|
[ Asthma Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Hi, I posted a message earlier about me being unable to shift stomach fat, as a weightlifter. I am a male. I read up on the Pritikin program as you suggested, and from what i read, it says to cut down on animal protein. I eat lean white meat and tuna with a fat content of under 5%. If I was to stop taking in animal protein, as a weightlifter, were would i get my protein required (160 grams a day).
PS: I don't like unnatural supplements.
In Reply to: TO DR.STOLL: PRITIKIN PROGRAM and PROTEIN posted by Anon on June 11, 2002 at 11:16:56:
According to Ann Gittleman, Pritikin's nutritionist, has said many in his program developed depression, loose hair, brittle nails, etc. This is a bad diet. Studies show that low carb/high protein and fat diets are much better at making people burn their fat and keeping their muscles mass.
In Reply to: Re: TO DR.STOLL: PRITIKIN PROGRAM and PROTEIN posted by R. on June 11, 2002 at 20:53:11:
Thanks R.
As I have stated many times, the Pritikin Diet is a THERAPEUTIC DIET not a maintenence diet--something Pritikin never learned.
There has never been any negative side effects from following the Pritikin Diet for less than 2 years.
After the atherosclerosis has been resolved the person must raise their fat content to 15%.
Any suggestions as to how I can make this more plain than to archive this, again, in the atherosclerosis archives?
Walt
In Reply to: TO DR.STOLL: PRITIKIN PROGRAM and PROTEIN posted by Anon on June 11, 2002 at 11:16:56:
Hi, Anon.
I have never heard of anyone following the Pritikin Program, correctly, not getting at least twice the protein recommended.
The only reason for reducing animal protein is to avoid the fat and the protein you are eating only has half the level of fat needed for the diet.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: TO DR.STOLL: PRITIKIN PROGRAM and PROTEIN (Archive in atheroscelrosis.) posted by Walt Stoll on June 12, 2002 at 09:21:46:
Low carb/high protein and fat diets are both THERAPEUTIC DIETs and maintenence diets. Here's an article describing clinical results of at least two doctors using this approach. I've been trying to get this point across for a long time too.
In Reply to: Re: TO DR.STOLL: PRITIKIN PROGRAM and PROTEIN (Archive in atheroscelrosis.) posted by R. on June 12, 2002 at 15:54:16:
nmi
In Reply to: To R. - I would like to see this article. (link?) Thanks -nmi posted by Jan on June 15, 2002 at 18:33:32:
It's an article I've posted here many times -- Metabolic effects of insulin. Here it is: http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm
In Reply to: Crap! Forgot the link posted by R. on June 16, 2002 at 17:22:48:
By the way thank you for this article. I just finished reading it.
I've been aware for some time of all the contradictions in dietary theories and have settled the confusion for mySELF by following eating that's suited to my metabolic type (H/G) - but now my DH having a wellness epiphany (which is blowing my mind!) is attempting to follow a Pritikin style diet and having a miserable time of it. It's dampening his enthusiasm. I'm not sure if this is because he hasn't quite given up those last few refined carbs (like a piece of bread every now and then) or if it's so contrary to his metabolic type, or the extreme lowness in fat (even with the EFA's).
I want to do everything possible to support him in what he wants to do - whatever that is. He needs to do the learning and discovering. I, myself, have done SO much experimenting with different ways of eating during my life, and he has done practically none at all... so this is all new to him. But he does recognize low blood sugar because he's seen me go through it. I think he needs to fine-tune this diet.
Someone needs to be a guinea pig for a different type of diet vs. atherosclerosis!! So far, it seems the Pritikin is the only one out there that demonstrates what actually works to REVERSE it. (not just prevent it).
In Reply to: Re: Crap! Forgot the link - thank you for the link :) posted by Jan on June 21, 2002 at 04:56:26:
One of the problems with Pritikin's diet is that you can't stay with it long term and be healthy. That tells me the diet is a bandaid, not something that addresses the root cause and ensures optimal overall health.
In Reply to: Re: Crap! Forgot the link - thank you for the link :) posted by R. on June 26, 2002 at 16:28:10:
I agree. But if it works then it's a pretty darn good band-aid, the best we have (so far).
