|
|
What follows here below is an
on-going series of e-mails between myself and two M.D. friends---Dr. Hugh Wang and
Dr. Malcom Ing --- both now in their mid-seventies. Mal still
practices medicine (Ophthalmology), whereas Hugh does not, for Hugh is now
retired, yet continues to work full-time as a security guard at a shopping mall
in California, where he gets paid a pittance of a salary for walking from 12
to 18-miles a day. 5-days a week--- or as he puts it, "I get paid for the exercise my body already
needs."
Check back here regularly for
updates in my communications with these Doctors about this diet that is being
recommended, should you care to tag along with me, it's a sacrifice you and I
must make...but it just might be what we need to stay off medication for
diseases that we don't want in these, our waning years of life. I mean, "What the heck---
what have we got to lose?--- for this is a win-win
situation!"
...Bruce**********
---e-mails will
always be posted here below with the most recent always on
top---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:16 AM
Subject: Safety GRAS of food
> Hi, Bruce: > > GRAS is a designation by the
FDA--Let's take this acronym > apart. Generally means
usually. Usually means 51%, more than half > the time is enough to
qualify. Regarded means an opinion of someone > or some
committee. Safe means not in harm's way. > > So, this is a
governmental opinion that is considered by more than > half of the
committee to probably not harm you. > > In the long term or the
short term or both? Do we know > this? Probably not because
most of these chemical additives are > newbies to our food chain.
Did our parents ingest them? No! > That means that we are the
experimental generation. Are our > degenerative and disease
conditions increasing for some inexplicable > reason? Yes! Do
our doctors know the source of this > increase? No! Do our
scientists know? No! > > I contend that we should take a step
back in time, rid ourselves of > these toxins that may be causing the
increase in cancer, heart > disease, Alzheimer's, autism, arthritis,
Lupus, asthma, diabetes, Lou > Gehrig's disease, resistant microbial
infections. > > Do you trust the government? Can you trust
this government? Should > you? This government wants to control
every industry and every aspect > of our lives. > > This
government miscalculated so many things including the virulence > of the
swine flu, wasted so much money buying influenza vaccine they > are still
trying to push onto Americans well after the end of the flu >
season. They are still trying to get rid of the swine flu vaccine so
> as not to have to eat so much crow. > > If the food item
is not GRAS certified, it hopefully will not be > allowed to reach the
public. > If it is certified GRAS, if still may not be safe. >
> Regards, Hugh >
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Ing,
M.D.
To: Bruce Downey
Cc: Hugh Wang ; ingm002@hawaii.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: Aspartame
Hi Bruce, I think you are on the right track when you ask
" Safe for whom?" If a person is careful about his
/her diet, and maintains a high level of anti-oxidants in the body, then
the damage would be minimal. If, however the person was overweight, smoked and
ate lots of corn-fed, non-free range beef and were hypertensive and under
other excessive stresses, then the damage could be considerable. The way
to think of the effect of these toxic additives is to think of the accumulative
effect of radiation. More accumulation of toxic food additives, especially when
older, then, the more damage to the mitochondria in our
cells. Good books to read on the
subject are: The Anti-Oxidant Miracle by Lester
Packer,PhD Omega Rx Zone, by Barry Sears, PhD Inflammation
Nation by Chilton Anti-Cancer-A New Way of Life, by David
Servan-Schreiber, MD,PhD The Biology of Belief, by Bruce Lipton,
PhD Keep sending the dialogue and share it with
Hugh. Aloha,Mal
From: crow@vt.edu To: sdowney717@msn.com Subject: Re: Aspartame Date:
Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:38:40 -0400
Thanks Scott. Good points,
all. And like you said, the FDA has approved these products containing
MSG and Aspartame--- otherwise they wouldn't be in
our food supply. The FDA considers them to be "generally recognized as safe" or
'GRAS.' The problem is, safe for whom?--- those that say they drink
maybe only one diet drink a day--- and maybe no more than say one Triple
Cheeseburger a week at a Fast food restaurant like Burger King or others of that ilk---
maybe they're "safe"--- but
how about those that drink up to say 6
diet drinks...every
day...or stop-in and eat all they want of the junk food
offered by these fast food restaurants and do so every work day of every week for lunch like all
the on-the-go tradesmen routinely do in our society?
Are they
too, "Safe?"
How much is too much? And do
our individual "tolerances'
vary with the passage of time--- day after day
after day--- until a point is reached when our bodies have
nothing left in the way of defenses against this daily bombardment of
msg, aspartame, and
hfcs that we all seem to choose in the name of
convenience?
And of course all the
generations who came before us never faced these health issues from what
they ate, for there were no "processed foods", no "fast foods", and no "prepared
foods". There was just "food". I think it was the introduction of
Margarine in my time--- what with all its trans-fatty acids and coloring packets
for appearance sake--- that started us all down this path. And I
think it was Punky Stevens York '52 who told me recently that margarine was just
one molecule away from being "plastic"--- or something like that.
...Dad**************
----- Original Message -----
From:
Scott Downey
To: bruce downey
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:13
PM
Subject: RE: Aspartame
the trouble with chemically altered food supliments is you dont
know exactly how yours or anyone elses particular body chemistry will react to
them.
All were and are studied and determined to be safe or they would not
be allowed for sale.
We are all slightly different in how we
interact with these things, and you take a risk, don't you with everything you
do.
I suppose you can look at this as a risk management issue. Lower or
eliminate these things in your diet to reduce any possible future
problems.
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Ing
To: Dan Taft
Cc: crow@vt.edu ; wanghousej@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: Aspartame(Nutrasweet)
Dan, Aspartame
is addictive, and so is junk food
I'll send you some evidence in Health Treatise designed by Bruce
Downey for which .Hugh Wang and I have participated as consultants. As you
know, Hugh is the only other Pun' 52 who chose medicine as
career ,and we are both on the same page as far as health
advice. Bruce is a former class mate of mine from Harvard who has,
unselfishly, made it his mission to educate his friends about health
maintenance. Maybe you can get the information also. I will forward
you some of what I have been seeing in e-mail.
Aloha,Mal
----- Original Message -----
From:
Dan Taft
To: 'Malcolm Ing'
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:25
AM
Subject: RE: Aspartame(Nutrasweet)
Thanks,
Mal.
I shall pass that on
to her, for she is STILL using that stuff.
She says that it is
hard for her to go cold turkey. I wonder what that’s
about?
Good
wishes,
Dan
____________________________________________________________________________________
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: "H. Bruce
Downey"
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:19 AM
Subject:
Ezekiel bread
> Hi, Bruce:
>
> In looking up Ezekiel
bread, I find that it is Biblical and composed
> of four grains + beans
and lentils which in combination and baked
> have high protein value
(probably from the beans and
> lentils). Wheat, barley,
millet, spelt, beans, and lentils
>
> I feel quite sure that not
much if any research has been done to
> determine whether insulin or
leptin results from eating this. An
> easy way to tell somewhat
although it would only give partial
> information since it doesn't include
leptin, is to eat it and test
> your blood sugar before (fasting) and two
hours afterward to see how
> much your blood sugar went up. If it
rises 30 mg% or more, you will
> know it causes insulin resistance because
sugar does this. The more
> sugar, the higher the
rise.
>
> I believe that if you don't pig out on bread of any kind,
it will
> only raise your I/L resistance a little especially if you eat it
with
> a high protein source. As your weight and especially your
omental
> weight drops, the less important a little bread will
matter. The
> more severe a diabetic you are, the more it will
matter.
>
> Aloha,
Hugh
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: "H. Bruce
Downey"
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:16 AM
Subject:
For the nutrionists we never were--- it's always been about 'what'
we eat and
not 'how much' or 'how little' we eat
> Hi, Bruce:
>
>
You are the marine drill sergeant of nutrition par excellence. You
are
> way tougher than I am. You are like I was when I was a young
doctor,
> evangelical. I stopped being so insistent when I found it
didn't work.
> At least, in the office one-on-one in an oral encounter, it
didn't. It
> was a waste of my time, and in their minds as
well.
>
> What worked was my take-off on "One Minute Manager" if you
ever read that
> book. A quizzical and worried look at their BP or
their blood work, a
> thoughtful "hmm", and "you need to... or something
ba-aa-d is going to
> happen". My follow-up would be dependent on
their reaction. The serious
> buyer is going to get a different
reaction from me than the tire kicker or
> the window
shopper.
>
> This is not to discourage you from your excellent
treatises, because your
> attitudes and perceptions shine through in your
writing. You are a fellow
> traveler on this journey and not an
authority figure. Try to get some
> feedback from your
friends. Ask from time to time about whether you have
> altered any
of their perceptions or actions. If all you get back is what
> I
call the bobble-head-response, I'm just going to keep on doing what I've
>
been doing, you need to change your approach. The other phrase
that
> typifies the response is, "damn the torpedoes, full speed
ahead". Ask if
> they keep going back to your link to see what you
have added or changed.
>
> Now they are different from those who are
tired of being tired, tired of
> taking all those pills, tired of chronic
pain, tired of dragging all that
> around in their "trunk", tired of
hobbling around, tired of impaired
> balance, tired of being unhealthy and
unable to ... (you fill in the
> blank) while Mal is surfing
competitively, Kit continues to run marathons,
> Fred is a cowboy and
competitive roper, Kim hunts Kudu in Africa, Diane
> swims world class
competitively, Ced is a competitive race walker, and I
> walk/ run 12-18
miles a day four days a week at my job (all Punahou
> classmates).
If your friends understand what you are saying and are
> working at
changing their behaviors (perhaps not being totally
> successful), that's
a cat of a different color.
>
> One misunderstanding is, "Eggs for
breakfast or lunch only are OK, but no
> more than 7 eggs total per
week.
> []
> NOTE: Dr. Wang suggests unlimited eggs for those
with low cholesterol.
> But if you don't know your cholesterol level,
limit yourself to just 7
> eggs total per week. Another hint:---
when you serve yourself scrambled
> eggs, use two egg yokes but maybe only
one egg white.
>
> It SHOULD be, "ONE yolk (which contains the
cholesterol) and two whites".
> You can also do this with hard boiled
eggs. I love eggs, so I will (with
> normal cholesterol) eat two
soft boiled eggs and eat all the yolk that
> runs off even though I know
it won't make much difference in my
> cholesterol levels as I have told
you how to find out for yourself.
>
> One other point has to do with
getting additional eggs in recipes. You
> aren't going to bake
because of grains, but I will cut down on breakfast
> eggs when my wife
puts eggs in soup or we have deviled eggs.
>
> Aloha, and don't
watch the TV food channel, Hugh
>
> p.s. As I said when we first
began, I had no idea where the ripples would
> touch the shore,
hhw
>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To:
<Bruce>
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:44
PM
Subject: Sweeteners
Hi, Bruce:
As I drink my vegetarian
coffee sweetened by
Stevia, I am reminded to speak to you about
most
sweeteners being bad for any health conscious
person, the worst of
which is aspartame known
under various names. Here's what one
physician
says about it, and it is my opinion as well after
reading many
medical papers about it:
Aspartame is the most controversial food
additive
in history, and its approval for use in food was
the most
contested in FDA history. In the end,
the artificial sweetener was approved,
not on
scientific grounds, but rather because of
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/10/aspartame-brain-cancer-and-the-fda.aspx>strong
political and financial pressure. After
all,
aspartame was previously listed by the Pentagon
as a biochemical
warfare agent!
It's hard to believe such a chemical would be
allowed into
the food supply, but it was, and it
has been wreaking silent havoc with
people's health for the past 30 years.
The truth is, it should never have
been released
onto the market, and allowing it to remain in the
food chain
is seriously hurting people - no
matter how many times you rebrand it under
fancy new names.
The Deceptive Marketing of Aspartame
Sold
commercially under names like NutraSweet,
Canderel, and now AminoSweet,
aspartame can be
found in more than 6,000 foods, including soft
drinks,
chewing gum, table-top sweeteners, diet
and diabetic foods, breakfast
cereals, jams,
sweets, vitamins, prescription and over-the-counter
drugs.
Aspartame producer Ajinomoto chose to rebrand it
under the name
AminoSweet, to "remind the
industry that aspartame tastes just like
sugar,
and that it's made from amino acids - the
building blocks of
protein that are abundant in our diet."
This is deception at its finest:
Begin with a
shred of truth, and then spin it to fit your own agenda.
In
this case, the agenda is to make you believe
that aspartame is somehow a
harmless, natural
sweetener made with two amino acids that are
essential
for health and present in your diet already.
They want you to believe
aspartame delivers all
the benefits of sugar and none of its
drawbacks.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
How Aspartame
Wreaks Havoc on Your Health
Did you know there have been more reports to
the
FDA for aspartame reactions than for all other food additives
combined?
In fact, there are over 10,000 official
complaints, but by the
FDA's own admission, less
than 1 percent of those who experience a
reaction
to a product ever report it. So in all
likelihood, the toxic
effects of aspartame may
have affected roughly a million people
already.
While a variety of symptoms have been reported,
almost
two-thirds of them fall into the
neurological and behavioral category
consisting
mostly of headaches, mood alterations, and
hallucinations. The
remaining third is mostly gastrointestinal symptoms.
This
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/12/23/the-dangers-of-aspartame.aspx>video
will familiarize you with some of the
terrifying
side-effects and health problems you could
encounter if you
consume products containing this chemical.
Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity
is not
well-known by doctors, despite its frequency.
Diagnosis is also
hampered by the fact that it
mimics several other common health conditions,
such as:
Multiple sclerosis Parkinson's disease
Alzheimer's disease
Fibromyalgia
Arthritis Multiple chemical sensitivity
Chronic fatigue
syndrome Attention deficit disorder
Panic disorder Depression and other
psychological disorders
Lupus Diabetes and diabetic complications
Birth
defects Lymphoma
Lyme disease Hypothyroidism
How Diet Foods and Drinks
CAUSE Weight Problems
In recent years, food manufacturers
have
increasingly focused on developing low-calorie
foods and drinks to
help you maintain a healthy
weight and avoid obesity. Unfortunately,
the
science behind these products is so flawed, most
of these products can
actually
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/26/artificial-sweeteners-once-again-linked-to-weight-gain.aspx>lead
to
increased<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/26/artificial-sweeteners-once-again-linked-to-weight-gain.aspx>
weight gain!
For example, researchers
have discovered that
drinking
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/23/diet-soda-now-linked-to-heart-disease.aspx>diet
soda increases your risk of metabolic
syndrome,
and may
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/06/30/diet-sodas.aspx>double
your risk of obesity - the complete opposite
of
the stated intention behind these "zero calorie" drinks.
The sad truth
is that diet foods and drinks
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/17/artificial-sweeteners-part-two.aspx>ruin
your body's ability to count calories, and
in
fact
<http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/symptoms.aspx>stimulate
your appetite, thus boosting your inclination to
overindulge.
Unfortunately, most public health agencies
and
nutritionists in the United States recommend
these toxic artificial
sweeteners as an
acceptable alternative to sugar, which is at
best
confusing and at worst harming the health of
those who take their
misguided advice.
Even More Toxic Dangers of Aspartame
Truly,
there is enough evidence showing the
dangers of consuming artificial
sweeteners to
fill an entire book -- which is exactly why
I
wrote
<http://www.mercola.com/sweet-deception-aspartame>Sweet
Deception. If you or your loved ones drink
diet
beverages or eat diet foods, this book will
explain how you've been
deceived about the truth
behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame
and
sucralose -- for greed, for profits, and at the expense of your
health.
As mentioned earlier, almost two-thirds of all
documented side
effects of aspartame consumption are neurological.
One of the reasons for
this side effect,
researchers have discovered, is because
the
phenylalanine in aspartame dissociates from the
ester bond. While
these amino acids are indeed
completely natural and safe, they were
never
designed to be ingested as isolated amino acids
in massive
quantities, which in and of itself will cause complications.
Additionally
this will also increase dopamine
levels in your brain. This can lead to
symptoms
of depression because it distorts your
serotonin/dopamine
balance. It can also lead to
migraine headaches and brain tumors through a
similar mechanism.
The aspartic acid in aspartame is
a
well-documented
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/01/glutamine.aspx>excitotoxin.
Excitotoxins are usually amino acids, such
as
glutamate and aspartate. These special amino
acids cause particular
brain cells to become
excessively excited, to the point that they
die.
Excitotoxins can also cause a loss of brain
synapses and connecting
fibers. A review
conducted in 2008 by scientists from the
University of
Pretoria and the University of
Limpopo found that consuming a lot of
aspartame
may inhibit the ability of enzymes in your brain
to function
normally, and may lead to neurodegeneration.
According to the researchers,
consuming a lot of aspartame can disturb:
The metabolism of amino
acids
Protein structure and metabolism
The integrity of nucleic
acids
Neuronal function
Endocrine balances
Furthermore, the ester bond
in aspartame breaks
down to formaldehyde and methanol, which are
also
toxic in their own right. So it is not surprising
that this popular
artificial sweetener has also
been
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/04/04/nutrasweet-shown-to-cause-cancer.aspx>found
to cause
cancer.
*****************************************************************************************************
Bruce,
I'm back to talk about Splenda which
itself is not bad. It was approved
by the FDA
which tested it as a natural sweetener which I am
trying to
grow in my back yard having ordered it
from a mail-order nursery. It is
struggling, and
I'm not sure if it doesn't like my heavy clay
dirt or if
I'm not watering enough or too
much. It is sweeter than sugar, and fast
became
a favorite for diabetics. A cup of coffee
requires only a
twentieth of a teaspoon. Here's
where the fraud occurs. After the
approval, the
company added sugar to bulk up the packet to a
teaspoon or
more, so now what was okay for
diabetics and obese patients with omental
baggage
is now causing insulin/leptin resistance and
rises in blood
sugar. The company markets it as
"made from sugar" without the downside
of sugar. Boo!
Stevia has nothing added to it, and you use a
tiny
spoon about the size of a quarter of a
little fingernail to equal a teaspoon
of
sugar. It can be found at health food stores and
I think Trader
Joe's. It will not raise your
blood sugar or anyone else's. You
can cook with it.
So much for now,
Hugh
____________________________________________________________________________________
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To:
<Bruce>
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:24
PM
Subject: fr a doctor=sugar/cancer connection
> It puzzles me
why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so
> dramatically
overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan.
>
> Of
the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly
> any
are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being
>
told to "just eat good foods." Most patients I work with arrive with a
>
complete lack of nutritional advice.
>
> I believe many cancer
patients would have a major improvement in their
> outcome if they
controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel, glucose.
>
> By
slowing the cancer's growth, patients allow their immune systems and
>
medical debulking therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to
>
reduce the bulk of the tumor mass -- to catch up to the disease.
>
>
Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements,
>
exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of
>
the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. The sound
> bite
-- sugar feeds cancer -- is simple. The explanation is a little more
>
complex.
>
> The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto
Warburg, Ph.D., first
> discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally
different energy
> metabolism compared to healthy cells.
>
>
The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently
exhibit
> an increase in anaerobic glycolysis -- a process whereby glucose
is used
> as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic
byproduct --
> compared to normal tissues.
>
> The large
amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose
> from
cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of
>
glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous
tissues
> as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup.
Thus, larger
> tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH.
>
>
This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of
>
adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38
>
moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose.
>
> By
extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the
> available
energy in the food supply and the body's calorie stores, the
> cancer is
"wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and
> undernourished. This
vicious cycle increases body wasting.
>
> It is one reason why 40
percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition,
> or cachexia. Hence,
cancer therapies should encompass regulating
> blood-glucose levels via
diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for
> cachectic patients who lose
their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual
> weight loss and stress
reduction. Professional guidance and patient
> self-discipline are crucial
at this point in the cancer process. The quest
> is not to eliminate
sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to
> control blood
glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and
> bolster
immune function.
>
> The glycemic index is a measure of how a given
food affects blood-glucose
> levels, with each food assigned a numbered
rating. The lower the rating,
> the slower the digestion and absorption
process, which provides a
> healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars
into the bloodstream.
>
> Conversely, a high rating means
blood-glucose levels are increased
> quickly, which stimulates the
pancreas to secrete insulin to drop
> blood-sugar levels. This rapid
fluctuation of blood-sugar levels is
> unhealthy because of the stress it
places on the body
>
> Sugar in the Body and Diet
>
>
Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which
>
includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and
>
disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of
>
these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall.
>
> When fructose
is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the
> glycemic index
registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly
> absorbed in
the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes
> for
"time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in
>
blood-glucose levels.
>
> If glucose is the primary monosaccharide
brick in the wall, the glycemic
> index will be higher and less healthy
for the individual. As the brick
> wall is torn apart in digestion, the
glucose is pumped across the
> intestinal wall directly into the
bloodstream, rapidly raising
> blood-glucose levels.
>
> In
other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood:
>
levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical
>
hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of
>
diabetic health problems.
>
> The 1997 American Diabetes Association
blood-glucose standards consider
> 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to
be diabetic; 111 to 125 mg/dL is
> impaired glucose tolerance and less
than 110 mg/dL is considered normal.
>
> Meanwhile, the Paleolithic
diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean
> meats, vegetables and
small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and
> fruits, is estimated to
have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and
> 90
mg/dL.
>
> Obviously, today's high-sugar diets are having unhealthy
effects as far as
> blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may
initiate yeast
> overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and
other health
> conditions.
>
> Understanding and using the
glycemic index is an important aspect of diet
> modification for cancer
patients. However, there is also evidence that
> sugars may feed cancer
more efficiently than starches (comprised of long
> chains of simple
sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of
> rats fed diets
with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example,
> found the
animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast
>
cancer.
>
> The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the
cancer patient toward a
> healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By
using the glycemic index
> alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of
white sugar is healthier than
> a baked potato.
>
> This is
because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower
> than
that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more
>
vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer
>
patients.
>
> What the Literature Says
>
> A mouse model
of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are
> sensitive to
blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an
> aggressive
strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high
>
blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar
>
(hypoglycemia).
>
> There was a dose-dependent response in which the
lower the blood glucose,
> the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8
of 24 hyperglycemic mice
> survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and
19 of 20 hypoglycemic.
>
> This suggests that regulating sugar
intake is key to slowing breast tumor
> growth.
>
> In a human
study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting
> blood-glucose levels
and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which
> measures immune-cell
ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as
> cancer. Eating 100 g
carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange
> juice all
significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf
> bacteria.
Starch did not have this effect.
>
> A four-year study at the
National Institute of Public Health and
> Environmental Protection in the
Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract
> cancer patients with 480
controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake
> of sugars, independent
of other energy sources, more than doubled for the
> cancer
patients.
>
> Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern
countries that keep
> track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North
America, Japan and others)
> revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk
factor that contributes to
> higher breast cancer rates, particularly in
older women.
>
> Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line
of defense. In fact,
> an interesting botanical extract from the avocado
plant (Persea americana)
> is showing promise as a new cancer
adjunct.
>
> When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose
was added to a
> number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers
in the
> Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they
found it
> inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it
inhibited
> the enzyme glucokinase responsible for glycolysis. It also
inhibited the
> growth rate of the cultured tumor cell
lines.
>
> The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body
weight dose of
> mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to
79 percent. Based
> on these studies, there is good reason to believe that
avocado extract
> could help cancer patients by limiting glucose to the
tumor cells.
>
> Hi, Bruce:
>
> If we avoid sugar, a
healthy fall out is reducing cancer risk, which is on
> the rise in case
you haven't noticed.
>
> Aloha, Hugh
>
> Since cancer
cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis,
> Joseph
Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research
> Institute
and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a
> chemical
called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the
>
excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in
>
cachectic cancer patients.
>
> Gold's work demonstrated hydrazine
sulfate's ability to slow and reverse
> cachexia in advanced cancer
patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed
> 101 cancer patients taking
either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day
> or placebo. After one
month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients
> increased their weight,
compared to 53 percent on placebo.
>
> A similar study by the same
principal researchers, partly funded by the
> National Cancer Institute in
Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those
> who took hydrazine sulfate
and were in good physical condition before the
> study began lived an
average of 17 weeks longer.
>
> The medical establishment may be
missing the connection between sugar and
> its role in tumorigenesis.
Consider the million-dollar positive emission
> tomography device, or PET
scan, regarded as one of the ultimate
> cancer-detection tools. PET scans
use radioactively labeled glucose to
> detect sugar-hungry tumor cells.
PET scans are used to plot the progress
> of cancer patients and to assess
whether present protocols are effective.
>
> In Europe, the "sugar
feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that
> oncologists, or cancer
doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy
> (SCMT) protocol.
Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT
> entails
injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose
>
concentrations.
>
> This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via
lactic acid formation. In
> turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity
of the malignant tumors and
> also induces rapid growth of the cancer.
Patients are then given
> whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature)
to further stress the
> cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or
radiation.
>
> SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized
cancer or recurrent
> primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the
Von Ardenne Institute of
> Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany.
Five-year survival rates in
> SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50
percent, and the complete rate
> of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50
percent.
>
> The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then
treats the tumor
> with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in
outcome.
>
> The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and
metastasis of cancer
> cells can enhance many therapies. Some of these
include diets designed
> with the glycemic index in mind to regulate
increases in blood glucose,
> hence selectively starving the cancer cells;
low-glucose TPN solutions;
> avocado extract to inhibit glucose uptake in
cancer cells; hydrazine
> sulfate to inhibit gluconeogenesis in cancer
cells; and SCMT.
>
> A female patient in her 50s, with lung cancer,
came to our clinic, having
> been given a death sentence by her Florida
oncologist. She was cooperative
> and understood the connection between
nutrition and cancer. She changed
> her diet considerably, leaving out 90
percent of the sugar she used to
> eat.
>
> She found that
wheat bread and oat cereal now had their own wild
> sweetness, even
without added sugar.
>
> With appropriately restrained medical
therapy -- including high-dose
> radiation targeted to tumor sites and
fractionated chemotherapy, a
> technique that distributes the normal one
large weekly chemo dose into a
> 60-hour infusion lasting days -- a good
attitude and an optimal nutrition
> program which included Sam's formula
nine times/day, she beat her terminal
> lung cancer.
>
> I saw
her last month, five years later and still disease-free, probably
>
looking better than the doctor who told her there was no
hope.
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________________
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To:
<Bruce>
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:16
PM
Subject: water
> Hi, Bruce:
>
> I may not write
as regularly as I would wish, or you would wish, but
> I have to write
when I think of something to say to you.
>
> I haven't decided on
the best kind of water to drink yet, but I keep
> looking. I used to
think that distilled water was the best because
> it leaves behind heavy
metals, pesticides, fluorine, dissolved drugs,
> and isn't polluted by
PBA's from plastic bottles. This is still
> true, but I heard that
it's not as perfect a solution as I
> thought. Oh, well, so I'm
still drinking tap water from the city's
> cisterns. Perhaps you
have a solution. Malcolm's artesian wells in
> HI might be
better. Let's see what he thinks.
>
> Anyway, what I want to
recommend to you is to drink two large glasses
> of water first thing in
the morning upon arising. That hydrates you
> for most of the
morning. Most people are dehydrated, and coffee
> drinkers, alcohol
drinkers, and diuretic takers for certain are.
>
> In fact, the way
diuretics work is to reduce fluid intravascular
> volume thus lowering
your blood pressure. In the hours around
> awakening, you are more
likely to have a heart attack as your pulse
> rate, BP, and respiratory
rate are all low during sleep and you may
> have urinated during the
night. The oxygen level is low in your
> blood and your blood flow
is reduced. Drinking the water pumps up
> your blood volume and
everything else as well as dilutes your blood
> sugar, cholesterol, uric
acid, reduces clotting by thinning out the
> platelets, pushes blood and
oxygen around your heart and brain,
> improves your bowel
movements.
>
> I just thought of another important thing to test,
your pH. You can
> do this without going to your doctor or a
lab. You need pH paper
> that you can get at a health food
store. You can test your serum,
> your spinal fluid, your urine, or
your saliva. Saliva is best unless
> you want to draw your blood, do
your spinal tap, or check urine
> that's been sitting in your
bladder. First thing in the morning and
> before you drink your two
glasses of water, spit out the saliva in
> your mouth, then wait a few
seconds for fresh saliva on your
> tongue. Run the paper over your
tongue and compare with the color
> code, blue is good, around 7.4.
You want it alkaline, because
> slightly alkaline is anti-cancer.
Acidic is not good. Ask Mal about
> acidosis. Diabetics get
acidotic, not good. Athletes get lactic
> acidosis, also not
good. They drink a lot of water to dilute the
> acid and remain
hydrated, and a good athlete knows to get hydrated
> well in advance of
the event. You probably haven't had a doctor tell
> you to test your
salivary pH, unless it was Mal.
>
> You might have noticed that I'm
focusing on the cardiovascular system
> because that kills about 50% of
Americans. About 25% more are killed
> by cancer. The rest are
miscellaneous and are a motley group
> including accidents, war, suicide,
other diseases, congenital
> conditions, drug reactions, anaphylaxis and
allergic conditions.
>
> Aloha,
Hugh
>
________________________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message
-----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh
Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey"
<>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 10,
2010 1:24 AM
Subject: "The York '52
Weight Room" and related matters
>
>>Hi, again, Bruce:
>
>
Earlier, I didn't examine very closely what you had written, both in
>
your email and in the link to your "Weight Room."
>
> Now that I've
had a chance to study them more, here are my comments:
>
> You
should have your 25-hydroxvitamin D tested to decide whether you
> need
to cut back or increase your Vit D3 (D3 is absorbed better). A
>
good level is between 50-60 nanograms/L to be immune boosting,
>
beneficial to diabetics' blood sugar, and anti-cancer.
>
> I used
to have the idea that a foundation of a daily multivitamin was
> a good
idea until I discovered that even the small amount of daily
> Vit A was
enough to nullify the benefits of Vit D. Since cod liver
> oil
contains both, we no longer recommend CLO. A professor at
>
Stanford Med Sch spoke at our hospital and said that not only were
>
multivitamins overrated in their value, but they don't dissolve well,
>
and are a multibillion $$ industry. Try putting one of your tablets
> in a glass of water to see how many days it takes for it to
>
dissolve. Many of them end up in the toilet. When you run out of
> your multivit, you can stop it, and depend on your good diet to
> supply your needs. Your CoQ10 is a good idea, and L-arginine is
good
> for the inner lining of your blood vessels and is a source of
nitric
> oxide which improves sexual function.
>
> You
interpreted my "Just avoid sugar and grains. Include fructose
>
except in whole fruits" correctly. i.e. Include fructose as a sugar
> to avoid. It is a strong stimulant of insulin and leptin
resistance,
> hormones that cause internal abdominal omental fat
deposition.
>
> Not knowing your background, if I get too medical,
I can couch
> anything in more laymen's terms. Some of your friends
might be
> non-medical as well.
>
> You went into amazing
detail listing all the sources of sugar,
> fructose, and various forms of
grains that you could think of. My
> thinking is that just saying
sugar and grains is simpler and is
> inclusive enough for most people to
follow the concept as long as
> your friends understand that fructose is
1/2 of the sugar
> molecule. Alcohol turns to sugar so should be
avoided as well to
> prevent insulin and leptin resistance. Some
people will benefit from
> your list of prohibitions, however, since they
need very specific
> guidance. Others will see a list and will look
for every chink in
> the armor. If they find a grain source not
listed, they will use it
> as an excuse to eat (or drink) it.
>
> Your recipe for health and "weight room" is certainly consistent w/
> my thinking, knowledge, and recommendations and is a terrific
>
idea. I love it. If something falls between the cracks, no matter,
> for all these years they (and you) have been eating and drinking
> whatever and as much as your brain desired. Just knowing that
> sugar(s) and grains are detrimental is enough so that if they or you
> cut back, it will benefit all. Ideally, of course, we would love
to
> have complete compliance. But then that is not the real world,
is it?
>
> What I do instead of looking for a grain substitute is
to eat more
> different kinds of vegetables. I used to always have
a starch at
> every meal. This is not true either in every society
or way back
> when. Of course, starch is a grain and turns into
sugar. For me it
> would be noodles, rice, bread, pasta, etc.
Now it is a salad + green
> beans (or cabbage, spinach, chard, carrots,
or radishes, celery,
> asparagus, edamame, artichokes, broccoli,
eggplant) Well, you get
> the idea. I still haven't had the
chance to look up Ezekiel Bread
> yet, but I will.
>
> I
notice you limit eggs to seven a week. I wouldn't limit it since
> your cholesterol is normal. Eggs sustain an unborn chick until it
> hatches, so they contain important nutrients. Two a day is not
too
> many. If you are concerned, have one yolk for every two
eggs. Do
> this experiment, before your next two blood panels, for
two months
> eat one egg a day. Don't change the remainder of your
diet. Then
> before the next blood test, eat two eggs a day.
You will find that
> it will not send your cholesterol spiking
skyward. Mine varied by
> five mg. and stayed in the normal
range.
>
> Aloha, Hugh
>
>
----- Original Message
-----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh
Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey"
<>
Cc: <>
Sent: Friday, April 09,
2010 10:22 PM
Subject: "The York '52
Weight Room" and related matters
> Hi, Bruce:
>
> I'm impressed with
your interest in yourself and your
> friends' health. Believe it or
not, many people are not interested
> enough to pursue good health and
long life. They are content to
> follow their physician's lead, a
fifteen minute office visit, and
> take these pills--NEXT!
>
> That does not begin to change your health. I think you are
beginning
> to understand that.
>
> You climbed the
lighthouse one step at a time until you reached the
> top. You have
already started the steps downward back to health. In
> fact, you
have become interested in your friends' following your
> example.
You're a missionary whether you realize it or not, trying
> to save
others. I am pround of you
>
> The goal is to get back to the
foundation of the lighthouse, off ALL
> your drugs. Can we help you
accomplish that? Let's try. You are
> not my first and your
friends will not be our last efforts.
>
> We need allies.
Your friends and you will encourage each other, but
> we need your
physician(s) to be accomplices in this, because we need
> their guidance
to do it safely. If they poo-poo your efforts and
> goal, you need
a new set of physicians. Do you think any friend is a
> friend if
(s)he sabotages your efforts to reach ANY dream of yours?
>
> You
have already started the weight loss journey with its
> vagaries.
Persistence is the secret of success. As you see results,
> you
will become more determined. You read me correctly, high
> fructose
corn syrup is the biggest sugar culprit other than sugar
> itself.
Since whole fruit is combined with enzymes and fiber, as
> long as you
don't overdo it, it is alright to eat it. Spread it
> out.
Use fruit as a snack or dessert. Read the labels and you'll be
>
amazed at the things that contain HFCS. More on that later.
>
> I love bread of any kind, but I guess I'll have to research Ezekiel
> Bread since I've not heard of it. I don't believe in asking you
to
> do something I'm not willing to do. I eat bread, pasta,
cereal,
> noodles in small amounts and only occasionally. I can get
away with
> a little because I have very little fat at 5'11" and 160
lbs. I'm a
> borderline diabetic and was on metformin 500 mg twice
a day. Since I
> started THE DIET, I've been able to get off the
Metformin, titrating
> it down slowly with the help of my doctor until
I'm totally off it
> and normal blood sugars. Why so much metformin
in a borderline
> case? They lowered the normal levels a few years
ago so I was no
> longer borderline. I think it was a conspiracy to
sell more drugs,
> have more lab tests, and generate more doctor visits
(nah, that can't be true).
>
> Same thing with my simvastatin for
cholesterol and my lisinopril for
> my blood pressure. I'm off
everything that requires a prescription
> now. I only tell you my
personal story so that you know when I tell
> you I know what you are
going through, I literally do. How can
> someone who has never lost
a parent tell a patient that he knows what
> he is going through when he
has never himself lost a parent? My
> doctor tells my story to
encourage his other overweight diabetics,
> and your doctor will do the
same.
>
> I expect that as you progress, you will tell me that your
physicians
> will marvel at what you have helped your body to do to
require less
> and fewer drugs. Your energy level will rise.
You will do more and
> faster. You will stop snoring. You
will marvel at how much better
> you feel. You will retain less
fluid. Your circulation will
> improve. You will not get
short of breath so easily with work or
> exercise. I have had
patients' atrial fibrullation resolve to the
> amazement of their
cardiologists. Only time will tell, how much and
> what will return
to normal for you. Start a spread sheet since you
> are so computer
facile with your blood test results and drugs (&
> doses), weight,
blood pressure, and dates on it.
>
> Mal and I will hold your hand
if you need it. You will find out what
> you are made of. The
hard work is yours to do, but you can do it,
> and you will find it a
worthwhile project. Your life is worth it, isn't it?
>
> To
your health, Hugh
----- Original
Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
<>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:57
AM
Subject: CRP
> Hi, Bruce:
>
> Mal wrote me
since I sent him a copy of my letter to you and wondered
> what I
thought of suggesting that you have a C-reactive Protein level
> (blood
test) done. It is a proxy for generalized inflammation. I
>
think it would be a good test for you to have done to round out your
work-up.
>
> I need to correct my L-arginine discussion. It
increases nitric
> oxide which helps the cardiovascular system, not
nitrous oxide. As
> we age the nitric oxide decreases and the
endothelium which responds
> positively to nitric oxide responds
less. There is evidence that
> this improves sexual performance
as well as blood flow to the heart and brain.
>
> Aloha,
Hugh
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Ing" <>
To: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
<>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:24
AM
Subject: Re: Ripples
> Hi Hugh, Thanks for helping my
friend, Bruce, on the Road to Health. I am
> glad you mentioned
the omental(belly) fat, because, as you know,these fat
> cells in the
belly act like little endocrine glands and manufacture
> arachidonic
acid, the chemical messenger in the body to stimulate
> inflammation.
And as you know, inflammation is the final common denominator
> of
probably most or all diseases, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis,
> cancer and Alzheimer's and macular degeneration. Bruce probably
should have
> a CRP blood level determination also don't you
think?
> Your Buddy, Mal
----- Original Message
-----
From: "Jeannine and
Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey"
<>
Cc: <>
Sent: Tuesday, April
06, 2010 5:27 PM
Subject:
Ripples
> Hi, Bruce:
>
> One never knows which
shores the ripples from a skipping rock will touch.
>
> I
am always pleasantly surprised to get feedback from something I've
>
written, particularly so when it has positive effects.
>
> My
tome was primarily political. You picked out the personal
>
paragraph that touched your concern.
>
> Let's attack the
important points that I didn't address.
>
> You can write me back
if you need more details. You know that Mal is
> a competitive
surfer, and we are all 76 y/o. He and I are in better
> shape
than you are and more physical. So you have a little catching
>
up to do. No matter. It can be done. Of course, instead of
good
> intentions, you must set a course for yourself. It's more
like
> sailing than motorboating. You decide you want to get from
A to
> B. You could but no one does go in a straight line.
There's a ship
> or hazard in the way and you have to get around
it. The wind blows
> you off course. You have to
tack. The unseen current forces you to
> reset your sails.
Sounds like I know a lot about sailing? Not
> true. I just
know myself and human nature.
>
> At our age, much of the weight
is belly weight. It is omental
> weight. If you have ever
carved into an abdomen, you will notice
> that the belly wall is fat,
but even more fat is omental. That is
> hormonal. You can
lose that without exercise, amazingly enough. Try
> this.
Don't exercise. Just avoid sugar and grains. Include
>
fructose except in whole fruits. Fructose is 1/2 of the sugar
>
molecule. Try not to eat grains. You'll be amazed. No
calorie
> counting or restricting volume of food. Your belt size
will go
> down. Of course, if you reduce volume, your results
will be even
> better. After you have satisfied yourself that I
am correct, you'll
> wonder what hormones are responsible for this
incredible
> result: insulin resistance and leptin
resistance. If you cheat, the
> sugar will start the
insulin/leptin resistance up again. It takes a
> week or two to
get the resistance down. Not highly publicized and
> not even
known by a lot of physicians.
>
> I'm not against exercise, but
that can come later except for some
> toning with light free weights
and squats. Just raising your two
> hundred lbs. with your legs
will strengthen your legs.
>
> Get a book, "Power Yoga", and read
it from cover to cover. At first
> just attempt the easy
moves.
>
> Next tack is to of course see your primary care
physician and have a
> stress test to know what a safe pulse rate for
you to exercise to,
> get blood tests including a 25-hydroxyvitamin D
level. Many people
> unknowingly are vit D deficient and our old
levels are too low to
> support cardiovascular health, be
anti-carcinogenic, and be immune
> supportive. Studies show that the
level needs to be >50 nanogms/L. I
> was taking 2500 iu daily
for three months and tested at 13, so I
> upped it to 5000 whcih Mal
takes. Take L-arginine over the counter
> to boost your nitrous
oxide level and benefit your cardiovascular
> system. Mal will
recommend Omega-3 which I take also.
>
> Last step is to go
aerobic, walk at least 10,000 steps a day. That's
> a
goal. Slowly and 1/4 mile at first. Up the pace and the
> distance. Go around your block. Go to a park. Go up
a small
> hill. I work four days a week as a mall guard and get
paid (a
> pittance) to walk or run (if there is an incident) a range of
12 to
> 18 miles in eight hours.
>
> I am proud of your
start on this journey. Just put one foot in front
> of the other,
Aloha, Hugh
>
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:53
PM
Subject: Re: "Your
perspective"
Recently
Malcolm Ing, MD in Hawaii sent me an e-mail that
you wrote on the subject of "Your
perspective". In particular I was interested in what you
had to say about obesity in this country, suggesting that if we eat right and
controlled our weight we would all be healthier, to
wit:---
"I have proven to my
satisfaction among my patients, friends, and
acquaintances who
are willing to do it, that eating a certain way in
content and
volume will decrease prescription drug need, will reduce
much
debility, will reduce heart disease and cancer which cause
75% of the
American deaths at an earlier age and with
disability. Not many will do
it. They prefer taking
diabetic, blood pressure, and heart pills
it
seems."
So I looked into this from my own
perspective. I started by buying a new digital scale with a memory chip
from Bed Bath & Beyond--- a Taylor "Cal-Max" scale. After
programming into this machine my gender, age, height, and activity level, I
discovered that while not obese, I am overweight at 221 lbs when fully clothed
except for shoes. My BMI (Body Mass Index) is 27 whereas it should be no
more than 24 @ a desired weight of 197 lbs. based on my gender, age,
height, and activity level. In addition to displaying all this info, my
new scale tells me that by eating 2,900 calories a day I will maintain my
current weight (221 lbs). So I must undertake a calorie count program to
eat something less than 2,900 calories a day in order to lose weight and get
my BMI down to the desired goal of 24 @ 197 lbs. Even then, it will take
me a very long time to get there...but I now have a scale that will "remember"
where I once was and how well I'm doing everytime I get on it.
I have no particular plans as to
what I will eat, for I plan on starting out by simply reducing the
quantity of what I eat at any one
sitting. To this end I plan on keeping track of the calories I eat
on a daily basis, for I figure that's the key to
success. Snacks will be out for me (Did you know that just 7
Triscuits--- the healthiest cracker one can eat--- add up to 140
calories? Deserts too will be gone, other than say fruit of some
sort. We also have this new book--- "Eat this, Not
that" which I highly recommend to all.
I know too that before embarking on
this less-than-2,900-calorie-per-day diet, you would advise me to see my
primary care physician and/or my cardiologist. In my case at 76 years
old it's hard for me to tell which of the two is
"primary" anymore. But I'm still very physically
active--- personally doing all the chores of maintaining this place here in
Southwest Virginia with its 27-acres, two houses and three horses on this
mini-farm of mine. The most strenuous thing I do is bend over and pick
up horse feet to trim and shape their nails using a big, hand-held file in my
right hand. I used to be able to do all 4 feet at one sitting, but can
only do 2 feet now--- for tomorrow is another day. Not everyone would be
happy with this way of life, but it's the way I want it until the time comes
when I can no longer do any of it anymore.
I know too that the world is
"paved with good intentions" but when you get as old
as I am and considering the alternatives that are just around the
corner for the likes of people like me, I think I have enough motivation
to stick this thing out. Twenty pounds is a lot to expect, but being
"retired" as I am, I figure I've got the time to invest in my own
health. And it's about time that I paid some attention to something I've
always just assumed would always be there for me.
And your e-mail that Mal forwarded
to me re: "Your perspective" is all the
encouragement I need to get started. And for that, I thank you,
Dr. Wang.
|
