1. I was always told that saturated fats are bad , so ... ?
No one can dispute that mother's milk is the ideal nutrition, as far as the biochemical composition is concerned. It contains 3 to 11 grams of fat per 1 gram of protein (0.4% unsaturated fat). The conclusion is obvious - if Nature included such a minute quantity of that constituent in such a wonderful food, then we should respect it. Meanwhile, people are being persuaded that plant-derived fats containing polyunsaturated fatty acids which do not exist in mother's milk, are healthy. Nothing is more misleading.

The best are the fats which contain the highest percentage of energy contributing constituents, or in other words, such in which COOH group is attached to the longest fatty acid chain. Short fatty acid chains contain around 30-40% of energy-contributing constituents, the longest ones over 90%.
Long-chain fatty acids fully saturated with hydrogen, yields approx. 10 cal/g when metabolised, the same as petrol. Fat's value as a "fuel" for our body increases with the increase in the amount of hydrogen per gram of carbon in its molecule, with the increase in the energy-contributing constituents.
Chemically, the best are long-chain fully saturated fatty acids, that is to say, solid fats of animal origin. Only fats with the length of the chain above 10 carbon atoms are suitable to be utilised by our cells and tissues without conversion. These fats are directed straight to the blood stream via the lymphatic system, and they do not have to be converted and made suitable by the liver, as is the case with inferior fats (with shorter chains), or all other constituents of consumed and digested foods.

Long chain fatty acids are the best medication for those suffering from liver diseases. Chemically and factually long chain fatty acids are the best "fuel" for our bodies.

The less saturated with hydrogen the chains, the more inferior the "fuel". One has to remember that when buying fats. Margarine is made from unsaturated fats by inserting hydrogen into them. Metal ions are used as a catalyst and some remain in the margarine. These are not neutral to our health.

Furthermore, hydrogen inserted into unsaturated fat in that process does not bind to the carbon atom in the same formation in which it is present in natural fats. Half of hydrogen binds in the so-called cis formation, and the other half in trans formation. In natural fats all of the hydrogen is bound in cis formation. Our bodies are set up for the metabolism of such fats. The best fats are of animal origin, solid fats, eaten within natural animal tissues. Pork rind will always be better than lard, and pork dewlap better than eel or salmon. Provided one eats optimally. Lard may by less damaging than pork rind when eaten as a part of wrong nutrition. This won't be direct damage, but an indirect one.

The most suitable for humans are fats contained in the yolk of a hens' egg. Those contained in quails' egg are similar, but these eggs are far more expensive. The real value of egg yolk fats, for our body, according to a reliable scientific investigation, is 4 times higher than the value of the fat from butter or cream, and
dramatically higher than the biological (and factual) value of the remaining fats.

Under no circumstances should we mix different kinds of fuel or the two different sources of energy: fats and carbohydrates, more precisely we should maintain a correct proportion between the two.

By eating animal fats we not only receive concentrated energy, but we also receive all the fat- accompanying elements needed to obtain this energy, in the necessary quantity and proportion.
The human body metabolises animal fats easily and such metabolism is energetically economical.

The digestive system is designed to slowly deliver the building blocks and energy containing matter. When choosing fats for consumption, especially during the initial phase of the optimal diet, the tables included at the end of this book should be consulted. When setting daily menus and during preparation
of dishes, the fat content of primary products should be taken in to account.

2. Why can I eat a lot of eggs or other cholesterol-rich foods and have "normal" blood cholesterol levels?
Cholesterol is one of the most important and abundant compounds in our body. That is why most mammals, including humans, evolved precise mechanisms to control its levels in the blood and peripheral tissues. These mechanisms predominantly consist of exact regulation of cholesterol production in the liver and its disposal from the body via the intestine and skin.

Typically, daily production of cholesterol by the liver exceeds the amount of food-delivered cholesterol by 4 to 1. Rarely, some individuals (typically from the same family linage) may have a genetic predisposition to abnormally high blood and tissue cholesterol levels, i.e., familial hypercholesterolemia, which has been in the past shown to be associated with increased atherogenesis. Recently described (Science 2000;290) mechanisms of cholesterol absorption are apparently governed by two genes, products of which control cholesterol transporter system. In people who develop or inherit a particular mutation, mechanisms that control the intestinal removal or uptake of cholesterol are "faulty". However, recently published results of retrospective epidemiological study clearly indicate that this genetic "abnormality" is not necessarily associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular disease or a shorter life span.

Dietary intake of cholesterol on its own has very little impact on blood cholesterol levels, because the body can, and always will, adjust cholesterol production in the liver to meet daily needs, according to how much of it is delivered into the liver from the intestine. Nevertheless, certain dietary conditions will have more complex metabolic effects on the cholesterol production in the liver, resulting in different blood cholesterol levels. Typically, starvation, prolonged malnourishment or vegetarianism will result in lower blood cholesterol level, which could be explained by an apparent low consumption of cholesterol, but in fact reflects a poor nutritional status of the organism. Diets predominantly on carbohydrates, with a relatively high-fat (30-40% of energy mostly as vegetable fat) intake typically produce high levels of blood cholesterol (present epidemic of hypercholesterolemia). In stark contrast, cholesterol-rich diets based on animal protein and fat, but low in carbohydrates (e.g., Eskimo, Yakut, Masai) result in relatively low blood cholesterol levels. Therefore, blood cholesterol levels are definitely influenced by dietary variables, but the cholesterol intake is most definitely not one of based them. (This topic is extensively discussed by Prof. Uffe Ravnskov MD at his website Cholesterol Myths.)

In stable health and dietary conditions, the blood level of cholesterol will remain relatively constant regardless of how much cholesterol one eats. However, this may change in various disease states and blood cholesterol level will markedly increase or decrease depending on the condition the organism is in. When high amounts of cholesterol are regularly eaten, the liver, apart from lowering the amount of newly synthesised cholesterol, will also dispose of the excess of absorbed cholesterol in the bile, mainly as bile salts but also as unchanged cholesterol. Most of this "unwanted" cholesterol will be reabsorbed in the intestine, but the amount of absorbed cholesterol from intestinal content is again tightly controlled by a specific transport mechanism, which is saturable (limited). So the excess cholesterol will be removed from the body with stools. In addition, some cholesterol transported out of the liver in the blood is removed via skin, the mechanism which is probably most active in newborns, but which produces remarkable improvements in skin condition in people eating in the Optimal way. Rarely, some individuals may have genetical predisposition to abnormally high blood and tissue cholesterol levels, which are associated with increased atherogenesis. In these people, mechanisms that control the intestinal removal or uptake of cholesterol are faulty due to gene mutations. Recently described (Science 2000;290) mechanism of control of cholesterol absorption is governed by two genes, products of which control cholesterol transporter system.

3. How is it possible to lose weight eating so much fat?
This strange yet real effect of fat-rich diet was first described as long back as in 1863 by William Banting (an undertaker), who wrote a book (Letter on Corpulence) about his very successful program of weight-loss. This dietary program was devised by a physician by the name of Harvey, who by doing so endangered his standing within a profession. The fact that Banting had lost 21 kg and cured himself from a number of ailments was simply unscientific and was not considered valid by a medical establishment of the time. (For excellent discussion of history of high-fat diet read "Eat fat, get thin!" by Barry Groves).

Roughly a century later, two eminent English scientist Kekwick & Pawan conclusively proved that obese patients, fed diets of the same calorie value, but of different composition, showed the greatest weight loss when their diet contained mostly animal fat. In fact, weight loss was achievable with a relatively high-calorie diet, provided it delivered most (80%) of the energy as fat. Later on, they also found that the energy loss (in urine and stools) from the organism was dependent on the type of the main calorie source, with carbohydrate-rich, "normal" and fat-rich diets producing 6%, 10-12% and 18% loss of a total energy intake, respectively. Thus, compared to the high-carbohydrate diet, diet rich in fat causes elimination of 3-times as many calories of the total delivered to the organism. Consequently, the burden of calories on the organism is greater when they are delivered in the form of carbohydrates. And the only way the absorbed calories obtained as carbohydrate can be got rid of by the organism, after accounting for the energy needs, is the conversion to fat. Based on their observations, Kekwick & Pawan arrived at the logical conclusion, which is still valid today: "The assumption that the organism obtains the full energy-value of a diet is therefore untenable, since changing the composition of the diet alters the amount of available energy…".

Yet dietary wisdom, so prevalent at present, dictates that the most important aspect of a weight-loss program is to compare the caloric value of different foods in order to select the one with least calories. Accordingly, fat-reduced but carbohydrate-rich (calorie-restricted) foods are the only way to loose weight. Clearly not so!!! And the best illustration of the fallacy of the latter concept is an ever-growing incidence of obesity.

Finally, it is well known that virtually all glucose available for intestinal absorption will be absorbed. Subsequently, it has to be used for the production of energy (including storage as glycogen), but when energy needs are met, the remainder must be converted to fat. On the other hand, fat absorption through the intestinal wall is physiologically limited to 12-15 grams per hour, regardless of how much of fat there is in the intestinal content. So any excess of fat above that limit must be eliminated in the stools. One can not get too much fat and put on weight, provided there are no other energy sources (carbohydrate or protein) delivered in excess of energy needs at the same time. If that happens the weight gain is a must, because the excess of energy from carbohydrate or protein has to be stored by the body as fat.

4. What about my triglycerides ?

5. So, what should I eat ?

The Optimal Nutrition model sets a strict set of rules on what should be eaten in order to obtain the maximum benefits, health and otherwise, of this dietary model. A failure to meet these rules will result in a poorer than possible gain of health benefits or even worsening of health, depending on how much one deviates from the principal proportion between nutrients and/or prescribed types of foods.
The benefits of this dietary model are described elsewhere on this site. Therefore lets concentrate on the best types of foods, providing best nutrients, a person should consume to fulfill criteria of the Optimal Nutrition. Above all, two general rules apply:
- we eat mostly what we are made of; and
- we eat well-cooked foods (with few minor exceptions), regardless of what the origin (i.e., plant or animal).
From the above, it is clear that our nutrients should come from animal sources, rather than plants. That includes animal proteins and of course animal fats.

The best - Egg. Without a doubt, the best universal source of nutrients for humans is chicken egg. Egg provides both proteins and fats of the highest biological value for humans. Egg yolk contains a multitude of biologically active nutrients, including anti-atherosclerotic substances, essential unsaturated fatty acids, rare but important minerals (selenium, iodine) and vitamins. Therefore egg yolks should be eaten liberally, with a minimum of four (4) per day.

Sources of proteins - e.g., meats. Because of all the types of farmed meats, pork meat is the closest to human tissues biochemically, it is only logical that we should eat predominantly that kind of meat. That of course creates problems for those who for a variety of reasons will not or can not eat pork. This, however, is not a problem, since other farmed animals are also a good source of meat for humans, although their meat typically contains far less fat than pork. (Note: recently "invented" lean pork is of course not as good as meat from traditionally farmed pigs). Poultry (farmed duck and goose meat is an exception) and particularly fish flesh (and other seafood) is not a preferred type of meat for the followers of the Optimal Nutrition, because of a low-fat content and biochemical differences compared to human tissue. When other types of meats are scarce or unavailable, these meats can be eaten but with an addition of an appropriate amount of fat, preferably of animal origin. It is essential that a weekly menu includes at lest one serving of offal, e.g., animal internal organs such as kidneys, liver, heart and other typically discarded tissues. In general, all animal flesh should be eaten, including connective tissues, brain and skin (pork skin).

Diary products, e.g., various cheeses, can also be used as a source of proteins, but not as a principal one. The one source of proteins we, the followers of the Optimal Nutrition, definitely do not relay on are plants. Plant-sourced proteins are of poor biological and therefore nutritional value for humans.

Sources of fat. The best without a doubt are animal fats, which contain saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats in the best proportion for the wellbeing of humans. Saturated fats, contained for instance in butter, ghee, lard and dripping, are the best form of energy for human body; they also play an important role in the correct functioning of the human immune system. Animal fats also contain so-called essential polyunsaturated fatty acids and other fatty acids, which are important for human health, but only when taken in right proportions to other fats. And that crucial proportion is only fund in animal fats. One of the best sources of animal fats are diary products, e.g., various cheeses, cream and butter. But these products should contain their full complement of fat, i.e., 35% cream or 30-60% Brie. When animal fats are not available, plant-sourced fats such as olive oil and various nut oils (i.e., palm or coconut oil) offer a reasonable substitute. However, a care should be taken to minimise the use of so-called vegetable oils (a very inappropriate name), particularly those, which contain a majority of polyunsaturated fatty acids, shown to be damaging to human health. Sources of carbohydrates.

The Optimal Nutrition model dictates that an appropriate amount of carbohydrate should be eaten every day to maintain a required for health balance between various metabolic processes. The best sources of carbohydrate are those that do not contain simple sugars, e.g., glucose or fructose, but contain a complex form of carbohydrates, i.e, starch. The best are various vegetables, including potatoes, which are low in carbohydrate. Products rich in carbohydrates such as pasta, rice and many fruits should be avoided due to deleterious effects on human digestion and metabolism. Certain fruits, particularly of a berry variety, can be used as good sources of carbohydrate, but in strictly limited amounts. The sugar should be avoided, although small amounts can be added to various dishes for taste reasons, e.g., ice cream.

6. How come the results are so great in case of diabetes which everyone knows is an incurable disease?

7. What about Long Term effects ?

8. Do I need to do this under medical supervision ?

9. Should I change gradually or in a "big bang" way ?

10. Is this diet for everybody ?

11. What can go wrong ?

12. If this is so good then why nobody has heard about it ?

The Optimal Nutrition is most popular in the southern Poland where apparently in the region of Silesia the sale of insulin dropped by approx. 67%. Other regions are now catching up very quickly. People who experienced the benefits of the Optimal Nutrition or the treatment at various ARKADIA Centres decided to set up an Association ( Bractwo ) that gathers all those who either use the Optimal Diet as a prevention and healthy way of providing nutrition for our bodies etc or people such as : - patients who had received recommendations by other doctors to amputate their leg or arm as the last "treatment" - something that happens in cases of diabetes, arteriosclerosis, Thromboangiitis Obliterans ( TAO ) etc ....
- diabetics ( including children ) who stopped taking insulin or any other medications
- victims of high cholesterol who avoided heart transplants or by-passes or simply could not recover after them
- asthmatics who after years of suffering can breathe easily
- sufferers of Multiple Sclerosis who have been cured to the point that does not require them to take any medications ( one of them is a surgeon who now is one of the "optimal" doctors )
- obese who lost any hope of loosing weight and lost weight up to 70kg
- sufferers of very debilitating and embarrassing incontinence ( weak bladder )
- sufferers of degenerated spine, joints , osteoporosis etc ....
- many, many, more ... DOCUMENTED facts !!

In Australia, in September 2000 The Australian Homo Optimus Association was established in order to provide assistance and support to all those who wish to use the Optimal Nutrition. It is estimated that more than 1.5 M people in Poland have been using the Optimal Diet. In September 2001, of of the leading practitioners of the Optimal Nutrition was visiting Sydney, Australia. In view of "diabetes and obesity epidemic", (especially in children) we made numerous attempts to contact representatives of the media including all Sydney based television stations. None of them were interested. One of the producers of the leading current affairs programs in Australia stated that this is excellent, timely and very interesting development and he would do an extensive coverage if ... this was an Australian doctor! ALL television stations were offered a FREE discussion with the visiting doctor to establish facts, to discuss the results of the treatment, social and health implications on lager population and possible to run an interview etc .... Not one was interested! So, it is very, very difficult to get to the right people because as you know it is not important WHAT you know but WHO you know. So, many Australians still suffer and they will suffer because they have been deprived of INFORMATION. Fortunately, the Polish community in Australia already benefits. We already have cases of diabetes T1 and T2, epilepsy, Coronary Heart Disease, hypertension, obesity, cardiomyopathy etc .... getting off their medications - their OWN DOCTORS can see that there is no longer need to take the drugs while many Australians (and not only Australians) still suffer .... unnecessarily.

13. So, what about calories ?

What about calories? As already discussed above (see FAQ 2), "calories ain't calories", to paraphrase a catchy line from a well-known (in Australia) advertisement for engine oil. The same number of calories (amount of energy) delivered to the body, will make a different contribution to its energy balance, depending on where they come from. For some, yet unclear reason, fat-delivered calories are differently handled by the body compared to the calories delivered as carbate (short for carbohydrate) or protein; proportionally more calories are disposed of as unwanted when coming from fat compared with other sources. So, the restriction of a total intake of calories, without accounting for the mechanisms that govern their utilisation by the body, is meaningless when it comes to weight control.

It is a well now fact that one can not overeat on calories delivered almost exclusively as fat because
the satiety is reached relatively rapidly and it lasts for a long time, often up to 12 hours after meal. Going beyond this naturally set control barrier results typically in nausea or later on in diarrhoea, rather drastic, but effective mechanisms of elimination of unwanted dietary fat. This contrasts with a comparative lack of control mechanism to prevent overconsumption of potentially huge amounts carbohydrate- or protein-rich foods, which can be eaten repeatedly in few-hour intervals, before one feels full. That is why, currently recommended 5-6 meals a day of carbate-rich products are clearly responsible for an outbreak and fast progression of obesity and diabetes (i.e., syndrome X) epidemic.