Thursday, July 21, 2011

Diet and Female Hormone Balance

High levels of serum estrogens and androgens promote premature menarche, premenstrual symptoms [1], menstrual pain [2], polycystic ovary syndrome, hirsutism, menopausal syndrome, and reproductive system (breast, ovarian, etc.) cancers in women [3].

Asian women and women eating plant-based diets excrete more estrogens via the stool than omnivores, and can have 15-30% lower estrogen levels than women eating omnivorous diets, along with lower risks of all of the conditions above [4 , 5 , 6 ].

The Diet and Androgens (DIANA) trial produced a reduction of insulin resistance, a 4 kg weight loss, a small decrease in estrodiol, and a 20% decrease in serum testosterone in women who adhered to a very low fat, plant-based diet with high intake of whole grains, flaxseed and legumes, and minimal intake of animal products over the course of 4.5 months [7].

Nowak et al reported a dramatic decrease in testosterone levels and hirsutism in a PCOS patient who consumed 30 G daily of flaxseed for 4 months [8 ].

Barnard et al reported a decrease in body weight, duration and intensity of premenstrual symptoms, water retention, and duration and intensity of menstrual pain in 33 women who ate a low fat, vegetarian diet for two menstrual cycles [9 ].

Bagga et al reported a significant decrease in serum estrogens with no adverse effects on menstrual cycling among women who ate an ad libitum diet supplying 10% of energy from fat and 25-35 g of fiber daily [10 ].

Excess stored iron appears to play a role in PCOS and insulin resistance [11], and we have evidence suggesting a role in breast cancer [12].   Meat provides more bioavailable iron (heme iron) than plant foods, and oral contraceptives reduce iron  losses; each of these could contribute to excessive stored iron.

I think the literature gives a  pretty clear picture.  Women eating diets low in fat and animal products, and high in whole plant foods,  generally have lower estrogen and testosterone levels and lower incidences of hormone-related diseases, compared to women eating diets high in fat and animal products.  Certain plant foods, e.g. flaxseed, legumes, whole grains, appear particularly effective at increasing elimination of excess estrogens and androgens.  Clinical trials show that  reducing fat and animal products and increasing plant foods rich in fibers will for many women result in reduced hormone levels.  A reduction in hormone levels will generally result in reduced premenstrual discomfort and dysphoria, menstrual pain, fibrocystic changes, and risk of hormone-related cancers.

From an evolutionary perspective, women performed most of the gathering, and while gathering, they probably nibbled on what they were gathering, so I would suspect that they consumed considerable amounts of plant foods on a daily basis, including various seeds, nuts, fruits, and even fresh legumes (wild peas and beans) containing phytoestrogens, just like other primates.

So here's my hypothesis:  I think it probable that human metabolism is adapted to regular intake of phytoestrogens, meaning that our hormone production pattern proceeds on the genetically built-in premise that phytoestrogens and other plant chemicals will be part of the diet, altering hormone levels.  In other words, our hormone production proceeds with the assumption that phytochemicals will be draining out some of our hormones; its production is adapted to a drain that was constant in the millions of years that our ancestors ate plant-based diets.  When we adopt diets that lack these compounds, while simultaneously increasing intake of other compounds (animal protein and fat) that feed the cholesterol and steroid production system, our own production of hormones becomes excessive, producing disease. 

64 comments:

Paleo Phil said...

Vegetarian diets? Whole grains? No thanks. Those are incompatible with biological discordance with a primal blueprint as the mechanism for diseases of civilization, so if you think those are worth commenting positively about then what is your alternative mechanism?

Stan (Heretic) said...

Don wrote: Women eating diets low in fat and animal products, and high in whole plant foods, have lower estrogen and testosterone levels and lower incidences of hormone-related diseases, compared to women eating diets high in fat and animal products.

Vegetarian women have also higher incidence of bone fractures due to earlier onset of osteoporosis, show premature skin aging (see McDougalls) and experience a plethora of other health problems such as poor immune resistance, autoimune disease, neurological and vitamin deficiency-related diseases due to abnormal status of A,D3,K2,B12 and other.

On the other hand, women on the Standard American Diet (SAD) experience more of the different set of health problems not because SAD is higher in fat but because SAD is higher in junk food, especially sugar, fructose and artificial fats high in trans-fats.

Breast cancer does not correlate with dietary fat but with sugar and total carbohydrate consumption (see refs on my blog).

Heretic

noah said...

Don,
Nonsense. You have not even successfully refuted many your own earlier blog entries.

I keep checking back to your blog expecting to hear how this whole position reversal was some sort of blogging psychological experiment to see how well your readers would defend your former position.

But alas, it seems your not joking. Just totally off the rails.

Chuck said...

this video sticks in my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-JDV5DVzyc
the women appear healthy on the raw fruit diet. the men on the other hand look emaciated. after looking at this video years ago, i have often wondered if men need much more meat than women. there is an evolutionary basis to this too as men hunted and very likely ate the larger portion of animals compared to the women who gathered mostly plants all day.

praguestepchild said...

Assuming what you posit it true, Don, wouldn't these reduced hormone levels result in a reduced desire for women to do the nasty?

I'm talking about sex. Getting it on, bumping uglies. I'm talking about grinding sexual organs together in the middle of the night until it hurts.

You don't think reduced hormone levels will effect this, or matter?

Malena said...

Interesting, lots of men commenting on women problems...

I must say I have never experienced any PMS on a low fat diet, however, horrible when eating more fat and meat. At least I thought it was horrible with swollen tender breast 2 weeks/month, water retention and pain. But I still had very mild PMS compared to many other women.

I don't think it is justified to comment on the problems with vegan/vegetarian diets as Don does not promote that. Regarding osteoporosis, USA, Sweden and Finland have the highest rates in the world and we also consume the highest amount of milk products...and also large amount of fish and meat compared to other populations. Nevertheless, I think osteoporosis has many causes.

@praguestepchild,
On a high fat high meat diet I was so sluggish and although in theory more hormones were circulating in my body (or for a longer time before excreted) the effect was the opposite as one would have expected and the same goes for a friend of mine. Of course this is only anecdotal, however, not for me so to say, for me it was 100% real.

@Chuck,
Yes I'm also wondering if men in general needs more meat. But I think actually that women on a raw fruit diet is sort of thin but fluffy and the men of course look like spagetti (unless they exercise a lot). My guess is that on a diet of primarily raw fruit there will be an increase of catabolic hormones, or decrease of anabolic hormones, thereby explaining the loss of lean mass and premature skin aging (see "Dr" Douglas Graham, he is supposed to be 58-59 but looks older than my parents who are 70).