What would you do (if you had atherosclerosis) ? Would you experiment? (I am serious in asking.) Although experimentation is the way important new discoveries are made, I don't think I'd make myself a guinea pig in such a precarious situation.
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis posted by Jan on June 26, 2002 at 20:18:32:
I think everything would be an experiment as nothing has been shown to work for everyone.
But I personally would be (and I am now for other reasons) on a diet similar to one described in the Metabolic Effects of Insulin. They've also been shown to help achieve seemingly similar results (did you miss that??). And another good thing about them is that they can be followed all life long... by those for whom they work, as opposed to Pritikin's diet. I would not be able to follow a Pritikin's type of diet because carbs make me constipate and cause skin breakouts. There's a woman in a yahoo discussion group that I am part of who has tried a Pritikin's type of diet, and she said she felt terrible, emotionally and physically. She said the diet messed up her metabolism and hormonal system, and she gained extra weight. Now she is doing great on a low carb/high protein and fat diet, with standard blood parameters to prove it (not that they provide an absolute proof but anyway). Her diet is also a whole food diet. Another person there said that she would become constipated without grains and fruits. So, it's all experiment.
In Reply to: Re: Crap! Forgot the link - thank you for the link :) posted by R. on June 26, 2002 at 16:28:10:
Hi, R.
40 years of experience with the Pritikin approach shows that it is perfectly safe for about 2 years and it only takes about a year to reverse the condition. THEN, all it takes is to increase the fat % to 15 and it is good for the rest of the individual's life.
Since all the other approaches to coronary disease are a LOT more dangerous and expensive--let alone not as effective--it seems to me that it should be the first line of defense for everyone!
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Crap! Forgot the link - thank you for the link :) (Archive in coronary.) posted by Walt Stoll on June 27, 2002 at 15:48:07:
We already agreed that nothing works for everyone.
If Dr. Rosedale and Dr. Mercola aren't lying in the Metabolic Effects of Insulin (http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm), then there's another alternative that is not dangerous or expensive (probably more expensive than Pritikin's as flesh is more expensive than plants). As we have already established, people are different, and some cannot function well on a low fat/high carb diet. From what I've seen, a more moderate, carb-wise, diet is effective, safe, and is easier to follow very long term. It's not a very low or no carb diet, but one that is significantly lower in them than current USDA food pyramid, and sufficient in protein and fat (much higher than Pritikin's). Also, don't forget that a high carb diet can at the same time be a high fat diet because our body converts extra carbs to fat (saturated). Only with carbs, you get a less stable glucose and insulin levels, which people with sugar metabolism problems and insulin resistance cannot handle. There seem to be many of those, and for them a lower carb/higher protein and fat diets are much better.
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis posted by R. on June 26, 2002 at 23:57:22:
R. I didn't miss it! Dr. Rosedale's successes with heart patients were very impressive - as he describes them. Off all medications immediately! That's my kind of doctor... well, in principle anyway.:) Would want more details on his actual work...I searched the internet and did not find much. Do you have anything else?
There is so much in that article BTW. I read it a second time and am sure I will refer to it again and again.
I don't see any reason against doing a therapeutic diet that is Pritikin, recognizing that it is therapeutic and not optimum-for-life. I can see someone going on Pritikin and then getting off if it just makes them feel bad, but if they have CHD they are in more of a dilemma since it is a life-threatening condition they are trying to fix... which is I guess why I asked the question! If you would experiment in this situation, you are braver than me ...
My husband is aware of the insulin aspect and the possible hi-carb issues that some people have. He used to sometimes do the Zone when he wanted to take off a few pounds, and he felt that was his best way to eat. Oddly enough, now, he likes this way BETTER than the Zone. Go figure. I think this puts him at the Agriculturalist end of the continuum... one who can tolerate this very well. I hope it stays that way for his sake. (It would have me dragging.) Also it is wholefoods, so no junk. (Which could be another reason he feels so well.)
Heart disease patients can't really afford to experiment with what other diet would reverse the condition, yet someone is going to have to, and do it in a systematic way, if anything new is to be learned. Pritikin in his own day went out on a limb too, to discover what HE did.
