“Too many false positives”

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Comments (6) -

  • steve

    9/4/2008 2:43:00 PM |

    why even bother with expense of a heart scan and radiation exposure when detailed Lipoprotein analysis may be all you need?  If you have many small LDL particles isn't that enough to say you probably have CAD and should address it; while if your LDL particles are mostly large your probably ok

  • Anonymous

    9/4/2008 5:41:00 PM |

    Small LDLs alone may or may not mean one has plaque. Likewise, someone that doesn't have too many small LDLs might have plaque.

    Plus, like Dr. Davis likes to point out, the most important heart scan is not the 1st heart scan but the 2nd heart scan. You see, if someone has any plaque (above zero), then after they take the necessary steps to try and slow down, stop and even reverse the plaque they have NO WAY to know if the steps they took are enough whithout the results from the 2nd scan (which is usually taken 1 year after the lipoproteins have been corrected).

    The amount of radiation is about the same as several chest x-rays:

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/ct-scans-and-radiation-exposure.html

  • MedPathGroup

    9/5/2008 7:48:00 AM |

    Hi there. I am just dropping by. I came across this blog when i was researching about coronary bypass surgery. Very informative stuffs I can add in to my research. Thanks for sharing this information. I will keep on visiting this blog for more interesting posts.

  • joel oosterlinck M.D.

    9/5/2008 8:30:00 AM |

    firs of all this blog is really interesting I am a french family practitioner with specialisation in hyperbaric and gynoaecology.
    My question is heartscan is not a mainstream test in my area  where 64 slices scan machines arrived 2 years ago some of my cardiologists advised for 64 slice angiogram for screening . I read in european literature that there is an unresolved problem with  false negatives  in heart scan can you please elaborate with this false negative issue ?

  • Tony Romeyn

    12/2/2008 5:08:00 AM |

    My story, sorry it is a bit long.
    For many years I have been dealing with medium to high cholesterol levels. High cholesterol is only one part to the danger of plaque buildup in the arteries and an eventual possible heart attack. Other risk factors such as, Smoking, Hypertension, Diabetes, Obesity, Inactivity, Stress and Family history all play a role in High Cholesterol.

    It was approximately 10-15 years ago that my Doctor suggested that I go on medication with one of the Statin drugs and Lipitor is what he suggested for me. With a great amount of reluctance I finally agreed, but I certainly was not happy with the potential side effects, as there are many. The worst side effect that could happen was a muscle tissue breakdown with severe muscle pain. Well low and behold within 10 days I have severe muscle tissue pain and took my Lipitor pills and dumped them down the toilet. When I told my Doctor what I had done he was not too happy but he could identify with what was happening.

    It was at that point that I started to ask that although my blood test showed that I had high cholesterol, did that necessarily indicate that I had clogged arteries. I continued to ask the same question over many years. My family Doctor continued to advise me that he would like to try another statin med called Zocor. Again I reluctantly agreed and started to research how others did with Zocor on the Internet. Again many reported of similar side effects as I experienced with Lipitor.

    That year during vacation time I picked up a newspaper……..I am a news junky……. and there was an article that hit me like a ton of bricks; Bacol by Bayer was being recalled due to a number of reported deaths and other severe side effects. At that point I took my Zocor meds and dumped them down the toilet also………….oops I probably polluted the drainage water………. determined never to do a Statin drug again.

    Years went by and tests were done from time to time, sometime showing medium to higher levels.

    Then came late February of this year 2008. Within three days of having a few dizzy spells I collapsed and had emergency surgery due to an ulcer which had perforated an artery. That is a whole story in itself, but just one note if you are taking a good number of Aspirin and Ibuprofen, you may, no you must check with your Doctor to see what is happening with your stomach.

    In that short period of time just before my surgery I had lost about 6 units of blood. During my healing process I was told I was lucky to be alive. A few weeks into the recuperation time I can to reflect on the fact that my heart must have to have been awfully strong to have dealt with significant blood loss. Then I began to re ask the same question, hey my arteries could not be blocked, otherwise my heart would never have kept up. I posed this question to my surgeon, and he confirmed that that is not necessarily true.

    Now we come to the time of a recent cholesterol test which showed numbers higher than ever before. The same answer you need to go on Cholesterol lowering drugs. I came to the point and said to my Doctor I want to get a test to see if my arteries have buildup and how do we do this. Without significant physical symptoms our medial system does not allow for such a test, which is either an Angiogram or a CT Scan.

    In recent years a new 64-Slice CT scanner became available, a non-invasive evaluation of arteries. But our medical system still does not allow  a scan to be done without significant physical symptoms.
    Now here comes into play the private diagnostic clinics. In consultation with my Doctor I looked into and booked to get a Heart Scan (Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring) done at the Canada Diagnostic Clinic in Vancouver. An appointment was available almost immediately and of course I would have to pay for this myself at a cost of $690.00, plus travel to Vancouver and an overnight stay. Quite costly and not affordable to everyone. (Please scroll down for details of the scan)
    NOW THE GOOD NEWS! My heart arteries only showed a very minor calcium build up at two points. My Calcium score was 19.

    NO NEED TO GO ON RISKY STATIN DRUGS, SUCH AS Lipitor, Zocor, Baycol or a more recent addition Crestor (here is what is mentioned on the Johns Hopkins Hospital website - "although the potency of Crestor appears to be fully established, its safety is not. Unless there is an overwhelming reason to take a very new drug, the best approach is to wait for some time to pass to allow unforeseen problems, if any, to be detected." WITH POSSIBILTY OF SIGNIFICANT SIDE EFFECTS

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:24:56 PM |

    In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

Loading
Slash carbs . . . What happens?

Slash carbs . . . What happens?

Cut the carbohydrates in your diet and what sorts of results can you expect?

Carbohydrate reduction results in:

Reduced small LDL--This effect is profound. Carbohydrates increase small LDL; reduction of carbohydrates reduce small LDL. People are often confused by this because the effect will not be evident in the crude, calculated (Friedewald) LDL that your doctor provides.

Increased HDL--The HDL-increasing effect of carbohydrate reduction may require 1-2 years. In fact, in the first 2 months, HDL will drop, only to be followed by a slow, gradual increase. This is the reason why, in a number of low-carb diet studies, HDL was shown to be reduced.--Had the timeline been longer, HDL would show a significant increase.

Decreased triglycerides--Like reduction of small LDL, the effect is substantial. Triglyceride reductions of several hundred milligrams are not at all uncommon. In people with familial hypertriglyceridemia with triglyceride levels in the thousands of milligrams per deciliter, triglyceride levels will plummet with carbohydrate restriction. (Ironically, conventional treatment for familial hypertriglyceridemia is fat restriction, a practice that can reduce triglycerides modestly in these people, but not anywhere near as effectively as carbohydrate restriction.) Triglyceride reduction is crucial, because triglycerides are required by the process to make small LDL--less triglycerides, less small LDL.

Decreased inflammation--This will be reflected in the crude surface marker, c-reactive protein--Yes, the test that the drug industry has tried to convince you to take statins drugs to reduce. In my view, it is an absurd notion that you need to take a drug like Crestor to reduce risk associated with increased CRP. If you want to reduce CRP to the floor, eliminate wheat and other junk carbohydrates. (You should also add vitamin D, another potent CRP-reducing strategy.)

Reduced blood pressure--Like HDL, blood pressure will respond over an extended period of months to years, not days or weeks. The blood pressure reduction will be proportion to the amount of reduction in your "wheat belly."

Reduced blood sugar--Whether you watch fasting blood sugar, postprandial (after-meal) blood sugars, or HbA1c, you will witness dramatic reductions by eliminating or reducing the foods that generate the high blood sugar responses in the first place. Diabetics, in particular, will see the biggest reductions, despite the fact that the American Diabetes Association persists in advising diabetics to eat all the carbohydrates they want. Reductions in postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars, in particular, will reduce the process of LDL glycation, the modification of LDL particles by glucose that makes them more plaque-causing.


You may notice that the above list corresponds to the list of common plagues targeted by the pharmaceutical industry: blood pressure, diabetes (diabetes being the growth industry of the 21st century), high cholesterol. In other words, high-carbohydrate, low-fat foods from the food industry create the list of problems; the pharmaceutical industry steps in to treat the consequences.

In the Track Your Plaque approach, we focus specifically on elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, the most offensive among the carbohydrates. The need to avoid other carbohydrates, e.g., barley, oats, quinoa, spelt, etc., depends on individual carbohydrate sensitivty, though I tend to suggest minimal exposure.

Comments (20) -

  • Emily

    3/26/2010 4:17:02 PM |

    you forgot one more benefit- effortless wieght loss! at least for many of us...

  • Tony

    3/26/2010 4:28:57 PM |

    I've eliminated almost all sugar, and all refined grains, but I still  eat brown rice, oatmeal, and whole spelt bread. On my recent VAP test, my triglycerides were 78, HDL was 63, and my LDL was Pattern A (large, buoyant LDL). Also, my Cardiac C Reactive Protein was .84. I'm concluding that some whole grains are appropriate for me, and I use the blood glucose monitor to monitor postprandial glucose.

    By the way, thank you for all the info.

  • JustJoeP

    3/26/2010 4:47:04 PM |

    Dr. Davis, following your advice as well as several other clarion voices in the nutritional wilderness, over the last 9 months I went from:
    HbA1C 6.6, Fasting glucose 125mg/dl, BP135/85, LDL nearly 200, HDL below 30, body weight 245 (6ft tall, 40 in waist) on a mainly carb diet, to:

    HbA1C 5.5, Fasting glucose 105mg/dl, BP115/70, LDL nearly in 1/2, HDL above 65, body weight 204 (still 6ft tall, but a 33 in waist) on a very low carb diet.

    I've got 4 friends - all males in their 40s - who have also moved their personal numbers in these directions by greatly reducing carbs.  I'm trying to get my severely type II diabetic father to follow the same regimen, but his Medicare provided dietitian is fighting me every step of the way, with a diet based upon bread!  The struggle continues.

    Thank you for being a consistent, well informed, voice of reason.  You've helped more people than you know.  (linked to you here).  Be well.

  • Isaac

    3/26/2010 5:18:11 PM |

    And I'm so unimpressed with the lack of any good hard endpoint data associated with the insulin sensitizers and such.  These dietary options really need to be explored further but, sadly, won't so long as physicians aren't reimbursed for it.

  • Daniel

    3/26/2010 5:45:40 PM |

    I agree regarding fructose.  

    In people with impaired glucose tolerance, slashing starch too may indeed be beneficial.  But is there any evidence that slashing starch benefits people who have a healthy liver and pancreas?  In such people, I suspect slashing starch is just treating numbers and has nothing to do with health.  Otherwise, how do you explain Kitava, Peru, and Asia?

  • jandro

    3/26/2010 8:25:13 PM |

    Sometimes I think that the results given with these studies are mostly due to the reduction of grains (lectins) and refined sugar and not carbohydrates themselves. I want to believe it is as simple as reducing carbohydrates but it doesn't explain how populations like Kuna and Kitava have good health markers even though they eat a high carb diet. Dr. WD, do you have any ideas related to this specific topic?

    ** I am not debating the results of low carb (I personally do paleo), and if your metabolism is already damaged low carb is the only way, but what if it is not? (you were never obese, diabetic, started healthy habits at a young age, etc).

  • Anonymous

    3/26/2010 10:28:29 PM |

    Would these benefits also accrue to someone who does not get postprandial spikes in blood glucose on a low-carb diet - like the regular commentator "DrStrange"?

  • Ned Kock

    3/26/2010 10:57:59 PM |

    Actually, in the study reviewed in the post below, a 2-week replacement of refined carbs and sugars with dietary fat (mostly saturated) and cholesterol, led to a significant increase in HDL (14 percent increase in HDL from baseline for men).

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/02/want-to-improve-your-cholesterol.html

    That was two weeks only.

    In my own experience, higher consumption of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol has immediate effects on HDL, and those effects are especially strong with elimination of refined carbs and sugars.

  • gindie

    3/26/2010 10:59:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    You mentioned Vitamin D.  I just got tested, level is 14.  However, I get episodes of calcium-based kidney stones (every 3-4 years or so).  How do you treat such patients?

  • Anonymous

    3/27/2010 12:15:47 AM |

    One thing I don't understand is if all these benefits are independent or if they are all linked to glucose level.
    If a particular carbohidrate causes little glucose spike will it still cause the other poblems?
    Or if carbohidrate intake is followed by intense physic actvity which seems to take BG down does it still causes all the other problems?

  • I Pull 400 Watts

    3/27/2010 12:32:49 AM |

    Just letting you know, very nice post!

  • Kim

    3/27/2010 2:53:35 AM |

    I totally agree.  I continued to struggle with my cholesterol the first year or so on a low carb diet.  After 3 years, my HDL has gone from 40 to 87 and my LDL has improved.  My blood pressure also improved over time.  My triglycerides were never high, but are usually in the 35 range now.  It's an awesome thing!

  • Stan (Heretic)

    3/27/2010 3:50:02 AM |

    Welcome to Low Carb Dr. Davis!  From now on, your life will never be the the same

    8-Smile

    In addition to what you have listed, which I can confirm in 100%, more beneficial effects will become apparent, such as:

    - self-healing of teeth with no need for dental intervention, and roughly twice as fast healing of broken bones.

    - healing of common cardiovascular diseases (arteriosclerosis, cardio myopathy and arrhythmia)

    - rapid self-healing of hepatic diseases (i.e post hep-C cirrhosis healed in 6 months),

    - improved kidney disease recovery (I heard of a patient  surviving on Optimal Diet without dialalysis with only 1/3 of 1 kidney left)

    - normalization of one's body weight (obese loose, underweight gain),

    - much stronger immune system (for instance, I never had a flu since yr 2000, before - twice a year)

    - stronger more benign reaction to stress, no more paralyzing panic, no more total body vascular contraction and probably related better resistance to cold temperature.  

    - no need to drink water frequently (fat metabolism releases water as an end product)

    - never feel hungry again, no need to snack, eating once or twice a day becomes the norm.   For me no breakfast, no supper, only lunch and dinner, typically.  

    - improved ability to hold breath longer when diving, generally we also naturally breath less frequently,

    - different (improved) mood, subtle changes in the way one thinks, solves problems and react to life events, as no doubts, you will find out...  8-Smile

    Regards,
    Stan (Heretic)

  • Lori Miller

    3/27/2010 1:59:21 PM |

    Daniel, I've tested my own blood glucose before and after meals and it's normal. However, I cut way back on all carbs a couple of months ago, and now eat around 47 grams of carbs per day. Results: I find that I don't need Sudafed or acid blockers at all now and I rarely take ibuprofin (an anti-inflammatory). The twinge in my shoulder and knee are gone. I've lost 10 pounds while working out *less.* I seldom get headaches, and when I do, they're mild. I also need a lot less sleep.

    Should anyone care for details, I've chronicled my experience in my blog.

  • Stan (Heretic)

    3/27/2010 3:26:56 PM |

    jandro - it is a very good question.  I wonder too but the studies I am reading (see for example Lancet. 1996 ) seem to indicate that carbohydrate reduction is beneficial in all cases, including healthy rural young populations.  

    I see it now in the same light as for example alcohol consumption: if you are healthy and young, a  harm may be minimal and some wine  (in moderation) may even provide you with some calories and micronutrients (i.e. resveratrol), but why bother consuming all that starchy and sugary plant food that we are not that well adapted for, that is useful only if we have nothing else to eat and that was probably meant for us only as a temporary food to get us over some rough periods of fauna decline.

      Since there is so little modern research done specifically on this subject we are still largely in the domain of hypotheses and theories. However not all that is speculative.  For example existing archaeological research does show us that paleolithic human diet consisted typically over 2/3 of meat!  We are talking about millions of years of human adaptation.

    ---

    Dr. Davis,  I forgot to add to my above list of benefits the following point:

    - reliable improvement (in almost every case) in treating the autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, eczema, psoriasis etc,

    - intestinal disease (Crohns, IBS , very high fat only!).  

    - Multiple sclerosis (not 100% especially if nerve damage is too advanced but improvement in most cases)

    There is a lot of patient cases (hundreds) of the above disease reported by Dr. Jan Kwasniewski, from his medical practice in the 1980-ties, described in his books, especially "Homo Optimus" and "Optimal Nutrition".  

    I think you will find those books extremely interesting, highly recommended.  

    Stan

  • Ellen

    3/27/2010 8:03:15 PM |

    Um Heretic.. I think Dr. Davis has been low carb for quite a while now. No need to welcome him to something he's already quite familiar with Smile

  • jandro

    3/27/2010 10:55:06 PM |

    Stan, thanks for your response:

    I read the abstract of the study you link and don't see how it is related to what I mentioned. It is comparing a vegetarian population with one that eats around a pound of fish a day. Seriously, is there a question there as to which is healthier? I also don't think they are healthier primarily because they consume less carbohydrates, but rather because they consume a pound of fish a day compared to no animal fat/flesh in the other group.

    If you read my original post again you will notice I am not saying a vegetarian diet (in fact, I eat over a pound of meat a day), I am just questioning whether the true problem is carbohydrates or if it is lectins, assuming you have a generous amount of animal fat and protein. I personally eat around 20% carbs, mostly coming from tubers and squashes as I find fruits too sweet (I agree that fructose should be reduced). Generally eat one piece of fruit a day.

    I also don't see any evidence to your claim that humans are not adapted to plant foods. We are omnivores, and that's how we have succeeded. We are adapted to a diet similar to what equatorial hunter gatherers have, since we evolved in a similar environment. People bring many archeological references of sites located outside of Africa not realizing that the environment outside of Africa is nearly as new to us as grains are. Most HGs living in Africa have plant food present on their diet. The information you tell yourself claims 2/3 of our diet was meat, what happened to the other 1/3?

  • Anonymous

    3/29/2010 8:33:04 AM |

    And what if someone goes really lowcarb (mostly meat) and his LDL rises up to 500? No info on the the LDL size. The remaining bloodwork results are  really good. Is this something to be worried about?

  • scall0way

    4/21/2010 7:21:12 PM |

    Hmm, well I eliminated wheat and all glutens from my diet in January 2009. I eliminated sugar at the same time. I also eliminated high Omega-6 vegetable oils. I basically eat low carb. I love to use coconut oil. Smile I've lost over 100 pounds.

    But my cholesterol just goes UP and UP! At least total and LDL - HDL remains in the 58-62 range and triglycerides remain in the 60-70 range. But Total cholesterol went from 229 6 months ago to 279 3 months ago, to 280 today, and LDL went from 165 6 months ago, to 190 3 months ago, to 206 today.

    And I can't understand why! Of course my doctor is rabid to put me on stations and crazy with me that I refuse, and looks at me cross-eyed when I request an NMR/VAP test for LDL particle size.

    But it still bothers me that it continues to go up and up and up, as I feel like I'm doing all I can to lower it. I was also diagnosed with Hashimoto's 6 months ago and put on 50 mcg of Levoxyl. Then three months ago it was upped to 75 mcg. Today it was upped to 88 mcg.

    Slashing carbs eliminating the bad stuff sure is not helping my total numbers, which means a huge argument with the doctor every visit, and I hate to argue. :-(

  • julianne

    9/7/2010 1:42:40 AM |

    I'm so glad I found this post!. I've had a group of clients take on paleo eating as a 6 week trial, doing so has naturally decreased their carbs. I had each person do before and after blood tests and I was concerned that 80% had a reduction in HDL. They also had reductions in Triglycerides and LDL and blood pressure and significant weight loss - but couldn't figure this one out. Thanks so much for keeping us informed of what goes on for your clients, so I know what is happening with mine is normal.

    Julianne
    By the way here are some of the results in people's own words
    http://paleozonenutrition.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/6-week-paleo-trial-results/

Loading
The key to losing weight

The key to losing weight

I saw three people this past week, all of whom set off on an effort to lose substantial quantities of weight. And all seriously needed to.

All three started with at least 70 lbs. excess weight; all showed substantial weight-sensitive lipoprotein patterns like low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, VLDL, and pre-diabetic levels of blood sugar. They also all shared high blood pressure.

All three also had high heart scan scores. Kate’s score was just over 1200. Tom, a 58-year old real estate developer, had a score of nearly 600. Susan, the youngest of the three at 52, had a heart scan score of 377¾99th percentile at this age. Losing weight was an absolute requirement for their plaque control program. Because their lipoprotein abnormalities and pre-diabetic patterns were triggered by weight, weight loss would provide powerful correction. Each and every one of them would need to lose much of their excess weight¾at least 50 lbs¾if they hoped to halt the relentless progression of their heart scan scores.

All three of them returned after 6-8 weeks, and all had lost between 17-24 lbs: spectacular results.

There’s no secret to weight loss. Each of them achieved their weight loss in slightly different ways. But they also shared several critical ingredients in their weight-loss efforts:

1) All three dramatically slashed their intake of wheat flour-containing foods and other processed carbohydrates and did so consistently. All also avoided the usual high-fat, high caloric-density foods like butter, margarine, fried foods, greasy foods, nuts roasted in oil, etc. They concentrated on vegetables, salads, raw nuts, lean proteins (inc. turkey, chicken, fish, lean red meats, low-fat cottage cheese and yogurt).

2) They stopped using food as a reward or as a consolation tool.

3) Exercise for one hour a day at least 5 days a week. The exercise in 2 of 3 of these people was just walking. It wasn’t strenuous, it wasn’t expensive. The women both liked walking with friends or their spouse. Tom followed a more common male path of more strenuous work on his treadmill, elliptical, and biking at the fitness club. But they all did it religiously and missed rare sessions.

4) They refrained from any and all alcoholic beverages. Yes, there are some advantages to 1-2 glasses of wine per day, but it stalls weight loss efforts.

5) They didn’t allow themselves any major indiscretions. There were no binges, major pig-outs at weddings, barbecues, or all-you-can-eat buffets. They did allow themselves an occasional “treat” but did so in small portions.

That’s it. But for most people, that’s simply too much. Adhering to an effort to lose dramatic weight requires day-after-day consistency. Nobody can lose the equivalent of 70,000 calories (20 lbs.) just by skipping a meal, a 20-minute walk, skipping the mashed potatoes at dinner.

It can be done. You’ve just got to be consistent about it.
Loading
I told you bread was bad

Comments (10) -

  • Lou

    2/26/2010 12:59:54 AM |

    Gee thanks for ruining my dinner! Lol.

    Anyway, I came across this article from Fox News website -

    "Low-Carb Diet Could Raise Bad Cholesterol Levels"

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587393,00.html

    I don't know where to begin to point out why it's misleading...

    Frustrating when media does that and only to cause more confusion over low carb diet, high carb diet and such.

  • Nigel Kinbrum

    2/26/2010 4:02:43 AM |

    Lou.

    That Fox News article has already been covered HERE.

    Nige.

  • Anonymous

    2/26/2010 4:25:25 AM |

    It says:
    "Both groups lost around 6 kilograms (13 pounds). But the individuals on the low-carb diet actually had an average increase of 12 milligrams per deciliter increase in their LDL levels, up from 109 milligrams per deciliter (less than 100 is considered optimal); the high-carb diet group showed a 7 milligram per deciliter decrease, down from 102."

    "The low-carb group also showed greater increases in their levels of free fatty acids, which are released into the blood when the body breaks down stored fat. High levels of free fatty acids make it more difficult for the liver to store glucose, which in turn ups sugar levels in the blood. Consistently high sugar levels define diabetes."

    So I guess the low carbers started burning fat from their guts as if that is bad and also would not be able to store glucose if they were eating any.

    Well duh...

  • Steve Cooksey

    2/26/2010 4:42:18 AM |

    Dr. Davis...that picture should be placed on every bag of bread...

    Agreed Lou. Smile

  • Roz Watkins

    2/26/2010 9:20:50 AM |

    Hey, what's the problem? The rat is by far the most nutritious part of that loaf!

  • Peter I

    2/26/2010 12:03:22 PM |

    Good one. Smile

  • jeffreyquick

    2/26/2010 2:59:14 PM |

    Uh, wouldn't that raise the protein level and make it less bad?

    At our farm, we have a rule: eat our food, and we can eat you. We draw the line at rats and mice though.

  • fourteeneightyeight

    2/26/2010 4:37:07 PM |

    The bread was definitely bad for the dead mouse!

  • Kevin

    2/27/2010 3:49:10 PM |

    I need to get my glasses checked.  I thought I was looking at a chunk of black mold til reading these comments.  When I took a closer look...yuck.  

    It almost looks like a contrived photo.

    kevin

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 8:47:59 PM |

    So I guess the low carbers started burning fat from their guts as if that is bad and also would not be able to store glucose if they were eating any.

Loading