Mrs. S said...

I wonder, though, if these comparisons between the low-fat plant based diets and higher-fat meat diets include animal products that are conventional or are wild/pastured.

The reason I ask is because after switching to a higher-fat and animal product diet using only wild and pastured animal products many of my "female problems" disappeared. Before I was eating a SAD diet and then an extremely low-fat vegetarian diet for a few years.

That being said, because I feel better on a higher-fat and animal product diet doesn't mean another woman from a totally different ancestral line might need a different diet based on her ancestral line.

I find it really counterproductive to blame one diet or the other, especially since most people who claim to be on a "traditional" diet aren't actually eating like our ancestors did at all. And then they persecute the principles of that traditional way of eating.

Shannon
nourishingdays.com

Pepper said...

@Praguestepchild: it sure does. Having polycystic ovaries and low estrogen levels, I have not had a sex drive in eighteen months.

Don, I worry that you don't understand (understandably) the intricacies of women's hormonal health. It is easy to pull results from the data and state widespread implications without analyzing the underlying mechanisms, a la the style of conventional wisdom. Many PCOS sufferers are victims of high estrogen levels, insulin dysregulation, blood sugar problems, etc. You addressed their dilemma (although not thoroughly). You cite articles claiming that a vegetarian diet is good for restoring hormonal balance, increasing testosterone and decreasing estrogen levels, but I would argue that fat-heavy paleo diets do just as well. Anecdotally, I know many women who manage to lower their estrogen and restore hormone balance with typical paleo diets.

However, this does not get at the whole story. Some women, as mentioned above, suffer from high estrogen levels, and both vegetarian and paleo diets seem to mitigate that. Many women on paleo diets, however, suffer from LOW estrogen levels. Can eating more starch increase estrogen levels? (Not according to your cited studies.) Does eating meat increase testosterone levels? (Epidemiologically, but not clinically, so far as I can tell.)

You post some summaries of results of studies that found women can lower estrogen levels with a vegetarian diet, BUT many women are trying to increase their estrogen levels. If meat increases testosterone and decreases estrogen, and if a vegetarian type diet reduces estrogen, what options might possibly be left? How can women raise their estrogen levels? This is an enormously complicated issue, and I hope that the paleo/semi-paleo blogosphere continues to gain awareness and discuss it.

john said...

You praise Japanese diets and decreased fat intake, but there's an inverse relationship of fat intake and mortality within Japanese. Now you're praising sex hormone lowering interventions (vegetarianism), but Okinawan elderly have high levels of thyroid, cortisol, androgens, estrogens compared to US elderly. This argument is a real reach, especially when you consider other evidence as Stan pointed out above.

Don said...

Paleo Phil,

Vegetarian diets and whole grains are incompatible with a story about human evolution that states that the majority of humans ate a lot of meat and no grains during evolution. That story remains a story. I don't know of any evidence that confirms conclusively that grains are biologically discordant with human physiology. If it were so, it would be impossible for large populations of humans to live largely on grains for the past 10K years. If vegetarian diets are so discordant with human biology, then it is very hard to explain why U.S. Seventh Day Adventists (vegetarians) live an average of ~7 years longer than the typical omnivore, or for that matter, why vegetarian diets proved beneficial in regulating premenstrual syndrome.

I don't call them diseases of civilization any more, because in civilization, these diseases clearly afflict affluent industrialized populations, not preindustrial agricultural populations. They are diseases of affluence, not of civilization.

Jay said...

A very low fat diet will inevitably greatly lower omega-6 intake and as an imbalance (= excess) of omega-6 may well be behind some of the hormonal imbalances this may be one reason why very low-fat diets work.
A high fat diet will also work especially if high in saturated and monosaturated fat rather than high in PUFAs.

Jay said...

Don says: "I don't know of any evidence that confirms conclusively that grains are biologically discordant with human physiology."

Er, the geographical distribution of coeliac disease across Europe?

Tracy said...

IIRC, non-vegetarian 7th Day Adventists lived longer than their vegetarian counterparts (and veggie 7th Day Adventists have the same rate of colon cancer as Mormons, big meat eaters)? Also, 7th day adventists don't smoke (did the 'typical' omnivores? Did the 'typical' omnivores eat crap food? Just wondering if there were other variables)

Anyway.

My n=1... PMS and other monthly issues are a non-issue for me now, eating high meat/fat and lower carb. On lower fat vegetarian, they were awful. However, I didn't know I was celiac at the time, so gluten grains in my case could have played more of a role. At any rate, nothing but improvements across the hormonal board while eating lots of animal products/fats. Just had them all tested, as a matter of fact, as part of a thyroid panel (also fine).

Malena said...

I think most people are expecting too much from their bodies. The average man or woman today is overweight, stressed and toxic and overdo all kinds of medications, such as levaxin, pain killers and statins, and the last thing the body wants in this miserable state is to become pregnant or give rise to offspring.

1.5 years ago a friend of mine turned to me for some advice. She had wanted a child for years, but due to her endometriosis, her doctors had told her, she might never have one. I never believe in those medical prophesies and it didn't take long to understand that my friend was more stressed than usual. We decided she had to work with her stress level and she also contacted a naturopath who said the same thing and recommended her some herbs. A couple of months later all of her asthma had disappeared, apparently it was only stress induced. Half a year later she became pregnant and is now a happy mother.

I'm sure you could have checked her hormone levels and tried to change them in some direction, however, low or high hormone levels are only symptoms of something else.

If any kind of diet improves health, LC or HC or whatever, it is probably individual, your hormone levels will also improve. However, I believe other factors might be much more important to work with such as stress, emotional crises, toxins and medications.

Don said...

Stan,

There is no evidence that vegetarian women have a higher incidence of osteoporotic bone fractures:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/4/910.long

The McDougalls are in their 60s. What are you calling premature skin aging?

I would be interested in EVIDENCE that vegetarians have more autoimmune diseases, neurological diseases, and vitamin deficiency diseases.

Its not like these problems aren't occurring among omnivores now, is it?

I searched pubmed with the terms "vegetarian and autoimmune disease." I came up with three reports of a study that showed vegetarian diet improving rheumatoid arthritis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=autoimmune%20diseases%20and%20vegetarians

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10479237

RA is autoimmune. If vegetarian diets cause autoimmune ds, why would they reverse RA for some individuals?

