Today I decided to dig into the published scientific literature on chromium picolinate for weight loss. My first step was to search PubMed on the keyword phrase, “chromium picolinate weight,” just to see what might come up. The initial result was a listing of 139 articles between 1973 and 2010.

A quick perusal of these titles showed that many of them entailed research on livestock, mostly pigs, chickens, and cattle. Some of the research used lab research animals, mostly rats. And a couple dozen or so were human clinical studies.

Much to my chagrin, none of the studies began with a dosage evaluation. This means that instead they chose a single dosage, anywhere from 200 to 1,000 micrograms per day, and conducted all of their experiments based on that dosage.

The main weakness with this approach is that right up front it eliminates any possibility for finding an effective dose. At least one study did, however, mention in the conclusions that dosage might be better determined based on a person’s weight. No study suggested that the chosen dosage might be too low to give a positive result. In my experience all of the dosages were too low for body weights above 100 pounds!

It should be no surprise, therefore, that many of the clinical studies showed no effect on weight or body composition. Some studies did result in weight loss at the higher dosage levels.

The True Effect of Chromium Picolinate for Weight Loss

The key effect seems to come through on separate studies involving people with diabetes. Chromium picolinate clearly helps restore insulin sensitivity in those who have lost some of it as their diabetes developed.

What I would like to see now is research on how important this finding might be for millions of people who are on the way to developing diabetes. Diabetes is a sneaky ‘spectrum disorder’ that gets started before clinical symptoms appear, a non-condition that doctors refer to as pre-diabetes. This spectrum goes from early pre-diabetes, all the way through complete insulin resistance, to full-fledged pancreatic failure.

If you have been obese or severely overweight for some time, or your weight has bounced up and down, you are most certainly pre-diabetic. Whether you reach a clinical diagnosis of diabetes will depend on what you can do to slow down the development of insulin resistance. Chromium picolinate supplements are probably going to be important for this purpose, at higher dosages than 1,000 micrograms per day. In fact, I already take twice that amount myself, 1,000 micrograms at lunch and another 1,000 micrograms at dinner.

What About Chromium Picolinate Side Effects?

Medical reports on side effects are more uneven than the studies on weight loss. Some researchers suggest that there are none. A couple of case studies report liver and kidney problems from chromium supplementation. Since a case study is a report on a single patient, it is impossible to extrapolate the results to whether they apply to you. Indeed, some people undoubtedly respond to chromium differently.

One study even suggested that certain patients were responders while others were non-responders. I suggest that responsive is a combination of individual physiology along with where on the diabetes spectrum someone might be. This is definitely an important direction for future research.

The best recommendation for someone who is concerned with side effects is to establish baseline levels of the liver and kidney enzymes that indicate the health of these organs. These are widely available lab tests. Then follow any possible changes in these levels every few months to see whether chromium might be causing a rise in these enzymes. Most people, however, will be able to take chromium picolinate supplements without worry.

All the best,

Dr. D

Common advice on how to lose belly fat by dieting is mostly wrong, even from medical doctors who should know better. Advice generally focuses on restricting calories, which is a dead-end strategy that rarely works. Eating less does not cause fat loss.
.

Bad Advice on How to Lose Belly Fat

Losing weight does not equal losing fat. Yes, restricting food intake on a low-calorie diet will lead to weight loss. However, it will include loss of lean body mass – specifically, muscle loss. This is a given.

It is rather surprising, therefore, to see the widespread advice from nutritionists, trainers, and even medical doctors, that people should eat less to lose weight. Losing weight is not the goal. Losing fat is.

If you want to know how to lose belly fat, simply eating less is bad advice.

Scary Truth About Body Fat Composition

Your body fat percent increases as you age, even if your weight stays the same!

Scientists have discovered a range of body fat percentages that they recommend for optimum health. The numbers show a steady increase, even when people are healthy – i.e., not overweight. The numbers are always higher for women than for men, and they increase with age.

Women

20 to 40 yrs, 21 to 33 percent fat
41 to 60 yrs, 23 to 35 percent fat
61 to 79 yrs, 24 to 36 percent fat

Men

20 to 40 yrs, 8 to 19 percent fat
41 to 60 yrs, 11 to 22 percent fat
61 to 79 yrs, 13 to 25 percent fat

These are the target ranges for good health. It is probably obvious that being above these ranges is the foundation for overweight (i.e., overfat) and obesity. There may be no limit to how high it can go. One of my clients, a woman in her 50s, measured at 48 percent body fat. Wow!

What Does Dieting Do?

As a first example, let’s start with a healthy man, aged 42, who eats according to all the dogmatic advice on what is good for human health. He keeps his weight steady over the years at about 180 lbs. If his body fat composition in his 20s was 15 percent, in his 40s and 50s it will probably increase to 18 percent, and in his sixties it will continue to crawl upward past 20 percent. Remember: He is healthy and maintaining ideal weight.

In the second example, his high school buddy, who at one time was about the same size, has ballooned to 250 lbs. and 33 percent body fat. Regardless of what he did to get into that predicament, think about what might happen if he suddenly began eating the same diet – i.e., amount, quality, frequency – of his healthy buddy: Nothing!

The ‘healthy’ buddy is already increasing his body fat composition on this diet!

By the time the overweight friend peaked out at 250 lbs. (so far), his body had already become already insulin resistant (pre-diabetic), leptin resistant (not responding to his own master fat hormone), estrogen dominant (fat cells making estrogen), and growth hormone deficient. He had become overfat, no longer healthy, and had begun suffering from multiple hormone imbalances.

Suggesting that he diet by restricting calories, especially by going ‘low-fat’, is the worst possible strategy for returning to his ideal weight and body fat composition. All it will do is lower his metabolic rate, cause loss of lean body mass, make him frequently hungry, and put him into a never-ending downward spiral of eating less and less to keep his weight down. If he sticks with it long enough, he will jeopardize his health in numerous ways. More than likely, he will not stick with it and will gain rebound weight with a vengeance.

What Can Be Done Instead?

Eating right, of course, is a good foundation. Without it, other strategies will either not work very well or not work at all. When you understand that hormone imbalance is the biggest obstacle, then addressing this issue is the most important step. The obvious challenges, of course, are to know what ‘eating right’ really means and to know how to boost the hormones that should be working for you instead of against you.

Oh, and by the way, when you do what it takes to improve your hormone balance, you might be surprised that your body fat percent does not climb as you age. In fact, the ‘norms’ in the tables above are only accepted as such because that is what our ‘healthy’ population variation shows. This is a bit of circular reasoning. The reality is that your body composition doesn’t have to change at all as you age.

All the possible strategies on how to burn belly fat add up to a lot of information to digest at once (pardon the pun). It is way too much information to include in a simple blog post like this one. In fact, it is enough to make a whole book, which I have done. If you are really interested in seeing what you can and should do to reduce excess fat, take a look at the table of contents here: Belly Fat Book, then ask me for a free copy.

I think it has some great advice on how to lose belly fat. Maybe I am biased, though, since I wrote it!

All the best on how to lose belly fat,

Dr. D

MSG side effects include weight gain and brain damage. The nasty thing about this food additive is that it disrupts the leptin signaling pathway, which regulates fat metabolism. It is tricky to know where MSG is in your diet. Here is what you should know about what it does and how to avoid it.
.
.
.
.

Image source: MSG: Hidden Sources

MSG Side Effects Research on Weight Gain

Scientists are finally starting to study how MSG causes weight gain. Here are some of the more recent references in the medical literature, with full abstracts. The highlighted text points out the main point of each article.

1. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jun;93(6):1328-36. Epub 2011 Apr 6.

BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer, is positively associated with weight gain, which influences energy balance through the disruption of the hypothalamic signaling cascade of leptin action.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the longitudinal association between MSG consumption and incidence of overweight.
DESIGN: Data were collected from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS), a prospective open-cohort, ongoing nationwide health and nutrition survey, consisting of 10,095 apparently healthy Chinese adults aged 18-65 y at entry from1991 to 2006. Diet, including MSG and other condiments, was assessed with a weighed food inventory in combination with three 24-h recalls. Incident overweight was defined as a body mass index (BMI; in kg/m(2)) ? 25 or ?23 based on World Health Organization recommendations for Asian populations. Multilevel mixed-effects models were constructed to estimate change in BMI, and Cox regression models with gamma shared frailty were used to determine the incidence of overweight.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 5.5 y. The cumulative mean (±SD) MSG intake of 2.2 ± 1.6 g/d was positively associated with BMI after adjustment for potential confounders and cluster effects at different levels (individual, household, and community). The adjusted hazard ratio of overweight was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.75; P for trend < 0.01) for participants in the highest quintile of MSG intake compared with those in the lowest quintile after adjustment for age, physical activity, total energy intake, and other major lifestyle factors.
CONCLUSIONS: MSG consumption was positively, longitudinally associated with overweight development among apparently healthy Chinese adults. Additional studies are needed to elucidate mechanisms of action and to establish causal inference.

2. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008 Aug;16(8):1875-80. Epub 2008 May 22.

Animal studies indicate that monosodium glutamate (MSG) can induce hypothalamic lesions and leptin resistance, possibly influencing energy balance, leading to overweight. This study examines the association between MSG intake and overweight in humans. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 752 healthy Chinese (48.7% women), aged 40-59 years, randomly sampled from three rural villages in north and south China. The great majority of participants prepared their foods at home, without use of commercially processed foods. Diet was assessed with four in-depth multipass 24-h recalls. Participants were asked to demonstrate MSG amounts added in food preparation. Amounts shaken out were weighed by trained interviewers. Overweight was defined as BMI > or =25.0 or > or =23.0 kg/m(2)(based on World Health Organization recommendations for Asian populations). Eighty-two percent of participants were MSG users. Average intake was 0.33 g/day (s.d. = 0.40). With adjustment for potential confounders including physical activity and total energy intake, MSG intake was positively related to BMI. Prevalence of overweight was significantly higher in MSG users than nonusers. For users in the highest tertile of MSG intake compared to nonusers, the multivariable-adjusted odds ratios of overweight (BMI > or =23.0 and > or =25.0) were 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.90, P for trend across four MSG categories = 0.03) and 2.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.95, P = 0.04). This research provides data that MSG intake may be associated with increased risk of overweight independent of physical activity and total energy intake in humans.

MSG Side Effects Research on Brain Damage

3. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Sep;16(7):965-8.

World-wide obesity has risen to alarming levels. The average weight of German conscripts now increases by almost 400 g/year. Similar data were obtained in Austria, Norway and the UK. The rising prevalence of obesity coincides with a rising popularity of protein-rich diets. On average, Germans consume meat at 100 kg/year. Children eat some threefold more protein than recommended; infants of 6 to 12 months receive daily up to 5 g/kg body weight of protein. We hypothesise that it is not the protein, but the amino acid glutamate that determines the propensity of obesity. Chronic hyperglutamataemia may intoxicate arcuate nucleus (AN) neurons, thereby disrupting the hypothalamic signalling cascade of leptin action, causing hyperphagia, obesity and hyperleptinaemia. Hyperleptinaemia also exerts sympathetic effects including blood pressure elevation that are mediated via mechanisms different from the hypothalamic system, and other symptoms of the ‘metabolic syndrome’. This may happen even before birth when in small-for-gestational-age foetuses with impaired umbilical plasma flow, foetal hyperglutamataemia induces AN damage followed by later impairment of feeding regulation, hyperleptinaemia and symptoms that characterise the ‘thrifty phenotype’. We suggest abandoning the flavouring agent monosodium glutamate and reconsidering the recommended daily allowances of protein and amino acids, particularly during pregnancy.

Laboratory scientists use MSG as a research tool. In the article below, researchers wanted to know how leptin might be involved with certain brain receptors in the hypothalamus. They damaged these brain receptors experimentally with MSG, then followed the response of leptin (aka, the ‘master fat hormone’).

4. Am J Physiol. 1997 Jul;273(1 Pt 1):E202-6.

Leptin is a protein secreted by adipocytes that is important in regulating appetite and adiposity. Recent studies have suggested the presence of leptin receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (ANH). Neonatal administration of monosodium glutamate (MSG) damages the ANH, resulting in obesity and neuroendocrine dysfunction. Neonatal administration of MSG was utilized to test the hypothesis that the anatomic site for many of leptin’s actions is the ANH. Female control (n = 6) and MSG-treated rats (n = 7) were implanted for 14 days with osmotic minipumps containing phosphate-buffered saline or leptin (1 mg.kg-1.day-1). Leptin suppressed (P < 0.05) body weight gain in controls but did not suppress weight gain in MSG-treated rats. Leptin decreased (P < 0.05) fat depots in controls but had no effect in MSG-treated rats. Night feeding was suppressed (P < 0.05) in leptin-treated control rats. MSG-treated rats showed a suppression in food intake that was of a smaller magnitude and appeared later in the course of leptin treatment. These findings suggest that leptin mediates some physiological actions related to fat mobilization via receptors located in the ANH.

Where Do You Get MSG in Your Diet?

This is very tricky, since there are so many ways that food manufacturers can include MSG in their products without having to list it directly on the label. Here is one of the best sources of information on this topic that I have found:

MSG – Hidden Sources

Weight gain is just one of the known MSG side effects. It is worthwhile to be careful to avoid this additive whenever you can.

Updating MSG side effects,

Dr. D

Lose sleep and see your unwanted weight gain increase. This is a simple concept that many people do nothing about. The easiest strategy of all for losing belly fat might just be to get better sleep. Take a look at this research and see what you can do..
.
.
.
.

Sleep Study on Weight Gain

Here is the original scientific research and the published abstract. The main point is highlighted with a yellow background.

Sleep. 2010 May;33(5):593-8.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess associations between sleep duration, sleep stages, and central obesity in women.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: City of Uppsala, Sweden.
PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of 400 women (range 20-70 years).
INTERVENTIONS: Full-night polysomnography and measurement of anthropometric variables.
MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Sleep duration was inversely related to both waist circumference and sagittal abdominal diameter. Sleep duration remained inversely related to waist circumference (adj. beta = -1.22 cm/h; P = 0.016) and sagittal
abdominal diameter (adj. beta = -0.46 cm/h; P = 0.001) after adjusting for potential confounders. Duration of slow wave sleep (SWS, adj. beta = -0.058 cm/min; P = 0.025) and REM sleep (adj. beta = -0.062 cm/min; P = 0.002) were both inversely related to waist circumference afteradjustments. Moreover,duration of REM sleep was inversely related to sagittal abdominal diameter (adj. beta = -0.021 cm/min; P < 0.0001). These associations were stronger in young women (age < 50 years).
CONCLUSION: An inverse relationship between short sleep duration and central obesity was found in women after adjusting for confounders. Loss of SWS and REM sleep may be important factors in the association between sleep loss and central
obesity.

And…

Again with the main point highlighted:

Sleep. 2010 May;33(5):573-4.

