Active Concept Training

Mobility, Motivation, and Mindful Conditioning

Blog and Chat

a crack in the wall? NICE!

Posted by Chad on August 24, 2010 at 9:16 AM Comments comments (0)

Can it be?  Is it quite possible that the mainstream media is starting to get their $hit straight?  After almost 50 years of being wrong, maybe it's time they report the correct information!


Well, this will be the first.  We have to thank Dr Gupta, the famous, and to his listeners credible, CNN reporter.  Take a look:


"There are already many brave doctors who are practicing evolutionary medicine and writing about it in the blogesphere. I am sure you know who they are and they deserve the highest praise. Because of company policy and economics these TV doctors have to toe the line and present the accepted but wrong dogma of the last 50 years. This dogma has been foisted on us by proponents of a low fat and high carbohydrate lifestyle. Many doctors today believe this dogma has been proven wrong and is the primary cause of diseases of the metabolic syndrome. A few days ago I heard a report on TV by none other than the famous and credible Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He reported on a randomized parallel-group trial that could make progress for the American public to finally understand that the way to defeat obesity is a low carbohydrate health supporting lifestyle. To say that we were shocked but pleased would be to put it mildly. This could be the first crack in the medical wall that has devastated the American public for over the last 50 years.


The trial that I believe Dr. Gupta reported on is registration number NCT00143936. The study reported on the benefit of a low carbohydrate lifestyle verses a low fat one as below summarized. He reported that the study indicated that a low carbohydrate program is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risks factors. This is the reason why I now believe the tide is finally changing. We at EvMed Forum applaud Dr. Gupta. He says that low carb has a slight edge over low fat. We say that’s a good start. We fervently hope that he and other medical reporters will now educate the public on the health supporting benefits of an evolutionary low carbohydrate high saturated fat (LCHSF) lifestyle brought forward over the last 4 (mya) million years and probably much earlier by our ancestors. If this was not so how did we get here? This evolutionary LCHSF program is the lifestyle we evolved to survive on by reproducing our species and developing a large enough brain to become the most successful top omnivores of the animal kingdom."

 Read the entire post here at Evolutionary Medicine Forum:



Now, macronutrients are important, to say the least.  Eat like a diabetic, so as not to become one.  However, each of us metabolize these macros slightly differently, depending on numerous factors.  So, start off by thinking of your MICROnutrients first.  Or plainly, eat real food.  Begin there, then change your macros into more diabetic levels...meaning low carb, low sugar, low fructose.


The tide is turning.  Dr Gupta is on board!  It's time to tell the masses!



drug companies and FDA....your interest or theirs?

Posted by Chad on July 26, 2010 at 9:01 AM Comments comments (0)

So, how many of you still believe that we should blindly trust what the FDA or drug companies tell us?  Being skeptical is healthy, and may even save your life.  Don't just do what your doc says because he or she says so.  Ask questions.  Especially if their first solution is to write you a prescription.  Why?  Read this excpert below:



"It is likely that Avandia will get withdrawn from the market.  I say that not because of the results of the advisory committee rather because in another related article we learn that two weeks ago GSK. "agreed to settle about 10,000 suits for an average of at least $46,000 apiece."  So it would appear that GSK wishes to settle all the lawsuits as cheaply as possible before the drug is withdrawn.  When one is dealing with widely prescribed billion dollar revenue drugs it is not the FDA which is safeguarding the public, it is litigation.  It appears that GSK has made the assessment that their revenue stream is at greater risk from potential litigation than it is from withdrawing the drug. 

While FDA scientists, at great personal risk often point out drug related dangers, from its repeated behavior FDA management appears to believe its function is to run interference for large drug companies to preserve their revenue streams as long as possible.  And on that note, of course the FDA has not yet acted on the recommendations of the advisory panel.  In the meantime,are more heart attacks being caused by the unnecessary, me-too drug Avandia?"



The gentleman who wrote this used to work for the FDA.  Clearly he had a problem with some of their policies, and moved onto bigger and better things.  Dr. Maher over at:




Hmmm.  Drug companies at it again, with the FDA helping them out!!!  Is there a conspiracy?  The FDA lets food companies put chemicals in our food.  What do the chemicals do in our body--we don't really know.  Then the FDA approves drugs to help prevent or cure what the FDA let happen in the first place.

Read everything about the drugs you are taking.  Please.


critical analysis and individual thought...

Posted by Chad on July 20, 2010 at 7:43 AM Comments comments (1)

"And as someone who’s already run through a gamut of eating styles due to allergies, ethical goals, and the pursuit of vibrant health, I know how this goes. I’ve been there. In many ways, I’m still there. For this reason, I can wholly empathize with the emotional response my critique triggered in some readers, and I understand why a backlash is apt to occur.

By the same token, I think it’s important to look at what that impassioned response signifies. Are we trying to be healthy, or are we trying to be right? Are we trying to learn, or do rigid beliefs deafen our ears to new knowledge? Have the open minds that led us to search for the truth in nutrition suddenly slammed shut, clamping tight around an ideology that may or may not truly serve us?

Critical thinking isn’t a privilege reserved for the elite; it’s a birthright. My goal is not to tell people what to think, but to show them how to think. How to sift through the vast expanse of nutritional litter and pull out the gems. How to stop blindly following the advice of so-called authorities who may not have our best interest at heart."



Anyone hear of the China Study?  The one that vehemently proclaimed that animal products were the cause of all the disease in China.  Yep, that's the one from T Colin Campbell.


Well,  this young lady, Denise Minger, took her time and diligently went through the analysis of said study.   Unbiased and looking for the truth behind the numbers, she wrote a lovely critique about Campbell's methods.  For which, Campbell wrote a retort to Ms. Minger.  Hmmm, what do you want to bet it was less than flattering, more a personal attack than a retort based on his fact finding.  What a loser.

Her response is linked above!



First, be critical of what someone tells you...even me!  Do your own due diligence, and understand that how a scientist interprets a study is how it will come across, especially if they are out to proof something.  The best studies are conducted when the studiers are trying to disprove something they want to prove, and others duplicate it!

Second, this China study just goes to show again that all this vegan this and that is not all it's cracked up to be...for MOST humans.  Again, everyone is different.  YOU figure out what works best for YOU!




food? can we say that it's good for you?

Posted by Chad on June 29, 2010 at 10:39 AM Comments comments (1)

"We can measure the nutrient and toxin content of a food, and debate the health effects of each of its constituents until we're out of breath. But in the end, we still won't have a very accurate prediction of the health effects of that food. The question we need to answer is this one: has this food sustained healthy traditional cultures? "

Trowell and Burkitt

Western Diseases: Their Emergence and Prevention.


That's what it boils down to folks.  Has the "western" diet been able to sustain humans over several generations?  It is my contention, and I am not the only one, that it WAS, many decades ago, but it is slowly NOT going to be able to.  Why is it that if we continue to eat the "food guide pyramid" we, in turn, have to continue to rely on medicine to sustain "healthy" culture?  If we do what the FDA and USDA and other mainstreamers say, well, the road doesn't look so bright.

(This below picture from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society) 



Talk about contradiction...the ADA says that carbs break down into sugar, but yet they tell you to eat 6 servings of them a day???  Especially to diabetics???  Ok, alcoholic, for your body to kick the habit, you must consume a case of beer a day...go forth.

I just can't believe that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, so BADLY!


Fortunately, it is changing.  The word is getting out, ever so slowly.  Eat like a diabetic would, and you won't become one!!



organic or not?

Posted by Chad on June 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM Comments comments (0)

Sometimes I hear folks contemplating the decision to go organic or not.  It is a worthwhile discussion.  Why is it that going organic costs an arm and a leg?  If they aren't using chemicals, shouldn't the cost be less to the farmer?  Kind of like clothing--the less size the garment, the less material, therefore less costly for the manufacturer, right?

Well, I don't know about farming costs, but I do know that trying to eat as organic as possible is a good thing to do.  That is, unless you are like one of my clients who says, "I'd rather not eat organic...I want to know what's in my food!  Made by chemicals, they have to put everything on the label!!"  To each their own...

Now, this link comes from a blogger called "Girl Gone Primal."

Here she interviews a local farmer who chose NOT to go the organic-label route...and gives his reasons why.  An interesting lesson in "what is labeled as such, may not be."


GGP: So what's the difference between your product & what's certified as 'organic' in the Australian market today?

Farmer Dan says:

The difference between us and organic is quite simple. We grow our cattle and lamb naturally in a free range environment without the use of hormones, antibiotics or rumen manipulators.

1. Our prices are much cheaper.

2. We do not use grains to finish our cattle – We finish them on pasture. The rumen of cattle is not designed for grain but for pasture. Grain is an unnatural method of fattening cattle. We grow our cattle using natural methods. If you use grain you must use a rumen manipulator.

