Pizza without bread: Meatza

Meaza

Here is yesterdays dinner: Meatza. It’s LCHF pizza with minced meat as the bottom. Not bad at all, and after just two pieces I was completely full. That never happened when I ate flour pizza.

Eating this delicious meatza I missed nothing, and I suspect any kids in the family would feel the same way.

Want to try it?

1 2 3

120 comments

  1. Margaretrc
    I definitely want to try it. I know I saw the recipe somewhere recently, but can you post it or link it again, please? Thank you. Looks delicious!
  2. That looks really good! I like an egg and cheese crust, as well. Hubby has even tried a LCHF "bread" on the bottom.
  3. That looks really good! I haven't tried anything like that before, I'm putting it on my list!
  4. Heidi P.
    We tried this recipe the other night: http://www.justinowings.com/b/index.php/me/meatza-meatza and it was really good - even the kids liked it.
  5. Dalila
    If anybody owns a copy of Dana Carpender's 500 Low Carb Recipes, there is a recipe in there as well!
  6. Jon
    @Doc,

    Just browsed The China Study last night, I cannot stress how important book this is. Forget all the "China Study has been debunked". I am talking about the popularized version which is more about life of Colin T Campbell as well as the analysis of the society, drug & food industry. I am 100% guaranteed that this work would benefit your professional life. In addition it covers an extensive array of research in nutrition.

    Campbell disclosed that biggest mistake that was done in the 1980s was to pay a focus on individual, isolated nutrients, instead of the big picture. Campbell co-authored reports of the National Academy of Sciences during the 1980s. The whole "low-fat" boom started when international, observatory studies on disease showed that high-fat diets were correleted with problems. This led people to think that could reap benefits while eating the exact same diet but tinkering with fat. This was ofcourse a huge mistake. This gave a birth to margarin and "low-fat"-cookies and chips.

    Colin Campbell elaborated carefully the results of the Harvard trials which has caused so much of confusion about a diet and disease. All the Harvard trials along many others suffer from the same methodological flaw. There's no international context in these studies. The studies were all done on a same carnivorous population of United States. The only difference was that the health-conscious people in these studies tinkered with fat, with very poor-results. No health befefits are reaped while eating an animal-based diet, low on fat. Animal protein itself raises cholestrol more than cholestrol or fat in animal foods itself. In addition, with this kind of diet rich in animal foods it matters very little whether you eat one veggie or five veggies a day, you are going to screwed anyway.

    So, Doc. I am asking if you are up for a challenge. You will read the popularized version of China Study and I will real Gary Taubes book! Are up for this?

  7. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Jon,
    Sure. I just ordered Campbell's China Study book. I'll have a closer look at it although I can't promise I'll read the whole thing (I have lots of brilliant books waiting to be read.)

    Good luck with Gary Taubes's book. If you are talking about GCBC (his best by far) you have quite a challenge ahead of you. Not many people make it through all the way... ;)

  8. Kärnfrisk
    "Animal protein itself raises cholestrol more than cholestrol or fat in animal foods itself"

    And? If you are a believer in the cholesterol myth you may have a point, but otherwise it's totally meaningless to pay any attention to it at all.

    For your information, China is the worlds largest producer of pigs in the world. What do you think they do with all this pork?

    And yes, The China Study is debunked. You just don't wanna edmit it. Ignorance is a bliss.

  9. Jon
    @Doc,

    sounds fantastic. However, I suggest strongly that you go through the whole book, as much of the exiting stuff is in the last chapters, the stuff that is really eye-opening. I am talking about the role of drug & food industry in the society. The way it works and the way they manage to intermingle with the academia. Since this is the work of a man very "within" the system, there's no risk of hearing any new-age-hippie conspiracy rants. The part of story it ain't nice story but necessary to read for all doctors, whether one agrees the main message of the work or not.

    Moreover, that Veg-stuff is the "fad", being embraced increasingly by the Hollywood and Sport-celebs. People are going to ask you about it sooner or later.

    Yes, we'll see what Gary Taubes has to offer. I've seen him debating online with Dean Ornish. Not impressed, but I try to have an open-mind.

  10. Funderaren
    Jon, you should read Docs book when it gets an english translation.
  11. Jon
    @Kärnfrisk,

    the data collected from the China-Study yielded hundreds of peer-reviewed academic papers published in the most respected medical journals. I haven't heard that this stuff has been debunked scientific platforms. I suggest that you might do well by taking a look of it as well, atleast you could argue with your point and have more credibility. That's the very exact reason I will go through Taubes book.

    I frankly do not care about the whole cholestrol-issue, whether it's a myth or not, it's irrelevant in the big picture. There's pretty darn profound evidence of what promotes disease and what not (and no the environmental chemicals and pesticides do not play that big part as people might think). I just merely pointed that things can be quite complicated, as it's been clinically proved that animal protein itself raises cholestrol levels more than cholestrol directly.

    Colin Campbell is very clear with his message that we've gone awfully wrong by focusing on individual nutrients such as fat and cholestrol. We've got only more confused with this kind of scientific reductionism. This is the very message of a biochemist himself.

  12. Kärnfrisk
    No, I won't waste my time by read a (for me) useless book.

    Good that you don't care about the cholesterol issue. Because it's not an issue at all. There is no proof that cholesterol causes anything, expect maybe health.

  13. Jon
    @Kärnfrisk

    the thing was that the authors of the Cornell-Oxford study knew that the results are going to be very controversial. They wanted to be as extremely open & transparent as possible. What they did was quite extraordinary: they published the whole raw-date of the study, hundreds and hundreds of paper. I think this wasn't very clever move since it gave all kind of industry-sponsored lobbygroups (Weston Price Foundation f.e) a good tool to come up with very unscientific critisism, they didn't care whether their critisism was legitimate or not, they only cared about making headlines and confusing people. That's how industry-sponsored lobby-groups work. Tobacco-industry making a classic case. These people had absultely no experience in conducting peer-reviewed research, statistics, medicine or nutrition. So, what we have is tons of people thinking that China-Study is "debunked". People think the message of the China Study was unique, because because they are not aware of the huge amount of studies that the media has never written a word about. It's very sad. An open-mind won't hurt. It's clear message but it doesn't get out to the public. Campbell gives answers to all the million-dollar questions.

  14. Jon
    I could add to Kärnfrisk and others that the work of man who have authored and co-authored over 350 peer-reviewed articles in the greatest medical journals and whose book is being praised by a Nobel laurete in Physics among others is not being "debunked" by a bunch of bloggers.
  15. Kärnfrisk
    The number of articles is not the thing here, it's the quality. Crap studies are crap studies, even if they are millions of them. The China Study has been debunked. And not only by bloggers. But as usual, one can choose to not see what one don't want to see.

    I hope your'e not assuming "industry-sponsored lobby-groups" means only meat industry. For your information the sugar and starch industry is far, far bigger, and has far more lobbyists. So you are missing the target here quite a bit.

    And still no answer to China being the largest producer of pork? Why is that?

  16. Kärnfrisk
    When it comes to nutrionition studies, the only ones of value is intervention studies. Observational studies are of no meaning what so ever on this matters. They can be a ground to build a hypothesis on, at best, but never to proof anything att all. The bias of the researchers is far to great. As you ask you'll get answers.

    For example, the western researchers sertanly don't see insects, dogs and apes as food. Simly because we don't eat that kind of animals in the west. Therefore they don't pay any attention to that in the research. And that of course leads to wrong conclusions, like that the chineese don't eat a lot of meat, because the researches didn't see a lot of cows. But how they missed all the pigs I can't understand.

  17. Jon
    @ Kärnfrisk, you need to sharp up. The hypothesis were formulated after decades lasting, extensive laboratory work. The researchers visited hudreds of homes, collecting data on diet, lifestyle factors and taking bloodsamples. Don't worry about the pork, we know exactly what kind of diet the Chinese are consuming and in which part of the country. It might be good idea for you to actually read a well designed observation study so that you would know how it works.
  18. Milton
    Anthony Colpo (no friend of the low-carb movement) wrote a lengthy and pretty devastating critique of Campbell's book back in 2006: http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=129

    He noted that Campbell's response to his write-up was insults and put-downs, but no actual reference to the points made that refuted his work. Colpo is pretty thorough in pointing out that Campbell is either a very poor researcher and scientist, or simply a very dishonest one. And he covers more than just the data from the original China study, he shows a number of facts that Campbell either twisted or simply ignored when they proved inconvenient to his overarching point.

    Campbell is a very good example of the sort of research that has been going on for decades in order to prop up a failed theory and a very large industry, one whose lobbying arm dwarfs groups like the Weston Price Foundation.

  19. Kärnfrisk
    @Jon
    You actually don't have to read any study at all. Statistics of a country might suffice. For example, take a look at the Americans. They eat the leanest, most fat free diet in the world. Low fat and non fat is da shit there. They also eat huge amounts of carbs and sugar. How does the general health look over there? Well, americans are the most obese people in the world. Diabetes type 2 is escalating exponential. CHD is the most common diseases today and so on.

    Now let's look at France. They eat the most fatty foods in the entire western world. And it isn't vegetable oil I'm talking about. Animal fat is da shit here. Of course they also eat some starch, but in very small amounts. It's not the main course of a meal, which of course meat is. Bread is eaten very sparsly. Inspite all the meat and fat in their food the frenchmen are among the healthiest people around with low rate of CHD, diabetes and on top obesity is virtually not known of. On top of that they smoke like crazy and still don't get more lungcancer than other countries. You may know this as the french paradox. Which of course isn't a paradox if you know how the human betabolism works.

  20. Dan
    @Kärnfrisk

    Please let Jon eat his delicious rice, and we'll have more bacon for ourselves.

  21. Margaretrc
    Thanks, Dean, I eventually came across that one, too. Will try to make it one day soon.
  22. Margaretrc
    @Jon, Another rather thorough debunking of the China Study can be found at Denise Minger's site, http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ She uses T. Colin Campbell's own data and shows how it leads to very different conclusions when looked at with unbiased eye. Then there's this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/ And Kärnfrisk #16 is right. It's not about how many peer reviewed articles or the string of letters after a person's name--if they are biased, and the peer reviewers are biased in the same way, it's still junk science.
  23. Kärnfrisk
    @Dan =)
    And of course rice is one of the most devastating crops to farm. But that doesn't seem to bother vegan nutheads. In fact, how would they farm their veggies in a natural way if their utopian dream, no live stock at all, would come trough? -Uh, didn't think about that...

    @Jon. Asked you before, but you dodged the question: what will happend with your teeth, being a weggie-/fruiteater, if you don't brush them? And, is it common in nature that the food any animal eat and that is natural for them destroys their teeth?

  24. Jon
    @Kärnfrisk

    "They eat the leanest, most fat free diet in the world. Low fat and non fat is da shit there"

    That is absolutely utter carbage. According to stats avarage American consumes a diet of around 45% of fat. The intake of fat has constantly increased. Gary Taubes points that the fat intake has decreased. That's a lie. Sure, it's relative share has constantly dropped and replaced by refined carbs (candies & cookies). But people in eat absolute figures, that's what matters. The fat intake has increased all the time thanks to growing portions since the 1970's. Only the educated, health-focused people tinker with fat as they are naive to assume they are better off with skim-milk instead of the whole-milk. Both gets you screwed.

    The french consume most of animal derivived calories from butter and cream, which are obviously very high in fat, but actually very low in animal protein. Again, I agree with Campbell that a greatest part of dietary confusion has stemmed from scientific reductionism, a focuc on inidividual nutrients, instead of the big picture. Animal products, whether "lean" or not promotes disease. Harvards trials have done exceptionally good job by confusing people.

    We get verification for this every month, we've got ever since the 1940's. I just doesn't make it to the headlines. The message from China Study was nothing from unique.

    From last month....

    "Researchers with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA, said that their study found that men with the highest percentage of docosahexaenoic acid – an inflammation-lowering omega-3 fatty acid commonly found in fish – have two-and-a-half times the risk of developing aggressive, high-grade prostate cancer compared to men with the lowest DHA levels".

    A full report on the study appears in the April 25 edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

    http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/04/study-fish-oil-increases-aggres...

    It's so sad that the Low-Carb movement have chosen to put their head in the sand. That's why I call it a religion or a cult. My faith in Western medicine has totally collapsed thanks to Medical Doctors advocating these kind of hazardous diets. I recognize that lot of it is due to misinformation, but we ought to expect our doctors to do atleast some kind of a evaluation of their prescribed diets. The info is there, it's a very clearly message.

  25. Jon
    @Margaretrc,

    How could I have forgotten that a 23-year old english teachers, with no experience in conducting research, statistics, nutrition, biology or medicine debunked the China Study. Aren't we seeing medical journals queeing to publish her critique. NOT.

    Your comment was the very exact reason why I refer LCHF-movement as a cult. You guys lie in some kind of post-baroque fairytale where single bloggist naive opinion matters more as peer-reviewed research. Where's the enlightment?

    Did anyone even bothered to read Campbell message to the bloggers and the meat & dairy lobbying groups. That's a good account how the study was designed.

    http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbe...

  26. Jon
    @Kärnfrisk

    "@Jon. Asked you before, but you dodged the question: what will happend with your teeth, being a weggie-/fruiteater, if you don't brush them? And, is it common in nature that the food any animal eat and that is natural for them destroys their teeth?"

    Sorry, I tend dismiss the most naive questions. But since you are pushing it.

    No, it's the opposite. Refined sugars as well as meat & dairy eating causes teeth decay. Meat and dairy are dominated by very acid-forming minerals and for body to balance all that, it needs to tear the alcaline-minerals from bones and teeth. We known through extensive research that meat & dairy is linked to osteoporosis.

    I am afraid you dealing again with another naive LCHF-myth. Low-fat, plant-based diet is optimal diet for humans. No exceptions. When the body does well, so does the teeth. It's a holistic, integrated system. But obviously you need to brush your teeth, no matter what kind food you are eating.

    Here's 2:30 marathoners who eats only fruits and leafs account on dental health.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3lV27F0w_g

  27. Jon
    @Margaretrc,

    Your sciencemedicine blog-portal critique was again below-par. That's a blog-portal, not a scientific platform despite they've tried to camouflage the page to look like one.

    They even linked Weston Price Foundation (meat-lobby organization sponsored by meat-prodcuers) and critique from Amazon discussion pages on the article. LOL! :) It would equivalent if a vegan doctor would tell his patients to eat veggies since PETA says its a good idea. This kind naive, ridiculous "critique" would never make its way to any scientific publication. They even critized Campbells postulation on the reversal of heart-disease because thats only been shown in pioneer-research, not a standard medical practise. Hell no! Curing patients with nutrition is definitely not part of mainstream medical approach. Yet it's shown to work in clinical environment, subjected to most rigorous scientific scrutiny. The Inuit part was funny as well. I'm amazed how she even dared to mention the most sickest human collective on earth and making it up as a good example of meat-eating populations with no disease.

    Sharp up!

  28. Kärnfrisk
    Myth? Haha, yea right. For your information. On a "standard" diet, which I was eating before LCHF, I had to repair karies in one or two teeths a year, inspite brusching my teeth like a maniac. The last six years on LCHF I had not a single cavity in a tooth. And I does not even brush my teeth every day. And when I do I never use toothpaste. Meat causing acid in the mouth? Yeah right. You really don't have a clue.

    Research a la Campbell:

    Why does Campbell indict animal foods in cardiovascular disease (correlation of +1 for animal protein and -11 for fish protein), yet fail to mention that wheat flour has a correlation of +67 with heart attacks and coronary heart disease, and plant protein correlates at +25 with these conditions?

    Speaking of wheat, why doesn’t Campbell also note the astronomical correlations wheat flour has with various diseases: +46 with cervix cancer, +54 with hypertensive heart disease, +47 with stroke, +41 with diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, and the aforementioned +67 with myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease?

    The China Study + vegan bias = truth

  29. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Jon,

    Low-fat, plant-based diet is optimal diet for humans. No exceptions.

    Do you have anything else than cherry-picked observational data to support this belief? Let me remind you the newest most high quality randomized trial on a vegan diet that you linked to (Barnard 2009) showed no significant difference to the horrible conventional low fat diet.

    If you do have any good controlled trials to support your faith I would love to see them. And no, I'm not impressed by talk about "lots of studies". Talk is cheap. Just show me a single good example.

  30. Kärnfrisk
    The Inuits beeing the sickest people? Of course they are, today, when they have Wall Mart with all its junk. Inuits eating their traditional diet is among the helthiest people on earth together with the Maasai people. That, I'm afraid, you can't dodge.

    What's bugging you about Weston A Price and meatproducers? What about all the carb industry? Or do you think lobbying for carbs, weggies, greens and sugars is ok? Vegan bias!

  31. Jon
    @Margaretrc

    So much for Weston-Price Propaganda and onlines pages camouflaged to look like a scientific platform. Inuits have the shortest life-span among the people of the globe. Any more "criticism" or rather propaganda in regards to China Study?

    "Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?" (2003)

    "FINDINGS: The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations"

    http://www.mendeley.com/research/low-incidence-cardiovascular-disease...

    http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(02)00364-7/abstract

    LCHF = the brigade for Meat & Dairy industry.

  32. Kärnfrisk
    And of course, Doc's request for a single, controlled study that supports your faith we won't see, are we?

    Apparently you don't have a single clue of what LCHF stands for. But that's no surprise, vegan biased as you are.

  33. Jon
    @Doc

    Incase you do not remember I already post you this ahile ago? You pretend they don't exist.

    "Here's the controlled trials, I talked you about yesterday. Just the way you like 'em...

    James Andersson MD, specialized in diabetes care put patienst to low-fat, plant-based experiment. The patients were non-obese diabetics. Out of 25 diabetics 24 were able to discontinue their medication in a matter of weeks. After three weeks his Diabetic 1 patients could reduce their medication 40% on average on the same diet.

    Pritikin Center did similar controlled trial with low-fat (around 10%), plant-based diets. Of the 40 person with diabetes 2 (all on medication) 36 were able to discontinue their medication after only 26-days.

    Dr. James Anderson writes "Ideally, diets providing 70% of calories as carbohydrate and up to 70gm fiber daily offer the greatest health benefits for individual with diabetes".

    Anderson JW. "Dietary fiber in nutrition management of diabetes" In: G. Vahouny, V. and D. Kritschevsky (eds.), Dietary Fiber: basic and clinical aspect, pp. 343-360. New York Plenum Press, 1986

    Barnard RJ et al. "Response of non-insulin-dependent to an intensive program of diet and excersise". Diabetes Care 5 (1982): 370-374

    Anderson JW, et al. "Dietary fiber and diabetes: a comprehensive review and practical application". J Am. Diet. assoc. 87 (1987)"

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Let me remind you the newest most high quality randomized trial on a vegan diet that you linked to (Barnard 2009) showed no significant difference to the horrible conventional low fat diet".

    What on earth? The vegan-diet did very well. Again you try to confuse people by using the NO-SIGNIFICANT-DIFFERENCE -concept. Basically that's like saying that a car is cheap because it's -17% off. Well, is it cheap? You don't know, since you don't know the base. Skip those market gimmicks.

    Could give opinion on this? Neal Barnard summarizing the results. I would like to hear your opinion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcs6MSdG2W0

    Anyways, don't worry, you will learn the story now that you have bought the China Study that book has over 700 references. Its message is short from unique and its the most comprehensice epimologic survey study on nutrition ever conducted. Not a cherry-picked study. But as pointed out, the popularized version, the book, has very little to do with the China-Study (according to Campbell his publisher wanted to use that silly name, it was right of the publisher to name the book) so even if you don't don't like "cherry-picked" observational studies, there's loads of interesting stuff that you have no idea. Your ideas of nutrition come from the stuff the media is interested. That's a very small segment of the story.

  34. Jon
    Kärnfrisk

    "What's bugging you about Weston A Price and meatproducers? What about all the carb industry? Or do you think lobbying for carbs, weggies, greens and sugars is ok? Vegan bias"

    The biggest & influential industrial lobby-groups in the world are the dairy & meat industry. Its their propaganda you are pursuing. Sugar groups are big as well (they just don't have anything to do with lobbying fruits). Fruit & veg lobbyists? LOL. Who are those? Well, admit there's some idiotic myths the ridicilously small fruits lobbyists especially the orange-farmers have pushed. That's the oranges good for vitamin C-thingy. Actually out of many fruits, quite poor source for vitamin C. But it's a delicious, healthy and nutrient-rich whole-food nevertheless.

  35. Funderaren
    Jon are we talking lifespan of todays inuits, or the lifespan among inuits 50 years ago.

    Also lifespan is not only effected by how long most people live in a community but how many make it past their first 6 months.

    And lifespan is not only an effect of the diet.

  36. Funderaren
    So the corn and wheat industry isnt lobbying?
  37. Jon
    @Funderaren. Jon are we talking lifespan of todays inuits, or the lifespan among inuits 50 years ago.

    You missed something. Actually we are talking about life-span and stroke. Even if the Inuits would eat all the processed crap these days, as do all Westerners, they still have lower- life spans and more stroke.

    This exactly in line with the laboratory research. Rotends fed with LCHF see their life-span evaporating along with heart-disease. Good cholestrol profile? Forget it, thanks to science we know that the heart-disease with those fed LCHF takes a bit different mechanism and the standard cholestrol profile cannot really track it. After a recent study on LCHF with rotends, one Beth Israel scholar quit his LCHF-diet immeadiately once the results popped.

    LCHF is the worst imaginable diet for humans in terms of long-term health. Even the miracles touted short-term are always due to severe calory restiction. Besides, we even have a controlled trial which showed that Ornish, ultra-carbo rich veg diet did even better on weight loss than Atkins (2005). Although Atkins tend to "win" in the recent trials (what is mostly lost is fluids not the fat). But it comes with high cost. The risk are very high.

  38. Funderaren
    And heart diseases is only effected by the diet? Is lack of sunlight healthy?
  39. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Jon #34,
    Do you know what a "controlled trial" is? I'll give you a hint, it's not cherry-picked patient stories like the Diabetes Care 1982 article. That's called "anecdotes".

    The other two references are not to any specific trial at all.

    What on earth? The vegan-diet did very well. Again you try to confuse people by using the NO-SIGNIFICANT-DIFFERENCE -concept.

    You are the one claiming that a vegan diet is "optimal diet for humans. No exceptions." Perhaps it´s then reasonable to ask you to support that strong faith by some scientific trial actually showing it´s better than any other diet?

    If you do have a single randomized controlled trial showing a superior effect of a vegan diet please let me know. If it's only talk don't bother.

  40. Kärnfrisk
    Yet again, you don't really have the slightes clue what LCHF stands for. It's obvious.

    About the Inuits. You do know that they live in one of the most harshest enviroments on the planet, do you? Therefor lifespan is not quite aplicable here. Babys died before the age of one year. Men were injured and killed hunting. A broken leg often ment death. The Inuits who surviwed those things often lived to a high age, without desieases. This goes for the one that did eat their traditional diet. The ones that has turned to the western diet also have all the western desieses. Nothing strange with that. Ever heard about Wiljamur Stefansson? If not, look him up and read about his experiment on meat only diet, one year long and you will see how dangerous a meat only diet is.

  41. Jon
    @Doc

    1) This one is a controlled clinical trial. It was published in this work.

    Anderson JW. "Dietary fiber in nutrition management of diabetes" In: G. Vahouny, V. and D. Kritschevsky (eds.), Dietary Fiber: basic and clinical aspect, pp. 343-360. New York Plenum Press, 1986

    2) This one is summarization of the controlled trial by Pritikin Center.

    Barnard RJ et al. "Response of non-insulin-dependent to an intensive program of diet and excersise". Diabetes Care 5 (1982): 370-374

    3) This one is a summarization by Anderson in regards to his clinical trial it was also the source which included the quoted remarks about carbs, which I added as well.

    Anderson JW, et al. "Dietary fiber and diabetes: a comprehensive review and practical application". J Am. Diet. assoc. 87 (1987)"

    Do you have any remarks to make?

    "You are the one claiming that a vegan diet is "optimal diet for humans. No exceptions." Perhaps it´s then reasonable to ask you to support that strong faith by some trial actually showing it´s better than any other diet?"

    We don't have extensive data which shows that 100% low-fat, plant-based diet is better than 95% low-fat veg diet. But we certainly have extensive data showing that the bulk of ones calories ought to come from low-fat, plant based diet (+90%) in order to achieve good health.

