The Real Deal with Metabolism

This is a 3-minute excerpt from my DVD The Truth About Weight Loss which was filmed live at T. Harv Eker's Extreme Health event in Southern California. Normally $39.95, you can get it for just $24.95 in August when you use coupon code TRUTH25 during checkout. Watch more video clips »

Carbohydrate Restriction May Slow Prostate Tumor Growth

Restricting carbohydrates, regardless of weight loss, appears to slow the growth of prostate tumors, according to an animal study recently published by researchers in the Duke Prostate Center.

"Previous work here and elsewhere has shown that a diet light in carbohydrates could slow tumor growth, but the animals in those studies also lost weight, and because we know that weight loss can restrict the amount of energy feeding tumors, we weren't able to tell just how big an impact the pure carbohydrate restriction was having, until now," said Stephen Freedland, M.D., a urologist in the Duke Prostate Center and lead investigator on this study.

The researchers believe that insulin and insulin-like growth factor contribute to the growth and proliferation of prostate cancer, and that a diet devoid of carbohydrates lowers serum insulin levels in the bodies of the mice, thereby slowing tumor growth, Freedland said.

The findings appear in the May 26, 2009 online edition of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

Animals in the study were fed one of three diets:

1. a very high fat/no carbohydrate diet
   


2. a low-fat/high carbohydrate diet
   


3. and a high fat/moderate-carbohydrate diet, which is most similar to the "Western" diet most Americans eat, Freedland said.
   

They were then injected with prostate tumors at the same time.

"The mice that were fed a no-carbohydrate diet experienced a 40 to 50 percent prolonged survival over the other mice," Freedland said.

Mice on the no-carbohydrate diet consumed more calories in order to keep body weights consistent with mice on the other study arms.

The researchers plan to begin recruiting patients at two sites – Duke and the University of California - Los Angeles - for a clinical trial to determine if restricting carbohydrate intake in patients with prostate cancer can similarly slow tumor growth. The trial should begin within a few weeks.

"It's very exciting - this is a potential new mechanism to fight prostate cancer growth and help patients live longer with their disease," Freedland said.

Cinnamon Can Lower Blood Sugar

Cinnamon contains phytochemicals which can mimic insulin's ability to increase uptake of sugar by the cells. You can start seeing results by taking just 1g of cinnamon.

Sugar as a Health Food?

Sugar's about to show up on food labels, all dressed up as a new "natural ingredient" and a better alternative to the demon d'jour, high-fructose corn syrup.

Never let it be said that there are no "second acts" in the marketing of junk food.

OK, in case you haven't been paying attention, high-fructose corn syrup has gotten quite a whipping in the press. The Corn Refiners Association tried fighting back, most notably with a series of commercial showing a clueless mother unable to explain why the stuff was so "bad", but even the best PR campaign wasn't able to put out the fire. And the coup d'grace was sounded recently by Michelle Obama who declared any product with high-fructose corn syrup to be off-limits at the White House.

So now sugar- plain old white, table sugar, the poor little guy that got displaced by HFCS- is ready for its reinvention, this time as the "natural" healthy alternative to HFCS.

Oh, brother.

Let's recap for a moment. Sugar is one part glucose one part fructose (50/50).. High fructose corn syrup is very close to the same formula, marginally higher in fructose- 55% fructose, 45% glucose- but probably not enough to make that much difference (or at least that's what the proponents of HFCS claim).

But the point is moot and the argument about which is "better" diverts our attention from the real problem.

Which is this: The more damaging half of this dastardly duo of glucose and fructose- regardless of whether it occurs in table sugar or HFCS- is clearly fructose. Numerous studies have shown it raises insulin resistance, raises triglycerides in the bloodstream and contributes to fatty liver disease. Pure refined fructose is bad news, whether it comes from HFCS or from sugar.

The big problem with HFCS is the fact that it's so cheap and widely available that it's now in products that were never sweetened before. And that fact that it's so cheap means that manufacturers can use a ton of it, sweetening everything in sight. The result is that we now consume more fructose than we ever did when manufacturers used plain old sugar.

Going back to "natural" (give me a break) white sugar accomplishes exactly nothing. Refined fructose is metabolic poison, and whether we get it from the old fashioned sugar or the cheap and abundant HFCS matters not a whit. We're eating too much of the stuff.

And less there be any confusion let me add that I'm quite aware that fructose is found naturally in fruits. But fructose in fruits- surrounded by fiber, vitamins, phytochemicals and other good stuff- is a very different "animal" than refined fructose, as different as an animal's fur is from a fur coat in the store window.

You don't need to avoid fructose when it occurs (in small amounts) in whole foods.

When it occurs in refined sweeteners- be they "natural" sugar or high-fructose corn syrup- run the other way.

Cut Calories, Improve Memory!

There've been a ton of studies on "calorie restriction" as an anti-aging strategy. Cutting calories- even by 25%- 33%- has been shown to extend life of every life form tested so far, from fruit flies and yeast to monkeys. Now a new study (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) shows that in addition to extending life, calorie cutting may also improve your memory.

Researchers took 50 men and women ages 50-72 who ranged from normal weight to overweight. One group was told to cut calories by 30 percent, mainly by eating smaller portions. A second group was told to leave their calories the same but change the proportion coming from fat, and a third group was told to make no dietary changes.

After three months, the subjects took tests involving memorizing words.

The calorie-cutting group averaged a respectable 20% improvement in memory performance. (The second and the third group showed no change whatsoever.)

Lead researcher Agnes Floel of the University of Munster in Germany said that the memory improvement might be linked to a decrease in insulin and inflammation in the reduced- calorie group.

Changes in insulin levels have also been postulated as one of the reasons calorie restriction may extend life. One 1992 study investigated people who were both mentally and physically fit and were at least 100 years old. The three factors they all had in common were: high HDL cholesterol, low triglycerides and… wait for it… low levels of fasting insulin!

Dr. Floel also said that lower insulin levels might "increase the sensitivity of receptors" in the brain and improve insulin signaling, allowing memories to be maintained longer. The reduced calorie diet also seemed to improve inflammation, a known robber of brain function and a contributing factor to every major disease.

In my DVD program The 7 Pillars of Longevity I talk about hara hachi bu, a saying in Okinawa inspired by Confucious. Okinawas believe hara hachi bu is one of the secrets to a long healthy life.

Want to know what it means?

"Eat until you are 80% full".

Wise advice, not only if you want to live long, but also if you want to keep your brain sharp and your memory intact!

Dumbest idea of the Week: "Fat-Free Living"

According to the USDA, which has never been exactly a "thought leader" when it comes to food and nutrition, January is Fat Free Living Month.

This is probably the worst idea the USDA has ever come up with, with the possible exception of the 1992 Food Pyramid.

Virtually every health professional now understands that fat is vital for our health. But since apparently the USDA did not get the memo, let's repeat some of the many ways fat is essential in our diet:

1. Fat is an important part of cell membranes.


2. Fat is our main source of energy.


3. Fat cushions our organs and tissues and protects them from injury.

And that's just the beginning. Without fat, major vitamins like vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E and vitamin K are not absorbed (which is why they're called the 'fat soluble' vitamins). Neither are important carotenoids- like the eye-protecting lutein and zeaxanthin. Even calcium needs some fat for maximum absorption!

Dietary fat helps us to feel full and to feel fuller longer, thus decreasing the likelihood of cravings and overeating. Unlike carbohydrates, dietary fat has virtually no impact on the fat-storage hormone insulin. In fact, adding fat to a meal lowers the overall glycemic impact of the meal-- and low-glycemic diets have been linked with lower rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity and even Alzheimers. To make matters worse, any fat-free diet foods typically replace fat with carbohydrates, usually of the worst kind. Research has shown that this substitution has significant negative consequences for our health.

Dietary fat is the starting material from which we make all sorts of important chemicals in the body called eicosanoids which, among other things, help regulate clotting and inflammation.

One particular type of fat- omega-3 fatty acids from fish and flax- bears special mention. Omega-3 fats lower blood pressure, improve mood, and- possibly most important of all- lower inflammation. Inflammation is now recognized as a major component of every degenerative disease we know of including heart disease, metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, cancer and Alzheimers. And omega-3 fatty acids are one of the most anti-inflammatory compounds on the planet.

The "Fat-Free" month is an idea whose time should never have come in the first place. It's time to say good-bye to such idiocy for good.

autism- what's the story?

For years people have been battling over whether or not childhood vaccines cause autism. It's hard to think of a better example of opposing views fueled by (understandable) passion, each bolstered by statistics which- like all statistics- lend themselves to multiple interpretations depending on whose side you're on. It has the usual cast of characters - activists (usually parents) feeling betrayed and ignored and lied to, apologists maintaining steadfastly that the protesters are delusional and the science doesn't support their views.

Sound familiar? Hint: silicone breast implants.

Now this week for the first time, the case is going to court. Sort of. A special court will pit scientists against activists in the debate over whether vaccines cause autism. There's a test case involving a 12 year old Michelle Cedillo of Arizona and more than 4,800 cases are pending, filed by parents who believe the vaccines caused their kids autism. They're seeking payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The US Court of Federal Claims has set up an omnibus hearing in Washington and the first case is expected to last three weeks.

The nay-sayers say the issue is settled and that vaccines are not linked to the disorder. And there's good science- meaning statistical correlations- to support their case.

Now hold that thought for a moment.

Recently there was a terrific study done on diet and weight loss out of Children's Hospital in Boston (I'll blog about it in more detail this week). They wanted to test whether low-glycemic diets do better than standard low-calorie diets for weight loss, blood lipids, all the usual stuff. They divided everyone into two groups, gave one group the low-cal diet, one group the low-glycemic diet.

No difference.

But wait, there's more.

The researchers tested everyone in the study with a glucose tolerance test. This basically shows how your body responds to sugar- some people secrete a ton of insulin, some.. not so much. Then, with this info in hand, they re-analyzed the data. And found that when you looked at the sub-group of people who were "high insulin secretors", there was indeed a huge, significant difference in how the two diets worked. High insulin secretors lost way more weight and did much better in general on the low-glycemic diet. But in the larger picture, this sub-group was "lost" in the general statistics, and there was no significant difference between the two overall groups.

Back to autism.

I'm absolutely, unequivocably convinced that there is a subgroup of kids who can't detox the mercury in vaccines. This subgroup is "lost" in the overall statistics allowing apologists to say, "hey, vaccines don't cause autism". But if you were to somehow isolate this subgroup and analyze the stats on them, you'd find a big correlation between the vaccine and the onset of autism. I can't prove this but I'm sure of it.

Think about it. Our liver puts out enzymes called the cytochrome P-450 enzymes, that are involved in two distinct phases of detoxifcation. It's a complex process. Among individuals there are huge variations in the amount of these enzymes, their effectiveness, their activity. It's no doubt true that when you look at the statistics on autism and vaccination on millions of people, a correlation doesn't show up, much like it didn't on the low-glycemic and low-calorie diet study. But if you were to somehow identify a sub-population who had less than optimal cytochrome P-450 enzyme activity, and then analyzed just that population, I'm pretty sure you'd see the mercury- autism connection boldly and clearly. It's just masked when this subgroup is folded into the overall population.