lundi 30 septembre 2019

Keto in the real life is low carb diet and it is better for patients.

My results (details will follow)
37 patients declared following a keto diet without coaching only applying different bits of advice from books and papers.
2 reached a keto state in the week testing (3 tests in urine during a week where each patient follows strictly his or her diet)
35 never reached any keto state.

Effet girouette en diabétologie hexagonale: confondre cétogène et bas en glucides, reconnaître que les patients choisissent, on avance...

"Pas mal de mes patients se sont mis d’ailleurs spontanément au régime cétogène avec des résultats qui sont souvent spectaculaires sur l’hémoglobine glyquée et sur le poids."
Hansel sur Medscape
J'adore le spontanément qui est horriblement méprisant mais qui en dit long sur la déconnection du monde médicale français sur l'obésité, l syndrome métabolique et le diabète type 2.
Non les patients sont intelligents ils appliquent le théorème de Bayes cher confrère.
Et ils lisent.
Mais là où je pense vous faites une deuxième erreur c'est que tout simplement ils font un régime bas en hydrates de carbone. Pas un régime cétogène. Vérifiez vous serez surpris ou peut être le savez vous déjà? En réalité je ne sais pas si beaucoup de nos jeunes confrères comprennent la différence compte tenu du contenu de la formation actuelle. Restons simple et efficace, avec un régime bas en hydrates de carbone (oui pas 40% de carbs...) les résultats sont très favorables et durables. Les médicaments sont diminués. le poids s'améliore vite et la capacité d'exercice revient.
Jamais avec les féculents, sucres lents et autres " surtout 200 g de glucides par jour sinon vous risquez l'hypo"...


https://francais.medscape.com/voirarticle/3605280

jeudi 26 septembre 2019

Sugar addiction

Obesity is a disease of the control of food intake. Strong addiction to refined foods plays a key role in this loss of control. The purest, most refined food and the most addictive in our environment is sugar what many people do not know. In addition, sugar is subsidized by the state. It is, therefore, necessary to phase out subsidies for the production of sugar instead of taxing it in drinks, which amounts to tax the subsidies.


L'obésité est une maladie du contrôle de l'apport alimentaire. L'addiction forte aux aliments raffinés joue un rôle clé dans cette perte de contrôle. Le plus pur, le plus raffiné des aliments et le plus addictif dans notre environnement c'est le sucre ce que beaucoup ignorent. De surcroît le sucre est subventionné par l'état. Il faut donc progressivement supprimer les subventions à la production de sucre au lieu de le taxer dans les boissons ce qui revient à taxer des subventions.





Make your choices and evaluate your own satiety index: key to exit from obesity

Make your choices and evaluate your own satiety index

Green salad, Fish with potatoes and orange.
This is known for decades




The research which does have a political agenda: your stomach and your brain don't count calories but weight and satiety

https://www.lanutrition.fr/les-news/une-calorie-daliments-transformes-coute-moins-cher-quune-calorie-de-fruits-et-legumes

mardi 24 septembre 2019

Too much carbs

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2751719?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jama.2019.13771

 Think twice: carbs which are the only macronutrient whose none component (glucose, fructose, galactose, starch, glycogen) is essential does constitute the main input of calories by far: crazy!

lundi 23 septembre 2019

Roosevelt, Ancel Keys, Crisco, Seven countries study, are the pillars of the flawed nutritional propaganda in the aftermaths of the WWII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7vJZAYoFPk&feature=youtu.be


Roosevelt, Ancel Keys, Crisco, étude de sept pays, sont les piliers de la propagande nutritionnelle erronée au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale


1977 McGovern Report low fat and high complex carb diet is responsible for this destruction.



Here’s a riddle:
How is it that ever since the government began telling us what to eat, we have gotten fatter and sicker?
In 1977, when the government first set dietary guidelines, the average American male weighed 170 pounds. He now weighs 197. It’s not any better for women —145 to 170. And you don’t need an academic study to know the same thing is happening to kids. Just look around. 
The weight gain has real-life consequences:  the percentage of Americans diagnosed with type 2 diabetes—a condition that can lead to severe medical issues—has risen from 2% in 1977 to over 9% in 2015. In hard numbers, that’s five million people to over 30 million people.
How did this happen?
It all started innocently enough in the 1950s, when President Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack while in office. Suddenly, the issue of heart health became a national obsession. 
Keep in mind this was an era when scientists had harnessed the power of the atom, unlocked the secrets of DNA, and cured once incurable diseases like polio. Surely, there had to be a scientific solution to heart disease. 
There was. And a charismatic medical researcher from the University of Minnesota named Ancel Keyes had it.
Cholesterol, Keyes claimed, was the villain of the heart disease story. 
His now famous “seven countries study” determined conclusively—in his mind, at least—that people who consumed high amounts of fat—specifically, saturated fat—had higher cholesterol levels and thus, higher rates of heart attacks. 
Lower your fat intake, and you would lower heart disease risk. 
The ever-confident Keyes spread the gospel. As an influential member of the American Heart Association, he was in a very strong position to do so. There was only one problem: Keyes’s study was bad science. The sample size was so small, the data collection integrity so shoddy, and the life-style variables between the countries he studied so great, that his research had no scientific validity. In other words, he asserted a conclusion he couldn’t prove. 
When other scientists questioned Keyes’s conclusions, they were invariably met with stern responses like: “people are dying while you’re quibbling over data points.” And, “there are great benefits and no risks” to adopting this new way of eating.
In 1973, the American Heart Association set the dietary limit on saturated fat at 10%, and in 1977, the US government followed suit. Where did the 10% value come from? It didn’t come from any scientific data. It was merely a government committee’s best guess.  
This was despite contrary evidence like the 1957 Western Electric Company employee study showing no difference in heart attacks in those who ate more or less saturated fat. A longer-term study of the same Western Electric subjects in 1981 reached the same conclusion. But again, no one wanted to hear it.  
To make this all easier to understand and to spread the message to schools, “the food pyramid” was created. That’s the chart you first saw in third or fourth grade with all the supposedly good foods at the bottom—meaning, “eat a lot of those,” and the bad foods at the top—"eat those ones sparingly.” 
What our kids are fed in school, what our military troops are fed on bases, what sick people are fed in hospitals; what crops we plant and how we raise our cattle, are all predicated on this deceptive nutritional concept. 
As Americans ate less saturated fat—margarine instead of butter, processed oils like corn oil instead of olive oil, low fat milk, low fat yogurt and so on— they also started to eat more “heart healthy” grains—exactly what the food pyramid, and the updated version called MyPlate, advise you to do.
As the consumption of saturated fat decreased by almost 40%, the consumption of refined grains—carbohydrates that convert to sugar in the body—increased substantially. Total intake of calories also began to increase. 
This happened, in no small part, because food companies took advantage of the low-fat craze. They lowered fat and increased sugar. Suddenly, supermarkets were full of supposedly healthy low fat, high sugar foods. It remains that way today. Foods that are high in sugar stimulate reward centers in the brain and leave us wanting more. Thus, the famous line about potato chips: “Betcha can’t eat just one!”
The end result is a fatter population with greater and greater health issues—like type 2 diabetes, a problem that’s getting worse, not better.
How do we get ourselves out of this spiral?
There are many answers: for some, it’s a low-carb, high fat diet; for others, it’s a Mediterranean diet; for some, it’s vegetarianism; for others, it might be something else.  
You need to find the best solution for you.
And that’s really the point: we need to take responsibility for our own health.
If the food pyramid has taught us one thing, it’s this:
Don’t rely on the government to take care of you. 
I’m Dr. Bret Scher, cardiologist, for Prager University.

dimanche 22 septembre 2019

Meat eaters

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/09/20/evolution-the-human-diet-and-the-meat-vs-plant-conundrum/?fbclid=IwAR06HYPkmbDAfwECeuYzKSkc93mf1qdQVNgB-mn3iUyIIQufIae3qVh7HEo

Meat and cancer: examples of carcinogenic molecules visible by the naked eye

Aside from academic discussion which is summed up by R Feinman  I have to underline that I never eat such "meat" overcooked or with butter cooked at high temperature. Put the butter after cooking, don't overcook your meat and try the oven instead of the pan or the BBQ... And don't forget fish and seafood.

Have the meats
https://www.maxim.com/food-drink/top-cardiologist-no-one-should-do-keto-2018-9?fbclid=IwAR3KjFsPHJ3Bsl6XKNuvZYxi0sz5xIn3OPVpdc7Q8D5STUFXy4tjvgAgaeQ

Image for ketogenic diet, focuses on proteins and fat
https://www.maxim.com/food-drink/top-cardiologist-no-one-should-do-keto-2018-9?fbclid=IwAR3KjFsPHJ3Bsl6XKNuvZYxi0sz5xIn3OPVpdc7Q8D5STUFXy4tjvgAgaeQ

Junk food the matrix is only one part of the issue

https://theconversation.com/la-valeur-sante-d-un-aliment-ne-se-resume-pas-a-ses-nutriments-121414

Scenario of the glyphosate gate: this scenario was used for other "factors" in human nutrition

Le petit manuel du lobbyiste vert en 12 leçons
Trouvez une association ou une corrélation entre un cancer et un facteur, de préférence une substance chimique, nommée cause. 
Recrutez un épidémiologiste ou un statisticien en colère. 
Revendiquez la crédibilité institutionnelle (par exemple le CIRC ou l’OMS). 
Présentez ce cancer comme potentiellement incontrôlable. 
Engagez des influenceurs et des célébrités. 
Payer une ONG pour engager des campagnes contre l'entreprise ciblée. 
Faire pression sur les régulateurs pour imposer des restrictions ou des interdictions. 
Identifiez une juridiction avec un "juge qui aime les pendaisons". 
Aller à la pêche de victimes de bonne qualité. 
Faites marcher les victimes devant les caméras. 
Apporter des preuves à un public enragé. 
Emmenez tranquillement l'argent à la banque.

The HTDI booklet of the green-red-black terrorists 
Find an association or a correlation between a Cancer and a factor preferably a chemical, which is named cause. 
Recruit an epidemiologist or an angry statistician. 
Claim institutional credibility (for instance IARC or WHO). 
Present this cancer as potentially out of control. 
Engage influencers and celebrities. 
Pay NGO to engage campaigns against the targeted company. 
Lobby regulators to impose restrictions or bans. 
Identify a jurisdiction with a "hanging judge". 
Trawl for good quality victims. 
March victims in front of the cameras. 
Take evidence to an enraged public. 
Quietly take the money to the bank.



This series of articles by David Zaruk is very informative and revealing.  
Zaruk* makes a strong case that IARC is a corrupt organization and a pawn U.S. tort lawyers.  

The “Glyphosate Gameplan” is a must read.


The Corruption of IARC 1/4: IARC Monographs Produced for US Tort Law Firms

The Corruption of IARC 2/4: Hiding Conflicts of Interest


The Corruption of IARC 3/4: The Glyphosate Gameplan

The Corruption of IARC 4/4: IARC’s Ruthless Mercenaries

The Corruption of IARC (Summary): IARC’s Dirty 30



*David Zaruk is the Risk-Monger. He has been an EU risk and science communications specialist since 2000, active in EU policy events from REACH and SCALE to the Pesticides Directive, from Science in Society questions to the use of the Precautionary Principle. He was part of the team that set up GreenFacts to encourage a wider use of evidence-based decision-making in the EU on environmental health matters.  David is a professor at Odisee University College where he lectures on Communications, Marketing, EU Lobbying and PR. He also provides training courses and is a regular keynote speaker. In the past, he has been employed by Solvay, Cefic and Burson-Marsteller, retiring from “active work” in 2006.

