Scroll to Top
This is a Doctor's comment to a post I made in a Low Carb FB group:
"David. Have you worked with people in a clinical setting? I have oodles and oodles (I know, real scientific, at least thousands) of people who eat terrible quality food, can't afford grass-fed free-range organic--and they lose weight find. I work in (blank) North Carolina. The focus on food quality is often a big distraction--and unobtainable, and even worse, stops some people from trying. As a med student taught me to say, "It's NICE if you can eat grass-fed, organic...etc, but its not necessary."
My response:
"Hi (blank). I'm familiar that this group began as an extension to your monthly meetings in (blank), and then evolved to include people from all over the country. I don't deny the fact that there are people that lose weight while only having to remove bad carbs... I was speaking to the other people that don't.
I'm sure you're aware that not everyone experiences the same results. And while it has become common to say it's due to something personal / internal (like stress, hormones, etc.), it stands to reason the equal likelihood that person simply reacts differently to certain food than how everyone else does.
What I'm saying is that everyone has different food sensitivities. So if it's harmful for a person to have stress, then some (not all) people that eat a stressed animal will be similarly harmed. As well, if it's harmful for us to eat bad carbs, then some (not all) people will suffer from an animal that eats bad carbs. I'm a witness to this, as I can see the difference in my own thoughts if I were to compare eating each type of meat. I can't think as clearly... and with others this manifests as a weight loss plateau.
I say this as a health coach who's worked with over 50 clients to help them lose weight after they've gone months or even years losing the same 7 pounds over and over again, while having followed the low carb diet. Yes, we can say hidden carbs could have easily sneaked in and maybe those people are more sensitive to those hidden carbs than others, but it's also equally possible those people are more sensitive to "terrible-quality meat" (as you put it). And this is what I've witness from working with my clients. Once they removed the "terrible-quality meat," the weight steadily came off. There's no denying that, like there's no denying your patients that didn't have to go to that same length. People are unique and there won't ever be a true one-size-fits all approach. I believe it's dangerous if someone thinks that there is, as they can potentially harm themselves physically and mentally trying to repeatedly do what works for others.
To speak on the fact that not everyone can afford to access healthier options (including options from over the internet, when unavailable at nearby stores), then Marylou's suggestion is a great one... as a person saves money from buying food fit for larger meals (or even unhealthy food), they can redirect that same money to at least one healthier meal. I believe this is great to teach the people we influence, so that they're not discouraged.
I believe it is dangerous to say "the focus on food quality is often a big distraction"... while that might be true for some, it is not for everyone. People should at least be aware of the truth... that there are better, best options. Then they can choose from the place of having a more complete understanding. We can't assume everyone will get discouraged and give up trying if they can't afford the best option... our job should be to educate about both, but also make sure people don't become discouraged by the "better" option as it can still be a world of difference for the right person as is evident. It's like the best of both worlds when done this way. We should never feel the need to withhold the best option, simply because we think they could never afford it."
Second comment this Doctor made to another one of my FB posts:
"Hi David. In my clinic, and in many other clinical programs, we advise 1 to 2 bouillon cubes per day to minimize these symptoms. If someone has high blood pressure or heart failure then they should not add sodium because the salt can worsen these conditions. I do not agree that "you will likely get dehydrated!" That is an overstatement that might stop someone from trying!"
My response:
"Yes, I am familiar with your recommendation of 1 to 2 bouillon cubes that you mentioned in the full version of your talk at one of your monthly meetings at your "Lifestyle Medicine Clinic."
However, a bouillon cube is typically made of:
Salt (38%, 46%, and some brands even more), MSG, hydrogenated (processed) vegetable oil, hydrogenated chicken or beef fat, some brands add hydrogenated corn and/or soy oil or cornstarch, (some brands add sugar), chicken or beef stock, dehydrated vegetables, natural flavors, preservatives
...is not going to feed our bodies a natural source or as diverse of a source of minerals as wild-crafted herbs grown in mineral rich soil. (Which are affordable and easily obtained online.) This goes back to having a "better or best" option.
Since it's inevitable that everyone is going to be losing (different amounts) of water weight during the first 2-5 days before burning fat, I feel it is our responsibility to make sure everyone is made aware of this simple truth and of the potential of dehydration... so they can easily auto-correct the situation without having to panic from a lack of understanding what might be going on. Proper planning (not paranoia) is very simple (as simple as drinking tea) and should not discourage anyone that is going to commit to their weight loss. It's our job to make sure people know the difference."
Now, leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts. Was I right to get kicked out, or should more people hear what I have to say? I'll let you guys decide...
