The Old Fox Blog contains the inspiration the editor of the site (see image taken in September 2016) receives, whilst being on the look-out in further improving his health. Some posts will be excerpts from articles he has read and of which he thinks that they are worth sharing, others simply stem from his own pencil.
There are many things coming my way, which I find highly interesting, but there is not enough time in the day (on top of all other activities) to share them all. Therefore- a hap hazard selection is about to be coming your way, which however clearly will support the views and opinions you can read in other sections of this site.
On Monday November 13 2017, news hit the wires, which caused quite some commotion:
The president of the Dallas-based American Heart Association (AHA) is recovering after suffering a minor heart attack Monday morning at the organization's scientific conference in California, which was held from November 11 through 15 and where he delivered his opening presidendial address.John Warner, 52, a cardiologist, vice president and CEO of UT Southwestern University Hospitals, was in stable condition with his family by his side at a California hospital. Doctors inserted a stent to open an artery, the association said in a prepared statement.
Now- isnt that something, a guy of 52, thereto cardiologist and surely living by all the recommendations in respect of prophylactic medications and lifestyles, to prevent an occurrence like that, that his organization has to offer to its members and the population in general at risk for cardiac disorders. Maybe those recommendations are not so solid and preventive of major adverse events? Most likely in my view.
Anyway- there was a time where I followed the recommendations of the AHA almost blindly. I even joined the AHA in 2005, since that was the time, that I also had my minor heart attack and out of this personal interest was invested in CVTX - CV Therapeutics- the developer of an anti-anginal medication with the trade name Ranexa, which was introduced at the AHA with big fanfare in the years following.
I have been avoiding sugar now in my daily diet, which can be classified as moderate ketogenic, for about 2,5 years now, as I write these words in November 2017. Sugar or better sucrose, I have been taught is a di-saccharide, which consist of one molecule glucose and one molecule fructose. If you, like most people on this globe who live on a Western diet, burn mainly glucose for your energy, there is no problem with that, as long as you are healthy and insulin sensitive. With fructose there is more of a problem, the body cannot uptake fructose very well at all and your liver needs to go through a process of converting fructose into fat. A conversion process which is similar compared to dealing with ethanol i.e alcohol, which we all know is toxic and the liver always get rid of toxic stuff first. Consuming a whole lot of sugar (sucrose) therefore gives your liver the same type of heavy workload as folks that drink a whole lot of alcohol, without providing the brain the buzz therof people seem to be looking for. Refer for more detail to the magic video of Dr. Robert Lustig- Sugar- The bitter truth- link : HERE
So- the impact of sugar has been clear to me for some time now. What I always struggled with was starch or better the poly-saccharides, which are the primary content of things like wheatbread, pasta, rice, cookies, potatoes and roughly 80% of the processed foods you find in a supermarket. On Monday I found an article written by Zoe Harcombe in my mailbox, which greatly improved my understanding on this subject also. Starch (poly-saccharide=several sugars) is broken down by the body in glucose only mono-sacharrides. Fine- again- if you are insulin sensitive and can efficiently burn glucose- a disaster if you insulin-resistant. Uncomprehensible therefore that conventional medicine tell diabetics to put carbs in the diet of a Type 2 diabetic, since it obviously raises their blood sugar level tremendously, due to failing insulin sensitivity. Criminal?
Anyway- Zoe´s article I borrowed - I am sure she wouldnt mind for once- and follows below
Consumer advocates, nutritional geeks and Atkins freaks really love to speculate about how the "evil industry" influences with lobbying and dubious financial subsidies in politics, science and society in order to maximize their profits at the expense of consumers and their health.
Unfortunately, such machinations are often very difficult to prove or understand: By its nature, these kind of manipulations are kept very secret and happen in the background.
Recent Study from Archival Documents
A significant amount of fuel, was dumped on the fire of such conspiracy theorists on September 13 2016, since a study was published on that day, which suggest just that: Conspiracy and Manipulation by the Sugar Industry. The authors of that study have compiled a number of documents from the 60s and 70s, which show in detail how the Sugar Industry in the United States systematically downplayed the risks of sugar for cardiovascular disorders and at the same time upgraded the role of cholesterol and saturated fat in cardiac research in order to promote their interests and profit making.
The paper published in the „Journal of the American Medical Association“ (JAMA) called, "Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research – A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents" (download below) reads like a Agatha Christie thriller: like detectives, the authors scrambled through the archives of the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) and accumulated hundreds of documents and correspondence to re-construct in acribic detail how the SFR influenced scientific research in the sixties and seventies in a systematic fashion to promote their own interests.
Things kind of started in the fifties with the fact that the incidence of cardiovascular diseases was rapidly increasing and therefore science research was highly interested to deal with the issue and find the cause thereof.
Always Consult your Doctor for Hormone Replacement Therapy
On January 31 2014, the FDA issued a safety warning on the off-label use of testosterone in men, due to old age and required a labeling change to warn for the use of testosterone, due to an increased cardiovascular- and stroke risk.
The wording of that announcement included the following lines: link here
Testosterone is FDA-approved as replacement therapy only for men, who have low testosterone levels due to disorders of the testicles, pituitary gland, or brain that cause a condition called hypogonadism. Examples of these disorders include failure of the testicles to produce testosterone because of genetic problems, or damage from chemotherapy or infection. However, FDA has become aware that testosterone is being used extensively in attempts to relieve symptoms in men who have low testosterone for no apparent reason other than aging. The benefits and safety of this use have not been established.
In addition, based on the available evidence from published studies and expert input from an Advisory Committee meeting, FDA has concluded that there is a possible increased cardiovascular risk associated with testosterone use. These studies included aging men treated with testosterone. Some studies reported an increased risk of heart attack, stroke, or death associated with testosterone treatment, while others did not.
That "advice" was dissappointing since several studies published before the warning had already shown a positive correlation to reduced risk for cardio events after therapy and subsequently even in August 2015 a very large study by the Veterans Administration concluded that successfull hormone replacement therapy has a very positive impact on cardiavascular outcomes for the patients involved-
Ancel Keys was a US scientist, who mainly worked and lived in Minnesota and managed to become a 100 years old (respect!). He reached early international fame by doing the Minnesota Starvation Study to aid the populations on the globe hit by famine after WW II. Later on, he did the Seven Countries Study, for which study he however had data from 20 nations/populations, but only used the seven, which seemed to support his hypothesis.
From Wikipedia: After observing in southern Italy the highest concentration of centenarians in the world, Keys hypothesized that a Mediterranean-style diet low in animal fat protected against heart disease and that a diet high in animal fats led to heart disease. The results of what later became known as the Seven Countries Study appeared to show that serum cholesterol was strongly related to coronary heart disease mortality both at the population and at the individual level. As a result, in 1956 representatives of the American Heart Association appeared on television to inform people that a diet, which included large amounts of butter, lard, eggs, and beef would lead to coronary heart disease. This resulted in the American government recommending that people adopt a low-fat diet in order to prevent heart disease.
Keys had concluded that saturated fats as found in milk and meat have adverse effects, while unsaturated fats found in vegetable oils had beneficial effects. This message was obscured for a 20-year period starting around 1985, when all dietary fats were considered unhealthy. This was driven largely by the hypothesis that all dietary fats cause obesity and cancer.
In the past few years I have read a lot- and listened many hours (Youtube) to folks, who had a message, which appeared to make sense and were congruent to the experiences I noted, whilst going through change processes myself and at the same time were debunking "myths" from the "science based medical industry" i.e. the Ancel Keys myth of substituting saturated fats, like butter and palm oils, with omega 6 polyunsaturated linoleic products, like margerine and sunflower seed oil. And whats even more important, the assumption that a high diet in saturated fats implies a higher risk for major cardiac adverse events compared to substitution those to linoleic oils, which proved exactly to be the other way round and caused major health damage to global humanity, due to the defunct cholesterol hypothesis.
Those "debunkers" which have been important to me, include Joseph Mercola on a general level and Robert Lustig on a scientific basis, but also Zoe Harcombe was really good to listen to. Today- I passed her website on my web journey of the day- and impulsively decided to subcribe to her newsletter so I contribute a bit to her research. You probably will hear more from her through my own writings as what usually happens with "disciples" LOL.
She lives in Newport, in beautiful South-Wales, where I had the pleasure to also spend quite a few months of my life.