The human body is clearly adapted to get vitamin D from the sun, not food; the fact that we make it via sun exposure, and that Caucasians developed lighter skin to facilitate vitamin D production, proves that dietary vitamin D was insignificant in human evolution and is still unnecessary given adequate sun exposure.

Back to Paleo Phil,

If whole grains are among the main causes of 'diseases of civilization' then those diseases should occur more frequently among rural Africans, Asians, etc. where whole grains form a staple food, and less frequently where people eat less whole grains e.g. U.S.A. In fact the distribution of diseases is the opposite.

Don said...

Noah,

That is a refutation? You just call those studies nonsense and you think you dismissed them?

I find it so funny how people will say someone is "off the rails" if they disagree. Essentially, 'if you don't agree with me, you are crazy.' We call it ad hominem fallacy.

Don said...

Chuck,

I was going to add to the post the observation that women would have been primarily gatherers, with less access to meat, hence likely more adapted to a more vegetarian diet...but realize that the idea that man 200k years ago was a big success at hunting is questionable at best.

Nevertheless, there are other reasons to suppose that men tolerate a higher meat and fat intake than women. Simply, due to hormonal and physiological differences, men are more wasteful of food energy than women. Meat and fat are highly concentrated and very similar to our own tissues, making them easy to digest and assimilate and hence easy to increase our own body mass. Men have a high metabolic rate and burn things up faster (more destructive metabolism) whereas women have a more constructive metabolism (gain mass more easily, necessary for gestative function). Hence, men need food with a higher energy density and more easily assimilated fat and protein compared to women.

Don said...

Praguestepchild,

Every biological item has an optimum range. Too little hormone produces deficiency, too much excess.

Testosterone is necessary for sex drive, but do women want to have so much testosterone that they grow beards?

Estrogen is necessary for brain health, but do men want to have so much that they grow breasts?

Judging by population size, Asians and Africans with hormone levels lower than Asian-Americans and African-Americans certainly don't have a low libido.

Don said...

Pepper,

The studies I cited showed either no or modest reduction in 'good' estrogens (2-hydroxy), large reductions in 'bad' estrogens (16-hydroxy), and reductions (not increases) in testosterone.

I don't know your case, whether your estrogen is low normal (which I would consider beneficial) or below the normal range, nor do I know your ratio of good estrogen to bad, so I can't comment on it.

Paleo diets may reduce excess hormones in some women...depends on the woman and the application (there is no one universally applied paleo diet, some eat low fat, some high, some only grass-fed animals, some conventional, some lots of plants, some very little). Some women may increase/eat enough plants when going paleo to produce an improvement in hormone (test, 16E) elimination or balance of 2E to 16E. Some may not.

PCOS involves excess testosterone relative to estrogen. Decreasing T is usually much more important than increasing E, because it is the T that causes the virilization.

Don said...

John,

Japanese average only 25% of calories from fat. Their high fat is still low compared to U.S. levels.

There is a lot of evidence that lifetime exposure to estrogen, especially 16E, increases breast cancer risk. Premenopausal U.S. women have more estrogen and more bad estrogen (16E) than premenopausal Japanese women, and this results in a early menarche and a greater lifetime exposure to estrogens.

Postmenopausal U.S. women have less estrogen than postmenopausal Okinawan women.

Now put this together. I would see it this way: U.S. women eat in a way that exhausts their estrogen production capacity early in life by producing too much, too soon. Okinawan women ate in a way that delayed onset of menarche and produced less estrogen during the premenopausal years; as a result, after menopause they have a larger reserve ability to produce estrogen than U.S. women. Its a tortoise and hare phenomenon.

People in affluent nations eat more of everything, but especially of protein and fat (necessary for body structures), which makes them age quickly, starting with growing faster and larger and then using up more of their inherited organic abilities in youth, leaving little to spare for late life. People eating less affluent diets don't grow as quickly or as large, and use less of their hormone production capacity in early life, leaving them more for later years.

Basically, many degenerative diseases are simply early onset of aging of tissues. Modern diets accelerate growth and development (e.g. premature menarche and puberty) which means they accelerate aging. So to find out what dietary components bring on degenerative diseases, ask, which dietary components accelerate growth and development? Will a child grow faster with more protein and fat, or lower protein and fat, higher carbohydrate? The smaller stature of Japanese people raised on traditional diets high in carbohydrates but low in animal products should provide a clue.

Since all human tissues consist of protein and fat, the answer should present itself. Simply, protein and fat are the limiting conditions for growth and development; eat more and you grow/age faster, eat less and you grow/age more slowly.

Don said...

BTW, even Stefansson recognized that the Inuit diet appeared to accelerate their aging. In his words:

"Perhaps it may be considered that meat is, overall, a stimulating diet, in the
sense that metabolic processes are speeded up. You are then living at a faster rate, which means you would grow up
rapidly and get old soon. This is perhaps confirmed by that early maturing of Eskimo women which I have heretofore
supposed to be mainly due to their almost complete protection from chill - they live in warm dwellings and dress
warmly so that the body is seldom under stress to maintain by physiological processes a temperature balance. It may
be that meat as a speeder-up of metabolism explains in part both that Eskimo women are sometimes grandmothers
before the age of twenty-three, and that they usually seem as old at sixty as our women do at eighty.
"

Adventures in Diet, Part V

Rudolf said...

So, might it be reasonable to feed kids with meat, so they grow taller and more muscular and then gradually limit meat as they stop growing to slow aging?

I would not want to be small as asians, but would also not like to age fater. Is the above a good compromise?

nothing91 said...

Don,

This is a fantastic follow-up post to the one you did 4 months ago where you basically say the exact opposite. :-)(http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/meat-is-medicine-pcos-and-female.html)

Couple things though:

"the fact that...caucasians developed lighter skin to facilitate vitamin D production..."

You sure do use the term "fact" loosly.

Turns out skin pigmentation doesn't affect UVB absorption (and therefore Vitamin D production).

"I think the literature gives a pretty clear picture. Women eating diets low in fat and animal products, and high in whole plant foods, have lower estrogen and testosterone levels and lower incidences of hormone-related diseases, compared to women eating diets high in fat and animal products."

Strange. The Don Matesz of 4 months ago said this:

"Know someone with PCOS? Share this with them: Sugar is poison, meat is medicine."

Dr. Curmudgeon Gee said...

