"Life Without Bread"
- Thread starter Ellipse
- Start date
I just found a podcast from 2008 with Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek, it's on something called The Livin Low Carbs Show hosted by a guy called Jimmy Moore. I haven't yet had the time to listen to these, thus I can't review the contents, for which I apologize, but from what I can tell based on the first minutes it sounds pretty interesting.
_http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/2607/stephen-phinney-and-jeff-volek-atkins-teleconference-part-1-episode-170/
_http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/2609/stephen-phinney-and-jeff-volek-atkins-teleconference-part-2-episode-171/
_http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/2607/stephen-phinney-and-jeff-volek-atkins-teleconference-part-1-episode-170/
_http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/2609/stephen-phinney-and-jeff-volek-atkins-teleconference-part-2-episode-171/
Volek and Phinney recommend a different book for type 1 diabetics called "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars". Apparently it is written by a doctor who has type 1 diabetes. I've ordered a copy for you Gawan, and as soon as it arrives, I'll mail it to you.
Volek and Phinney also have written a revision of the Atkins diet with researched updates to the plan. This is a bit cheaper than the "Art & Science" book. If anyone can't get it, I have a PDF. PM me with an email to receive it.
Volek and Phinney also have written a revision of the Atkins diet with researched updates to the plan. This is a bit cheaper than the "Art & Science" book. If anyone can't get it, I have a PDF. PM me with an email to receive it.
truth seeker
The Living Force
Funny you should say that. As I've been reading the recent posts, I too related the ingestion with the fall or at least one of several falls - sort of how various myths play out over and over again.Pob said:Laura said:
Just had the thought today reflecting on what you wrote above that maybe the Adam and Eve story and fruit temptation was meant literally.
Aragorn said:
Thanks for the links Aragorn. I just finished listening to both parts.
Part 1 has Stephen Phinney talking about the various studies done in the 1900's as well as the studies he performed. For most people, getting carb intake to below 50 grams was enough to bring on ketosis, regardless of fat intake. High protein intake tends to suppress getting into ketosis (the Inuit's diet is 115g protein, 200g fat, and 10g carbs). It takes on average 2-3 weeks for the body to make the switch. It is important to supplement minerals, especially sodium. He also mentions measurable inflammation reduction by measuring white blood cell count after a two week adaptation, drops from 5.2 to 4.5 which he says is significant improvement.
Part 2 has Jeff Volek talking about the cardiovascular effects of the ketogenic diet. The hallmark improvement is in the 40-50% reduction in triglycerides. HDL cholesterol improved 10-15% whereas standard methods only provide 5-10% improvement. LDL cholesterol concentration was quite varied but the quality (size) of the LDL particles consistently was increased (the smaller the size, the increased risk of cardiovascular problems). Glucose and insulin levels drop consistently across the board and remain stable on a low carb diet. He says the old adage of "You are what you eat" should be restated to "You are what you do with what you eat."
I have ordered their book and should receive it in a few days. Looking forward to reading it.
Courageous Inmate Sort said:
Not sure where you are but in the US you can get it from US Wellness:
http://www.grasslandbeef.com/Categories.bok?category=Grassland+Beef%3ATallow%2C+Marrow+%26+Broth+Products
The 5 gal pail is $100. You can also render it yourself if you can find a grass-fed beef butcher. Best to keep chunks of it in the freezer for easy access since it will go bad eventually otherwise. Good place to get marrow bones as well. Hope that helps.
Nicolas said:
Me too! I've also ordered "Primal Body, Primal Mind," another one where the author, Nora T Gedgaudas, has combed through the peer reviewed scientific literature to present the benefits of primal diets and the detrimental effects of the modern Western diet.
I've got another one on the way called "Ketogenic Diet" by Lyle McDonald. He's self published, so I had to order it directly from his site. I think he comes at it more from a body building perspective, which doesn't really interest me, but apparently he's quite meticulous about gathering evidence.
I've bought all of these books in the hope of allaying this nagging cognitive dissonance I've had about the low carb thing. In reading a lot of the low carb blog stuff out there (I read a lot of this stuff), there seems to be a fairly sizable number of people who fail on it. They do great for awhile, but after some time on the diet, usually a few years, their health starts to fail. A lot of their stories read the same as vegans who failed on their diets and had to go back to meat.
For a lot of these people, it seems their thyroid starts to crap out, leading to tiredness, coldness, digestive issues (particularly GERD, heartburn), hair loss, and a number of other hypothyroid issues. These issues seem to return to normal once they add carbs back in.
Here's the latest one I've come across - http://www.cutthecarb.com/goodbye-cutthecarb/
180degree.blogspot.com is basically dedicated to low carb (and low calorie) recovery, where the writer and many of his followers have whole hog rejected low carb and taken on a diet with huge amounts of carbohydrate while maintaining low blood sugar levels and glowing health. It's not really difficult to imagine since this is what Weston A. Price found when studying primitive cultures - some cultures were eating diets with large quantities of carbs and were essentially disease free. It's obvious that humans can do quite well on a whole variety of macronutrient ratios without getting diseased or fat, but this doesn't mean these diets are the ideal, particularly when we bring in less mainstream ideas, like DNA changes.
So to be clear, I'm not bringing this up to be a naysayer. I honestly do believe low carb makes a lot of sense and could very well be the best diet for the human race. But obviously there are some people out there doing something very wrong and it's really biting them in the rear end. It may not be as simple as dropping carbs, end of story. I'm hoping that some of these books I've ordered will give me some hints on why this kind of thing happens to some people. I think it's important for us to make sure we're doing this right and avoiding the pitfalls that others have evidently fallen into.
So far, I've got a couple of hints. Apparently cortisol levels rise when on a low carb diet. There's some disagreement as to whether this is temporary, only during transition, or continues as long as you're restricting carbohydrate. Anyway, raised cortisol levels have a negative effect on the thyroid. This could be a possible pathway, so perhaps there's something we can do to keep cortisol levels low (oh, I dunno, maybe... EE? :D )
Another possibility is fungus. According to Paul Jaminet (he wrote a book called 'The Perfect Health Diet', which sounds like it's pretty close to what we do here, although he cautions against zero carb) http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=1032 while bacteria love sugar, fungus functions really well on ketones. People in ketosis who have fungus in the bloodstream could therefore end up with a pretty big issue and could lead to a number of symptoms. Chronic infection is another thing Jaminet mentions can be exacerbated by low carb.
There are other possibilities, of course. Maybe some of these people are still eating evil foods of some kind; not carbs necessarily, but something that's wearing on the system in some way. Dairy is fairly common in paleo circles, so this could be the culprit. Or they might not be doing enough fat. Or enough protein (remember that protein is need for gluconeogenesis to feed some of the brain and nervous system. Apparently the brain can only run on 70% ketones and needs the other 30% as glucose. Jaminet recommend 600 calories per day from protein and carbs combined [about 150g in any combination] just to make sure you're getting enough glucose for the brain while staying in ketosis).
The other possibility is macronutrient deficiencies, like sodium, potassium, magnesium, vitamin C, etc. Selenium and iodine are needed for the thyroid. Jaminet says copper or iron deficiencies can lead to hypothyroid symptoms because iron is needed for the liver to convert T4 into T3 (thyroid hormone) and low copper levels reduce tissue concentrations of iron.
Anyway, this ended up being a longer post than I intended. It's just where my head is at at the moment - I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. With all this research, I'm hoping all of this will develop into a SOTT or DCM article about ketosis when I've sorted through it all.
You've Been Living A Lie: The Story Of Saturated Fat And Cholesterol
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/231003-You-ve-Been-Living-A-Lie-The-Story-Of-Saturated-Fat-And-Cholesterol
Let's make one thing clear - when someone is going to lower carbohydrate content in their diet, they should replace it mostly with fat, not protein. Eating a lot of protein with little fat and carbs may be a short term strategy for initiating fat loss, but not a healthy way of eating in the long run. A lot of people, who are willing to try or have already felt the benefits of low-carb/high-fat eating, are scared of hurting themselves, because the common knowledge is that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease by clogging arteries. In reality, that is as far from the truth as Planet Earth is from the Sun!
Saturated fat (SF) and cholesterol (CH) are both important components of healthy cell membranes - SF makes them optimally rigid and without CH our trillions of cells would collapse into jello-like substance. Unlike polyunsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids do not oxidize easily, because they have a very stable molecular structure. By the way, atherosclerotic plaque found on the walls of arteries is made up mostly of unsaturated fatty acids.
By minimizing SF intake, it is impossible to get enough fat soluble vitamins. A lot of nutrients found in vegetables go to waste if not prepared with fat - and by fat I mean SF, because only saturated fatty acids have the ability to resist heat and thus not oxidize. Moreover, energy provided by fats is long-lasting and does not result in an energy crash. And SF is the most satiating macronutrient of all!
CH is vital for healthy brain function and it protects against depression. It acts as a powerful antioxidant, even protecting us from cancer. Without CH our skin is incapable of synthesizing vitamin D from sunlight. With too little CH, our bodies cannot make new cells and repair old ones quickly enough, which means accelerated aging. In addition to being a building material for cells, cholesterol is used by the body to synthesize hormones we need for fighting stress and simply living a normal life. That is why a stressful lifestyle raises CH levels in the blood - we need more CH to cope with increased demands. Older people have higher CH levels, because their lifespan has created more cellular damage compared to younger people - thus its unwise to lower their CH with drugs. By the way, people with higher CH levels live longer than people with lower CH levels.
Because CH is such a valuable substance, manufacture of this complicated molecule in the body is highly regulated: production increases when you eat little of it and decreases when you eat large amounts.
So why do we have such a fear for SF and CH? Why are we being told that they are harmful and dangerous?
The story started in the mid 1950's, when one man so eagerly wanted to discover the cause of coronary heart disease (CHD). He came out with his hypothesis that SF and CH are the culprits. Ancel Keys was so in love with this idea, that he "produced" the paper, showing a close correlation between total fat intake and deaths from CHD in 6 countries. Why do I use a word "produce"? Because at that time information was available from 22 countries! If all countries were included, the correlation would cease to exist! He was laughed at because his study had obvious weak statistics, but Mr. Keys came back with vengeance. He conducted a study in different regions of 7 countries, which showed contradicting results - for example a different number of deaths in different regions of the same country. But Keys and his supporters saw only what they wanted to see and the results of the study were analyzed in a way which satisfied their expectations (and justified spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money!). Any open minded researcher, who has access to the whole material, would come to the conclusion that the incidence rate of CHD was correlated with sucrose intake! Unfortunately all Western nutritional education and advice is based on that study. All the big studies later on failed to confirm the results of Keys' study, but the public was informed otherwise - and they still continue doing that.
In scientific studies it is possible to concentrate only on those methods of analyses, which confirm your expectations. Moreover, statistical analyses leave plenty of room for interpretation. Also, it is possible to simply lie about the results and get away with it. Usually the abstract is the only part of the study that is read, not the whole study.
How could this fallacy happen and why is this still going on? There are several reasons:
1. There are professional careers on the line. Often a researcher or doctor has dedicated most or all of his/her career to promoting the 'CH/SF cause heart disease' hypothesis. Making a U-turn is unacceptable for most - that's just human nature - they are protecting their own interests;
2. The researchers could lose all their research funding if they stand against generally held beliefs, as it is impossible to find research money for trying to prove that CH and SF are beneficial;
3. Those few, who understand the real issue, are too afraid to speak up. Many lawsuits could follow if the dogma would be falsified. Accusations could arise for giving wrong and in some cases even lethal medical advice (people commit suicide due to depression more readily when their CH level is decreased too low);
4. Sunken fortunes. Too much money is already buried into CH research - admitting that it has all been a waste is unacceptable.
Those, who did their homework and stood against this dogma, were treated accordingly:
1. Kilmer McCully discovered that high homocysteine (not CH level) in the blood is the accurate predictor of atherosclerosis. He was fired because of questioning the CH "thing" and US authorities made it impossible for him to continue his research elsewhere;
2. Finnish dairy company Valio pointed that SF and CH are harmless. They were silenced by severe media attacks which continued for months;
3. Finnish version of Uffe Ravnskov's book Cholesterol Myths was lit on fire on a Finnish national television telecast!
Yes, going against any dogma is dangerous! Burning politically incorrect books reminds me of the actions against humanity during the times of the Great Inquisition and the III Reich.
So far, so bad? Not exactly. Currently Diet Dictocrats, Cholesterol Nazis and Big Pharma are experiencing some shaky ground.
Meta-analysis that came out at the beginning of 2010 has helped reshape our understanding about saturated fat and cholesterol. In meta-analysis, data from studies on the same subject are combined. Conclusion (in lay person language): there is no connection between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease (CVD) whatsoever. Really? But the most remarkable is the concluding sentence of the study:
"More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by a specific nutrient used to replace saturated fat."
No kidding! For god sake, what could that specific nutrient be?
Isn't it obvious that by removing/restricting a naturally occurring macronutrient from the diet and from the food itself, it will be replaced by another one? Fat gives food fragrances and taste - this loss is compensated by adding sugar to the food to make it more palatable. Abundance of carbohydrates (coming mostly from sugar) and lack of saturated fat (also replaced with vegetable oils) are causing overeating which lead us to all modern diseases like CVD, CHD, diabetes, ADHD, hypertension, obesity, bone diseases, cancer and so on.
Medical drugs can improve only one single biomarker but not enhance ones health. New drugs capable of raising CH carrier, high density lipoprotein (HDL), in the blood (higher level is considered protective) and lowering triglycerides in the blood (higher level is considered a risk factor) do not improve heart health. But we have to look at human biochemistry at work! The facts are that HDL is raised by eating more SF and triglycerides are lowered by restricting carbohydrates, especially sugars, in the diet. If you follow recommendations of food pyramids or 'plates' you consume too many carbohydrates in the form of cereals, breads, pastas, fruit juices and sodas, which all have a nasty capability of triggering sugar craving and overeating. At the end it will be you who looks like a pyramid and gets sick as well.
I hope I convinced you that eating more natural fat and less carbohydrate is perfectly safe and most importantly, is the key to good health and better looks. How much you should increase saturated fat intake and decrease carbohydrate intake depends on your genetic background and energy needs. Everyone has to find that out by themselves.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/231003-You-ve-Been-Living-A-Lie-The-Story-Of-Saturated-Fat-And-Cholesterol
Let's make one thing clear - when someone is going to lower carbohydrate content in their diet, they should replace it mostly with fat, not protein. Eating a lot of protein with little fat and carbs may be a short term strategy for initiating fat loss, but not a healthy way of eating in the long run. A lot of people, who are willing to try or have already felt the benefits of low-carb/high-fat eating, are scared of hurting themselves, because the common knowledge is that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease by clogging arteries. In reality, that is as far from the truth as Planet Earth is from the Sun!
Saturated fat (SF) and cholesterol (CH) are both important components of healthy cell membranes - SF makes them optimally rigid and without CH our trillions of cells would collapse into jello-like substance. Unlike polyunsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids do not oxidize easily, because they have a very stable molecular structure. By the way, atherosclerotic plaque found on the walls of arteries is made up mostly of unsaturated fatty acids.
By minimizing SF intake, it is impossible to get enough fat soluble vitamins. A lot of nutrients found in vegetables go to waste if not prepared with fat - and by fat I mean SF, because only saturated fatty acids have the ability to resist heat and thus not oxidize. Moreover, energy provided by fats is long-lasting and does not result in an energy crash. And SF is the most satiating macronutrient of all!
CH is vital for healthy brain function and it protects against depression. It acts as a powerful antioxidant, even protecting us from cancer. Without CH our skin is incapable of synthesizing vitamin D from sunlight. With too little CH, our bodies cannot make new cells and repair old ones quickly enough, which means accelerated aging. In addition to being a building material for cells, cholesterol is used by the body to synthesize hormones we need for fighting stress and simply living a normal life. That is why a stressful lifestyle raises CH levels in the blood - we need more CH to cope with increased demands. Older people have higher CH levels, because their lifespan has created more cellular damage compared to younger people - thus its unwise to lower their CH with drugs. By the way, people with higher CH levels live longer than people with lower CH levels.
Because CH is such a valuable substance, manufacture of this complicated molecule in the body is highly regulated: production increases when you eat little of it and decreases when you eat large amounts.
So why do we have such a fear for SF and CH? Why are we being told that they are harmful and dangerous?