    Low-fat, plant-based diet is the only diet which has been part of reversing heart-disease (physical excersise is integral aspect of health as well). This was done already 20 years ago by Dr. Dean Ornish, MD. Heart surgeon, Caldwell Esselstyn did it as well, I have the reference to the study in the fruit-thread.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Now, could you show me a data which would advocate the usage of fats over the treshold of 20%, I am very curious to find one. The authors of your Harvard Trials (where your nutritional expertise or rather lack of it are grounded) were very carefull to pinpoint that the results of the trials should not interpreted in away which would advocate the usage of butter. Atkins conducted a single peer-reviewed study. He died as obese, with his arteries completely blocked and had suffered several strokes. And don't talk about loosing weight. We can loose weight by starting a chemotheraphy or heroin addiction.

    As medical practioner I assume you interested in healing people, not weight-loss as such. And, I am not saying it's bad idea for consumer of Big-Mac-meals to go LCHF and skip the fries and coke and the buns and just eat the beef and see his cholestrol profile improving. One does better while out of the toxic eating just little bit of the toxic , but I would not suggest it would a very healing-kind of method.

    Where's the studies which show that diabetes is cured by LCHF, I am talking about curing diabetes, not utilizing a middle-man for energy convertion. I am afraid that all you have to offer is journalistic work. Am I right?

    And, don't get me wrong. I think you are cool. It takes lot to courage for a MD to publicly disclose that most of our disease are due to food. However, I think you've just gone 180-degrees wrong.

    @Kärnfrisk

    The inuits have lived in heated block-houses with access to medical care ever since the 1960's.

  42. Jon
    Correction

    "The authors of your Harvard Trials (where your nutritional expertise or rather lack of it are grounded) were very carefull to pinpoint that the results of the trials should not interpreted in away which would advocate the usage of butter, F.E. Atkins NEVER conducted a single peer-reviewed study of his experiments.

    "However, I think you've just gone 180-degrees wrong". Not with the postulation of food being behind the sickess, obviously. That's very accurate remark.

    "Ever heard about Wiljamur Stefansson? If not, look him up and read about his experiment on meat only diet, one year long and you will see how dangerous a meat only diet is".

    Yes, he was on this diet for two-months. People can be on water-only fast for three-months and be healthy. Should we stop eating at the light of this information?

  43. Jon
    I could just point as well, that people in rural China do not have a high life-expectancy either. They die due to basic stuff that is related to poverty (poor hygiene), such as infections which would easily treated in the West. However, Inuits live in modern Danish build, heated block-houses and have had access to modern medical care atleast since the 1950's. Did people think the Inuits live still in an igloo? There's maybe a few hardcore rednecks who do it, but not the 99% of the population.
  44. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Jon #42,

    Do you have any remarks to make?

    Yes. It seems you do not understand what a RCT is. None of your links are to such a study.

  45. Jon
    @Doc

    These were controlled trials, that's 100% for sure. I picked those references from popularized version of the China Study. The only mistake I personally could have done is that I recited the wrong sources, but I doubt that. I recall that I tried to be quite carefull.

    Anderson had actually a huge bias against plant-food nutrition, he concluded that they were not "practical" (that was in the 1980s), but nevertheless, he had the integrity of a scholar as he showed that low-fat veg diets did the best job in putting people off from diabetes medication. The trials were conducted in hospital.

    Pritikin center's diabetes trials are ofcourse very famous. You just don't have any clue the issues you are debating. You who speak about Diabetes in public should have been informed about this. Well, it's never too late to discover new things.

    I could add that in US the medical doctors that utilize low-fat plant-food food as their main method for curing people (John McDougall, Joel Fuhrman, etc) are getting fantastic results not only in reversing heart-disease but treating various autoimmune diseases, allergies, asthma, impotence, etc. They get many of their patients from the standard medical industry itself. Half of Cleveland Clinics doctors visited Esselstyn and many even put their family members to see him. Big names in the medical business visit John McDougall office. In California there's even a rumour that a big name in the LCHF-movement has put his wife under John McDougals care. And, no this is not some new-age hippie stuff, but stuff that gets reported on scientific platform under rigorous scientific scrutiny. Most MDs are just completely unaware of these methods.

    Here's two work I highly recommend

    1) Joel Fuhrman, Eat to Live, with massive rerference list.

    http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Live-Amazing-Nutrient-Rich-Sustained/dp/031...

