Search Results

The following delves into the biochemistry of how a ketogenic diet and GLP-1 receptor agonists interact. While there are some potential conflicts in their mechanisms, they can still work together under the right conditions. Let’s break it down: Ketogenic Diet and Glucagon/Gluconeogenesis 1. Ketogenic Diet Mechanism : • A ketogenic diet drastically reduces carbohydrate intake, forcing the body to rely on fat as its primary fuel source. • This metabolic shift leads to increased ketogenesis, where the liver produces ketones from fatty acids. • Gluconeogenesis (creating glucose from non-carbohydrate sources like amino acids) plays a role in maintaining blood sugar levels, especially in the absence of dietary carbs. 2. Role of Glucagon : • Glucagon typically rises during fasting or low-carb states, signaling the liver to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis and ketones from fat stores. • This glucagon activity supports ketosis and helps maintain stable blood sugar levels. GLP-1 Medications’ Impact 1. Inhibition of Glucagon : • GLP-1 medications suppress glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, primarily when blood sugar is high. • This suppression helps reduce excessive glucose production in people with diabetes, particularly in states of hyperglycemia. 2. Delayed Gastric Emptying : • GLP-1 medications slow the release of nutrients from the stomach into the bloodstream, potentially influencing how the body enters ketosis and processes dietary fat. How Can They Work Together? 1. Glucagon Suppression Is Context-Dependent : • GLP-1 medications do not suppress glucagon uniformly. They primarily act to prevent glucagon spikes during hyperglycemia but are less active when blood glucose levels are low. • During a ketogenic state, low blood sugar levels and low insulin may reduce GLP-1’s glucagon suppression effect, allowing glucagon to rise as needed for gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis. 2. Ketosis Can Still Occur : • Ketosis is driven by the depletion of glycogen stores and the shift toward fat metabolism, which doesn’t rely solely on glucagon. • The ketogenic diet itself promotes lipolysis (fat breakdown), providing fatty acids for ketone production. 3. GLP-1 Medications Do Not Block Ketogenesis : • While GLP-1 medications affect glucagon, they do not directly inhibit the liver’s ability to produce ketones. In a low-insulin, carbohydrate-restricted state, the liver can still metabolize fatty acids into ketones. 4. Adaptation Over Time : • Over time, the body becomes more efficient at producing ketones and relying on fat for fuel, which may lessen the need for gluconeogenesis and glucagon activation. Considerations for Success 1. Monitor Ketone Levels : • Use tools like blood ketone meters to ensure you’re achieving ketosis and adjust dietary fat intake as needed. 2. Manage Macros Carefully : • Focus on moderate protein intake to avoid excess gluconeogenesis while ensuring sufficient dietary fat to fuel ketosis. 3. Start Slowly : • Introduce the ketogenic diet gradually to allow the body to adapt without exacerbating potential side effects like nausea or fatigue. 4. Work with Your Healthcare Provider : • Regularly check blood glucose and ketone levels to ensure you’re achieving ketosis safely and effectively. In summary, while GLP-1 medications modulate glucagon and hepatic glucose production, they do not completely block the metabolic pathways required for ketosis. A ketogenic diet can work in conjunction with GLP-1 receptor agonists, provided there is careful planning and monitoring.

1. Percentage of U.S. Adults with Non-Communicable Chronic Diseases (NCDs):  This could include conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory diseases, which are the most common NCDs. 2. Lifestyle Factors Associated:  Factors such as physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, smoking, and excessive alcohol consumption will be represented as influencing trends. What follows is a chart showing the percentage of U.S. adults with non-communicable chronic diseases from 1960 to 2024. The red line represents the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, while the dashed lines show key lifestyle factors such as smoking rates, physical inactivity, and unhealthy diets. You can observe: • A decline in smoking rates over the years. • An increase in physical inactivity and unhealthy diets, which are known contributors to chronic disease prevalence. Blue : Smoking contribution. • Green : Physical inactivity contribution. • Orange : Unhealthy diet contribution. • Red : Other factors contributing to the overall increase in chronic diseases. The stacked bar chart illustrates the percentage of U.S. adults with non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs) from 1960 to 2024, breaking down the contributing factors into specific lifestyle-related causes: smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, and other factors. Key Components: 1. Chronic Disease Percentage : • The overall height of each bar represents the total percentage of U.S. adults affected by chronic diseases, which increases from approximately 10% in 1960 to nearly 50% by 2024. • Non-communicable chronic diseases include conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory illnesses, which have risen due to various health trends. 2. Smoking Contribution (Blue) : • Smoking rates were relatively high in the early decades but have steadily declined due to public health campaigns and smoking cessation efforts. • The blue segment of each bar shows the decreasing role smoking plays in the overall chronic disease burden over time, starting from a high in the 1960s and shrinking significantly by 2024. 3. Physical Inactivity Contribution (Green) : • Physical inactivity has increased steadily since the 1960s, as sedentary lifestyles became more common due to technology, urbanization, and other factors. • The green portion expands over time, showing that inactivity has become a larger contributor to chronic diseases. 4. Unhealthy Diet Contribution (Orange) : • Unhealthy diets have also grown in prominence, especially after the 1980s, with increased consumption of processed foods, sugars, and unhealthy fats. • The orange section of the bars reflects this growing trend, indicating that poor dietary habits are a significant driver of chronic disease rates. 5. Other Factors (Red) : • The red segment represents other factors not directly related to smoking, diet, or inactivity, such as genetics, environmental exposures, or healthcare access. • While lifestyle factors remain dominant, this residual section highlights that NCDs have multifactorial causes. Overall Explanation: The chart visualizes the changing landscape of chronic diseases in the U.S. over the past several decades. Early in the timeline, smoking was a major contributor, but as public health interventions reduced smoking rates, its impact diminished. Conversely, physical inactivity and poor diets have increased, becoming the leading lifestyle drivers of chronic diseases by 2024. The rising total percentage of affected adults over time underscores the growing burden of NCDs on public health, reflecting broader societal changes, including diet, exercise habits, and medical care improvements that allow people with chronic diseases to live longer, even as new cases arise. This stacked bar chart effectively captures how various lifestyle factors contribute to the chronic disease burden, highlighting the need for holistic public health strategies addressing multiple aspects of modern living.

The annual cost to a health insurance company for someone with type 2 diabetes can vary widely depending on several factors, including the severity of the disease, complications, and geographic location. However, there are some general estimates available. Typical Costs of Type 2 Diabetes Management 1. Average Annual Cost : The average annual healthcare cost for a person with type 2 diabetes is estimated to range from $9,000 to $16,000  per year in the U.S., depending on the severity and presence of complications. 2. Breakdown of Costs : • Prescription medications (including insulin and oral diabetes medications) : This can be one of the largest costs, particularly if insulin is required. Costs can range from $1,000 to over $6,000 annually, depending on the treatment regimen. • Routine medical visits : Patients typically require regular checkups with endocrinologists or primary care physicians, as well as routine blood tests such as HbA1c. These can cost between $500 and $2,000 per year. • Diabetes supplies (testing strips, glucose monitors, etc.) : These supplies can cost around $500 to $2,500 per year. • Management of complications (heart disease, kidney issues, neuropathy, etc.) : Patients with complications can face significantly higher costs, sometimes exceeding $10,000 annually for managing complications alone. 3. Complications : Costs can skyrocket if the patient develops diabetes-related complications such as: • Cardiovascular disease • Kidney disease • Neuropathy • Eye problems The costs for someone with complications can easily exceed $25,000 per year . Other Influences on Costs: • Insurance Plan : Depending on the type of health insurance plan (e.g., HMO, PPO), the copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits can impact costs. • Geographic Region : Healthcare costs can vary widely depending on the region or country. • Type of Medications : The cost of insulin and newer diabetes drugs (like GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors) can significantly increase costs. Conclusion: On average, health insurance companies may expect to pay $9,000 to $16,000 annually  per patient with type 2 diabetes, though this can increase significantly if the patient has complications or is on costly treatments.

To show the employer’s total annual health care costs per active employee in the U.S. from 1970 through 2024, specifically for health insurance premiums, what follows is a general overview of trends in employer healthcare costs and a highlight of key historical data points up to the most recent available information. The overall trend has been a significant increase in employer health care costs per employee due to rising health insurance premiums. Here’s a breakdown of general trends based on historical data: 1970s: • 1970 : Employer health care costs were relatively low. The average cost per active employee was around $426  annually. • Health insurance was primarily provided by large employers, and health care was more affordable. 1980s: • Health care costs began to increase more rapidly during this decade. • By 1985 , employer health care costs per employee were approximately $1,479  annually. 1990s: • The rise of managed care and HMOs helped slow the growth of health care costs temporarily. • By 1995 , the average annual cost per employee for health insurance premiums was around $2,605 . • Toward the end of the 1990s, costs began accelerating again. 2000s: • Health care costs surged, with a significant spike in premiums due to advances in medical technology and prescription drug costs. • In 2005 , employer health care costs per active employee reached approximately $7,089  annually. • The 2008 financial crisis impacted health coverage as employers shifted more costs to employees. 2010s: • The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented in 2010, leading to significant reforms in health insurance coverage. • Despite the ACA, health insurance premiums continued to increase. • In 2015 , the average cost per employee for employer-sponsored health insurance was around $12,591  annually. 2020s: • Costs continued to rise, particularly driven by higher prescription drug prices and an aging workforce. • In 2020 , the average employer health care cost per active employee was around $15,500 . • By 2024 , projections indicate that health care costs per employee will be over $17,000  annually, with annual premium growth rates continuing at around 5-6%. Key Drivers of Cost Increases: 1. Prescription Drugs : Prescription drug costs have been a major driver of premium increases. 2. Chronic Conditions : An aging population and increasing rates of chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease have significantly increased the demand for medical care. 3. Technological Advancements : While beneficial for patient outcomes, advances in medical technology have increased the cost of treatments. The average employee deductible for health insurance in the U.S. has been steadily increasing over the past few decades. As of 2023: Average Employee Deductible: • 2023 : The average annual deductible for a single employee in employer-sponsored health plans is around $1,763 . • This value has grown substantially since the early 2000s, when average deductibles were often below $500. Deductible Tiers: Health insurance deductibles can vary significantly depending on the type of plan, employer contributions, and other factors. To break down the highest and lowest deductible percentages: 1. Highest Deductible Group (High-Deductible Health Plans - HDHP): • Around 30% to 35%  of employees are enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), where deductibles can range from $2,000  to $3,000  or higher. • These plans often have lower premiums but require higher out-of-pocket costs when seeking care. 2. Lowest Deductible Group: • Approximately 20% to 25%  of employees have plans with low deductibles, typically under $500 . • These lower-deductible plans usually come with higher monthly premiums, but less out-of-pocket cost when medical services are needed. National Trends: • The increase in average deductibles reflects a broader trend of employers shifting more healthcare costs onto employees through higher deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments, particularly with the rise of HDHPs. Employers often offer Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) alongside HDHPs to help employees manage these costs.

The annual cost of managing high blood pressure (hypertension) for a health insurance company can vary significantly based on several factors such as the severity of the condition, comorbidities, the type of treatment required, and geographical location. However, there are some general figures and trends based on available research and industry reports. Typical Annual Costs for High Blood Pressure: 1. Direct Medical Costs : • According to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , direct medical costs for hypertension in the U.S. range from $1,000 to $2,000 per person annually . This includes expenses for physician visits, medication, laboratory tests, and monitoring. 2. Prescription Medication Costs : • Hypertension is often treated with medications such as ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics. The cost of medication can vary widely based on the specific drug and whether it’s a generic or brand name. • Generic medications can cost as little as $10 to $50 per month . • Brand-name medications can cost between $50 to $200 per month . • This translates to an annual cost of $120 to $2,400  for medication alone. 3. Comorbidities : • High blood pressure often coexists with other chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or kidney disease, which can increase overall healthcare costs. The CDC estimates that individuals with hypertension and comorbidities may incur up to three times  the healthcare costs compared to someone with only high blood pressure. In such cases, annual costs could range from $3,000 to $10,000 or more  depending on the severity and complications. 4. Indirect Costs : • These include costs related to lost productivity, missed workdays, and long-term disability if the condition leads to more severe complications such as heart attack or stroke. While these costs don’t directly affect health insurance companies, they are part of the broader economic impact. Breakdown of Typical Costs: • Mild Hypertension : $500 - $2,000 per year for routine care and medication. • Moderate to Severe Hypertension (with additional conditions) : $3,000 - $10,000 or more annually, especially if frequent doctor visits, specialist consultations, and expensive treatments are involved. Considerations: • Costs can increase substantially if complications such as heart disease, kidney disease, or stroke develop due to poorly controlled blood pressure. • Preventive care and lifestyle interventions (diet, exercise, etc.) are encouraged to keep costs lower over time. In summary, while mild hypertension may cost around $500 to $2,000 annually , more severe cases or those with additional health conditions could cost insurance companies up to $10,000  or more each year.

Yes, companies that offer health insurance can often negotiate reductions on their premiums based on the improved health of their employees. This is typically done through various wellness initiatives and programs that focus on improving employee health outcomes, which in turn may reduce healthcare costs for both the insurer and the employer. Here are a few ways companies can influence premiums through employee health: 1. Wellness Programs : Many insurers offer premium discounts to companies that implement wellness programs, such as smoking cessation, fitness challenges, health screenings, and nutrition counseling. These programs aim to lower the risk of chronic diseases and improve overall health, which can reduce the amount spent on medical claims. 2. Data-Driven Results : If a company can show that their wellness programs have led to measurable improvements in employee health (e.g., lower cholesterol levels, reduced obesity rates), they may have leverage to negotiate lower premiums during renewal negotiations. Insurers may offer discounts if the workforce demonstrates lower health risks. 3. Participation-Based Incentives : Some insurers offer discounts based on employee participation in wellness programs. For example, if a certain percentage of employees engage in preventive health screenings or annual check-ups, the company may qualify for reduced premiums. 4. Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) : By encouraging employees to complete health risk assessments, companies can better understand the overall health risks in their workforce. Insurers may use this data to adjust premiums and offer reductions if the assessments show an improvement in overall employee health. 5. Claims Data Reduction : If wellness programs successfully reduce the number and severity of claims (such as fewer emergency room visits or chronic disease treatments), insurers may lower premiums due to reduced risk. However, the ability to negotiate reductions can vary depending on the size of the company, the structure of the insurance plan (fully insured vs. self-insured), and the specific insurance provider. Larger companies with more employees typically have more leverage in these negotiations.

The brand you see has an important meaning - perhaps "life saving"  - one which probably doesn't come to mind at first. Please take a moment to understand the vital meaning this brand represents. The image I’ve shared, with its striking depiction of a powerful, Viking-like warrior holding a kettlebell in a misty forest, symbolizes strength, resilience, and the will to overcome adversity. The logo reads “Hormesis Health and Fitness” with the phrase “Evolutionary Vitality” encircling the image, evoking deep connections between personal strength and the evolutionary principles of survival and adaptation. I'll know break down the key elements and connect them to my personal journey and the broader societal health struggles: Hormesis: The term “hormesis” refers to a biological phenomenon where low doses of stress or toxins can strengthen an organism, making it more resilient to future challenges. This idea reflects my personal battle with celiac disease and my transformation from a life of corporate-induced stress and poor lifestyle choices. Much like hormesis, I faced challenges—autoimmune disease, the pressure to conform to unhealthy societal norms—and that forced me to rebuild my health, ultimately making me stronger. Health and Fitness: The warrior imagery signifies that regaining my health required more than passive recovery; it demanded a fight. I didn’t just “recover” from celiac disease and corporate burnout, I actively rebuilt my strength, developing a lifestyle of health and fitness as a defense mechanism. In this sense, I’ve become a defender of my own vitality, embodying the idea that true fitness isn’t just physical but a holistic defense against modern-day stressors, diseases, and sedentary living. Evolutionary Vitality: This phrase reflects a return to primal health principles. Evolutionary vitality refers to the vigor and health that our ancestors naturally embodied, honed by their environment, movement, and nutrition. My recovery mirrors this return to ancestral wisdom, moving away from the ultra-processed, convenient, and often toxic modern diet that is contributing to the epidemic of chronic diseases in society today. Just as the image’s warrior stands ready, I am reclaiming my strength by aligning with what our bodies were evolutionarily designed for: proper nutrition, movement, and stress adaptation. Evolutionary vitality goes beyond physical fitness—it’s a holistic balance between strength, endurance, nutrition, and mental fortitude, which I now champion. Defending Health Against Societal Norms: My personal narrative is not just about self-recovery, it reflects a larger battle. For over five decades, societal health has been sacrificed at the altar of misguided nutritional guidelines and a culture that prioritizes corporate success over personal well-being. The increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases are a result of this dissonance between how we were meant to live and the pressures society has placed upon us. The warrior in the image, holding the kettlebell—a symbol of functional strength and movement—represents a fight against these societal ills. As a country, the United States spends more on healthcare than almost any other nation, yet the health outcomes are lagging, with increasing levels of chronic disease. This is largely due to decades of poor nutritional guidance (low-fat diets, emphasis on processed carbs, etc.), which have contributed to the deterioration of public health. My journey symbolizes not only personal defiance but also a call for collective defense of our health—rejecting the unhealthy norms perpetuated by industrial food production, corporate-driven stress, and misleading health policies. A Warrior’s Path Forward: The image evokes a sense of determination and power—qualities that resonate deeply with the fight we need to collectively undertake as a society. Like the warrior, we must take up arms (in the form of education, physical activity, and nutritional awareness) to reverse decades of damage. My personal transformation is a beacon for others: it demonstrates that, through hormesis and embracing evolutionary vitality, we can fight our way back to optimal health. I’ve overcome not just my personal struggles, but I’ve positioned myself as part of the resistance against the decline in societal health. In essence, this image represents both my individual journey and the collective battle we must all engage in to reclaim our health from the clutches of convenience, poor policy, and the pressures of modern society. The warrior is not just a metaphor for strength, but a symbol of the active fight required to defend our vitality, for ourselves and for future generations. ​​ This metaphor is not one only available to me. Everyone who embraces these concerns, needs and values can own this. Embrace what is described here and be a "Warrior for your own Evolutionary Vitality". Take the first step and become a member of our public community - then see where things go. ​ My Name is Brad Eaton and I encourage you to Join us to attain or reclaim the "Evolutionary Vitality" you are meant to have. Website Release and Disclosure > ​​

Regarding health coaching, when coaching a client on a dietary approach or fitness approach, how important or relevant is it for the client to know why they're doing it? For example, if providing a dietary approach, should one explain the health benefits and physiology of why it makes sense? Or, just give the person a set of recipes? What are the implications of both approaches? In health coaching, understanding why  a particular approach is being used can significantly impact a client’s success, motivation, and adherence. Here’s a breakdown of the implications of each approach: 1. Explaining the “Why” Behind the Approach • Increased Motivation and Buy-in:  When clients understand the health benefits and physiological reasons behind a dietary or fitness plan, they’re more likely to feel motivated and take ownership of the process. Knowledge fosters a deeper connection to their goals, making them feel actively engaged in their progress. • Improved Adherence and Consistency:  Knowing the reasons behind a dietary approach, such as how certain nutrients impact hormones, energy levels, or recovery, helps clients prioritize these actions even when challenges arise. For example, understanding that a low-carb, high-fat diet helps stabilize insulin levels can encourage consistency, as they’re more likely to feel empowered by the science. • Empowerment and Self-Efficacy:  Clients equipped with knowledge are better able to make informed decisions when situations arise that aren’t covered by a preset plan. This adaptability often leads to longer-term success since they understand the underlying principles. • Long-Term Behavioral Change:  Teaching clients the “why” fosters autonomy. They can make healthier choices in the future without needing constant guidance, leading to sustainable changes that outlast the coaching relationship. 2. Providing Only the Plan or Recipes • Quicker Implementation:  For clients who are more task-oriented or have less interest in the science, a straightforward plan can help them dive in without getting bogged down by too much information. • Risk of Lower Adherence and Motivation:  However, without understanding why they’re following a particular plan, clients may lack commitment. They’re more likely to drop the plan or view it as restrictive rather than empowering if they hit obstacles. • Dependency on the Coach:  Clients may become overly reliant on the coach for continued guidance since they don’t fully understand the principles, making it harder to sustain changes independently. • Potential for Resentment or Misinterpretation:  Some clients might perceive a prescribed plan as arbitrary, especially if they don’t enjoy certain aspects of it. Without knowing the rationale, they might not see the value and could even develop resentment toward the process. Implications for the Client-Coach Relationship Providing knowledge about the “why” creates a collaborative environment, where clients feel respected and involved. This approach often leads to a stronger relationship, as the client feels supported and valued beyond just receiving a meal or workout plan. In short, while some clients may prefer simplicity, most benefit from a balance—having a structured plan and  an understanding of why it works.

It is not bacterial, it is not fungal, it's not viral, it's not parasitic, and it is not genetic. Viewing obesity as a symptom encourages a focus on root causes rather than simply treating the condition as a “disease” to be managed.

What percentage of the population want to learn about lifestyle and about what it takes to be healthy? Estimating the percentage of people interested in learning about health and wellness versus those who may be less proactive about their health is a bit nuanced, as attitudes toward health can vary significantly based on age, culture, education, socioeconomic factors, and personal experiences. Here’s a general breakdown based on existing trends and survey data on health attitudes: 1. Proactive Learners (~40-50%) • Characteristics : These individuals are typically proactive, seeking knowledge about lifestyle changes, nutrition, exercise, and other health topics to improve or maintain their health. They often utilize health resources, including online articles, podcasts, and workshops. • Motivation : They value prevention and are generally open to adopting healthier behaviors and making lifestyle changes to avoid future health issues. 2. Semi-Interested but Inconsistent (~25-35%) • Characteristics : This group shows interest in health when it is convenient or necessary (e.g., after a health scare or diagnosis) but may not consistently follow through with a comprehensive approach. They might consult health resources occasionally or participate in health programs but don’t sustain it over time. • Motivation : Their motivation can be situational and tends to increase with immediate health concerns, though they might lack the consistency or deeper interest in learning about all aspects of a healthy lifestyle. 3. Responsibility Abdicators (~15-25%) • Characteristics : These individuals are generally less inclined to learn or take active responsibility for their health. Instead, they may rely heavily on medical practitioners for guidance and intervention, often preferring quick solutions (like medications) rather than lifestyle changes. • Motivation : They might feel overwhelmed by health information or disinterested in self-directed health maintenance, trusting that medical professionals will manage their health concerns as they arise. Summary in Percentages • Proactive Learners : 40-50% • Semi-Interested but Inconsistent : 25-35% • Responsibility Abdicators : 15-25% These are approximate ranges and can shift with targeted education, cultural changes, and increased awareness of lifestyle-related diseases. Considering the above description and segmentation, what percentage in those categories value or are open to health and wellness coaching? Interest in health and wellness coaching varies across different segments of the population. Based on available data and general trends, here’s an approximate breakdown: 1. Proactive Learners (~40-50% of the population): • Interest in Coaching:  High. Individuals in this group are actively seeking ways to improve their health and are likely to engage with health and wellness coaches to gain personalized guidance and support. 2. Semi-Interested but Inconsistent (~25-35% of the population): • Interest in Coaching:  Moderate. This segment shows some interest in health improvement but may lack consistency. They might consider coaching, especially if it’s convenient or recommended by a trusted source. 3. Responsibility Abdicators (~15-25% of the population): • Interest in Coaching:  Low. Individuals in this category tend to rely on medical practitioners for health decisions and may not seek out coaching services proactively. Overall, approximately 60% of Americans express a desire to work with a health coach, though 80% have never been offered such services. ( Market Research Blog ) This indicates a significant interest, particularly among proactive learners and some semi-interested individuals, in engaging with health and wellness coaching.

(video available) The evolution of healthcare and medicine over the past two centuries has been shaped by diverse influences, including religious beliefs, social reform movements, industrial interests, and the rise of allopathic medicine. Here’s a detailed historical account based on the themes you’ve outlined: 1. Ellen G. White, the Seventh-day Adventists, and the Push for Dietary Reform • Ellen G. White (1827–1915)  was a founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her visions and religious teachings deeply influenced the church’s emphasis on health reform, which included vegetarianism, temperance, and holistic living. • White advocated for removing meat from the diet, believing it inflamed base passions, weakened moral strength, and promoted disease. This perspective was intertwined with her religious commitment to purity, self-discipline, and preparing the body as a temple for God. • Meat consumption, in her view, was not only unhealthy but also linked to moral and sexual impurity, aligning with her broader concerns about controlling physical desires to achieve spiritual sanctity. 2. John Harvey Kellogg and Health Reform • John Harvey Kellogg (1852–1943), a prominent Seventh-day Adventist and physician, was heavily influenced by White’s teachings. As the director of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, he became a pioneer in advocating vegetarianism, abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, and the promotion of natural remedies. • Kellogg developed cornflakes as part of a bland vegetarian diet, designed to curb sexual urges and promote moral purity, rooted in a belief that a simple, non-stimulating diet could reduce what he saw as excessive sexual energy, including masturbation, which he viewed as morally and physically harmful. • He also promoted hydrotherapy, exercise, and other natural remedies but was controversial for his moralistic views, which extended to eugenics. 3. Rockefeller’s Role and the Rise of Allopathic Medicine • In the early 20th century, John D. Rockefeller, a business magnate with interests in petrochemicals, played a transformative role in reshaping medicine. Through his philanthropic foundations, he heavily funded the development of allopathic medicine—focused on pharmaceutical and surgical interventions—at the expense of traditional, natural, and holistic approaches. • The Flexner Report  of 1910, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), evaluated medical schools in the United States. It advocated for rigorous scientific standards, which led to the closure of many schools teaching homeopathy, naturopathy, and herbal medicine. • The report centralized medicine within a framework of pharmaceuticals and laboratory-based science, aligning with Rockefeller’s investments in petrochemicals. The rise of pharmaceuticals coincided with his business interests, as many drugs were derived from petrochemical compounds. 4. The Role of the A M A and Bias Against Natural Medicine • The American Medical Association (A M A) emerged as a powerful gatekeeper for medical practice and education. It championed the Flexner Report’s recommendations, further marginalizing alternative and natural practitioners. • The A M A’s close ties to Rockefeller-funded initiatives fostered a bias towards pharmaceuticals and away from natural remedies. This alignment created conflicts of interest: • Pharmaceutical Industry : The reliance on petrochemical-derived medications created a financial dependency on Rockefeller’s enterprises. • Suppression of Alternatives : Practitioners of homeopathy, herbalism, and other non-allopathic systems were dismissed as unscientific and excluded from mainstream medicine, despite their long histories and efficacy in certain contexts. 5. Dietary Reform, Morality, and Cultural Shifts • The Seventh-day Adventists’ emphasis on vegetarianism and purity reflected broader concerns about moral reform in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Both White and Kellogg linked diet with spiritual and moral well-being, asserting that avoiding meat and stimulating foods could reduce immoral behavior, especially sexual immorality. • This perspective often conflicted with scientific approaches to nutrition, which began to focus more on the chemical composition of food (e.g., vitamins, macronutrients) rather than moral or spiritual impacts. 6. The Broader Context of Conflicts of Interest • Industrial Influence : The collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry, AMA, and Rockefeller Foundation ensured that allopathic medicine became the dominant paradigm, sidelining natural care in medical schools and public health policy. • Petrochemical Ties : Many early pharmaceuticals were derived from petrochemical processes, creating a financial incentive to promote allopathic approaches over plant-based or natural treatments. • Economic Monopolies : By controlling both the education of doctors and the production of pharmaceuticals, Rockefeller and his allies established a monopoly over healthcare that prioritized profit over integrative approaches. Conclusion The shift from natural, holistic care to a pharmaceutical-focused, allopathic system was shaped by a combination of religious, moralistic, and economic forces. Ellen G. White and John Harvey Kellogg sought to reform health through dietary and lifestyle changes rooted in spiritual ideals. In contrast, Rockefeller and the A M A drove the institutionalization of allopathic medicine, sidelining alternative practices in favor of pharmaceutical innovations aligned with industrial interests. This duality continues to influence debates over healthcare approaches today.

Red meat has been implicated as a cause of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerosis. There are 3 items that propose its implication: T M A O HEME Iron Saturated Fat - Increased cholesterol production This post covers T M A O. To what degree does poor gut health increase T M A O levels and to what degree does gut health play a role related to the consumption of red meat? Is red meat a risk when gut health is good? First we will give the conclusion, then the supporting remarks. Poor gut health —marked by dysbiosis, reduced microbial diversity, and increased intestinal permeability—can increase T M A O production and raise the risk of heart disease, especially in the context of a diet high in red meat and other T M A precursors. However, maintaining good gut health  can mitigate these effects, potentially lowering T M A O levels and reducing heart disease risk, even with moderate consumption of red meat. Understanding T M A O and Its Link to Heart Disease Trimethylamine N-oxide (T M A O)  is a compound produced in the body primarily through the metabolism of dietary nutrients such as choline, carnitine, and betaine, which are found in red meat, eggs, and some fish. These nutrients are metabolized by gut bacteria into trimethylamine (T M A) , which is then converted into T M A O by the liver. T M A O has attracted attention because of its link to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), such as atherosclerosis (the buildup of plaque in arteries), stroke, and heart attacks. Elevated levels of T M A O in the blood have been associated with increased risk of heart disease, mainly because it may promote cholesterol deposition  in arterial walls, impair cholesterol metabolism , and enhance platelet aggregation  (which can lead to blood clots). Role of Gut Health in T M A O Production The relationship between gut health and T M A O levels is significant, as the gut microbiota  is directly involved in the production of T M A, the precursor to T M A O. The extent to which poor gut health contributes to high T M A O levels largely depends on the balance and composition of the gut bacteria. Here’s how poor gut health can increase T M A O levels: 1. Dysbiosis (Imbalance of Gut Bacteria) : • Dysbiosis  refers to an unhealthy imbalance in the gut microbiota, often characterized by an overgrowth of harmful bacteria and a reduction in beneficial microbes. • Certain gut bacteria, particularly from the Firmicutes  and Proteobacteria  phyla, are efficient at converting choline and carnitine (from red meat and other foods) into TMA. If these bacteria are overrepresented in a dysbiotic gut, T M A production will increase, leading to higher levels of T M A O. 2. Increased Intestinal Permeability : • Poor gut health often results in increased intestinal permeability (“leaky gut”), which can allow microbial metabolites, like T M A, to enter the bloodstream more readily. This may amplify the conversion of T M A into T M A O in the liver. 3. Reduced Gut Microbial Diversity : • A healthy gut is characterized by high microbial diversity, which helps maintain a balance between bacteria that produce T M A and bacteria that inhibit its production. Poor gut health tends to reduce microbial diversity, potentially tipping the balance toward more T M A production, increasing T M A O levels. Can Good Gut Health Mitigate T M A O Risks? On the other hand, individuals with good gut health —characterized by a diverse, balanced microbiota with plenty of beneficial bacteria—may have lower production of T M A from dietary precursors, even when consuming foods rich in choline or carnitine (like red meat). 1. Protective Microbes : Some gut bacteria, particularly from the Bacteroidetes  phylum, are less efficient at converting choline and carnitine into T M A. Additionally, certain probiotics  may decrease TMA production by inhibiting T M A -producing microbes or competing with them for nutrients. 2. Microbial Metabolism : A healthy gut microbiome also includes bacteria that may metabolize choline into beneficial compounds instead of T M A, reducing the pool of T M A that can be converted into T M A O. 3. Dietary Fiber : Good gut health is often associated with a high-fiber diet, which promotes the growth of beneficial gut bacteria and may lower T M A production by providing alternative substrates for microbial fermentation. Red Meat, T M A O, and Heart Disease: The Role of Gut Health While T M A O levels increase after consuming foods rich in choline and carnitine (such as red meat), the degree to which this leads to an elevated risk of heart disease depends significantly on gut health and other lifestyle factors. Here’s how gut health and red meat consumption intersect with T M A O and heart disease risk: 1. Moderate Red Meat Consumption : • With a healthy gut microbiome , moderate consumption of red meat may not significantly increase T M A O levels or heart disease risk. A balanced gut reduces the overproduction of T M A, which, in turn, lowers T M A O formation. 2. Other Dietary Factors : • A plant-rich diet  containing fibers, polyphenols, and other compounds (such as from fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) supports gut health and may reduce the risk of high T M A O levels, even if red meat is consumed occasionally. 3. Interplay with Other Risk Factors : • Even with good gut health, high T M A O levels might still contribute to heart disease risk if combined with other factors like obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, or a diet high in saturated fat. However, a healthier gut reduces the relative risk . Summary In conclusion, poor gut health —marked by dysbiosis, reduced microbial diversity, and increased intestinal permeability—can increase T M A O production and raise the risk of heart disease, especially in the context of a diet high in red meat and other T M A precursors. However, maintaining good gut health  can mitigate these effects, potentially lowering T M A O levels and reducing heart disease risk, even with moderate consumption of red meat. This suggests that while T M A O is a potential risk factor for cardiovascular disease, it is not solely determined by diet but is heavily influenced by the state of gut health. Therefore, supporting gut health through a balanced diet rich in fiber, probiotics, and prebiotics may be an effective way to mitigate the risks associated with T M A O and red meat consumption.