The association between sleep disorders and obesity has been recognized for many years. From the first descrition of Joe the “Fat Boy” who fell asleep in any situation at any time of day (The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens), to the large sophisticated studies in clinical and general populations, the association of sleep apnea and obesity has proven to be one of the most well-established facts in the sleep medicine literature. In 2004-2005, the field was jolted by a series of publications on the association of short sleep duration and obesity. Several epidemiologic studies showed a consistent association between self-reported sleep duration and body mass index (BMI),1-2 whereas experimental laboratory studies showed that curtailment of sleep in healthy subjects leads to increased appetite and reduction of leptin, a hormone that suppresses appetite.3 The message from these novel findings was simple and exciting, “Sleep more and you will lose weight.” This message also had a significant public health impact, given the epidemic of obesity that Western countries have been experiencing since at least the 1980s.

How to Get Better Sleep

Let me count the ways…

Okay, it may not be easy to do everything that you can to get better sleep. The idea behind this post came from a list of suggestions by Dr. Mehmet Oz in Parade magazine. Take a look and see what you can do: Dr. Oz to the Rescue! How to Sleep Better in 2012

For me, the easiest piece of advice from Dr. Oz that I can (and do) follow is to take a natural sleep remedy. He suggests melatonin and valerian root as good examples. The only part of that advice that I would object to is the amount of melatonin he recommends – 2.5 mg. That may help some folks, although it isn’t very much. I get a lot better results with 20 mg. It may take you some experimentation to find out what is ideal for you. Younger people generally require less, since their natural melatonin production hasn’t dropped off as much as mine has.

For reversing unwanted weight gain,

Dr. D

The new USDA MyPlate diet advice dooms Michelle Obama’s campaign against obesity to fail. If anything, in the world of body fat loss information overload, it is just another special interest diet. It serves the special interests of agribusiness, not of human health. What a shame.

MyPlate – Another $2 Million Down the Tubes

The ChooseMyPlate project has so far cost about $2 million to develop educational materials, a website, and an upcoming educational campaign. Unfortunately, this replacement for the USDA food pyramid is, at best, a pathetically inadequate step forward.

In fact, the best advice on the new website isn’t even depicted on the diagram at all. It is buried in the last line of the recommendations that are listed immediately below the image of the new MyPlate.

I’ve cut and pasted the table from the new website (it is public property, right?) right here so you can see it in its entirety. I’ll comment on the major flaws of MyPlate shortly. For now I’ll just say that the problem of obesity and all of its associated health issues would be a lot smaller if everyone would just follow the recommendation at the very bottom of this table.

Take a look:

The best advice…

I’d say that this advice doesn’t go far enough. An improvement would be a list of Foods to Eliminate Completely. If the only item was ‘sugary drinks’ we’d all take a big step toward better weight management and better health.

Starting With the Good News

I don’t want to come across as a nattering nabob of negativism, so I’ll point out some of the good news about replacing the old USDA food pyramid. In case you don’t remember this all-important foundation of dietary recommendations from your government (how could you forget?), here it is in all its glory:

Good-bye to the top and the bottom…

MyPlate has no equivalent to the top of the pyramid: fats, oils (added or not) and sugars (added). Can you believe that added sugars were, up until just a few short months ago, anywhere on a government-recommended diet? Well, they were!

What happened to the bottom of the pyramid – 6 to 11 servings per day from the ‘Bread, Cereal, Rice, and Pasta Group’? It seems to be gone, which would be good news. Unfortunately, it is still there, cleverly (and poorly) disguised as the new ‘Grains’ food group.

If you are confused about what I am implying about grains – i.e., that they should NOT be included in a recommended diet – then you’re right. See what I’ve got to say about it below.

Biggest Flaws on MyPlate

Flaw #1: GRAINS

Yup. That’s what I said. Let me support this claim with a little biological reasoning, then I’ll offer some modern research about it. My reasoning goes like this:

Grains became a major component of the human diet less than 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture. Human dietary needs evolved long before that, in the absence or near absence of grains. We are simply not adapted to eating a grain-based diet.

Okay, so what’s wrong with grains, you may ask? Plenty! Even wth the so-called good stuff – i.e., whole grains.

Too much grain fiber is an irritant. A couple of scientists think this is a good thing: “When you eat high-fiber foods, they bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering. What we are saying is this banging and tearing increases the level of lubricating mucus. It’s a good thing.” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060823093156.htm).

Really? Tearing up cells by rupturing their membranes is a good thing? IBS anyone? I think some of my colleagues ought to get out into the real world more.

A couple of other things: Grains are famous for their toxic anti-nutrients. These include,

Lectins. Lectins are bad proteins. They bind to insulin receptors, bind to human intestinal lining, and they seemingly cause leptin resistance. Resistance to this master fat hormone leads to obesity and deterioration into a full-blown metabolic syndrome. How much fun do you want?

Gluten. At least folks are starting to notice gluten intolerance. This can be so bad that cutting grains out of the diet is like a miracle in health-recovery. And gluten is not just a problem for the ‘intolerant’ among us.

Phytates. These long-chain molecules are crucial for the healthy biology of the plants that product them. Unfortunately for you, they bind to nutrients in your gut and basically make minerals bio-UNavailable.

There is a book-length amount of information in the medical research literature on the topic of why grains are not good for your health. I am not surprised, however, that a federal commission to fight obesity missed this body of work entirely. Are we talking about a federal commission that just may have been influenced by special interests? Yup.

After all, if people actually improved their diets by eliminating grains, what would happen to poor little ol’ Monsanto?

Plenty More Details on Grains

You can make the study of this topic into a hobby or avocation. It’s that big. Barring that, I’ll just get you started on one of the best sources of information on this topic that I know of, at a blog by Mark Sisson, called Mark’s Daily Apple. I suggest that you begin with the following post: The Definitive Guide to Grains. In fact, you can get even more great information if you just search on ‘grains’ at his blog.

Flaw #2: FATS AND OILS

Oops. Did you not notice the fats and oils on MyPlate? Oh, that’s because there aren’t any there at all! We finally see the end point of the paranoia about fats and oils that started with George McGovern’s misguided Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs in the 1970s. This was probably the most influential official body for recommending a reduced-fat diet. It launched the idiotic low-fat food craze.

Now we have apparently lost one of the ‘Big 3′ food groups – fats and oils. This is not to say that fats are not important in the new diet. You just have to hunt for them. I found a small section on ‘Oils’ by scrolling down to the bottom half of the homepage. So oils are there – whew! I did find this quote, though: “Oils are NOT a food group, but they provide essential nutrients.”

Unfortunately, I found even more mindless dogma about fats and oils … such as ‘eat more polyunsaturated fats’ and ‘eat low fat foods’.

By the way, the only prominent mention of fats in the upper half of the homepage is under ‘Foods to Increase’ – and this is only to suggest switching to fat-free or low-fat milk. Also mindless.

In reality, the bottom line is that you should have a substantial amount of dietary fat of the right types to stay healthy, regardless of what Dr. Dean Ornish and his low-fat ilk claim. Here is a little sample of why fats are important (from Mark’s Daily Apple again … good stuff): The Definitive Guide to Fats. This is a great introductory essay on this topic. It is especially important in light of the removal of fats as a food group by the federal FatFascists. (Did I really say that?)

One more thing. You must have heard about essential fatty acids by now. Essential, in this case, means: Eat some or die. Maybe that seems a little overdramatic. Nevertheless, you have to have essential fatty acids in your diet if you want any semblance of good health.

Flaw #3: DAIRY

Let me start with something that I relate to personally: lactose intolerance. (Lactose is otherwise known as ‘milk sugar’.) This not an allergy. It is an enzyme deficiency. I developed it in adulthood, which is typical. A glass of milk for me is a disaster. I am not alone.

Here are a few comments from Medscape on the topic of lactose intolerance that should enlighten you a little more about dairy products (bolding is mine):

Lactose intolerance is a common disorder and is due to the inability to digest lactose into its constituents, glucose and galactose. Symptoms of lactose intolerance include loose stools, abdominal bloating and pain, flatulence, nausea, and borborygmi. A diagnosis or even the suggestion of lactose intolerance leads many people to avoid milk and/or to consume specially prepared food with digestive aids, adding to health care costs.

The prevalence of primary lactose intolerance varies according to race. As many as 25 percent of the white population (prevalence in those from southern European roots) is estimated to have lactose intolerance, while among black, Native American, and Asian American populations, the prevalence of lactose intolerance is estimated at 75-90 percent.

It seems richly ironic, don’t you think, that we have our first African-American first lady, who endorses a dietary recommendation that is detrimental to 75-90 percent of the African-American population in the U.S.? Awesome!

By the way, you may wonder about how to get your dietary calcium if you reduce or cut out dairy. This points to a myth about dairy being a good source of calcium. It is not. It never has been. The dairy industry has pulled a fast one on you there. Better sources of calcium include almost any green leafy vegetable. You can even eat powdered oyster shells, or any other source of calcium carbonate (aka, rocks), and get plenty of calcium into your system as long as you eat them with other foods. No kidding.

Lots of toxins also show up in milk, perhaps the worst being alflatoxins. Aflatoxins come from molds that infect grains that are fed to milk cows. These are very nasty toxins! There is almost no way to avoid them. They are allowed in all commercial milk supplies. A little story: In the 1970s, right after I arrived in Arizona, the Arizona Dairy Association had a little PR problem regarding aflatoxins in our milk here. Too many commercial samples exceeded the maximum allowable level of aflatoxins. So what they did was redefine the allowable amount to a much higher level. Problem solved.

The major milk protein, casein, must be the cheapest protein on Earth. It is in everything, including ‘non-dairy’ creamers of all kinds. (Isn’t that an oxymoron?) Casein is not so hot as a source of dietary protein. It may even cause health problems, if we are to believe what T. Colin Campbell describes in his book, The China Study, on the role of casein in the development of liver cancer. Just a thought.

Other Flaws

Fruits are good for you, of course. Some are much better for you than others. Unfortunately, some are the dietary equivalent of candy. Recommendations on the MyPlate diet do not provide any direction on which fruits are preferable. I would hope that the educational materials that are under development for the MyPlate project will make that clear. We’ll see.

I’d say the same thing about vegetables, especially when it comes to distinguishing the low dietary value of belowground vegetables, which are generally starchy storage organs, vs. the high dietary value of aboveground vegetables. For example, green and other colorful veggies are far, far better than potatoes. This kind of information is not yet available for the MyPlate diet. I hope it appears soon.

