The BTD/GTD Blogs

Hello, My son is blood type A non-secretor. I know that sucanat is an avoid. In many different organic products we find sweeteners like evaporated cane juice, dehydrated cane juice, granulated cane juice, invert cane juice, are they all like sucanat, an avoid for type A non-secretor? Is cane juice different from the raw form of cane sugar? I would appreciate any information about this type of sweetener.
I have started following the BTD for about one month. Thank you.

Marie Claire

Evaporated cane juice is often described as a healthy alternative to refined sugar, as it retains more of the nutrients found in sugar cane. Sucanat® (a contraction of SUgar CAne NATural) is a type of evaporated cane juice[1], which unlike blackstrap molasses, has a relatively high sugar content.

For an individual of blood type A who is a non-secretor of their blood type, foods high in sugar are not a good food choice, due in part to the fact that ABH non-secretors have a greater risk of both metabolic syndrome and also of diseases due to lower levels of immunoglobulin antibodies[2].

References:

1. Ashley. Evaporated Cane Juice & Unrefined Powdered Sugar, in: Blog: Sweet & Natural Published December 17, 2008
2. Secretor Status, in The Individualist Wiki.

I was feeding my Mom her dinner in one of the common rooms and the television was on. I heard the word stroke, and started to pay attention. An ad was on, that listed risk factors for strokes: high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, obesity, and age. I looked at Mom and said, “Well, except for age, you didn’t have any of the risk factors. She grinned and shrugged her shoulders.

I have learned a little about stroke in the month since Mom’s event. First I went to the BTD Encyclopedia where I learned that there are two kinds of stroke - ischemic stroke when blood flow to the brain is impaired by the blockage like a blood clot and hemorrhagic stroke which is a rupture of a blood vessel in the brain. The Encyclopedia says that Type As have a higher risk for ischemic and Type Os have a higher risk for hemorrhagic.

I did a little more research on the internet and learned that 80 – 85% of strokes are ischemic. Family history is also a factor. Neither of Mom's parents ever had a stroke, though one of her sisters did.

In the hospital, after Mom was identified as a stroke victim, they immediately put her on aspirin and a blood thinning shot. She is Type O, and I wondered if that had been the right thing to do. I have since learned from her doctor at the Rehab Facility, that her blood work indicated that her clotting factors were out of balance. He tested her several times a week until he got the right levels of medication. He has not put her on blood pressure or cholesterol medication, so evidently those readings are still normal, as they were before the stroke.

Mom is a Type O, but evidently she had an ischemic stroke anyway. It makes me wonder why.

I remember when Hall of Fame Blogger Sharon had a stroke in 2007. She also had minimum risk factors, and she followed the BTD a lot closer than my Mom did. In one of her final blogs, she also wondered why.

Everybody has heard prune jokes. People snicker at the mention of prune juice. Referring to a recipe like Prune Whip will draw gales of laughter. Even a nationally advertised soda once became suspect because of a rumor that prune juice was an ingredient. It astounds me that people who pride themselves on speaking of sexual activity in the most graphic terms without a blush, act like adolescent boys when it comes to elimination.

What a shame that such a nutrient-packed food is so maligned.

Plums (ie fresh prunes) are beneficial for every blood type. Prunes are beneficial (even super beneficial in some cases) for Type As and Type Os.

I like prunes. They naturally taste as sweet as a dessert without any of the disadvantages of refined sugar. They are delicious chopped up in my morning breakfast mix. They quickly restore my blood sugar if I’m late eating a meal. They are essential when traveling throws my normal body rhythm off.

I was happy to see that Reader’s Digest did an article in their health section on prunes, and I learned something new. Recent studies have shown that prunes are one of the best fruits for strengthening bones! They not only prevent bone loss, but animal studies indicate they may reverse it. Preliminary studies indicate that benefits come from as few as three prunes a day.

Not only do they contain bone building nutrients like boron, potassium, and vitamin K, but they are also high in disease-fighting antioxidants – a good thing to know when Swine Flu is daily in the news.

I had three prunes for breakfast this morning, and that’s not a joke.

I wrote this note as a comment on my colleague Rick Kirschner's blog:

Hey Rick,

I thought long and hard on this, especially since I've spent a lot of time dealing with misrepresentations of my own work. On one hand there is the ever-present desire to turn the other cheek and convert my response into a teaching opportunity. This works in certain circumstances --often if the skeptic is actually curious about that which they are skeptical of.

Most are not.

In most other circumstances, turning the other cheek will often get that side of your head smacked as well. As Ho Chi Minh once said in reference to Mahatma Gandhi, "Had he grown up in Vietnam, he'd have ascended into heaven long before he did."

Because these people are often prisoners of their own zealotry their tactics are not very often of the velvet-glove variety. Since they don't respect that which they are skeptical of, and anything goes and every tactic is permissible

Of course this automatically brands them as pseudo-skeptics not skeptics, since true skeptics are more than happy to amend an existing opinion with the presentation of new evidence. Most of these guys just feel that modern allopathic medicine (and hence the public) is under attack from vicious, dangerous woo-merchants and it is their anointed job to exterminate this vermin.

Thus it is unlikely that appeals to reason will ever work effectively, since dialogue is not what they are interested in -- anymore than someone would ever be interested in dialoging with a cockroach before they stepped on it. People who dialogue with cockroaches usually don't step on them.

Like Ho, Adolf Hitler also had an opinion of Gandhi, remarking once to Lloyd George: 'Why doesn't someone just shoot him and be done with it?'

Let's call a spade a spade: The more extreme of these 'anti-SCAM' pseudo-skeptics will not rest until we're completely discredited and eliminated.

Thus their tactics and criticisms are almost always of the 'gotcha' variety. This is usually performed by trying very hard to cover their opponents in manure so that they can stand back, point to them and say 'look, they are covered in manure.'

Gerhard Uhlenbruck, the worlds leading lectin researcher, and one of the few scientists who has openly acknowledged the value of my work has a nice way of reflecting on the silliness of what these people do with their time:

"Never chase a lie. Let it alone, and it will run itself to death."

Stephen Jay Gould also had a nice way of turning the tables on pseudo-skeptics. This from 'The Structure of Evolutionary Thinking' (2002):

"If none of the foregoing charges can bear scrutiny, strategists of personal denigration still hold an old and conventional tactic in reserve: they can proclaim a despised theory both trivial and devoid of content. This charge is so distasteful to any intellectual that one might wonder why detractors don't try such a tactic more often, and right up front at the outset. But I think we can identify a solution: the "triviality caper" tends to backfire and to hoist a critic with his own petard -- for if the idea you hate is so trivial, then why bother to refute it with such intensity? Leave the idea strictly alone and it will surely go away all by itself. Why fulminate against tongue piercing, goldfish swallowing, skateboarding, or any other transient fad with no possible staying power?

So, if Uhlenbruck and Gould are correct, why do so many people spend some much time making life miserable for people with new ideas?

Probably because, although we talk of ideas, it all distills back down to power and money. New ideas often threaten the exact type of person who (personality-wise) would go on to make the perfect pseudo-skeptic. The type of person who buys into the existing power structure, hook, line and sinker. Anything that takes away from the reflected light ('My son the doctor.') they have spent so much time and money on gaining. For which they so sacrificed and assiduously played the game in order to secure. This is not just a threat -- it is also a nightmare.

So what is the answer?

Like any test of will (and for a myriad of reasons) victory goes to those with the ultimate staying power.

In military terminology there is a tactic called 'the refuse.'

Back in the old days, these guys would just line up opposite each other on some level field and go at it. Typically, since most people are right-handed, the right side of an army's line would often be stronger than the left. Thus the idea of any good commander would be to 'refuse' to fight (usually by slowly pulling back) on his left side while trying to press the advantage on his right.

This is a fundamental tactic in Aikido martial art. It is called 'entering,' the idea being to enter inside the physical space of the attacker and then by turning as you enter, you align your force with his and for a brief transcendental moment, see the world as he sees it. Very hard to have a fight with someone who is trying their hardest to see your point of view. It is very hard to hit something which has as its ultimate goal to be where you are not.

I stopped writing for pseudo-critics years ago: You can't please them, they won't buy your books anyway and the people I really want to help educate don't want to read that type of stuff.

I just refused to do it.

Now, while most magazine articles critical of my theories have long-ago been relegated to the landfill, you can still buy my first book only in hardcover despite being twelve years in print.

Why? Because the theory works in many people and they go on to tell other people.

Now, if I need to buy a new hammer I'd be somewhat interested in reviews that tell me which hammers 'not to buy,' but ultimately if my best friend tells my which brand of hammer he's happy with, I'm probably going to go with that advice. I would also find questionable reviewers who had nothing good to say about all hammers in general.

Let's commit to always doing the hard work. Let's accept the fact that we practice a revolutionary form of medicine and let's stop looking for approbation from the very people whose preeminence we threaten and who cannot appreciate the strides we've made and the struggles we've endured in order to put this profession back on its feet.

Let every patient see the value of what we can do. These pseudo-skeptics will always have their coffee claches; their little goldfish bowls, where naturopaths do nothing right and allopaths nothing wrong. But let's refuse to make it into something bigger than it really is, because that is not the main battlefield.

Instead, let's wake up every day determined to redouble our efforts to improve the lives of our patients.

I'll end this diatribe with two more Vietnam Era quotes, which to me seem oddly relevant since US health care is currently in a Vietnam-like quagmire.

The first is from Lyndon Johnson, a fundamentally un-quotable president. Johnson did once say something I thought was of note. In dealing with criticisms of his Great Society program, he was heard to say:

'It takes a master carpenter to build a good barn. Funny thing though, is that any fool with a match can then burn it down.'

Let's remember that we are master carpenters. The public can be trusted to see the benefit of good barns. Let's also refuse to put the matches in the hands of our opponents.

The second quote is from a meeting between a Vietnamese general and an American general in Hanoi several years after the war ended.

'You know' said the American general, 'you never beat us in a single battle.'

'Yes, that is true.' replied the Vietnamese general, 'however it is also irrelevant.'

Remember water always beats rock. That's because water can go around rock. Let's refuse to butt heads with rocks.

And as the quote goes "Medicine progresses funeral by funeral."

They were referring to the doctor's funeral, not the patient's.

Take care and good luck with the new book.

Peter

¿En que forma se diferencia la vitamina B12?

La cianocobalamina es la forma más común de vitamina B12, que se encuentra en las farmacias. Le sorprenderá que esta forma de vitamina B 12 no ocurre en plantas o tejido animal. En otras palabras, seria imposible encontrar este componente químicamente sintetizado en la naturaleza. Tal como lo implica el nombre, la cianocobalamina contiene una molécula de cianuro. Muchos conocen el cianuro como sustancia venenosa. Sin embargo, desde un punto de vista toxicológico la cantidad presente de cianuro en un suplemento B12 común es pequeña y considerada insignificante. De cualquier manera el cuerpo necesita eliminar este componente por medio de los sistemas de desintoxicación a través de la sustancia glutathione que es de suma importancia en este proceso eliminador del cianuro.

En comparación con la cianocobalamina, la metilcobalamina es mejor absorbida y retenida dentro de los tejidos; en otras palabras: es utilizada con mayor eficacia. La metilcobalamina es metabolizada por el hígado, el cerebro y el sistema nervioso.



La metilcobalamina es una forma específica de B12 necesaria para la salud del sistema nervioso. Debe ser la opción ideal para optimizar dicho sistema. La rigidez muscular es señal de deficiencia de B12 así como cosquilleo o falta de sensibilidad, sensación de quemadura, calambres, dolor en terminaciones nerviosas y reflejos lentos. Dada la importancia de la metilcobalamina en la salud mental también lo es para la vista. El trabajo constante visual suele reducir la capacidad de 'acomodación visual', la metilcobalamina logra agilizar esta 'adaptación visual', en tanto que la cianocobalamina resulta ser ineficaz.



Un nivel elevado de homocisteína es un indicador metabólico de bajos niveles de formas de coenzima de vitamina B12, en particular la metilcobalamina . Dicha homocisteina se viene enfatizando en la literatura médica, por su asociación con enfermedad cardíaca entre otras. Los medios publicitarios advierten sobre la importancia del ácido fólico como medida necesaria para bajar niveles de homocisteina. La combinación de ácido fólico y metilcobalamina funciona de manera mas eficaz.

El uso mas estudiado de la metilcobalamina, tiene que ver con el sueño. Aun no esta muy claro sobre el curso de acción de esta, sin embargo es muy probable que la metilcobalamina sea necesaria para la síntesis de melatonina. Puede modular la secreción de melatonina, resaltar la sensibilidad a la luz, y normalizar el ritmo circadiano (su reloj de 24 horas) por ello, las personas suplementando B 12 han mejorado la calidad de sueño, sintiéndose mas refrescados al despertar.

La metilcobalamina es particularmente efectiva en nivelar su reloj de 24horas. Para ello es recomendable combinar la suplementación de metilcobalamina, con exponerse a la luz solar por las mañanas, esto coadyuva a la regulación de su reloj de 24 horas.

La metilcobalamina no solo regula su ciclo circadiano sino también ayuda a regular la hormona de estrés, cortisol. Particularmente importante en aquellos con sangre tipo A y AB. Otros beneficios son el lograr mantener la temperatura corporal estable durante todo el día así como un mejoramiento del nivel de concentración, especialmente en aquellas personas con tipo de sangre A y B.

Square Peg Guy sent a comment on the blog about my latest cholesterol report. He is type O, and he wrote about the things he’s done to try to reduce his cholesterol naturally. He added, “I've never been able to get my total level below 250 without Lipitor, which I was on for a few years, “and ended his comment with “I wonder if it even matters?” I published the comment, but it has haunted me because of the experience of a friend at church.

A year or so ago, we got an e-mail from C’s wife. C was in the hospital. He had had a heart attack, and would be having multiple bypass surgery. She asked for prayer. This was a shocking e-mail because C is relatively young, probably in his late 50s. He exercises moderately and is not over weight. He is also a Medical Doctor.

The surgery was successful, and eventually they told us the whole story. They had gone on a trip to the mountains. C had noticed shortness of breath, but had blamed it on thin mountain air. A few weeks after they got home, he had unmistakable heart attack symptoms, and went to the hospital.

I said, “C, you’re an MD. I have to assume you get your cholesterol checked. Was it ever high?”

He admitted that his cholesterol had been high for quite a while. He said that as a doctor, he saw all of the statistics. While most people who have heart attacks have high cholesterol, not all people with high cholesterol have heart attacks. He made a decision not to take the medication. He ended by saying that he was now taking cholesterol medication and would be for the rest of his life.

Like Square Peg Guy, C is Type O.

I am not a medical professional – I’m just a volunteer blogger, trying to make the BTD work for my family. But I would give this friendly advice to Square Peg Guy or anyone else with consistently high cholesterol. If you can’t get your cholesterol down naturally, and you don’t want to take cholesterol medication, at least have some further tests done. Find out if you have a buildup in your arteries. Get an EKG. Repeat the tests often enough to know if there are changes. Don’t wait until you have shortness of breath or worse. Don’t ignore the fact that you are at higher risk for a heart attack because of your cholesterol.

I wanted to avoid being on medication if I could. I was successful in bringing my cholesterol level down. However, while my husband’s cholesterol dropped on the BTD, and he reduced his dosage of cholesterol medication, the level has not gotten low enough for him to get off of it altogether. There is nothing to be ashamed of about that.

It seems to me that there is a natural tendency for cholesterol levels to drift higher and higher every year as people get older. I haven’t read this in a study, but I talk to people whose cholesterol numbers were nicely balanced when they were 30 years old. However, the numbers were moving upward by 40 and in the warning zone at 50. By 60 they are on statins.

My own cholesterol numbers were drifting higher when I started the BTD. There was a marked improvement when I first went on the diet. But the last two years they had started to drift upwards again. My ratio was still good, but my LDL drifted above the high mark for the first time ever.

I wrote a blog in April about what I was changing in my diet to try to stop the drift.

Spinach, Okra and Cholesterol

I am thrilled to say it worked. Here are my numbers from my July cholesterol test.

Total Cholesterol: 215
Triglycerides: 60
HDL: 86
LDL: 77
Ratio: 2.5

I am not at all concerned about a total cholesterol number 15 points over the 200 level when my ratio is so good. My total cholesterol reads high because my good cholesterol is so high.

Prescription for the future:
Stay on BTD.
Stay on Niacin and Vitamin B6.
Maximize cholesterol lowering foods like grapefruit.
Never neglect exercise.
Don’t get complacent. The tendency to drift will surely continue. Like all forms of aging, it is the result of living in a decaying world with a body irrevocably marred by sin.

Because I attended a Catholic grammar school which was private and did not receive any state or government funding, we were often dispatched on extenuated and cheerless forays out into the public in a quest for its nickels and dimes. This usually included the sale of various candies or 'chance books,” a cluster of five or ten tickets which entered the owner into a drawing of some sort, for a variety of possible prizes.

Never mind that this same public (due to the limitations of spatial geography and the ambulatory capacities of a ten-year old) was already paying through a myriad of other schemes to keep their kids in this very same school. Typically after suitable introductions had been made and accompanied by sufficient eye-rolling and entreaties heavenward, the wallet would be procured and another book of chances sold. Usually, I’d take the opportunity to remind them of what a wise investment they had made, only to be greeted by the sobriquet “Sonny,” and the dismissal of a future possibilities with an off-hand “I’ve never won anything, and I’m not very lucky.”

From that point to this, I’ve always marveled when people tell me that they aren’t very lucky, since of course it is not true. Just wondering about your unluckiness, marks you as being among the luckiest of all. As a matter of fact, you have won one of the greatest raffle prizes of all time; at odds so astronomical so as to be incalculable. You’ve won the raffle of life.

Just think. Your parents first needed to have come from genealogical lines that survived through all the plagues, wars and accidents of time. Second, they needed to be in physical proximity, so as to come into contact with each other. Third, they had to be attracted in such a manner as to stimulate (hopefully) the urge for procreation in each other. Fourth, they had to be in that particular mood at just the time when the team “up at bat” sperm and egg-wise was you. Fifth, the sperm that carried the genetic information from your father had to compete with millions of other sperm in a race that would make the New York City Marathon look like a trip to the store for a newspaper. Sixth, even upon winning, that sperm had to find an egg at just the exact time when it was ripe for fertilization. Finally, after fertilization, the embryo had to travel through the Fallopian tubes and implant in the uterus where it developed form the cluster of cells into something that would eventually grow to the point where it could take care of itself.

So who among us is unlucky?