Controversial Views on Nutrition Topics
Part One
Email Exchange

By Gary F. Zeolla

In the following email exchange, the emailers comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.

-----Original Message-----

>Subject: about your view on fats

I was reading an article you wrote on Basics of a Healthy Diet - Part One - Plant Foods<

Thank you for your email. You raise a lot of interesting but I must say controversial issues. I will try to respond to some of them. But please note, the article you read is just a summary of my God-given Foods Eating Plan book. If you read that full book it would address some of the points you raise.

>Most of what you say makes sense and pretty much corresponds to research I have done. In the grains section I pretty much agree, except there are some saying that there is an inhibitor in the whole grain that prevents absorption of the nutrients. Those who say this believe that grains should be soaked, fermented, or sprouted to remove or reduce this inhibitor. According to them, historically, grains were soaked (such as sour dough), fermented, or they began to sprout before the people were able to get them ground.

However, today quick yeast is used to make breads, etc.<

I never heard this before, but I seriously doubt it. In my book I cite much research showing the many benefits of consuming whole grains. That said, I do mention about sprouted grain bread being a very healthy option in my book. But that is because it is whole grain and low glycemic. And those two points is what makes the difference between a healthy versus unhealthy grain: i.e., whole vs. refined grain and low vs. high glycemic.

>I don't know if I agree with this view or not, but since I have blood sugar problems and my doctor believes this I am abiding by his belief (he even says all grains should be extremely limited). This doctor has even had some patients on insulin who were able to get off of insulin and other who were able to get off of medication. I don't know if his view on the bread is correct or not, but it is working. He also says no fruit or sugar/sweetener at all - he says even the taste of sweet makes the sugar go up (I need to do some research on this). I am trying to stay off of medication & so far my diet is working. So I will stick with it for the time being.<

I am glad the diet is working for you, and there is no doubt that eliminating carbs and following a low carb diet (which is what you are in essence doing) will help with blood sugar problems. But personally, I think it is unnecessarily restrictive.

I also have blood sugar problems (reactive hypoglycemia) and have a blood sugar monitor. With it, I have tested my response to many foods, and I've found that whole, low glycemic grains do not cause a blood sugar spike. I address my experiences in the articles listed on the following page of my site: Hypoglycemia, Diabetes, and the Glycemic Index.

As for fruit, some are low glycemic and would not be problematic (like cherries and berries) while others are higher glycemic and could be a problem (like watermelon). So again, eliminating all fruit will help with blood sugar control, but it is unnecessarily restrictive.

As for artificial sweeteners, that I agree with, but maybe not for the same reason. I don't think they affect blood sugar but they are unhealthy, as I address in my book.

>Anyway, for the main reason I am writing, fats. I am writing to present some issues you may want to look into further, rather than accepting what the mainstream health people are saying. From my doctor and (internet) research I have done and some experience, I have found that the mainstream health "experts" have been lying to us about saturated fat and polyunsaturated fat. It is actually opposite of what they are saying.

The studies showing that coconut oil, which is about 92% saturated fat, is very bad were flawed. They used hydrogenated coconut oil in those studies. Hydrogenation (trans fat) makes even good fats into bad ones. Studies done in the 1930's actually showed that coconut oil is extremely good for you. These studies have been ignored by the mainstream.

Countries that used almost entirely coconut oil were very healthy, but when they started using polyunsaturated oils their heart disease and other western diseases skyrocketed. Also, statistics show that after all-veg shortening was invented and veg oils started being promoted the heart disease, etc jump here in the U.S.<

I address coconut oil in my book in detail. But in a nutshell, it contains medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) which differ from the long chain triglycerides (LCTs) found in the saturated fat in animal foods. So you cannot extrapolate from studies on coconut oil to other fats.

That said, I would also agree that unrefined (or extra virgin) coconut oil can be a healthy option while refined or processed coconut oil is not so. I address the reason for this in my book, but it has to do with the removal of the antioxidants found in extra virgin coconut oil.

Hydrogenation is another issue, and in that case I agree with you completely. I discuss in detail in my book the many problems with hydrogenation and the trans fats it produces.

> From personal experience, saturated fat is a good fat. In August I went to a local health fair. That is when I found out about my blood sugar (I didn't have any recognizable symptoms). I also had my cholesterol checked and it was 201. I know cholesterol isn't really a problem, it is more of a symptom of problems than a cause, even the mainstream is starting to say this. I wasn't worried about the cholesterol, but I went on my special diet for the blood sugar.

In addition to the grain and sugar restrictions mentioned before, this diet involves switching to whole milk and whole milk products as well as eliminating polyunsaturated fats and adding saturated fats. In November I had a test done and my cholesterol had dropped to 165 in only about 4 months. I also lost weight even though I was eating bacon fat, butter, lard (rendered at home because store bought has hydrogenation). In August my blood sugar was 213, but from this diet my last A1C puts me in the pre-diebetic range and it seems to be getting better all the time.

Of course part of my results is due to God's healing. When I first found out about my sugar, He said He would heal me and He has reassured me several times since. I thought He was going to do an instant healing, but instead He is doing it over time and is using this diet to do it.<

What you are following is basically a low carb diet. And it is true that some people get good results with a low carb diet when it comes to blood cholesterol readings, but not all. I tried a low carb diet for several months a few years ago and my LDL cholesterol and triglycerides skyrocketed.

It should also be noted that it is only while on a low carb diet that the saturated fats might not be problematic. Saturated fats plus carbs will lead to blood lipid problems.

But most of all, personally, I found a low carb diet to be too restrictive. I was unable to eat my favorite foods. And by that I do not mean junk foods but healthy whole grain products and fruit. I just found it silly to avoid perfectly healthy foods to follow some self-imposed "diet."

I also did not see any improvement in any of my health problems while on the low carb diet nor did I loose any weight. I just got very bored on it. And note that I am not alone in my experience here. I saw a report on the TV news that only 25% of people who start a low carb diet are still following it a year later.

In any case, after my blood test came back with the elevated lipids, I abandoned the low carb diet and came up with my own eating plan as detailed in my book, which is working just fine as far as blood lipids, blood sugar, and body weight goes.

>One place I have seen with more detailed info on the studies on fats as well as other issues is Weston A. Price Foundation./ I feel pretty strongly about this issue on the fats because of my experiences with it. I hope you will look into it deeper yourself.<

I already have, including looking at this site.

>Another issue I have, that wasn't mentioned in your article, relates to ultra-pasteurizing milk. Pasteurizing, just like processing grains, messes with the nutrition. It kills good enzymes and ultra-pasteurizing kills everything good about milk, cream, etc. Ultra-pasteurized milk doesn't even need to be refrigerated. I feel that the more people who know that ultra-pasteurized milk has no real food value, the more pressure will be put on the manufacturers to discontinue this move to ultra-pasteurize everything.

As for milk intolerances, seen testimonials of people with these problems that found that could drink raw milk with no problems. There may be some who are truly allergic to milk in any form, but a lot of them may find that it is the processing that causes the problem. Pasteurizing and homogenizing milk changes the chemical structure of milk to the point where the body can't handle it as well. I have found out that the fat in the brain, around the heart, and in most parts of the body is saturated fat. The body needs saturated fat, so the saturated fat in milk is not a problem and most of the nutrition in milk is in the fat, just as most of it is in the egg yolk which is also where the fat is.<

I address the issues of pasteurizing and homogenization in my book. But in a nutshell, yes, pasteurization does kill a small amount of nutrients as any heating of food does, but that is it, while the risks of "raw milk" are very real. So personally, I do not think it would be worth it to risk drinking raw milk. I don't know about ultra-pasteurization though. But I seriously doubt it "kills everything good about milk." It is no different than cooking food.

As for homogenization, I know many claim it is problematic, but I've seen no real evidence in that regard.

Also, there is no evidence that "The body needs saturated fat." There are some who follow vegan diets who are doing just fine health-wise. I'm not saying I promote vegan diets. In fact, in my book I discuss the many potential problems with it. But my point is that everyone is different.

Some do thrive on high meat, low carb diets while others thrive on vegan diets. But most find such restrictive diets to be, well, too restrictive and do best on more moderate eating plans, like I promote in my book.

>I hope all this gives you some food for thought.

3/23/2011<

Again, most of what you raise I have already heard and address in my book. But it would be of interest to the readers of my newsletter and Web site. So unless you object, I would like to run your emails and my responses in the next issue of my newsletter and post it on my Web site.

-----Original Message-----

>Subject: I sent you the previous email titled "about your view on fats"

When I sent the other email, I hadn't completely read the Part 2 of the article. I wanted to add that since I went on this diet I have been eating 2 whole eggs 99% of the mornings since I can't have cereal, oatmeal, pancakes or any of the other grains usually consumed at breakfast.<

That is one of the problems I had with a low carb diet, I got sick of eating eggs for breakfast every morning. Again, it is just too restrictive. Oatmeal, for instance, is a great choice for breakfast, especially if it is rolled (not quick and especially not instant) oats. Pancakes made with whole grain batter are also great. Both are low glycemic foods that would not adversely affect blood sugar levels.

>These are the normal store eggs, not the special ones you mentioned. Granted, the extra omega-3 would be beneficial, the only way I would spend extra money on them is if they were also fed their natural diet of primarily bugs and grasses instead of grains.<

You can get "Eggland Best" eggs that are from range fed chickens. They are not much more expensive than regular eggs.

>As I stated in the previous email my cholesterol dropped drastically in a short time. I didn't mention in the other email that I take absolutely no medications for anything. Oh, I am also eating a lot of red meat and still getting good results in my cholesterol. At my last test the cholesterol was 160 and it has been seven months of eating eggs everyday and primarily saturated fat for my fat source. I have even quit eating store bought mayo because it has the wrong kind of fat (soy oil).If I had a source and the money, I would eat truly range fed chicken & eggs as well as and grass fed beef & raw milk.<

I actually agree with you on the polyunsaturated fat issue. As I state in my book, Americans get way too many Omega 6 fats (which are found in polyunsaturated fats) as compared to Omega 3 fats, which are found primarily in fish, which is probably the best "meat" there is.

I do agree with you that red meat is not problematic, as long as it is the right kind of meat. What I mean by that is detailed in my book.

>As for the powdered protein - you might want to check out the process used to make it - some processes change it is such a way that may not be good for the body.<

Thousands of strength athletes have used protein powders for many years with no ill effects.

>Also check out the studies (part 3) that claim that saturated fat caused problems. Some studies have been skewed or certain other factors weren't considered, ie. the study I mentioned that used hydrogenated coconut oil & claimed sat fat was the problem. As I stated before Weston A. Price Foundation has info on all of this. There are other sources, but this is the main one I have used.

3/23/2011<

As I said, hydrogenated coconut oil is not the same as the fat found in animal foods, so I would agree such studies are flawed. But there is much evidence that in the general population saturated fats are problematic.

Again, for my full views on these subjects you really need to read my God-given Foods Eating Plan book.

This discussion is continued at Controversial Views on Nutrition Topics - Part Two.