Sidebar: The Myth About Carbohydrates

The myth is that you must have carbohydrates in your diet. Actually, you don’t. Your body can make all the carbohydrate it needs from fat and protein. This is well-known biochemically. Indeed, Inuit cultures have historically lived for extensive periods each year without consuming any carbohydrate whatsoever. No fruits or veggies at all. They enjoy great health anyway. They don’t even suffer from vitamin C deficiency, even though they get none – zero, nada, zip, zilch – in their diet during these periods. This is an interesting story by itself. I’ll hold off on explaining that one at some other time. For now, I’ll just reiterate that you don’t need to consume carbohydrates at all.

This means that the only food groups that you MUST consume are … drumroll … protein and fats. Indeed, the importance of fats is so well-established that it is the subject of one of the most important books that I have ever found on the topic, by ‘Dr. Oil’ himself, Udo Erasmus: Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill: The Complete Guide to Fats, Oils, Cholesterol and Human Health. You can find it online at Amazon and other booksellers. I also suggest that you see what this is all about by visiting Dr. Erasmus’ website: http://www.udoerasmus.com/.

Then take a wild guess on what he thinks about the feds eliminating fats as a food group.

How to Eat: Go Primal

All you have to do is think about what our pre-agriculture diet might have been and follow that. Actually, you don’t have to come up with it yourself, since plenty of other thoughtful folks have already done it for you. One fellow whom I have mentioned in this post already is Mark Sisson. His blog is one of the best, and he makes the most sense to me from a scientific perspective. He also writes well and explains things clearly.

One final time, then, I will send you to Mark’s Daily Apple. This time check out what he describes as the most important way for you to eat, for all the right reasons and for getting all the results that you want for your body. Start here: The Definitive Guide to the Primal Eating Plan.

I know that I have given you a lot to mull over. I’ve got a library of other books, articles, and research publications that I could suggest to you. For now, just take in the main notion that I’ve put forth here: Federal dietary recommendations, no matter what celebrity endorses them, are at best inadequate, verging on downright bad. Your best bet is to ‘Go Primal’ as much as you can.

A Semi-Political Comment

Regarding Obamacare, or any other healthcare (aka, sickness care) plan that you can imagine or have heard of: Stay out of it. Estimates are that 75 percent of healthcare costs in the U.S. are related to lifestyle choices. Bad ones, apparently. This is a growing anchor on the American economy.

Avoid personal involvement in this whole mess. Make good choices for your health and stick to them. This is good for you, your family, your community, your country, and your world.

That should cover it.

All the best,
Dr. D
(Dennis)

Atkins diet reviews often de-emphasize the critical role of the Atkins diet induction phase. This phase must be followed closely to reset the metabolism of carbohydrates that cause weight gain. Fortunately, this phase is temporary, usually two weeks long, not a lifelong strategy. Here are the keys to succeeding with the right start during the induction phase..
.
.
.

Following The Atkins Diet Induction Phase

The Atkins Diet induction phase lasts from two weeks to a year depending on the total amount of weight that must be lost. During the first two weeks of this phase most individuals will lose around ten percent of their excess body weight. Sometimes it is recommended to continue the induction process until individuals have half met their ultimate weight loss goals. After induction is complete, the next step is following the ongoing weight loss diet.

While undergoing the process of induction, food should be eaten at least every six hours that an individual is awake. There are no rules for the number of meals consumed. Some may choose to have three substantial meals daily, while others may prefer six smaller meals.

The Protein and Fat Connection

Meals must contain large amounts of fats combined with protein. These should be eaten in the form of shellfish, poultry, fish, and red meat. Pure natural fats are also encouraged, such as in mayonnaise, butter, olive oil, safflower oil, or sunflower oil. Other vegetable oils, especially those that are expeller or cold pressed, are also encouraged.

One requirement is crucial in this phase: no more than twenty grams of carbohydrates can be consumed per day. Most of these carbohydrates should come from salads and vegetables. To meet this requirement, three cups of salad or two cups of salad and a cup of vegetables should be included in daily meals.

Foods to Skip Completely

Another important rule is that some foods must never be eaten. Among these are fruits, grains, pastas, breads, or starchy vegetables. Dairy, with the exception of cheese, cream or butter must also be avoided. In the first two weeks of induction nuts and seeds are not allowed. Neither are foods that mix protein and carbohydrates, such as legumes.

Follow the Atkins list of acceptable foods at all times. Eat only as much as makes you satisfied, but not uncomfortably full. Over time, the amounts of food needed to achieve satisfaction should decline. When not hungry, small carbohydrate snacks can be eaten in addition to supplements.

Make sure to always read the labels of foods to determine their carbohydrate content. Never guess. Carbohydrates can often be hidden in foods. When dining out it is important to check that gravies and salad dressings lack any flour or sugar. Sucralose or saccharin can be used as sweeteners, but not aspartame. Each packet is equivalent to one gram of carbohydrates.

Hint About Beverages

All caffeinated beverages should be avoided, as they lower the sugar levels of blood. This in turn makes individuals crave excess amounts of sugar. To flush out the system and stay hydrated, drink eight glasses of water a day. Daily multivitamins with potassium, magnesium and calcium are recommended. Avoid supplements that include any iron.

Side Effects of the Atkins Diet Induction Phase

During the induction phase, withdrawals will occur. It may take up to a week to get used to the elimination of sugar and caffeine. Withdrawal can present itself with diarrhea, nausea, headaches and cramping. It is also possible to become constipated during this part of the diet. These symptoms will all eventually disappear with time.

All the best for your Atkins Diet Induction,

Dr. D

Bisphenol A health effects include getting a fat belly. Let’s delve into the world of a chemist (me) for a moment and see what we can find that will help you get rid of some fat. Today the topic is plastics, or more specifically, plasticizers. Here is what you should know about how they can make you fat. Yes, really.

This topic started for me in 1974, while I was still a graduate student. At the time our lab had been buying solvents in plastic bottles because they were so much cheaper than those in glass bottles. However, some of the chemical analyses that I was doing at that time were giving me odd results. After a lot of thought about what the problem might be, I got lucky when I noticed that the plastic solvent bottles smelled like … plastic! In hopes of finding out the nature of the odor, I distilled a gallon of methanol from one of the bottles, then noticed a syrupy sludge that was left over. It smelled strongly of plastic. After a quick chemical analysis, I identified the main substance as a compound called dimethyl phthalate. I then learned that this is one of the plasticizing agents that go into making plastic bottles. At the time I thought nothing of it, except from then on I distilled my solvents to rid them of this contaminant.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and plasticizers are now big news. Phthalates, along with a compound called bisphenol A (BPA), have attracted a lot of attention because they leach into plastic containers and cause toxicity in the foods and drinks that contain them.

We are talking about thousands of products. Water bottles are only the most obvious of the plastic containers. Plastic is also found in plastic food containers, in canned foods and drinks that are lined with plastic, in boxes of processed foods, in plastic dishes, and in plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, to name a few. Plastic seems to be almost everywhere.

Plasticizers, Estrogen Dominance, and Fat

The reason that these kinds of molecules are toxic is that they have an estrogenic effect. This just means that they add to the estrogen load even though they are not natural estrogens. So bear with me while a make this point. Natural estrogens, such as estradiol, are steroids. Natural estrogens are not at all similar to BPA and phthalates.

Somehow the human body accepts plasticizers as if they were estrogens, although not perfectly. If you wonder about the effects of non-natural estrogens (called “xenoestrogens”), you are not alone. They are now being blamed for causing estrogen dominance, even in infants, and for all of the consequences that come with it. The FDA is doing its usual dance, since plastics are part of a big industry. In 2008 a scientific panel evaluated several research studies on plasticizers and concluded that they do, indeed, pose a significant health risk. At first the FDA ignored the recommendations to remove plasticizers from contact with foods and drinks, and even claimed that they, “…needed more studies,” to confirm the danger. The danger was so clear already, though, that the FDA finally relented, at least partially. BPA is supposed to be removed at least from containers for baby foods and drinks. Canada and other countries have already seen the light and banned BPA from food and drink containers, so the U.S. is a little slow on this issue.

As you may know by now, estrogen dominance leads to fat gain, and fat gain accelerates estrogen dominance. This is really a dangerous spiral, and it is made worse by plasticizers in your diet. One of the two absolutely best things that you can do to negate the fat-building effects of xenoestrogenic plasticizers is to avoid them. Never cook with plastic, never cook or reheat food in plastic containers in the microwave oven, never drink water out of plastic bottles … you get the picture. Although this doesn’t sound easy, it can be done if you have enough incentive to get rid of excess fat.

The second, and probably more important, thing to do is make sure you are getting enough progesterone into your system to counterbalance estrogen dominance. This is not necessarily a simple thing to do, so I will be posting much more on this topic very soon. Even if you have no exposure to xenoestrogens, which is unlikely anywhere in the U.S. today, you are most likely deficient in progesterone anyway.

Updating bisphenol A health effects,

Dr. D

Quick weight loss seems to be all the rage for TV shows and weight loss programs. You can, indeed, lose a pound a day or more by dieting. However, the results will certainly not be what you are looking for..
.
.

In these days of instant results, or at least a desire for them, unrealistic expectations for weight loss seem to be the rule. You can lose quite a bit of weight by not eating at all. And you can sustain this weight loss by continuing to not eat. This is the extreme version of weight loss programs that advocate calorie reduction and calorie counting. This doesn’t sound too appealing, does it?

A calorie reduction approach with quick weight loss diets means that you must cut way back on calorie intake until you lose weight. The two main problems with this strategy are that: 1) eating less for weight loss is indiscriminate – meaning that muscle loss is part of the drop in weight; and, 2) it is not sustainable unless you maintain your caloric intake at the same low rate forever.

The bottom line is that if you don’t mind losing lean body mass, and if you don’t mind being hungry for the rest of your life, then quick weight loss is what you are looking for. However, if you want to lose fat instead of muscle, which is better for your health anyway, then calorie reduction is not the way to go. And if you want to have at least a satisfying amount of food, when starving yourself is not the way to go.

It makes me wonder what the long-term results are for all those ‘success’ stories on The Biggest Loser. I’d bet that they are no better than those of the public in general, which are nothing to brag about.

Note About Quick Weight Loss vs. Abnormal Fat

One of the core issues, among many, for weight loss is that overweight and obesity are driven by the accumulation of abnormal fat. This is the fat that appears around the belly and on the thighs, arms, and butt. Abnormal fat also builds up around internal organs, which is especially dangerous for health, although you don’t see it.

Almost all quick weight loss protocols fail to select the loss of abnormal fat over the kinds that you should keep. This is a fundamental problem, since any loss of normal fat comes back quickly. It appears as unwanted weight gain, although you have to have it. The regain of abnormal fat, however, is what you don’t want.

The bottom line is that quick weight loss is not beneficial for long-term weight management or health.

Perspectives on quick weight loss,

Dr. D

The Contrave diet pills will apparently be the next toxic and dangerous weight loss medication to be adopted by the bozos at the FDA. Their panel of expert scientists voted 13-7 for approval and 11-8 (with one abstention) that additional studies be performed on potential heart risks. This is an all too familiar story that will lead to death and damage by yet one more unnecessary drug. Here is what you should know before considering it for your own use..
.

Prior safety concerns are apparently being ignored. Effects on the heart are a major concern about all weight loss medication. The FDA usually follows the recommendation of its expert panels, so expect to see Contrave on the market in 2011.

What is the Contrave Diet Pill?

This is absolutely amazing. This medication is a combination pill that includes a mixture of buproprion, which is an antidepressant, and naltrexone, which is an anti-addiction drug.

This combination yielded the following results: Current studies of almost 700 patients, 90% female, ran up to 56 weeks. Control group overall lost 5% of weight, or 11-16 lbs. Medicated group lost 20-23 lbs in same time. Average starting weight for participants was 223 lbs.

No study of Contrave has yet even looked at elderly patients with a history of heart disease. Good luck if you are in THAT group!

This did not meet the FDA’s own self-established target that there should be at least a 5 percent greater weight loss in the treatment group than in the control (placebo-treated) group. Oh, well. Guidelines can be ignored when there is enough money to be made.

Contrave Side Effects

Oh, and about those side effects. The FDA has already reported side effects from each of the drugs that make up Contrave. These include high blood pressure, dizziness, and insomnia.

With diet pills updates,

Dr. D

Related articles

• FDA Panel Okays Shiny New Weight-Loss Drug, Despite Concerns [Weighty Matters] (jezebel.com)
• FDA Panel Recommends Approval For Contrave (nowpublic.com)
• Poll: Would You Take The New Weight-Loss Drug Contrave? (crushable.com)
• Q & A: How Safe is the Weight-Loss Drug Contrave? (livescience.com)
• U.S. FDA backs first new diet pill in a decade (ctv.ca)

Green tea weight loss should also improve key biochemical indicators of good health. Research shows some surprise bonuses when EGCG bioavailability is also improved. Here is what you can expect..
.
.

Basic Research on Green Tea Weight Loss

The research that I want to call your attention to was published in this journal article:

Di Pierro, F., Menghi A.B., Barreca, A., Lucarelli, M, and Calandrelli, A. 2009. Greenselect Phytosome as an adjunct to a low-calorie diet for treatment of obesity: a clinical trial. Alternative Medicine Review 14(2):154-160.

Earlier posts explained the development of technology to enhance the bioavailability of green tea extracts and how it boosted the results of the clinical weight loss trial here:

Green Tea Weight Loss – The Real Science

Boosting Green Tea Weight Loss

By the way, if you want to see the complete article, it is available for free through PubMed, here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19594224

In fact, I recommend that you take a look at the complete article to see the depth of detail that is missing from the abstract. The main result relates to the purpose of the study, which was to determine the effects of a certain green tea extract on weight loss.

Expected Benefits

Based on prior research on green tea, particularly on EGCG, we can expect certain biochemistry to improve, such as total cholesterol (TC), fasting blood sugar (BS), and total triglycerides (TT), as shown in Table 3:

Surprise Benefits

Certain changes may not have been a complete surprise to the researchers, because they took the trouble to make before and after measurements of these health indicators. However, not all of these results are general knowledge for those who use green tea to lose weight. We may have expected improvements in LDL and HDL levels. However, the 321% increase in levels of human growth hormone (GH) is an unexpected bonus. See Table 4 here:

Hormones that are intimately intertwined with human growth hormone include insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and insulin. All of these are protein hormones. Indeed, IGF-1 is a more reliable indicator of GH activity, since GH levels spike several times per day and its cohort, IGF-1, does not. The change in cortisol levels reflects the beneficial influence of EGCG on steroid metabolism. See Table 5 here:

The really cool result would seem to be that GH levels increased by 321 percent over the starting point. However spectacular this seems, it may mean very little. However, the 24 percent increase in IGF-1 is truly something to get excited about. Note also that a reduced calorie diet by itself even led to a 15 percent increase in this hormone. That observation alone should tell you that eating too much is probably harmful to proper hormone balance. It suggests a link to the already established knowledge about wild hormone imbalance in the obese.

Updating green tea weight loss research,

Dr. D