3. Certain parts of the organic standard allow for exemptions which we don’t agree should be allowed.

4. You purchase cattle from someone else that have had chemical on them and keep them on your farm for a period of time and they are classified as organic – this is not right.

5. You can use Gibberelic acid to spray on your pasture to make it grow quicker and then feed it to your cattle and you are still organic - this is wrong.

6. The organic standard does not go far enough in the way animals are treated throughout the production process.

7. Have a look at the organic standard and you might be surprised.

Of course, we would easily make the standard. What stops us is the cost. We have to pay very large fees to register and then they want a gross percentage of our turnover. I object to this. This is the reason organic products are very expensive. There are a group of people setting a standard that they perceive to be right and they want a gross percentage of my turnover. To them it is a business proposition. They make money to keep themselves in a job. For us it is a passion. We love what we do knowing that we are providing a food source that has been humanely produced without the use of chemicals or hormones. I don’t think they understand how hard the work is to produce a quality animal. All these big businesses are the same, they want easy money while someone else is doing all the hard work. We are happy to supply excellent quality meat at a reasonable price. I would rather take a lower price and make our produce more widely available than to exclusive to a few. We are not the only farmers out there that think this way. All we want to do is remain sustainable and maintain our lifestyle not to make a million dollars."


Farmer Dan is on the right.

Next time you are at the big chain store looking at organic labels, remember that the product may or may not be as "organic" as the local farmer at the farmer's market, who has no "USDA approved Organic" label.  Support your local farmers...

GO! we go again

Posted by Chad on May 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM Comments comments (0)

I am sorry to be posting again on something some would consider political.  When the FDA is involved however, it seems sometimes that posts like this are necessary.


I'll make a long story short.  In Mexico lives an antivenom, Alacramyn, produced by Bioclon Inc. a Mexican company that is a world leader in the production of antivenoms and has a long track record of quality control and safety in this field.  It is used for years on victims of scorpion bites.  A Dr. Boyer has been trying for years, yep, YEARS to get this antivenom cleared by the FDA for production and distribution in America wtih no success.

The glorious FDA has told her that they have to do two clinical trials, and then some other hoops, blah, blah, blah.  Had they done this with Vioxx among others, maybe they would have known that future problems would arise!  Now seeing the error in thier ways, the governor of Arizona is trying to get her state's residents (who have some serious problems with Scorpion bites) a way to get the antivenom in a roundabout way.  YOU GO LADY!!  Gee, a leader trying to help the people trying to solve a glaring problem, that will SAVE LIVES! 

"The FDA can always be counted on to safeguard the health of large pharmaceutical companies while not caring a whit about the health of the nation even in glaringly obvious cases. In this instance, the division of biologics at FDA, in its inimitable wisdom, chose to require the nth degree review of Alcramyn in scorpion envenomation. They did not accept the previous data that allowed Alacramyn to market in Mexico nor the extened clincal track record since as a sufficient basis for approval of an Orphan drug to replace a less safe "home-brew" antivenom that had long been in clinical use already in Arizona. No they required two new clinical trials and demanded that one of these, in a stipulation that I consider to be borderline if not outright unethical, be a randomized PLACEBO controlled trial. There had never previously been a placebo controlled trial of an antivenom, usually because the physician was too concerned over whether or not the patient would live without antivenom treatment."

Says the blogger at


Enough said.


never go against the politics

Posted by Chad on May 17, 2010 at 4:01 PM Comments comments (0)

Corruption.  It's everywhere.  Including this administration.  Unfortunately, what we are talking about is our country's H-E-A-L-T-H!!  Like I've said in other posts, there is no reason for anyone to talk about Healthcare reform, or the 'War on Obesity' or obese children, if we can NOT BE FORTHRIGHT with what's going on in this country when it comes to our food.

How can we trust what they tell us when crap like this happens...

I just don't get it.  Did we as people in our own country do something so wrong that our own government will not tell us where OUR TAX MONEY IS GOING???


This sucks.  And what are we to do about it?  Contact your local rep.  Get them involved.  Now!



church and state: food and state

Posted by Chad on March 25, 2010 at 9:41 AM Comments comments (0)

So, when did the discussions of food become poilitical?  I really don't know the answer to that one, but I do know that this discussion shouldn't HAVE to happen.  Grow food in it's natural setting, harvest that food, then sell it.  The end.  Now though, we have to look at who grew the food, on which farm, with which chemicals, and of those chemicals who made them and who has the most influence in governement.  What a load of FERTILIZER er, uh...CRAP!

Below is taken from a blog I look into once in a while called Food Politics...


"PEPSICO announced “a voluntary policy to stop sales of full-sugar soft drinks to primary and secondary schools worldwide by 2012.” In a press statement, the Yale Rudd Center quotes Kelly Brownell saying that “tobacco companies were notorious for counteracting declining sales in the U.S. with exploitation of markets elsewhere, particularly in developing countries:”


So take a look at the above statement from Pepsi and the subsequent quote from the Rudd Center, knowing what this really means.  Pepsi is going to stop selling to our kids in the US, but start marketing their products more to developing countries.   That's great!  Hmmm, what happened the last time an overly agressive society started marketing their hooch (and/or other products) to an indigenous society?  Yep, disease.  Great.  Thanks again "civilization."  We are going to supply other cultures who have never had an altered, lab-made substance with an unending pipeline of unnatural foods.  Nice.

Haven't we already seen what happens when Eastern countries start to eat the "American Way?"

Sorry.  I am not psychic, but I can see where this is going.  Can anyone else?

the history of margarine, and why it sucks!

Posted by Chad on January 26, 2010 at 10:10 AM Comments comments (0)

Thanks to Felicity Lawrence for this.  Author and writer for the Guardian, she has revealed some nasty problems between food companies, politics, and what is the real deal.

Notice this is in the UK.  Why in the world if we are going to start a Healthcare reform, are we not talking about food?  Is that not the first line of defense (so to speak)?

Eat real food folks.  That is the bottom line.

you gotta read this--hypertension and fructose, etc.

Posted by Chad on December 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM Comments comments (0)

I normally try to add my two cents when I read a post, then tag it onto my blog here.  In this case, there is nothing more to say.  Read, please:

Hypertension and the Metabolic Syndrome

 "I just came back from a Caribbean cruise. Let me tell you, there was plenty of obesity to be seen on a 24/7 floating super-buffet called a cruise ship. All of this had me thinking about the metabolic syndrome: Obesity, Type II Diabetes, High Uric Acid levels, Low HDL, high triglycerides and elevated small LDLHypertension.  For sometime now, the concept of hypertension in the metabolic syndrome was a puzzling factor in my mind. One can easily explain that high carbohydrate and fructose loads will exacerbate obesity, diabetes, uric acid levels and an abnormal lipid profile. But what about hypertension? 

Hypertension can be aggravated by decreased production of Nitric Oxide (NO).  Uric acid in high levels can chelate NO allowing for vasoconstriction.  Moreover, insulin resistance itself decreases NO production. Yet, I have many patients with hypertension and the metabolic syndrome who have normal uric acid levels. In addition, red wine increases NO levels but does not significantly lower blood pressure. So there must be more to the concept of hypertension and the metabolic syndrome.  And there is. The answer lays in our Paleolithic past and the kidneys.

As a Nephrologist, I have always been astounded by the multiple capacities of the kidneys. More so, the basic role of sodium regulation in the kidneys makes it obvious that life on Earth originated in the oceans.  Why? When blood flow arrives to the kidneys, the kidney filter dumps large amounts of electrolytes into its collecting system. After which the kidneys spend a large amount of energy reabsorbing the same electrolytes that it initially filtered through its collecting system.  From an energy economy standpoint, this never made sense to me.  Until...the idea of Darwin came into play. 

Life on planet Earth originated from the oceans – a sodium replete environment.  In thissetting, organisms needed to filter through large amounts of sodium and water in order to maintain a symbiotic relationship with their surroundings. Then life started to become land based. Survival on land meant that the kidneys needed to efficiently conserve water and sodium- the opposite of an oceanic environment. Sodium is important in not only blood pressure regulation but also normal cellular functioning.  But so is potassium. High potassium dietary intake lowers blood pressure. Normal potassium levels are also essential for cardiac electrical activity. But how much sodium and potassium do we need?  Normally functioning kidneys determine that. The dilemma is that our present diet is very high in sodium and low in potassium (vegetablesand fruits).

A comparison of sodium to potassium ratios really sets into place the importance of normally functioning kidneys. The Paleolithic man/women consumed a ratio of sodium to potassium of 1:16.  Modern man consumes a ratio of 3:1. This is almost a 50 times higher ratio for sodium to potassium. (1).  What does this have to do with the metabolic syndrome?  Everything...


The metabolic syndrome is an aberration of glucose metabolism through resistance of insulin. By definition, there must be a link between insulin resistance and hypertension. Considering that the kidneys are main regulators of sodium metabolism then insulin resistance and hypertension are connected through the kidneys. In fact, recent studies reveal this connection by means of a protein called serum- and glucocorticoid-inducible kinase 1 (SGK1). SGK1 increases sodium reabsorption and potassium excretion in the kidneys. Moreover, SGK1 is influenced by insulin. But it goes farther. SGK1 increases the glucose transporter activity of GLUT1 and GLUT4.

Insulin resistance leads to elevated insulin levels in order to try to compensate for the resistance itself. Higher plasma insulin levels would cause increased activity of SGK1 leading to elevated sodium reabsoprtion and aggravation of hypertension. Considering that the Paleolithic sodium to potassium ratio was 1:16, then sodium was a much more crucial electrolyte to conserve. And yet conservation is not our dilemma today but excretion of excessive sodium.  Furthermore, elevated insulin not only increases renal sodium retention (thus exacerbating hypertension) but also there would be increased absorption of intestinal glucose and cellular storage of glucose through the glucose transporters GLUT1 and GLUT4.  Such an increase of glucose storage would only lead to worsening obesity and diabetes in the metabolic syndrome.  This would have been perfect for the Paleo man/woman hunting and gathering for food in order to survive the winter.

This brings up the question. What if SGK1 was over stimulated like in a gene mutation? This would lead to increased obesity, diabetes and hypertension. According to a recent editorial, such a SGK1 variantmutation affects 3 to 5% of the Caucasian and approximately 10% of the African-American population(2).  Therefore, there is a segment of the population which is more prone to the metabolic syndrome.  I am sure that there are evolutionary advantages to expression of this mutation - just not for present man.

The activity of SGK1 is influenced by glucocorticoids (steroids), mineralocorticoids (like aldosterone), Vitamin D , progesterone, PPAR-gamma, Insulin,IGF-1 and others (1). It is inhibited by heparin. I have wondered why would insulin expression be linked to renal sodium reapsorption from an evolutionary prospective. Considering that sodium conservation was critical for survival for ancient man then the connection of sodium toinsulin may not be important. But recall that the Paleolithic sodium to potassium dietary ratio was 1:16. Thus potassium may have been the critical factor in this relationship to insulin. Potassium in the body is mainly an electrolyte found within the cells (referred to asintracellular). 98% is within the cells and 2% outside the cells.  Elevated serum potassium levels above 6.0 mEq/L can cause electrical disturbances on cardiac conduction. In the hospital setting, sugar in the form of dextrose and insulin are a quick way to lower serum potassium levels. Therefore, from an evolutionary standpoint, normal regulation of potassium in the blood stream was important as high potassium levels (hyperkalemia) would lower blood pressure and cause disturbances of normal cellular functioning. In contrast, sodium is the main electrolyte found outside the cells (extracellular).

So in summary, during the Paleolithic summer months, fruit and glucose intake was increased. Thus potassium intake was higher as well as insulin levels. The summer was hot and ancient humans lost sodium through sweat. To maintain a normal regulation of sodium and potassium, insulin signaled the kidneys to reabsorb sodium and excrete potassium through SGK1. SGK1 helped to promote intestinal glucose absorption ensuring survival for the winter.

As Billy Ealways tells me: "We got here some how." SGK1 is may be a reason why organisms have survived on land for billions of years.  A sodium topotassium ratio of 3:1 goes against who were are.  However, as Dr. Davis from the Heart Scan Blog points out, severe salt restriction may lead to iodine deficiency and low thyroid function.Therefore, iodine supplementation in the form of kelp tablets may help.

1) Palmer, B, Sterns, R: Fluid, Electrolytes, and Acid-Base Disturbances, NephSap. March 2009; Volume 8 (2): 61-65.

2)Schwab M, Lupescu A, Mota M, Mota E, Frey A, Simon P, Mertens, PR,Floege J, Luft F, Asante-Poku S, Schaeffeler E, Lang F: Association ofSGK1 gene polymorphisms with type 2 diabetes. Cell Physiol Biochem 21:151–160, 2008"

Check out the blog below for more great information from a nephrologoist.