Monthly Archives: March 2015

Like chocolate? You might lose more weight on a ketogenic diet if you eat chocolate!

Basically, eating high cocoa (81%) chocolate while on a low carb diet after a couple of weeks produced higher weight loss than low carb dieters who did not eat chocolate.

Good news for me!




Johannes Bohannon, Diana Koch, Peter Homm, Alexander Driehaus

Background: Although the focus of scientific studies on the beneficial properties of chocolate with a high cocoa content has increased in recent years, studies determining its importance for weight regulation, in particular within the context of a controlled dietary measure, have rarely been conducted.

Methodology: In a study consisting of several weeks, we divided men and women between the ages of 19-67 into three groups. One group was instructed to keep a low-carb diet and to consume an additional daily serving of 42 grams of chocolate with 81% cocoa content (chocolate group). Another group was instructed to follow the same low-carb diet as the chocolate group, but without the chocolate intervention (low-carb group). In addition, we asked a third group to eat at their own discretion, with unrestricted choice of food. At the beginning of the study, all participants received extensive medical advice and were thoroughly briefed on their respective diet. At the beginning and the end of the study, each participant gave a blood sample. Their weight, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio were determined and noted. In addition to that, we evaluated the Giessen Subjective Complaints List. During the study, participants were encouraged to weigh themselves on a daily basis, assess the quality of their sleep as well as their mental state, and to use urine test strips.

Result: Subjects of the chocolate intervention group experienced the easiest and most successful weight loss. Even though the measurable effect of this diet occurred with a delay, the weight reduction of this group exceeded the results of the low-carb group by 10% after only three weeks (p = 0.04). While the weight cycling effect already occurred after a few weeks in the low-carb group, with resulting weight gain in the last fifth of the observation period, the chocolate group experienced a steady increase in weight loss. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the ketone reduction. Initially, ketone reduction was much lower in the chocolate group than in the low-carb peer group, but after a few weeks, the situation changed. The low-carb group had a lower ketone reduction than in the previous period, they reduced 145 mg/dl less ketones, whereas the chocolate group had an average reduction of an additional 145mg/dl. Effects were similarly favorable concerning cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and LDL cholesterol levels of the chocolate group. Moreover, the subjects of the chocolate group found a significant improvement in their well-being (physically and mentally). The controlled improvement compared to the results of the low-carb group was highly significant (p <0.001).

Conclusion: Consumption of chocolate with a high cocoa content can significantly increase the success of weight-loss diets. The weight loss effect of this diet occurs with a certain delay. Long-term weight loss, however, seems to occur easier and more successfully by adding chocolate. The effect of the chocolate, the so-called “weight loss turbo,” seems to go hand in hand with personal well-being, which was significantly higher than in the control groups.


Cancer patients, Boost and Nutrition by Colin Champ, MD, Oncologist



Cancer Patients, Cachexia, and Nutrition

Significant muscle loss remains a concern for cancer patients during treatment. The treatment itself can cause eating difficulties due to nausea, bowel issues, or even damage to the mouth or esophagus resulting in pain with swallowing and difficulty eating adequate amounts of food. Chemoradiation also disrupts normal taste and salivary gland function. It is surprising to see how little people will eat when they cannot taste the food. Oftentimes, this leaves liquid meal replacement products as the go-to source for nutrition.

However, weight loss in cancer patients is not always bad. In many cases, weight loss may even be helpful, as fat tissue gives off inflammatory factors and hormones that can fuel cancer growth.1,2 Weight gain in breast cancer patients, for instance, can lead to increased chances that the treated cancer will recur.3

Cachexia, on the other hand, is the unwanted, significant, and progressive loss of appetite, weight, and body mass (especially muscle).4 It is also accompanied by a state of systemic inflammation throughout the body. Cachexia is the fear that has led many dietitians and oncologists to tell patients to eat whatever they can, just do not lose weight. The loss of muscle mass from cachexia in cancer patients is usually considered irreversible.

However, decades of research have started to tell us what works and what doesn’t when it comes to stopping the loss of muscle mass in cancer patients. Earlier studies in mice showed that medium chain triglycerides (MCT) appear to halt muscle loss without feeding cancer cells.5 In fact, weight loss was reduced in proportion to the amount of fat in the diet. Further data showed that MCT increased ketones in the blood, which may also help to combat cancer cachexia.6 More recent studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids and fish oil may help fight cachexia.7

The key here is that healthy fat sources appear to combat cachexia, while recommending mega doses of sugar and other poor sources of nutrition provide little benefit. Simply telling patients to eat more, whether that is ice cream or popsicles, does not work as it does not address the underlying inflammatory and metabolic issues.8
What about telling patients to turn to the standard — Boost, Ensure, Glucerna, and Carnation Instant Breakfast?
I have compiled what I believe (in my humble opinion) are the worst possible ingredients to feed anyone, let alone cancer patients:

1. Sugar
2. High-fructose corn syrup
3. Vegetable oils: Full of inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids and known to increase inflammation. As cachexia is inflammation gone amok, inflammatory food is likely the last thing we want to feed cancer patients.

4. Poor protein sources


Please finish reading this article at the above linked URLs. Dr. Colin Champ is a real champion, in my opinion in his discussion and knowledge of eating (a simple act). It has become an unhealthy act in western countries over the past 50 years but a new revolution is brewing and this doctor and many others are on the forefront of educating us on how to live a healthy, dis-ease free life!

Follow him on twitter and facebook too!

Essential proteins, essential fats…essential carbohydrates?


These are the human body’s essential amino acids (proteins):

  1. arginine (required for the young, but not for adults),
  2. histidine,
  3. isoleucine,
  4. leucine,
  5. lysine,
  6. methionine,
  7. phenylalanine,
  8. threonine,
  9. tryptophan,
  10. valine.

These amino acids are essential because the body cannot create them and they must be eaten daily, otherwise the body’s proteins, tissues begin to degrade. They are essential for our bodies to go on living, along with the other ten amino acids our bodies can create.


These are the human body’s essential fatty acids (fats);

  1. Linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 fatty acid,
  2.  alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), an omega-3 fatty acid

These are the only fats the body cannot create and must be eaten. They keep brain/nervous systems, cardiovascular systems and others healthy and functioning well. These  fatty acids are essential for our bodies to live! That’s right! We must have fat to live.


These are the human body’s essential carbohydrates:


Actually, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Our bodies create the amounts of glucose (carbohydrate) we need from the proteins and fats we eat and that our bodies create. We can live and live well without eating any carbohydrates at all.

There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.


Oh, by the way, there is NO disease state associated with insufficient eating of carbohydrates. We live just fine without them.

But life is in jeopardy without sufficient intake of amino acids (proteins) and fatty acids (fats). Without them we die.

There was no statistically significant relationship between dietary interventions and heart deaths.

The low fat diet has been recommended to us by medical science, our US government and the American Heart Association as well as other health organizations.

The Research Committee15 concluded “A low-fat diet has no place in the treatment of myocardial infarction”

“…survival was significantly better in the control than the diet group.”

There has never been any proof their recommended dietary guidelines would ease disease of any kind or stop coronary artery disease.

From the literature available, it is clear that at the time dietary advice was introduced, 2467 men had been observed in RCTs. No women had been studied; no primary prevention study had been undertaken; no RCT had tested the dietary fat recommendations; no RCT concluded that dietary guidelines should be introduced. It seems incomprehensible that dietary advice was introduced for 220 million Americans28 and 56 million UK citizens,29 given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men.
An exchange between Dr Robert Olson of St Louis University and Senator George McGovern, chair of the Dietary Committee, was recorded in July 1977.30 Olson said “I pleaded in my report and will plead again orally here for more research on the problem before we make announcements to the American public.” McGovern replied “Senators don’t have the luxury that the research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in”.
There was best practice, randomised controlled trial, evidence available to the dietary committees, which was not considered and should have been. The results of the present meta-analysis support the hypothesis that the available RCTs did not support the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in order to reduce CHD risk or related mortality.
Two recent publications have questioned the alleged relationship between saturated fat and CHD and called for dietary guidelines to be reconsidered.31 ,32
The present review concludes that dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.

Read the above study at the link provided.

We have been lied to and used as a massive research study without our consent.

Please read ‘Doc’s Opinion’: