1. moreporkplease
    Andreas, this guy lost his license for repeated malpractice. Is he who we want as a spokesmodel for LCHF?
  2. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Just heard about that. Even though the reasons for losing his licence mostly seems to be about insufficient paper work it obviously reduces his credibility.

    Still a nice text though.

  3. I'm also a bit concerned about The ways Dr Lundell promotes his supplement interests
    The RealW8 Formula
    RealW8 details

    However, I do agree that dealing with excess inflammation by improving anti inflammatory status and reducing pro-inflammatory inputs is necessary if we want to help people prevent diabetes, heart disease, dementia and deal effectively with obesity and reduce the chance of weight regain.

  4. Tom Hepplewhite
  5. Alexandra M
    This is a big problem that the LCHF movement faces - if it's associated with anti-vaccine hysteria and other types of quackery, it will never be accepted as scientifically sound, and presently there are quite a few of these types of quacks, including Dr. Joseph Mercola, promoting it.
  6. Alexandra M
    Quackwatch is something my friends regard as the gold standard of science-based evaluation of medical claims:


    I hope we can get the good Dr. Barrett to eat his words someday!

  7. However one also needs to read
  8. Alexandra M
    "However one also needs to read..."

    No, one doesn't. Unless one doesn't care about having LCHF proven by science.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either LCHF will ultimately be accepted by the mainstream because it has been proven by science in RCTs, or it will continue to be rejected because the only argument for it is that it should be accepted along with quackery because there’s a conspiracy out there trying to suppress any treatment unproven by science.

    I thought the whole point of this endeavor was to enlist science to support the observations that have been made about the benefits of LCHF, not to convince the world that scientific evidence doesn’t matter.

    Or did I come to the wrong place?

  9. I feel honored to be mentioned on this website. In the USA one does not speak out against established medicine without consequences. I have been happily retired from active practice since 2003, the board action was in 2008 one year after I published a book The Cure for Heart Disease.
    Diet Doctor keep up the good work, you will save more lives that I did in the OR.
    My great grandfather came to America from Sweden, hope to visit someday
  10. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Hi Dwight!

    Sorry to hear about your problems and the timing sure seems suspicious. I'm glad I live in Sweden – that probably makes it easier to speak up without necessarily becoming a target.

    Let me know if you ever do visit here. I'd be happy to show you around.

  11. Murray B
    I read the quackwatch entry and it seems ad hominen and does not impute his observations as a very experienced clinician. His observations are empirical evidence from a clinical setting and cannot be dismissed so casually.

    Nonetheless, it would have been better if this post had mentioned that there is some controversy surrounding him and that his speaking out is not current news, as it seems he wrote a book several years ago.

  12. Alexandra M
    I wonder if Dr. Barrett ever updates his entries? (from the low carb diet entry)

    "Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition."

    Compare with:

    "A recent report of Krauss et al. (AJCN, 2006) separates the effects of weight loss and carbohydrate restriction. They clearly confirm that carbohydrate restriction leads to an improvement in atherogenic lipid states in the absence of weight loss or in the presence of higher saturated fat. In distinction, low fat diets seem to require weight loss for effective improvement in atherogenic dyslipidemia."


  13. I found Dr. Lundell´s article quite interesting, not least because it has stimulated a debate on our traditional views on the etiology of coronary artery disease. We certainly need to constantly reevaluate our views and thoughts and incorporate new scientific findings into the model in order to be able to progress. What bothers me however, is Dr. Lundell´s somewhat opinionated, nonscientific approach to this extremely important issue. It makes the article appear like it is written by a preacher or a politician who has to sell a message whatever the costs. The article lacks the professional approach of a scientist who carefully examines available scientific data before drawing conclusions.
    You can read my blog at:
  14. Margaretrc
    @Axel F, I went and read your blog and a couple of things bother me. You state, "Cholesterol crystals may actually be of central importance in inducing inflammatory responses in the arterial wall." I wasn't aware that cholesterol crystals circulate in the blood at all. If I'm mistaken about that, please enlighten me, but I thought the only form in which cholesterol is in the blood is in lipoprotein carrier entities. "There are however studies available indicating that monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats may be a healthier food choice than saturated fats." I've seen those studies, and I've seen some very scientific analyses of them, and they are flawed--or at least the conclusions are, particularly the ones that study polyunsaturated oils. It may be better for the heart, but not so good for all cause mortality. I'm sure polyunsaturated oils are better than refined carbohydrates in terms of heart health, but healthier than saturated fat--the very fats we make from excess carbohydrates ourselves, the very fats that comprised the bulk of our ancestors' diet? I doubt it. "His statement that polyunsaturated fatty acids are likely to cause inflammation is in my view an oversimplification? " Perhaps, but an imbalance of omega-6 polyunsaturated compared to omega-3 very likely is a contributor to inflammation.
  15. Margaretrc
    Also, I agree with @Alexandra M. LCHF must distance itself from people who promote agendas not based on science, such as Dr. Mercola, a staunch anti-vaccine propagandist. (Although I did read in a different thread, someone said he is against low carb--thinks it's dangerous. so I don't know how consistently he promotes LC.) Likewise, we must always be on the side of science, no matter where it leads, and against bad science, whether it says something we agree with or not. The recent news about the Harvard study about white rice and type 2 diabetes risk is a case in point. That study was no better than the study declaring red meat will give us cancer, but while I saw a lot of discussion calling out the meat study all over the LC blogosphere, I don't recall seeing much calling out the white rice study. If we are to gain credibility, we have to call out the bad science no matter what the message--or face (valid) criticism like this: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/03/what-reading-that-white-rice-and... The fact that eating too much white rice may indeed contribute to diabetes risk, while red meat consumption will not give us cancer is irrelevant.
  16. Margaretrc.

    Thank you for reading my article at http://www.docsopinion.com/2012/03/what-is-it-that-really-causes-hear.... I really appreciate your interest.

    You are right about the cholesterol crystals. They do not circulate in the blood, indeed I never said that. However they may be present in the arterial wall, mainly in atherosclerotic plaques. You can see pictures of such crystals if you "google" them on the internet. You can also read articles about the role cholesterol crystals may play in inflammatory processes in the arterial wall. Have a look at this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142300.htm.

    I am not saying that saturated fats are better or worse than nonsaturated. I am absolutely not promoting refined carbohydrates. What I am trying to say is that we have to base our views on scientific evidence. If we don´t, we can´t claim to be professionals. If we don´t our arguments will not be convincing. This is what evidence medicine is about.

  17. Sorry. Messed up the link to my article: "What is it that really causes heart disease". Here it is: http://www.docsopinion.com/2012/03/what-is-it-that-really-causes-hear...
  18. Zepp
    Well Axel, I have now read both yours and Lundells article.. and I do seem that both are quite as good!

    Lundells is more of his own hypotesis.. and I dont see that he is totaly wrong.. and as you do wrigth.. there is a lot of science to do to understand the whole thing!

    I do think, and belive that you can hold with me that Atherosklerosis is of diferent causes and probably multifactoriell.. probably is genetics a part of it to.

    To keep up the debate about this I do read other articles to, and what do you think about this.. of another medical professinal?

    "Cholesterol doesn’t harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude–very crude–marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a “dipstick,” for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don’t understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.

    Cholesterol itself never killed anybody, any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident.

    What kills people is rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries. For all practical purposes, you must have atherosclerotic plaque in order for it to rupture (much like a volcano erupts and spews lava). It’s not about cholesterol; it’s about atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque might contain cholesterol, but cholesterol is not the thing itself that causes heart attack and death."


  19. Margaretrc
    @Axel, okay, I'll grant that cholesterol crystals may be found in plaque. I knew that cholesterol is often found in plaque, I just didn't know it was in the crystalline form, but I suppose that makes sense. The question we have to ask then is, did cholesterol cause the inflammation or did it arrive there after the fact as a substance charged with the repair of inflammation already there? I can cite references that point to the latter scenario, rather than the former, and to me that makes more sense. Cholesterol is a natural substance that we need for every part of our body and practically every function. I find it difficult to fathom that such a substance--unless oxidized or otherwise deranged--would spontaneously cause inflammation leading to atherosclerotic plaque or heart disease. There are much more reasonable explanations for the inflammation--high blood sugar being one major one, infection being another. "The higher the blood cholesterol level, the greater the risk of atherosclerosis and the greater the likelihood of suffering a heart attack. " (the Science Daily article.) That is simply not true. There are people with high cholesterol who have been shown to have no heart disease and people with lower than normal cholesterol have gotten heart disease and/or died of a heart attack. That is the old mythology that has never been substantiated. It very much depends on the breakdown of the different types and subtypes of cholesterol. I agree that we have to base our views on scientific evidence. There just isn't any that links cholesterol or cholesterol crystals as a causative agent in atherosclerosis or heart attacks--unless it has been oxidized. http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com "Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You" by Uffe Ravnskov
  20. Acidic diets cause heart disease. Alkaline Diets are the ultimate cure.
  21. Brad
    I am not a doctor, I am just an average individual from Canada seeking the truth.

    I commend all those Doctor, scientists and individuals in the health organisations that stand up and speak the truth regardless of the outcome. This tells me that there are professional people who really care and are not afraid to make a stand for what is proven and right.

    My only wish is that these professional people wold push our Governments, FDA, and American Heart Association to make the changes without compromise.

    I realize it is all money, pride and job. What has society come to if all we do is sit and watch people die from diseases we know are preventable?

  22. Ankhan
    # 21 Brad

    Unfortunately I can only say, money talks......

    Doctors and professors who dare to speak out is often mocked and ridiculed by the establishment.
    The industry pays for most research, the result is therefore what the industry wants it to be...
    The industry is not interested in our health, they just want to make money.
    Pharmaceutical industry wants us to be sick so that we continue to buy their medications,...
    Food industry wants us to continue to eat the artificial food that is full of sugar and starch, then we will always continue to be craving for this food....

    They will do anything to get us to eat "as usual", then we will not get rid of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and other diseases, which is good for them...
    What if everyone was healthy, all for free, just by eating right...?

    The world realy needs people like Andreas (Diet dr), Dwight Lundell, Dr Lustig, Gary Taubes, and all the other brave men and women who dare to speak out...
    (Google translate!)

  23. # Ankahan

    You say it´s all about money and maybe you´re right. But I don´t really see the difference between the moneymaking actions of the pharmaceutical industry and other types of moneymaking, like for example Dr. Lundell´s HeartShot formula. http://buildu.net/heartshot.aspx. Please enlighten me. Somebody!

  24. Ankhan
    ...Yes it was sad to see...

    It shows that you can not trust anyone...
    ...and it shows exactly what I said earlier, that money talks...


  25. Tisha
    To all those nay-sayers out there. In basic scientific research it is being revealed more and more that inflammation is the true cause of many of these degenerative diseases, such heart disease. The science is there, but its still being done at the basic level, on rats and such, so no one really hears about it except the scientific community. There was also a recent study showing gluten (wheat protein) can lead to increased fat gain, inflammation and insulin resistance in mice.
  26. Eeyore
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    This is a perfect example. Yes, we need to reduce sugar and other simple carbs and make healthy proteins and fats a regular part of our diet for diabetes and heart disease prevention. But does that make all of Dr. Lundells claims true?? Not by far. He decided to skip the steps of research and doing the actual science and go straight to selling books. And yes, the fact that he has such a long record of being censured, reprimanded and even having his license revoked (I will give a doc one mistake - but seriously?? ...) does say something about his character. Everyone who says, "but it was just record keeping", doesn't understand how vital records are in medical care and how seriously GOOD doctors who CARE about patients take it. Plus it was more than record keeping it also involved direct patient care.

    Fact, Americans are living and working longer despite having a diet much higher in sugar and other carbs. Why? Doctors and their pills, that's why. My dad is a good example. He's lived much longer than his paternal line because he takes his pills. Does he modify his diet as well? Yes. He avoids saturated fats and sugar. Just because Lundell may be right about the dangers of sugar doesn't mean he is right about the safety a diet high in saturated fats. In fact all the actual scientific data says he isn't. But every nutritionist my dad saw said his diet wasn't the problem. It's called genes. Look into it.

  27. Saji K Sam
    His theory of inflammation was clearly mentioned by many physicians long ago, especially Dr Ray D Strand in his book titled " what your doctor doesn't know about Nutritional Medicine may be killing you". Dr.Dwight Lundell took 25 years and 5000 surgeries to convince himself of the same.
    Anyhow, what he re-established is absolutely right.
  28. dorothy Susovich
    I read Dr Dwight Lundell MD report 2010 My husband has had cornary sirgery 1986 , 1998 unfortunately he had a stroke due to poor medical management 6 days after he was admitted walking in 2001 the nuerolgist played God as he chose to treat him with Lipitor, which had devastating results. The GP now agrees with my husband not having any statins, He has been taking Pure coconut oil also Co-enzyme Q10 daily,since 2010lcholestral levels are good also the Vascular dementia is very mild.,I congratulate DR Dwight Lundell for giving his important viewsand wish him the very best in his retirement.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts