Trick and Treat

[Stevie Renee]

I ordered my first Barry Groves books and picked this one.
I came away actually more confused.

Especially his writings about mammograms, fish oil, vit D from the sun and the dangers of asprin. Atcually, in regards to asprin, he did not show enough info on to sway.

Anyone else?


In regards to vit D, I am still sold on supplements because you can read it here on the boards, people who get sun, live in Florida even are still deficient as older folks go.

I wil have to reread some spots but yeah, I surprised.

[fourstubbs]

I don't have the book, can you explain what Dr. Groves says about the mammograms?? thanks!

[Stevie Renee]

Fourstubbs,
I wil post about it later cuz I gotta go somewhere.But he did say something to the degree of mammos cause cancer.

But I also find it interesting he has his PhD is in electrical engineering, not medicine.

[SlapHappy]

I have real issues with this book. His Natural Health and Weight Loss is, to me, a much better book. I think NH&WL is the best low carb book on the market -- great writing, truly intelligent diet plan.

There is some evidence that mammograms may actually be less than beneficial, but not enough to make me decide they are a bad idea.

[Tesaje]

Re the mammogram. I thought he was skimpy on showing the research. I have had some truck with that myself having gone in for an unnecessary biopsy with a false positive. I found out that for me and my risk factors at the time, mammograms produced over 600 false positives to 1 real positive. That is an appalling statistic for a poor tool.

To my knowledge, there is no real data on the hypothesis that the severe pressure on the mammary glads plus the regular irradiation of them actually causes cancer or cause them to spread as some believe.

But what several mortality studies keep showing is that there is no difference in death rates between women who get mammograms and those who do not.

This was enough, along with getting trapped in the machinery of biopsies, for me to opt out. There are better methods for detecting breast cancer (ultrasound, e.g.) but apparently the business of mammography and tons of unnecessary biopsies is too profitable for the medical industry to change. Real research has also shown no benefit and no better outcome from self-exams too.

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by Chantel

Fourstubbs,
I wil post about it later cuz I gotta go somewhere.But he did say something to the degree of mammos cause cancer.

But I also find it interesting he has his PhD is in electrical engineering, not medicine.

From what I have read, he does not have a PhD in EE. This what his web site says:

With a doctorate in nutritional science from the distance learning university, Trinity College & University, gained from 20 years' research experience and a 60.000-word dissertation on the Politics of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies

Some say that it is from a diploma mill and not a real PhD. Not all such institutions are bogus but many are. On the other hand, I have personally known many a PhD who was not smart and not capable as well as many who were very smart and capable. When I was in college, they did a study comparing the IQ scores of a bunch of different PhD's and compared them to the general public to find out just how much smarter they were. The result was that there was no difference at all. That means that half of PhD's have IQs of 100 or below!

I don't know how legitimate Grove's credentials are, but Good Calories Bad Calories cites many of the same studies and shows how bogus most of the conclusions are when you look at the data. Taubes is a pretty reliable science reporter, which is really what Groves is doing with T&T. Groves then takes the next step and draws conclusions for what one should or should not do. Is he right? As far as nutrition goes, his conclusions have solid data supporting them and there is quite a bit solid evidence that the high carb low fat hypothesis is very bad.

When I read stuff like this, I look to see what the actual data show and less so on the conclusions as all too often, the researchers are too prejudicial towards their own beliefs. This is a flaw in human nature and results in what is called "Junk Science." It looks to me that the whole medical community is saturated with junk science or no science at all. They like to deride old wives tales, but the old doctor's tales are usually more damaging. What the real data shows in medicine is that modern medicine is amazing in repairing mechanical problems but dismal in any chronic illness and nutrition. They do not know what causes heart disease or cancer and ignore all the evidence showing this.

A criticism of Groves that I have read is that he cherry picks the studies that support his thesis, which would definitely be a problem. But then, the complainer offers no evidence of studies that he did not cite that counter the thesis! So, I'm left wondering if it is a specious attack or has any validity.

He currently is attacking the global warming theory. I have some background in this subject and while the studies he is attacking do have flaws, he is not talking about other (better) evidence supporting the theory. It is complex science that most electrical engineers are poorly equipped to fully understand.

There is a lot of data over many, many years showing the LC nutritional theory is sounder. Whether his particular diet is better or worse or more or less correct, I don't know. But there are quite a few other doctors and researchers who comb through the real data and come to the same conclusions. People can be very correct in one field and completely bogus in another.

As always, we all have to look and think about the real data

[CindyCRNA]

Chantel, what did he say about fish oil? I just got his NHWL and was confused on his stance on fish oil. I follow his low carb, high fat diet but am new and take 6 of the big, high potency fish oil per day to decrease inflammation and was curious on his stance.

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by CindyCRNA

Chantel, what did he say about fish oil? I just got his NHWL and was confused on his stance on fish oil. I follow his low carb, high fat diet but am new and take 6 of the big, high potency fish oil per day to decrease inflammation and was curious on his stance.

I found what he says about fish oil to be confusing. He explained that it is polyunsaturated fats and those are not very good for us. But then there is also a lot of data that shows the fish oils are good for us. I think what he means is that fish is a natural food for us and that we should not need to supplement with the concentrated supplements if we eat properly. Certainly, in his menus, there is a substantial amount of fish.
Like I said - confusing.

[Barry Groves]

Hi all

It seems I have several questions to answer.

