Ron Rosedale M.D. - insulin/metabolism

[mats mom]

I just read an article on this site about insulin and its metabolic effects. I would like to contact the author, Ron Rosedale M.D. Does he have an office somewhere? Is there any way of getting in touch with him?

Thank you.

Mats mom.

[gotbeer]

http://www.rosedalemetabolics.com/contact.asp

Rosedale Metabolics, Inc.

109 Inverness Drive East
Suite J
Englewood, CO 80112
303-790-8766

DrRon~RosedaleMetabolics.com

[daninmidmo]

Insulin and its metabolic effects is truly one of the most informative articles Ive read on nutrition. You can find it on Dr. Mercola's web site at

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm

My environmental medicine doctor changed his practice around after I gave him a copy.

[bluesmoke]

Informative, tho a bit simplistic, at least up to the end. His comments on saturated fat are way off base. Nyah Levi

[ceberezin]

Also posted in LC Media Watch

Ron Rosedale’s piece is highly informative. I learned a great deal from it, and I am grateful to him for that. It should be required reading for nutritionists and med students. His web-site seems to have given low-carbing a new and better name. He calls it “metabolic medicine.” We might state the principles of metabolic medicine as follows, given what Rosedale outlined in his speech: Metabolic Medicine seeks to prevent and control disease states through controlling insulin resistance, glycation, and oxidation, and to promote health through lipolysis and beneficial hormonal pathways.

What we don’t need, however, is yet another low-carb guru to set up shop in competition with other low-carb gurus. Unfortunately, this seems to be the road Rosedale has taken. What we do need is an International Society for the Advancement of Metabolic Medicine to promote low-carb nutrition and drug-avoiding therapies and counter the damage done by the AHA and the ADA. The work done by Feinman at Downstate is a step in the right direction.

[ewert]

Rosedale's piece is splendid. I read it years back and now again, and it still amazes me even though I've read tons of stuff in between. It brings yet again the ungodly effects of high sugar and insulin to the forefront of my mind.

However I agree, lets just give up all the "Dr. X's amazing new different special really working low carb diet" variations already. :) Which is why I'm extremely against any plans to try to brand the low carb book me and a co-author are working as "ours", or "new". It ain't new. It's low-carb. Get over it, it ain't anybody's "invention"... l-o-w c-a-r-b. Now that wasn't hard to spell? :P

[fatburner]

Informative, tho a bit simplistic, at least up to the end. His comments on saturated fat are way off base. Nyah Levi

I'm too lazy to go back and read it again. I thought Rosedale was down on grain fed beef because it is low in Omega three's, not because it is high in saturated fat. I'm happy just taking fish oil supplements and eating the cheaper fatty beef. My lipids are gold standard since I ditched the carbs over two years ago and I get probably 70 % of my calories from fat and 60%of those from saturated fat. It's a pity If he really is sat fat phobic. His insulin metabolism stuff is so good.

[ItsTheWooo]

I'm too lazy to go back and read it again. I thought Rosedale was down on grain fed beef because it is low in Omega three's, not because it is high in saturated fat. I'm happy just taking fish oil supplements and eating the cheaper fatty beef. My lipids are gold standard since I ditched the carbs over two years ago and I get probably 70 % of my calories from fat and 60%of those from saturated fat. It's a pity If he really is sat fat phobic. His insulin metabolism stuff is so good.

It's not that he is sat fat phobic. It's not that simple.

He believes there is a critical optimal balance of fatty acids that should be achieved. Saturated fats are abnormally elevated in our bodies, because they are produced in response to insulin abnormalities/carb abuse. Since most of us have an abundance of sat fat on our bodies, and since our animals are all fed grain and likewise have too much sat fat on their bodies, this is the only reason he feels we should restrict sat fat, because you need more of the other kinds of fats. In fact I think he mentions that when you are no longer over fat you can and should eat more saturated fat.

Now whether or not I agree with this is up in the air. I have no idea if it's true. I've myself toyed with the notion that perhaps an imbalance in types of lipids consumed might be part of the reason that saturated fat is thought to contribute to heart disease. It's been shown when animals are fed a reverse diet of ours - no saturated fat and very high omega 3s - they get diseases as we do. Maybe there is something to it.

Personally I try to eat more of my fats raw, favoring monosaturates mainly, but I do not restrict saturates. Much of my fat comes from nuts, cheeses and other dairy products, butter, olive oil, and meat fat. I try to avoid pufas and processed oil as much as possible, knowing how prone to damage they are.

[fatburner]

[QUOTE=ItsTheWooo]It's not that he is sat fat phobic. It's not that simple.

He believes there is a critical optimal balance of fatty acids that should be achieved....

Yeah I must stop using the satfat phobic tag. I'm sure he's not just toeing the line. I know Cordain too has very carefully considered biological evolutionary reasons for advising against much sat fat. Nevertheless I know they're both wrong when it comes to my metabolism, so somewhere they're missing part of the puzzle. But I thought what you said about it only being a problem when bodyfat is an issue was very interesting. I've never been overweight, so maybe that's why it doesn't seem to affect my cardiovascular health. I've had other minor health issues which have all disappeared since I ditched the carbs and upped the fats. I've never found the satfat/hardening of the arteries hypothesis very convincing because none of the research has been done (a)in the absence of high levels of dietary carb; and (b) in other species like rats; or (c) woefully badly designed statistical analysis which try to control for all sorts of variables and only end up not controlling the particular researcher's prejudices. Uffe Ravskonov (wrong spelling I think) goes into much more detail about satfat and health in 'The Cholesterol Myth(s?)' .
Anyway, I think it's really interesting that Rosedale recommends basically the same macronutrient ratios as Atkins and yet because he mentions the leptin link even many low carbers think his approach is somehow different to Atkins. Full credit to the guy for his work in better understanding the leptin/ insulin connection, but Atkins dieters have always said ' amazing I don't get hungry like I used to' . The fact that conventional medicine and dietetics have been so wide of the mark for so long is shown by them thinking that this reduction in appetite on Atkins , or SouthBeach, or now Rosedale, or any other low carb approach, is a problem. Maybe if they could put low carb in a pill, and charge a fortune for it they'd be happy. Pray tell, what do you think of Kwasznierski's (pardon the spelling) Homo Optimus stuff?

[VALEWIS]

I just tried to Google Homo Optimus and found nothing in English.
What is it?

Val

[fatburner]

I just tried to Google Homo Optimus and found nothing in English.
What is it?

Val

here you go: http://homodiet.netfirms.com/ Btw. How do you post a link? . There's an Australian Optimal Diet association who have an interesting web page: http://www.ahoa.org.au/ahoa/info.html
If you think arachidonic acid is a problem, don't bother.

[VALEWIS]

Thanks...ah yes, had read about this. He had his patients almost living on eggs, pork and pork fat...especially pork trotters I think. The latter have lots of gelatine in them which I think is very beneficial as well.

The science (as I recall- haven't read through this site yet) appears to be pure anecdotal, but then I am beginning to almost trust this more than the randomized control studies which gave us statins!

Val

[TBoneMitch]

The science behind ON (Optimal Nutrition) is far from anecdotal, but based on biochemical science and a long clinical experience. A must read site! (www.ahoa.org.au)

[ceberezin]

The Optimal Nitrition websites keep talking about eating enough carbohydrates to prevent ketosis. Why do they want to prevent ketosis? It's a healthy state.

[Kestrel]

You might find some sources suggesting higher carb levels - although still low carb in principal - since very low levels could be more stressful to the body, particularly if the person is older or suffering from various illnesses. This is one of the reasons for the 70-80 grams/carb recommendation in Life Without Bread...

[zedgirl]

The science behind ON (Optimal Nutrition) is far from anecdotal, but based on biochemical science and a long clinical experience. A must read site! (www.ahoa.org.au)

I had a quick look at this site......this line is taken from what carbohydrates should you eat:

The best are various vegetables, including potatoes, which are low in carbohydrate.

??????

[Groggy60]

A small potatoe is around 15g of carb which is not that much if you are trying to have 60g a day not eating much fruit. As well, they are down on fibre so broccoli and beans are suddenly out. Potatoes are natural and have a very low fibre to carb ratio compared to other vegtables A notion that is opposite to what usual low-carb ideas including Atkins and Rosedale espouse.

[ItsTheWooo]

A small potatoe is around 15g of carb which is not that much if you are trying to have 60g a day not eating much fruit. As well, they are down on fibre so broccoli and beans are suddenly out. Potatoes are natural and have a very low fibre to carb ratio compared to other vegtables A notion that is opposite to what usual low-carb ideas including Atkins and Rosedale espouse.
Why are they down on fiber? Our natural diet is replete in roughage and bulk.

[VAgrrl]

found Rosedale's lecture immensely interesting reading

it's obvious from reading it that it was delivered verbally, so it's slightly simplistic, but for that reason it was more easily understood

really explained alot of things 'body-wise' that I've noticed in myself and family members: cancer, arthritis, weight gain, etc

thanks for posting it!

[Hellistile]

I love this description of what is allowed (or not allowed) on this Optimal Diet:

The best products to be eaten while on the Optimal Nutrition are animal-sourced products, including eggs, cheeses, cream, meats, and all types of animal fat. The best fats are saturated ones, however, vegetable oil rich in monounsaturated fats (e.g. olive oil, or some nut oils) are also good. Products containing predominantly or exclusively polyunsaturated fats or trans-saturated fats (i.e. margarine) should be avoided because of deleterious effect on health.

[VALEWIS]

Reading further, the Polish doctor says that while Atkins is an improvement as diets go, it is different to his because the ratio of protein to fat is not the same...Atkins uses more protein and Optimal is comparatively much higher in fat. An Ornish nightmare.

Val

[VALEWIS]

T-Bone Mitch, curious about why you started it (are you Polish for example) and what has been your experience. What would be a typical day's fare? Fibrous veg?

Val

[Hellistile]

Val I know you asked T-Bone Mitch but here is the "what you can eat" page of this diet.

http://www.ahoa.org.au/optimal/eat.html

[VALEWIS]

Yes, well...looking at a typical menu, I doubt if I could last past Day 2- a bit like doing a fat fast in that regard.. But the logic is there in that our ancient ancestors no doubt ate mainly grass fed animals for food and much less vegetable matter. However no-one is going to tell me that those same ancestors didn't pig out on whatever sweet fruit was available (which would have been seasonal)! But as a source of all-round energy, meat would no doubt have been the choice for hunters. But to me this does not mean that they didn't also eat nuts and roots. The Aboriginal diet here in Australia was primarily meat from quite low fat animals, plus all sorts of vegetable stuff too..what is called 'bush tucker' which is prized. As they were nomadic, they would camp at special places where there might be an abundance of a particular food at a particular time. They also ate insect grubs, no doubt high in protein and fat. I would imagine that the fats they consumed would have been quite different to the farm-produced meat that we know. Also, their cooking consisted of mainly making a fire and throwing whatever it was in it. I joined some Aboriginal folks for a day once and we ate some fresh water clams from a local river (cooked in a fire on the river beach...they were tough and tasted awful to me- but they liked them) and they spied a wild quandong tree (has a kind of mealy little fruit) that was producing so we did a detour to pick some...

What I learned from all this is that if you are living in a landscape that is harsh, you must find food from whatever sources are available. So the paleolithic diet of people in desert like regions would be rather different to those in forested ones, mountainous ones, tropical rainforest, and so on...the availability and type of food in say Canada, where fish, grass fed meat, nuts and wild berries are plentiful is quite different to desert country over here, eating kangaroo, grubs, fish, roots and the occasional hard to find fruits and nuts.
So it seems very odd to me to construct diets around what we imagine is 'natural' to us, given these differences. But one thing is certain, brocolli and cauliflower would not have been there to gather. But does this mean we shouldn't eat it? I'll bet our ancestors ate whatever the earliest wild versions of broc and cauli were available.

Val

[VALEWIS]

Also, here is another question that has been bothering me. If you read the self-cures of auto-immune diseases and cancer, it generally is a low fat vegan diet that does it. I wonder though if what is really happening is that one is eliminating eating protein souces that are, in our modern day, farmed with chemicals. If the 'optimal diet', which is almost all fat, is doing the same thing in terms of cures, then perhaps the culprits are the chemicals, not the food content. I know of no-one who just went organic as a way of trying to beat a life threatening disease.

Val

[TBoneMitch]

The Optimal Diet is based on the biochemical facts that the body prefers saturated fats as an energy source, and that we should spare the body any extra work, hence the uingestion of 30-50g of carbs a day (to avoid forcing the liver to do so, although I do sometimes eat o-10g of carbs a day and Dr Kwasniewski says it is not a health hazard), and the limitation to 1 g of protein by kg of bodyweight (to avoid extra work to the liver which has to convert the aminos to glucose, unless you are very active or trying to build muscle).
A typical day looks like this:

Breakfast: 3 eggs, 30g butter, 2 sausages (from a small butcher shop), coffee with cream.
Snack: Coffee with cream, 2 suqares of 70% dark chocolate
Supper: Some meat, vegetables with plenty of butter, sometimes berries with cream, sometimes wine or cognac.
I do not follow the proportions to a t, but I do try to be mindful of them.
I started this variant of low carbing because it seemed to make the most sense to me, scientifically and logically, and it does work very well, especially on intestinal health, acne and hunger supression (often 1 or 2 meals a day, rarely 3, only if I work out or am very active).

[VALEWIS]

Given the benefits of Omega 3's..wondering if fish shouldn't be included in this diet.

Val

[TBoneMitch]

He isn't high on fish, but on bone marrow and egg yolks (which contain omega 3s).

[VALEWIS]

Well, I guess Poland isn't exactly a fisherman's paradise, eh.
Think I'll stick with the fish and forego the bone marrow. LOL.

Val

[seyont]

Omega-3's come from green plants or algae and, lucky for us, the animals that eat them.

They don't magically come from certain fish, it's just that these fish are the only wild food left in the mass market.

At Whole Foods you can get raw butter, milk, and cream (grass-fed) as well as grass-fed albeit very lean beef. Expensive compared to the usual supermarket fare, cheaper and tastier than hospital food.

Trader Joe's has various types of eggs with boosted omega-3 content.

Safeway's cheap cans of mackerel and salmon- which are caught wild- are the easiest way to get your omega-3's without becoming a health-food nut or farmer.


Kwasniewski's Optimal foods look unbelievably strange, but they probably wouldn't raise our grandparents' eyebrows. We've been steered towards eating chickens or the leanest part of the cow and everything else gets thrown away.