samedi 21 septembre 2019

Mouthwash with a bactericide solution

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891584919307610?via%3Dihub

Iron

According to James Dinicolantonio:





Radiotracer study finds that heme-iron absorption is SATURABLE. The study shows that we can only absorb 2 mg of iron from heme iron! What does this mean? This highly suggests a risk of iron deficiency anemia on strict carnivore which I recently had someone message me that they DID develop iron deficiency anemia after 9 months of carnivore. -
So while heme iron may have greater bioavailability than non-heme iron it appears we can only absorb 2 mg. And while eating carnivore does provide some non-heme iron as well, many plant foods are very high in non-heme iron and the bioavailability of that non-heme iron will be dramatically increased with vitamin C or consuming along with meat. -
Additional side note - we can’t move iron around the body without enough copper. Unless a carnivore is eating oysters or liver their copper intake will be very low and low copper has been shown to cause iron deficiency anemia. -
Do I think only eating steak and eggs is an ideal diet? No I don’t. Even incorporating liver still has issues with ✅Low thiamine (B1).
✅Low potassium.
✅Low bioavailable iron. ✅Low vitamin C.
✅Low manganese.
-
Don’t just blinded follow advice from someone who really hasn’t researched nutrition. Nutrition is EXTREMELY complex. I of course would love it too if eating just steak and eggs and even a little liver was the best healthiest diet and that carnivore was all what it’s cracked up to be. However, having people message me that they developed iron deficiency anemia or were hospitalized on carnivore after 9 months because they couldn’t breathe supports my notions of subclinical and now clinical deficiencies on carnivore
-
If you want the hard truth please continue to follow me. I’m not going to hold back any punches on potential harms of ANY diet. I’m not here to promote a particular diet. I’m here to give you guys the really important information that matters when it comes to nutrition.
-
Additional side note - when you cook meat you break the porphyrin ring converting heme iron to free iron ions further reducing iron absorption and increasing free iron ions in the GI tract that may damage gut microbiome.

Eggs: another point of view which does not add anything to the point that eggs are Ok!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190916-are-eggs-good-for-you?xtor=ES-213-[BBC%20Features%20Newsletter]-2019September20-[Future|%20Button]&fbclid=IwAR0ZO6sCrch2VuU0LSSyji1atBYrlehEwB_cN2DZqB9XDaoweUP4LiFwWgc

mardi 17 septembre 2019

European limit for trans fatty acids in the diet


Today the EU Commission adopted legislation that determines that in two years' time foodproducts may contain no more than 2% trans fatty acids (industrial; on a fat basis) in the end product. In the Netherlands, trans fatty acids are virtually no longer found in foods. In the Netherlands there has been no public health issue for years, but in some other European countries there still is.
Transfatty acids are a special type of fatty acid. Trans fatty acids arise from the hardening of oils during an industrial process. In addition, trans fatty acids arise in the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants, such as cattle and sheep. In the 90’s of the last century, scientific research has shown that trans fatty acids increase LDL cholesterol and thus increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. The Dutch food industry has immediately taken precautions to reduce trans fatty acids. Where in the Netherlands the trans fatty acid content is already very low, this does not apply to some other European member states.
MVO welcomes limit
MVO -  the Netherlands Oils and Fats Industry is in favor of a maximum limit for trans fatty acids at the European level. As a result, food supply in all countries will become healthier and moreover, the situation will be much clearer for consumers. Consumers in the whole of Europe can soon count on low levels of trans fatty acids in their foods. To this date, that was often unclear because trans fatty acids are not allowed in the declaration on the label. What you can find on the label is the hardening process (under the term "hardening" or "hydrogenating") but it does not provide good information about this either.
In the Netherlands  oils and fats companies have managed to reduce the levels of industrial trans fatty acids in their products to a very low level. Chain organization MVO (formerly Productschap Margarine, Vetten en Oliën) being the initiator of the Task Force Responsible Fatty Acid Composition has achieved significant reductions in the levels of trans fatty acids in food through self-regulation, resulting in a healthier food supply.
Dutch intake already low
The average Dutch person does not take in more than 0.3 percent of calories from trans fatty acids per day, as is the outcome of the National Food Consumption Survey 2012 - 2016. The Health Council of the Netherlands recommends a maximum intake of 1 energy percent trans fatty acids per day, so we are well below that.  More than half of the amount of trans fatty acids in Dutch food is of animal origin. Although the new legislation is limited to industrial trans fatty acids only (because policy makers assume that it is not possible to prevent the formation of trans fatty acids in animals), the general nutritional advice for eating semi-skimmed or low-fat dairy products and less meat will also reduce the intake of animal trans fatty acids.
Click here for the press release of the EU Commission
Click here for the full text of the legislation

Régime cétogène et restriction de glucides: la confusion est entretenue par cet article

"Les médecins et les patients doivent être réellement informés des avantages et risques du régime cétogène selon l'evidence based medecine et non selon le battage médiatique. Les promoteurs du régime cétogène ont évidemment critiqué cette prise de position (1) en témoignant de succès constatés et, selon eux démonstratifs. Ils auront surement encore longtemps une large audience auprès du grand public, d'autant qu'ils se présentent comme disruptifs, porteurs de la nouvelle diététique contre les anciens concepts et les dinosaures qui seraient opposés à toute innovation ! Où sont les fake news ? À vous de le découvrir.






Le régime cétogène fait beaucoup parler de lui – et de ses promoteurs – depuis quelques années, avec la promesse de bien mieux traiter l'obésité et le diabète de type 2. Cependant, l'engouement suscité par ses potentiels bénéfices est largement supérieur au niveau de preuve qui le soutient. Certes, découvrir une approche révolutionnaire pour traiter des maladies complexes et souvent en échec thérapeutique peut soulever l'enthousiasme, mais il faut, raison garder, et s'appuyer sur ses véritables effets, sa faisabilité et plus encore sur l'évaluation des risques – des carences engendrées. Ce d'autant plus que ces régimes s'accompagnent de coûts élevés pour les patients et d'un bouleversement de leur mode de vie.

Une mise au point publiée cet été dit stop à l'infox (1). Examinons le dossier.

Du vieux présenté comme nouveau

Le régime cétogène trouve aujourd'hui une nouvelle jeunesse (avec le régime « paléo » par exemple) mais en réalité il a été proposé il y a bientôt 50 ans aux États-Unis, alors sous l'appellation de « régime Atkins » (2). Le logo « A » rouge qui s'y réfère a d'ailleurs été vendu depuis à une chaîne de restauration rapide.

Le régime cétogène diffère d'autres régimes pauvres en glucides, car il incite à renoncer à presque tous les glucides, à éviter les excès de protéines et à consommer des quantités très élevées de graisses (> 70 % des calories en général), d'où la production de cétones.

L'enthousiasme suscité pour ce régime est en partie lié aux supposés échecs des régimes « pauvres en graisses » proposés, qui auraient été incapables d'enrayer l'épidémie d'obésité et de diabète de type 2… Or de pauvreté en graisse, il n'en a pas été réellement question, puisque la part des graisses est restée supérieure à 30 % des apports caloriques aux États-Unis ! Parler de l'inefficacité de ces régimes pauvres en graisses n'a donc guère de sens.


Perte de poids : la restriction calorique avant tout


Une méta-analyse de 13 essais d'une durée supérieure à un an ne trouve que moins de 1 kg de perte de poids supplémentaire avec le régime cétogène, versus régime riche en glucides et en matières grasses. Cette différence, bien que statistiquement significative, ne l'est cliniquement pas, bien entendu. Une autre méta-analyse de 32 études montre que la dépense énergétique et la perte de graisse sont plus importantes avec des régimes faibles en graisses qu'avec les régimes cétogènes. En fait la perte de poids de tout régime repose sur la réduction calorique un point c'est tout !




En fait la perte de poids de tout régime repose sur la réduction calorique, un point c’est tout !


Pas d'effets thérapeutiques sur le diabète de type 2


Une étude très médiatisée mais non randomisée attribue au régime cétogène une réduction de 1,3 % de l'HbA1c à un an. Mais le groupe cétogène était hypersélectionné et avait reçu un soutien technologique et comportemental intensif, pas le groupe témoin ! Les études randomisées à long terme (≥ 1 an) racontent une tout autre histoire, et une méta-analyse n'a révélé aucune différence de contrôle glycémique dans le DT2, ni en termes de perte de poids.


Dans le diabète de type 1, le régime cétogène provoque un risque considérable – et déjà constaté surtout en Allemagne mais aussi dans les zones frontalières où il se développe – d'hypoglycémies d'une part et d'acidocétoses d'autre part, du fait des réductions considérables des doses d'insuline.


Des risques pour la santé


Aujourd'hui, aucune étude n'a évalué les événements cardiovasculaires ou la mortalité dans les régimes cétogènes, mais des études d'observation montrent que les régimes faibles en glucides s'accompagnent d'une augmentation de la mortalité toutes causes !


Sur les taux de lipides circulants, rien n'est clair, le LDL et l'APoB ne semblent aucunement améliorés, malgré la perte de poids sous régime cétogène. Les autres effets délétères de ces régimes portent sur des accidents chez les sujets à risque d'épilepsie, une asthénie et de la faiblesse chronique, des troubles intestinaux, de la constipation ou diarrhées, quelques arythmies cardiaques sévères par carence en sélénium, une halitose, des crampes musculaires, des céphalées, des cas de pancréatites et d'innombrables carences en vitamines et en minéraux. Chez les adolescents, on a relevé une croissance perturbée avec un risque fracturaire accru.


Enfin comment manger de façon si inhabituelle et durablement, sans conséquences sur sa sociabilité ?


Le pire : l'absence des éléments nutritionnels qui protègent les individus


Le régime cétogène se caractérise aussi par l'absence de glucides riches en fibres et non raffinés, de graines, de fruits, de légumineuses, autant d'éléments qui caractérisent les aliments les plus bénéfiques pour la santé – ce bénéfice ayant été démontré par des études majeures – et qui n'induisent en rien l'épidémie de DT2 et d'obésité… Presque tous les experts s'accordent pour dire qu'il faut éviter les aliments riches en glucides raffinés hautement transformés. Brouiller cette distinction essentielle entre les glucides raffinés et non raffinés et exclure les deux est une affirmation toxique.




Brouiller cette distinction essentielle entre les glucides raffinés et non raffinés et exclure les deux est une affirmation toxique


Le faux exemple des Inuits circumpolaires


Et non, le cas des Inuits circumpolaires ne peut servir d'exemple, car cette population, qui se nourrit par la force des choses de presque aucun glucide, présente une mutation génétique largement répandue réduisant la production de cétones.


À l'opposé, certaines populations, comme en Grèce et au Japon, ont une alimentation dont la part en glucides est supérieure à 50 % des calories quotidiennes, avec des effets sur la longévité parfaitement connus.


Professeur émérite, université Grenoble-Alpes
(1) Shivam Joshi, Robert J. Ostfeld, Michelle McMacken. The Ketogenic Diet for Obesity and Diabetes—Enthusiasm Outpaces Evidence. JAMA Intern Med. Published online July 15, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2633
(2) Dr. Atkins' diet revolution. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1973 May 11;15(10):41-2."


https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/specialites/diabetologie-endocrinologie/le-regime-cetogene-lintox?xtor=EPR-12-%5BDiabeto%5D-%5B20190916%5D&fbclid=IwAR0W3V1XBEYC68QcCgwb1W9sRnRgbtcYyG8g93Bnsi1WDcXU29B6yqlKJNk#utm_source=emailing_spe_qdm&utm_campaign=Diabeto&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20190916

Une analyse intéressante

"Ce résumé de l'article de S. Joshi est intéressant car il expose une vision qui nie toute importance de réduire les HC dans le DT2 et le SM. En réalité il y a beaucoup de confusion dans cet exposé. 1/ il ne peut y avoir un régime universel avec des % de macro-nutriments qui conviennent à tout le monde 2/ pour les obésités androïdes les SM et le DT2 il y a une intolérance aux HC et le nier est aussi erroné que de prôner le régime cétogène à tort et à travers. Il ne viendrait à l'idée de personne de prescrire une quantité minimale d'HC à un patient intolérant au lactose par exemple. Il faut donc rétablir une vérité logique le régime cétogène n'est pas un régime bas en HC c'est un régime d'exclusion des HC. Le régime cétogène prône une réduction des HC à moins de 50 voire 20 g/j. En effet le régime cétogène (qui en réalité n'est pas fait par grand monde et qui est difficile à piloter) n'a pas d'intérêt en dehors de ... l'épilepsie et dans un contexte médicalisé. Il est exact de dire que pour certains phénotypes avoir 200 g/l de LDL cholestérol n'est pas sans risque. Enfin sa pratique conduit à l'exclusion de certains aliments entiers notamment végétaux qui n'est pas sans conséquence micro-nutritionnelles. Mais Mr Halimi voudrait jeter le low carb avec l'eau du bain cétogénique. C'est un amalgame et il est infondé. Réduire les calories et les HC produit de bons résultats dans le DT2 et le SM car dès que l'insulinorésistance est là maintenir 50% d'HC est un obstacle et un danger du point de vue des complications dues à la glycation. Les études observationnelles sur la mortalité toutes causes dans les régimes low carb sont comme toutes les études observationnelles sans grande signification et les auteurs le soulignent. On ne peut éviter la causalité inverse chez ces patients. Au total il est totalement contreproductif de mélanger low carb et cétogène. C'est passer à côté des effets que beaucoup de patients attestent et de nombreux patients médecins. Les études randomisées sont en cours certaines sont publiées et elles ne vont pas dans le sens de cet amalgame. Ce qui est certain par contre c'est que la déferlante de sucres ajoutés et d'HC non cellulaires (céréales) doit être expliquée au public pour que chacun puisse choisir les HC et en réduire la partie la plus nocive."

From metal to chemical and eventually to biocompound: save your teeth!

https://www.intelligentliving.co/scientists-develop-gel-regrow-tooth-enamel/

Subsidies are a poison for farmers and they probably do not incentive extensive grass fed cattle management

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/16/1m-a-minute-the-farming-subsidies-destroying-the-world?fbclid=IwAR2Ar_egDkzrjlZebmoR4E7nwytN-d0w2ricdxB0bNWTK2AyLY_AVGkS6eE


https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-to-get-rid-of-carbon-emissions-pay-farmers-to-bury-them-11568211869?fbclid=IwAR0zZWSkMDpkobvOar7vOrsKITqmYKs1h7S9dybQaZ-8xAk_vVQWWzQ61is

samedi 14 septembre 2019

Encore un journaliste qui se trompe de wiki pour faire des recettes paleo

https://www.santeplusmag.com/
Ils ont tout faux surtout ne suivez pas ces recettes...
Des céréales et des produits laitiers au paléolithique ? Ils sont fous!

dimanche 8 septembre 2019

We are frequently sick in the new environment


Why Are Humans Always So Sick?


By Charles Q. Choi May 04, 2009 Health








Super-hygiene, sedentary lifestyles, and a lack of worms in our stomachs may all contribute to modern ills, scientists theorize. Image
(Image: © Dreamstime)


The swine flu outbreak this spring is just the latest in the mountain of ailments that seem to beset humanity, from the incurable common cold to each potentially deadly cancer diagnosed at the rate of every 30 seconds in the United States.

So is our species sicker than it has ever been? Or is our current lot far better than it used to be?

It turns out the answer to both questions might be yes. While humans as a whole do live longer than ever before, we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.

Among the possible causes for our modern ills: super-hygiene, sedentary lifestyles, and a lack of worms in our stomachs.



Life expectancy shot up dramatically on average across the world during the 20th century, increasing from just age 30 or so in 1900 to roughly age 67 now. (It’s not that many people didn’t live to ripe old ages back then. Rather, the shift was due in large part to vast reductions in the number of infant deaths, which brought the average way down.) In 1900, there was just one country worldwide where under one in ten children died before their first birthday, while now out of the 187 nations for which there is data, this holds true for 168. These striking changes are due in large part to improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine.

"As a world population, on average we are far healthier than before," said historian of medicine Naomi Rogers at Yale University.

Modern ailments

Infectious diseases once were the main cause of death worldwide, "but around 1950 or so, there was a moment called the epidemiological transition, a long term that just means that in most Western nations, chronic diseases became the major causes of disability and death instead," Rogers explained.

Although infectious diseases seemed to Westerners to only be a "back then" or Third World problem for decades, ever since HIV in the 1980s and 1990s, "I think that element of hubris is gone," Rogers added. "But the infrastructure of public health facilities that responded to infectious disease and epidemics that disappeared in the United States has only slowly been rebuilt, and there's now that shock that comes with new epidemics."

The modern era has brought a unique host of problems. The number of American children with chronic illnesses has roughly quadrupled in the past 50 years, including an almost fourfold increase in childhood obesity in the past three decades and twice the asthma rates since the 1980s.

"It's a combination of environment and lifestyle," Rogers said. People are more sedentary and less physically active than before, and fast food is more available.

"A powerful way of thinking of metabolic problems such as obesity and diabetes regards toxic environments," she explained. "One study showed that pregnant women living in areas that had large numbers of fast food places gained very unhealthy levels of weight during pregnancy compared with pregnant women who maybe lived a mile further away. That's a toxic environment. So the society we live in has its own dangers."



Body fights itself

Unusually, the number of ailments involving malfunctions of the immune system has gone up as well.

Multiple sclerosis, a disease where the fatty insulation around the nervous system comes under attack, appears to be on the rise, and type I diabetes, "a childhood form of diabetes almost unheard of at the turn of the 20th century, is up from one in 5,000 or 10,000 to one in 250 in some regions," said Joel Weinstock, chief of gastroenterology at Tufts University Medical Center in Massachusetts.

Even hay fever, which plagues roughly 1 out of 4 people in the United States, is something that may have largely emerged only in the 20th century, Weinstock said "What if I told you that there are some countries that don't even know what hay fever is?" he asked.

The rise of these disorders might be due to the very improvements in hygiene that have helped reduce infections in much of the world. The body's immune system is regularly exposed to antigens, molecules that it recognizes and reacts to, such as compounds from viruses or bacteria.

"But the immune system needs to be controlled, needs to not act up when exposed to things that aren't truly injuring you," Weinstock explained. "What we think is happening is the regulation mechanisms are becoming less effective. As to why that is, is it possible that it's due to lack of exposure to antigens? Do you need to be exposed regularly to antigens for it to work properly?"

You need worms

For instance, many fewer people are infected with worms than before.

"If you look back at the human race in the 20th century, every child and adult had worms in their gastrointestinal tracts," Weinstock said. "They were part of the ecosystem of the gut. As it turns out, worms are very potent at controlling immune reactions, in order to live happily ever after in the gut. Our theory is that when we started deworming the population, that is one factor that led to the rise in immunological diseases."

As part of this "hygiene hypothesis," Weinstock also notes that dirt roads, horses and cattle used to be far more prevalent in life than they are now.

"Our theory is that when we moved to this super-hygiene environment, which only occurred in the last 50 to 100 years, this led to immune disregulation," he said. "We're not saying that sanitation is not a good thing — we don't want people to jog up to river banks and get indiscriminately contaminated. But we might want to better understand what factors in hygiene are healthy and what are probably detrimental, to establish a new balance and hopefully have the best of both worlds."