Prof Feinman spoke at the 45th EASD Annual Meeting, Vienna, Austria to raise the challanging subject of the unfortuneate link between insulin and starch. It is not often that mere mortals like me get the chance to listen to this man so I thought I would share this link with anyone reading this Blog.

So:-

1 go to http://easd.conference2web.com/content
2 go to page 10
3 look down the list of speakers until you find Prof Feinman
4 Click on the link and listen to his talk.

I know it is a bit of a hassle but there is no other way to get there. Anyone interested in getting thin or worried about diabetes should listen to this Prof in Biochemistry. Find out why eating lots of starch is just not great for you and why the problem is not in the fats we eat but in the starch and the sugar we consume.

Over the past 7 years since I took an interest in low starch / high protein diets there have times when it appeared that no one seemed remotely interested in solving the obesity crises other than by repeating the same inadaquate message of Eat Less - Do More. All that has happened, over the past six years ,while we are getting fatter, is that the tone of audio level of that message has changed from a normal voice to a loud shout. This will remind us all of the classic comedy sketch when the British visitor overseas, speaks to the local in English and when they dont “get it” starts to repeat it again and again but starts to shout or repeat it loudly slowly.

The tourist unable to speak french or spanish will never improve his communication with the locals until he starts to accept that the language is simply not appropriate for them. Shouting Eat less fat and do more to people that have an insulin problem need to understand that it will never work.

Having despaired at times over the lack of interest in low starch high proteing I am pleased to see two more scientific studies published in October which point the finger of blame at high starch / low fat. One is a meta analysis of epidemiological studies throughout Europe which concludes that there is no evidence of a link between low fat and weight loss. The second is a study on the comparative benefits of reducing fat or carbs in a diet. No surprises on the outcome. Whilst weight loss was comparitively similiar lipid profile ( ie cholesterol profile) of the low starch group was better. This is a consistent message in all the comparitive studies but for some reason people find it hard to understand that the real culprit in the obesity and CVD world is insulin and insulin resistence and that the key to solving this issue is the way we eat carbs and not fats.

Two steps forward.

Follow this link to a great video of a lecture given at Stamford Uni by a professor in Nutrition who is reluctantly admitting that perhaps low carb does beat low fat.

It is certainly easy to follow and his humility at the end is charming.

What it shows is that whether you blame the results on insulin or water or satiety , low carb does better than low fat.

The reality is, whether we like it or not, our natural diet ( otherwise known as a caveman diet) is a great way to lose fat and sustain weight loss for life.

http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/battle-of-the-diets

Last week, Prof Feinman ( who has been a great help to golower and the low starch movement) spoke at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting to present the case for low starch / low sugar diets in the management of diabetes.

Prof Feinman explained

“Keeping carbohydrates low would actually reduce the risk of CVD. In essence, fat in the presence of carbohydrate is where we find the problems, which is very different from fat in the absence of carbohydrate.”

He went on to explain that carbohydrates, either directly or through insulin, are control elements in the metabolism. “They determine the disposition of fat whether stored for obesity or whether having an effect on lipoproteins and vasculature. The metabolic effect of reducing carbohydrates is that it predisposes to oxidizing the fat rather than storing it, and in diabetes specifically, it prevents the metabolic state of high glucose and high insulin, which is detrimental across the board.”

Supporting this view were a number of other experts who agree with the desperate need to challange the current othodoxy that a high carb low fat diet is best for diabetics.

Naturally the usual low fat experts were there to argue the contrary. What is really encouraging though is that three years ago the arguement was that there was no evidence in favour of low carb. Now the arguement has had to move to the slightly dodgy arguement that we need more time to see what happens. In otherwords whilst the low fat fools cant ignore the ever increasing pile of clincial trials in favour of low carb they can sink back into the defensive position of ” we need longer trials etc” The longer this goes on the more people that are slowly but surely dying of carbs….which have never been an essential food to the human diet.

The latest dictate from the government is to reduce salt. This reduction message is linked to various health concern from hypertension and stomach cancer. Hopefully the science that they are relying on is a little more robust than the science that supports the low saturated fat message.

The saturarted fat message is based on various studies that have been accumulated over the past 30-40 years and one might have presumed that the studies being provided as robust evidence of a link between CVD and saturated fat would show conclusively that saturated fats cause CVD.

Well guess what ……they don’t!

Here is a very brief summary of what the studies and you will be surprised to find that not one study conclusively proves that there is a link and not only that most of the studies always combine a high fat diet with a high starch diet. Clearly our Government is not particularly interested in the quality of the information it recieves. This is not a new problem.

Since the early 80s there have been 46 studies trying to show this absolute link between the intake of saturated fats and heart disease. Of these only four show any association and those were epidemiological and a further 6 found a slight benefit from reducing saturated fats but those had many other variables from medication or supplements, or other factors such as smoking and exercise which could have distorted the outcomes. The very best studies to prove cause and effect are called double-blind studies. These ensure that neither the researchers nor the participants
know who is and who is not receiving intervention. To date there have only been two double-blind studies and neither showed a connection between saturated fats and heart disease.

All in all this is not very robust science but this has not stopped our government blaming much of the obestiy epedemic and CVD figures on the intake of saturated fat.

Here hoping that the salt message is based on proper clincial trials which show the impact of salt when you combine different foods.

I am lucky enough to part of a scientific forum of experts who are interested in diabetes obesity and CVD in relation to diet. These experts come from across the globe and have together published literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers and books on the subject of food and health.
In particular they are all interested in the impact of insulin and fat gain. As you will note I use the word fat rather than weight.

Today one of the professors will be giving a talk at the European Conference on Diabetes and he will., I suspect, be suggesting something very very radical. He is going to suggest that diabetes is connected with an imbalance in insulin production and that this disease may be connected with a diet which causes an in balance in insulin production.

The arugument is very complex but it can be really simplified as follows:-

The only foods that cause significant insulin release are sugar and starch and therefore it may be the levels of sugar and starch in peoples diets that might be causing the diabetes epedemic. Interestingly most diabetics can come off medication when they strip sugar and starch out of thier diet.

No doubt the majority of dieticians will be horrified by this argument since it completly undermines the recommended diet for diabetics.

I am looking forward to finding out what he spoke about and what the reaction was.

Last week a national paper in Sweden announced a new diet to lose weight - LCHF ( which means low carb / high fat). What surprised me is not the arguement that a low carb / high fat diet is likely to help you lose weigh but the notion that this is NEW. As far back as ancient Egypt it was known that glucose was linked to fat storage and therefore avoiding foods that cause spikes in glucose levels would aid fat loss.

When glucose levels are elevated, insulin will kick in and start storing excess glucose as fat. Fat ( saturated or otherwise) does not trigger insulin resposne so the fat collection process is not triggered by eating fat. The main foods that trigger insulin is starch and sugar..

Whilst starch and sugar are within the group of foods known as carbohydrates they are very different to other members of the same group like green beans or cabbage or almonds and nuts. They are all carbs but that group title is really misleading.

What woudl be helpful is a new definition of a diet called LSSHP ( Low Starch and Sugar / High Protein) . Perhaps that might be the solution ….Not New but a New Name.

Reading today about a family in Dundee seperated by social services because two of the children are very fat makes me want to scream.

Whilst obesity is clearly a major health and economic issue facing the UK I fail to see how social workers are best placed to deal with this problem. Are we seriously going to sepearte all obeses families in the UK?

What this family needs, just like anyone who is obese in this country is advice on how to lose those extra inches which is base on proven science; practical and sustainable. Seperating clhildren from loving parents is complete madness especailly when it is likely that this family is fat becasue they have actuallly done what they have been told to do by the government experts.

The obestiy challnage can be won very easily if we stop repeating the failed messages of the past 30 years.

In Endocrine Today an article was published highlighting the expense of following a Mediterranean diet and suggesting that this was an issue in the battle against the bulge. It is true that a steak will cost more than a pizza and it is true that fortified starch is cheaper than eating berries or spinach but we should all think beyond the obvious.
Whilst the cost of eating well is higher than filling up on cheap fodder in the form of grain sugar and other starches there are massive savings to be made in other ways.

Firstly a diet low in starch and sugar is unlikely to make you gain weight and therefore you are unlikely to require a diet club or diet drugs or other diet products and services. Secondly a diet low in sugar and starch is likely to be far more healthy and the need for endless skin and hair products will be reduced. The secret of beauty and youth is locked into nutrition more than anything else.

Now when you look at the cost of barriatric surgery or the real cost of diabetes and you start to wonder why anyone would begrudge spending a little extra on some healthy nutritious food rather than eating cheap fattening animal fodder….

If we can not explain to someone the benefits of eating well beyond a matter of out of pocket expense then we must accept that over half the population will be obese because sugar and starch are cheap for a reason.

It is generally accepted that sugar is linked to obesity if it is eaten in excessive amounts. But what has been highlighted in numerous studies is that the more sugar we consume the faster we are likely to age.

The bio chemical process is simple. When you eat sugar or anything that turns to sugar quickly (which means some starches) the starch and sugar turns to glucose in the blood stream. Normally you would hope that the glucose is quickly transported to cells that need energy. If however the blood can not get rid of the glucose quick enough the excess glucose will over time start to link itself with protein molecules in the blood. This process is called glycation.

If this process continues you then develope AGEs which are Advanced Glycation End products and these can cause inflammation and damage to your skin and circulation.

But ofcourse anyone familiar with the hunter gatherer diet would have no difficulty understanding why we are simply not designed to have lots of sugar whether it is in the manufactured form or the natural form found in fruit. Sugar is a treat !