At least now, some really good information is coming out, to counter the tired old lipids theory, so as to support new directions for study. If there will ever BE support for that. (I still think that too little is made of metabolic individuality in diet and disease)
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis posted by Jan on June 28, 2002 at 06:19:52:
Jan, I was thinking how to reply to you and noticed I was going in a circle. So, I will ask you the following. Since you're so sure Pritikin's diet is good enough for everyone with serious atherosclerosis to try it and ignore others, would you tell me what your confidence is based on (please don't say "because Walt said so" :) )? If I am not mistaken (please correct me if I am wrong), Pritikin's subjects were required to do many thing besides going very low on dietary fat: stop smoking, practice regular relaxation, etc. How has it been determined that it's the low fat aspect that was key in reversing their atherosclerosis and not other aspects? It's very easy to misinterpret observations and even make wrong observations. http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm demonstrate that very well.
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis posted by R. on June 29, 2002 at 00:55:02:
First R., I am not so completely sure that lowfat is the only correct treatment for heart disease, for everyone.
My husband knows of the Ravnskov materials. Last year I printed that site out for us to read, and he read the whole thing - which is more than I have; I've only read the first few sections. Both of us are aware of the flawed research around heart disease and the competing and contradictory theories. He had been on the Zone for a time and read Sears' stuff on heart disease and the insulin connection... which Dr. Rosedale takes even further. I have discovered that I thrive on low-moderate carbs and good amounts of fat and seen how some people do really poorly with lowfat... and I've been reading Dr. Mercola's column since before he had a website.
My husband has seen his brother get worse from heart disease with conventional treatments, and determined that he would not fall into that. While not believing himself too vulnerable to heart attack at this time, there came a rude awakening.
So how do I explain his decision to do the lowfat thing? It's sort of like 9/11 - Not to trivialize the terrible 9/11 massacre, but it is the same dynamic. Post-9/11 the focus changed in a flash, to "What do we do now?" It was a wake-up call to him to do something, and immediate response was needed. Keep in mind that our focus changed from how to PREVENT heart disease to how to REVERSE it, which neither of us had given much thought to, before. It was not just a widening of focus but a change, because of necessity. So we both grab for the most sure knowledge that we have at hand, about what TO DO. Of course this involves some measure of trust....
A first principle in holistic medicine says that the same thing that would prevent a disease is the same thing that would cure it. But in the case of some diseases it does not work out this way. Either (1) the disease has gone too far and needs extreme therapeutic intervention, and/or (2) we just don't know enough about what caused the disease in the first place. In the case of heart disease I accept that it is multi-factorial and know of about 10 different things that appear to contribute.
So to be perfectly holistic, you'd make all these corrections hoping for the best outcome. A lowfat diet might not even be part of THAT! The lowfat diet is part of #1, not #2. Here I am going on Walt's advisement that the reduction to 10% fat or less forces the body to use its own stores of fat (stored in plaque) in order to make the hormones that it needs. Yes I have questions about this. (The idea that 11% fat won't do it, but 10% will, seems quite strange to me... a little too pat. I have to wonder how this was determined to such a fine point.)
So in other words we are holding this out as a THERAPEUTIC DIET.... You know what this is - where the intervention is different from what an optimal diet might be.
His decision to do this was based on his reading of "Is Heart Surgery Necessary?" (Dr. Whitaker used to work with Pritikin and so the dietary guidelines are similar), and on some of the guidelines I've taken from Dr. Stoll's site - about combining chelation, SR, exercise, and whole foods. Both of us plan to study up about Pritikin more closely. He just read the Ornish book and sees that the lowfat is not the whole story. (And I showed him your notes on the flaws. :) ) This has all been rather sudden so there hasn't been much time to adapt - big new learning curve for food prep, etc. Guess who makes most of the food :)
This probably sounds ill-thought-out to you. But I'm seeing that attitude is a big part of healing too. I do NOT want to discourage him from what he is doing. People learn from deciding on a course of action and sticking to it. It's OK if it's not all worked out ahead of time. He figures he is avoiding the worst of the insulin problems by eating protein with the carbs, and avoiding anything refined. And of course getting ample antioxidants and heart supplements and fish oils. He probably should get the fasting insulin test as recommended by Dr. Rosedale, as this could indicate too much insulin and the C-reactive protein test for inflammation. These could both be telling about the progress he is making.
If he starts to feel bad, then he probably WILL be forced to reconsider what he's doing. He did not say this, but I wonder about it. (Something that makes you feel bad is bound to have problems with it.)
Makes sense??? Guess I could have said this in fewer words, but I hope it helps to clarify.
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis posted by Jan on June 29, 2002 at 04:31:06:
Yep, it does make sense. And I also think that attitude is a big part of healing too.
When you are done studying Pritikin more closely, would you please describe some details briefly? And regardless what I think of Pritikin's approach, I wish your husband success.
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis posted by R. on June 29, 2002 at 18:16:27:
Jan, I'd like to add something.
You said, "...reduction to 10% fat or less forces the body to use its own stores of fat (stored in plaque) in order to make the hormones that it needs." If that is the effect you are after, then low carb/high protein and fat diets might be better, as according to several studies (let me know if you need references), these diets are more effective than low fat diets (not specifically Pritikin's) at reducing body weight while preserving muscle mass, meaning they stimulate fat burning.
There's another thing that needs to be considered -- our bodies make fat from carbs, so by lowering dietary fat and increasing carbs, do you really, effectively, reduce fat?
Another issue is that fat is necessary for absorbing fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K(?), and some undiscovered yet). According to Weston Price Foundation, fat also facilitates mineral absorption. I've been looking for a proof of that, but I can think of at least one mechanism. Fats are needed to absorb Vit. D, which helps calcium absorption. Oh, and Vit. E is usually recommended for heart, but it requires pretty high fat meals to be utilized.
CoQ10 - good for heart -- is said to be better absorbed with fat, and meat (rare or raw is better) is a very good source of CoQ10, but if one avoids meat to keep fat intake down...
So, for at least two reasons, low fat diets don't appear as the most effective at accomplishing what you want.
And there's another issue that actually applies to both types of diets, and I don't know an answer to this. It is thought by some people that plaque is formed to patch up weak spots in the arteries. If that is true, than is it always a good idea to remove it?
As you study Pritikin's work, please find out his success rate. I've heard of a study that showed regular relaxation being about 75% effective at improving heart problems (not sure which ones). And supplementing with EPA/DHA is also reported to have high effectiveness by itself. What's the overall effectiveness of Pritikin's method?
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis: addition posted by R. on June 30, 2002 at 02:06:32:
All good points and I thank you for them. I was starting to respond and ended up with 10 paragraphs...as it goes with things I haven't reached conclusions about.... So that's no good. I will be glad to let you know what I learn.:)
I quite agree that some of why plaque got there is for repair purposes (Pauling/Rath hypothesis). "Is it always a good idea to remove it?" A good question actually. To which I'd think only if doing as many things as possible to protect and nourish the body, in the process. Chelation reduces free radical activity (through removal of heavy metals, etc.), allowing the body a break from dealing with those, and an opportunity to address any cardiovascular problems itself. (=repair) Antioxidants also should assist, as well as ample Vitamin C and cofactors. The high levels of Vitamin C sometimes spoken of have at least a two-part role in this: antioxidant protection of the vessels, and as an essential in collagen formation so that new tissues can be made.
A sort of aside here, but this really grabbed me... Pauling had suggested that when ascorbate is insufficiently present for collagen formation, the body may accept the *sugar* molecule as a substitute, thereby producing a more brittle tissue than the "factory specs" call for. I don't know if this is leaping to conclusions but it certainly is suggestive, with what-all we are finding of all the mischief caused by excess sugar floating around.
In Reply to: Re: diet and atherosclerosis: addition posted by Jan on July 01, 2002 at 05:53:35:
I don't know if this is leaping to conclusions but it certainly is suggestive, with what-all we are finding of all the mischief caused by excess sugar floating around.
This made me recall what I read today in Dr. Byrnes' newsletter (www.powerhealth.net). In his review (negative) of Dr. Ornish's book, he mentioned a "meticulous research on sugar and heart disease (J Yudkin. Lancet 1:296-297, 1971)". Perhaps, you can get more information on this study from Dr. Byrnes.
I also remember reading that sugar and vitamin C attach to the same cell receptors, so they compete.
|
[ Asthma Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |