Sanjay Gupta? For Surgeon General?

CNN and others are reporting:

Obama asks CNN's Sanjay Gupta to be next surgeon general

The popular television personality, a practicing neurosurgeon, reportedly would be provided a broader portfolio to make wellness, fitness and healthcare reform a top priority.

Reporting from Washington and New York -- President-elect Barack Obama has asked Dr. Sanjay Gupta to be the next U.S. surgeon general, looking to a popular television personality to help provide a public face for his healthcare agenda.

Best known as a health and medicine correspondent for CNN and CBS, Gupta, 39, is a practicing neurosurgeon in Atlanta and a member of the faculty at the Emory University School of Medicine.

The surgeon general oversees some 6,000 officers in the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service. Officers work as physicians, nurses, dentists and other health professionals in various federal agencies -- including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Prisons.

Past surgeons general have wielded the most influence, however, by using the bully pulpit to focus attention on major health issues. And Gupta would come to the post with an unparalleled public profile and background as a communicator.

Sanjay Gupta? Oh, please Mr Obama, no! Great smile.....popular on-air personality.....but not Surgeon General!

A little about me. I am a RN (class of '76) and have been an avid reader of medical topics for several years. Over the past few years, because of my own increasing age as well as some of the articles and research I've looked at, I have become a proponent of many non-conventional treatments and practices. The areas I am especially interested in are diet and nutrition, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes and other diseases of carbohydrate metabolism. I am a low carb advocate even tho I still struggle with weight and other health issues. I am also an advocate of an interactive doctor patient relationship. I believe all should investigate any disease, condition, prescription etc on their own and doctors should encourage this rather than look at it as questioning their authority. I believe strongly that we are pushing medications to excess, often without even attempting other means of treatment. I believe that many of the non-conventional treatments are viewed as a threat to doctors, nutritionists, and others and are attacked rather than looked into with an open mind.

So.....regarding Dr Gupta......I guess it all depends on what you want for a Surgeon General. If you are looking for a person that will be little more than a spokesperson for the AMA, AHA, ADA et all....if you are looking for someone to try to block real health care reform.....if you are looking for a puppet that doesn't do his (or her) own research, but instead depends on talking points provided by pharmaceutical companies....OK, he's the perfect choice.

But, if you want a Surgeon General is someone that will oversee not only the Public Health Service, but also promote truly healthy lifestyle changes...not what is being promoted today, but changes that really will make a difference....well, I'd say keep looking.

There are so many things that are pushed onto the public that have little or no scientific background. Much of the research that is done is poorly done and many times the results are misinterpreted. I would like to see a Surgeon General that looks at all the the policies and practices and study each issue and check out the research himself. Not just read the summaries, but look at the data and make his own interpretations. Of course I'd want this person to do this with an open mind, not just looking to verify his/her beliefs.

Currently much of the "current wisdom" in the medical industry is based on faulty or non-existent research. You cannot conclude anything from observational (or co-hort) studies, you can only form a hypothesis. You cannot promote a practice based on tradition....or beliefs that have since been proven wrong. You cannot continue to push policy and practices on people where the data just isn't there.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has sold out to Big Pharma and various food manufacturers. Allowing the AHA seal of approval on foods that do nothing to promote heath. Allowing Big Pharma to repeatedly conduct "education" seminars that are little more than sales pitches. Ignoring evidence that many of their practices are at least useless and in some cases dangerous. The American Medical Association too.....either they are complicit with manufacturers and drug companies or they just do their own research.....but they are continuously promoting practices and policies that are not based in science.

And the American Diabetic Association? Well they promote a diet based on the very thing that diabetics have trouble handling! Despite studies done to show more effective treatment, treatment that minimizes complications as well as the need for medications, they continue to promote the same treatments that they have for decades. They repeatedly cite "research". Poorly done, misinterpreted research maybe...but not well designed, well executed studies that show results they don't want to see.

The whole medical establishment repeatedly promotes a diet that is based on processed food!! Think of it.....the largest part of the food pyramid is grains. With few exceptions, grains must be processed in order for them to be edible for humans. So....we base our diet on a processed food? And! At the same time, we should limit protein and fat to very small portions. Even tho we likely evolved on large quantities of fats and proteins with minimal (and mostly seasonal) fruits and vegetables and virtually no grains, the diet that is promoted today pushes limiting naturally occurring fats and protein and encourages processed foods.

Please Mr Obama, look into some others for this position. Look
for someone that is more free-thinking. Someone who does his/her own
research and looks at the data and design of studies before forming an
opinion. Someone that is willing, if necessary, to take on the "big
guys" (ADA, AHA, AMA, Big Pharma, etc) and question or correct policies
and procedures that are ineffective or even dangerous.

For further reading, I highly recommend:
Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (or any article written by Mr Taubes)
Blood Sugar 101 by Jenny Ruhl
Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Dr Richard K bernstein
Weston A Price Foundation: Know Your Fats
The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Sign the petition!!

We've got a long way to go to hit the goal!!

Jenny says it best on her blog.

Sign the petition here

Diabetes

Diabetes: Why would anyone think it makes sense to eat the very thing that caused your disease???? I know the general consensus in the medical/pharmaceutical industry is that there is no cure for diabetes, I personally believe that excess sugar intake causes diabetes (NOT Type 1 that starts in childhood, but Type 2, which is preceded by insulin resistance).

OK.....so even figuring that sugar/carbohydrates don't cause diabetes (which they do), we all can agree that diabetes is a condition in which the body cannot handle the amount of sugar that is found in the blood. For most diabetics this sugar comes from the food they eat. Right?

The body can't properly metabolize glucose. So we feed the body mainly glucose? OK, yea, that makes sense!?!?!?! Not to me!!

Gluten Intolerance, what do you do to treat this? Avoid gluten.
Seafood or peanut allergy? Don't eat seafood or peanuts!
Intolerance to food additives like soy, MSG and sulfites? Don't eat them!!
Can't metabolize phenylalanine (PKU)? Don't eat high protein foods!!!

But man, if you can't metabolize carbohydrates what do they want you to do? Yep, eat more carbs! Insanity! But that is exactly what they want people to do! Eat more carbs!

I'm not sure if my school was behind or ahead of the times, but I was taught in nursing school that diabetes, then called "adult onset" was caused by high carb intake and that people on diabetic diets should not only count their carbs, but they should restrict them. I remember a "serving" of cake for a diabetic being a mere 1" cube of angel food cake! Forget any other kind, you just don't eat it!

My first 8 yrs of nursing were working in the acute care hospital. (I can remember when you were admitted for GI tests!!!) I worked on both medical and surgical floors, pediatrics, and have over 3 years working in intensive care (ICU/CCU/ER/Recovery/OR).

During that time, the majority of patients I saw that had complications of diabetes were patients that didn't follow their diet and/or take their meds!!!! People didn't have limbs removed the way they do today! And people didn't die of kidney disease as often as they do today....and I remember the days before transplants became routine!

I don't know the numbers, but I have read several articles that indicate that more people get complications of diabetes today at a much higher rate than they did 30, 40 and more years ago! The prevalence wasn't as high back then, no one argues that. But the incidence of complications was much lower than they are today. And the complications seem to be much more severe.

Regina posted a blog about a study that indicated that clocking carbohydrate absorption didn't change the progression of diabetes. What I question is why the heck would you want to feed someone carbs, and then give them a drug that prevents them from being used????? Why not just lower the carb intake????

Unfortunately, the levels that the medical establishment says is appropriate for diabetics are way too high. Again, I say.....stop feeding diabetics sugar and you'll prevent the complications of the disease.

This is funny too....sad funny, not funny funny. The cause of diabetes as far as the medical/pharmaceutical industry is concerned is fat. Not being fat, overweight, and obese....but dietary fat!!!

Now, think of this. Our ancestors ate high fat diets. Yep, lots and lots of fat. Our ancestors evolved on eating fat.....so why did diabetes not show up then? Why has the incidence of diabetes gone up, even though the intake of fat for many has decreased? Maybe it's because fat plays little or no role in developing diabetes????? Now, if you're talking about body fat, especially visceral fat, then yes....fat does likely at least contribute to diabetes. But that fat is a symptom of insulin resistance and diabetes. A symptom that becomes part of a vicious, dangerous circle.

Drugs. Oh this is my favorite!!!! First line of treatment is not diet, not lifestyle change, but drugs. Initially you might get a drug that increases your insulin sensitivity....later it's drugs to push your pancreas into producing ever more insulin....and then finally, when your pancreas is completely (or almost completely) destroyed, you take insulin injections!!!!

If people were put on a low carb diet and a simple exercise program, they would likely be able to prevent medication....or at least slow the progress from one drug to another.

But do they do this? Far too often the answer is no. They tell people to eat carbohydrates, even though those very carbs are what is causing all their problems!

From the CDC:
The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a landmark study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, found that people at increased risk for type 2 diabetes can prevent or delay the onset of the disease by losing 5 to 7 percent of their body weight through increased physical activity and a reduced fat and lower calorie diet.

Now, I can't argue with loosing weight or the lower calorie diet. Since it's a good bet that the person is overweight any cutback on intake is only going to be good. And any weight loss will also be good. But where does fat come in?

Is insulin influenced by fat intake? No, not really.
Is blood sugar level influenced by fat? Not by much!

Sooooooo....why are diabetics told to limit fat intake???? Because they are at higher risk of heart disease of course! Does dietary fat have anything to do with heart disease? No (except for trans-fats). So why are people told to cut back on dietary fat? Because everyone KNOWS fat is bad!!! (More about this later)

Does the fact that we require certain fats matter? Nope. Does the fact that we also require certain proteins matter? Again, nope. Does the fact that we have no requirement for carbohydrates matter? Once again.....NO!!!!

This is the way I see it. A diet of 45-55% carbs (some articles I've read have advocated as high as 65% from carbs recently!) provides too many carbs and too few calories from fat and protein. We evolved eating a high protein and high fat diet. Our ancestors not only survived, but thrived on mainly fat and protein. Yes, I'm sure they also ate fruits and veggies that they found wild, but these were mostly seasonal, not a part of their regular diet. In preparation for winter our ancestors preserved extra meet and fat for use at a later date. They probably didn't do much with trying to preserve fruits and vegetables because they didn't have the technology. (I have no doubt they did dry some fruit and maybe veggies, but in small quantities, not large amounts like meat and fat)

Since we haven't been around for very long, I believe that we have not yet evolved to be able to handle a diet that is only 45-55% fat and protein!!!! We need fats and proteins....we don't need carbs. Since we evolved eating mostly fats and proteins doesn't it make sense to understand that we still would do better on a diet rich in fats and proteins?

If, on top of this you have a disease that prevents you from metabolizing those carbs, does it make sense to continue to promote a high carb low fat and low protein diet? The ADA thinks it makes sense....so does the AHA. Even though diabetes and cardiac diseases are at epidemic proportions, and even though there is evidence showing lowering carbs is beneficial for both conditions, and even though people are getting larger and larger and lower carb has been shown to again be beneficial in loosing weight. Yes, even though all these things are true, the ADA, AHA, and other groups continue to recommend low fat, high carb diets for people that have been diagnosed as being overweight (or obese), have diabetes, or heart disease.

Please, if you have diabetes read Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution, if you have heart disease read Heart Frauds, and if you have high cholesterol read The Cholesterol Myths. Check out some of the blog links, especially both of the Eades and Regina Wilshire. And talk to your doc. I'm hearing more and more about docs who are turning to low or lower carb diets for their patients, especially diabetics, but many only recommend it if a patient asks.

Insanity!!!

I have been reading Regina Wilshire’s blog on a regular basis, and she has been posting about the ADA and it's stance on low carb diets to control diabetes.

A few posts ago, Regina called the ADA "Irrelevant" and I have to say I agree!!!!

Even though the ADA recognizes that low carb diets are effective in lowering blood sugars and allowing people to better control their blood sugars with low carb, they not only refuse to endorse it, but they specifically call out low carb as being a "fad" diet that should be avoided. Even though the ADA recognizes that low carb helps diabetics control their blood sugar, they don't recommend the diet because” patients find them too restrictive".

Too restrictive? Obviously these people have no idea what low carb really is!!!!

And besides, even if it is "too restrictive", is that a reason to not recommend it????

How about all those people with gluten intolerance.....are we now going to tell them to eat gluten containing foods because otherwise their diet is "too restrictive"??? If someone has a nut allergy, do they tell them to eat them anyway??? no! But for people who can't tolerate carbohydrates, what are they told??? To eat at least 45-55% of their calories from carbs!!!!

The other arguments against low carb diets is that they're high in fat (some are); high in protein (most are, since the "requirements" are so low); limited in vitamins, minerals, and fiber; (not if followed properly).

My all time favorite, though, is”it's not good to cut out a complete food group". There was never a problem with attempting to cut out fat as much as possible.....but we can't cut out carbs?!?!?! (Not to mention the FACT that almost no low carb plans completely cut out carbs!)

Apparently it's ok to attempt to completely remove one macronutrient, but not another?

We have fat, which is actually quite good for us, especially saturated and monosaturated fats....but we can't eat them. Fats are required by the body to sustain life.....but we can't eat them??? Makes no sense to me! Well, actually, yes, I do agree that there are fats we should avoid, namely polyunsaturated and trans-fats. Transfats have no "safe" limit, because the "safe" limit is none. Transfats are incorporated into cell walls, but not correctly, leaving the walls weak and damaged. Many feel that this is at least partially the cause of many degenerative diseases. Polyunsaturated, on the other hand, are believed to cause damage to DNA/RNA strands, which leads to cancer, heart disease, immune system problems and much much more!!!

So we can't eat one of the fats that are good for us, and we're supposed to replace it with two fats that are known to cause illness??

And! On top of that, not only are we "wrong" to restrict our carbohydrate intake, we're supposed to gorge on them, even though there is NO minimum requirement!!!!! Make sure they're "good" carbs....well at least half anyway.....but enjoy!!!!

We have millions that are unable to properly metabolize carbohydrates.....so do we tell them to restrict their intake?? NOOOO We encourage them to eat more!!!!

Here's what they're doing to diabetics:

"Susie" presented to the doctor's office with a fasting blood sugar over 700. By late that afternoon, still fasting, it was almost 900. So, what was she told to eat each meal? AT LEAST 90gms of carbohydrate!!!! That's 360 calories JUST from carbs? For EACH meal? That means at least 1080 calories a day from carbs......so, what else can she eat??? Mind you, this is also a woman who is seriously overweight, possibly even morbidly obese! She's about 45 and has several other medical issues unrelated to diabetes.

"Callie" is on 2 oral meds and still has A1C above 7. Her husband was (or is, not sure) doing low carb, and her nutrition counselor told her she could eat the same food, but in smaller quantities, but to "add a potato or rice or bread" to each meal. Her "normal" breakfast is cold cereal (cheerios) with lowfat milk and blueberries and a banana. At minimum, that's 60g of carbs....along with a small amount of protein (less than 10g) and a tiny bit of fat. And they wonder why, even with 2 meds, her blood sugar is in the 160's or higher?

"Joe" has an insulin pump.....does he restrict his carbs? Nope, he's been instructed to adjust his insulin dose to match his carb intake!!!! He's already had vascular problems, including a heart procedure, but continues to eat carbs and adjust his insulin.

I read a post on a message board where a woman said she had a smoothie "LOADED with fruit", a bagel and some cream cheese. All in one meal!!!! I mentioned that was a lot of carbs for one meal, and the poster's response was that it was a whole grain bagel! A day or so later the board's dietician posted.....and all she did was point out that "All fruits can be eaten on the diabetic (carbohydrate counting) plan. It all depends on the amount of furit that gives you 15 grams of carbohydrate per serving." And then proceeds to list a bunch of fruits and what the serving size is. No mention that more than one fruit, along with a bagel (whole wheat or not), is too much for one meal!!! (although in her defense she did recommend a diabetes class and to find out her carb level for each meal). Later the original poster responded "I'll try eating some fruits with a meal to make it easier to digest... but perhaps I just need to give an extra boost of insulin before eating the fruits so that by the time the sugar of the fruits hits me, it already has insulin to counteract it so I don't feel so icky." Wonder what the dietician will say to that post??? Anyone wanna take bets????

i know of men and women in their 20's and 30's, with Type 2 diabetes, that are being put on statins because their lipid levels are "bad". But if they simply cut their carbs, transfats and polyunsaturated and increased their mono and saturated fats and got good quality protein, their levels would all likely normalize. Blood lipids as well as glucose and insulin leves would normalize.

And finally, I read a post today written by a young person who is in medical school. He states that they are still being taught low fat, high carb.....but he has faith that soon the truth will come out.

Boy I wish I had that kind of faith!