Hi, Mrs. S & Tracy,

my n=3 experience:

higher SFA => No PMS.

low fat => PMS

(i don't claim it works for every woman.)

regards,

Gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gadfly said...

I remember guys like Don from university: smart enough to get a little, but not persistent enough to really grasp the nub of a thing. These guys tended to do what Don does, which is throw as much kaka at the wall as they could, hoping some would stick before anyone would notice that they really hadn't examined the question.

One simple question is pertinent here and should suffice to pull the loose thread from this latest yarn: "What meat?" We all (should) know that there is a massive difference between the amount of hormones fed to industrially farmed cattle compared to traditional rearing methods. Certainly the research you quickly perused traced the origin of the estrogens and androgens to specific sources, etc. I mean, that's the only way one could conclude that the literature were "clear" on the subject, as you have.

And certainly the research you cited sought to account for confounding factors like the presence of other compounds in the diet, right? This is much like the "meat/fat causes cancer" research that failed to note that the folks eating the most meat/fat were also eating the most sugar. Damn variables!

So, Don - much like with your "fat didn't cause my health problems, but it certainly caused my health problems" volte face (you may have come across the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy when you looked up "ad hominem") you need to account for confounding factors AND show causality.

I won't hold my breathe.

Malena said...

@Gadfly

Well I tried HFLC with wild game, grass fed cattle, wild fatty fish, cooked my own stock, no milk products but duck fat, etc etc BUT I'm actually much better off with white low omega 3 fish and "bad" chicken and turkey. And of course much less of all that high quality fat and protein.

When someone puts up a fight against new ideas I feel there is some addiction going on. I've had that with friends. If I suggest they discontinue milk products for a month or two they start arguing fiercely how good milk is for them. Then, once they actually try, they notice all their stomach problems disappear, they loose lots of (water) weight, their skin improves etc etc.

What I try to illustrate with this example is that with diet, people are so addicted to their food or to their theories its like suggesting an alcoholic to stop drinking, they will come up with all kinds of arguments instead of just trying and see for themselves what works. I've tried both high quality HFLC and high quality HCLF. Only then you can evaluate what works best.

Most people go from a junk diet to something better and then they think that their new diet is the only solution. The funny thing is, most people, irrespective of diet, do the same thing. They stop eating ice cream, pizza, pasta, burgers, candies etc because it either contains too much fat or too much carbs, but it is still the same food that they exclude. Then they start eating more whole food, wild food and organic food and think that this is something unique with their diet when most diets have that in common.

Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi Don,

I will have to break my answer in to several posts, I hope you don't mind.

Don wrote: http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/4/910.long

This study is acknowledging the lower bone density among vegetarians but its author is arguing that the results are confounded by other factor, as she writes:

The results point to a significant (albeit very small) difference in bone density in those who adhere to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle compared with those who adhere to a mixed, omnivorous one, but it is important to note that the results do not fully adjust for key confounding factors, such as for differences in 1) body weight, 2) physical activity levels, and 3) smoking,...

What she failed to mention in her critique of the data, is the confounding factors 2 and 3, if accounted for, would likely act AGAINST vegetarian bone health rather than in favor!

Rather than using this one not very convincing article, consider more specific studies (out of many), see for example the following posts:

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/search/label/osteoporosis

I will address other issue from your reply in the subsequent comments.

Heretic

Stan (Heretic) said...

Don wrote: I would be interested in EVIDENCE that vegetarians have more autoimmune diseases, neurological diseases, and vitamin deficiency diseases. Its not like these problems aren't occurring among omnivores now, is it?

Vitamins and veganism.

Vitamin A (retinol not just carotenoids!) and D3 deficiencies are rampant and well documented among vegetarians. They are much less prevalent among general population. You will find for example that very low vitamin D3 status (and ensuing immune problems) are some of the most common complains among vegans on the McDougall forum. This, and auto immune disease are the most often mentioned complains.

In contrast, Arkadia clinics in Poland use very high animal fat low protein low carb diet to routinely cure even severe cases of RA, eczema, have partial success in MS, almost total success in IBS and Crohns. All these are autoimmune diseases. This is extensively described in Dr. Jan Kwasniewski books with data from his own practice records, also by Dr. W. Lutz in his "Life without bread" book.

I will come back to it and will give you later another bunch of links linking Anylosis Spondylitis to wheat protein triggers and Klebsiella (linked to high starch diet), and similar connections that are showing up in the literature also between RA and diabetes t1, and low molecular mass wheat proteins.

Here is one link http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/2009/05/vitamin-ad3k2-toxicity-levels.html and I will add some more links illustrating problems with vitamin A among plant eaters.

Neurological risk and veganism.

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/2010/10/alzheimers-b12-and-homocysteine-vegans.html

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/2009/06/fuhrmans-diet-repeat-of-natural.html

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/2011/01/low-energy-diets-render-motor-neurons.html

[to be cont]

Heretic

Malena said...

@Stan (Heretic)

Regarding IBS, Crohns and Ulcerative colitis, people have cured these conditions both with LC and HC diets. However, it has nothing to do with macronutrients but to certain foods, emotions, bacteria and toxins that are chronically present and therefore cause a chronical condition, mystified by allopathic medicine and called autoimmune diseases.

My sister has had UC and has healed completely. She wrote a book about it (in Swedish) for free download on the internet and since then, hundreds of people have downloaded it and contacted her. Just as e.g. sensitive skin, which is caused by an enormous amount of factors, especially the exposure to foreign substances (skincare products), the intestine can also get sensitized due to the exposure of foreign substances (foods). Just as with skin it differs from person to person if your intestine is injured or not by exposure to a certain substance. UC, Crohns etc are often triggered during periods of stress and by antibiotics etc but there is often a weakened condition in place already before that.

It is thus not difficult to understand why these diseases become chronic as you are constantly exposed to certain substances/emotions (unless you change your diet and deal with your emotions). Also, it is very easy to understand why the condition(s) worsen periodically as we periodically tend to be more stressed, eat more junk food, experience difficult emotional crises. The body attacking itself is in my view just mumbo jumbo hokus pokus, but good for selling medicines.

My sister (and I) has actually translated the book now into English and it is now published on the web for free download, check it out here: http://ulcerativecolitishealing.wordpress.com/in-english

noah said...

Don,

"We call it ad hominem fallacy."

Well, I guess if you consider your own previous positions distasteful, and linking you to them slanderous, then ok, I guess so.

Malena said...

Sometimes the discussion here is not about diet but whether you have the right to change your opinion.

Older generations tend to be stubborn and see it as a disgrace to confess you were once wrong or have changed your mind.

Young people, those born in the 80s and thereafter, don't have a problem with changing opinion after having new experiences or faced with new evidence (according to HR science).

Seems like many readers here belong to the first sort as they attack Don for changing his mind.

As for me, I look forward to the younger generations taking over. Then change for the better of the world will go much faster as we will hopefully not be stuck too long in stubborn "scientific" fallacies.

My own proverb: A scientist spends the first years of his career launching a theory, then he spends the rest of his life defending it. (No matter how stupid it later turns out to be. I hope we will see another kind of scientists in the future).

nothing91 said...

Malena,

"Sometimes the discussion here is not about diet but whether you have the right to change your opinion."

There's been no such discussion here. Maybe you're thinking of another blog.

Folks like me who disagree with Don nowadays aren't "attacking" him simply because he changed his opinion (despite him trying to portray it that way). The "attacks" stem over his persistent & blatantly obvious confirmation bias and the resultant cherry-picking & over-interpretation of the evidence. (His arrogant writing style doesn't help either.)

How this results in you writing a diatribe about old, stubborn blog readers is beyond me. I'm young & crisp at 32, so your speculation is already out the window.

noah said...

Malena,

You have it backwards. Don has retreated to the old failed approach. He had been extolling the new data, the facts that refuted theories being defended by those entrenched in their PhD positions. The fact that what he says now resonates with your opinion does not make him a young rebel fighting against the crusty old dogmatists.

LF/HC (Don's and the rest of the failed nutrition mainstream's position) is exactly one of those "stubborn scientific fallacies" that wont die despite its widespread and consistent failure.

Paleo Phil said...

Don said..."Vegetarian diets and whole grains are incompatible with a story about human evolution that states that the majority of humans ate a lot of meat and no grains during evolution."

I'm not claiming that humans never ate grains before 10k years ago, nor that any amount of grains prepared in any way is instantly highly poisonous, nor is Cordain, Eaton, Mark Sisson, Kurt Harris, Denise Minger, nor any other leading advocate of Paleo-type diets that I'm familiar with. Rather, they seem to argue that most humans probably don't have a sufficient history of eating grains as staple foods to have fully adapted to them, at least not without the traditional toxin-reducing processing techniques that Stephan Guyenet blogs about, and that gluten-rich grains seem to be especially problematic.

Most people eat some plant foods, so what sets vegetarians apart is that they tend to claim that all land meats are inherently unhealthy and/or unethical to eat, particularly "red" meats. I don't see an evolutionary precedent for this philosophy of meat as so terrible it must be avoided completely, particularly when it promotes eating lots of "healthy whole grains." Do you?

When Stephan Guyenet discusses grains, he typically includes warnings about the need to use traditional processing techniques (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/05/traditional-preparation-methods-improve.html) and that "some people do better without grains specifically, particularly wheat." (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/clarifications-about-carbohydrate-and.html) If you had done so I wouldn't have posted a skeptical comment. Why did you not include any, especially given that you argued fervently against grains and for meats in the past?

Don wrote: "If it were so [that grains are biologically discordant with human physiology], it would be impossible for large populations of humans to live largely on grains for the past 10K years."

Where is your evidence that this is "impossible" with grains or other discordant foods? I'm not aware of an absolute drop off point where all Neolithic foods become quickly horrendously discordant and kill off large populations within 10k years and I've never seen any leading advocate of Paleo-type diets propose this. It seems to me that foods fall on a continuum, with traditionally-processed heirloom grains being less harmful than industrially-processed gluten-rich varities of grains. The problems with discordant foods seem to be less about rapid population death than chronic inflammatory illnesses that become particularly problematic in elder years. Cordain, Jared Diamond and others have argued that Neolithic and industrial diets actually promote population growth as compared to hunter-gatherer diets despite also promoting chronic inflammatory diseases.

Don wrote: "If vegetarian diets are so discordant with human biology, then it is very hard to explain why U.S. Seventh Day Adventists (vegetarians) live an average of ~7 years longer than the typical omnivore, or for that matter, why vegetarian diets proved beneficial in regulating premenstrual syndrome."

I'm not arguing that all vegetarian diets are worse than average US diets, I'm just puzzled why you didn't include any qualifiers with the positive remarks about vegetarian diets and grains.

Paleo Phil said...

Don wrote: "I don't call them diseases of civilization any more, because in civilization, these diseases clearly afflict affluent industrialized populations, not preindustrial agricultural populations.”

Again, I think there's a continuum, rather than an absolute drop-off point. When Stanislas Tanchou coined the term he was describing how certain diseases were more prevalent in French cities than rural areas (GCBC, page 92). The French countryside was still technically "civilization," yet somewhat less so than the cities and the countryside had less of the diseases of civilization than the more intensively "civilized" cities.

Don wrote: "If whole grains are among the main causes of 'diseases of civilization' then those diseases should occur more frequently among rural Africans, Asians, etc. where whole grains form a staple food, and less frequently where people eat less whole grains e.g. U.S.A."

Americans are more intensively "civilized" and eat more modernized diets than Africans and Asians, so this datum supports Tanchou's "diseases of civilization" hypothesis, rather than contradicts it.

Sue said...

Rather than changing sides and now supporting LF/HC you should be saying it's individual which diet someone can thrive on. Most healthy eaters have the no junk in common regardless if they are LF/HC or HF/LC.

Malena said...

@nothing91,

But you also have an arrogant writing stile and Don is in fact entitled to write whatever he wants on his own blog. The interesting thing as I see it is that what matter is personal experience and then you can find statistics supporting whatever you want.

@nothing91,
In my opinion, different diets suit different persons but the one thing in common is to clear out the junk. Many people have failed the HFLC approach, I am one of them. Then there are many people who have failed the LFHC approach. I think you are entitled to share your experiences and change your mind, presenting new evidence. And whatever you said before, whatever you used as proof before, why drag that up? That is what I mean with not allowing someone to change his/her mind.

You can prove anything with statistics, support any kind of view, depending on the design of the study. As a layman you have to check if the study is relevant for you and compare with your own experiences. For me it is more interesting to read about studies on women than on men (remember heart medicine producing the opposite (and negative) effect for women compared to men; all studies where of course done on men). So there are many reasons for statistics to show more or less anything, in the end you have to check with your own experiences and allow others to do so too.

nothing91 said...

