Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Comment notice

Just a quick note to commenters here.  I was traveling for the past several days and unfortunately don't always catch every comment that goes to moderation.  Most comments are automatically posted, but some -- even w/o links -- get held up even when I whitelist someone.  I just approved roughly a dozen, which is all of the comments in the "Pending' folder.  Sorry!  I try to keep the flow going here and greatly appreciate interaction.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Babies In Ketosis

This post topic was inspired by the following article:  Ketosis - key to human babies’ big brains?  It is hosted on Tim Noakes' website and written by one of his associates in nutritional information misdirection, Tamzyn Murphy Campbell, RD.  I'm going to address this misdirection and the disturbing parts of this article vis a vis Campbell in a future BabyGate Files, but for now I want to discuss the role of ketones in metabolism.  In doing so, I'd also like to explain my somewhat cryptic recent post on heating my kitchen.  (I've C&P'd that entire post to the end further down in this one, so if you don't wish to go to another page, you can just scroll down to The Kitchen Heating Analogy).     I'm going to structure this post a little differently than most and get to my point, then provide the back up information.  Let's see how this goes.  

The major source (6 of 12 numbered citations, 1 of 6 unique sources) for her article is:   Survival of the fattest: fat babies were the key to evolution of the large human brain (2003) Stephen C. Cunnane, Michael A. Crawford (I'll call this C&C)

Sunday, June 21, 2015

How NOT To Heat Your Kitchen

In my former home, we had a large "country kitchen" and baseboard heating.  For those not familiar with baseboard heating, hot water is passed through a pipe and at various locations these pipes go through elements like the one shown.  Eventually the water goes back to the furnace and round and round it goes.   There's always some loss of energy for the parts of the pipes that don't go through elements, so the shorter the loop the more efficient.  In most floor plans, this means a single loop around the outside walls of the house.  

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The BabyGate Files: Tim Noakes Gave UNSolicited Advice on Weening (sic)

Background Posts & Prior BabyGate Files:
  1. Mammalian Infant Food Macronutrients ~ Especially Human
  2. Common Themes: The Chef Evans & Prof. Noakes Controversies, and Robb Wolf vs. North Carolina*
  3. The Obesity Paradox
  4. The BabyGate Files: Tim Noakes Blames Gerber for Baby Cereals*
  5. The BabyGate Files: Tim Noakes Just WRONG on Protein*
  6. The BabyGate Files: Pete Evans' Bubba Yum Yum ~ There's a Macro Missing!
  7. The BabyGate Files: Sally Fallon & The Weston A. Price Foundation Should Not Be Let Off The Hook
  8. The BabyGate Files: Chris Kresser. Is There Any Moral Code?
* May be most relevant to this post.

This is going to be a short but important "bookmarking" post, just so I get this "on paper" once things finally go down for Prof. Tim Noakes in November.  Two hat tips are in order:  1. Alex S. who found and linked up (comments on a prior post) the original tweet that got Noakes in hot water, and 2. Melanie M. for sending me a link to this post from which I borrowed the "edited to protect the innocent" version of the tweet above.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Perfect Health Diet Macronutrient Ratios ~ Part II: Omnivores Prefer These Ratios


In the Perfect Health Diet books, the claim is made that omnivores prefer a high fat diet along the lines off the PHD macronutrient ratios.  Two studies on mice are cited as evidence in support of a 65% fat diet.  This post discusses those two studies, as well as how the results are more likely to caution against a high fat diet than advocate for it.  

NOTE:  This is NOT a comprehensive look at the two studies discussed in the post.  In order to keep the post length managable I've only addressed the points relevant to claims made in the PHD books citing these studies.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

If Fat Doesn't Make You Fat, Explain Tokelau vs. Pukapuka

When looking at traditional diets and trying to draw some generalizations about the healthfulness of the diet or the impact of its nature on body weight/composition, it is often helpful to find and compare populations that are similar in all other aspects besides the diet.  

In the IHC, a common example of this are the Masai and Kikuyu of Southeastern Africa (Kenya and Tanzania).  Although these characterizations may often be oversimplified and even erroneous, these two tribes inhabit similar environments while one consumes a mostly animal based diet compared to the near-vegetarian diet of the other.  In the South Pacific, a region known as Oceania, we have the inhabitants Tokelau (red arrow) and the Pukapuka (blue arrow, part of Cook Islands).  
Note:  Kitiva (too small to include on this map) is in the vicinity of the unnamed island immediately below the Solomon Sea label, between Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
The two island systems even look a bit alike!   In the IHC it is common to contrast the Tokelauan with the Kitavan, likely because there is more literature on the Kitivan courtesy of Staffan Lindeberg.   These comparisons are not unwarranted, but due to the proximity and similarities between the Tokelau and Pukapuka, the comparison/contrast is even more compelling.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Sigma Nutrition Podcast with Danny Lennon

Hi all!  It's been out for a couple of days now, but I thought I'd wait until Friday to blog and share.  

Even if you don't want to listen to me (aww come on, admit it haterz you wanna listen!) this guy has had some great guests and a good variety of them at that, so go check out his interviews!

I probably talked a bit more about my personal experiences than I've done in a while, and I was also probably a bit more shrill about some issues.  We recorded this just around a week ago and of late it seems that just about everything I look into coming out of the IHC is either a misrepresentation or a flat out lie.  If it weren't for the rampant eating disorders plaguing the community -- under the guise of health and healing mind you -- I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.   
I am also very frustrated by these absolutists laying down laws in their books and such and then saying entirely different thingz while waving around templates in their next breath.  You cannot call A a toxin and then turn around and say "well if you tolerate A, eat it!"    I'm not talking about situational issues, like if someone has genuine celiac or an allergy.  I'm talking about the blanket "A is toxic" nonsense.  

On the topic of insulin and diabetes, we didn't get to discuss some things.  Likely my fault for going on tangents ;-)  But we did talk about painting yourself into a corner with carbs and eating less and less.  Carbohydrate intolerance is an acquired trait in most in the IHC.  Let's discuss the science of what is going on there, and quit with the gimmicky teaspoons of sugar nonsense.  Don't look now, but ALL of the big names are cashing in, and doubling down and cashing in some more.  This is not in the name of science or public health.....

Lastly, REAL FOOD.    This has been a mantra in the IHC for a long time.  But ... there has been a subtle (sometimes not so subtle) shift towards that being the leading buzz word.  Low carb peaked long ago ... it's resurging a bit with keto, but that is too niche/faddish for general public appeal.  Paleo?  It's on the way out.  Real food.  Yeah that sounds cool.  It's pretty meaningless though.  One thing I mentioned in the podcast is this move towards "real food".  You have to be real about that.  There are a plethora of real foods that have been shown to be healthful in both epiemiological studies and controlled trials ... not to mention everyday experience getting to know some folks and how they eat.

Hope you enjoy the podcast!

Interpreting Study Results ~ The Mice Revealed

Recently I shared some "blinded" study results from a real study conducted on two strains of mice, each studied after eating one of two diets.  More correctly these mice are of the same strain, but one set has a mutation in the brown fat cells.  I did this along with some simple -- obvious -- questions, and then a more open ended question regarding interpretation.  I intended for one more installment, but I think it just got tedious, so I'll incorporate that into this reveal post.  

So from the first post, here is the data I provided:

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Ancestral Health Dishonesty ~ Professor Tim Noakes Style!

It's hard to believe that Tim Noakes actually gave the presentation in the embedded YouTube video over two years ago.   It's even more difficult to believe that anyone has taken him seriously since.  

For the topic of this post, one needs only devote ~ 6 minutes to listening to Noakes read to you about human evolution and how Ancel Keys destroyed the world.  This begins at roughly 3 min 36 seconds.   If you can't tolerate the video, or simply wish to follow along with a written form, the South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition has dramatically lowered their standards and published Noakes' heavily fortified "transcript" (at least 25 references date to after the 2012 delivery of this speech) without any peer review.  His references, regardless of date, are enlightening, so I'm glad they were provided, however the journal should put a heavy disclaimer directly in/on the paper in question (and fix the oversight that allowed the peer reviewed "stamp" to appear on it). 

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Interpreting Study Results Quiz 2

So when we left off with Quiz 1, we had two strains of mice weaned onto one of two diets.  

As promised, my first question regarding which mice gained the most weight was not a trick question.  If you don't agree that "D" is the "winner" here, please consider having your eyesight checked ;-)

So now, I'm still not going to unblind my study here, as where would be the fun in that?  But two strains, two diets.  

Since D stands out, let's use these mice as our "reference".   Thus, given:
  • D & B are either the same mouse strain on different diets, or different mouse strains on the same diet ... and
  • D & C are either the same mouse strain on different diets, or different mouse strains on the same diet.
Let's ignore A and any comparisons we can make here.  What conclusions would you draw in terms of weight gain if:
  1. D & B are different strains of mice on the same diet, thus D & C are the same mouse strain on a different diet.
  2. D & C are different strains of mice on the same diet, thus D & B are the same mouse strain on a different diet.
Again, no tricks here.  Just the data.  And ignore A ... that's for the next Quiz ;-)