breakfast - Cals: 467; Fat: 37g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 30g
bacon and eggs, fried

Lunch - Cals: 556; Fat: 52g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 24g
100g chicken pieces fried in butter with 1 tbs mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 616; Fat: 56g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 24g
Double-cheese omelette

Snacks - Cals: 197; Fat: 11g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 24g
as lunch [cooking butter shared between both meals]

Daily totals: Cals: 1,835; Fat: 155g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 102g

Friday

2009-01-23T10:30:00.004Z

Morning weigh-in - "stall-weight" + 1.5lb. Down by 2.1lb on yesterday which just goes to show why you shouldn't normally weigh every day! Will the trend continue, I wonder?

After taking advice from fellow low-carbers I have today changed from a 70:30 split between fat and protein to an 80:20 split of total calories remaining after accounting for 10g carbs.

One other change I made yesterday morning was to move from Rooibos tea to Twining's Herbal & Fruit tea.

Breakfast - Cals: 503; Fat: 42g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 27g
2 M&S sausages with 1 hard-boiled egg in mayonnaise.

Lunch - Cals: 477; Fat: 40g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 29g
125g rump steak, sliced and cooked with 100g mushrooms, 25g butter and 20g double cream.

Dinner - Cals: 566; Fat: 48g; Net Carbs: 4g; Protein: 29g
150g pork loin chop, cooked with 100g mushrooms and 50g cream, with half a pack of salad

Snacks - Cals: 252; Fat: 23g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 10g
1 M&S sausage with 1 tablespoon mayonnaise

Daily totals: Cals: 1798; Fat: 152g; Net Carbs: 9g; Protein: 95g

Daily goals: Cals: 1800; Fat: 155g; Net Carbs: <10g; Protein 90g.

Edited to add: At last some positive news. My blood results have all come back normal - for me, that is!

Thursday

2009-01-22T10:00:00.004Z

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight" + 3.6 lb. How come my weight is rising as my calories fall?

Breakfast - Cals:289; Fat: 20g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 23g
bacon, eggs and tomato

Lunch - Cals: 477; Fat: 40g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 29g
rump steak and creamed mushrooms

Dinner - Cals: 422; Fat: 36g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 20g
M & S sausages with salad & mayo

Snacks - Cals: 464; Fat: 39g; Net Carbs: 3g; Protein: 25g
M & S sausage with mayo
30g Cheddar made into crisps
hard-boiled egg

Daily totals: Cals: 1652; Fat: 135g; Net Carbs: 8g; Protein: 97g

Edited to reflect reality!

Wednesday

2009-01-21T12:21:00.001Z

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight" +3! What's going on?? This is NOT supposed to happen, is it??

Breakfast - Cals: 467; Fat: 37g; Net Carbs: 2; Protein: 30g
50g bacon, 120g eggs, almost dry-fried

Lunch - Cals: 211; Fat: 18g; Net Carbs: 0g; Protein: 12g
Bird's Eye 100% beef burger with 100g creamed mushrooms

Dinner - Cals: 551; Fat: 46g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 33g
200g pork loin chop, half crisp leaf salad, with 1 tbs mayonnaise

Snacks - Cals: 1632; Fat: 31g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 29g
50g Cheddar made into crisps,
3 cashew nuts
chicken leg with mayo

Daily totals: Cals: 1,632; Fat: 131g; Net Carbs: 7g; Protein: 103g

Vlad the impaler!

2009-01-20T12:48:00.007Z

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight" + 2

So I had to have my bloods taken today, not because I'm ill, but because the hospital lost the last lot! I usually get on well with phlebotomists, but I'm prepared to make an exception for Vlad, or whatever his name is. Actually, Vlad is too sexy a moniker for a surly, middle-aged man who has to check in a little notebook to see which phials he needs!

Today's food is far more important, so :-

Breakfast - Cals: 620; Fat: 57g; Net Carbs: 5g; Protein: 24
Two-cheese omelette (Atkins' recipe)

Lunch - Cals: 403; Fat: 30g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 30g
100g lamb meatballs with mayo

Dinner - Cals: 383; Fat: 32g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 23g
Chicken leg, crispy leaf salad with butter and Cheddar dressing

Snacks - Cals: 302; Fat: 23g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 22g
Chicken leg, mayo, Cheddar cheese crisps, cashew nuts

Daily totals: Cals: 1,708; Fat: 141g; Net Carbs: 9g; Protein: 99g

A new week, and another new start.

2009-01-19T12:43:00.006Z

Morning weigh-in - "stall-weight"

Daily average from 8 - 15 January inclusive: Net carbs: 18g, Cals: 1,815

I've maintained my stall-weight for twelve weeks, almost three whole months, and that's far too long. Desperate times call for desperate measures so I'm going to try deliberately controlling my calories, while staying low-carb. However, I will not be going for a low-calorie diet, but one based on the requirements of a me that is 10% lighter!

So, being really strict with myself, this is what I'm aiming for:
1750 - 1850 calories per day
135 - 140 g fat per day [or 63% of total calories]
10 g carbs per day [or 5% of total calories]
130 - 140 g protein per day [or 27% of total calories]
8 cups of water per day

Breakfast - Cals: 665; Fat: 54g; Net Carbs: 2g; Protein: 39g
75g bacon
180g eggs
butter for frying

Lunch - Cals: 238; Fat: 15g; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 23g
100g chicken breast
butter for frying
1 tbs mayonnaise

Dinner - Cals: 709; Fat: 59g; Net Carbs: 6g; Protein: 36g
100g lamb shoulder
scalloped cabbage (p 70 The Low-Carb Gourmet by Karen Barnaby)

Snacks - Cals: 238; Fat: 15; Net Carbs: 1g; Protein: 23g
as lunch

Daily totals: Cals: 1,849; Fat: 144g; Net Carbs: 10g; Protein: 112g

If calories don't count, then I'll thcream and thcream and thcream until I'm thick!!

Thursday

2009-01-15T20:18:00.000Z

Morning weigh-in "stall-weight" -1

Breakfast - Net Carbs: 2g, Cals: 633
bacon, eggs and tomato

Lunch - Net carbs: 4g, Cals: 328
experimental chocolate and butternut squash cake and cream. Don't try this at home - it's disgusting!

Dinner - Net carbs: 4g, Cals: 248
sausages and red cabbage

Snacks - Net carbs: 7g, Cals: 678
cold sausages and mayo
1oz Cheddar cheese
butter
4 Cheddar cheese crispie thins

Daily totals: Net carbs: 17g, Cals: 1887

One more night without sleeping ...

2009-01-14T20:30:00.000Z

... as it says in the song - except I was coughing and spluttering in bed, not out enjoying myself behind the green door!

Morning weigh-in "stall weight"

Breakfast - Net Carbs: 2g, Cals: 681
bacon, eggs and Perfect Protein Pancake

Lunch - Net carbs: 2g, Cals: 465
100% beef burger, PP pancake and small portion of coleslaw #1

Dinner - Net carbs: 5g, Cals: 563
2 gourmet pork chops, buttered cauliflower

Snacks - Net carbs: 1g, Cals: 222
buttered PP pancake

Daily totals: Net carbs: 11g, Cals: 1,931

Terrible Tuesday!

2009-01-14T10:10:00.002Z

Terrible because my third - or is it fourth - cold seems to be at its worst, I haven't slept for the last two nights, and I feel shattered! Not conducive to sensible eating but I think I managed it.

Morning weigh-in: "stall-weight"

As this is a day late I'm only posting the totals for Tuesday. If I have the energy I might amend this later, but don't hold your breath!

Daily totals: Net carbs: 13g, Cals: 1,783

Sunless Sunday

2009-01-11T10:33:00.005Z

Today's weigh-in "Stall-weight" +1

Grey and dull again today - and for a change it's windy! I've forgotten what the sun looks like!

Breakfast - Net Carbs: 2g, Cals: 565
75g bacon, 2 eggs and 2 tiny plum tomatoes

Lunch - Net carbs: 5g, Cals: 639
100g pork sausages with 100g coleslaw #1

Dinner - Net carbs: 12g, Cals: 653
200g beef pot-roast, 1 cup Brussels sprouts, half a cup cauliflower and one small potato croquette

Snacks - Net carbs: 3g, Cals: 254
3 raw cashew nuts
1oz Cheddar cheese, butter, 2 Cheddar cheese crispie thins

Daily totals: Net carbs: 21g, Cals: 2,127

Daily average: Net carbs: 24.25g, Cals: 1,975.5

Despite Saturday's bread I've managed to keep my averages below 25g carbs and 2,000 calories which will, I hope, make a difference on the scales next Monday.

Stoopid, STOOPID Saturday!

2009-01-10T19:39:00.006Z

Morning weigh-in: 'Stall-weight' -1

Breakfast - Net Carbs: 3g, Cals: 409
25g bacon, 2 eggs, 4 Perfect Protein Pancakes, fried in butter

Lunch - Net carbs: 3g, Cals: 548
100g boiled ham rolled, stuffed with grated cheese and 100g my coleslaw #1

Dinner - Net carbs: 22, yes, 22, a whole day's worth! Cals: 416
2 cheese-baked eggs... and one round [40g] white bread!
Because I had made the bread into Melba toast it didn't seem very much at all... Was it worth it? NO!

Snacks - Net carbs: 6g, Cals: 496
1oz Cheddar cheese
butter
4 Cheddar cheese crispie thins

Daily totals: Net carbs: 33g, Cals: 1869

How interesting that my calories went down as my carbs rose. Let's see how that's reflected in the scales. Perhaps it was due to this morning's weigh-in that I allowed myself the stupid self-saboutage.

Friday's Food

2009-01-09T12:14:00.002Z

Bacon and eggs with a difference, served on a 1970s plate -it's a pity the ramekins don't match!

Morning weigh-in: 'Stall weight' +2

Breakfast - Net Carbs: 3g, Cals: 886
2 cheese-baked eggs and 100g bacon, baked alongside the eggs

Lunch - Net carbs: 2g, Cals: 457
2 chicken legs with a serving of coleslaw #1 (so named as it is the first I have added to my SparkPeople food groups)

Ingredients: makes 4 x 100g servings. Net carbs: 2g, Cals: 270

100g courgette, finely diced
30g red onion, finely sliced and chopped
140g celery, finely sliced
100g cabbage, finely sliced
3 tablespoons full-fat mayonnaise

I use a mandolin to slice the veg finely, and hope I don't slice my fingers too! Mix everything together, divide between small food bags and store in fridge.

Dinner - Net carbs: 13g, Cals: 484
Bolognese sauce with buttered cabbage and leeks

Snacks - Net carbs: 3g, Cals: 254
3 raw cashew nuts
1oz Cheddar cheese, butter and 2 Cheddar cheese crispie thins

Daily totals: Net carbs: 22g, Cals: 2,097

The postman has just delivered a beautifully-illustrated plant catalogue; after lunch I shall put my feet up, browse through it, and dream of summer!

Thursday is the new Day one ...

2009-01-08T19:37:00.006Z

Pork chops in onion and mushroom sauce
Morning weigh-in: 'Stall-weight'

Ready, steady, GO on the new day one!

Breakfast - Net Carbs: 2g, Cals: 227
bacon, eggs and half a tomato, fried in olive oil

Lunch - Net carbs: 5g, Cals: 620
Double-cheese Omelette
15g butter
1 tbs finely chopped red onion
2 eggs
1 tbs double cream
60g full-fat cream cheese
30g Cheddar cheese, grated
0.5 tbs chopped parsley

Add the soft cheese to the mix, and pile the Cheddar onto the finished omelette before folding.

Dinner - Net carbs: 10g, Cals: 472
Pork chops with creamed onion and mushrooms
Brussels sprouts

Snacks - Net carbs: 3g, Cals: 254
3 raw cashew nuts
1oz Cheddar cheese
butter
2 Cheddar cheese crispie thins

Daily totals: Net carbs: 21g, Cals: 1,809

As I have been low-carbing for some time, have lost 25lbs, and am a tortoise at losing weight, I am also going to keep an eye on my calorie intake to see if it is relevant when I keep the carbs below 25g per day. It's not normally sensible to weigh every morning, but necessary to draw a reasonably accurate conclusion from the experiment.

Time for a rethink ...

2009-01-07T15:15:00.000Z

I didn't get very far following Tulip's menu - not because there's anything wrong with it, let me hasten to add! My main problem is that Mr and Master Machair Orchid are both set in their ways and will not join me, so I've ended up cooking separate meals twice a day, and I'm fed up with it!

Soooooo ... I really do need to go back to the drawing board and plan a menu that allows me to cook just two meals a day instead of four; meals to which I can easily add their potatoes, chips, baked beans, toast, whatever ...

I'm currently gathering together recipes that will fit into their eating pattern and still allow me to remain low-carb, if not IPD-friendly. I intend to post each day's menu, followed by my adaptated recipes, so watch this space ... if you are ...

But I haven't given up ...

Day two - Tuesday

2009-01-05T13:31:00.000Z

... except I'll be a day behind on Tulip's menu as I didn't have most of the ingredients for Monday, so I'm mixing and matching!

Tuesday

Breakfast - Cheese & Mushroom Omelette

Lunch - Leek & Parmesan Soup (hope I'll have the recipe in time!)

Snack - homemade mini sausage balls with mayo

Dinner - chicken leg with buttered green and red cabbage

Nutrition totals: [approx.]
Carbs: 13g
Fat: 86g
Protein: 70g
Cals: 1,139

Day one - Monday

2009-01-05T10:29:00.000Z

Oh dear! Not a promising start as I somehow seem to have gained 2lb overnight, and I only ate the nuts from yesterday's snacks.

Monday

Breakfast - fried corned beef (left over from Saturday) and 2 eggs

Lunch - bacon, cheese and tomato omelette (this was to have been butternut squash soup, but then I discovered just how carb-filled it is)

Snacks - celery with cream cheese and 3 cashew nuts; 1 oz Cheddar cheese, 2 Cheddar crispie thins (Sainsbury's - just 1.3g carbs each) and butter
Dinner - lamb curry-less curry, red cabbage

Nutrition totals:
Carbs: 20g
Fat: 129g
Protein: 103g
Cals: 2,565

I know this works, so I'm keeping on keeping on ...

D-day minus one - Sunday

2009-01-03T16:00:00.003Z

The first week's menu can be found here on Tulip's blog.

However, I have decided to start a day early, as I have a shoulder of lamb thawed ready for dinner, so tomorrow's menu will be:

Sunday
Breakfast - fried bacon, eggs, mini-sausage balls and 2 tiny plum tomatoes
Lunch - 2 ham roll-ups, stuffed with celery, cheese and mayo, mini-sausage balls
Snacks - celery with cream cheese and 3 cashew nuts; 1 oz Cheddar cheese, 2 Cheddar crispie thins (Sainsbury's - just 1.3g carbs each)
Dinner- Bee's slow roast shoulder of lamb, buttered cabbage and sprouts

The shoulder of lamb was cooked for 11 hours in a large slow-cooker. For the first six hours it was on high, then turned to low for the remainder of the cooking time. It was declared "the best bit of lamb I've ever tasted" by the family!

Daily nutrition totals:
Net Carbs: 18g
Fat: 153g
Protein: 161g
Cals: 2,152

Onwards and downwards,

25 down and a new start for a new year.

2009-01-02T15:40:00.008Z

From Monday 5 January 2009 I shall be attempting to follow Tulip's two-week IPD Phase 1 menus. I doubt if my photographs will be as beautiful - or my meals as succulent - as hers, but this will be the record of my progress.

Onwards and downwards.