On fish oils
All polyunsaturated fats (PUFs) are liable to peroxidation, just like steel goes rusty. When this happens, harmful free radicals are created; these can cause a whole bunch of nasty conditions including heart disease and cancer.

We need to eat some omega-3 and also omega-6 fatty acids, and both these categories are polyunsaturated. Thus, there is a possibility of harm. This can be nullified by two things:

1: The amount we need to consume is only about 1-2% of calorie intake a day. In the context of a 2,000 kcal diet, that's no more than a teaspoonful - total. The danger is in the dose, so keeping the the amount down reduces the risk.

2: As I explained in Trick and Treat and on my website, temperature is all important where peroxidation of fats is concerned. Mixing PUFs with saturated fatty acids protects them and allows a higher temperature to be used safely. In the case of fish oils, which, with 5 and 6 double bonds, are the most unsaturated fatty acids of all, their designed temperature of operation is the very cold waters of the deep oceans - not nearly 100 degrees in our bodies.

Also, although fish oils are touted as 'essential', they aren't. The parent, essential omega-3 fatty acid is alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). This is found in meat fats. I'm not against eating fish in its natural state, but I don't recommend fish oil supplements.

lastly, the omega-6s are pro-inflammatory; the omega-3s are anti-inflammatory (which is why we atre advised to take them). But rather than increase consumption of omega-3 to combat the inflammatory effects of omega-6, wouldn't it be better not to take in so much omega-6? The major sources of omega-6 are the seed oils used to make what are passed off as 'healthy' margarines'and cooking oils.

On Mammagrams
The reason there isn't a lot about mammograms is because Trick and Treat is really about nutritional misinformation. As I explained I the Introduction, the first couple of chapters are to set the scene - putting the nutritional elements within a background of fraud and corruption throughout the 'health industry'.

On "cherry picking" studies
Yes, I freely admit that I have used the evidence which supports my case. But that's exactly what the 'other side' does (even when, on close examination, it turns out not to support them). And you've heard that over and over again. Why would I want to repeat it? Isn't the book big enough already?

On Aspirin
This isn't nutritional so doesn't feature a lot. If you want to know about the real harm that taking aspirin can do, read the first chapter of Prof Joel Kauffman's book, Malignant Medical Myths.

[Lise]

Dear Dr Groves,

Thank you so much for responding to the questions raised here, you are truly for the people and I for one really appreciate your personal intervention.

I am intrigued by your reference to Asprin as my doctor tried to start me on a low dose at my last diabetic appt and I told her I wanted to maintain my medication free status...following your diabetic plan I have reduced my A1C's to almost in the normal range...thank you so much for that...I will google Prof Kaufman to investigate further...I also need to find the section in Trick and Treat as I haven't finished reading it yet....

I hope you don't mind but I have a question for you about too much protein converting to glucose...lately I have found that I have been naturally reducing my carb intake to almost nil....I have been using your percentages as a guideline but I have actually been eating more like you have mentioned that you and your wife do....my carbs come from berries, cream, cheese, and some nuts...I am finding that the more I cut back on the carbs the more protein and fat I need to be satiated....does the conversion of excess protein to glucose still occur in the absense of carbs?

Thank you so much for your time and concern

Lise

[jem51]

thank you, barry. i am so happy to see this. everyone seems to be jumping on supplement bandwagons of some sort....like what we eat, no matter how clean, it is never good enough.

[jem51]

lise, i do know that for myself, diagnosed as pre diabetic (we know that it's really just diabetes in it's early stages), find that when i eat more meat, my BG's increase. my FBG will always be elevated to around 120....and i don't eat sugar/starch. even when (and maybe moreso) when i've eaten zc. it may be possible to change this if i discontinue eating meat in the evening and having a small meal/snack similar to barry and monica. so far i have not been able to do that. really, just due to habit i think.

[Barry Groves]

Hi Lise

When you cut out one source of energy (carbs), your body has to find another. If it is used to running on glucose from carbs, the first place it will look is to proteins as they can be converted to glucose.

This, of course, we don't want for three reasons. Firstly the easiest proteins for it to find are your muscles. Your body will break these down and weaken you. The second reason is that, in this way, your body will continue to use glucose as its main energy source, when there is a much better source - fat. And thirdly, although the body has this ability to use protein as an energy source in an emergency, it isn't healthy to use it long term.

This is why it is important to increase your fat intake rather than eating too much protein. There is more on this in Trick and Treat and on my website at Why Low-Carb Diets Must Be High-Fat - Second Opinions, UK. You should also find that this will be satiating.

[Lise]

Dear Dr Groves,

Thank you so much for your reply. Since finding I was type 2 last April I immediately cut out all the 'whites' and then in the fall I was introduced to EFGT by a dear friend here at LCF...since then I have followed your program but recently I've naturally dropped vegetables from lack of desire and my numbers rarely fall into your guidelines since my carbs fall out the low end and my fat is a bit too high and sometimes my protein is too high...sometimes I just need to eat the whole steak if you know what I mean ...I was a little worried about this since going by 1.5 times my BMI I shouldn't be having more than 82 g protein daily...I think what I'm getting from your reply is that as long as I make sure to keep the fat up I'll be okay....I've read EFGT and NH&WL ( I carry it with me at all times for reference)..I have Trick and Treat on my end table at home and have to admit I have yet to read it from one end to the other but I've read lots in between....I'll follow the link above as I love to gather ammunition to support this WOE

Thank you again and please have a great day
Lise