    2) John McDougall, lecture, "The starch solution". This man debated with Atkins on many occasions. He had fine arteries, Atkins didn't. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw

    BTW, off-topic, there's a fantastic, fresh Swedish study that just came out. We've known the big picture for long but it showed that bone-integrity does not increase when amount of calcium is increases over 700mg per day, it gets only worse after this figure. Observational studies have long time shown that the people who consume the least calcium, have the strongest bones and vice versa. They consume the least animal protein. Animal protein exceeding over 75grams per day is enough to induce negative calcium balance. You can easily verify this yourself, Doc, by collecting urine sample from yourself and using the Kjelldahl method for protein utilization. With one single test you can easily demystify the whole Western protein cult. Our body cannot metabolize much more than the RDA guideline for protein, 0.8grams per day, per body weight.

    Warensjo E, Byberg L, Melhus H, et al. Dietary calcium intake and risk of fracture and osteoporosis: prospective longitudinal cohort study. BMJ. 2011;342:d1473.

    Ouh....shit, I forgot, this doesn't prove anything since it's not a clinical trial :)

  46. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    Jon,

    These were controlled trials, that's 100% for sure. I picked those references from popularized version of the China Study.

    I'm sorry but they are not. Maybe you should actually check them out yourself, not just believe it 100% because you read about it in a vegan book?

  47. Kärnfrisk
    The reason why a plant based diet seems to work for a while is quite simple. When you eat only plants you are in fact starving to a sertan extent. Therefore your body starts to live of your fat depoes. So in fact a planteater does practice LCHF because you are living of your body fat. And that can go on for quite a time, depending of how large your fat depoes is. But eventually the reserves in the body wheres out and the decay takes effect. It's always the same story. I have never heard of anybody who has started as a vegan when young and has thrived to high age. Never.
  48. Jon
    @Doc,

    if that is the case, and you can verify this, then you have ofcourse have a very good reason to write a decent critique about the popularized version of the China Study. I have not yet seen one. I didn't have an access to personally check the references. Only heard about the results via third party.

    Incase you have it correct, I would first rely on the hypothesis that I actually accidently gave you incorrect references, I doubt that very much, but it's possible. However, there's no worries, since I assume you get your hands in the China Study and can easily verify it yourself. First, if I was you I would first check whether Pritikin Centre and Anderson carried controlled trials on diabetes care.

    @Kärnfrisk Says

    Nope, those who utilize low-plant-based diets rarely if ever have any calory restriction, unlike in LCHF trials. I wonder when do you actually personally realize that you have no clue. Everything you know about nutrition is 180-degrees false. That's were LCHF-movement gets you.

    In rural China, f.e even the least physically active people easily top 3000kals per day (90% of calories usually from plant-sources, mostly from starches), which is over 30% more than what typical Westerner consumes. Obesity & diabetes only strucks when these people migrate to big Chinese cities and start to go less starch, more fat and more protein.

    A man lived 60 days with potatoes, ate everyday over 2000kals, as he did before his trial. Check out what happened to his weight, blood sugar and triglycerides. He did not just survive, he thrived.

    http://www.20potatoesaday.com/

    Beginning weight: 197
    Beginning blood glucose: 104
    Beginning cholesterol: 214
    Beginning triglycerides: 135

    60 day weight: 176
    60 day blood glucose: 94
    60 day cholesterol: 147
    60 day triglycerides: 75

    ending blood pressure was 112 over 70

    There's actually even scientific paper about people eating just potatoes. In fact this is what most of Eastern Europe did hundred years ago. Meat & Dairy was consumed only by the nobility.

    Now, I don't bother to reply to your naive comments anymore. I reply only to those which are good, legitimate postulations or questions.

  49. Jon
    @Kärnfrisk

    not only are there tons doctors and biochemists who turned from standard American diet to full-fledged plant-eaters (vegans), but thanks to this video you can actually learn to know a man who converted from the standard diet to fully-fledged raw-vegan, only fruits, greens, little bit of nuts and seeds. He has been eating this way for almost 30 years. But pay attention, he eats 3-times a day, but tops atleast, minimium 1000kals at every meal.

    Dr. Douglas Graham. Doing quite well for a 58-year older.

    Grahams Fittness stunts.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzk-jh1eemI

1 2 3

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts