From:
Guy R. Schenker, D.C.
July 1, 1998


Dear Doctor,

     Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, a 
clinical case history can give you much more useful 
information than a thousand page dissertation on 
nutritional biochemistry.  So -- picture this:

     Mary, a woman in her late 40's, had been a 
chiropractic patient in our office for more than 10 years.  
During that time we had successfully cared for quite a 
number of musculo-skeletal problems.

     One day she was in our office for a routine 
chiropractic follow-up exam and adjustment when the 
subject came up as to how miserable she had been feeling 
for more than a year, even though she had had no musculo-
skeletal symptoms for a long, long time.  She told me she 
felt no use complaining since her long list of problems 
were all things I could do nothing about.

     I heard how during the last year and a half she had 
inexplicably gained a lot of weight, and had suffered 
extreme fatigue accompanied by emotional stress and a 
heavy blanket of malaise.  Nothing in her life had changed 
to cause such a downhill spiral in her well-being.  She 
was attributing it to old age -- and hating it.

     I took the opportunity to give her the soft sell on 
NUTRI-SPEC, explaining our work in analyzing and balancing 
body chemistry and how doing so was most often the only
sure way to find and correct the cause of health problems 
such as she was experiencing.  She was attentive but not 
particularly enthusiastic in response to my presentation.

     There was an element in this patient's history that 
had always troubled me.  When she became a chiropractic 
patient years prior to this I noted that she had already 
been taking Lasix for many years.  I had inquired about
                          - 2 -


the Lasix, indicating that it was a very powerful diuretic 
drug that is generally reserved for use in patients with 
congestive heart failure or cirrhosis of the liver or 
kidney disease.  When asked if she had ever had any 
serious problems that required such a powerful diuretic 
she replied that no, she had just had a little problem 
with fluid retention and this is what the doctor gave her 
and it worked and so she had been taking it ever since.

     I had never pursued the subject any further than 
this, though I had noted that the few times over many 
years of treating Mary that we had occasion to take a 
urine specimen she had the extreme dysaerobic urine 
chemistry typical of a person on Lasix, and that that 
dysaerobic pattern often included bilirubin, protein, 
and/or ketones in the urine.

     Now Mary and I were discussing the potential benefits 
of NUTRI-SPEC for the health problems that had occurred 
over the last 18 months, and again her urine chemistries 
showed the extreme dysaerobic tendency.  She also told me 
that she had over the last several years been given a 
prescription for potassium chloride to replace the 
potassium pushed out of her body by the Lasix.

     Knowing that this patient had at least a 15 year 
history of daily Lasix use, I decided to order blood work, 
something that I rarely feel the need to do with NUTRI- 
SPEC.  Two concerns prompted this action -- first the       
possibility that the Lasix had done damage to her liver 
and/or kidneys; the second was the possibility, given the 
nature of her symptoms, of a true thyroid insufficiency.

     What did her tests reveal?  NUTRI-SPEC testing showed 
a very slight electrolyte stress and perhaps some tendency 
to a ketogenic imbalance (along with the obvious 
dysaerobic pattern which we attributed solely to the 
Lasix).  We reasoned that both the mild electrolyte stress 
and the ketogenic imbalance could be related to the
extreme magnesium loss that she would have suffered over 
the years from the Lasix.  (For some reason the medical 
profession recognizes the potassium loss due to diuretics, 
but totally ignores or is ignorant of the magnesium loss, 
which is just as extreme and far more clinically 
significant.)  And her blood work?  Her BUN/creatinine 
ratio was elevated; her total bilirubin was elevated; her 
cholesterol was somewhat elevated at 232; and most 
significantly, her triglycerides were a sky high 1375.

     That brings us to why Mary's case history is 
pertinent to this month's Letter.  We are following up to
                          - 3 -


our last Letter's discussion of the benefits of dietary 
cholesterol and saturated fat, vs the damage done by 
polyunsaturated fats and sugar.

     If you want to talk about scarey blood fats, then 
forget about cholesterol and consider the real bogey man 
-- serum triglycerides.  In the last Letter we gave you 
even more evidence that serum cholesterol is only very 
slightly correlated with cardiovascular disease and has 
absolutely no causative effect on CVD.  This has been our 
message for years and we showed last month how even hard 
core establishment research is beginning to come around to 
the truth about cholesterol and saturated fat.

     What you need to understand now is that while 
elevated serum cholesterol is in itself not a significant 
risk factor for CVD, elevated serum triglycerides is the 
absolute number one risk factor of CVD.  A study recently 
done at Harvard (how establishment can you get!) and 
published in Circulation, Vol. 96, pp. 2520-25, 1997, 
showed that the single greatest predictor of CVD is 
elevated triglycerides accompanied by insufficient HDL 
cholesterol.

     Let us take a minute and think this through.  If the 
number one risk factor for CVD is not high cholesterol but 
high triglycerides, and, if triglycerides are a fat, does 
this not lend credence to the standard line of propaganda 
that has attempted to convince us to eat a low fat diet?  
As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.  
This study as well as many, many that have preceded it has  
shown that just as eating cholesterol has nothing to do 
with raising cholesterol levels in your blood, eating 
triglycerides has absolutely nothing to do with raising 
triglyceride levels in your blood.

     Where, then, do high triglycerides come from?  They 
come from two and only two places -- consumption of
alcohol and consumption of excess carbohydrates.  Not only 
did this recent Harvard study show that a high 
triglyceride to low HDL cholesterol ratio is a near 
perfect predictor of your risk for CVD, but went on to 
show that only one condition is the principal cause
of this abnormal ratio.  That condition is a higher than 
normal blood level of insulin.

     What does this mean?  It means that it is abnormal 
sugar metabolism that is responsible for both the elevated 
blood lipids and for the damage to the cardiovascular


                          - 4 -


system.  And which of your patients are the most likely to 
have elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance?  Your 
ketogenic and your anaerobic patients (and many of your 
electrolyte stress patients whether or not they 
specifically show a ketogenic or anaerobic imbalance upon 
testing).  The Atkins Institute estimates that more than 
75% of all cases of high blood pressure are associated 
with poor glycemic control.

     The Harvard study wasn't just talking in terms of a 
few percent difference in CVD incidence based on 
triglyceride levels.  They showed that there is 16 times 
the incidence of heart attacks in patients with the 
highest triglyceride levels compared to those with the 
lowest.  That should be enough to make everyone perk up 
and think twice about substituting oatmeal for eggs and 
pasta for steak.  The results of this study are the same 
as saying that you are 16 times as likely to have a heart 
attack if you eat a high carbohydrate low saturated fat 
diet.

     My personal experience with serum triglycerides is 
that it is as close as I have ever found to a direct 
measure of how much carbohydrate a person has been eating  
vs how much they should be eating.  A perfect fasting 
triglyceride level would be in a range from 90 to 110.  
Anything below 90 indicates that the patient should be 
consuming more carbohydrate.  (How many patients do you 
think you will find in that category?)  Anyone with 
triglycerides above 130 should definitely decrease their 
carbohydrate intake, and be strict about their sugar 
intake.  Any triglyceride level above 160 is pathological 
and requires an ultra low carbohydrate diet and strict 
avoidance of sugar until the triglycerides are brought 
down.

     Furthermore, I have found that this triglyceride 
correlation with carbohydrate intake applies to patients 
regardless of what NUTRI-SPEC metabolic imbalances they 
may have.  Checking triglycerides is just a nice way to
get their NUTRI-SPEC Fundamental Diet into proper 
proportion while the NUTRI-SPEC supplements correct the 
specific imbalances the patient shows.

     Now let us get back to Mary's case.  If anything 
above 160 is a pathological level of triglycerides, what 
can you say about Mary's level of 1375?  She was in deep 
trouble.

     When we had all Mary's test results in hand we 
explained her options.  We told her that she had no choice
                          - 5 -


but to have her condition treated.  We told her that there 
are many things that can cause such pathological levels of 
triglycerides and that to correct the problem we needed to 
determine what were the causes in her case.  We went on to 
say that the NUTRI-SPEC imbalances we had uncovered were 
certain to be causative factors.

     We explained that we could treat her nutritionally by 
putting her on a specific eating plan and a specific 
nutrition supplement plan.  The clinical nutrition plan 
would at least control the condition and very likely 
correct the condition entirely.  The additional benefit of  
treating the problem nutritionally was that she would 
probably feel much better than she had in quite a while.

     We told her that she could chose to have her medical 
doctor treat her condition to lower her triglycerides with 
drugs.  The problem in choosing the drugs was that they 
have many side effects and damage liver function -- and 
her tests showed her liver was already not doing well.

     Our final suggestion was that she show a copy of her 
blood work to her medical doctor; consult with him and 
listen to what he recommended.  Then, if she would rather 
correct her problem with our nutrition plan, give us a 
call right away and we would set her up with everything 
she needed.  Within two weeks she was back in our office 
fired up and ready to go with NUTRI-SPEC.  Her compliance 
with her NUTRI-SPEC regimen was flawless.  Of course that 
involved doing all the things that we recommend that are 
exactly opposite of what is generally considered 
appropriate in cases like this:

- The first thing we required she do was nearly double her 
caloric intake.  She had been for several years eating 
only 1 to 1 1/2 meals daily and had further reduced her 
caloric intake in the last year and a half because of her
weight gain.

- As per the NUTRI-SPEC Fundamental Diet we had her 
totally delete aspartame, a deadly metabolic poison which 
she consumed regularly, particularly now that she had been 
struggling with her weight.

- We had her totally delete from her diet fried foods and 
all other unsaturated fats including salad dressings, 
margarine, mayonnaise, nuts, and nut butters.

- We had her replace all her low fat this and low fat that 
processed garbage with real foods containing real

                          - 6 -


cholesterol and saturated fat.  Eggs, meat, fish, and 
poultry three times a day, 21 times a week.

- We had her follow the proper proportions of her 
NUTRI-SPEC Fundamental eating plan with no more than 11 
carbohydrate points per ounce of animal food while she 
also drastically reduced the amount of sugar in her diet.

     So here is Mary worried about her weight, her 
fatigue, her emotional state, and her ability to think 
straight -- now consuming more than twice as many calories 
as she had in years and probably ten times as much 
saturated fat as she had in years.  She was skeptical 
enough that she probably would have abandoned the whole 
plan within a few weeks except that she instantly began to 
feel better.

     The results of her NUTRI-SPEC regimen were startling 
even to me.  With the benefit of the ideal diet plus the 
amazing power of your NUTRI-SPEC supplements (in her case 
Formula ES and Methionine and Oxy K) to clear blood fats, 
she completely turned her health around.  She lost all the 
weight she had gained in the last year and a half plus 
many pounds more.  She looked and felt better than she had 
since her early 20's.  She was mentally alert, emotionally 
strong, and began to love her work again.  And after 9 
months what were her blood fats?  Her cholesterol had 
dropped from 232 down to 177; and her triglycerides and 
dropped from 1375 to 137.

     How many patients like Mary do you have who are 
drinking diet beverages, eating low fat processed food, 
and skipping meals, and particularly avoiding cholesterol 
and saturated fat in an effort to keep their weight under 
control and also on a misguided plan to prevent CVD?  Are 
you ready to assert yourself on their behalf?  What would 
have happened to Mary without NUTRI-SPEC?  What is going 
to happen to all your patients without NUTRI-SPEC?  With
NUTRI-SPEC you have all the information you need and all 
the tools you need to turn these peoples' lives around and
save them the miseries of steadily deteriorating health.


                         Sincerely,


                         Guy R. Schenker, D.C.

P.S.:  Enclosed is a new QRG page for your GLUCOGENIC/
KETOGENIC analysis -- easier to use, plus more accurate.  
If you have questions on its use, just give us a call.

Next

Nutri-Spec Letters

Index