Malena,

"you can find statistics supporting whatever you want."

This is exactly my point. Depending on which way your confirmation bias points at any given time, you can find "evidence" to support it.

Don has proven this by blogging about HFLC evidence for years and now suddenly blogging about LFHC evidence. He thinks he has wrong before and is right now. Simply because he and his wife supposedly do better on LFHC, he seems to think it's the best diet for everybody (or almost everybody).

He fails to see that he is just as biased as ever. I bring up what he said before not because I think he shouldn't have changed his mind, but to show how sure he thought he was before -- just as sure as he thinks he is now. Nothing has really changed.

For example, take these two statements:

"Meat and Fat Diet Delivers Satisfying Results: I really enjoy hearing from people who have taken classes from me and gotten the awesome results you can get by putting paleo principles into practice." - April, 2011

"I could no longer rationalize the failure of a meat-based carb-controlled diet as a treatment protocol in my clinic." - June, 2011

How can a person make two completely contradictory statements like this a mere 2 months apart and expect anyone to take him seriously?

Paleo Phil said...

Don wrote: "I would be interested in EVIDENCE that vegetarians have more autoimmune diseases, neurological diseases, and vitamin deficiency diseases."

Here are blog posts on studies with "Vegetarianism" as the topic from the Healthy Diets and Science blog by David Evans:
http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/search/label/Vegetarianism

He currently lists 52 negative studies on vegetarianism including links between vegetarianism and these issues (among others):

Vegetarianism and Anemia (5)
Vegetarianism and Brain Damage (2)
Vegetarianism and Calcium (2)
Vegetarianism and Cancer (5)
Vegetarianism and Cognition (3)
Vegetarianism and Diabetes (2)
Vegetarianism and Heart Disease (8)
Vegetarianism and HIV (1)
Vegetarianism and Iodine (4)
Vegetarianism and IQ (2)
Vegetarianism and Iron (1)
Vegetarianism and Malnutrition (2)
Vegetarianism and Mortality (1)
Vegetarianism and Rickets (3)
Vegetarianism and Thyroid (2)
Vegetarianism and Vitamin B12 (15)
Vegetarianism and Vitamin B2 (1)
Vegetarianism and Vitamin D (3)
Vegetarianism and Zinc Deficiency (2)
Vegtarianism and Alzheimers (1)

Of course, you can come up with pro-vegetarian studies to counter these, so nothing91's point about the problem of confirmation bias is a relevant one. Those who are convinced that meat-heavy diets are harmful are more likely to believe the pro-vegetarian studies and those who think that vegetarianism is harmful are more likely to believe the anti-vegetarian studies. Since most people do not have thorough scientific training to help determine which studies are credible and since even scientists don't agree on the subject, this seems to be a case where n=1 experimentation could be useful.

Malena said...

@nothing91,

Yes I agree it becomes very confusing especially if someone has a very argumentative tone of voice (and I confess I have that pretty often, I am probably horrible sometimes, and I would like to apologize for that).

What is making everything even more confusing is reductionism. If we try to find one single solution to a complex problem it will all be a mess. I've been thinking the last day, what if someone eats a HFLC diet and thereby succeeds in getting rid of sugar cravings and binge eating. Then whether the macronutrient ration was "right" isn't very important as that individual will find a tremendous relief and increased well being. I know other people who have curbed their binge eating by actually allowing themselves to eating carbs and stop caring if that was right or wrong. If you have a balanced mental state and are happy, does all the other stuff really matter? As long as people are happy and believe their diet is right it often is !

STG said...

Didn't work for me: When I was in my late thirties through most of my forties, I ate a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet(generally low fat). My insulin resistance and blood sugar levels continue to climb, I was always hungry, tired and sleepy after a meal with 45g of carbs and found myself eating frequently. Moreover, I had severe migranes that were not helped by the vegetarian diet. I don't think any diet is a miracle cure, but I find I feel better and am healthier on a lower carb diet that inlcudes meat--call this paleo, neo-paleo, whatever. Perhaps I am one of many people (prediabetic, diabetic, insulin resistant) that have an impaired ability to handle carbs. Although there are no long-term clincial trials to support this--I think that metabolic diet typing may be useful. Some women I know thrive on a high carbo diet with tons of grains, legumes, fruit, soy etc. I function better with less carbs.

STG said...

Malena:

Off-topic but important to address:

Your comment about older people being stubborn is unfortunate. You are entitled to your opinion, however. Personally, I find that one of the most rewarding aspect of who I am is to question conventional wisdom, challenge paradigms and revise my views based on data. I don't think this approach to life is age-dependent. People of all ages can be rigid and shutdown; people of all ages can be open-minded and flexible. My father is 92 and wrote a book a year ago. He is open minded, loves the energy of young people, understands change, has compassion and humility. Malena, you will also be an older person. Remember, no one get out alive!

nothing91 said...

Malena,

Yep, I think we're pretty much on the same page on the diet issue. The mind definitely plays a big role in everything. :-)

Galina L. said...

to Malena
I got read of my premenstrual mood-swings, swollen legs, post-menstrual migraines and energy level problems on the ketogenic diet.I eat a lot of saturated fat, not much protein.Never eat crap food . Thanks God I am not a Don's patient! Turning 180 on his blog looks quite strange.

Malena said...

@STG,

That older people have a tendency not changing their opinion is not my idea but comes from a Swedish researcher that my sister interviewed recently. According to his findings younger generations have less problems changing their minds. It has nothing to do with them being younger, its because of them belonging to another generation and growing up at different times. But his research was probably based here in Sweden, in other countries it might differ.

@Galina,
And I have the opposite experience; I would say thank God you can try for yourself and find out what works best for you.

sandra said...

Malena,
"If you have a balanced mental state and are happy, does all the other stuff really matter? As long as people are happy and believe their diet is right it often is !"

This is a nice idea... however, I felt pretty good and happy when eating high carb, moderate-low fat diet with lots of fruits and veggies. Then I was diagnosed w/breast cancer (at 38 w/o family history).

So, I continue to search for answers here and elsewhere even knowing that given conflicting studies and individual variation I may never find what I am looking for.

For what it is worth I just got labs back after eating more carbs and less fat for several weeks:

I was expecting increased fasting glucose, BUT: fasting glucose went down to 75 from 85 (on paleo HF/LC) which was down from 95 (on a more standard high carb diet). My BUN was a a tad high, CREAT a tad low, ALT and ALKP also low.

In any case I am still trying to make sense of results-I have no clue what is an optimal level for FG for me or what the other abnormal results mean it does seem at least for me that balance of macronutrients can change lab markers that have been deamed important.

Galina L. said...

Yes, I know - people are different, sometimes different things work for different people, there are some blogs(like Carb Sane's)full of testimonials of the people dissatisfied with LC diets,but...There many conditions being helped by ketogenic diet. For example,there is a great blog Evolutionary Psychiatry by professional doctor Emily Deans, M.D.http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/. She writes about diet treatment for such seemingly unrelated to body fat issues as mental health.When somebody is in the ketosis, brain works in a more balanced way. - http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/08/your-brain-on-ketones.html
It puzzles me, how something that balances brain, could mess up with the rest of the body (for some individuals). Does it mean that such individuals will not be helped in mental department with LC diet if needs arrives? Will be the Dr.R. Bernstein's book "The Diabetes Solution" (promotes 30 gram of carbs a day)usefull for them?
My personal weight loss was very slow(Don considered it even the diet failure - 35 lb for 4 years), because my primary goal was to get relieve for migraines.It was a pleasant surprise also get reed of pre-menopausal symptoms, allergies, colds, yeast infections, ... a very long list.
Now I am within 3 lb of my goal weight and don't know how to stop the weight loss without getting out of ketosis and continue practicing IF.

Bog said...

@Stan

"Vegetarian women have also higher incidence of bone fractures due to earlier onset of osteoporosis"

Incase you are referring to the study I think you do, I can say it's not that simple. Vegeterians had more bone fractures in a category which would correlate with high physical activity. Moreover, vegeterians had less fractures in the hip category, a category which is linked with osteoporosis.

Malena said...

@Sandra,

I'm so sorry to hear about your breast cancer. From my own experience I know however that emotions, stress and crises are often insidious; you don't understand you are exposed to them because in modern life, its not like you stand in front of a lion, rather, you are exposed to hard to understand difficulties that go on and on, year after year.

Two years ago I became so sick I was nearly dying, lost most of my hair etc etc. The doctors told me it was probably some chronic stuff but looking deep inside I know it was all due to a personal crisis that had gone on several years without me actually noticing how I was constantly dragged down into depression and God knows what. I'm somewhat familiar with Hamer's theories on cancer and cancer equivalents (German New Medicine) so I could deduct what kind of crisis I was exposed to. I was hospitalized for a week during some very acute problems but once home I quit all medication and gained my health back rapidly. But then of course I knew what I was doing.

Reg. cancer it is always difficult to suggest anything but anyhow, you might want to look into the following:

Right handed woman, left breast: mother/child conflict, household conflict. Right breast: non-sexual partner conflict. Opposite side if you are left handed. Tumors form in the crisis phase, encapsulation, edema, pain etc in healing phase.

Background: A crisis activates a certain part of the brain. That part of the brain is also connected to a certain part of the body. Hence the activated brain will increase/stimulate a cancerous cell growth to the connected body part tissue. According to Hamer this is an extremely ancient mechanism in living cells. For example: If a simple cell's/animal's offspring is killed, that acute crisis will strengthen/activate the reproductive cells until new offspring is produced where the abnormal activity will go back to normal. However, in humans, with our prolonged crises and modern life, this doesn't work. Hamer himself, being an "ordinary" cancer specialist, was diagnosed with testicle cancer himself when his sun was murdered.

Now, I believe cancer and all kinds of disease have several causes, often active at the same time in the same individual, but the location, severity and length I believe is connected also to our emotional state and personality. Emotions are often underrated. I experienced that myself the hard way.

Wish you happiness and health!

Lucas Tafur said...

Well, I guess this study doesnt count:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16359551/

Helen said...

Agh! Circles upon circles in this discussion.

After spending the last couple of years tweaking my diet for better health based on certain theories, I did have to settle on "what works best for me" approach, like Malena, but, as Sandra points out, "what worked best" changes with new information, hindsight, and new diagnoses.

Sandra, I'm sorry about your cancer. Since cancer takes a long time to develop and may have a genetic component as well as environmental triggers independent of diet, perhaps not too much can be pinned on diet.

Regarding your numbers: "[On higher carb] I was expecting increased fasting glucose, BUT: fasting glucose went down to 75 from 85 (on paleo HF/LC) which was down from 95 (on a more standard high carb diet)."

I've had similar experiences (though my glucose is higher than yours on any diet - the range of change is similar). It's easy to assume that the lower fasting glucose means that your latest diet is better than the HF/LC paleo one, but, to make matters more confusing, it could be that the harm associated with certain lab numbers is sometimes a fellow-traveler of the kind of diet they're usually associated with. That is, it's possible, just possible, that higher fasting glucose on HF/LC paleo is a different animal in terms of health risk than higher fasting glucose on the SAD.

I have to say, though, I've been hedging my bets and opting for a high-soluble-fiber, higher-carb, lower-fat diet rather than the HF/LC one I originally embarked on to improve my glucose readings.

HA said...

Malena --

You said:
"...Right handed woman, left breast: mother/child conflict, household conflict. Right breast: non-sexual partner conflict. Opposite side if you are left handed. Tumors form in the crisis phase, encapsulation, edema, pain etc in healing phase...

Did you... actually just suggest that a left-sided occurrence of breast cancer can be caused by unresolved psychological mother/child conflicts?

You do realize that your 'helpful' comments in this line actually insinuate that Sandra is in some way personally responsible for her cancer diagnosis, right?

Malena said...

@HA,

That's why I wrote it is difficult to suggest anything but apparently I didn't express myself very well.

I also wrote that, in my opinion, severe diseases are due to many causes where emotions and crises also are contributing.

A nonsexual crisis with a partner can be e.g. a divorce. I haven't met anyone where a divorce was easy and not extremely taxing emotionally. A household crisis (my bad translation from Swedish) is e.g. you lose your house due to financial difficulties, maybe your family is split, your children suddenly move and there's lots or resentment, anger and fights.

In Sweden we say, "an accident/crisis seldom comes alone". Difficult times are followed by more difficulties.

I find it extremely naïve to believe our health is only dependent on what we eat or that we suddenly out of thin air are struck down by our "evil" genes that befall us with disease. I also find it naïve to belittle our emotions. People used to do that regarding stress, remember? Those suffering from severe stress symptoms where ridiculed, they just made it up.

So, if you can get really really sick from stress at work, would your body go totally unharmed if your children die? If you are falsely accused of fraud? If your house burns down? The emotional reaction differs, some people may be able to go on with their lives in a shorter period of time, other might suffer from years which might show in their health in different ways.

I didn't come up with this myself, you might want to check out German New Medicine. Xin Ping therapy is another way of explaining the connection emotion-health.

Malena said...

@HA,

I forgot to add:
In case you didn't notice I wrote in my former post that I almost died two years ago and that I believe it was due to a prolonged emotional crisis. Which means of course that I wrote that I am 100% psychologically responsible for bringing myself on the verge of death.

Perhaps you should tell all stressed and depressed people that they are silly for psychologically making themselves ill.

Being a human was never easy.

Not until we pay heed to all aspects of being a human can we solve all the riddles we experience in life.

sandra said...

Malena,
Thanks for the well wishes...

As to the rest: the only major crisis I have had as an adult so far is...getting breast cancer! Perhaps there is something more subtle I am overlooking though.

Helen,
Thanks for your comment- interesting that you had a similar FG response to the same changes...

H. Arlo said...

@Malena --

"That's why I wrote it is difficult to suggest anything but apparently I didn't express myself very well."

You said it was "difficult to suggest anything but" -- and then went right ahead and suggested something to Sandra that might lead her to believe that she has somehow 'manifested' her cancer via stress or emotional trauma.

"I find it extremely naïve to believe our health is only dependent on what we eat or that we suddenly out of thin air are struck down by our "evil" genes that befall us with disease."

It is naive to believe that health is only dependent on those two things. There are a host of different factors at play when it comes to illness--genetics, environment, and nutrition are only a small handful.

"I also find it naïve to belittle our emotions."

I agree. Studies have shown that emotional states create a cascade of hormonal, inflammatory and immune system responses in the human body that can directly impact a person's health. Emotional and situational stress can certainly play a role in illness.

Reducing stress is a good idea, not only from a psychological standpoint but also for the sake of the immune system.

That's not what you're suggesting, though -- you're suggesting there's a 1:1 correlation between the presence of cancer (as well as its location) and a specific psychological event/issue.

"In case you didn't notice I wrote in my former post that I almost died two years ago and that I believe it was due to a prolonged emotional crisis. Which means of course that I wrote that I am 100% psychologically responsible for bringing myself on the verge of death."

Perhaps that is how you feel. In that case, thank you for your honest anecdote about what sounds like a very difficult time in your life. I commend you for getting through it.

You're not just relating your own story, though -- you're pointing others in a direction to come to similar conclusions as yourself.

Perhaps you should tell all stressed and depressed people that they are silly for psychologically making themselves ill.

I would never suggest that, and I apologize if that's how you read my comment. Stressed. depressed, and sick people ought to be treated humanely, gently, and with a great deal of respect.

That's exactly why I wrote my previous comment.

To paraphrase, your 'German New Medicine' suggests that psychological events/issues directly produce organic disease states. According to its originator, Hamer, a person will have a pollen allergy because they happened to be near some flowers when they experienced a negative emotional event and thought, 'This stinks!'

'German New Medicine' also suggests that: If a man unexpectedly lost his business and the bank takes all his assets, he can develop colon cancer  as a result of an 'indigestible morsel conflict', liver cancer as a result of a 'starvation conflict' and bone cancer as a result of a “self-devaluation conflict'.

These are ridiculous claims with no basis in science.

They are also an insidious way of playing 'blame the victim' with cancer patients -- inviting sick, struggling people to search for the ways their personal conflicts and reaction to life events may have "caused" their cancer.

Many people who buy into this type of approach will stop going to their doctor or pursuing cancer treatment. A woman may be encouraged to decide that her breast tumor is just a result of her conflicted relationship with her child, and abandon treatment in favor of trying to 'fix the conflict'. These so-called 'New Medicine' claims aren't just ridiculous -- they can be very dangerous.

H. Arlo said...

@ Malena,

You can read more about 'German New Medicine' here.

There's also a very sad story of a patient's 'results' from Hamer's approach here.

Please note the mention of Hamer's numerous malpractice suits, patient deaths and jail terms served in Europe.

Paleo Phil said...

Here's a PCOS success story I came across today that more closely matches Don's earlier views on PCOS:

What I Do to Control PCOS
http://theprimalparent.com/2011/07/07/an-unconventional-approach-to-pcos-polycystic-ovarian-syndrome/

"Not everyone has it as bad as I do and not everyone has digestive problems like I have had for over 20 years. Most women will find that a simple shift in the Primal direction will balance their hormones and free them from PCOS. But for those women who have found recovery as illusive as I did, it’s worth taking it a step further than what is recommended by most NDs and books. Here are the things that I do that have worked for me:

Avoid foods that I am allergic to like the plague
Don’t eat too much sugar at once – I have found that glucose doesn’t cause too much of a problem for me. It doesn’t cause wild spikes in my insulin like fructose and grains do.
Avoid fructose like the plague
Avoid vegetables, nuts, and anything fibrous
Avoid vegetable juices
Avoid vegetable oils
Avoid butter
Avoid all foods containing yeast (like aged cheeses and kombucha)"

I also have a friend with endometriosis who found that cutting out wheat and sugar was beneficial.

noah said...

@H Arlo
The author of the blog you link to regarding " German New Medicine" also believes that Don's profession is quackery. Do you?

H. Arlo said...

@noah

The author of the blog you link to regarding " German New Medicine" also believes that Don's profession is quackery. Do you?

Nope. Acupuncture (I assume that's what you meant?) has some great clinical trials behind it and a looong empirical history.

If you meant his faculty position and nutrition/training practices? Double-nope. I hear no sounds of ducks from whence they came. :)

Amanda said...

Thanks so much for posting this (and your whole blog that I'm now going to start reading)! I've had problems with excess androgens since puberty and haven't wanted to follow the endocrinologist's advice to take steroids, with all the side effects, just to solve some minor issues, so I wanted to see if my diet could help.

I am already vegan but I don't eat a particularly low-fat diet and I don't eat a lot of flax either. I am going to see if those changes help at all!

Amanda said...

Thanks so much for posting this (and your whole blog that I'm now going to start reading)! I've had problems with excess androgens since puberty and haven't wanted to follow the endocrinologist's advice to take steroids, with all the side effects, just to solve some minor issues, so I wanted to see if my diet could help.

I am already vegan but I don't eat a particularly low-fat diet and I don't eat a lot of flax either. I am going to see if those changes help at all!