The story started in the mid 1950's, when one man so eagerly wanted to discover the cause of coronary heart disease (CHD). He came out with his hypothesis that SF and CH are the culprits. Ancel Keys was so in love with this idea, that he "produced" the paper, showing a close correlation between total fat intake and deaths from CHD in 6 countries. Why do I use a word "produce"? Because at that time information was available from 22 countries! If all countries were included, the correlation would cease to exist! He was laughed at because his study had obvious weak statistics, but Mr. Keys came back with vengeance. He conducted a study in different regions of 7 countries, which showed contradicting results - for example a different number of deaths in different regions of the same country. But Keys and his supporters saw only what they wanted to see and the results of the study were analyzed in a way which satisfied their expectations (and justified spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money!). Any open minded researcher, who has access to the whole material, would come to the conclusion that the incidence rate of CHD was correlated with sucrose intake! Unfortunately all Western nutritional education and advice is based on that study. All the big studies later on failed to confirm the results of Keys' study, but the public was informed otherwise - and they still continue doing that.
In scientific studies it is possible to concentrate only on those methods of analyses, which confirm your expectations. Moreover, statistical analyses leave plenty of room for interpretation. Also, it is possible to simply lie about the results and get away with it. Usually the abstract is the only part of the study that is read, not the whole study.
How could this fallacy happen and why is this still going on? There are several reasons:
1. There are professional careers on the line. Often a researcher or doctor has dedicated most or all of his/her career to promoting the 'CH/SF cause heart disease' hypothesis. Making a U-turn is unacceptable for most - that's just human nature - they are protecting their own interests;
2. The researchers could lose all their research funding if they stand against generally held beliefs, as it is impossible to find research money for trying to prove that CH and SF are beneficial;
3. Those few, who understand the real issue, are too afraid to speak up. Many lawsuits could follow if the dogma would be falsified. Accusations could arise for giving wrong and in some cases even lethal medical advice (people commit suicide due to depression more readily when their CH level is decreased too low);
4. Sunken fortunes. Too much money is already buried into CH research - admitting that it has all been a waste is unacceptable.
Those, who did their homework and stood against this dogma, were treated accordingly:
1. Kilmer McCully discovered that high homocysteine (not CH level) in the blood is the accurate predictor of atherosclerosis. He was fired because of questioning the CH "thing" and US authorities made it impossible for him to continue his research elsewhere;
2. Finnish dairy company Valio pointed that SF and CH are harmless. They were silenced by severe media attacks which continued for months;
3. Finnish version of Uffe Ravnskov's book Cholesterol Myths was lit on fire on a Finnish national television telecast!
Yes, going against any dogma is dangerous! Burning politically incorrect books reminds me of the actions against humanity during the times of the Great Inquisition and the III Reich.
So far, so bad? Not exactly. Currently Diet Dictocrats, Cholesterol Nazis and Big Pharma are experiencing some shaky ground.
Meta-analysis that came out at the beginning of 2010 has helped reshape our understanding about saturated fat and cholesterol. In meta-analysis, data from studies on the same subject are combined. Conclusion (in lay person language): there is no connection between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease (CVD) whatsoever. Really? But the most remarkable is the concluding sentence of the study:
"More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by a specific nutrient used to replace saturated fat."
No kidding! For god sake, what could that specific nutrient be?
Isn't it obvious that by removing/restricting a naturally occurring macronutrient from the diet and from the food itself, it will be replaced by another one? Fat gives food fragrances and taste - this loss is compensated by adding sugar to the food to make it more palatable. Abundance of carbohydrates (coming mostly from sugar) and lack of saturated fat (also replaced with vegetable oils) are causing overeating which lead us to all modern diseases like CVD, CHD, diabetes, ADHD, hypertension, obesity, bone diseases, cancer and so on.
Medical drugs can improve only one single biomarker but not enhance ones health. New drugs capable of raising CH carrier, high density lipoprotein (HDL), in the blood (higher level is considered protective) and lowering triglycerides in the blood (higher level is considered a risk factor) do not improve heart health. But we have to look at human biochemistry at work! The facts are that HDL is raised by eating more SF and triglycerides are lowered by restricting carbohydrates, especially sugars, in the diet. If you follow recommendations of food pyramids or 'plates' you consume too many carbohydrates in the form of cereals, breads, pastas, fruit juices and sodas, which all have a nasty capability of triggering sugar craving and overeating. At the end it will be you who looks like a pyramid and gets sick as well.
I hope I convinced you that eating more natural fat and less carbohydrate is perfectly safe and most importantly, is the key to good health and better looks. How much you should increase saturated fat intake and decrease carbohydrate intake depends on your genetic background and energy needs. Everyone has to find that out by themselves.
dugdeep said:
I know what you mean. It's the programming. I've been peeling through this literature like crazy because I see the evidence of my eyes and our experiments, but that programming about fat and carbs has been as heavy as the anti-smoking thing.
dugdeep said:
I think that Volek and Phinney address these things adequately. Also, considering some of the things I've been reading over the last year or so, including the book "Rethinking Thin" and a few others that expose the various flawed studies, it appears to my conspiracy theory trained mind that there is a very definite "program" here and it has to do with Transmarginal Inhibition. Remember what Pavolov discovered? That even the strongest willed dogs could be broken if their health was compromised?
So, if one theorizes about this a bit, it seems that "they" would have had the idea to plant bloggers the same way the political bloggers are planted. Either that, or these are some really dumb people who are so paranoid about the "fat programming" that they can't even do a low carb diet right.
dugdeep said:
Volek and Phinney point out that there is a subset of people who can do well with a lot of carbs, but it is the majority of people who are carb sensitive, as they call it. And the increasing rates of obesity (they are calling it an epidemic) and type 2 diabetes as well as other chronic health conditions that can be directly correlated with carb consumption testify to this fact.
dugdeep said:
Probably the "low fat program" and eating TOO MUCH protein. As Volek and Phinney point out, most of the low carb cultures eat the fat and give the muscle meat to their dogs.
dugdeep said:
It's not. That's why I'm saying that folks who are going to be doing this really, REALLY, need to read the literature so as to know what to be watching for and to know that each person is individual in terms of what is really "low carb" for them.
dugdeep said:
Exactly.
dugdeep said:
There are definitely some transitional things that go on and each person needs to have the knowledge to monitor their own state. Also, the biggest and worst error people make is going off and on nutritional ketosis.
dugdeep said:
On the other hand, candida is a fungus and clears up completely on low carb diet. But it might be necessary to deal with fungal issues first since people are so infested with them in our culture after years on high carbs.
dugdeep said:
That's one of my guesses, too. But again, there are some people who are adapted to some dairy products (raw) and can survive on them though I doubt that it is optimal nutrition for anybody.
dugdeep said:
Volek and Phinney discuss the extra energy needs and the glucose issue in some detail.
dugdeep said:
And probably, if people are eating corn fed meat, their sources of protein and fat are deficient to start with.
dugdeep said:
I tend to believe the evidence of eyes and experience. If I read about it, I have to find out all the details and experiment before I make a decision. If I see no evidence of what these "recovering low carbers" are talking about, I have to assume that they are 1) really doing it wrong; 2) planted planned opposition set up to support a more nefarious agenda.
Laura said:
It does seem like most people just don't know how to make a proper low carb diet. Perhaps some of them are afraid of fats or they can't really let go carbs. It has been a rather heavy indoctrination from the agricultural era. Atreides colon infection and his healing with no vegetables and fruits did really put things into perspective.
Then, I do noticed that all these bloggers tend to link with each other. There is at least 10 blogs which tend to quote each other. They have great material, but my impression is that they can focus on minute detail of stuff without seeing the bigger picture. This helps them to establish themselves as the authorities because they can discuss things with the academic lingo, while missing the wider perspective of things.
Even if they are not set up with a conscious agenda, they do get influenced by their academic circles. Or so it seems to me. For example, here is the background of the bloggers of Perfect Health Diet:
_http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?page_id=2
We are a husband-and-wife team:
Paul Jaminet, Ph.D. Paul was an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, became a software entrepreneur during the Internet boom, and now provides strategic advice to entrepreneurial companies while pursuing research in economics (see pauljaminet.com for more information). Paul’s experience overcoming a chronic illness has been key to our views of aging and disease. Paul can be reached by email to pauljaminet(at)perfecthealthdiet.com.
Shou-Ching Shih Jaminet, Ph.D. Shou-Ching is a molecular biologist and cancer researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, and Director of BIDMC’s Multi-Gene Transcriptional Profiling Core. Shou-Ching was born in Korea to Chinese parents, grew up in Korea, attended college at National Taiwan University in Taipei, and graduate school at University of Newcastle in Australia, before coming to the US to work at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Children’s Hospital Boston, and Beth Israel Deaconess and Harvard Medical School. Her publications may be found by searching Pubmed for “Shih SC.”
Here are their photos if you all want to make some clinical observations:
